Examining the Relationship between Chinese Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension in Grades 1, 2, and 3
Author(s):
I-Chung Lu (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2012
Format:
Poster

Session Information

27 SES 05.5 PS, General Poster Exhibition

General Poster Session during Lunch

Time:
2012-09-19
12:30-14:00
Room:
FCEE - Poster Exhibition Area
Chair:

Contribution

Fluency has been identified as one of five critical components of reading (National Reading Panel, 2000). The definition of fluency—“the ability to read text quickly, accurately, and with proper expression” (National Reading Panel, 2000)—indicates that fluency consists of three major dimensions: speed, accuracy and prosody. 

Several reading models suggested that fluency is a prerequisite for reading comprehension (Laberge & Samuels, 1974; Perfetti, 1985; Stanovich, 1980). When readers can read effortlessly, they are released from the laborious processes of word decoding, which, in turn allows them to concentrate on constructing meaning from text. Similarly, theories of reading development suggest that achieving fluency is one crucial milestone for reading development (Chall, 1996; Ehri, 1998). Children develop the skills to recognize words accurately and effortlessly in the first two or three years of elementary school, and then from fourth grade on the focus of development shifts to comprehension. Many studies report a significant positive relationship between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension (e.g. Pinnell et al., 1995).

Fluency is a relatively neglected topic in research about the development of reading skills with the Chinese language.  Little is known about the role fluency plays in the reading development of children who speak Chinese. We do not know, for example, whether the positive relationship found between fluency and comprehension found in English reading will hold for an orthographically different language such as Chinese. Does Chinese reading fluency significantly predict reading comprehension after accounting for rapid naming speed, word recognition, and recognition of phonetic symbols? Does the relationship hold in different grade levels while children’s reading ability is growing? The answers to these questions can expand what we know about fluency development to languages other than English.

The other focus of this study is about the assessment of fluency. Reading rate has been widely used in previous research, but some researchers argue that fluency is more than just a matter of how fast one can read (e.g. Laberge & Samuels, 1974). There are also studies adopting reading accuracy or prosody as fluency measures (NAEP, 2002). Is one of the components of fluency a better predictor for reading comprehension? Or each of the indices has additive predictivity? In this study, we examined this issue in three different grade levels.

The purposes of this study are twofolds: (1) To explore the predictive relationship between Chinese reading fluency and reading comprehension in grades 1, 2 and 3; (2) To examine the validity of the three dimensional index of fluency, speed, accuracy, and prosody, for predicting reading comprehension in grades 1, 2, and 3. 

Method

The participants were 157 first graders (76 boys and 81 girls), 152 second graders (83 boys and 69 girls), and 157 third graders (87 boys and 70 girls) drawn from three elementary schools in southern Taiwan. The children took a standardized test of reading comprehension in their classrooms. Then each child met with a researcher individually in a quiet room. The child was asked to read aloud two stories appropriate for his or her grade level and answered two comprehension questions after each story. The corresponding phonetic symbols appear beside each character in the texts for grades 1 and 2 to help the young readers decoding. The child’s oral readings of the stories were tape-recorded and timed by the researcher. Finally, the child completed Rapid Naming Test and Chinese Character Recognition Test. Phonetic symbols Recognition Test was also completed if the child was a 1st or 2nd grader. The time for testing each child was about 20 minutes. Speed (characters correct per minute, CCPM) and accuracy (% of characters read correctly) of the oral readings were calculated and prosody was rated using a prosody scale.

Expected Outcomes

Multiple regression analyses found that the three components of fluency significantly explained first graders’ comprehension (32% explained variance), second graders’ comprehension (35% explained variance), and third graders’ comprehension (47% explained variance). All three components were significant predictors of first graders’ comprehension, but only speed predicted second graders’ comprehension significantly and speed and prosody predicted third graders’ comprehension significantly. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses found that, after the variance of rapid naming speed (RNS), recognition of phonetic symbols, and character recognition were accounted for, the three components of fluency added a significant 5% increase in explained variance of first graders’ comprehension and a significant 4.7 % increase in explained variance of second graders’ comprehension; however, only accuracy predicted first graders’ comprehension significantly and only speed predicted second graders’ comprehension significantly. Also, after the variance of RNS and character recognition were accounted for, the three components of fluency added a significant 27.4 % increase in explained variance of third graders’ comprehension and all three indices predicted comprehension significantly. The results indicate that fluency does have unique contributions to comprehension across grades 1 through 3 and the components of fluency predicting comprehension significantly varies across different grade levels.

References

Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt-Brace. Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3-21. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction(NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press. Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K.K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., and Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC. Rasinski, T., Rikli, A., & Johnston, S. (2009). Reading Fluency: More than Automaticity? More than a Concern for the Primary Grades? Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(4), 350-361. Rasinski, T. V. (2009). Essential readings on fluency. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association. Samuels, S. J. (2006). Toward a model of reading fluency. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction. Internaional reading association.

Author Information

I-Chung Lu (presenting / submitting)
National Pingtung University of Education, Taiwan, Republic of China

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.