Reading Rate in Informational Text: Norms and Implications for Theory and Practice in the Primary Grades

References

• Abbott, M., Wills, H., Miller, A., & Kaufman, J. (2012). The relationship of error rate and comprehension in second and third grade oral reading fluency. Reading Psychology, 33(1–2), 104–132. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2012.630613
   Google Scholar
• AIMSweb (2012). AIMSweb national norms technical documentation. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• American Institute for Research (2008). Reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. (U. S. Department of Education). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Ardoin, S. P., Williams, J. C., Christ, T. J., Klubnik, C., & Wellborn, C. (2010). Examining readability estimates' predictions of students' oral reading rate: Spache, Lexile, and Forcast. School Psychology Review, 39, 277–285.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Begeny, J. C., & Greene, D. J. (2014). Can readability formulas be used to successfully gauge difficulty of reading materials? Psychology in the Schools, 51(2), 198–215. doi: 10.1002/pits.21740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belfatti, M. A. (2015). Lessons from research on young children as readers of informational Texts. Language Arts, 92, 270–277.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, S. M., McCallum, R. S., Martin, M., & Franklin, T. (2014). December). Beyond DIBELS five years later: An updated critical review of assessments that purport to assess reading fluency. Paper presented at the conference of the Literacy Research Association, Marco Island, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, B. A., & Spang, E. (2008). Double talk: Synthesizing everyday and science language in the classroom. Science Education, 92(4), 708–732. doi: 10.1002/sce.20251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carver, R. P. (1990). Reading rate: A review of research and theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carver, R. P. (1992). Reading rate: Theory, research, and practical implications. Journal of Reading, 36, 84–95.
   Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G. N., Bravo, M. A., Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, P. D., & Jaynes, C. A. (2009). Text genre and science content: Ease of reading, comprehension, and reader preference. Reading Psychology, 30(6), 487–511. doi: 10.1080/02702710902733550
   Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G., & Hiebert, E. H. (2015). Knowledge, literacy, and the common core. Language Arts, 92, 256–269.
   Google Scholar
• Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Clemens, N., Shapiro, E., & Thoemmes, F. (2011). Improving the efficacy of first grade reading screening: An investigation of word identification fluency with other early literacy indicators. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(3), 231–244. doi: 10.1037/a0025173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading (NCES 2006–469). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Deeney, T. A. (2010). One‐minute fluency measures: Mixed messages in assessment and instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 440–450. doi: 10.1598/RT.63.6.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232. doi: 10.1177/001440298505200303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreher, M. J., & Kletzien, S. B. (2016). Have recommended book lists changed to reflect current expectations for informational text in K–3 classrooms? Reading Psychology, 37(3), 371–391. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2015.1055871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duke, N. (2000). 3.6 Minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duke, N. K. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61, 40–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duke, N. K. (2016). Project-based instruction: A great match for informational texts. American Educator, 40, 4–11, 42.
   Google Scholar
• Duke, N. K., & Roberts, K. L. (2010). The genre-specific nature of reading comprehension. In D. Wise, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of English, language and literacy teaching (pp. 74–86). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1986). Types of texts: The match between what students read in basals and what they encounter in tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 284–297. doi: 10.2307/747710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis, D. J., Santi, K. L., Barr, C., Fletcher, J. M., Varisco, A., & Foorman, B. R. (2008). Form effects on the estimation of students' oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 315–342. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256.
   Google Scholar
• Gaffney, J. S., Ostrosky, M. M., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2008). Books as natural support for young children’s literacy learning. Young Children, 63, 87–93.
   Google Scholar
• Good, I. R., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257–288.
   Google Scholar
• Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). DIBELS oral reading fluency passages for first through third grades (Technical Report No. 10). Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Good, R., Kaminski, R., Dewey, E., Wallin, J., Powell-Smith, K., & Latimer, R. (2013). DIBELS next technical manual. Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. Retrieved from http://dibels.org.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11413260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In C. Snow & A. Sweet (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Haberlandt, K. F., & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114(3), 357–374. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.114.3.357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–644. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.7.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (Technical Report No. 1702). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
   Google Scholar
• Hiebert, E. H. (2002). Standards, assessment, and text difficulty. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 337–369). Newark, DE: International Literacy Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hiebert, E. H. (2005). The effects of text difficulty on second graders’ fluency development. Reading Psychology, 26(2), 183–209. doi: 10.1080/02702710590930528
   Google Scholar
• Hiebert, E. H. (2017). The text of literacy instruction: Obstacles to. Or Opportunities for Educational Equity? Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66, 117–134. doi: 10.1177/2381336917718521
   Google Scholar
• Herlihy, C., Kemple, J., Bloom, H., Zhu, P., & Berlin, G. (2009). Understanding reading first: What we know, what we don’t, and what’s next. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, J. V. (1979). Developing flexibility through reflex action. The Reading Teacher, 33, 323–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, J. V. (2017). What if “just right” is just wrong? The unintended consequences of leveling readers. The Reading Teacher, 71(3), 265–273. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABC’s of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, F. L. (2014). Using a bifactor model to assess the factor structure of the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for grades 1 through 3. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(7), 638–650. doi: 10.1177/0734282914525026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how?. The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702–714. doi: 10.1598/RT.58.8.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Invernizzi, M., Meier, J. D., & Juel, C. (2003). Phonological awareness literacy screening 1–3 (PALS 1–3). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Invernizzi, M. A., Meier, J. D., & Juel, C. (2004). PALS 1–3 administration and scoring manual. Richmond, VA: Virginia State Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Invernizzi, M. A. (2014). PALS Plus technical reference. Richmond, VA: Virginia State Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Meisinger, E. B., Levy, B. A., & Rasinski, T. V. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4
   Google Scholar
• LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323. doi: 10.1016/00100285(74)90015-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langer, J. A., Campbell, J. R., Neuman, S. B., Mullis, I. V. S., Persky, H. R., & Donahue, P. L. (1995). Reading assessment redesigned: Authentic texts and innovative instruments in NAEP’s 1992 survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
   Google Scholar
• Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Literacy Association.
   Google Scholar
• MacNamara, D. S., Graesser, A., & Louwerse, M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across genres and grades. In Sabatini, J., Albro, E., & O'Reilly, T. (Eds.) Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 89–117). Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
   Google Scholar
• Maloch, B., & Bomer, R. (2013). Informational texts and the Common Core Standards: What are we talking about. Anyway? Language Arts, 90, 205–213.
   Google Scholar
• Mellard, D. F., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. (2009). Response to Intervention screening and progress: Monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 186–195. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00292.x
   Google Scholar
• Mesmer, H. A., Cunningham, J. W., & Hiebert, E. H. (2012). Toward a theoretical model of text complexity for the early grades: Learning from the past, anticipating the future. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(3), 235–258. doi: 10.1002/rrq.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MetaMetrics (2000). The Lexile framework for reading. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc. Retrieved from http:\\lexile.com\about\_meta\press\21098b.htm
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D., Bloodgood, J. W., Perney, J., Frye, E. M., Kucan, L., Trathen, W., … Schlagal, R. (2011). Validating craft knowledge: An empirical examination of elementary-grade students’ performance on an informal reading assessment. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 205–233. doi: 10.1086/661522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, D., Trathen, W., Frye, E. M., Kucan, L., Ward, D., Schlagal, R., & Hendrix, M. (2013). The role of reading rate in the informal assessment of reading ability. Literacy Research and Instruction, 52(1), 52–64. doi: 10.1080/19388071.2012.702188
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D., Trathen, W., Gill, T., Schlagal, R., Ward, D., & Frye, E. M. (2017a). Assessing reading rate in the primary grades (1–3). Reading Psychology, 38(7), 653–672. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2017.1323057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, D., Trathen, W., Perney, J., Gill, T., Schlagal, R., Ward, D., & Frye, E. M. (2017b). Three DIBELS tasks vs. three informal reading/spelling tasks: A comparison of predictive validity. Reading Psychology, 38(3), 289–320. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2016.1263700
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGA], & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO]. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington DC: National Governors Association for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00–4754). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Ness, M. (2011). Teachers’ use of and attitudes toward informational text in K-5 classrooms. Reading Psychology, 32(1), 28–53. doi: 10.1080/02702710903241322
   Google Scholar
• Pappas, C. C. (2006). The information book genre: Its role in integrated science literacy research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(2), 226–250. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.41.2.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsons, S. A., & Ward, A. E. (2011). The case for authentic tasks in content literacy. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 462–465. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.6.12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinnell, G., Pikulski, J., Wixson, K., Campbell, J., Gough, P., & Beatty, A. (1995). Listening to children read aloud: Data from NAEP’s integrated reading performance record (IRPR) at grade 4. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, W. R. (1970, May). The validity of the instructional reading level. Paper presented at the conference of the International Reading Association, Anaheim, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rasinski, T. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 704–706. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.7.10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasinski, T. V. (2012). Why reading fluency should be hot! The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 516–522. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riedel, B. W. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and vocabulary in urban first‐grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(4), 546–567. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.4.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 (pp. 24–46). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Samuels, S. (2007). The DIBELS tests: Is speed of barking at print what we mean by reading fluency? Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 563–566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, C., & Shanahan, T. (2014). Does disciplinary literacy have a place in elementary school?. The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 636–639. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Shinn, M. R. (2012). The relation of AIMSweb, curriculum-based measurement, and the common core standards: All parts of meaningful school improvement. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading a meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252–261. doi: 10.1177/07419325040250040801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64. doi: 10.1207/SLDRP1501_6
   Google Scholar
• Tortorelli, L. S. (2018). Off to a slow start: Four profiles of slow readers in second grade. Reading Psychology, 39(7), 647–689. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2018.1515134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valencia, S. W., Smith, A. T., Reece, A. M., Li, M., Wixson, K. K., & Newman, H. (2010). Oral reading fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 270–291. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.45.3.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valencia, S. W., Wixson, K. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2014). Putting text complexity in context: Refocusing on comprehension of complex text. The Elementary School Journal, 115(2), 270–289. doi: 10.1086/678296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, J. L., Skinner, C. H., Floyd, R. G., Hale, A. D., Neddenriep, C., & Kirk, E. P. (2011). Words correct per minute: The variance in standardized reading scores accounted for by reading speed. Psychology in the Schools, 48(2), 87–101. doi: 10.1002/pits.20527
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willingham, D. T. (2006). How knowledge helps: It speeds and strengthens reading comprehension, learning, and thinking. American Educator, 30, 39–50.
   Google Scholar