TEACHING TIP

“Is That How I Really Sound?”:

Using iPads for Fluency Practice
Molly Ness

When students follow the Record, Listen, Reflect process, repeated readings
tap into 21st-­century technologies in an engaging and motivating manner.

Student 1: Wait, let me try again! I can do better literacy centers (Griffith & Rasinski, 2004). Some
than that! tried-­
and-­t rue fluency strategies include paired
reading (Topping, 2014), choral reading (Rasinski,
Student 2: What will you do to make yourself better
2013; Topping, 2014), and Readers Theatre (see
this time?
Young & Rasinski, 2009). Teachers have a plethora
Student 1: Next time, I will read more slowly and of engaging strategies available, including digital
make my voice go higher at the end to fluency tools such as cyber read-­alouds and virtual
show a question. Readers Theatre (Thoermer & Williams, 2012). For

I
fluency instruction, teachers can take advantage of
overheard this conversation in a third-­g rade class-
alternate texts such as poetry (Faver, 2014), tongue
room where students worked with iPads in fluency
twisters (Stern, 2014), and joke books (Ness, 2009).
centers. Though her students often read aloud, this
Rasinski (2012) reminded us that fluency should
teacher was concerned about their infrequent oppor-
continue to be a hot topic in elementary classrooms.
tunities to hear their own oral reading. Intending to
bring awareness to students’ prosody, expression, and
intonation, this teacher capitalized on the easy video A 21st-­Century Version
recording capacities of her classroom’s iPads. She imple-
mented a process called Record, Listen, Reflect. In this
of Repeated Readings
One of the most effective strategies to build students’
teaching tip, I showcase this three-­step process with
f luency is repeated readings (Samuels, 1979). The
iPads to give students the opportunity to listen and to
purpose of repeated readings is to provide readers
critique their oral reading to improve their fluency.
with short-­term, achievable goals, such as increasing
speed and accuracy, while reading for a better com-
Understanding Fluency prehension of the text (Cohen, 2011). Multiple studies
Rasinski (2014) defined two essential components of have demonstrated the benefits of repeated read-
fluency: “automaticity in word recognition and ex- ings with diverse student populations: word recog-
pression in oral reading that reflects the meaning nition, accuracy, automaticity, comprehension, and
of the text” (p. 4). Both components are essential for students’ attitudes toward and confidence in read-
proficient, meaningful reading (Rasinski, Reutzel, ing all improve through the act of repeated readings
Chard, & Linan-­Thompson, 2011). Conversely, poor (Cohen, 2011; Dowhower, 1989; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003;
reading fluency may significantly contribute to poor Rasinski, Samuels, Hiebert, Petscher, & Feller, 2011).
overall reading (Rasinski, 2014; Rasinski & Padak, Repeated readings, however, can also be prob-
1998; Valencia & Buly, 2004). LaBerge and Samuels lematic. Rasinski (2012) cautioned teachers that the
(1974) argued that individuals have limited cogni- sole focus of repeated readings should not be merely
tive resources, so automaticity in decoding contrib- speed. As students aim to increase only their speed
utes mental energy that is needed to comprehend and calculate their increasing reading rates, they run
text. Students who are not decoding words auto-
matically have fewer cognitive resources available,
and therefore, they have decreased comprehension. Molly Ness is an associate professor in the Division of
Curriculum and Teaching at Fordham University, New
There is no shortage of ideas on how to incor-
York, NY, USA; e-mail mness@fordham.edu.
porate fluency into small-­ g roup instruction and

The Reading Teacher   Vol. 70   No. 5   pp. 611–615 611 doi:10.1002/trtr.1554   © 2016 International Literacy Association
 Teaching Tip

the risk of becoming readers whose “comprehension they use the iPad to record themselves reading. The
actually declines as they learn to blow through peri- video capabilities of an iPad are easy enough for even
ods, commas, and other forms of punctuation in their very young students to use independently. Students
quest for speed” (p. 518). Cahill and Gregory (2011) simply tap the camera icon, tap the Record button at
noted that “the problem with repeated reading in the the bottom of the screen to start recording, and then
classroom is that it can be dull and lifeless, leading tap the Record button again to stop recording.
students to avoid the practice” (p. 128). According to In the second step, Listen, students view their
Rasinski (2014), a key element of repeated readings is recording to note their accuracy, automaticity, and
rehearsal, which holds the student accountable for prosody. Their aim here is to act as the teacher
a prosodic and meaning-­driven delivery of a text. It would—to mark their errors as a teacher would use
can be a challenge, however, to find an engaging way a running record, to pay attention to their prosody
to encourage readers to reread the same text. and intonation, and to notice their use of punctua-
In my work with struggling readers, I have in- tion as a visual signpost for fluency. I teach students
corporated iPads into repeated reading activities in to follow text copies, circle words that they miscue,
a process called Record, Listen, Reflect. My instruc- and use the time stamp on the videos to note how
tion has been influenced by previous research in the quickly they read the text. On their text copies, stu-
use of video self-­modeling, also known as feedfor- dents learn to note the following errors:
ward video self-­modeling. In these approaches, stu-
dents watch video footage of themselves to reflect ■ When they omit a word
and improve their performance (Decker & Buggey, ■ When they substitute a word
2014; Robson, Blampied, & Walker, 2015). Decker ■ When they invert the order of words
and Buggey investigated the impact of video self-­ ■ When they insert a word that is not in the text
modeling with students with learning disabilities.
Students were video recorded while they orally read Because their recorded readings are relatively
short passages, and later, they were shown these short, I encourage students to listen to themselves
videos once a week. With this approach, students’ more than once. As Vasinda and McLeod (2011) noted,
fluency (as measured by words correct per minute) “allowing students to listen to recordings of their read-
increased. This study, however, did not examine ing is a good way to promote self-­evaluation, which is
the use of video self-­modeling on other elements a key tool in becoming a successful reader” (p. 492).
of fluency, such as prosody, inflection, intonation, In the third step, Reflect, students complete an
and expression. In a similar approach, Robson et al. evaluation to monitor progress and set goals for their
had elementary-­age students read difficult text six next rereading. This chart (see Figure 1) has two pur-
times over a two-­week period. After video recording poses: to increase their speed while decreasing their
themselves and watching these videos, students errors and to reflect on the elements of fluency that
improved their fluency and comprehension and are more difficult to quantify, such as intonation, at-
scored higher on measures of reader self-­efficacy. tendance to punctuation, and other elements that are
My focus is on the use of iPads as a 21st-­century essential for oral delivery. This final reflection step
version of video self-­ modeling to improve read- encourages students to be metacognitive about their
ing fluency (see Pluck, 2012). Previous authors oral reading. With each reading and recording, their
(Hutchison, Beschorner, & Schmidt-­Crawford, 2012) fluency rate increases, their intonation improves, and
have noted the advantages of using the iPad in lit- ultimately, their comprehension improves.
eracy learning, stating that “the iPad, and other tab-
lets like it, has changed mobile learning possibilities Applying Record, Listen, Reflect
for teachers and students” (p. 15). In this instruc-
tional practice, teachers capitalize on the ease and
to Third-­Grade Literacy Centers
usability of the iPad’s video recording capabilities. As a teacher educator, I am often invited into the
classrooms of my former students. I recently spent
several weeks in a third-­grade classroom with one
Record, Listen, Reflect former student who expressed her interest in “tap-
In the first step, Record, students read passages at ping into technology to make fluency instruction
their independent or instructional level that they can more engaging.” In her daily literacy centers, we in-
read with minimal assistance. This time, however, troduced the Record, Listen, Reflect process. After

612
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 70   No. 5   March/April 2017literacyworldwide.org
 Teaching Tip

Figure 1
Reading Checklist
Name:
Date:
Title of the Text:

Watch your video. Think about your own reading. Ask yourself these questions:
Well done Needs improvement
Did I take my time and read at the appropriate pace?
Did I read smoothly, the way we talk in a conversation?
Did I pay attention to punctuation and what it means?
Did I sound expressive?
Did I pause at the correct places?
Did I read clearly?
Did I say each word correctly?
Did I self-correct if I made a mistake?

I made ___ mistakes (fill in the number). Next time, I’m aiming for ___ mistakes (fill in the number).

It took me ___ seconds (fill in the number). Next time, I’m aiming for ___ seconds (fill in the number).

Here’s where I ran into trouble:

Here’s my plan for next time to address that trouble:

Other comments I want to make about my video:

becoming familiar with the process, students were of videos that showcase each student as the best
challenged to create their best possible record- possible reader. To select and prepare their vid-
ing of themselves. Our aim was to create a library eos, students worked with partners to watch each

613
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 70   No. 5   March/April 2017literacyworldwide.org
 Teaching Tip

other’s videos and give feedback. I overheard stu- Concluding Thoughts

dents make comments to each other such as “You
In our work with these third-­g rade readers, flu-
got all the words right, but you read so fast that I
ency instruction became modern and motivating.
couldn’t really follow you,” and “This video shows
Additionally, after our initial setup and directions,
your voice loud and proud. You also made your
students became self-­sufficient in their iPad fluency
voice sound scary here, so I knew which character
work. They independently selected text, recorded
you were pretending to be.” One young girl told us
themselves, watched and reflected, and continued
the following:
this cycle until they were satisfied with their deliv-
We always get practice in reading aloud. I think our ery. Perhaps most beneficial was that by watching
teachers use it as a way to check if we are reading a just themselves read and reflecting on their delivery,
right book or one that is too hard. I’m always listening to they had instant feedback on their performance.
other kids read out loud. But I never really had the chance Over several weeks, student responses shifted from
to listen to myself. At first, it felt funny to hear my own “Is that how I really sound?” to “I can do better than
voice. I kept thinking, “Do I really sound like that?” that!”
We conferenced with students and gave them
feedback on their videos. The feedback from peers REFERENCES
and a proficient reader, along with the friendly Cahill, M.A., & Gregory, A.E. (2011). Putting the fun back into
pressure to showcase their best possible video, fluency instruction. The Reading Teacher, 65(2), 127–131.
served as instant motivation. Without nudging or doi:10.1002/TRTR.01018
Cohen, J. (2011). Building fluency through the repeated reading
nagging from the teacher, students independently model. English Teaching Forum, 49(3), 20–27.
returned to their iPads multiple times to record Decker, M.M., & Buggey, T. (2014). Using video self-­and peer
again. We were delighted to overhear student com- modeling to facilitate reading fluency in children with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2),
ments such as “Let me try that again!” and “That 167–177. doi:10.1177/0022219412450618
wasn’t good enough.” When satisfied with their Dowhower, S.L. (1989). Repeated reading: Research into
best possible video, students uploaded their clips practice. The Reading Teacher, 42(7), 502–507.
Faver, S. (2014). Repeated reading of poetry can enhance
to a YouTube channel that was private to the class. reading fluency. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 350–352
The possibilities for this YouTube channel were Griffith, L.W., & Rasinski, T.V. (2004). A focus on fluency: How one
endless. We shared the video library with parents teacher incorporated fluency with her reading curriculum.
The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 126–137. doi:10.1598/RT.58.2.1
and families. Parents wrote comments about the Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012).
videos directly underneath each video. We used Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The
the videos in our work with our first-­grade class Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15–23. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01090
Kuhn, M.R., & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Fluency: A review of
reading buddies. In their reading buddy partner- developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational
ships, students showed their videos to their part- Psychology, 95(1), 3–21. doi:10.1037/0022-­0 663.95.1.3
ners with conversations such as “Did you notice LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of
automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive
how I raised my voice to show a question?” and Psychology, 6(2), 293–323. doi:10.1016/0010-­ 0 285(74)
“What was the best thing I did in this video?” 90015-­2
As we continued with our work, we experi- Ness, M. (2009). Laughing through rereadings: Using joke
books to build fluency. The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 691–694.
mented with other apps—MoviePro, Videoshop, doi:10.1598/RT.62.8.7
and Magisto—to enhance the quality of the self-­ Pluck, M.-L. (2012). “Jonathon is 11 but reads like a struggling
recorded videos. Although each app was relative- 7-year-old”: Providing assistance for struggling readers
with audio-assisted reading programs. In T. Rasinski, C.
ly easy to use, the cost and the complications of Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-
these apps made them unnecessary. Because our based best practices (2nd ed., pp. 156–171). New York, NY:
students’ video clips were short and did not re- Guilford.
Rasinski, T.V. (2012). Why reading fluency should be hot!. The
quire editing, the iPad video camera itself was Reading Teacher, 65(8), 516–522. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01077
­sufficient, especially because our students wanted Rasinski, T. (2013). Supportive fluency instruction: The key to reading
to record and delete videos immediately. We even- success (especially for students who struggle). Retrieved from
http://www.scilearn.com/sites/default/files/imported/alld
tually purchased several tripods (approximately ocs/cp/supportive-fluency-instruction.pdf
$10 to $20 each) that helped students get the per- Rasinski, T. (2014). Fluency matters. International Electronic
fect camera angle while they recorded. For us, the Journal of Elementary Education, 7(1), 3–12.
Rasinski, T.V., & Padak, N.D. (1998). How elementary students
appeal of this instructional practice was its low referred for compensatory reading instruction perform
cost and its technological ease. on school-­based measures of word recognition, fluency,

614
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 70   No. 5   March/April 2017literacyworldwide.org
 Teaching Tip

and comprehension. Reading Psychology, 19(2), 185–216. Stern, S. (2014). Fun Fridays with tongue twisters support
doi:10.1080/0270271980190202 fluency in the reading room. The Reading Teacher, 68(3), 189.
Rasinski, T.V., Reutzel, D.R., Chard, D., & Linan-Thompson, S. doi:10.1002/trtr.1279
(2011). Reading fluency. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Thoermer, A., & Williams, L. (2012). Using digital texts to
Moje, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research promote fluent reading. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 441–445.
(Vol. 4, pp. 286–319). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01065
Rasinski, T., Samuels, S.J., Hiebert, E., Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. Topping, K.J. (2014). Paired reading and related methods
(2011). The relationship between a silent reading fluency for improving fluency. International Electronic Journal of
instructional protocol on students’ reading comprehension Elementary Education, 7(1), 57–69.
and achievement in an urban school setting. Reading Valencia, S.W., & Buly, M.R. (2004). Behind test scores: What
Psychology, 32(1), 75–97. doi:10.1080/02702710903346873 struggling readers really need. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 520–531.
Robson, C., Blampied, N., & Walker, L. (2015). Effects of Vasinda, S., & McLeod, J. (2011). Extending Readers Theatre:
feedforward video self-­modelling on reading fluency and A powerful and purposeful match with podcasting. The
comprehension. Behaviour Change, 32(1), 46–58. doi:10.1017/ Reading Teacher, 64(7), 486–497. doi:10.1598/RT.64.7.2
bec.2014.29 Young, C., & Rasinski, T. (2009). Implementing Readers
Samuels, S.J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Theatre as an approach to classroom fluency instruction.
Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403–408. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 4–13. doi:10.1598/RT.63.1.1

Text Complexity: Stretching Readers

With Texts and Tasks
Second Edition
DOUGLAS FISHER, NANCY FREY,
& DIANE LAPP
No matter what discipline you teach, this all-new edition will show you
how to craft instruction pitched at your readers’ comprehension capacities,
© 2016 | ILA No. 9415 your curriculum’s themes, and your own assessments on what students
Copublished with Corwin Press
Nonmembers: $34.95 need next.
Members: $27.95

ORDER NOW! literacyworldwide.org/textcomplexity

Enter this code for priority processing: TC2E
800.336.7323 (U.S. and Canada) | 302.731.1600 (all other countries)

615
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 70   No. 5   March/April 2017literacyworldwide.org
Copyright of Reading Teacher is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.