Bringing Research into Practice

The Brain Basis of Fluency Development: Implications for Assessment and Instruction

Jane Ashby, Ph.D., A/AOGPE, Associate Professor of Psychology at

Central Michigan University

and

Melissa L. Farrall, Ph.D., SAIF, Director of Evaluation at the

Stern Center for Language and Learning

This article discusses how reading develops in the brain in order to provide a deeper

understanding of dysfluent reading with links to the assessment and instruction techniques that

are most likely to benefit dyslexic readers.

The past thirty years brought an unprecedented rise in the recognition of fluency as a

crucial goal of reading instruction. In 1998 the National Research Council recommended that

fluency be monitored as an indicator of problems with reading comprehension (Snow, Burns, &

Griffin, 1998). The National Reading Panel (2000) named reading fluency as one of the five

components of good reading instruction. Since that time, stopwatches have become part of the

arsenal in the fight for skilled reading.

Has the focus on text reading fluency drawn attention away from the foundation skills

that support our quest to read for meaning? Stopwatches and charting can have an unintended

consequence of motivating students to read faster than their optimum pace, which is the pace that

allows for the accurate word recognition and appropriate intonation that indicates understanding.

1
Today it is common to find children who rush through text, reading with forced speed. They

sound monotone even when reading text written at their independent reading level.

What should educators be teaching that will result in improved fluency and comprehension

without inadvertently encouraging children to read at a forced speed?

Understanding the cognition and neuroscience behind fluent reading can help guide the

way. Psychological research indicates that the speed and accuracy of single word reading is the

main determiner of text reading fluency. Unfortunately, this conclusion is often rolled out to

support curricula that emphasize reading speed (the product of skilled word recognition) over

accuracy (the process by which unfamiliar words become familiar). Developmentalists like

Linnea Ehri and Jeanne Chall have long recognized that word reading accuracy precedes word

reading speed. Chall’s Learning to Read phase explicitly places reading accuracy as a precursor

to reading fluency. Take a moment to reflect on your own experience with learning to shoot a

basketball, knit, or cook. When humans learn any new procedural skill (like reading), we are

accurate before we are automatic.

OG educators focus on accuracy in order to help students acquire the tools to read new

words independently. At first, decoding is slow and inaccurate. Brain connections are inefficient

and imperfect. Practice helps to prune inaccurate connections and strengthen connections

between neurons that fire together, making word recognition accurate. Every word read

accurately represents one correct iteration of the reading network. With each iteration, the

pathway is reinforced. Reading the same word accurately many times increases processing

efficiency until it sounds like the word is recognized instantly. The phrase “practice makes

perfect” describes the result of strengthening a brain network through repetition.

2
Reading Development in the Brain

Brain research into how reading develops can illuminate why children need to gain

accuracy first, then fluency. The word recognition network in the brain comprises two routes,

which cooperate to identify letter strings as words (Harm & Seidenberg, 2004). The present

evidence indicates a staggered pattern of development for these two routes in the reading

network, where decoding (dorsal route) lays the foundation for orthographic processing (ventral

route) later in reading development. The first route to correlate with reading skill is the dorsal,

phonological route that connects the frontal speech production area (Broca’s Area) to the

temporo-parietal letter-sound association area (Pugh et al., 2001; Wandell & Yeatman, 2013).

This phonological route correlates with reading achievement before age 10. It is forming when

educators help children build phonemic awareness skills, then connect speech sounds to letter

forms. The second route to correlate with reading skill is the ventral, orthographic route that

connects speech production areas to a more posterior area (the Visual Word Form Area) at the

junction of the occipital and temporal lobes. Activation in the VWFA correlates with reading

achievement around age 10 on average (Shaywitz et al., 2002). Therefore, the VWFA appears to

become tuned to print through years of reading experience (McCandliss & Noble, 2003).

The brain evidence for staggered development of the reading routes converges with the

behavioral research about how word recognition develops (see Rayner, Pollatsek, Ashby, &

Clifton, 2012, p.280, for a review). Development of the dorsal, phonological route is consistent

with behavior observed during Ehri’s Full Alphabetic phase, in which children can sequentially

decode words left-to-right. The act of sequential decoding, even when it is slow and labored,

draws attention to all the sounds in a word and helps children form accurate memories for written

words. These memories are reinforced every time a child reads or spells that same word again,

3
and repeated exposures speed each subsequent reading of the word. OG practitioners build the

efficiency of a child’s sequential decoding skills through repeated practice reading decodable

words in lists, spelling decodable words, and reading decodable texts. As we do so, we draw

attention to the interior letters and how they map onto the sounds. This orthographic mapping

process establishes clear, word-specific memories that are the foundation of fast word

recognition (Kilpatrick, 2015).

Repeated practice with sequential decoding builds a consolidated, specific representation

of each word (Ehri, 1999, 2002). After a certain number of accurate readings of a word, the child

appears to recognize it automatically. Fast recognition of a familiar word is possible as readers

develop a consolidated memory of its orthographic form. As reading experience grows and each

word memory is consolidated, readers increasingly rely on the VWFA to read familiar words

quickly (see Figure).

Figure: Development of the Reading Networks

On the left is the brain before age 10, when typical readers develop phonological

processing along the green route that connects the speech sound area (SS) with the letter-sound

association area (L-S). Activation in the L-S area predicts reading achievement in beginning

readers. On the right is the brain after reading experience has tuned the word form area (WFA) to

4
recognize familiar words instantly. Activation of the word form area predicts reading

achievement from age 10 through adulthood.

Large tracts of axons known as white matter tracts connect the Speech Sound area

(Broca’s) and the Word Form Area (VWFA) to form a ventral route for word recognition in

skilled readers. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) studies indicate activation of both areas within

a fifth of a second of seeing a printed word (Pammer et al., 2004; Wheat et al., 2010). Through

cooperative activation of phonology and orthography, skilled readers quickly recognize words

during silent reading. When the reading networks coordinate efficiently, reading sounds fluent: it

has the accuracy, rate, and intonation of speech.

Assessment to identify Dysfluency

Knowledgeable educators can use their expertise to differentiate among reading profiles

and identify techniques for improving reading fluency. The most effective techniques will aim to

boost the processes upon which fluency rests: phonemic awareness, decoding, accurate word

recognition, and spelling.

There are many products that are designed to help educators document challenges in the

above areas. There are tests of word level automaticity. There are tests that measure reading

fluency orally and silently. The selection of a particular test or tests, though, can only be made

with an understanding of what each test purports to measure and how successfully it

accomplishes its goal. Test interpretation is not just about the scores; a good test provides a lens

by which we can observe specific skills and forge a stronger link between data and instruction.

The fluency-test marketplace was fueled, to a large extent, by evidence that oral reading

fluency is a powerful indicator of skilled reading performance (Torgesen, 1986). Note, however,

that this does not mean that increasing oral reading speed boosts reading skill. Rather, fluency is

5
more accurately conceived of as a product of automaticity and coordination of reading processes

(Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2019).

While we all recognize that silent reading is the norm (and that silent reading is faster

than oral reading), silent fluency measures, in and of themselves, are not diagnostic; they are not

particularly helpful to educators. Silent reading does not permit observers to make judgements

regarding accuracy; there is no way to determine whether students are, indeed, reading all the

words. Two widely used measures of silent reading fluency that are part of the Woodcock-

Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (Schrank, Mather, & McGrew, 2014) and the Kaufman Test of

Educational Achievement, Third Edition (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014), attempt to ensure that

examinees are reading for meaning by requiring them to respond to YES/NO statements and

questions. These two subtests rely, for the most part, on an Anglo-Saxon vocabulary, leaving one

to ponder their validity with older students. Slasher tests, which require students to identify

word boundaries with pencil in hand, are excellent as screeners; they provide a quick, easy, and

reliable way of establishing risk status. While these tests can speak to overall rate, they cannot

inform questions related to the specific nature of errors and their source.

Educators have developed strong feelings about the tests that we like and those we

disdain. Many evaluators express preferences: “I like Test A better than Test B.” Testing,

however, is not about our feelings, it is about what the research tells us. When looking at tests of

oral reading fluency, it becomes important to understand how tests are scored and what types of

deviations from the text are recognized as actual errors. The Gray Oral Reading Tests, Fifth

Edition (GORT-5: Wiederholt, & Bryant, 2012), for example, counts all deviations as errors; the

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III; Pearson, 2010) does not.

What is a good practitioner to do? In choosing between the two (and there are other options as

6
well), it is important to understand that all miscue-type errors (repetitions, self-corrections, and

synonyms) are the result of inaccuracies in decoding. Research tells us that errors that purport

not to change meaning are no less egregious than reading words incorrectly. For this reason, the

GORT-5 may well be more sensitive to decoding issues than the WIAT-III. Small differences in

test design can potentially have a significant impact on a child’s performance.

Because dysfluent reading has its roots in word recognition, practitioners should also

consider tests of word reading automaticity. Savvy evaluators know that the terms, automaticity

and fluency, are used interchangeably in the test industry. Suffice it to say that fluency is

possible when word recognition and oral language skills are woven into a seamless flow of

thought, each strand executed with automaticity. While tests of word reading efficiency aptly

identify small hesitations in word identification that are not discernable by ear, they may not pick

up on those fluency challenges that reflect the impact of slow language processing. The fact is

that as human beings we are not capable of identifying small hesitations in word identification.

Our sense of time is just not sensitive enough. The reason that we use tests of word reading

efficiency is that those teeny tiny hesitations start to add up and become measurable when

students read multiple words.

Instruments, such as the Test of Word Reading Efficiency, Second Edition (Torgesen,

Wagner, & Rashotte, 2012), generally provide two lists: real words and nonsense words. Using

both real words and nonsense words helps us to discern between young children who read a

handful of words by sight and those who can apply their phonics skills to unfamiliar words, the

latter being the hallmark of independent reading. In older students, word lists help to identify

whether students have acquired basic decoding skills as a foundation for developing a rich sight

vocabulary. Given, however, the small sample of skills that is possible to obtain within a window

7
of 45 seconds, results should be interpreted with caution. The sample of decoding skills is too

small to make judgements regarding mastery of specific skills. In addition, there is a lot that can

go wrong in 45 seconds; gaps in attention, failure to start on cue, and noises in the distance may

compromise a child’s ability to demonstrate what he or she really knows.

The practitioner’s job does not end with word recognition in isolation and in passages. In

our efforts to improve reading skill, we have to be careful not to neglect the contribution that

phonological processing, in and of itself, makes to reading fluency. The Comprehensive Test of

Phonological Processing, Second Edition (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 2013) is considered

the gold standard, providing measures of phonological memory, phonological awareness, and

rapid automatized naming (RAN). While we have developed an appreciation for the importance

of phonological awareness, we sometimes neglect what RAN has to offer. The rapid naming of

letters and numbers can be thought of as a specialized type of processing speed that lives on the

cusp of visual and phonological processing; it is considered to be a measure of executive

function, i.e., how we take in, store, and retrieve what we have learned. RAN speaks to the

difficulty that some students will encounter in developing automaticity and their need for larger

doses of instruction and practice as compared to other children with reading disabilities.

Instruction to Build Fluency

Teaching effectively to develop fluent reading that is accurate, prosodic, and fast need

not be a mystery. By integrating a basic knowledge of the neurophysiology of reading

development, well-considered assessment practices, and a structured approach to reading

instruction, practitioners avail themselves of a roadmap for teaching reading in a way that is

likely to build reading fluency over the long-term.

8
 It is important to teach reading developmentally, in ways that are consistent with how

reading networks develop in the brain. As OG educators know, phonology is the foundation of

reading. Teaching children to sequence and manipulate phonemes using manipulatives helps to

build the phonological route (shown in green). Basic phonemic awareness paves the way for

easier acquisition of letter-sound correspondences, which should be learned by reading and

writing letters to get those letter-sound relationships firmly in memory. Practice reading two

letter words, then three letter words, by sounding each letter until it blends with the next.

Practice blending while reading words complements segmenting for spelling words. Both

processes reinforce detailed word memories that help children recognize words more quickly

with time. Spiraling-back often provides the review and reinforcement that is necessary for

automatic decoding to develop. Practice reading decodable sentences deepens the acquisition of

independent word attack skills. As children read words repeatedly in context, orthographic

mapping helps the word memory consolidate and become accessible through the visual word

form area.

Summary

Learning to read proceeds as does the learning of any procedural skill, such as playing

tennis or learning to knit. Novices begin by learning to perform basic actions, automatize those

through practice, then integrate them into increasingly complex behaviors. Similarly, it is

important to begin teaching reading with the goal of accuracy in word decoding, spelling, and

word recognition. Encouraging novices to read faster than their natural pace will result in

increased errors, due to the speed/accuracy tradeoff that is fundamental to human cognition. In

addition, encouraging forced speed can have unintended consequences of increasing anxiety,

encouraging guessing, and flattening intonation.

9
 Research-based assessment practices provide a clear picture of the child’s performance,

indicate progress, and point the direction for future instruction. Test interpretation goes beyond

scores. A good test provides a lens through which we gather data to inform instruction.

Remember that all miscues (repetitions, self-corrections, and synonyms) are the result of

inaccuracies in decoding. These inaccuracies result in readers accessing the wrong word, and

interfere with building an accurate memory that will enable fast and accurate word recognition.

Children want to read quickly and easily, and they will do so when they are able.

Dysfluent reading is usually a symptom of shaky decoding skills and weaknesses in phonological

processing. Children who struggle with reading are best served by deep, sequential instruction

that emphasizes accuracy and provides many hours of practice in order to build crisp memories

for words that can support fast and automatic recognition. There is no magic short-cut for

building fluency.

References

Ehri, L.C. (1999). Phases of development in learning to read words. In J. Oakhill & R. Beard

(Eds.) Reading development and the teaching of reading: a psychological perspective

(pp.79-108). Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Ehri, Linnea C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for

teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Monograph Series II, 1(1), 7-28.

Farrall, M. (2012). Reading assessment: Linking language, literacy, and cognition. Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley and Sons.

Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Fuchs, L.S., & Barnes, M.A. (2019). Learning disabilities: From

identification to intervention, 2nd ed. New York: NY: The Guilford Press.

10
Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading:

Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological

Review, 111(3), 662-720.

Kaufman A. S. & Kaufman, N. L. (2014). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement - Third

Edition (KTEA-3). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson

Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading

difficulties. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

McCandliss, B.D. & Noble, K.G. (2003). The development of reading impairment: A cognitive

neuroscience model. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research

Reviews, 9, 196-205.

Pammer, K., et al. (2004). Visual word recognition: the first half second. Neuroimage, 22, 1819-

25.

Pearson, P.D. (2010). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - Third Edition (WIAT – III). San

Antonio: Author.

Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Jenner, A. R., Katz, L., Frost, S. J., Lee, J. R., . . . Shaywitz, B. A.

(2001). Neurobiological studies of reading and reading disability. Journal of

Communication Disorders, 34(6), 479-492.

Schrank, F. A., Mather, N., & McGrew, K. S. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of

Achievement. (WJ-IV ACH). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarksi, P.,

Gore, J. C. (2002). Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with

developmental dyslexia. Biological Psychiatry, 52(2), 101-110.

11
Snow, C. E., & Burns, M. S., Griffin, P.(Eds.)(1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young

children.

Torgesen, J., Wagner, R. & Rashotte, C. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency - Second

Edition. (TOWRE – 2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Wagner, R., Torgesen, J. & Rashotte, C .(2013). Comprehensive Test of Phonological

Processing - Second Edition. (CTOPP2), Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Wandell, B. A., & Yeatman, J. D. (2013). Biological development of reading circuits. Current

Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(2), 261-268.

Wheat, K. L., Cornelissen, P. L., Frost, S. J., & Hansen, P. C. (2010). During visual word

recognition, phonology is accessed within 100 ms and may be mediated by a speech

production code: Evidence from magnetoencephalography. The Journal of Neuroscience,

30(15), 5229-5233.

Wiederholt, J. & Bryant, B. (2012). Gray Oral Reading Tests - Fifth Edition (GORT-5). Austin,

TX: Pro-Ed.

12