Allington (2006)


NOTE:  For summary of teaching strategies, scroll about two-thirds of the way down on this page.

Source:  Allington, R. L. (2006). Fluency: Still waiting after all these years.  In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 94-105). Washington, DC: International Reading Association

Click to access fluency_still-wait.pdf


Reviewer(s):  pmh


Date:  March 15, 2014


Overall Assigned Grade:  F


Level of Evidence:  F = Expert Opinion, no supporting evidence for the effectiveness of the intervention although the author may provide secondary evidence supporting components of the intervention.


Take Away:  This expert opinion presents evidence from the literature that dysfluent reading may be associated with teacher behaviors. The author suggests that changes in teaching strategies can result in improvements in dysfluent readers. The recommended strategies include presenting Ps with reading materials at the appropriate reading level (not too difficult), teaching Ps to self-monitor, offering P’s opportunities that are offered to good readers (multiple opportunities for silent reading, opportunities to select materials they find interesting, appropriate reading level materials), and refraining from interrupting readers until the end of the sentence.

Although the focus of the teaching strategies was dysfluent reading, these strategies could be helpful with prosodic problems.


1.  Was there review of the literature supporting components of the intervention?  Narrative Review


2.  Were the specific procedures/components of the intervention tied to the reviewed literature?  No


3.  Were the interventions based on clinically sound clinical procedures?  Yes

4.  Did the author(s) provide a rationale for components of the interventions?  Yes

5.  Description of the outcome measure:

•  Outcome:  to reduce reading dysfluency (word-by word reading; little/no attention to prosody, phrasing, intonation/inflection; reading clumps of words that are not phrases; reading with monotonic intonation and little/no phrasing although rate may be fast and accurate)


6.  Was generalization addressed?  No


7.  Was maintenance addressed?  No





NOTE:  The author did not list the following as interventions. Rather, this reviewer (pmh) derived them from the manuscript.

Description of Intervention #1–To provide appropriate reading level


POPULATION:  Literacy problems (dysfluent readers); child/adolescent

TARGETS:  To facilitate fluent reading



•  C ensures that all reading material is appropriate for P’s level of functioning. This includes academic texts and quiet reading materials as well as intervention reading materials.



• This is supported logically.

Description of Intervention #2—To provide many opportunities for reading (reading volume)


POPULATION:  Literacy problems (dysfluent readers); child/adolescent


TARGET: To facilitate fluent reading

TECHNIQUES:  silent reading, reading aloud, independent reading, repeated reading (see Intervention #3)



•  C provides an environment in which P has the potential to read successfully.

•  C encourages P on numerous occasions throughout the day to read aloud and silently throughout the day. Reading materials should be appropriate to P’s reading level.


•  The author cited evidence that struggling readers engaged in far less reading than good readers and that the readings should facilitate successful reading.  That is, reading should be appropriate to the P’s reading level and interests.

•  The author cites literature indicating that independent and repeated readings are both associated with increases in fluency and word recognition but that independent reading is more closely associated with comprehension gains.

Description of Intervention #3—Repeated reading


POPULATION:  Literacy problems (dysfluent readers); child/adolescent


TARGET:  To facilitate fluent reading

TECHNIQUES:  repeated reading



•  This intervention is associated with reading volume but it is not identical to it.

•  P reads aloud and re-reads (multiple times) the same material.


•  The author cites literature indicating that independent and repeated readings are both associated with increase in fluency and word recognition

Description of Intervention #4—Instructors’ modification of teaching behaviors with struggling readers


POPULATION:  Literacy problems (dysfluent readers); child/adolescent


TARGET: To increase self monitoring and reading fluency



•  C restricts interruptions of P’s reading aloud to making comments at the end of a sentence.

•  When C does interrupt P, C encourages self-monitoring by asking P to re-read or cross check.

•  C avoids the following during interruptions:  interrupting after a misread word, asking the struggling reader to read aloud only more often than successful readers, and telling P to sound out a word.

•  C monitors P’s tendency to pause and wait for a prompt when reading aloud. C should be careful NOT to interrupt at this time, if possible.

•  C regularly provides opportunities for P to read silently.

•  C encourages P to select reading materials that are of high interest and at the appropriate reading level

•  C focuses attention on comprehension.


•  The author makes the case that teachers’ behaviors with struggling readers actually disrupt the fluency that they are targeting and make the Ps dependent on their feedback.

•  The author recommends that Cs adopt the behaviors that they use with successful readers to their instructional strategies with struggling readers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: