Fluency can (and should) be taught- My reflections on the work of Dr. Tim Rasinski.

By Dr. Sam Bommarito

I’ve known Tim Rasinski for many years now. I’ve interviewed him on many occasions and even collaborated with him on writing articles for Literacy Today. His work has had a major influence on my own teaching and writing. It has also influenced what I say to teachers about the best ways to help students understand how words work. That includes helping students develop a rich understanding of sound-symbol relations and to use their orthographic knowledge to unlock words. My most important takeaway from his work on fluency is that fluency can and should be taught. Dr. Sam, do you really mean one can teach fluency? Yes, you can, and Dr. Rasinski has spent a great deal of time outlining exactly how to do that.

Early on-

I first heard about Dr. Rasinski’s ideas on teaching fluency when he spoke to our local IRA council. I wrote a blog about that in  2018 LINK. In his presentation, he argued that teaching reading was both Art and Science. This outlined the foundational ideas for the book he later co-authored: Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading LINK. I find that book attracts readers from all sides of the great debate. But that is a topic for another day.

Here is my key takeaway from his 2018 presentation. This is a screen capture of one of his slides, along with my comments.

At this point, it is worth noting that later research found his methods for repeated reading to be highly effective. The most recent research indicates an effect size of 0.75, LINK,  LINK. That is greater than the effect size for teaching phonics, which ranges from 0.51 to 0.70.   I’m not saying that to advocate for replacing phonics. I’m suggesting that teachers use both. This information about the effect size of repeated reading really changed the way I view the whole topic. Repeated reading, done as Rasinski suggests, can be a real game-changer for practicing teachers.

What happened next-

Tim began presenting at various conferences advocating for the use of repeated reading. This video LINK does a great job of showing the kinds of things he said. Here are two important takeaways.

n this presentation, Tim asks teachers to try using the Fluency Development Lesson. Many did, and many got amazing results. I’ll remind you that, since the beginning, Tim has stressed that repeated reading is more effective when done for authentic reasons with authentic text. Keep that in mind if you want the best results.

What’s happening now:

There are now many more support materials available for teachers who want to pursue this kind of teaching. Dr. Rasinski has an X account (formerly Twitter), where he gives away free samples every M, W, and F. Go to @TimRasinski1 to see what he posts. He often links together more than one kind of resource. See below:

For those of you who are not familiar with Word Ladders (Dr. Rasinski’s go-to resource for word play), please see this explanation by Dr. Rasinski LINK.

I recently turned my blog over to Dr. Rasinski and David Harrison so they could talk about Using Repeated Reading & Poetry LINK.

I also interviewed Dr. Rasinski and Dr. Lynne Kulich about their new book. They co-authored it with David Harrison. LINK.

This book contains everything you need to carry out Fluency Development Lessons. It is a ready-to-implement set of 28 fluency development units organized into five knowledge strands, with 140 lessons to move students toward more fluent, proficient reading and joyful learning. Reproducible post-reading activities provide meaningful practice through word ladders, graphic organizers, and cloze activities. It is primarily designed for grades 1 through 5, with separate sections for each grade. Here is a link to the book: LINK.

IN CONCLUSION

For those of you who have already begun using the Fluency Development Lesson, please share your experience and tips for classroom implementation. For those of you who haven’t, I’ll extend the same invitation Dr. Rasinski did in his YouTube presentation.  Be sure to look at the activities suggested in the two slides from his video. If you like the results, take advantage of some of the new support materials that have been developed. Finally, to those of you wondering what a word study program for the middle grades might look like, try using the grades 4 and 5 units from this book and see if that helps. I’m hoping to put together a webinar on singing and performing your way into fluency. So, stay tuned, there’s more to come. Till next time:

Happy Reading and Writing

Dr. Sam Bommarito (the guy in the middle, taking flak from both sides)

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

Have we forgotten that play is the way our youngest learners learn? Have we forgotten that some readers learn best from other forms of phonics? By Doctor Sam Bommarito

I wanted to say more about two of the issues raised in the joint statement post that Michelle Ruhe and I wrote a few weeks ago. As you may remember, Michelle is a teacher who is concerned about the way literacy is being taught in some places. LINK.

First, in their zeal to get children off to an early start in reading, the social media advocates of SoR are ignoring important research in the field of early childhood. Here is a post I did about play. This interview with Jorden Page was done in preparation for my presentation at an early childhood conference.

A key takeaway from that interview is this: Early Readers use play to learn the foundational skills they need for reading. Using play in this manner fits their developmental stage. The practices being forced into early childhood programs by the SoR social media folks do not. Links to books that demonstrate the important role of play in early childhood, can be found in the blog post about the interview. The books offer both useful classroom ideas and insights into how play affects the brain. LINK

Second, while many children benefit from a synthetic phonics program, some don’t. SoR’s one-size-fits-all approach to teaching phonics fails to address the needs of students who would learn best from an alternate approach.LINK, LINK. When reviewing the blog entry below, please note that some children do not learn from synthetic phonics. They need a constructivist-based learning experience, such as those found in analytic phonics programs. These programs are grounded in discovery learning and constructivist principles. In addition, there are other children who have already mastered the phonics skills being taught and are frustrated by having to learn things they already know. Failing to allow these students to continue advancing is hindering their reading progress.

Overall, I remain convinced that the best course of action to improve reading instruction would be to create local programs that draw on ideas and practices from both sides (all sides) of the so-called reading debate.

Until next time: Happy Reading and Writing.

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

Perils, Prospects, and Possibilities

 A joint statement about the current state of the literacy world.

Perils, Prospects, and Possibilities

(under construction- we would like feedback)

By Sam Bommarito EdD & Michelle Ruhr MEd

Two Long-Time Reading Teachers

In this statement, we aim to explore the perils, prospects, and less desirable aspects of the current state of the literacy world. Then we want to chart a path that will improve the situation in the literacy world. Our vision for this path is to empower teachers and free their hands so they can implement the research-based practices that they need to support their students. This must be done within the confines of each district’s curriculum.  Please consider the following points:    

Education policy is being shaped by what we have come to call the social media version of SOR. Unfortunately, that version takes a dichotomous view of the reading process.   A recent study about TikTok users found that instead of adopting a broad perspective,

a nuanced approach to analyzing educational issues, TikTok users employed a binary, winner-take-all approach. LINK That approach has been criticized for taking too narrow a view and not considering all the evidence LINK.  It can also lead to both sides employing strawman tactics to attempt to discredit each other.

The real reason for the reading wars is that what works with one child doesn’t always work with another. Most children thrive on a code-emphasis approach. However, some do not. So, when the pendulum swings away from a meaning-emphasis approach to a code-emphasis approach, kids who need meaning-emphasis instruction are left out. The same is true when folks overdo meaning-based instruction. This blog entry from five years ago explains how Dr. Bommarito first arrived at this conclusion and why he advocates for a centrist position, utilizing research-based teaching methods from all sides. LINK. It is important to note that the terms code-based and meaning-based are terms taken from the very outset of the reading wars by Jean Chall, in her seminal book Learning to Read: The Great Debate LINK.

Emily Handford has not told the whole story. Here is a link to Michelle’s piece about that. LINK.

We are not alone in thinking Hanford’s position is questionable. Look at what Nick Covington has to say in his piece entitled Unsettling The Science of Reading: Who is Being Sold A Story? LINK.

Cognitive scientist and psycholinguist Mark Seidenberg, someone who would probably disagree mightily with me pedagogically, but from whom I have learned a lot, apparently feels a similar slipperiness with the “science of reading” label and what it represents:

I’m going to lay my cards on the table here: The treatment of PA [phonemic awareness] in the “science of reading”–the idea that a certain level of PA is prerequisite for reading, and that PA training should continue until the student becomes highly proficient at PA tasks regardless of how well they are reading–is emblematic of problems that have arisen within the SoR approach. It is an overprescription that reflects a shallow understanding of reading development, yet has become a major tenet of the “science of reading”. The PA situation and other developments suggest to me that the SoR is at risk of turning into a new pedagogical dogma, consisting of a small set of tenets loosely tied to some classic but dated research, supplemented by additional assumptions that are ad hoc and ill-advised…

Finally, about the expression “the science of reading”:  The term isn’t in wide use among researchers. There isn’t a field called “the science of reading,” and people rarely identify as “reading scientists,” in my experience. In reading education, the term has been taken up by a movement (often abbreviated SoR) to reform instruction, teacher education and curricula. This movement/approach is not the same as the body of research about reading. For one thing, the former has as yet incorporated very little of the latter.  (emphasis added)

He goes on to give the history of the term science of reading given by Timothy Shanahan LINK, and then explains Shanahan’s rather startling conclusion about Reading Recovery:

On the relation between Reading Recovery – an intervention method heavily criticized in Hanford’s Sold A Story – the brain, and the “Science of Reading,” Shanahan writes:

Somehow, students who are being taught in this way are still ending up reading much as the kids who receive explicit decoding instruction. The same could be said of approaches to reading that only teach words. As already noted, such approaches [like Reading Recovery] do not do as well as explicit decoding instruction in improving reading, yet how do students learn from them at all? According to basic research studies, they should not work; that they do should be a matter of more than intellectual curiosity.

Next week, we will continue with the blog, Part three of three. We will begin by examining the work of Dr. Tim Rasinski on the topic of repeated reading. Here is an excerpt from a piece by Nathaniel Hanford LINK that may get you interested in what Tim has to say:

Until Next Week- Happy Reading and Writing!

©2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito & Michelle Ruhe

Folks in the middle. We are taking flak from folks from all sides.