When Sisyphus Was in First Grade or One-Minute Reading Homework

Parent question

What does the research say about students and “one-minute reads” for homework. My son is expected to read the same passage every night for a week, and we mark how many words he reads per minute. We get a new passage weekly. Although I understand WPM as an assessment measure of fluency, what positive and negative effects does this practice have on students? I notice he reads as quickly as possible and hates the task. I fear this is not encouraging appropriate speed and accuracy to support comprehension while also possibly taking away his want to read. Therefore, I’m curious what the research says or what your opinion is on this practice. Thank you.

Shanahan’s response

I’m a big fan of getting parents involved in their children’s literacy development. I know that isn’t always possible, but it really can help — and kids are usually happy for their parents’ participation. We likely leave achievement points on the table by not asking for parent involvement.

I’m a big fan of oral reading practice to build reading fluency, too. Research, again, is very clear that practicing oral reading — including oral reading to parents can improve reading achievement. In fact, some of the most intriguing studies of fluency teaching focused on parental efforts (Senechal & Young, 2008).

However, what you describe is less like worthwhile fluency work and more like practice for the classroom fluency tests. It is possible that something good might come of this, though it is just as likely that it will steer your son away from being a better reader.

Some studies show that when time rather than reading comprehension is emphasized in oral reading practice students read differently (Valencia, et al., 2017). They try to perform rather than to understand — not the right direction if you want junior to become a good reader. Encouraging parents to listen to their children read each night is a great idea. Having mom or dad timing that is silly — more about trying to juice the test scores rather than making kids better readers.

Another problem with the scheme is the amount of repetition. It isn’t hurtful, just wasteful. Originally, there were two basic approaches to fluency practice: either reading a text repeatedly — no matter how many times — until some accuracy criterion was reached or reading the text a specified number of times. Research suggests that all or most of the improvement that kids are likely to make comes from reading a text 2-3 times (Kuhn, 2005). That means at least two of those nights you are spinning your wheels.

There is also research saying that there is no reason for the repetition. According to that research, it is the amount of reading practice, not the amount of repeated reading practice that matters (Norton, 2012; O’Connor, et al., 2007). I must admit I still think repeated reading has value, but when it comes to parents listening to their children, I would encourage more reading and less repetition.

The one-minute idea is the tip off that this is test practice rather than teaching, and that the teacher is not really interested in improving the kids’ fluency as much as trying affect higher scores on the classroom screener.

You didn’t say anything about the texts that your son is practicing. I hope they aren’t the test passages he’ll be screened on, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Teachers and principals often do this kind of thing to inflate test scores — not understanding that they are both failing to improve the children’s abilities while ruining the value of the testing information.

I think I have read pretty much every study of fluency instruction and have never seen an instructional effort aimed at 1-minute reads. The reason for that amount of time is because test makers thought that might be enough of a reading sample to reveal how kids are doing. Three-minute reads provide better information, and most screeners require that students do two or three one-minute reads to get a sufficient assessment. Trying to match the training time to the testing time is revealing of the real point of this wasteful practice.

Another reason to blow this off is the fact that your son hates it. That’s reason enough to not do this.

I suggest that you talk to your son’s teacher. I’d encourage you to find out where the texts are coming from. If they are test passages, this is a no-no. That’s a rip off and you should complain.

I’d also let her know how unhappy about it he (and you) are about the practice.

In any event, if it were my son I’d continue listening to his reading — though for longer times and without the timer. When he reads a section of text ask him questions about it. If the reading isn’t very good (lots of mistakes, laboring to read the words, poor expression), indeed, have him read it once or twice more. Be positive, be encouraging, make it a nice time for both of you — maybe even take turns reading to each other (one of my granddaughters and I did that last evening). Do that on a regular basis and your son will make faster progress in reading to learn.

See related post: Seatwork that Makes Sense for Reading

See comments (opens in a new window)

References

Homan, S.P., Klesius, J. P., & Hite C. (1993). Effects of repeated readings and nonrepetitive strategies on students’ fluency and comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 94–99.

Kuhn, M. R. (2005). A comparative study of small group fluency instruction. Reading Psychology, 26(2), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710590930492

Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 427-452.

O’Connor, R. E., White, A., & Swanson, H. L. (2007). Repeated reading versus continuous reading: Influences on reading fluency and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 74(1), 31-46.

Rashotte C.A., & Torgeson, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20,180–188.

Senechal, M., & Young, L. (2006). The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78, 880-907. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320319

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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27822888