**4. Automaticity in reading**

In terms of Luria's conceptualisation of the development of higher mental processes, the development of automaticity in reading would be essential for its use in the hierarchical processing of information by the working brain. Following Luria [68], automaticity would be developed in reading when there has been sufficient practice to enable this complex functional act to become fluent enough to form the basis for higher mental processing.

LaBerge and Samuels [46] were the first researchers to focus on automaticity in reading, conceptualising reading fluency as a function of information processing in reading. In their model, visual information would be transformed through a series of processing stages involving visual, phonological and episodic memory systems, until it was finally comprehended in the semantic system. LaBerge and Samuels further proposed that the processing occurring at each processing stage was learned, while the degree of learning could be assessed with respect to two criteria: *accuracy* and *automaticity*. At the accuracy level of performance, attention would be necessary for processing. At the automatic level, it would not.

Samuels [69] suggested that automaticity in reading could be trained through procedures involving repeated reading, commenting that repeated reading was not a method for teaching all reading skills, but should rather be used as supplemental to a developmental reading program. Samuels further suggested that while repeated reading was particularly suitable for students with learning problems, it was also useful for all children [69]

Support for LaBerge and Samuels' work was provided by Chomsky [70] at Harvard University. Chomsky concluded that the repeated reading procedure she had used with students had been facilitating for both slow and halting readers, "increasing fluency rapidly and with apparent ease." Other researchers such as Carbo [71], Morgan and Lyon [72] and Ashby-Davis [73] also conducted studies using different repeated reading methods to model and develop automaticity through repetition. Each of these studies focused on the development of reading fluency, which Allington [74] pointed out was a characteristic of poor readers, but was seldom treated.

The notions of reading fluency and automaticity have then recurred in subsequent literature. Adams [75], for example, suggested that the most salient characteristic of skilful reading was the speed with which text was reproduced into spoken language, whereas Ehri and McCormick [76] suggested that automaticity in word reading developed in phases, with each phase being characterised by children's working knowledge of the alphabetic system.

On the applied level, repeated reading was implemented over the 1980s and 1990s in a variety of ways and was shown to be effective in developing reading fluency in a number of contexts, being successfully implemented by teachers [77–79], parents [79, 80], as well as peer tutors [81–85]. Repeated reading was successfully conducted by parents at home [80], in schools and classrooms [83, 86], as well as in sessional programmes [87, 88]. The evidence from these various types of implementation was positive, effects were often rapidly obtained and variations in implementation procedures often produced similar positive effects (for example, see [77, 78, 85, 89–94]).

Based on review and meta-analysis of the literature, the National Reading Panel [95] concluded that there was:

"a persuasive case that repeated reading and other procedures that have students reading passages orally multiple times while receiving guidance or feedback from peers, parents or teachers are effective in improving a variety of reading skills. It is also clear that these procedures are not particularly difficult to use or do they require lots of special equipment or materials, although it is uncertain how widely used they are at this time. These procedures help improve students' reading ability, at least through Grade 5, and they help improve the reading of students with learning problems much later than this." [96].

Based on these indications, the U.S. Congress [97] supported the inclusion of fluency as an important component of reading ability, defining the essential components of reading instruction as involving explicit and systematic instruction in:<sup>1</sup>


**4. Automaticity in reading**

120 Learning Disabilities - An International Perspective

treated.

78, 85, 89–94]).

In terms of Luria's conceptualisation of the development of higher mental processes, the development of automaticity in reading would be essential for its use in the hierarchical processing of information by the working brain. Following Luria [68], automaticity would be developed in reading when there has been sufficient practice to enable this complex func-

LaBerge and Samuels [46] were the first researchers to focus on automaticity in reading, conceptualising reading fluency as a function of information processing in reading. In their model, visual information would be transformed through a series of processing stages involving visual, phonological and episodic memory systems, until it was finally comprehended in the semantic system. LaBerge and Samuels further proposed that the processing occurring at each processing stage was learned, while the degree of learning could be assessed with respect to two criteria: *accuracy* and *automaticity*. At the accuracy level of performance, atten-

Samuels [69] suggested that automaticity in reading could be trained through procedures involving repeated reading, commenting that repeated reading was not a method for teaching all reading skills, but should rather be used as supplemental to a developmental reading program. Samuels further suggested that while repeated reading was particularly suitable for

Support for LaBerge and Samuels' work was provided by Chomsky [70] at Harvard University. Chomsky concluded that the repeated reading procedure she had used with students had been facilitating for both slow and halting readers, "increasing fluency rapidly and with apparent ease." Other researchers such as Carbo [71], Morgan and Lyon [72] and Ashby-Davis [73] also conducted studies using different repeated reading methods to model and develop automaticity through repetition. Each of these studies focused on the development of reading fluency, which Allington [74] pointed out was a characteristic of poor readers, but was seldom

The notions of reading fluency and automaticity have then recurred in subsequent literature. Adams [75], for example, suggested that the most salient characteristic of skilful reading was the speed with which text was reproduced into spoken language, whereas Ehri and McCormick [76] suggested that automaticity in word reading developed in phases, with each

On the applied level, repeated reading was implemented over the 1980s and 1990s in a variety of ways and was shown to be effective in developing reading fluency in a number of contexts, being successfully implemented by teachers [77–79], parents [79, 80], as well as peer tutors [81–85]. Repeated reading was successfully conducted by parents at home [80], in schools and classrooms [83, 86], as well as in sessional programmes [87, 88]. The evidence from these various types of implementation was positive, effects were often rapidly obtained and variations in implementation procedures often produced similar positive effects (for example, see [77,

phase being characterised by children's working knowledge of the alphabetic system.

tional act to become fluent enough to form the basis for higher mental processing.

tion would be necessary for processing. At the automatic level, it would not.

students with learning problems, it was also useful for all children [69]


The literature indicates that these components are stage-related and linked [99]. There is convergent evidence that phonological awareness, phonemic awareness and phonic skills are associated with learning to read [100–104]. Fluency is associated with the development of both oral reading ability and comprehension [84, 105, 106]. Fuchs et al. [107] have defined oral reading fluency as the oral translation of text with speed and accuracy. On the basis of the review of theoretical arguments and several studies substantiating this phenomenon, Fuchs et al. concluded that oral reading fluency is an indicator of overall reading competence and may also reflect overall reading competence.

Rasinski [108] has stressed that fluency needs to be an integral component of both assessment and reading instruction. Given evidence that reading fluency improves through a variety of different types of interventions involving teacher, parent or peer-tutored reading (for example, see [80, 89, 92–94]), both in children with learning disabilities [88, 109–112] and in children without learning disabilities [82, 87, 88], a major issue is whether reading fluency can be addressed solely through fluency-focused reading strategies (for example, see [79, 113]) or whether it also needs to be addressed through building connections between the processes involved in reading, writing and spelling, as well as focus on language and reading comprehension [99, 114, 115].

Wolf and Katzir-Cohen [116] have argued that there are a number of levels of subskills and components in reading fluency instruction, suggesting the need for curricular strategies for dealing with fluency-based issues. They also suggest that increased exploration of the subskills

<sup>1</sup> U.S. Congress. [98] (SEC. 1208. DEFINITIONS).

and components of, and issues surrounding, fluency and comprehension, will contribute to understanding of both reading development, and dyslexia subtypes. There would thus be justification on a theoretical level for incorporating assessment of oral reading fluency as one aspect of psychometric measurement of reading, together with other indicators of automaticity, (for example, see [117–120]).

At the same time, Moors and De Houwer [121] caution that there is wide usage of terms associated with automaticity as a concept, but no agreed definition as to what automaticity actually means. The author of this chapter follows Logan [50] in defining automaticity as relating to learned automatic processes, to which, following Luria [18, 19], fluency in speech and language, as well as fluency in reading, writing and spelling, would be related.
