How Problems of Reading Fuency and Comprehension are Related to Difficulties… 73 How Problems of Reading Fluency and Comprehension Are Related to Difficulties in Syntactic Awareness Skills Among Fifth Graders Kouider Mokhtari Miami University, Oxford, Ohio H. Brian Thompson Limestone Elementary School, Sand Springs, Oklahoma Abstract In this study, we assessed and analyzed 5th grade students’ levels of syntactic awareness in relation to their reading fluency and comprehension. The aim was to examine the role of syntactic awareness (children’s awareness of the syntactic structure of sentences and their ability to reflect on and manipulate that structure) as a potential source of reading fluency and comprehension difficulty for these readers. We found that the students’ levels of syntactic awareness were significantly related to their reading fluency (r= .625) and reading comprehension performance (r= .816). These relationships indicate that lower levels of syntactic awareness correspond to poor reading fluency and poor comprehension among these readers. These findings have important implications for research and instruction addressing the relative contributions of broader language skills to the development of reading fluency and comprehension among struggling readers. Introduction The ability to read fluently and with adequate comprehension is considered the hallmark of skilled reading. Both fluent reading and comprehension skills have been shown to depend to some degree on the readers’ sensitivity to the phonemic structure of language (e.g., Adams, 1990; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). This important association between skilled reading and sensitivity to the phonemic structure of spoken language has been quite well documented in experimental, clinical, and developmental training studies (for a comprehensive review see Adams, 1990; Goswami & Bryant, 1990). For instance, the longitudinal studies investigating the relationship between phonological awareness and reading development indicate that different aspects of phonological awareness at various ages can predict reading abilities in school-age children (e.g., Bryant, Nunes, & Bindman, 1998). In addition, comparison studies with 74 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 46, No. 1 * Fall 2006 children and adults have shown that good readers often outperform poor readers on measures of phonemic awareness (e.g., Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994; Vellutino, & Scanlon, 1991). Finally, intervention studies show that specific instruction in phonemic awareness tasks such as lettersound identification and manipulation improve reading and spelling abilities (e.g. Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small, Pratt, Chen, & Denkla, 1996). However, despite the large body of evidence pointing to a close relationship between children’s phonemic awareness and reading development, little is known about the potential role of broader language skills (e.g., morphological and syntactic awareness) in the development of reading fluency and reading comprehension ability. One limitation of the existing research, according to Nation & Snowling (2000) is that poor decoding skills appear to have been confounded with poor reading comprehension, making it difficult to sort out possible causal relationships between these two aspects of reading. In other words, the customary cooccurrence of poor word decoding and poor comprehension skills may have obscured the role played by broader language skills in reading development. A second limitation relates to the lack of clarity of the importance and relevance of reading fluency and its relation to both reading comprehension and syntactic skills, especially in light of recent research advances on the relation between reading comprehension and broader language skills with particular focus on sentence and text-level skills. Recent and emerging research on the role of broader language skills on reading ability have shown that the ability to read fluently and with adequate comprehension remains a challenge for many normally developing and struggling readers despite demonstrated mastery of basic abilities in word decoding and phonemic awareness skills. In a study examining the factors influencing syntactic awareness among poor and normal comprehenders, Nation and Snowling (2000) point out that “Although in the general population comprehension and reading accuracy are strongly correlated (with correlation coefficients varying between 0.3 and 0.6; see Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1983), studies have shown that approximately 10% of children can be classified as having poor reading comprehension, despite possessing average-for-age reading accuracy (Nation & Snowling, 1997; Yuill & Oakhill, 1991, p. 230).” How Problems of Reading Fuency and Comprehension are Related to Difficulties… 75 Language and literacy researchers (e.g., Bentin, Deutsch, & Liberman, 1990; Cain & Oakhill, 2004; Demont & Gombert, 1996; Leikin, 2002; Nation, Clarke, & Snowling, 2002; Stothard & Hulme, 1992; Yuill & Oakhill, 1991) generally agree that text comprehension is a complex task that involves a number of cognitive, linguistic, and sociocultural dimensions. This view is consistent with the model of reading comprehension articulated in the Rand Reading Study Group report (2001) in which comprehension is viewed as “the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language” and reading fluency is “conceptualized as both an antecedent to and a consequence of comprehension” (p. 11). According to this report, “some components of reading fluency—quick and efficient recognition of words and at least some aspects of syntactic parsing— appear to be prerequisites for comprehension” (p. 35). The report cautioned that recent efforts to improve early reading achievement through skills-based instruction could be undermined unless a greater emphasis is placed on teaching children reading comprehension skills and strategies that go beyond basic skills, particularly phonemic awareness and phonics. Kuhn & Stahl (2003) recently suggested that proficient reading requires more than automaticity of individual word decoding. They maintain that fluency development, defined as not only accuracy and automaticity of individual word decoding but also as prosodic interpretation of the text being read, is needed for children to comprehend what they read. Kuhn & Stahl (2003) argued that to be able to read prosodically or with proper expression, children must be able to do more than decode words and translate text signals into speech. They concur with other researchers (e.g., Dowhower, 1987; Schreiber, 1980, 1987, 1991) that readers must demonstrate an understanding of the syntactic structures of text by chunking groups of words into phrases or meaningful syntactic units. They must also incorporate a set of suprasegmental features (e.g., stress and intonation patterns) that both speakers and hearers would interpret as expressive of the meaning of the text read. Chafe (1988) suggested that to read a sentence with proper intonation, one must assign syntactic roles to the words in the sentence. The assignment of syntactic roles is a key component of constructing a coherent interpretation of the text read. In much of the newly published research on reading fluency, attention is given to the reader’s ability to adhere to the author’s syntactic structure of sentences in text. In the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report entitled Listening to Children Read Aloud, the 76 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 46, No. 1 * Fall 2006 authors state that “recognizing the author’s syntax can be critical since identical groups of words may represent various meanings when read with different syntactical patterns displayed through intonation, stress placements, or insertions of pauses” (Pinnell et al., 1995, p. 15). This adherence to the author’s intended syntactic conventions during oral reading requires the reader to be aware of the ideas that are expressed in the text. Only through reading with an understanding of syntactic structures can a reader comprehend the author’s intended purpose (Pinnell et al., 1995). These observations are consistent with findings from a relatively small, but growing number of studies (e.g., Carlisle, 2004; Demont & Gombert, 1996; Gottardo, Stanovich, & Siegel, 1996; Leikin, 2002; Lyster, 2002; Mahony, Singson, & Mann, 2000; Nation & Snowling, 2004; Nation, Clarke, Marshall, & Durand, 2004; Stothard & Hulme, 1992; Yuill & Oakhill, 1991), which have shown that children’s ability to read is greatly influenced by their degree of sensitivity to broader language processes including word formation (Morphological Awareness), sentence structure (Syntactic or Grammatical Awareness), and discourse structure (Textual Awareness). These researchers concur that readers identify certain words by their morphological and syntactic structures; they learn that events that have already occurred are marked by morphological inflections such as ‘ed’; and are able to determine that sentences are formed using a certain word order. While it is unclear how readers actually use knowledge of morphology and syntax when constructing meaning, the structure of words and sentences provides a grammatical foundation for linking forms and meanings in a systematic way. The relatively small research base investigating the influence of syntactic or grammatical awareness on children’s ability to read has shown that the ability to identify and manipulate the syntactic structure of spoken language is generally related to reading development. Examples of findings relating syntax to reading include children’s difficulty in detecting and correcting syntactic errors (e.g., Bentin, Deutsch, & Liberman, 1990; Demont & Gombert, 1996; Gottardo, Stanovich, & Siegel, 1996; Leikin, 2002), preschool children who later develop reading problems showing a more limited array of syntax in their speech than control children (Nation & Snowling, 2000, 2004), using first graders’ syntactic awareness skills as a predictor of second grade word recognition, even when controlling for the effects of phonological awareness and How Problems of Reading Fuency and Comprehension are Related to Difficulties… 77 general ability (Tunmer, 1989), students using less complex syntactic structures when writing, and their speech is marked with a greater number of grammatical errors than good readers (Scott, 2004), and differences in sentence processing between normal and dyslexic readers, suggesting the existence of a syntactic processing weakness for readers with dyslexia (Leikin, 2002). The findings of these studies and others highlight the important role syntax plays in reading development and provide documented evidence that that poor comprehenders appear to have language processing difficulties encompassing awareness of the syntactic or grammatical structure of the language, although their decoding skills are often adequate. Many of these language-processing weaknesses have typically been associated with word decoding, sentence or text comprehension. The role of syntax has recently been highlighted in two major research handbooks edited by reputable researchers in this area including Berman (2004) and Stone, Silliman, Ehren, & Apel (2004). In the present study, we seek to contribute to this important line of research by examining the role of syntactic awareness not just on reading comprehension, but also on reading fluency and its relation to syntactic awareness among a group of struggling 5th grade students. While reading fluency is a critically important aspect of reading development (Walker, Mokhtari, Sargent, 2006), it has not been carefully examined with all its components (i.e., accuracy, rate, and prosody) in relation to broader language-processing skills such as syntax. We concur with Nation & Snowling (2000) that: Since fluent reading requires that the meanings of single words be integrated at the sentence and text levels and that ongoing comprehension be monitored, sensitivity to the syntactic and semantic constraints of the language might be viewed as a resource that ‘bootstraps’ literacy development. (Walker, Mokharti, & Sargent, 2006). Aims of the present study In this study, we examined the role of syntactic awareness (children’s awareness of the syntactic structure of sentences and their ability to reflect on and manipulate that structure) as a potential source of reading difficulty among 5th grade readers. We were interested in finding out (1) whether students’ levels of syntactic awareness were significantly associated with their ability to read fluently, and (2) whether low levels of syntactic awareness could be associated with difficulties in reading 78 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 46, No. 1 * Fall 2006 comprehension performance. Encouraged by the findings from prior research on the importance of syntactic awareness in reading ability, we predicted that higher levels of syntactic awareness would correspond to higher levels of reading fluency and comprehension among fifth-grade readers. Conversely, we anticipated that lower levels of syntactic awareness would correspond to poor reading fluency and comprehension performance. Method Participants The participants in this study consisted of thirty-two (n=32) fifthgrade students enrolled in a suburban neighborhood school in the south central United States. The average age of the students was approximately eleven and one half years. As Table 1 indicates, twenty (63%) of the participants were of Caucasian decent, two (6%) were African-American, three (9%) were Hispanic-American, and seven (22%) were American Indian. All students were born in the United States and speak English as their primary language at home, and represented a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds ranging from upper-middle to lower middle class, with the majority being from working class families. Table 1 Description of Participants by Age, Gender, and Ethnicity Number Percent Age Mean 11.32 SD .64 Gender Male 17 53.1 Female 15 46.9 Total 32 100 Ethnicity Caucasian 20 62.5 Am. Indian 7 21.9 African Am. 2 6.3 Hispanic 3 9.4 Total 32 100 How Problems of Reading Fuency and Comprehension are Related to Difficulties… 79 School records indicated that these students exhibited a wide range of abilities with respect to reading achievement as measured by standardized reading tests and state-mandated criterion-referenced tests. Records further showed that of the total number of students, seven received daily Title I assistance in reading led by the second author (BT), who was the Title I teacher at the time of the study. In addition, three of the students qualified for Special Education services in the area of reading because of an identified learning disability and one received supplemental instruction in the school’s Gifted and Talented program. No students received special education services in the areas of speech and language development. The 32 students were enrolled in a fifth-grade self-contained classroom in a small neighborhood school with a total school enrollment of approximately 308 students in grades one through six. This classroom was selected for participation in the study as several of the students were suspected, by their teacher, of having language-related problems, which may explain some of the problems they were having in reading and writing. The curriculum materials used in the target classroom consisted of the Harcourt Reading Basal Trophies Series (2002), which feature an integrated Language Arts program incorporating reading, vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and writing based on state standards. Data Collection: Materials and Procedures All 32 students completed a set of assessment measures aimed at determining levels of syntactic awareness in relation to their oral reading fluency and comprehension performance. Over a period of approximately four weeks, each student completed two standardized reading achievement tests (one norm-referenced, the other criterion-referenced), a reading fluency assessment battery, including an assessment of reading rate, decoding accuracy, and prosody or expression, and a test of syntactic awareness. A brief description of each of these measures follows. Test of Language Development- Intermediate [TOLD-II: 3] (Hammill & Newcomer, 1996). We used the TOLD-II: 3 test to assess the students’ understanding and use of different aspects of grammatical or syntactic ability. Although the test battery consists of six subtests, only three of the subtests (namely Sentence Combining, Word Ordering, and Grammatical Competence) were designated for the assessment of syntactic awareness. The result of the three subtests yielded a Syntax Quotient (SyQ) which we used to determine the subject’s syntactical knowledge or abilities. The TOLD-II: 3 is considered to be a valid and reliable test of 80 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 46, No. 1 * Fall 2006 language ability assessment. Coefficients for all subtests exceed .84, and all composites are .90 or greater. We used the Syntax Quotient as a unit of analysis representing students’ levels of syntactic awareness. NAEP’S Integrated Reading Performance Record [IRPR] (Pinnell et al., 1995). IRPR is designed to measure three interrelated reading fluency components: Word reading accuracy, reading rate, and prosodic performance or expression. These components are measured by listening to the students reading and responding to a grade-appropriate passage aloud. Decoding accuracy was measured by listening to students reading aloud, via a miscue analysis, while reading rate consisted of timing the reading, which was converted into a word per minute (WPM) rate. We assessed prosodic performance by using the NAEP fluency scale This scale is considered one of the most appropriate oral reading analysis procedures for the assessment of prosodic reading ability (Pinnell et al., 1995). We conducted the oral reading fluency assessments individually. Following NAEP guidelines, we asked each student to read a fifth gradelevel passage silently. This reading was followed by a response to three comprehension questions designed to familiarize the students with the contents of the passage before they were asked to read it aloud. Finally, we asked the students to read the passage aloud. The students’ oral reading performance was tape-recorded for analysis by two (in a few cases three judges) using the NAEP Oral Reading Fluency Scale. We compared the judges’ ratings for agreement (96%), and we discussed the emerging discrepancies until we reached consensus. This process resulted in reading fluency ratings ranging from 4 (Fluent) to 1 (Non-Fluent), which was ultimately used as a unit of analysis for students’ reading fluency performance. The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (MacGinitie & McGinite, 1989). The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test is a general reading test consisting of two subtests: vocabulary and comprehension. The Gates test is a standardized reading test, which was regularly administered to all students in the school. It is a commonly used measure of reading comprehension and vocabulary with adequate technical adequacy as indicated by the test’s reported reliability and validity data with reliability coefficients ranging from .90-.95 for vocabulary and .88-.94 for comprehension. We used the Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores as units of analysis representing reading comprehension performance on a norm-referenced reading test. How Problems of Reading Fuency and Comprehension are Related to Difficulties… 81 Oklahoma Criterion-Referenced Reading Test (Oklahoma Department of Education, 2002). This state-mandated test is used to measure students’ reading achievement based on pre-established state curriculum standards. The test has adequate psychometric properties (reliability coefficients ranging from .90 to .94) and is considered a reliable and valid test of reading achievement for Oklahoma students. We used the Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores as units of analysis representing reading comprehension performance on a criterion-referenced reading test. Data Analyses We analyzed the data obtained by using basic descriptive statistics, which provided a description of the subjects in terms of demographics including age, gender, and ethnicity. We used correlation analyses to determine whether students’ levels of syntactic awareness were related to their reading fluency and comprehension performance. Results Table 2 presents descriptive statistics pertaining to the subjects’ performance in syntactic awareness, reading fluency (decoding accuracy, reading rate, prosody) and comprehension (vocabulary knowledge, text comprehension). As the data in Table 2 show, there was a fair amount of variability in performance in each of the main dependent variables as indicated by the standard deviations and range statistics. School records depicting student performance on criterion-referenced assessments in reading indicate that this group of students appears to be quite characteristic of most fifth grade students in terms of demographics, reading ability levels, and overall educational achievement. 82 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 46, No. 1 * Fall 2006 Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Student performance (N= 32) on Syntactic Awareness, Reading Fluency, & Reading Comprehension Mean (SD) Min Max Range 1 94.06 (12.32) 72 124 52 Syntactic Awareness Reading Fluency2 Decoding Accuracy Reading Rate Prosody 94.28 (4.25) 106.47 (28.53) 2.641 (0.84) Reading Comprehension (Gates3) Vocabulary 53.50 (18.41) Comprehension 50.78 (16.05) Composite 52.50 (17.30) Reading Comprehension (CRT4) 1. 2. 3. 4. 731.44 (54.04) 86 55 1 99 163 4 13 108 3 15 25 22 99 99 99 84 74 72 647 830 183 Syntactic Awareness scores reflects students’ Syntactic Quotient, which consists of performance on three of the TOLD subtests (namely Sentence Combining, Word Ordering, and Grammatical Competence) yielding standard scores ranging from 0100. Reading Fluency scores are based on decoding accuracy (Percent of words read correctly), reading rate (Words correct per minute), and prosodic performance (Scale from 4 [Fluent] to 1 [Non-Fluent]) Reading Comprehension performance on the Gates-MacGinite test is based on Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) Scores. Reading Comprehension performance on the Oklahoma CRT reading test is based on Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) Scores. Table 3 presents results pertaining to whether students’ syntactic or grammatical awareness is significantly related to reading fluency (reading rate, decoding accuracy, prosodic performance) and reading comprehension. The results revealed a statistically significant correlation between students’ syntactic awareness and each of the three components of reading fluency, including reading rate (r=.50; p< .01), decoding accuracy (r=.51; p< .01), and prosodic performance (r=.62; p< .01). We found a similar pattern of relationships with respect to performance on two reading comprehension measures—one norm-referenced (GatesMacGinite), the other criterion-referenced (Oklahoma Criterion-Reference Reading Test). Specifically, we found a significant relationship between How Problems of Reading Fuency and Comprehension are Related to Difficulties… 83 students’ syntactic awareness and their reading comprehension performance as measured by the Gates MacGinitie reading test (r=.816; p < .01) and the state’s criterion referenced reading test (r=.700; p < .01). Table 3 Correlations among Syntactic Awareness, Reading Fluency and Comprehension Syntactic Reading Reading Decoding Gates Awareness Fluency Rate Accuracy CRTReading Comprehension (Gates) Syntactic Awareness .816** Oral Reading .727** .625** Fluency Reading Rate .568** .500** Decoding Accuracy .453** .516** .877** .590** .480** Reading .723** .611** Comprehension .887** .700** (CRT) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) .431* The relationships among students’ syntactic awareness and performance on reading fluency and comprehension were also graphically depicted in Figures 1-3 for reading fluency and in Figures 4-5 for reading comprehension performance, respectively. We generated these charts by categorizing the syntactic awareness performance data into four percentile range groups. Thus, the first group (n= 7) represents subject cases that fell below the 25th percentile, the second group (n= 9) represents cases falling between the 25th and 50th percentile, the third group (n= 9) represents cases between the 50th and 75th percentile, and the fourth group (n=7) represents cases at or above the 75th percentile. These figures seem to 84 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 46, No. 1 * Fall 2006 indicate that, as predicted, students’ higher levels of syntactic awareness corresponded to higher levels of reading fluency among the fifth graders in this study. Conversely, lower levels of syntactic awareness corresponded to poorer performance in reading fluency among these students. The data shown in Figures 4 and 5 seem to indicate that lower levels of syntactic awareness correspond to relatively poor reading comprehension performance among the fifth graders in this study. Conversely, students’ higher levels of syntactic awareness corresponded to higher levels of reading comprehension among the fifth graders in this study. These findings are noteworthy in light of the recent advances in reading research, particularly those related to reading fluency and comprehension. Figure 1: Relationship between syntactic awareness and reading rate How Problems of Reading Fuency and Comprehension are Related to Difficulties… 85 Figure 2: Relationship between syntactic awareness and decoding accuracy Figure 3: Relationship between syntactic awareness and oral reading fluency 86 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 46, No. 1 * Fall 2006 Figure 4: Relationship between syntactic awareness and reading comprehension as measured by the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test Figure 5: Relationship between syntactic awareness and reading comprehension as measured by a criterion-referenced reading test How Problems of Reading Fuency and Comprehension are Related to Difficulties… 87 Discussion In this study, we assessed and analyzed thirty-two 5th grade students’ levels of syntactic awareness in relation to their reading comprehension, and to their reading fluency (i.e., decoding accuracy, reading rate, prosody), an aspect of reading whose relevance in relation to both reading comprehension and syntactic skills have not been well documented in prior research. The aim was to examine the role of syntactic awareness as a potential source of reading fluency and comprehension difficulty for these readers. We found that the students’ levels of syntactic awareness were significantly related to their reading fluency (r= .625) and reading comprehension performance (r= .816). As predicted, we found that students who showed deficits in syntactic awareness performed poorly on measures of reading comprehension and reading fluency. Conversely, we found that higher levels of syntactic awareness corresponded to higher levels of comprehension performance among these students. These findings support the view that poor comprehenders appear to have language processing difficulties encompassing awareness of the syntactic or grammatical structure of the language. They indicate to us that students’ syntactic awareness skills are closely related to their reading skills. As such, they are at odds with some prior research work, which has suggested that poor syntactic awareness may be a by-product of poor phonemic awareness skills (e.g., Smith, Macaruso, Shankweiler, & Crain, 1989). On the other hand, they provide support for more recent research work, which has shown that students’ poor syntactic awareness skills may not be sufficiently explained by phonemic weaknesses alone and that they must be looked at in relation to broader language skills such as syntax (e.g., Nation & Snowling, 2000, 2004; Scott, 2004, Cain & Oakhill, 2004). In fact, the importance and relevance of syntactic awareness and its relation to reading fluency and comprehension may have been obscured by an over-emphasis on decoding and phonemic awareness skills weaknesses. For example, Nation & Snowling (2000, 2004) and Stothard & Hulme (1992) have shown that children with comprehension problems have weak syntactic awareness skills, suggesting that “poor comprehenders’ difficulties extend beyond problems with reading comprehension to more general weaknesses with language processing” (Nation & Snowling, 2000, p. 236). Consistent with these findings, other researchers (e.g., Bentin, Deutsch, & Liberman, 1990; Demont & Gombert, 1996; Gaux & Gombert, 1999), have shown that children’s ability to detect and correct 88 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 46, No. 1 * Fall 2006 syntactic errors is directly related to reading comprehension, and that poor comprehenders had more difficulty with explicit syntactic knowledge, such as word order, than did good comprehenders. These findings are also consistent with prior theorizing regarding children’s syntactic development, which presumably occurs throughout the preschool and elementary school years. Menyuk (1999), for example, suggests that children follow a set of predictable developmental phases to acquire abilities to comprehend and produce language structures, judge the correctness of structures, and make corrections in their own language productions. Indeed, the development of syntactic control continues well into, and possibly through the upper elementary grades and is thought to follow a well-determined developmental sequence (see Ruddell & Ruddell, 1994). Fillmore and Snow (2000) noted that language is a vital developmental area throughout the years of schooling, irrespective of children’s linguistic, cultural, or social background. They argue that: All children have a long way to go developmentally before they can be regarded as mature members of their speech communities. As they progress through the grades, children will acquire the grammatical structures, forms, and strategies for the more sophisticated and precise ways of using language that are associated with maturity and being educated.” (p. 7). The findings of this study have relevance for reading teachers and researchers. They have important implications for research and instruction addressing the potential contribution of broader language skills, such as syntax, to the development of reading fluency and comprehension. First, we suggest expanding the research base on the importance and relevance of syntax and its relation to the development of students’ reading fluency and comprehension skills. We encourage research work involving in-depth analyses of single case studies as well as larger data sets of students varying in syntactic ability levels to determine the relative contribution of syntactic awareness skills to both reading fluency and reading comprehension. Findings from such investigations can potentially lead to a better understanding of the role of syntactic skills in developing fluency and comprehension and perhaps the reasons why some readers fail to learn to read while others succeed. Second, we encourage the development of fine-grained measures for assessing students’ syntactic awareness and related language processes. These measures can help distinguish between students’ How Problems of Reading Fuency and Comprehension are Related to Difficulties… 89 syntactic awareness (a metalinguistic skill), and their knowledge of syntactic structures, which refer to the conscious understanding of syntactic categories and their functions, and how each contributes to the development of reading fluency and comprehension. Finally, we encourage the development of language-based curricula and the design of effective instruction aimed at determining how the improvement of syntactic awareness would impact reading fluency and reading comprehension among students’ varying in reading ability levels and experiences. Limitations While the findings of this study, and others like it, point to an important connection between syntactic awareness and aspects of reading ability, they must be interpreted with a great deal of caution. For example, they must not be construed to imply a causal relationship between syntactic awareness and reading development for struggling readers such as the ones used in this study. The relationships depicted Figures 1-5 need to be interpreted cautiously as well due to the number of high intercorrelations among the variables used (see Table 3). In other words, the graphs do not clearly tell us whether there is a direct relation between syntactic awareness and any given variable by itself. For instance, reading rate and reading comprehension might be influenced by decoding accuracy. In addition, the relatively small number of subjects used in this initial study (n=32) limits the generalizability of the results beyond the students involved. As we indicated above, we encourage the use of larger data sets of students to enable in-depth examination of the relative contributions of syntactic awareness to the determination of reading fluency and reading comprehension over and above word reading rate and decoding accuracy. As researchers, we are fully aware of this constraint and are in the process of completing a series of individual, small and large group investigations aimed at systematically studying the nature of this relationship. Preliminary data from a small pilot study underway have so far shown that incremental increases syntactic awareness through direct instruction lead to improved reading fluency and reading comprehension among struggling fifth grade students. These findings, which are consistent with prior research work in support of a causal link between reading comprehension and syntactic awareness (see especially Gaux & Gombert, 1999; Demont & Gombert, 1996; Tunmer, 1989), seem to point 90 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 46, No. 1 * Fall 2006 to a possible causal link between children's underlying syntactic awareness and success in reading fluently and with adequate comprehension. Clearly, much more research work is needed to determine the nature of such an important causal relationship between syntactic skills and reading. The idea is that if children, given intensive instruction in syntactic awareness, make major gains in reading fluency and comprehension, then such metalinguistic processing as a cause of reading difficulty could be given credibility. The improvement of syntactic awareness, a metalinguistic skill, remains largely untested and we urge researchers to continue the search for more direct links between language and reading components, and to consider developing instructional paradigms that build on such research. Findings from several of such studies can be quite significant not only to our understanding of the role of metalinguistic awareness skills in developing students’ reading fluency and comprehension, but also to the development of adequate measures for assessing such language-based processes, and devising effective teaching strategies for enhancing students’ reading fluency and comprehension. How Problems of Reading Fuency and Comprehension are Related to Difficulties… 91 References Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Author (2002). Harcourt Trophies Series. Harcourt School Publishers. New York. Author (2003). Oklahoma Core Curriculum Test (CRT Reading). Oklahoma City, OK. Oklahoma State Department of Education. Bentin, S., Deutsch, A., & Liberman, LY. (1990). Syntactic competence and reading ability in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 147-172. Berman, R. (2004). (Ed.). Language development across childhood and adolescence (pp. 111-134). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bryant, P., Nunes, T. & Bindman, M. (1998). Awareness of language in children who have reading difficulties: Historical comparisons in a longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 501-510. Cain, K. & Oakhill, J. (2004). Reading comprehension difficulties. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of Children's Literacy (pp. 313-338). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Carlisle, J. (2004). Morphological processes that influence learning to read. In C.A., Stone, E.R. Silliman, B.J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.). Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 318-339). New York, NY: Gilford Press. Chafe, W. (1988). Punctuation and the prosody of written language. Written Communication, 5, 396-426. Demont, E., & Gombert, J.E. (1996). Phonological awareness as a predictor of decoding skills and syntactic awareness as a predictor of comprehension skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 315-332. Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389-406. Fillmore, L.W., & Snow, C.E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics Special Report. Gaux, C., & Gombert, J.E. (1999). Implicit and explicit syntactic knowledge and reading in pre-adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 17, 169-188. 92 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 46, No. 1 * Fall 2006 Goswami, U., & Bryant, P.E. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. London, Erlbaum. Gottardo, A., Stanovich, K.E., & Siegel, L.S. (1996). The relationship between phonological sensitivity, syntactic processing, and verbal working memory in the reading performance of third grade children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 563-582. Hammill, D., & Newcomer, P. L. (1996). Test of Language DevelopmentIntermediate (TOLD-I: 3). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Juel, C., Griffith, P. and Gough, P. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children and first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255. Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 321. Leikin, M. (2002). Processing syntactic functions of words in normal and dyslexic readers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31 (2), 145-163. Lyster, S., H. (2002). The effects of morphological versus phonological awareness training in kindergarten on reading development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 262-294. MacGinite, W., & MacGinite, R. (1989). Gates-MacGinite Reading Test (3rd Edition). Riverside Publishing. Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 191-218. Menyuk, P. (1999). Reading and linguistic development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Nation, K., Clark, P., Marshall, C. M., & Durand, M. (2004). Hidden language impairments in students: Parallels between poor reading comprehension and specific language impairment? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Impairment, 47, 199-211. Nation, K., & Snowling, M.J. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: the validity and utility of current measures of reading skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359-370. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (2000). Factors influencing syntactic awareness skills in normal readers and poor comprehenders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 229-241. How Problems of Reading Fuency and Comprehension are Related to Difficulties… 93 Nation, K., & Snowling, M.J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 342-356. Nation, K., Clarke, P., & Snowling, M. (2002). General cognitive ability in children with reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (4), 549-559. Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J.J., Wixon, K.K., Campbell, J.R., Gough, P. B., & Beaty, A.S. (1995). Listening to Children Read Aloud. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C. Rand Reading Study Group. (2001). Reading for understanding: Toward and R & D program in reading comprehension. Office of Education Research and Improvement. Arlington, VA: Rand Education. Ruddell, R.B., & Ruddell, M.R (1994). Language Acquisition and Literacy Processes. In Ruddell, R.B, Ruddell, M.R, and Singer, H (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (4th Edition). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Schreiber, P. A. (1987). Prosody and structure in children’s syntactic processing. In R. Horowitz, and S. J. Samuel, (Eds.), Comprehending Oral and Written Language (pp. 243-270). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schreiber, P. A. (1991). Understanding prosody's role in reading acquisition. Theory into Practice, 30 (3), 158-164. Schreiber, P.A. (1980). On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12 (3), 177-186. Scott, C. (2004). Syntactic contributions to literacy learning. In C.A., Stone, E.R. Silliman, B.J. Ehren, & K. Apel.(Eds.). Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 340-362). New York, NY: Gilford Press. Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 238-252. Smith, S.T., Macaruso, P., Shankweiler, D., & Crain, S. (1989). Syntactic comprehension in young poor readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 420-454. Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 94 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 46, No. 1 * Fall 2006 Stone, C.A., Silliman, E.R., Ehren, B. J., & Apel, K. (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 340-362). New York, NY: Gilford Press. Stothard, S.E., & Hulme, C. (1992). Reading comprehension difficulties in children: The role of language comprehension and working memory skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 245-256. Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276-286. Tunmer, W.E. (1989). The role of language-related factors in reading disability. In D. Shankweiler & I.Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle (pp. 91–132). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1991). The pre-eminence of phonologically based skills in learning to read. In S. Brady & D. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Liberman (pp. 237-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficultto-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638. Walker, B.J., Mokhtari, K., Sargent, S. (2006). Reading fluency: More than fast and accurate reading. In Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C. Lems, K. (Eds). Fluency Instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 86-105). New York, NY. Guilford Press. Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.