The Effectiveness of Fluency Building Technique in Teaching Phonic and Vocabulary to Improve Reading Outcome in Slow Learner Children

Violeta Hasan Noor, Rozainee Khairudin, Wan Shahrazad Wan Sulaiman, Lai Oon Ng


Slow Learner (SL) is a term that is used to classify children with boderline intellectual disability or those who are mildly intellectually disabled. Research found that slow-learning children are likely to be three times slower in reading rates with general reading comprehension difficulty compared to their faster-learning peers. While standard methods can be improve reading fluency and comprehension, slow-learning children need special attention and creative solutions that will be critical in improving their reading fluency. this research aims to investigate whether phonics and vocabulary Fluency Building techniques can be effectively combined to improve slow-learning children’s fluency. The research was conducted with 15 participants that ischildren in the first semester of kindergarten at Sekolah Esa and Palm Kids Schools who had been diagnosed with mild or borderline intellectual disabilitiesdivided.


The reserch has found that the Fluency Building technique is an effective approach to support the learning of slow-learning children. This research has illustrated that the cognitive ability of the students is a small hindrance to their reading ability. Hence,  this techniques can be incorporated into the individual teaching approaches dedicated to improving the reading fluency of students.

Keyword: effectiveness, fluency building technique, teaching phonic, vocabulary reading, slow learner children

Full Text:



Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Basaran. M. (2003). Reading fluency as an indicator of reading.

Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13 (4), 2287-2290.

Bentum, K.E., & Aaron, P.G. (2003). Does reading instruction in learning disability resource rooms really work? A longitudinal study. Reading Psychology, 24 (3-4), 361-382.

Binder, C. (1990). Precision teaching & direct instruction: Measurable Superior Instructional Technology in Schools. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3 (4), 74-96.

Binder, C., & Watkins, C.L. (1990). Promoting effective instruction. Americans’ Educational Crisis. Future Choices, 1 (3), 33-39.

Binder, C. (1991). Morningside Academy: A private sector laboratory for effective instruction future choices. 3 (2), 61-63.

Browder, D.M., & Spooner, F. (2006). Teaching language arts, math & science to students with severe developmental disabilities. Baltimore: Brooks.

Chard, D., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. 35 (5), 386-407.

Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Fuchs, L.S., & Barnes, M.A. (2007). Learning Disabilities from Identification to Intervention. New York; London: Guildford Press.

Jenkins, J.R., Fuchs, L.S., Van den Brock, D., Espin, C., &Deno., S.L. (2003). Source of individual differences in reading comprehension & reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719-729.

Jenkins, J.R., Peyton, J.A., Sanders, E.A., &Vadasy, P.F. (2004). Effect of reading decodable texts in supplemental first grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 53-85.

Jimenez, B.A., Mims, P.J., & Browder, J. (2012). Decision guidelines for teachers of students with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. East Tennessee State University Journal, 1 (1), 1-9.

Johnson, K.J., & Street, E.M. (2004). The Morningside Mode of Generative Instruction: An Integration of Research Based Practices. Elsevier Science / Academic Louis Press, 247-265.

Joshi, R.M. (2005). Vocabulary: A critical component of comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(3), 209-219.

Kaltims, D.S. (2001). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation. Historical highlights & contemporary analysis. Education & Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3-15.

Mackay, K. (2001). What’s the difference: Slow learner or learning disabled? SPELDSA Newsletter, Spring 2001. The Specific Learning Difficulties Association of South Australia (SPELDSA). Retrieved October 24, 2012 from:

McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R.L. (1991). The gridlock of low reading achievement perspectives on practice & policy. Remedial & Special Education.

Paige, D.D., Rasinski, T.V., &Magpuri-Lavell, T. (2012). Is fluent expressive reading important for high school readers? Journal of Adult & Adolescent Literacy, 56 (1), 67-76.

Shaw, S.R., Grimes, D., & Bulman, L. (2005). Educating Slow Learners: Are charter schools the last best hope for their educational success? Charter

Schools Resources Journal, 1(1), 10-19.

Sulgrove, M.K. & McLaughlin, T.F. (2004). The effect of an additional timed reading on reading rate. Journal of Precision Teaching &Celeration, 20 (1), 9-16.

Therrien, W.J. (2004). Fluency & comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial & Special Education, 25, 252-261.

Torgesen, J.K., & Hudson, R.F. (2006). Reading Fluency: Critical Issues for struggling readers. In: Farstrup, A., & Samuels, S. (eds), What researchers have to say about reading instruction, 130-158. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Trisulo. (2013). Program Pelatihan Pendidikan Kekhususanbagi Guru Pembimbingkhusus. Jakarta: DirektoratPembinaan PKLK DikdasDirektoratJendral Pendidikan Dasar Kementrian Pendidikan &Kebudayaan.

Yoder, P.J. (1993). Social communication intervention effects vary by dependent variable type in preschoolers with intellectual disabilities. Evidence Based Communication Assessment & Intervention, 7, 150-174.

Taguchi, E., Gorsuch, G. J., Lems, K., &Rosszell, R. (2016). Scaffolding in L2 reading: How repetition and an auditory model help readers.

Wechsler, D. (2012). Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence—fourth edition. The Psychological Corporation San Antonio, TX.

Yoder, P. J., Bottema-Beutel, K., Woynaroski, T., Chandrasekhar, R., & Sandbank, M. (2013). Social communication intervention effects vary by dependent variable type in preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. Evidence-based communication assessment and intervention, 7(4), 150-174.


  • There are currently no refbacks.


The editors and publisher of Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia have made every possible effort to verify the accuracy of all information contained in this publication. Any opinions, discussions, views and recommendations expressed in the article are solely those of the authors and are not of Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia, its editors or its publisher. Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia, its editors and its publisher will not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, or other damages arising therefrom.