RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Action Research Project

Ellen DeWitt
Samford University

Author Note
Ellen DeWitt, Orlean Bullard Beeson School of Education, Samford University student.
Contact: edewitt@samford.edu

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Action Research
Ellen DeWitt
1st grade
1. Initial Meeting with Cooperating Teacher
I met with my cooperating teacher, Ms. Gartman, on September 30th. I explained
our requirements for Action Research and she assigned me two students, Student A and
Student S, to work with for my project. We decided two students would be a good
number so I could really focus and help them improve. These are two higher end
students who do not get extra attention or get pulled out of the class. They are on the
same Fountas and Pinnell reading level, so she thought it would be ideal for me to work
with these two students to keep consistency. She explained that I would be working with
good readers who need to take the next step in their instruction towards reading fluently
and with much expression.
Student A: Student A is on Fountas and Pinnell reading level J. Ms. Gartman informed
me that this is the level that second graders should start out at, and this was just at the
beginning of first grade. He is one of the two strongest readers in the class. However, Ms.
Gartman informed me that although he is a very fast reader, his expression and fluency
really struggled. This student does not struggle reading the words, but he reads with a
very monotone, flat voice and often ignores punctuation; two areas that give the text
meaning. Ms. Gartman unfortunately does not have the time to focus with this higherlevel student on expression since she spends most of her time working with smaller,
intervention groups of children who are still learning how to read.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Student S: Student S is also on Fountas and Pinnell reading level J. Student S is also a
very strong reader. She struggles a little bit more than Student A with accuracy and pace.
However, those were not Ms. Gartmans worries, as she is already above where first
graders should be in their reading levels. We decided that I should also work with Student
S on her expression, since Ms. Gartman does not have the time to focus on this yet.
Student S often reads simply the words, not reading fluently and with expression to give
the text more meaning. She often reads without proper phrasing, another area of fluency,
as well.

2. The Question
After Ms. Gartman determined the target students I would be working with, I
thought of a question I wanted to address with the identified learners. I had to think about
what I wanted to do to help these students who were good readers that needed that extra
step towards reading with expression. I needed to think how I could help them improve.
After determining with Ms. Gartman that these students needed help improving their
expression, I determined my Action Research question: What are the most effective
strategies for improving expression?. I was excited to dig into the research of these
strategies, because expressive and fluent reading ultimately leads to better comprehension
and understanding of the text. By providing my two students with the skills to become
expressive readers, I knew that they would become stronger readers and able to
comprehend better overall.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

3. Baseline Data
Before developing a plan or timeline, I knew I needed to collect some baseline
data in order to see how my students felt about reading and how expressively they were
reading to begin with. I knew I could not effectively teach them anything at their level if I
did not know where they were beginning. I needed some baseline data in order to help
formulate my plan for instruction. I collected five pieces of baseline data for each of my
students: an Interest Inventory, a Fountas and Pinnell running record from Ms. Gartman,
the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012), the Comprehensive Oral
Reading Fluency (CORF) Scale (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012), and the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) Oral Reading Fluency Scale (NAEP, 2005).
Interest Inventory:
Student A: After administering an interest inventory to A, I learned that he also loves to
read, especially science and chapter books. He thinks he read 120 books last year. He
reads every day at home, by himself silently. Lately, Student A has been reading a lot of
chapter books, including the Magic Tree House series. When he comes to something he
does not know in a book, he asks his mom if he cannot sound it out himself. Student A
prefers reading to himself rather than out loud. He informed me that he does not like
fiction picture books because they do not provide any knowledge. He prefers chapter
books and nonfiction books. Reading is easy for him because it is so easy to read the
words and sound them out. His favorite places to read are at home, in school, in his
room, or in the car on the way to the movie theater.
Student S: After administering an interest inventory to Student S, I found out that she
loves to read because funny books make her laugh. I learned that she reads a lot and she

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

skipped levels G, H, and I and went straight to J. She reads every day at home and her
parents also read to her. She has been reading Junie B. Jones books lately and loves them.
When she reads something she doesnt understand, she either skips it and tries to figure it
out using the rest of the context, tries to sound out the word, or asks an adult. She likes
reading both out loud and to herself. Her favorite books are chapter books, magazines,
and nonfiction books. Sometimes reading is easy for her, and other times it is hard
(especially chapter books). Her favorite spot to read is somewhere quiet, oftentimes her
bedroom.
After administering the Interest Inventory to my two students, I was excited that these
students did enjoy reading. They both had a positive attitude about reading, which made
my experience working with them that much better. They both liked chapter books,
which was also beneficial to me. Knowing the attitudes towards reading of my students,
this motivated me to work hard with these students towards bettering their fluency and
expression. My students having a positive attitude towards the subject I would be
focusing on with them throughout the semester made the experience better for Student S,
Student A, and me.
Fountas and Pinnell Running Record (completed by Ms. Gartman):
Ms. Gartman provided me with a Fountas and Pinnell recording form for both Student A
and Student S from the middle of September. This record scores accuracy, self-correction
ratio, fluency, rate, and comprehension. Since I would be working with the students on
expression, I focused on the fluency scale that this record provided. I was gracious that
Ms. Gartman gave me this before I completed any of my own fluency scales and
assessments because I knew where the students were starting.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Student A: Ms. Gartman had Student A read a level J Fountas and Pinnell nonfiction
passage called More Than A Pet. He had 98 percent accuracy and Ms. Gartman scored
his fluency as a 3. Personally, after hearing Student A read many times over the semester,
I would have scored his fluency as a 2. He does read fast, accurately, and with proper
phrasing, which is probably why Ms. Gartman scored his fluency the highest possible.
His expression however, was usually not present when I heard him read at the beginning
of the semester. He generally read with a monotone voice and ignored punctuation
throughout the whole passage.
Student S: Ms. Gartman had Student S read a level J Fountas and Pinnell fiction passage
called Our New Neighbors. She had 97 percent accuracy and scored a level 2 on the
fluency scale. In the expression category, this implies that she read with some smooth,
expressive interpretation and pausing guided by authors meaning and punctuation. I
would agree with Ms. Gartman on scoring Student S a 2 on the fluency scale.

Multidimensional Fluency Scale:

I found a 3-Minute Reading Assessment (Davids, 2011) passage to administer to my
students for the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012). This scale
has five categories for assessing fluency: accuracy, expression and volume, phrasing,
smoothness, and pace. Scoring these assessments and using them to guide further
instruction, I focused on the Expression and Volume category. I used a second grade
passage since my two students are on a second grade reading level.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Student A: On the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012), I scored
Student A with a 4 in accuracy (96-100%), a 1 in expression and volume, a 2 in phrasing,
a 4 in smoothness, and a 4 in pace. Student A read the words correctly, smoothly without
breaks, and sounded conversational in his pace, however his expression was low. He read
with little expression and enthusiasm. It sounded like he was reading the words simply to
get them out. His reading did not sound like natural language, and read in a quiet voice.
Student S: On The Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012), I scored
Student S with a 2 in accuracy (86-90%), a 2 in expression and volume, a 2 in phrasing, a
3 in smoothness, and a 3 in pace. I realized that the passage was a bit more difficult for
Student S than Student A, so this is perhaps why some of her scores were lower.
However, her expression was not where it needed to be and did not line up with her pace
and accuracy overall. She read with some expression and used her voice to make the text
sound like natural language in some areas of the passage, but not others. She focused
mainly on saying the words, and read with a quiet voice.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Oral Reading Fluency Scale:

For my last initial assessment, I used the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) Oral Reading Fluency Scale (NAEP, 2005). I found another 3-Minute Reading
Assessment (Davids, 2011) for my students to read while I rated their expression. This
scale focuses primarily on phrasing and how it conveys meaning to the text. The highest
level on this scale is a 4 and the lowest is a 1.
Student A: Listening to Student A read this passage, I really noticed that he was skipping
over punctuation often. He often gets too caught up in reading the words. I scored him a 3

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

on this scale, only because levels 1 and 2 do not mention expression at all. On this scale,
a student reading at level 3 reads in three to four-word phrase groups. It also states that
little or no expressive interpretation is present, and this is why I scored him a 3 on this
fluency scale. He was reading too fast to focus on his fluency and expression.
Student S: I also scored Student S a 3 on the NAEP Oral Reading Fluency Scale. Her
phrasing was appropriate for the most part, but she had little expressive interpretation at
all while reading.
The Comprehensive Oral Reading Fluency (CORF) Scale:
The Comprehensive Oral Reading Fluency (CORF) Scale (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012)
also measures oral reading fluency. It focuses on automaticity (words correct per minute)
and expression (intonation and pausing). Since I was mostly focused on expression for
my action research, when using this scale, I estimated their WCPM instead of calculating
it. When looking at the initial data used to plan my instruction, I focused on the
intonation and pausing aspects of this scale. I used a short second grade passage, Jose
and the Sailboat found on The Florida Center for Reading Research for both of my
students since they are on the same reading level.
Student A: I scored Student A between a 1 and a 2 in the intonation category (4 being the
highest). His intonation was mostly flat and did not match punctuation with the meaning
of the text. There were few pitch distinctions in his voice. His intonation did not
communicate meaning to the text. I scored his pausing a 3; he had brief pauses every
couple of sentences, but they rarely interrupted the flow of the text. I knew I needed to
work on his intonation, primarily.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Student S: I scored Student S a 2 in the intonation category. Her intonation was

frequently flat and did not match punctuation to guide meaning of the text. She had
appropriate pitch variation on only a few sentences, but was usually flat. I also scored her
pausing rating a 2. Student S read with frequent pausing within sentences. She paused
often between phrases, as well.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

10

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

11

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

12

Using Data to Inform My Instruction:

After using these five assessments to gather initial data, I found the strengths and
weaknesses of my students. Student A was a great reader; he could read fast and
accurately. However, he read with a flat, monotone voice almost always. I did not need to
worry about his pace or accuracy at all. Student S struggled a bit more than Student A
with accuracy and pace, but she was still at a second grade reading level, so I knew I
would not need to focus on this with her, either. She struggled reading with expression
and intonation. Looking at all of my initial data, it was clear what needed to happen. I
knew I needed to help both of my students with their prosody, expression, and
punctuation while reading. The music of language helps students comprehend and
convey meaning to the text, so I knew this is what needed to happen to further and better
their reading skills. This data further clarified my evidence that my initial question was
going to be what I would be doing for my Action Research this semester. I knew that
next, I needed to consult the research to find best practices and strategies to help these
students out with expression.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

13

4. Review of Literature
Abstract
This paper discusses best practices for developing and improving reading fluency.
Reading fluency is reading with proper accuracy, rate, phrasing, prosody, and
comprehension (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012). Reading fluency has been one of the areas in
reading that tends to get neglected, but it needs much attention. Without fluency, it is
difficult to comprehend the texts (Groves Academy School, 2012). Non-fluent readers
read word-by-word, while fluent readers read accurately, effortlessly, and with
expression (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012). This paper explores many methods of fluency
instruction that have been researched and proven successful for improving reading. Most
importantly, fluent reading should be modeled. Fluency will be improved with many
opportunities for students to practice wide reading at an appropriately challenging level.
Other instructional practices include choral reading, repeated reading, cloze reading,
partner reading, student-adult reading, and readers theater (Texas Education Agency,
2002).

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

14

The Importance of Expression in Reading Fluency

Reading fluency is defined as reading using grade-level-appropriate rate, accurate
and effortless word automaticity, proper expression or prosody, correct phrasing or
chunking, and also comprehension. Fluent readers recognize words automatically, while
non-fluent readers read word-by-word. Fluent reading is an important factor in being a
strategic and skillful reader because it leads to comprehension (Reutzel and Cooter,
2012). Fluency involves all other facets of reading; it is the end result of all the other
strands of reading. However, fluency often gets neglected and or is one of the last areas
of reading to get attention. Without reading fluently, it is hard to understand the text and
know what it is talking about. It is important that readers go beyond the authors ideas
and think about our own thoughts. Reading fluently is the first way to do this (Groves
Academy School, 2012).
It is important that teachers work with their students to help them develop
fluency. They should especially work on them with expression, word stress, and phrasing,
as speed will come with time and practice (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012). Many students
need explicit, or direct, fluency instruction. Reading needs to be multi-sensory; students
should see, hear, touch, and write text (Groves Academy School, 2012). Most
importantly, fluent reading should be modeled. Children should hear a range of texts read
fluently with much expression. By listening to a model of fluent reading, students learn
the behaviors of fluent reading and they learn how a readers voice gives meaning to the
text (Texas Education Agency, 2002). Not only should students hear modeling of fluent
reading, but they should also hear examples of non-fluent reading. This alerts struggling

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

15

readers the bad characteristics of this type of reading. They realize what they might sound
like themselves and realize that it is not fluent (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012).
Good readers read often and read appropriately challenging materials. According
to the National Reading Panel, students improve in reading by experiencing regular, daily
reading practice (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012). In a study done by Groves Academy School,
second graders rate improved by thirty words per minute simply by reading often and
having a teacher there for guidance if they struggle with a word (Groves Academy
School, 2012). Students should read texts that are challenging, but not too challenging.
Reading these texts guides the transition from reading word-by-word to fluent reading
(Reutzel and Cooter, 2012). It is also important that students read widely. They should
read different text types across many different genres. Students should read informational
texts, narratives, expository texts, and poetic texts. Narratives, however, are often more
difficult because following a dialogue is involved. The more students read from a variety
of texts, the more their fluency will improve (Groves Academy School, 2012).
One best practice for fluent reading instruction is choral reading. In choral
reading, everyone including the teacher reads together. The students can follow the
teachers pace, and the teacher can stop any time to ask questions or discuss with the
class (Hasbrouck, 2006). Patterned or predictable texts are beneficial for choral reading
because they invite students to join in (Texas Education Agency, 2002). Similar to choral
reading, cloze reading is another best practice for improving fluency. The teacher reads
along as the students read along silently. The teacher can stop at a word and have the
students read it aloud together. Although the students are not actually practicing, but it
keeps them engaged and no one is left embarrassed if they cannot keep up out loud as in

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

16

choral reading (Hasbrouck, 2006). After choral or cloze reading occurs, students should
go back and reread the text. This is called repeated reading. Studies show that rereading a
passage four or five times leads to better automaticity and improves fluency. Repeated
reading helps students recognize word patterns. It also provides children with multiple
exposures to words (Groves Academy School, 2012).
Another best practice for improving fluency is partner reading. Pairs of students
get together and take turns reading with each other. Teachers should pair fluent readers
with struggling readers so they can model fluent reading. Students can give feedback to
each other (Hasbrouck, 2006). Readers Theater is a relatively new instructional method
for practicing fluent reading. Students rehearse and perform a play while reading a script
for their peers. This improves fluency by letting them practice. Finally, tape-assisted
reading is a great way for students to hear modeled fluent reading. The text should be at
their reading level (Texas Education Agency, 2002).
Automaticity, rate, expression, all facets of fluent reading, eventually lead to
comprehension. Practicing fluent reading helps students reading overall. It is important
that students are modeled fluent reading, read a wide range of texts that are appropriately
challenging, read often, practice choral reading, repeated reading, and more. These best
practices discussed above are the keys to improve students fluency. Students will
understand what they are reading if they can read fluently, which leads to their own
thoughts and ideas about the text and other things. This is ultimately our goal; to promote
higher-level thinking among our students.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

17

5. Timeline

Session
Number
Pre-Session

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4
Session 5

Session 6

Completed
Initial meeting with Ms. Gartman
Determine number of students and which students I will be
working with
Determine the needs of each student and my Action Research
question
Gave me Student S and Student As Fountas and Pinnell
Running Record forms
Administer reading interest inventory with my group
Initial Assessments
Administer Multidimensional Fluency Scale
o 3-Minute Reading Assessment
Administer Comprehensive Oral Reading (CORF) Scale
o Jose and the Sailboat
Administer National Assessment of Educational Progress
Fluency Scale (NAEP)
o 3-Minute Reading Assessment
Teaching Session
Model Fluent Reading and Non-fluent Reading
Pigs Make Me Sneeze! by Mo Willems
Choral Read
o Passages from Magic Tree House and Junie B. Jones
Repeated Reading (orally and to self)
o Fluency Sentence Strips
Expression Spinner
Teaching Session
Scale to rate fluent reading heard online
o Barnes and Noble Online Story Time
Fluency Voice Jar
o Passages from Magic Tree House and Junie B. Jones
Midpoint Assessment
Multidimensional Fluency Scale
o The Bakery
Teaching Session
Modeled Fluent and Non-fluent Reading
o Yo! Yes? by Chris Raschka
Punctuation and My Voice chart
o Example sentence strips
Readers Theater
o Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss
Final Assessment

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

18

Multidimensional Fluency Scale

o Passages from Magic Tree House and Junie B. Jones

Strategies Used:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Choral Reading
Modeling Fluent Reading
Modeling Non-fluent Reading
Repeated Reading
a. Orally and silently
Reading a range of texts
Readers Theater
Expression Spinner
Fluency and My Voice jar

Assessments and Passages Used:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Interest Inventory
Fountas and Pinnell Running Record
Multidimensional Fluency Scale
The Comprehensive Oral Reading Fluency (CORF) Scale
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Oral Reading Fluency
Scale
Magic Tree House and Junie B. Jones
Jose and the Sailboat (second grade)
The Bakery (second grade)
3-Minute Reading Assessments (second grade)

Midpoint Assessment Reflection- Using Data to Inform Instruction:

After I gathered all of my baseline data, my next two teaching sessions focused on
expression, primarily using emotion when we read. When I completed my Midpoint
Assessment, I was proud in how far the students had come in their expressive reading,
proper emotion, and intonation. Student A received a 2 in the Expression and Volume
Category, and Student S received a 3. They both improved in their expression. However,
I noticed that my both Student S and Student A were having trouble using punctuation to
guide meaning of the text. They were often reading past punctuation marks, or ignoring
change in pitch when reading an exclamation point or question mark. So, for my next

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

teaching session, I decided to focus on punctuation and expressive reading. I had a
Punctuation and My Voice chart with example sentences. I had other example strips
with phrases and sentences with periods, exclamation points, and question marks at the
end. I had the students practice reading these sentence/phrase strips using proper
intonation in their voices with the corresponding punctuation mark.

6. Progress Monitoring Chart

19

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Student A:

Student S:

20

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

21

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

22

7. Data and Strategies Log

Date/Time
Spent
9/30

Strategy

Initial
Assessments

30 min.

Assessment/Lesson

Interest Inventory
Fountas & Pinnell
Running Records
Multidimensional
Fluency Scale
CORF Scale

10/7
15 min.

10/21

Model Fluent
Reading and
Non-fluent
Reading

NAEP Scale
I read Pigs Make
Me Sneeze! by Mo
Willems two times;
once non-fluently
and the next
fluently.

Data
Observation/Progress
Next
Collected
Monitoring
Session
(if
applicable)
See graph
Both students love
Work on
below
reading and are the
reading
two highest readers in with proper
Ms. Gartmans class.
emotion
Both students read
with great pace and
accuracy, but little to
zero expression and
intonation.
N/A

Choral Read

N/A

N/A

Repeated
Reading

Students must draw

five sentence strips
out of a bag. They
went off on their
own and practiced
reading their
sentences orally and
to themselves. They
came back to me

Student A:
5/5
expressive

10 min.

10/21
15 min.

Student S:
5/5
expressive

The students noticed

what I had done and
preferred the fluent
way. They noticed that
the first way was
boring and my voice
did not change the
whole time. They
noted characteristics of
my voice when I read
fluently and with
much expression.
Both students and I
read passages from
Magic Tree House and
Junie B. Jones orally
together. The students
kept up with me and
caught on to my
expression, intonation,
and phrasing.
Students enjoyed
getting up from their
seats and practicing
their sentence strips.
They read them
repeatedly and I was
proud at how far they
had come just since
the beginning of the

Choral
Read; have
the students
start
practicing
reading
fluently

Repeated
Reading
with
Sentence
Strips

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

10/21
5 min.

10/28
20 min.

11/4
10 min.

and I scored them

either expressive,
semi-expressive,
or not expressive.
Expression
Students had a
Spinner/Fluency passage and an
Jar
expression spinner.
They used a paper
clip and pencil to
spin, and whatever
they landed on, they
must read the
passage with the
corresponding
emotion. Jar had the
same principle, but
students drew
emotion cards out
of a jar to practice.
Hearing fluent
Students listened to
reading
one story each
modeled/rating (Olivia and
Alexander and the
Terrible, Horrible,
No Good, Very Bad
Day) on Barnes
and Noble Online
Story Time on
iPads and rated the
reader using a scale

Midpoint
Assessment

Multidimensional
Fluency Scale

23
lesson.

(N/A):
practice
portion of
lesson

Students enjoyed this

activity. Student S
sounded the same for a
few of her spins/cards,
but I was proud of her
for using emotion and
expression at all while
reading.

Using
technology
to hear
models of
fluent
reading and
rating using
a scale

N/A:
practice
portion of
lesson

Students enjoyed this

activity. Student A
rated his reader as
good for Reads
clearly and fluently so
that I can understand,
great for Reads
with Expression and
needs work for
Uses different voices
for different
characters. Student S
rated her reader as
great for Reads
clearly and fluently so
that I can understand,
great for reads with
expression, and
needs work for
uses different voices
for different
characters.
Both students
improved their scores
in the Expression and
Volume category of
this scale.

Midpoint
Assessment

See graph

Modeling
Fluent and
Non-fluent
reading

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

24

11/4

Modeled Fluent
and Non-fluent
Reading

I read Yo! Yes? by

N/A
Chris Raschka two
times; the first time
non-fluently and the
next time fluently.

11/18

Punctuation
and My Voice
chart

N/A

11/18

Readers
Theater

I made a chart with

three punctuation
marks (period,
exclamation point,
and question mark)
and what happens
to our voice when
we use them. I had
example sentence
strips for the
students to practice
using punctuation
to guide meaning to
the text.
Students performed
a Readers Theater
of Green Eggs and
Ham by Dr. Seuss

12/2

Final
Assessment

Multidimensional
Fluency Scale

See graph
below

N/A

Both students noticed

what I had done and
preferred the fluent
reading. They noticed
that the first way was
boring and my voice
did not change the
whole time. They
noted characteristics of
my voice when I read
fluently and with
much expression.
Students read their
sentence strips with
correct punctuation.

Using
punctuation
to read
expressively

Student S had trouble

with how a script
works. Perhaps I
should have taught
how a Readers
Theater worked before
I instructed them to
perform it. Students
read with expression.
Both students scored
the highest possible in
the Expression and
Volume category of
this scale. They
improved immensely
from the beginning.

Final
Assessment

Readers
Theater

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

25

Student A
Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Expression
and Volume)
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
Student A

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Intial

Midpoint

Final

Student S
Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Expression
and Volume)
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Student S

Intial

Midpoint

Final

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

26

8. Reflection
I believe that both my students and I learned and grew as students and educators
throughout my whole Action Research project. The main thing I learned was how
teachers use their data to drive instruction. I also learned how beneficial teachers are to
students and how much students enjoy the extra attention from teachers. Student A and
Student S enjoyed working with me every time I pulled them out of the classroom.
Perhaps this has to do with their love of reading, but their positive attitude toward the
subject increased mine and made the whole process easier and better for me.
My students were already great readers who read with proficient accuracy and
pace. However, these students needed help in their expression and fluency. This was the
next step they needed in their reading instruction. Expression and punctuation lead to
overall better comprehension and understanding of the text. I used my research and my
data to drive my instruction. Research shows that best strategies for improving fluency
include modeling, choral reading, repeated reading, reading often, Readers Theater, etc.,
so this is what I used in my lessons. I also had the students practice reading using
different emotions multiple times because I noticed they were struggling here when
giving my initial assessments.
After my first few sessions, I noticed what they were doing a great job in and
where they needed work. They were reading with more expression than the beginning of
our time together, but they were reading past punctuation. Punctuation gives the text
meaning. So, for my next session, we focused much on punctuation rather than emotion. I
got the best data from the Multidimensional Fluency Scale out of my five initial
assessments, so this is what I decided to use for the remainder of my project. In the

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

27

Expression and Volume category, Student A began at a 1, at midpoint rose to a 2, and

ended at a 4. Student S began at a 2, rose to a 3, and ended at a 4. Both students improved
immensely. This is something that might not have happened with these students until
much later in their schooling. Especially in first grade, classroom teachers have to focus
on the students who are still emerging, beginning readers. Higher-level readers do not get
as much one-on-one attention as these more developing readers. Student A and Student S
loved the attention they received from me and were learning along the way. Another
thing I learned was that a fluency scale will not guide all instruction. I really had to pay
close attention when Student A and Student S were reading orally to me. Oftentimes, a
fluency scale does not include juncture and punctuation, so I had to make note of this
elsewhere in order to know to go back and teach it.
I learned that intervention is a process. This was a semesters length project and it
took patience and time. When I had my students fill out their progress monitoring chart,
they always remembered what we had been working on and where they needed to
continue working. This made me really proud and showed me that my hard work and
their hard work were paying off. Student A and Student S went from good readers to
expressive, fluent readers. I learned that you can have a reader at a really high reading
level, but this does not necessarily mean that they are fluent readers or comprehend what
they read.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

28
References

Davids, V. (n.d.). Grade 2: Form A. Retrieved December 7, 2014, from Basehor-Linwood

Virtual School website:
http://www.blvs.org/gen/blvs/Reading__Grade_2_Form_A_p313.html
Davids, V. (n.d.). Grade 2: Form C. Retrieved December 7, 2014, from Basehor-Linwood
Virtual School website:
http://www.blvs.org/gen/blvs/Reading__Grade_2_Form_C_p315.html
Fluency. (2007, July). Retrieved December 7, 2014, from The Florida Center for Reading
Research website: http://www.fcrr.org/FAIR_Search_Tool/PDFs/2-3F_012.pdf
Fluency. (2007, July). Retrieved December 7, 2014, from The Florida Center for Reading
Research website: http://www.fcrr.org/studentactivities/F_029b.pdf
GrovesAcademySchool. (n.d.). Strategies for developing reading fluency [Video file].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUhsrZf8N8A
Hasbrouck, J. (2006). Developing fluent readers. Reading Rockets.
National association of educational progress. (2002). Retrieved December 7, 2014, from
National Center for Education Statistics website:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/ors/scale.aspx
Newingham, B. (2012). Gathering information about by readers by interviewing them.
Scholastic.
Reutzel, R., & Cooter, R., Jr. (2012). Reading Fluency. In Teaching Children to Read:
The Teacher Makes the Difference (7th ed., pp. 173-193). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

29

Texas Education Agency. (2002). Fluency: Instructional guidelines and student activities.
Reading Rockets.