Actionresearchprojectpdf

Running Head:The Possibilities of Readers Theater Intervention to Help Improve Below Benchmark Reading Levels and Words Per
Minute Fluency Scores as Measured by the Daily Reading Assessment
The Possibilities of Readers Theater Intervention to Help Improve Below Benchmark Reading Levels and Words Per Minute Fluency Scores as Measured by the Daily Reading Assessment
Rachael A.M. Somes EDU 690 April 12, 2012 University of New England
Statement of Academic Honesty: I have read and understand the plagiarism policy as outlined in the Student Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct document relating to the Honesty/Cheating Policy. By attaching this statement to the title page of my action research paper, I certify that the work submitted is my own original work developed specically for EDU690 and the MSED program. If it is found that cheating and/or plagiarism did take place in the writing of this paper, I acknowledge the possible consequences of the act(s) which could include expulsion from the University of New England. Thank you.
1
Running Head:The Possibilities of Readers Theater Intervention to Help Improve Below Benchmark Reading Levels and Words Per Minute Fluency Scores as Measured by the Daily Reading Assessment
Abstract This Action Research Project investigated and determined the impact of
Readers Theater interventions on students ability to uently read a text based on the oral reading uency standards of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). Four second grade, Title One students participated in this study. The data collection tools included student surveys using the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey, teacher observation and oral uency testing words read per minute (wpm) via the DRA. A student survey was given before beginning the Readers Theater intervention
process in order to gain an understanding of students reading attitudes both academically and recreationally. A pre intervention DRA was also given to each student in order to baseline
current reading levels as well as oral uency wpm scores prior to engaging in Readers Theater interventions. Students completed this pre intervention DRA based soley on past experiences. During the three week readers theater intervention, students received 15
minutes of direct readers theater instruction with a direct focus of uency and expression ve days a week. Students were taught strategies via minilesson and guided instruction. At the conclusion of the intervention period, the students were assessed once
again using the DRA. Findings of the research showed that although reading levels did not increase in all students, wpm oral uency times did increase in all cases and a post survey also indicated that student motivation for reading out loud was also maintained or increased in all cases thus supporting the hypothesis put forth in this action research.
2
Keywords: Readers Theater, second grade, intervention, motivation, oral
uency, words per minute (wpm), Daily Reading Assessment (DRA). Table of Contents Abstract.............................................................................................................................2 Introduction.......................................................................................................................4 Rationale for Study.................................................................................................4 Problem Statement................................................................................................4 Research Questions..............................................................................................5 Hypothesis.............................................................................................................5
Review of Literature..........................................................................................................6 Methodology....................................................................................................................16 Data Collection Plan............................................................................................17
Results, Findings and Discussion...................................................................................17 Limitations............................................................................................................31
Action Plan......................................................................................................................34 Conclusion......................................................................................................................37 References.....................................................................................................................38
Introduction Rationale for Study The ability to read uently impacts the ability to truly comprehend a text. In order
for a reader to reach deep level understanding of a text, they must rst have the surface level skill of uency. Many reading assessments, including the Daily Reading Assessment (DRA) that
is used in the action researchs second grade classroom, include a timed piece. If students are unable to read a text level at a benchmark oral uency score time of words read per minute, then that level of text is deemed too hard and the DRA assessment must be preformed on a lower text level. Often times, students are able to read a higher text level, yet do not meet the oral uency guidelines. With this in mind, a need for teachers to use a form of direct instruct to effectively
help increase students oral uency is much in need. With proper implementation, Readers Theater has been seen as an effective means of increasing reader uency.
Statement of Problem For this study a group of four students from a current second grade classroom at
the Suzanne Smith Elementary School in Levant, Maine were targeted in order to conduct research. This group of students were selected as a focus because, at the time of the research study, they were currently reading two levels below benchmark for the end of the second reporting quarter and they were currently receiving Title One support. Monthly timed running records showed that this particular group of students tended to
take a signicantly longer period of time to nish a one hundred word passage than that of their peers. The parents of these particular students were also directly involved since readers theater scripts were sent home on a weekly basis with each of these four students and a daily check off sheet will need a parental signature to ensure that the readers theater was practiced at home. Also directly affected was the Title One teacher that was, at the time of the study, working with this set of students on a weekly basis. In summary, this research centered around the micro-level consisting of four students from a grade 2 classroom, their parents/guardians, the Title One teacher, and the classroom teacher researcher.
Primary Research Questions The following questions were the primary guiding questions throughout the
action research project. What is the effect of Readers Theater on students oral uency performance and scores? How does regular, ongoing participation in Readers Theater effect students reading levels when reading is currently below benchmark? How does Readers Theater effect students enthusiasm for reading?
Hypothesis The students of the targeted grade two classroom showed below benchmark
levels in reading. A common thread among this group of students was that it took the students a longer amount of time in order to nish a reading passage as compared to the other children in their classroom.
This study worked to test the hypotheses that second grade students become
more procient readers and experience increased reading levels when uency and uency scores are increased by the means of participating regularly in Readers Theater. The study also analyzed the impact of reading uency in correlation to reading levels of a specic text. There were no obvious administrative or institutional roadblocks while conducting
this Action Research. The one factor that may have caused results to be signicantly different in the students is the home connection aspect of the study. It can be assumed that a student that had more of an involvement at home, with the Readers Theater script that were sent home to practice, may have experienced greater gains than a student that did not receive the same type of support at home. Since there is not a signicant number of teachers involved in this study, that does not prove to pose a problem. The classroom teacher and the Title One support teacher will be the sole two educators involved in the study. The teacher researcher met with the school building principal in accordance to
the Ethical Guidelines for Teacher Researchers (Mills, 26). The research questions, hypotheses, and workings of the study were reviewed and permission was given to conduct the research study.
Review of Literature Listed below are a number of sources that were used to gather more information,
data, and insight for the action research project.
For each of the evaluated sources below, key ndings will be summarized,
strengths and limitations will be identied and the relevance tied to the action research project will be addressed. 1. Oral Reading Fluency Norms: A Valuable Assessment Tool for Reading Teachers by Jan Hansbrouck and Gerald A. Tindal This article reassess the uency norms and updates the ndings presented by
the National Reading Panel. The norms that were published in a previous article by the same authors, circa 1992, are revisited in this article and inconsistencies and limitations are addressed. The new norms that were nationally created, were derived from a far larger number of scores and from a larger number of states than in the previous 1992 study. The procedures for compiling the current data and research were addressed and reviewed in the article and a website offering a complete summary was given. A portion of the article is dedicated to the decision making process that educators
must address when dealing with data driven accountability and student performance. A strength that is laid out in this article is a section for educators on interpreting screening scores using Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) norms for particular grade levels. Based on these new nding and new ORF norms, it is concluded that the focus group in the action research project will be using the winter benchmark for the start of the data collection. This means that for the start of the data collection, each students expected word count per minute (WCPM) will be set at 72. When the action research concludes, each student in the focus group will be given a benchmark of 89 WCPM in order to fall on the 50th percentile of the oral reading uency norms. Since this focus group of students are all students currently enrolled in the Title One program, caution is also reviewed in the
article reminding educators that the result of any screening measure must be viewed as one single piece of valuable information to be considered when making important decisions about a student, such as placement in an instructional program or possible referral for academic assistance (p. 640). 2. Creating Fluent Readers by Dr. Tim Rasinski In this text Dr. Rasinski, a guru in the eld of uency, has offered this publication
as a benecial resource book for educators. It provides an introduction to reading uency, means of assessing reading uency, and teaching reading uency with a number of strategies and interventions. This includes, but is not limited to, readers theater and repeated and practiced readings of authentic texts. This text offers a number of reproducible readers theater scripts as well as a
number of valuable web sources for scripts that will be used by the students in the AR project. It also provides a Multi-Dimensional Fluency Scale (rubric) in which to evaluate expression and volume, phrasing, smoothness and pace. This scale will be used with the focus group in order to evaluate on a four point scale at the start and at the nish of the research project to assess overall gains. Rasinski also provides uency accuracy and automaticity assessment and norms which were cross referenced with those found in other texts and sources in order to determine validity. 3. Implementing Readers Theatre as an Approach to Classroom Fluency Instruction by Young, Chase; Rasinski, Timothy This article targets a second grade classroom where uency instruction was a
focus and readers theater was the sole intervention measured as a means of evaluating reading gains among students. The study and data collected concluded that signicant
gains in reading uency were produced and the readers grew more than expected for a typical student at this grade level. The insight from this conducted study provided a concrete speculation as to the
outcome that may result from the intended Action Research Project. However, this article described ndings over a year of readers theater interventions whereas the AR project will collect data over a much shorter timeframe. Since this article discusses a focus group of second grade students it related to
the AR Project directly. The article demonstrates how uency scores increased with data collected based on an intervention of Readers Theater. 4. Speed does matter in reading by Timothy V. Rasinski This commentary evaluates the effects of disuent reading across the many
aspects of reading behaviors. Rasinski makes a case for disuent reading as the cause for less overall reading, poor comprehension and reading frustration. A key nding in this article is Rasinskis ndings as director of a university reading diagnostic clinic. He states, Often the children we see in our clinic demonstrate remarkable strengths. Many have excellent vocabularies; they know the meanings of many words. Others manage to read with few errors in word recognition. Still others demonstrate high levels of comprehension. One of the most common manifestations of reading problems in children we see, however, is slow, disuent, inefcient reading (p. 146). A strength of this commentary and of Dr. Rasinskis work lies in the fact that
readers theater is promoted in the commentary as an authentic and natural way of increasing reading uency scores. Rasinski also uncovers In a 10-week implementation of Readers Theatre in which small groups of second-grade students
were introduced to, practiced, and performed a new script each week, students made signicant gains in reading rate and overall reading achievement as measured by an informal reading inventory (Martinez, Roser, & Strecker, 1999). Rasinski touches on the fact that many times students are placed in special
services at schools (ex. Title 1) due to disuent reading. Since the focus group for the Action Research project is a group of current Title 1 students, the reading rate may serve as a signicant factor in the classroom teachers perceptions of those students reading prociency or lack thereof. 5. Reading Fluency: The Road to Developing Efcient and Effective Readers by Helen R. Abadiano and Jesse Turner Abadiano and Turner highlight the lack of appropriate uency instruction as one
of the major reasons why students, as assessed by the NAEP in 1995, are lacking in procient reading standards. This article is broken up into ve sections and informs the reader as to what uency means, how uency is assessed, the connections between phonics and reading instruction, the research on which its based, and ways of addressing uency in the classroom. This article highlights the fact that research supports the fact that teachers can
encourage and help their students become more uent readers with proper instruction and modeling. A list of strategies to have students read repeatedly is provided and includes, but is not limited to, richly dialogued readers theater. The article explores the studies of Susan Keehn and The effect of instruction and practice through readers theater on young readers oral reading uency (2003). In this study, readers theater was implemented in a second grade classroom. There were two different ways of implementing this intervention and it was concluded in the results of the study that both
10
treatment groups made statistically signicant growth in oral reading uency during the nine-week Readers Theatre intervention. All children, regardless of reading ability, made growth through the intervention of purposeful re readings via Readers Theatre (pp. 49-50). An area of interest that is limited in this article and many others that have been
encountered is the underlying issue of motivation and the roll that it plays in repeated readings to increase uency instruction. It is discussed how More often than not, uency development depends less on any one particular repetitive reading intervention, but more on creative, caring innovative teachers who make students repetitive reading experiences and participation in Readers Theatre inviting, engaging and fun. Thus future research should not only focus on empirical data, but also explore the affect experiences of readers in reading intervention programs and go beyond mere affect sizes to the heart of what motivates struggling readers (p. 55). The latter seems to be the probing question at the heart of the action research
project and warrants further exploration as an expansion study of the current action research project. In hindsight, it seems as this is the real issue underlying the research of Readers Theater. 6. Reading Fluency Assessment and Instruction: What, why, and how? by Roxanne F. Hudson, Holly Lane & Paige C. Pullen This article is arranged into three distinct topics centered around uency. It rst addresses the background of what uency actually is and what this looks like among readers. Next, we move into the links that have been made between uency and reading prociently meaning the ability to accurately decode and word call. The connection between reading rate and prociency is also covered noting the undeniable
11
correlation between reading rate and prosody and heightened levels of comprehension and procient reading in poor and average readers. Assessment is also addressed touching on measurement of accuracy and rate of timed readings. This articles encourages what steps are being taken in the action research by
stating, Teachers who are concerned about meeting the needs of all students in their classrooms should consider whether they know who their disuent readers are and what types of instruction they plan to provide for those readers (p. 702). The identied focus group will be given the readers theater intervention to provide direct instruction toward this goal. 7. Establishing Guidelines For Using Readers Theater With Less-Skilled Readers by Steven D. Rinehart This article summarizes important factors in the uency equation. Logically, it
equates reading with the Matthew Effect (Stanovich, 1986) whereas the rich get richer or the good readers get better because their continued success in literacy activities not only sustains but also generates its own improvement and growths (p. 66). Consequently, the poor get poorer. That is, poor readers fall even further behind because, in part, the difculty itself becomes an impediment for practice. Thus their gains are slower overall (p. 66). The purpose of this article was to review the ndings of the potential benets of incorporating readers theater into classroom instruction. The article asks the question of is there a right or a wrong approach to teaching readers theater? The conclusion is while there is probably no right way to do readers theater, there are some effective ways to proceed (p. 74). Effective practice includes, but is not limited to, incorporation or known books, integration with reading and writing activities, manageable texts, strong introductions, and routine.
12
Reader theater proves to be effective and a strength in increasing uency gains
for a number of reasons. Motivation and condence are major players in this and readers that struggle with these factors may result in less risk taking. Through the intervention of readers theater and the effective guidelines that the article presented, greater condence and accuracy are in reach. The article introduces a related study that correlates with the action research
project in where for a nine week time period, readers theater was uses as the primary instructional method for a group of second grade students during Title 1 instruction. The guidelines of this research, over this given time span, mirror the action research project goals. The results of this given study proved favorable in supporting the intended outcome for the action research. 8. Using Readers Theatre to Foster Fluency in Struggling Readers: A Twist on The Repeated Reading Strategy by Brenda-Jean Tyler and David J. Chard. This article addresses a plethora of background knowledge concerning uency
for educators. The author begins by taking you on a reading journey and putting you in the shoes of a disuent young reader named Mike. From there, the role of uency and how it works in the process of reading are both explored. Repeated readings and readers theater are both presented as research-based strategies in which to effectively improve on uency scores. Readers Theater is more heavily addressed and the motivation piece that goes hand-in-hand with readers theater was explored. The rationale of purposeful repeated readings and the authenticity that Readers Theater provides was a common thread throughout. A piece presented in this article that was not previously thought of for the action
research project is the idea of having students chart their own increasing uency
13
growth/scores. This idea of motivation will be directly applied to the action research as the focus group will chart their uency scores on a weekly basis. 9. Building Fluency: Lessons and Strategies for Reading Success by Wiley Blevins This text offers the reader a variety of research-based techniques for enhancing
uency. The text helps educators in a number of ways from dening uency at each stage of reading development to determining uency scores with students and providing oral passages and scoring guides. This text gives teachers the immediate tools needed to begin measuring uency
scores with their students. It offers speed drills and step-by-step directions for scoring such formative assessments. Teachers are also provided with the knowledge of how to interpret and use the uency norms that have been established through grades 1-8. Fluency interventions are introduced and many websites and resources are provided to help aid educators in become more skillful at measuring and teaching uency to their young readers (the ages addressed are grades 2-6). Although this text does touch on Readers Theater as a means for increasing uency scores, it was brief and very limited in the information that it provided regarding this focus topic. The relevance that this text has to the AR Project is that it provides the Measured
Reading Rates and Oral Reading Fluency Norms (ORF norms) for a grade two student through a number of listed resources. This information will be utilized as reading rates and uency scores are collected for the Action Research focus group.
14
10. Oral Reading Fluency Assessment: Issues of Construct, Criterion, and Consequential Validity by Sheila Valencia, Antony Smith, Anne Reece, Min Li, et al. This article took a look at the different means of measuring and assessing oral reading uency and compared the ndings to justify validity across the board for any inconsistencies and false positives and negatives. The article questions the issue of just how aligned oral reading uency and assessment actually are and if the means of measuring oral reading uency by way of using word count per minute (wcpm) formative assessments and benchmarks. It brings up the debate that denitions of oral reading uency vary widely but is
generally dened as the ability to read text quickly, accurately, with proper phrasing and expression, thereby reecting the ability to simultaneously decode and comprehend (p. 270). This brings to question the idea of using wcpm to accurately portray oral reading uency by this conning measure and its effectiveness. The role of expression and phasing, otherwise known as prosody, is determine
an crucial component of oral reading uency, yet wcpm alone does not accurately measure this in order to have a complete picture of a reader. The four point scale to focus on phrasing, as mentioned in the Rasinski text Creating Fluent Readers, is addressed and viewed as benecial assess beyond general reading expertise. The one minute timed reading also was addressed and concerns were raised as to how valid this length of time is to determining the comprehension piece of oral reading uency. This article addresses limitations that need to be considered when administering
and interpreting the results for research. Caution is given for educators to choose carefully the reading passages keeping comprehension and prosody in mind. We are
15
eager, therefore, for other researchers to investigate our reading uency assessment models as well as other models using similar methods and different reading selections with an eye toward developmental differences (p. 781).
Methodology The timed Daily Reading Assessment (DRA) was given by the classroom teacher
at the starting point of the research project in order to obtain a baseline reading level for each student. At the conclusion of the study the DRA was given once again and reading levels, times, and scores were compared. Oral reading uency scores of words read per minute were also pre and post tested within the DRA assessing. A student questionnaire was given to gather information about how the focus
group of students involved in this study feel about reading and their levels of enjoyment for reading before beginning the Readers Theater interventions. A student questionnaire was given at the conclusion of the research project and interventions to note any changes in the views and feelings of the students.
16
Data Collection Plan Questions What is the effect of Readers Theater on student oral uency scores? How does Readers Theater increase below benchmark reading levels? Data Source 1 Oral Fluency (OF) Screening pretest Daily Reading Assessment (DRA) pretest Data Source 2 teacher observation Data Source 3 OF testing posttest
Daily Reading Assessment (DRA) posttest
Weekly timed running records/ teacher observation
Does Readers Theater increase student motivation for reading?
student questionnaire
teacher observation
Results Data Presentation The data that is being presented was retrieved, compiled and analyzed from
student surveys (both pre and post readers theater intervention), weekly observations, and the Daily Reading Assessment (DRA) which was given both before readers theater interventions were put into place, and after they occurred at the conclusion of the action research project. The teacher researcher administered the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey
designed by Michael C. McKenna and Dennis J. Kear (1990, May) of Wichita State University, to the focus group containing the four students participating in the action research. The twenty question survey was given at the very beginning of the study to determine and measure student attitude toward reading. Students were asked to rate
17
their feelings about reading on a four point scale, using a pictorial format of the wellknown Gareld cartoon character drawn by creator Jim Davis, with 4 being very happy, 3 being happy, 2 being unhappy, and 1 being very upset. The scoring sheet that was provided with the survey was then used to determine and organize the survey into recreational and academic reading enjoyment as well as total scores. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 display the survey questions receiving the lowest scores by
the majority of the students within the focus group and were analyzed. Thought was given as to if readers theater would be a changing motivating factor with regards to these particular questions. These red agged questions were then used at the conclusion of the study to determine if attitudes toward reading enjoyment had changed after readers theater interventions had been put into place.
Recreational Reading ~ Pre Intervention Survey Results 4

happiest
3 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0%
1
very upset
1. How do you feel when you read a book on a rainy Saturday? 2. How do you feel when you read a book in school during free time? 3. How do you feel about reading for fun at home? 4. How do you feel about getting a book for a present? 5. How do you feel about spending free time reading a book? 6. How do you feel about starting a new book?
25% 75% 25% 50% 50% 25%
50% 25% 25% 50% 50% 0%
18
4
happiest
3 25% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1
very upset
7. How do you feel about reading during summer vacation? 8. How do you feel about reading instead of playing? 9. How do you feel about going to a bookstore? 10. How do you feel about reading different kinds of books?
25% 25% 100% 75%
50% 75% 0% 0%
Figure 1.1
Academic Reading ~ Pre Intervention Survey Results 4

happiest
3 50% 0%
1
very upset
11. How do you feel when a teacher 25% asks you questions about what you read? 12. How do you feel about reading workbook pages and worksheets? 13. How do you feel about reading in school? 14. How do you feel about reading your school books? 15. How do you feel about learning from a book? 16. How do you feel when its time for reading in class? 17. How do you feel about stories you read in class? 25% 25% 0% 50% 25% 25%
25%
0% 25% 75% 25% 25% 25%
0% 25% 25% 0% 25% 50%
75% 25% 0% 25% 25% 0%
19
4
happiest
3 0% 25% 0% 0%
1
very upset
18. How do you feel when you read out loud in class? 19. How do you feel about using the dictionary? 20. How do you feel about taking a reading test?
25% 50% 25%
75% 0% 75%
25% 0%
Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3 provides a summary of the Daily Reading Assessment (DRA) data for
each student in the intervention focus group pre readers theater intervention. The students all read the DRA text, Green Freddie, which is at a level 20. The expected benchmark level for the focus students to be reading at this point in the second grade school year is a level 24. Thus, each student in the focus group is reading one level below benchmark as measured by the DRA levels. Each of the letters in Figure 1.3 represent one of the students described in the focus group. As shown in Figure 1.3, all of the students were at or above 95% accuracy in the reading and the DRA goal for independent reading with this text is set at minimum of 94% accuracy.
Accuracy Percentage of Daily Reading Assessment- Pre Readers Theater Interventions

DRA LEVEL: 20 Green Freddie
20
= student accuracy % 100
= DRA independent accuracy goal of 94%
75
50
25
0 C : D G M Figure 1.3
According to Figure 1.3, based on accuracy percentages in reading alone, it can
be perceived that all students would be in the independent reading range. However, when evaluated alongside oral reading of words per minute (wpm) Figure 1.4 displays how the focus students faired against the independent range goal of 2:21 (two minutes twenty one seconds) for reading the passage of DRA level 20 text Green Freddie containing 153 words.
Students DRA Words Read Per Minute (WPM) Pre Readers Theater Interventions
DRA LEVEL: 20 Green Freddie
21
Region 1= student time 5.00
Region 2= DRA goal of 2:21 minutes:seconds
3.75
2.50
1.25
0 C D G M Figure 1.4 All of the students were over the expected DRA independent wpm reading goal
time of 2 minutes 21 seconds. Student C had the highest time for reading the given passage, doing so in 4 minutes 53 seconds and taking more than double the goal time to complete. Student M had the second highest recorded time with 4 minutes 16 seconds. Student D read the passage in 3 minutes 31 seconds and student G scored very close to the independent range wpm goal with 2 minutes 35 seconds and just missing the goal time by 14 seconds (Figure 1.4). Research Design Following the initial given DRA, each Monday for three weeks the group was
given a readers theater script during morning guided reading group time. Each student was assigned a part in the script. A script introduction was given and students became
22
acquainted with the script reading through it in its entirety before breaking off into their given parts. Each day of the week, the students regrouped and read through the script together, each reading their own assigned parts. Coaching was provided by the teacher researcher around the areas of phrasing, expression and uency. Each day the intervention was timed for 15 minutes. Scripts were sent home each night in each childs home/school connection folder
and was accompanied by a sign off sheet. Parents signed the daily record sheet after the students had read each night at home. There were mixed responses to this portion of the study ranging from some students having their recording sheets signed for every night of every week to others having their recording sheets signed off approximately 50% of the time during the intervention weeks. On Friday, after working closely with the script for ve days, the students then
preformed their readers theater for the morning Pre-K classroom. Each following Monday a new script was introduced and the same procedure was followed. Consent was given by parents and students in this study. It lasted for three
weeks, with three different readers theater readings and three nal performances in the Pre-K classroom. After the three week readers theater intervention, post intervention DRAs were conducted. Figure 1.5 showcases the accuracy percentages for each student in the focus group for a reading that was taken at a level 24 using the book Thin As a Stick, which is one book level higher than then pre intervention DRA that was given at the beginning of the research study as the DRA levels from level 20 to the next being level 24. In accordance with the DRA, an expected accuracy percentage of 94% is required for student to fall within the independent range of reading this text.
23
Accuracy Percentage of Daily Reading Assessment- Post Readers Theater Interventions

DRA LEVEL: 24 Thin As A Stick = student accuracy % 100 = DRA independent accuracy goal of 94%
75
50
25
0 C D G M Figure 1.5 As shown in Figure 1.5, students C, D and M performed the DRA level 24
reading at less than the expected DRA goal of 94% accuracy doing so at 89%, 92% and 93% respectively . Student G was the only student in the focus group that performed this reading above the goal in doing so at 95%. According to this gathered information, this DRA level 24 text would be considered too hard for students C, D and M.
Students DRA Words Read Per Minute (WPM) Post Readers Theater Interventions
DRA LEVEL: 24 Thin As A Stick
24
= Student time 5.00
= DRA goal of 2:26 minutes:seconds
3.75
2.50
1.25
0 C D G M Figure 1.6 According to Figure 1.6, all of the students, with the exception of student G, were
over the expected independent wpm goal time of 2 minutes 26 seconds for reading the DRA level 24 text passage Thin As A Stick containing 170 words. Student C again had the highest time to complete the 170 word count passage needing 3 minutes and 41 seconds to complete which was one minute and 15 seconds over the DRA independent goal time . Student M needed 3 minutes 34 seconds to complete the 170 word count passage which was one minute 8 seconds over the DRA independent goal time. Student D required 3 minutes 13 seconds to complete the 170 word count passage which was 45 seconds over the DRA independent goal time. Student G had a reading time of 2 minutes 21 seconds and was the only student who met/exceeded the DRA
25
goal time of 2 minutes 26 seconds by nishing the 170 word count passage 5 seconds under the goal time. At this time it was concluded, based on accuracy in reading and wpm oral
uency, that student G had made signicant gains and met the goals of reading at a level 24 as measured by the DRA. Thus, student G had increased reading levels by one level while increasing wpm oral uency time. At this point in the study it was only necessary to continue researching students C, D and M to see if gains would be made in wpm oral uency scores since the data derived that they did not show an increase in reading levels based on DRA accuracy in reading scores. To conclude if wpm oral uency times increased in students C, D and M as a
result of the readers theater interventions, a new DRA text at level 20 was used. A DRA level 20 text was also used at the start of the study but as perviously noted, wpm goals were not met with this text. The teacher researcher chose the new DRA level 20 text, Turtles Big Race to check for increases in wpm oral uency with students C, D and M even though it already has been concluded that reading levels in students C, D and M did not increase. Figure 1.7 shows the accuracy percentage scores for students C, D and M after
reading the DRA level 20 text Turtles Big Race. The DRA requires an accuracy rate of 94% in order for students to be in the independent range. Students C, D and M all met or exceeded this DRA goal by scoring 94%, 98%, and 95% respectively (Figure 1.7).
26
Accuracy Percentage of Daily Reading Assessment- Post Readers Theater Interventions

DRA LEVEL: 20 Turtles Big Race = student accuracy % 100 =DRA independent accuracy goal of 94%
75
50
25
0 C D M Figure 1.7 Figure 1.8 displays the wpm oral uency scores for students C, D and M using
the level 20 DRA text, Turtles Big Race. Based on this information, students C and M did not meet or exceed the wpm goal time of 2 minutes 16 seconds. Student C exceeded the wpm goal time for the 147 word count text by 1 minute 7 seconds. Student M exceeded the wpm goal time by 51 seconds. Student D did meet/exceed the wpm goal time by completing the passage 7 seconds under the wpm goal time (Figure 1.8).
27
Students DRA Words Read Per Minute (WPM) Post Readers Theater Interventions
DRA LEVEL: 20 Turtles Big Race = Student Time 5.00 = DRA goal of 2:16 minutes:seconds
3.75
2.50
1.25
0 C D M Figure 1.8 Based on the research data collected and after analyzing the results of the
research study, the teacher researcher found that after receiving three weeks of readers theater interventions, student G did increase one reading level by meeting both accuracy and wpm goal requirements as measured by the DRA. Student D did not increase in reading level, yet did increase wpm uency scores
in order to meet the goal of reading a level 20 DRA text. Students C and M did not increase in reading level, nor did they meet or exceed
the wpm oral uency times for the DRA level 20 texts. It is noted that all students: C, D, G and M did all experience an increase in their
timed readings with student G also experiencing a gain in reading level. Figure 1.9
28
displays the gains that students C, D and M experienced from their rst reading of a level 20 text Green Freddie pre readers theater interventions, to their last reading of a level 20 DRA text Turtles Big Race post readers theater interventions. Student G did not participate in the post intervention DRA 20 level reading of Turtles Big Race because as earlier discussed the student was assessed accurately at a DRA level 24.
Student Gains in WPM Readings of Level 20

Minutes:Seconds
PRE INTERVENTION: POST INTERVENTION:
DRA level 20 text: C D
Green Freddie 153 words at 4:53 153 words at 3:31
Turtles Big Race 147 words at 3:23 147 words at 2:09
gains 1 minute 30 seconds 1 minute 22 seconds
153 words at 4:16
147 words at 3:07
1 minute 9 seconds
*note: a discrepancy of 6 words is noted between the two texts.
Figure 1.9 As a result of the study, students D and G were both placed on monitor for Title
One services. This means that the students will no longer receive Title One support and will be monitored by the teacher researcher to ensure that they are not slipping and are maintaining the gains made. Upon conclusion of the three week readers theater intervention, post intervention
survey questions were given. These were the same questions that were presented to the students in the beginning of the study. The survey questions receiving the lowest scores by the majority of the students within the focus group were analyzed and thought was given as to if readers theater would be a changing motivating factor with regards to
29
these particular questions. These red agged questions were then used at the conclusion of the study to determine if attitudes toward reading enjoyment had changed after readers theater interventions had been put into place. Figure 2.0 displays the four survey questions that were revisited at the conclusion of the research study and shows how the focus groups answers changed or stayed the same in following the research study and readers theater intervention. Post Intervention Survey Questions Revisited Question 8. How do you feel about reading instead of playing? Pre Intervention 25% Post Intervention 50% 12. How do you feel about reading workbook pages and worksheets? Pre Intervention 25% Post Intervention 25% 18. How do you feel when you read out loud in class? Pre Intervention 25% Post Intervention 75% 20. How do you feel about taking a reading test? Pre Intervention 25% Post Intervention 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% 75% Figure 2.0 0% 0% 0% 25% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% 75% 0% 0% 0% 25% 75% 25% 4=happiest 3 2 1=very upset
30
As shown in Figure 2.0 questions 12. How do you feel about reading workbook
pages and worksheets? and 20. How do you feel about taking a reading test? did not see any change in how the students felt after the readers theater intervention. Question 8. How do you feel about reading instead of playing? In the beginning
of the study, three out of the four students marked this as making them very upset. After the three week intervention, this changed to just one out of the four students saying this made them very upset. The teacher researchers observations noted that the students began to feel as though reading readers theater scripts were met with more enthusiasm and more fun attitudes by the four students in the focus group thus possibly changing the opinions centered around this particular question. The biggest change of student opinion is noted in question 18. How do you feel
when you read out loud in class? Three out of the four students marked this as happiest on the survey post readers theater intervention compared to one out of four pre readers theater intervention. The teacher researcher observed and found that students felt more condent and comfortable with reading and presenting to a group possibly due to their weekly visits to the Pre-K classroom to share readers theater scripts. Condence is a major factor in the success of young readers and as the research study suggests, readers theater contributes to an increase in condence with reading as well as an improvement in wpm oral reading uency scores.
Limitations Problems that were anticipated with this research study were foreseen as, but
not limited to, the discrepancies between at home reading practice with the Readers
31
Theater scripts. For each of the three weeks of the intervention, a new script was sent home each week was to be practiced at home each night. Because the classroom teacher had limited control over this occurring, it was anticipated that the focus group students would have varied at home experiences with the scripts thus skewing the data. Weekly at home sign off sheets were sent home and collected and ideally would have been consistent between all of the students in the study. Figure 2.1 displays the amount of at home signatures collected for each student of the research focus group. There is a maximum number of fteen parent signatures to have collected.
Number of At-Home Practices of Readers Theater Scripts Student C D G M The limitations of at home support using the weekly readers theater scripts did 11 11 6 14 Figure 2.1 Number of Parental Signatures (100% participation = 15 signatures)
not seem to play a dening role in the gains that were made by the students of the focus group. Another anticipated problem was that of school attendance. One particular
student in the study had a record of being consistently absent, missing an average of at least one day per week of school as seen in the rst and second quarter of school. This
32
issue of absence impacted the ability to carry out the classroom guided instruction as well as the Title One support with the Readers Theater scripts. Daily attendance for each of the four students will be kept throughout the study. Figure 2.2 displays the amount of days that each student in the focus group was absent during the 15 days of readers theater interventions. Student Attendance during Readers Theater Intervention (out of 15 days total) Student C D G M Because this study consisted of just three weeks of readers theater intervention, 12 15 14 15 Figure 2.2 Number of Days Present
limitations to the amount of growth in reading level in the given time frame are noted. Further research, with a larger population of students, will work to validate this found data. Some of the points of inconsistency that were explored lie in the fact that the text
selection of the DRA is based on teacher judgement rather than an objective screening measure. Instead of a word list or screening measure to assess the students starting point or reading level to begin the DRA, it is the solely the responsibility of the teacher to choose a just right independent reading text.
33
There is also a student choice component of the DRA which is another
inconsistency. After the teacher has chosen a few texts (three or four) which they believe to be just right for the students independent reading level, it is then the students turn to choose which book they nd the most interesting and would like to proceed with for the DRA testing. The DRA can be given within a two day range of testing. Because of this option,
comprehension scores could differ between a student who completed their DRA in one setting as opposed to a student that had several days to complete the DRA. Students reading at a level 28 and above need to answer written questions about the text that they have read and by carrying the testing over into the next day, these scores could be inconsistent.
Action Plan This Action Research Projects ndings resulted in overall increased reading
uency scores by each student in the focus group. With that being said, 100% of the students involved did increase their words read per minute (wpm). An increased reading level was experienced by 25% of the students in the study and the remaining 75% of the students in the study did not experience an increase in reading level after the completion of this study. Students also noted an increased enjoyment in reading out loud as measured by
a pre and post readers theater intervention survey. The teacher researcher found, through observation, that each member of the research study experienced gains in condence levels.
34
The teacher researcher will continue to implement readers theater through the
remainder of the second grade school year. The teacher researcher will also open this form of intervention up to the rest of the second graders in the classroom so that they may possibly experience the same results as the focus group with regards to increased wpm scores and condence gains. It is anticipated that through readers theater, other students in the classroom will have gains as well. The teacher researcher will continue to collect data and chart progress. The same reading survey that was used for the focus group will also be given to the remainder of the second grade classroom members (pre and post intervention) to further note and validate if there is a correlation between readers theater and student enjoyment with reading out loud. The teacher researcher will also present and share the ndings of this study
during a vertical grade PLC team meeting and will invite colleagues to collaborate, offer perspective and to be passive participants as the teacher researcher widens the study with the rest of her classroom. Discussions about uency scores and wpm outcomes and gains will be addressed and discussed as more data is collected. The teacher researcher will seek permission to create a Readers Theater section
of the literacy book room with multiple scripts for school wide use intended for guided reading groups. This sharing of resources and scripts, as well as the notation of gains made, will hopefully encourage more teachers within the school to use readers theater as a means of intervention to increase student uency scores. Participation in and support of the action research process is critical if there is to be a shift in the culture of schools to the reective practitioner culture of the self-renewing school (Mills, 2011).
35
At the conclusion of the teacher researchers wider classroom study, data will be
shared and the way in which the intervention was implemented will be discussed and presented to other colleagues in a workshop type setting and the readers theater section of the literacy book room will be formally introduced to staff at this time. Figure 2.3 displays the action goals for the remainder of the 2012 school year. Remainder of 2012 School Year~Action Plan Month Action Who is Informed/ Consulted? Resources
April
All students in teacher Teacher researchers grade 2 Researcher classroom will participate in Readers Theater. Reading preintervention survey given to all. Continue Readers Theater intervention. Meet with weekly PLC staff to discuss perspectives and insights as well as share formative data along the way. Share with whole staff data and intervention process from Action Research Project. Reading postintervention survey given to all. Introduce Readers Theater section of literacy book room. PLC vertical team members (K, 1, 2, Principal, Literacy Coach, Title 1)
applicable Readers Theater scripts available at: www.timelessteacherstuff.com www.thebestclass.org
May
DRAs for second grade students displaying wpm uency scores. *Note: Data collection deadline by May 28, 2012.
June
School wide staff
Meeting agenda, handouts and charted data showing growth/ gains made in students wpm reading as well as survey results. Organized Readers Theater area of literacy book room.
Figure 2.3
36
Conclusion This Action Research Project was developed to examine how Readers Theater
interventions effect students reading levels and oral uency word per minute reading times. The ndings of this research concluded and conrmed that when students engage in regular and effective Readers Theater interventions, oral uency and words per minute readings are increased. Although reading levels did not see an increase in the majority of students, their reading wpm showed gains across the board. Students were also noted to have increased condence levels after participating
in Readers Theater and showed a new found enthusiasm for reading out loud in class as measured by a pre and post intervention reading survey. Educators are constantly looking for ways to create reader enthusiasm and this research leads to the belief that Readers Theater could be used as a positive motivator for reading when properly implemented. This Action Research Projects ndings support the positive impact that Readers
Theater has on students abilities to more efciently read a text more uently and in turn increase their joy for reading.
37
References Abadiano, H., Turner, J. (2005). Reading Fluency: The Road to Developing Efcient and Effective Readers. The NERA Journal, 41(1), 50-56.
Beaver, J. (2006). Developmental Reading Assessment. (2nd edition). Parsippany, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Blevins, W. (2001). Building Fluency: Lessons and Strategies for Reading Success. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Hasbrouck and Tindal (1992). Oral Reading Fluency Norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.
Hudson, R., Lane H., Pullen, P (2005). Reading Fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? International Reading Association, 702-714.
Keehn, S. (2003). The Effect of Instruction and Practice Through Readers Theatre on Young Readers Oral Reading Fluency. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(4), 40-61.
Martinez, M., Roser, N., & Strecker, S. (1999). I never thought I could be a star: A Readers Theatre ticket to uency. The Reading Teacher, 52, 326-334.
38
McKenna, D. & Kear, D. (1990) Measuring Attitude Toward Reading: A New Tool for Teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43(9).
Mills, G. (2011). Action Research A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. (4th edition). Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson Education, Inc.
Rasinski, T. ( 2009). Creating Fluent Readers. Petersborough, NH: Staff Development for Educators.
Rasinski, T. (2009). Implementing Readers Theatre as an Approach to Classroom Fluency Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 4-13.
Rasinski, T. (2000). Speed Does Matter in Reading. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 146-51.
Reinhart, S. (2001). Establishing Guidelines for Using Readers Theater With Less Skilled Readers. Reading Horizons, 42(2), 65-75.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.
39
Tyler, B.J. & Chard, D. (2000) Using Readers Theatre to Foster Fluency In Struggling Readers: A Twist on the Repeated Reading Strategy. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16, 163-168.
Valencia, S, Smith, A. Reece, A, Li, M., et al. (2010) Oral Reading Fluency Assessment: Issues of Construct, Criterion, and Consequential Validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 270-292.
40

Actionresearchprojectpdf

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Actionresearchprojectpdf

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Running Head:The Possibilities of Readers Theater Intervention to Help Improve Below Benchmark Reading Levels and Words Per

Minute Fluency Scores as Measured by the Daily Reading Assessment

Keywords: Readers Theater, second grade, intervention, motivation, oral

Results, Findings and Discussion...................................................................................17 Limitations............................................................................................................31

data, and insight for the action research project.

Reader theater proves to be effective and a strength in increasing uency gains

Daily Reading Assessment (DRA) posttest

Weekly timed running records/ teacher observation

Does Readers Theater increase student motivation for reading?

Recreational Reading ~ Pre Intervention Survey Results 4

3 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0%

25% 75% 25% 50% 50% 25%

50% 25% 25% 50% 50% 0%

25% 25% 100% 75%

Academic Reading ~ Pre Intervention Survey Results 4

0% 25% 75% 25% 25% 25%

0% 25% 25% 0% 25% 50%

75% 25% 0% 25% 25% 0%

25% 50% 25%

Accuracy Percentage of Daily Reading Assessment- Pre Readers Theater Interventions

= student accuracy % 100

= DRA independent accuracy goal of 94%

According to Figure 1.3, based on accuracy percentages in reading alone, it can

Region 1= student time 5.00

Region 2= DRA goal of 2:21 minutes:seconds

Accuracy Percentage of Daily Reading Assessment- Post Readers Theater Interventions

= Student time 5.00

= DRA goal of 2:26 minutes:seconds

Accuracy Percentage of Daily Reading Assessment- Post Readers Theater Interventions

Student Gains in WPM Readings of Level 20

DRA level 20 text: C D

Green Freddie 153 words at 4:53 153 words at 3:31

Turtles Big Race 147 words at 3:23 147 words at 2:09

gains 1 minute 30 seconds 1 minute 22 seconds

153 words at 4:16

147 words at 3:07

*note: a discrepancy of 6 words is noted between the two texts.

There is also a student choice component of the DRA which is another

applicable Readers Theater scripts available at: www.timelessteacherstuff.com www.thebestclass.org

School wide staff

Вам также может понравиться