Krista Austin

Will Students Listening to Their Own Voices Improve Their Overall Performance

Regarding Reading Fluency and Comprehension?

Kennesaw State University

Spring 2015

1

Abstract

The following paper outlines the methods I used when conducting my action research. It

covers how I allowed students to record their voices while reading, how they listened to

their voices to make goals regarding their reading, and how they used these goals to

increase their fluency and comprehension skills. I compared the results of the running

records and 5 W Charts prior to conducting the research to those that were conducted

post-research. This paper includes the steps I plan on using when conducting the research

methodology, as well as the literature that I reviewed when researching methods teachers

have previously used when studying their student’s fluency and comprehension skills.

2

Table of Contents

I. Introduction………………………………………………………..…….4

II. Literature Review………………………………………………………6

III. Methodology…………………………………..………………………18

IV. Results………………………………………………………………....22

V. Conclusions…………………………………………………………….26

References…………………………………………………………………28

Appendix A………………………………………………………………..31

Appendix B………………………………………………………………..32

3

I. Introduction- A Lack of Reading Fluency and Comprehension

My name is Krista Austin, and I teach a group of 21 fourth grade students for a Title

I focus school near Atlanta, Georgia. The school is an intermediate school that contains

grades second through fifth. Based on checklists, data, and test scores that have been

collected over the years, students are struggling to meet goals and milestones regarding

reading. Over three quarters of the school is reading below grade level. Of the 859

students enrolled at the school, 60 percent of them are African American, 36 percent are

Hispanic, three percent are White, and one percent of the students are classified as other

(USA School Info, 2014). My class of twenty-one students has changed several times as

many families in the school are often moving. There have been five students withdraw

from the class, and five new students enroll throughout the school year. Currently, I have

ten boys and eleven girls in my room with me all day. Twelve of these students are

labeled as EIP (Early Intervention Program, meaning that they are at risk for not meeting

the standards taught in their grade, namely in reading and/or mathematics). Eight of my

students are also labeled as ELL (English Language Learners, meaning they were raised

in homes where families spoke a native language other than English). Only one of my

ELL students is not EIP. Twelve of my students are reading below grade level, and all but

one of them read multiple grades below reading level at the beginning of the school year.

Test scores for the school has been consistently low over the years. This may be due

to the fact that there are many working parents that do not have the time to do homework

with their child/children, and many of the ELL students’ parents cannot help their

children at all because they speak little to no English. At a previous 4th grade data team

meeting, it was revealed that over 75 percent of the fourth grade student body read below

4

reading level. At the beginning of the school year, students should be reading on an

independent O level. The students entering my classroom included one student reading at

an independent N (a third grade level), nine reading at an independent K (a second grade

level), and one at an independent F (a first grade level). With this many students reading

multiple grades below reading level (not just in our grade, but throughout the whole

school), whatever methods the school has used in the past (which included pulling

students out of the classroom a few times a week for tutoring last school year) have not

worked. Because the school has a new administration staff, there are changes being made

throughout the school, including the implementation of the 80/20 Model (where students

spend 80 percent of the school day at a designated center [Reading, Mathematics, Social

Studies, Science, or Writing], and I teach a “mini-lesson” (a lesson taught about a

standard I am introducing) for twenty percent of the day. Throughout the 80 percent of

the day, I pull small groups to my table for both guided reading and math.

The question that I asked is the following: Will students listening to their own voices

improve their overall performance in reading fluency and comprehension? According to

Rasinski (2012), fluent reading is made up of decoding unfamiliar words, reading with

prosody, and comprehending the material that is read. Prior to conducting the research, I

asked myself if students could possibly improve upon each of these skills if they could

listen to themselves read aloud. I wanted to demonstrate that if they were able to listen to

themselves, they would be able to identify their strengths, as well as create goals for what

they wanted to improve on. This would help them regarding both fluency and

comprehension.

5

II. Literature Review-

Reading is the most important building block in Early Childhood Education. This is

true because every core subject that is taught in school (language arts, mathematics,

science, social studies, etc.) incorporates reading in one way or another. It is impossible

to solve a word problem for math if a student cannot read it. It is difficult for students to

take notes in science class if they cannot read their writing. Students cannot memorize a

list of spelling words if they cannot read them. The list is infinite. There are two key

components that students must master in order to become efficient readers: fluency and

comprehension (Basaran, 2013). Unfortunately, many teachers, especially in early grades,

have made teaching fluency (or specifically how quickly and accurate a student reads a

text out loud) the focal point of reading, often undermining the importance of

comprehension. The goal of reading should be for students to find meaning in what they

read; therefore, not only should students be reading for accuracy, but they should be able

to comprehend the material that they read as well. Because comprehension is often

“minimized at best” (Rasinski, 2014) in the classroom, teachers are discovering that

while their students may be able to read information they are learning about, they are

often unable to comprehend it. The purpose of this literature review is to not only report

research-informed ways to improve fluency and comprehension instruction in the

classroom, but to figure out how I can implement these methods in the classroom as well.

Basaran (2013) conducted a study in which he proposed that rather than being

separate entities, comprehension is in actuality a component of being a fluent reader. To

test his hypothesis, he decided to study a group of 90 fourth graders to determine which

reading components and habits had a positive relationship with reading comprehension.

6

He began the study by placing each student in a room by himself or herself, where each

one read a selected passage out loud. Voice recorders were used to capture each of the

student’s readings. Students were also required to answer questions about the material

that they read. Afterwards, three experts that “specialized in reading fluency” (Basaran,

2013) listened to the recordings, calculating the prosody, the number of words read per

minute, and the number of errors made. If any of the three experts came to different

conclusions regarding their calculations, they listened to the recordings again and

recalculated the equations until they each came up with the same solution. The results

showed that positive correlations were discovered between prosody and deep

understanding. Negative correlations were discovered with both reading speed and the

number of mistakes compared with the same deep understanding. Based on the

calculations drawn in the study, one can conclude that the speed in which one reads a text

is not the main factor for finding meaning in a text. Rather, the manner in which students

read a word allows them to absorb meaning and comprehend what they read. If students

focus too much on how accurately and fast a passage is read, they may miss out on

actually determining what the information being read about actually means.

To improve fluency with her second grade class, Calo (2013) decided to introduce

“Fluency Idol” to her students. She believed that pop culture could be used to “engage

students and improve fluency skills.” If students could find a fluency activity engaging

and fun, they would in turn work hard to master the skill, resulting in improved

comprehension as well. Having students participate in activities that can be connected to

interests outside of school could also interest students in wanting to participate in a

lesson. In this case, Fluency Idol is based on the popular American reality singing

7

competition American Idol. Each Monday, the teacher, along with her students, would

pick out a poem that would be performed during the “show” that Friday. Throughout the

week, students were given opportunities to practice reading and performing the poem out

loud, both inside and outside of school. Students would practice individually, with their

teachers, in pairs, and with their parents. On Fridays, Calo would draw the names of three

students to perform their poems, and the show would begin. As they read, the teacher

would take notes regarding their fluency skills and performance. To create a show-like

atmosphere, she allowed the students to use a microphone as the performed, and students

were allowed to vote on a winner. Each student would also receive a certificate for

participation. The teacher would video each student’s performance so she could track his

or her progress throughout the year. Calo found the experiment so successful that she

passed down Fluency Idol to a summer reading intervention camp. The students in this

program ranged from grades kindergarten through fifth grade. Throughout the period of

this camp, coaches and interns worked with students using “echo and choral reading

strategies.” At the end of the summer, a Fluency Idol show was performed for the

parents. Students were allowed to pick their favorite text that matched their reading

levels, and they performed their piece for the audience. A survey given to the students

showed that all but one child thought that Fluency Idol had a positive impact on their

reading and fluency skills. Parent surveys matched the results of the student ones, stating

that they noticed definite improvements in their child’s reading abilities. Based on the

results of this study, one can conclude that if teachers can find materials and activities

that make students want to participate, they will work hard to succeed in completing a

task, and thus improve their overall performance.

8

Similar to the way Fluency Idol was conducted, Marcell and Ferraro (2013) decided

to create a weekly fluency reading using a superhero theme. Both authors noted the fact

that many teachers believe teaching fluency should mainly focus on speed and accuracy,

resulting in comprehension activities being extremely limited. There were students in

their own class that spent much of the time focusing on decoding words, the number of

mistakes they made, and the amount of time they read it in; as a result, they struggled to

find meaning embedded in the material that they read. The same students also often read

like “robots”; in other words, they read without prosody. Both Marcell and Ferraro

posited that for students to be able to read both for fluency and comprehension, they must

be able to defeat the “evil Robot Reader” and each member of his superhero team:

Choppy Boy, Flat Man, and Alien Dude. This could be done by introducing Poetry Power

Man and his “superhero friends,” which included Super Scooper, Expression Man, and

Captain Comprehension. After quoting the previously mentioned Rasinski article (2013)

that authentic fluency should be used for “reading with and for meaning,” they explained

that at the beginning of each week, a poem would be chosen that could be used to

“defeat” the evil Robot Reader and his villains that Friday. First, the teacher would hand

out the poems that would be used that week, and the students would begin to practice

ways that they use to defeat the “bad guys.” During the first practice, they would use

Super Scooper to defeat Choppy Boy. Some students tended to sound out each letter

sound as they read as opposed to reading fluently, using choral reading to practice

phrasing sentences; in this way, they would be able to develop the skill of reading more

smoothly. The next day, students would try to defeat Flat Man by using Expression Man.

Because some students only cared about how fast they read, they sounded “flat”

9

whenever they would read a passage aloud. As they practiced, the students would learn to

use expression as they read. Throughout the week, students would also practice reading

with each other to ensure that their peers were reading with expression. During the third

practice, Captain Comprehension would take on Alien Dude. Finding meaning in a text

or passage should be the main goal when students read, but because students would often

only focus on the number of mistakes they made, they would not remember much of the

information they read about, if anything. Alternatively, as the students would read for

meaning, they would look for important details and connections that they could make to

their lives, and afterwards they would answer questions and summarize what they had

just read. Throughout the week, students were allotted times to practice reading the

poems, and also practiced at home. Finally, the students would challenge the Robot

Reader on Friday, using everything they had learned throughout the week to defeat him.

This method has been used in their classroom for four years, and during that time, the

average number of words per minute that the students could read increased from 94 to

112 words per minute. Additionally, students became more motivated to take part in

these weekly reading activities. Because the students were able to have fun, they became

motivated to read; thus, as a result, there was an overall improvement in their fluency.

Bellinger and DiPerna (2011) decided the degree to which fluency-based story

retelling is an effective way to find meaning in what students read. They decided to

analyze which methods had the strongest correlation with reading comprehension. The

methods used included Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) tests (where the administrators

calculate the number of words read correctly in one minute), DIBLES RTF tests (where

students read a passage in a minute, and afterwards they have a minute to retell the story.

10

The number of words recalled is calculated), and Reading Comprehension (RC) tests.

Ten graduate school psychology students administered the tests to a group of fourth grade

students. Each student was required to read three different passages, and a stopwatch was

used to time one minute for the students to read each passage. A voice recorder was also

used to record each student’s readings. One ORF score, two RTF scores (one real-time,

one after listening to the recording), and an RC score were given to each student. Positive

correlations were found between ORF and RC scores on the three passages, while

negative ones were found between RTF and RC tests. An interesting piece of information

to note is that there was quite a large difference found between the real-time and recorded

RTF scores. This was due, in part, to the accuracy rates for the real-time scores being

low, meaning that the administrators of the test struggled to keep up with each student’s

live reading session. Once they went back to listen to their recordings, they were able to

calculate a more accurate score. Still, both scores were still negatively correlated with the

RC scores. Based on the data collected, one can come to the conclusion that ORF tests

are a better indicator of measuring reading comprehension than RTF tests with fourth

grade students.

Rasinski (2012) determined the reasons why fluency was once a “hot” topic when

teaching reading in school, and argued why it needs to be a hot topic again. While once a

popular teaching focus, fluency became a “not hot” topic once calculating the reading

rate became the main focus of teaching this. By associating fluency with how fast a

student reads a text or passage, students are not able to absorb the information they are

reading about. Fluency also primarily focused on building oral-reading skills, even

though the majority of reading by older-grade students is done silently. Rasinski also

11

argued that fluency was separated from the rest of the reading curriculum, particularly

away from comprehension, vocabulary, spelling, etc. To make teaching fluency “hot”

again, teachers must start teaching “authentic fluency,” which is done by incorporating

automaticity, prosody, and comprehension into fluency lessons. Automaticity refers to

the ability to read words automatically. While early readers need to sound and decode

unfamiliar words as they learn how to read, fluent readers need to have strong

automaticity skills so they can read smoothly and without pausing frequently. Prosody

describes the way readers use expression as they read. When students read out loud, they

should not sound robotic. Rather, they use their voices to “convey meaning” as they read.

Even when fluent readers read silently, they use prosody as they make connections with

the characters or information. As students read, they should be able to comprehend the

material they are reading. If the purpose of reading is to find meaning behind words, the

fact that fluent reading tends to focus on individual student reading rates seems to defeat

this purpose. If teachers can focus on the elements mentioned above to create authentic

fluency lessons, fluency should once again become a “hot” topic in reading education.

Hilden and Jones (2013) both believe that interactive read-alouds could be an

effective method to help students build stronger comprehension skills, and in return

fluency as well. They believe this because these interactive read-alouds “create fluent

models of reading,” which means that students get a visual representation from the

teachers about what effective and fluent reading looks like. Before teachers can conduct

interactive read-alouds in the classroom, however, they need to understand what they

should not look like. Interactive read-alouds should not be a “quick read,” but rather be

carefully planned so that teachers know what information and vocabulary they should

12

teach to their students. Teachers should also not only ask yes or no questions after

reading a book. By doing this, they are assessing their students rather than allowing them

to enjoy the story and want to learn more about the topic that was read to them. Students

may also shut down and not want to learn anymore if they get the “wrong” answer. To

create effective interactive read-alouds, teachers should ask the students open-ended

questions before, during, and after the reading. By doing this, students are able to use

their higher-order thinking skills to create meaning behind what their teachers have read.

If teachers are able to create meaningful lessons that students can make connections with,

there is a good chance that the students will want to read more; thus they will create

opportunities in which they can build upon their fluency skills as well.

Marcell (2011) believes that building fluency “fitness plans” may help students

improve upon both their fluency and comprehension skills. He first referenced a guided

reading session with a student where he was trying to determine her rate of reading in one

minute. The student tried to stop and go back to read over a passage that did not make

sense to her, but Marcell told her to continue reading because there was “only 10 seconds

left.” The student stared at him like a “confused puppy” because she had always been

taught that if you do not understand something you read, you are supposed to go back and

read it again. Now she’s receiving a mixed message that she needs to read quickly and in

a certain amount of time. This made him ask the question that if comprehension is the

goal of reading, why am I putting so much emphasis on the speed and accuracy of her

reading abilities? After reviewing this, Marcell decided to develop a fluency “fitness

plan” that will once again incorporate comprehension activities into fluency lessons. The

first way to do this is to use the “four attributes of fluency” to create a reading routine.

13

These attributes are made up of the acronym REAL: Rate, Expression, Accuracy, and

Learning. For rate, students must remind themselves that if they read too fast or slow,

they cannot absorb all of the important details in a book or passage. Students should use

expression as they read to create connections with the characters or figures about whom

they are reading. Accuracy is important because if a student misreads words, they may

not be able to incorporate meaning into the text. Most importantly, if a student does not

learn anything after they read, this defeats the purpose of reading altogether. Attached to

this article is a checklist that can be given to the students so they can check off each of

the letters in REAL as they read. Teachers should also not completely give up using ORF

tests to measure reading. This is because rate and accuracy are both still important

elements of fluency. Teachers can still time the student’s rate of reading in one minute,

but instead of using a timer to stop them, they can continue reading. Afterwards, students

can give a full summary based on what they have read, and teachers can ask them open-

ended questions about the material. Students should also practice repeated reading. The

more they practice reading a particular text, the more they will learn each time. Finally,

teachers should often use Reader’s Theater and poetry for repeated reading strategies. If

students can find purpose in their reading through performances, they will want to

practice what they will perform. By “building muscle” back into fluency strategies,

students will be able to read at an appropriate speed and retain information about the

material they read about as well.

Cahill (2011) believes that to increase reading fluency, she needed to make it fun for

her students. She talked about a primary grades teacher who was teaching fluency to her

class. This teacher first decided to read a poem out loud to her students in a nonfluent

14

manner (no prosody or expression, sounding out words, reading slowly, etc.). She had her

students tell her about what they observed, and she wrote about it on the board.

Afterwards, the students created their own definition of fluency, which was that fluent

readers “read like they talk.” Afterwards, the teacher created fluency activities that the

students would find fun. Students could choose their own material to practice reading

aloud, such as their favorite poems or songs. For small groups, Cahill created her own

“fluency fun kit.” There was a fluency dice game, where students would roll a set of dice,

and they would read the passage out loud in a certain voice based on the number it landed

on (ex: Donald Duck, British accent, etc.). Students could use the microphone to pretend

that they were interviewing each other as they read out loud. There were animal masks

inside the kit, and if students were wearing them, they could “adopt the persona of the

animal” while they read out loud. Students could put small plastic animals on top of their

animals and whisper read to their animals out loud. Students also had a flashlight, and

they could use the light to read along as they read. By making reading fluency fun,

students are able to find reading excited; thus they are able to practice often and improve

their oral reading skills.

Ates (2013) believes that repeated reading is a key to reading fluently. The more

students are exposed to a text or passage, the more they become familiar with it; thus they

will be able to read it at a quicker pace. To test this theory, a 38-hour repeated research

session was conducted. While the article mentioned that the study was conducted on ten

students, it focused on the data of one of the students, whom they called “HB.” First, the

researchers tested HB’s grade level, which was at a “frustration level” (meaning a student

reads a text at an accuracy rate of less than 90 percent). Afterwards, they conducted a

15

session where HB would read passages out loud for one minute. The number of miscues

was calculated at this time. Following this, they would inform him of the number of

miscues that he made, and they would point out the words HB missed as well. Next, they

would have HB sound out the words he missed, and the researcher would have HB repeat

these words over and over. Finally, he read the passages out loud again. The second time

he read these passages, the number of miscues HB made decreased, while the number of

words he read per minute increased. By having students repeat a reading they are familiar

with, they will begin to be able to read the text more accurately and fluently, as they

know what to expect when reading the words on the page.

Deeney (2010) believes that there are better ways to measure fluency than by

conducting one-minute “fluency measures.” While she believes that they are useful for

identifying “at risk” students (to find students that cannot read “accurately and quickly”),

she believes that these tests do not meet the definition of fluency because the word

fluency is defined as “freedom from word identification problems that might hinder

comprehension.” When conducting one-minute assessments, however, there is not a lot of

comprehension happening as students read through these passages too quickly; thus, they

do not absorb a lot of the information. For a student to ultimately read fluently (and in

correlation, comprehend what they read), they must be able to “connect with the text.”

Deeney recommended that teachers use repeated readings so that students will absorb

more from the text as they become familiar with it. Teachers can also time a student’s

reading, but the student should time however long it takes for them to read a passage in

its entirety as well (the words per minute can then be calculated). Afterwards, the

students can answer questions about the reading so teachers can measure their

16

comprehension skills. By allowing students to read a text in its entirety, not only can a

student read more words to improve their fluency skills, but he or she can also absorb

information from the text.

17

III. Methodology-

The following is a description of each of the students who participated in this research:

Student 1- Male, Hispanic, EIP (Reading), ESOL, Migrant Student

Student 2- Male, Hispanic, EIP (Reading and Math), ESOL

Student 3- Male, Hispanic, EIP (Reading), ESOL

Student 4- Male, Hispanic, EIP (Reading and Math), ESOL, To be tested for a

reading disability

Student 5- Female, Hispanic, EIP (Reading and Math), ESOL

Student 6- Female, Hispanic, EIP (Reading), ESOL

Student 7- Female, African American, EIP (Reading)

Student 8- Female, African American, EIP (Reading and Math), being tested for

special education services

Student 9- Student 1- Male, Hispanic, EIP (Reading and Math), ESOL

Student 10- Male, African American, EIP (Reading and Math), being tested for

special education services

Student 11- Student 5- Female, Hispanic, EIP (Reading), ESOL

Student 12- Male, African American, EIP (Reading and Math)

To conduct my research, I first had each of these students take a Running Record test

to determine their respective reading level (based off on the Letter Correlation Chart of

Fountas & Pinnell). A Running Record is an assessment that measures each students

reading level. To pass students to the next level according to the Fountas & Pinnell

system, they must score at least a 90 percent Accuracy Rate (the Accuracy Rate is the

percentage of words read correctly throughout the passage or text [total number of words

18

read correctly ÷ total number of words]) they read out loud. At the end of the school year,

the goal is to have each of the students reading on an Independent R. I also gave each of

the students a 5 W Chart (a chart that asks students who the text is about, what is the

main event that happened, why is this happening, where does it take place, and when

does it take place) to determine whether or not any reading struggles affected their overall

comprehension (as it is my belief that reading fluency often affects the students overall

comprehension of the text they read, based on the research addressed in the literature

review). Afterwards, I had them read aloud a text that was given to them based on their

reading level. As I did this, I recorded their voices using my cellphone. The next day, I

asked them what fluent reading should sound like. They all answered that they should not

sound like a “robot,” or rather, they should not read too slowly or quickly, and they

should read with emotion. Afterwards, I gave them a set of headphones and they listened

to themselves read aloud. I asked them to compare what they listened to with that of what

they believed a fluent reader should sound like. I then asked them to name their strengths

regarding their reading, and afterwards, I had them list goals that they believed they

needed to work on. Over a period of six weeks, I focused on their goals in my

differentiated guided reading groups. I created a chart of various consonant, vowel, and

consonant-vowel blends and diagraphs to help students who struggled sounding out

words. I created the game ‘beat the timer’ to assist students who read too slowly or

quickly (they are given a time limit, and they have to read a passage and finish within

five seconds of their goal time to “beat the timer”). I also continued to use a 5 W Chart to

assess their comprehension of the reading. Following the research period, I gave them a

final running record to determine if they moved up any reading levels. If a student scored

19

a 95 percent or higher accuracy rate, he or she was able to move up a reading level. I also

gave them a final 5 W chart to test their comprehension.

Materials:

Running Record Sheets

5 W Charts

Time

Blends/Diagraphs Chart

Voice Recorder

Headphones

Qualitative Data

The qualitative data are made up of the reading levels collected on each student’s

pre- and post- test results (which is a letter based off of the Letter Correlation Chart of

Fountas & Pinnell). These reading levels were used to determine if their overall reading

had improved. I also collected each of the student’s strengths and goals regarding each

student’s own reading.

Quantitative Data

The quantitative data consisted of their 5 W Chart percentages. This was done by

calculating the percentage that they answered correctly. I also calculated the number of

students who increased their overall reading level, as well as the number of those who

increased their overall comprehension of the material read (based on the post research of

the 5 W Charts percentage compared to that of the beginning percentage pre research).

The following is a data table of my baseline findings prior to conducting the

research:

20

Name: Beginning

Reading

Level

Beginning

5 W

Results

(%)

Strength(s) Goals(s) Final

Reading

Level

Final 5

W

Results

(%)

Student

1

M 80 Comprehension Sounding Out Words

Speed

Student

2

M 40 Speed Sounding Out Words

Comprehension

Student

3

O 80 Comprehension Sounding Out Words

Student

4

N 60 Speed Sounding Out Words

Student

5

M 40 Perseverance Sounding Out Words

Speed

Student

6

N 60 Perseverance Sounding Out Words

Student

7

O 60 Speed Comprehension

Student

8

M 20 Perseverance Sounding Out Words

Speed

Student

9

G 40 Sounding out CVC

words

Sounding Out

Longer Words

Not “guessing what

words are before I

sound them out”

Student

10

M 60 Segmenting and

Blending Words

Speed

Comprehension

Student

11

N 80 Comprehension Sounding Out Words

Student

12

O 60 Speed

Sounding out Words

Comprehension

21

IV. Results-

Final Results Table:

Name: Beginning

Reading

Level

Beginning

5 W

Results

(%)

Strength(s) Goals(s) Final

Reading

Level

Final 5

W

Results

(%)

Student

1

M 80 Comprehension Sounding Out Words

Speed

N 100

Student

2

M 40 Speed Sounding Out Words

Comprehension

O 100

Student

3

O 80 Comprehension Sounding Out Words Q 100

Student

4

N 60 Speed Sounding Out Words P 100

Student

5

M 40 Perseverance Sounding Out Words

Speed

O 60

Student

6

N 60 Perseverance Sounding Out Words O 100

Student

7

O 60 Speed Comprehension Q 100

Student

8

M 20 Perseverance Sounding Out Words

Speed

N 60

Student

9

G 40 Sounding out CVC

words

Sounding Out

Longer Words

Not “guessing what

words are before I

sound them out”

H 60

Student M 60 Segmenting and Speed O 80

22

10 Blending Words Comprehension

Student

11

N 80 Comprehension Sounding Out Words P 100

Student

12

O 60 Speed

Sounding out Words

Comprehension Q 100

5 W Percentages (Pre and Post Research):

The following is a quantitative graph based on 5 W Chart percentages. The blue

represents each student’s baseline score. The purple represents the students’ post-test

scores.

Student 5W Percentages (Pre- and Post- Tests)

Studen

t 1

Studen

t 2

Studen

t 3

Studen

t 4

Studen

t 5

Studen

t 6

Studen

t 7

Studen

t 8

Studen

t 9

Studen

t 10

Studen

t 11

Studen

t 12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Figure 1

The following graph represents the percentage of students that increased their overall

reading level.

Percentages of Students that Moved Up Reading Levels

23

Pecentage of Stu-dents that Moved Up One Reading Level (33%)

Pecentage of Stu-dents that Moved Up Two Reading Levels (67%)

Figure 2

After reviewing the results of the post-test scores, all twelve of my students saw an

increase in their reading levels. Four of these twelve students (33 percent) increased their

reading level by one level (Students 1, 6, 8, and 9). Eight of the twelve students (67

percent) increased their reading level by two levels (Students 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 12).

These students were given a second running record because they scored at least a 98

percent accuracy rate on the original material I gave them, so I wanted to see if they were

ready to move up an additional level. I believe that each student saw an increase in his or

her reading level due to the fact that we spent six weeks focusing on student’s goals,

which he or she set following having listened to the recording of his or her own voice.

Even though Students 1, 6, 8, and 9 did see an increase in their reading levels, I believe

that their results did not lead to progressing across multiple levels as did other due to

underlying factors. Student 1 is a migrant student that moved to the US from Honduras

last year. He is very intelligent, so he usually does very well on comprehension activities;

however, he is still learning how to decode words in the English language, so it takes

longer for him to sound out unfamiliar words than it does for the other students. Both

Students 6 and 8 are new students who only joined my class part way during my research

period. Because of this, they did not have six weeks to focus on their goals in the same

24

way the other students did. Student 8 is also currently being tested for Special Education

services for both reading and mathematics. Student 9 began the research period on a

Level G (which is a first grade level). He had not seen a lot of improvement since the

beginning of the school year. He struggles to blend words together after segmenting the

sounds, and he is going to be tested for a possible reading disability in the near future.

Nevertheless, 100 percent of the students did see improvement regarding his or her

reading level, which in itself is an accomplishment because of the lack of results seen by

the school in recent years.

All twelve students also saw an increase in their comprehension levels based on the

results of the post research 5 W Charts (see Figure 1, above). Eight of the twelve students

received 100 percent on the final 5 W Chart. One student scored an 80 percent, and three

students received a 60 percent. Even though these four students (Students 5, 8, 9 and 10)

did not receive a score as high as the other students, they all did see an increase of 20 to

40 percent compared to their results on the pre-test. It should be noted that both Students

8 and 10 are about to be tested for Special Education services in reading. Student 9 (as

mentioned above) potentially has a reading disability, so this in turn may affect how

much he can remember the material he reads. These students’ struggles in reading may

have affected their ability to comprehend the material they read.

25

V. Conclusions-

Based on the results following the final running records and 5 W Charts, I believe

that having students listen to their own voices did lead to an overall increase regarding

both fluency and comprehension. Each student was able to create his or her own goals

after listening to himself or herself, and this, in turn, allowed each student to focus on the

goals over the nominal six-week period. As a result, each student saw an improvement

regarding his or her overall fluency and comprehension skills, which enabled all students

to improve their reading levels. I will continue to have students listen to their own voices

periodically, as well as have them create goals based on how they heard their own voices.

We will continue to focus on these goals throughout the remainder of the school year so

they can continue their journey on becoming fluent readers.

A letter has been sent home to my students’ parents so they can give their children

the resources necessary to continue to practice at home. For homework, students are

required to fill out a reading log and read for 20 minutes each day. I have sent home

copies of the consonant and vowel blends charts, as well as the 5 W Charts, so that

students are able to continue practicing what they have learned in the classroom while

doing their homework. I have also send home directions to the game “beat the clock” to

26

help students who struggle to read at an appropriate speed. The school still has a large

population of students who read below grade level. Because the results of this study

demonstrated that listening to their own voices does help students read fluently, I will be

sharing the results of this study with my other fourth grade teaching colleagues and the

rest of the teaching staff. The study and its results will be addressed both at grade level

planning meetings and faculty and staff meetings.

The most important outcome as a result of this research is that, in general, the

students with whom I worked have shown a measurable increase in their interest and skill

in reading. They have become more excited when reading during my differentiated

guided reading group times, and they have asked me more times throughout the day if

they can read once they finish an assignment early. To me, this is encouraging because in

the past, they have expressed frustration when reading. The fact that they feel better about

their own skills is definitely satisfying to experience as their teacher. Because I feel that

reading is the most important skill to have for learning (as reading is involved in every

content area), and now I feel more confident about their ability to learn throughout the

future. I look forward to tracking their progress during the remainder of the school year.

27

References

Ates, S. (2013). The effect of repeated reading exercises with performance-based

feedback on fluent reading skills. Reading Improvement, 50(4), 158-165.

Basaran, M. (2013). Reading fluency as an indicator of reading comprehension.

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

doi:10.12738/estp.2013.4.1922

Bellinger, J.M., & DiPerna, J.C. (2011). Is fluency-based story retell a good indicator of

reading comprehension? Psychology in the Schools, 48(4), 416-426.

doi:10.1002/pits.20563

Cahill, M. E. (2011). Putting the fun back into fluency instruction. Reading Teacher,

65(2), 127-131.

Calo, K.M. Woolard-Ferguson, T. (2013). Fluency idol: Using pop culture to engage

28

students and boost fluency skills. Reading Teacher, 66(6), 454-458.

doi:10.1002/TRTR.1148

Deeney, T. A. (2010). One-minute fluency measures: Mixed messages in assessment and

instruction. Reading Teacher, 63(6), 440-450.

Fantastic Firsties. (n.d.). Reading data sheet. Retrieved from

http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Reading-Data-Sheet-1149617

Hilden, K., & Jones, J. (2013). Effective interactive read-alouds build stronger

comprehension. Reading Today, 30(5), 17-19.

Marcell, B. (2011). Putting fluency on a fitness plan : Building fluency's meaning-

making muscles. Reading Teacher, 65(4), 242-249. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01034

Marcell, B., Ferraro, C. (2013). So long, robot reader! A superhero intervention

plan for improving fluency. Reading Teacher, 66(8), 607-614. doi:10.1002/trtr.1165

Rasinski, T. (2012). Why reading fluency should be hot. Reading Teacher, 65(8),

516-522. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01077

Rasinski, T. (2014). Delivering supportive fluency instruction- Especially for

students who struggle. Reading Today, 31(5), 26-28.

29

Scholastic. (n.d.). Five w’s chart. Retrieved from

http://teacher.scholastic.com/writewit/tguide/5doubleyous.pdf

The Go To Teacher (2012). March madness. Retrieved from

http://thegototeacher.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/march-madness.html

USA School Info. (2014). Riverside intermediate school in mableton, georgia.

Retrieved from http://www.usaschoolinfo.com/school/riverside-intermediate-school-

mableton-georgia.24389/enrollment

30

Appentix A

31

Appentix B

32

5 W Chart

Who What When Where Why

33