The Readers’ Theatre Experience and Its Effect on Oral ...ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~mwarner8/7511/Reader's_Theater_Lorber.pdf · The Readers’ Theatre Experience and Its Effect on

Running Head: Readers Theatre 1

The Readers’ Theatre Experience and Its Effect on Oral Language Fluency

Deborah Alex Lorber

Kennesaw State University


Abstract

Readers’ Theatre is a popular instructional strategy for improving reading

fluency. A large body of research has demonstrated its popularity and effectiveness as an

intervention strategy in promoting the reading development of below level supported

elementary school students. The purpose of this action research project is to explore

whether the use of Readers’ Theatre will enhance the literacy development of all students

regardless of ability.

My class of third grade students engaged in a study of Readers’ Theatre in which

they responded to literature by writing, rehearsing, and performing Readers’ Theatre

scripts. Data collected consisted of reading inventories, surveys, interviews, participant

reflection surveys, and researcher observations. Participants were administered an

informal reading inventory prior to and after the Readers’ Theatre experience to

document any changes in fluency and reading rate. In addition, three students of varying

levels provided an in-depth profile of their participation in Readers’ Theatre.

The Twelve week study used a mixed-methods approach that involved both

qualitative and quantitative evaluations. The findings of this study indicate that the

Readers’ Theatre experience had a positive impact on students’ attitudes towards reading

and on their overall literacy development, including metacognition, confidence in oral

reading, collaboration, and writing. Students who participated in Readers’ Theatre made

significant improvements in fluency and prosodic gains. Students’ test scores indicate

considerable growth in both their reading rate and fluency.


Introduction:

My objective in this study is to examine the affects of Readers’ Theatre on the

fluency of students of varying reading abilities. This research study is designed to

investigate whether implementing the strategy of Readers’ Theatre into the general

education language arts curriculum would ultimately benefit and increase fluency in all

students in a third grade classroom.

Teaching reading fluency is an important part of the reading curriculum at this

age, but it is often neglected in reading instruction programs (Zutell & Rasinski, 1991).

Teachers want students to read smoothly and fluently but do not have a true

understanding of how to reach that goal. A common misconception is that teaching

reading fluency is only important when students are young and show large gaps in

learning (Rasinski, 1989). For most teachers, implementing explicit fluency instruction is

a time-consuming process consisting of repeated readings, running records, informal

reading inventories, and timed oral fluency passages which seem to defer to the pressing

need of just getting through an ever expanding language arts curriculum.

Fluency has been defined differently in the academic setting throughout the past

few decades. LaBerge and Samuels (1974) referred to fluency as the “automaticity of

word recognition”. Harris and Hodges (1995) defined fluency as, “freedom from word

identification problems”. Zutell and Rasinski (1991) stated that fluency was, “the

effortless or automatic reading in which readers group words into meaningful phrases,

while using correct pitch and intonation.” In more recent years, the idea of fluency has

come to mean more than just word recognition but also includes comprehension as well.

(Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001) Throughout the study, the term fluency will integrate

several researchers’ thoughts of what constitutes fluency. Fluency is accurate reading,


that incorporates correct phrasing, expression and volume, smoothness, pace, and the

reading rate allows the student to focus on the meaning of the text.

Fluency is important to all students because it bridges the gap between just word

recognition and comprehension. Fluency is a complex component of reading and. many

factors can influence a reader’s fluency. “Fluency varies with different types and

difficulty levels of text. A sign of a good reader is when both speed and support are

adjusted to suit the demands of the text.” (Pikulski & Chard 2005). An assessment taken

by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) states the following:

Students who read orally with the greatest fluency tended to score highest in overall

reading achievement. And those who read with the least fluency tended to have the

lowest levels of achievement.

According to the National Readers Panel report, there is common agreement that

fluency develops from repeated reading practice. Repeated readings consist of rereading a

short meaningful passage several times until a desired level of fluency is achieved. Some

strategies such as Choral Reading, “Buddy” Partnership Reading, and Tape Assisted

Reading when implemented on a consistent basis, will help achieve the goal of creating

more fluent readers. However, while repeated readings are effective, some students find

the process both boring and monotonous and therefore are less inclined to become

engaged in the process.

A more attractive option for fluency instruction is the use of Readers’ Theatre in the

classroom. In Readers’ Theatre, students are given a script and as they rehearse their parts

they eagerly reread their “lines” prior to the goal of a final performance. This is in effect

a form of repeated reading but one that has a more authentic approach. Through the use

of Readers’ Theatre students are engaged in a process that is both meaningful and

socially engaging. Furthermore, by utilizing Readers’ Theatre, teachers expose students


to a wider variety of reading genres, and by practicing them, students gain in accuracy,

automaticity (rate), prosody, and comprehension.

Literature Review: Readers’ Theatre traditionally is used in a classroom setting as an entertaining,

instructional method to promote the interpretation of literature. I suspect that the moment

most teachers hear the word “theater” they say to themselves, “I really don’t know

anything about drama so I am not comfortable using that in the classroom,” or, “I am

much too busy trying to cover the curriculum, so I am not going to waste my time with

something so frivolous.” However, what we have learned from prior research is that

Readers’ Theatre promotes fluency for struggling readers, builds confidence, motivates

students to read more extensively, enhances listening and speaking skills, and builds

camaraderie in the classroom (Rasinski, 2003). If Readers’ Theatre can assist struggling

readers, what would this method do for on-level, average readers, or even above average

readers? Would we see the gains purported for struggling readers be the same for average

or above average readers?

Teachers working in the early elementary years focus their energies on the

students’ ability to decode text. As students reach second and third grade the focus turns

to the students’ comprehension of the text and less on decoding skills. When decoding

develops into an automatic process, minimal attention [on the part of the student] is

required to decode the words, thereby freeing attention for making meaning of text

(Griffith & Rasinski, 2004). As educators we spend a great deal of time teaching students

how to comprehend what the text means but, even so, for some children reading remains

a struggle. They read haltingly word-by-word; either skipping challenging words in the

text altogether or hesitating and repeating syllables found in those words. Their oral

reading shows little attention to either punctuation or phrasing. There is little inflection


and expression as they read a passage. These students are unable to retell or answers

specific questions pertaining to the passage just read. However, if that same passage is

read to the students they not only understand the passage but are able to answer questions

about the material as well. The difficulty for these students seems to be a gap between

decoding and comprehension; that gap is reading fluency. Fluency is important in reading

because it affects how well readers understand what they read.

Fluency is defined as the accuracy, rate, smoothness, and efficiency of reading.

The next key element in reading is expressive reading or prosodic reading which is

defined as the phrasing, intonation, pitch, and stress while reading (Casey &

Chamberlain, 2004). Fluent readers are not only appropriately fast but they also read with

good phrasing and expression. Therefore these two elements are keys to successful

reading and comprehension. Successful reading requires readers to process the text (the

surface level of reading) and comprehend the text (the deeper meaning) (Rasinski &

Hoffman 2003). How is it possible to develop the needed automatic or effortless reading

and prosodic reading to gain not only reading fluency but the ability to construct meaning

as well? Research indicates two methods: assisted reading and repeated readings have

proven to improve reading fluency (Kuhn & Stall, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000;

Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003).

In order to read fluently, students must first hear what fluent reading sounds like;

this is where the process of assisted reading is implemented. First, either the teacher

models by reading the text aloud with great expression or the student listens to a

recording while following along silently. (This method can also be done with a fluent

student reader partnered with a less fluent reader). Next, the teacher and the student will

read the passage aloud together. Finally, the student will read the same passage aloud

independently. This practice allows the student to hear what fluent reading should sound


like and affords them an opportunity to emulate that style. Why is this important? The

relationship between oral reading fluency and general reading achievement was

determined in a study conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP). The study stated that students who read orally with the greatest fluency tended

to score highest in overall reading achievement, and those who read with the least fluency

tended to have the lowest levels of reading achievement (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001;

Rasinski, 2000).

Developing fluency in reading requires practice and using the method of repeated

reading; (paired reading, buddy reading, echo reading, choral reading, or reading with

books on tape). The method of repeated reading involves practicing a reading of short

text until the desired level of fluency occurs. Using these strategies, students can

experience fluent reading. Research indicates that repeated readings lead not only to

improvement in decoding, reading rate, prosodic reading, and comprehension of passages

previously read but also improvements in passages that the reader has not previously seen

(Dowhower, 1994; Koskinen & Blum, 1986; Kuhn & Stahl, 2000; National Reading

Panel, 2000).

Based on the research it seems that assisted readings and repeated reading are

instructional strategies that should be utilized in the classroom to develop independent

fluent readers that can also think critically about the text. So how does a teacher find a

way to repeatedly read the same passages over and over again without a revolt taking

place in the classroom? Often disfluent (non-fluent) readers disengage during reading

instruction because they become frustrated with the text (Rasinski, 2003). One possibility

is an authentic repeated reading strategy called Readers’ Theatre. Using Readers’ Theatre

in the classroom provides teachers with an avenue for purposeful repeated readings.


“Readers’ Theatre is an interpretive reading activity in which readers use their

voices to bring characters to life. It is conducive to the classroom setting because unlike

conventional theater, Readers’ Theatre requires no sets, costumes, props or memorized

lines. In Readers Theatre the performer’s goal is to read the script aloud effectively,

enabling the audience to visualize the action.” (Martinez, Roser, & Strecker, 1999).

Students are given the script at the beginning of the week and students practice their

scripts in various ways. Students practice either in groups, teacher assisted, with partners,

or independently, and at home with their parents each night. Each day the students will

get together and “rehearse” their roles for some specified time during the reading period.

Through this process, I have seen children talking about their characters and offering

suggestions and modeling how certain lines could be read to convey the character to other

students in their groups.

Mini-lessons are also a part of the process where the teacher will discuss

developing the character, phrasing, using inflection to express emotions of the character,

using “different” voices or accents to bring the characters in the story to life. These daily

re-readings provide students additional opportunities to experiment with the language of

the piece and also to hear modeling of what fluent reading should sound like. At the end

of the week, students will “perform” their scripts for a live audience of peers and/or

adults. Reading for an audience adds an element of excitement and purpose for the

readers. Implementing Readers’ Theatre, struggling readers and proficient readers alike,

are able to participate in this activity, and through such experiences, build positive social

interactions focused on reading (Worthy & Prater, 2002).

I have used Readers’ Theatre as a way to promote fluency with my struggling

readers. In nearly every research article I found, the focus was on the disfluent or

struggling reader. I uncovered very little research that discussed incorporating Readers


Theatre in the classroom to promote fluency for the average or the above average ability

groups. How do different aspects of oral reading fluency (rate, expression and volume,

phrasing, smoothness, and pace) change for students with varying fluency abilities as

they engage in Readers’ Theatre? Are there fluency gains for these two groups as well? If

there are gains, are the gains in fluency significant compared to the gains made by lower-

level readers? There seems to be a need for further research in exploring the answers to

those questions. As a teacher, I have a vested interest in improving my students reading

fluency and oral expression. By doing so, I believe it will also improve their accuracy and

comprehension which in turn will improve overall student achievement which is the

ultimate goal. If fluency can aid comprehension then it is a teachers’ obligation to target

this area of study in their reading instructional program. In my research I will target a

supported, an on-level, and an above level student to compare gains in fluency and

comprehension using the method of Readers’ Theatre.

Methodology:

This small scale action research project is a multi-case study that includes both

qualitative and quantitative measures. The purpose of this study is to examine the process

of developing and raising fluency scores using Readers’ Theatre as an intervention with

three third grade students of varying levels of reading competency.

Environment:

I conducted my research at a K-5 elementary school in a northern suburb of

Atlanta. The school is in the 10th largest city in Georgia with a population of

approximately 38,000 residents.

The school has a population of 908 students. 180 of these students speak a

language other than English at home. The diversity of ethnic backgrounds is broken down

as follows: Asian (also includes Indian, Hindi and Pakistani ethnicities) 40%, Caucasian


(includes Middle Eastern ethnicities) 43%, African American 10%, Multiracial 5%, and

Hispanic/Latino 2%. There are approximately 67 students currently being served in the

ESOL program.

In terms of student achievement, the students at this particular suburban

elementary school consistently perform in the top percentile range of 95% or higher on

standardized tests. For grades 3 and 5, Fulton County outscores the rest of the nation by

at least 12 percentile points in all areas.

I currently teach 19 3rd grade students, 11 boys and 9 girls ranging in ages from 8

to 9. This is my fourth year teaching 3rd grade at this elementary school.

Materials/Research Instruments:

In this study, I used the oral reading strategy or intervention of Reader’s theatre to

aid students of varying levels in the acquisition of oral language fluency. I chose

Reader’s theatre in addition to the myriad strategies already in place to assist in the

growth of the students’ oral reading fluency.

Prior to the introduction of the Reader’s theatre intervention, I gave baseline tests

(Informal Reading Inventories) to all students in my 3rd grade classroom to determine

individual reading levels (see Appendix A). I then used the adapted Timothy Rasinski

(2008) approach to the Curriculum Based Approach/Oral Reading Fluency (CBM/ORF)

which measures both reading accuracy and reading rate (automaticity). (See Appendix B)

In addition, I assessed prosody using a Multidimensional Fluency Scale (MFS)

(Zutell & Rasinski 1991) (see Appendix C) that considers expression, volume,

smoothness, pace, and phrasing. In order to determine an accurate picture of each student

I used an additional cold reading passage based on their independent reading level. In

conjunction with the Multidimensional Fluency Scale, I implemented the adapted

Allington’s Fluency Scale (1983) using Pinnell’s version (1995) Oral Reading Four-Point


Fluency Scale (see Appendix D) which focuses on phrasing, transition, juncture,

intonation and stress. Students were given pre- and post- attitudinal surveys to gauge their

interest and attitude towards reading (see Appendix E). I read the survey aloud to the

class to be sure participants understood what was being asked.

Throughout the twelve week study the students were given Reader’s theatre

scripts which consisted of works of fiction as well as curriculum-related scripts. Students

were then asked to complete a self-evaluation after every Friday performance (see

Appendix F). I recorded anecdotal notes throughout the study as an addition to the

students’ self-evaluations.

Research Design:

This twelve week study was designed to determine if the use of Readers’

Theatre is beneficial to students of varying reading ability levels in the acquisition of oral

language fluency. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used as I observed the

students during the literacy block of the day. I collected data through the administration

of a pre- and post-attitudinal survey, (see Appendix E) Informal Reading Inventories, a

Multidimensional Fluency Scale which is an adapted rubric that measures reading

accuracy, and reading rate. I also used interview questions, student self evaluation, and

classroom observation to establish if Readers’ Theatre was successful in increasing

fluency scores.

Before the intervention of Readers’ Theatre was set in place I determined the

class’ independent reading levels using an Informal Reading Inventory. Students read

from Houghton Mifflin Assessment Kit which evaluates the student’s level in reading

using cold reading passages and vocabulary lists. I determined the accuracy of each

student’s reading by dividing the number of words read correctly per minute (WCPM) by

the total number of words read plus any uncorrected errors. I used this number (a


percentage) to compare against the targeted norms (see Appendix B). This data measured

both the accuracy and rate of oral fluency of each student. I then used the adapted

approach of Timothy Rasinski (2008) of Curriculum Based Approach/Oral Reading

Fluency (CBM/ORF) which measures both reading accuracy and reading rate

(automaticity) of all students in my classroom once their independent level was known

(see Appendix C).

I used a separate grade-leveled cold reading passage of approximately 250 words.

The students read aloud, in a normal way, for exactly one minute. At the end of a

minute’s time I marked any uncorrected errors on my copy of the text. In order to

establish a base-line independent reading level I recorded each student’s scores of words-

correct-per-minute (WCPM), accuracy, and rate, using CBM/ORF targeted reading rate.

I measured the students’ prosody in two ways: first, using the Multidimensional

Fluency Scale (MFS) (Zutell & Rasinski, (1991) which measures reader fluency in

expression, volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pace (see Appendix C). In conjunction

with the Zutell and Rasinski fluency scale I assessed the students fluency by using

Pinnell’s (1995) Four Point Oral Reading Fluency Scale using the same cold reading

passages (see Appendix D). This rubric assessed transitions, flow, and phrasing in

students’ oral fluency.

In order to view the students’ baseline results I used an Excel spreadsheet and

placed the results of all four components from highest to lowest in adjacent columns.

Based on those results, I chose three students on the following levels: Supported in all

areas, On-level in all of the four areas, and Advanced in all of the four areas.

Once the students for the study were chosen, I put in place the Readers’ Theatre

intervention, in the form of a Readers’ Theatre weekly workshop. All students in the

classroom participated but only three of the students’ data was analyzed. Each week the


students were given a Readers’ Theatre script. Thirty minutes a day out of the two hour

reading block was set aside for the Readers’ Theatre intervention which included a mini-

lesson on the skill of the day. The culmination of the Readers’ Theatre workshop was a

performance on Fridays. For a more detailed schedule see Appendix H. Once the

performance was concluded, the participants answered a student evaluation sheet (see

Appendix F).

Throughout this process the students were encouraged to practice their parts by

reading their scripts aloud to their families each night. Coaching and formative feedback

were key in developing students’ expressive and meaningful reading. I used the same

schedule for the duration of all twelve weeks of the study.

After twelve weeks of Reader’s Theatre intervention, I re-administered the same

independent cold reading passages to the three students chosen for the study to see what

progress, if any, had been made in their oral fluency. Below is a graphic organizer of the

data used in the action project.


Data Collection Overview:


Results and Discussion

Data Analysis:

This twelve week action research project was a multi-case study that involved

both qualitative and quantitative data analysis. The rationale for this study was to

examine the process of using Readers’ Theatre as an intervention instrument for

developing and raising fluency scores of students of varying abilities in a third grade

classroom. The questions guiding this research were as follows:

1. What impact does the participation in Readers’ Theatre have on the attitudes,

interests, and motivation of 3rd grade students of varying levels in the language

arts classroom?

2. What impact will the implementation of Readers’ Theatre have on the fluency

scores of students within those varying levels?

I began my data collection for this study through the administration of an informal

reading inventory of the entire class to determine the baseline scores for their fluency rate

(words per minute). An informal reading inventory administered at the beginning of the

study would allow me to measure subsequent student achievement. Therefore,

participants were administered an informal reading inventory every four weeks; once at

the beginning of the study, in the middle, and again at the conclusion of the Readers’

Theatre experience to document any changes in fluency and reading rate.

Table 1 illustrates the result of the Pinnell’s Oral Reading Fluency method which

is used to measure the students’ expressive interpretation while reading (prosody)

utilizing a 4 point Likert scale. This table reflects the entire class’s performance.


Table 1: Expressive Interpretation:

Pinnell’s Oral Reading Fluency Scale Entire Class 1 2 3 4

Rating Name

Reads primarily word-by-

word.

Reads primarily in

two-word phrase groups.

Reads primarily in three- and four-word

phrase groups.

Reads primarily in larger, meaningful

phrase groups. 3/4 Maria PRE POST 1/3 Samuel PRE POST 1/2 Esmeralda PRE POST 2/3 Anny PRE POST 2/3 Alexis PRE POST 1/3 Richard PRE POST POST 1/2 David PRE POST 2/3 Sanjay PRE POST 4/4 Alli PRE POST 1/2 Philip PRE POST 2/3 Simon PRE POST 2/3 Lina PRE POST 3/4 Vivian PRE POST 2./3 Amanda PRE POST 2/3 Sidharth PRE POST 3/4 Ian PRE POST 1/3 Evan PRE POST 4/4 Aaron PRE POST 4/4 Michael PRE POST


Figure 1- reflects the Pre and Post test results of Pinnell’s Oral Reading Fluency Scale using a histogram approach to illustrate the data from Table 1

Figure 1: Histogram of Oral Fluency Entire Class

Pinnell Oral Reading Fluency Scale - PRE

67

3 3

012345678

Readsprimarilyword-by-word.

Readsprimarily intwo-wordphrasegroups.

Readsprimarily inthree- andfour-wordphrase

groups.

Readsprimarily in

larger,meaningful

phrasegroups.

Pinnell Oral ReadingFluency Scale - PRE

Pinnell Oral Reading Fluency Scale - POST

-

4

10

5

-2468

1012

Rea

dspr

imar

ilyw

ord-

by-

wor

d.

Rea

dspr

imar

ily in

thre

e- a

ndfo

ur-w

ord

Pinnell Oral ReadingFluency Scale - POST

In conjunction with the Pinnell’s fluency scale, the students’ fluency was also

assessed using the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (MFS) (Zutell & Rasinski, 1991).

This inventory was developed as a tool to rate students’ oral reading fluency. The holistic

scale assesses the four major components of fluency: expression and volume, accuracy

and phrasing, smoothness, and pace. This assessment was administered individually to

each student, after they read a passage on his/her reading level. Each component of

fluency was rated on a 4 point scale, with 4 as the highest level. The MFS was

administered at the onset of the study and again at the conclusion of the study. The


Highlighted students are the three students that were singled out during the course of the

study.

Table 2: Rating of Students’ Oral Reading Multidimensional Fluency

MULTIDIMENSIONAL FLUENCY SCALE Likert Scale: 1 - 4 (Low to High)

Pre Post Pre Post

Name Expression and

Volume Name Phrasing Maria 3 4 Maria 3 4 Samuel 2 3 Samuel 3 3 Esmeralda 1 2 Esmeralda 2 2 Anny 2 3 Anny 2 3 Alexis 1 3 Alexis 3 4 Richard 1 3 Richard 1 3 David 1 2 David 1 3 Sanjay 2 3 Sanjay 2 3 Alli 4 4 Alli 4 4 Philip 1 2 Philip 2 3 Simon 2 3 Simon 3 4 Lina 1 3 Lina 1 3 Vivian 3 4 Vivian 3 4 Amanda 3 3 Amanda 3 3 Sidharth 3 4 Sidharth 3 4 Ian 3 4 Ian 3 4 Evan 2 3 Evan 2 3 Aaron 4 4 Aaron 4 4 Michael 4 4 Michael 3 4 Pre Post Pre Post

Name Smoothness Name Pace Maria 3 4 Maria 3 4 Samuel 3 4 Samuel 2 3 Esmeralda 2 3 Esmeralda 1 2 Anny 2 3 Anny 2 3 Alexis 3 4 Alexis 3 4 Richard 1 3 Richard 1 4 David 1 2 David 1 2


Smoothness: Pre Post Pace: Pre Post Sanjay 2 4 Sanjay 2 4 Alli 4 4 Alli 4 4 Philip 2 3 Philip 1 3 Simon 3 3 Simon 2 4 Lina 1 3 Lina 1 3 Vivian 3 4 Vivian 2 4 Amanda 3 3 Amanda 2 4 Sidharth 3 4 Sidharth 2 4 Ian 3 4 Ian 3 4 Evan 2 3 Evan 1 4 Aaron 4 4 Aaron 4 4 Michael 3 4 Michael 3 4

Using bar graphs below in Figure 2 restates the information from Table 2.

Figure 2: Multidimensional Fluency Scale

PRE Expression and Volume

65 5

3

01234567

Pre 6 5 5 3

1 2 3 4

POST Expression and Volume

0

3

9

7

0

2

4

6

8

10

Post 0 3 9 7

1 2 3 4

PRE Phrasing

3

5

9

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Pre 3 5 9 2

1 2 3 4

POST Phrasing

01

9 9

0

2

4

6

8

10

Post 0 1 9 9

1 2 3 4


PRE Pace

67

4

2

0

2

4

6

8

Pre 6 7 4 2

1 2 3 4

POST Pace

02

4

13

02

468

10

1214

Post 0 2 4 13

1 2 3 4

PRE Smoothness

3

5

9

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Pre 3 5 9 2

1 2 3 4

POST Smoothness

01

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Post 0 1 8 10

1 2 3 4

Other data included in this action research project (see Tables 3 and 4 in the

addendum to Appendix E) illustrate the results of the pre- and post- reading attitudinal

survey used in the action research project. This survey was read to the students in a whole

group setting. Each question presented a brief simply worded statement about reading

and readers theatre followed by four pictures of Garfield in different poses. Each pose

was designed to depict a different emotional state ranging from very positive to very

negative. Researchers Flynt and Cooter (2002) suggested that a reading attitude survey

helps teachers find “an informed departure point for quality reading experiences”.

Twenty-One questions were asked of the students but only twelve of the questions

presented data that was relevant to this study. The data garnered valuable information in

regards to student perceptions toward recreational and academic reading, their attitude

towards reading in general, and Readers Theatre specifically.


The graphs in Figures 3 and 4 indicate the Pre/Post results of two specific questions that

deal specifically with students’ attitude towards reading in school and readers theatre.

Figure 3: General Reading Attitude Information from survey

1 . How do you feel when reading a book in school during free time?

26%

53%

16%11%

Very Happy

Somewhat Happy

Somewhat Unhappy

Very Unhappy

1 . How do you feel when reading a book in school during free time?

37%

47%

11% 5%Very Happy

Somew hat Happy

Somew hat Unhappy

Very Unhappy

Figure 4:

7. How do you feel about Readers' Theatre?

16%

26%47%

11%Very Happy

Somewhat Happy

Somewhat Unhappy

Very Unhappy

Pre-test

Post-test

Pre-test


7. How do you feel about Readers' Theatre?

63%

26%

11% 0%Very Happy

Somew hat Happy

Somew hat Unhappy

Very Unhappy

In addition, individual interviews were conducted with three students of varying

reading abilities. These interviews were conducted at the beginning of the twelve week

study, and again at the conclusion of the study. Additional data was gathered using the

students self evaluations after each Readers’ Theatre session and during classroom

observations of the students progress.

During the language arts block all nineteen students in my third grade class

participated in the Readers’ Theater Workshop. Students read various pieces of literature

in the form of Readers’ Theatre scripts, participated in mini lessons addressing specific

areas of concern. Students practiced their parts both individually and in groups, and at

times worked in groups to create dialogue to add to their scripts. Students also had the

opportunity to perform for other classes at Wilson Creek Elementary their completed

pieces.

The three students I choose as the focal point of my action research project were

chosen not only because of their informal reading inventories, fluency scores and

academic levels but because of their personal circumstances that attributed to their

fluency scores. One student is a supported on- level learner, another is an on-level learner

and the last student is an advanced- level student. Choosing three students of varying

Post-test


abilities will confirm my hypothesis that Readers theatre will benefit all students not just

below level readers.

Participant Profiles:

Supported On-Level Student:

David is an enthusiastic 8 year old boy that until last year was home schooled. Last year,

he had a great deal of difficulty assimilating into public school; it was too big and had too

many rules and procedures. Academically, he was below level and placed in an

intervention program. This year, David, although still below level in reading is beginning

to make strides in mathematics. Socially, he is not as intimidated as he once was, and has

instead become overly social in class and is often out of his seat and off task. David has

wavy brown hair that is always sticking up because of his nervous habit of running his

hands through his hair while talking conversationally, reading, an especially during any

test situation. He is diminutive in size and has a slight lisp when he speaks. David is

slightly less mature than the other boys in his class and is very impulsive in his behavior.

Due to his level of immaturity he has difficulty staying on task in a whole group

environment. David does much better when he works with the teacher one-on-one. His

reading level is that of a second semester second grader. When David reads, he primarily

reads word by word. He tends to repeat the first word in the sentences several times

before moving on to the rest of the sentence. He repeatedly loses his place, has frequent

extended pauses, repetitions, hesitations and sound outs which severely impacts the

smoothness and pace of his reading. He also lacks expressive interpretation, (reading with

little or no inflection). David often apologizes while reading after making a self

correction and throughout the experience he is nervously running his hands through his

hair. David makes little sense of the text while reading because he is so busy trying to


decode the words, therefore his reading is slow and laborious. His comprehension of the

text is severely impacted by his fluency and therefore this leads to a lack of confidence,

which in turn impacts his fluency. Choosing David as a participant could provide insight

into how a struggling student can hopefully grow and develop reading fluency through

the use of Readers theatre.

On-Level Student

Sanjay is a delightful young boy but cautious and worried, afraid to make a mistake. He

has overcome many obstacles in his short academic career. In first grade, he was placed

in an IRR self-contained classroom because of his lack of comprehension and his

inability to stay focused on the lessons taught in the classroom. Having just arrived in the

United States of America from India, he was placed in the ESOL program. Sanjay’s

reading was expressionless, choppy, slow and laborious with frequent extended pauses

and hesitations. With a great deal of hard work on his part and support from both teachers

and parents Sanjay began to close the gap. He was placed back in the general education

classroom during second grade and has continued to make academic progress. Sanjay has

shown an aptitude for math and it was in this arena that he was recommended for the

Talented and Gifted Program at Wilson Creek Elementary. Two weeks ago I received

confirmation that he qualified for the program. Sanjay’s first reading inventory in 3rd

grade placed in the 93 words per minute category, which is three points above the

beginning benchmark for 3rd grade. Most researchers agree that fluency encompasses

more than just automatic word recognition; his reading still needs to be more automatic in

the regards to an automatic reading rate or pace, reading with natural phrasing,

expression and volume. Good readers read at a pace similar to conversational talk,

therefore reading fluency is still an area of weakness for Sanjay that needs to be


supported and strengthened. Choosing Sanjay as a part of the study would show that on –

level readers could become stronger fluent readers through the intervention of Readers’

Theatre.

Advanced-Level Student:

Amanda is an 8 year old girl in my advanced group and even though I could have

chosen an advanced student with a higher fluency rate in the advanced group, I chose

Amanda as a participant for several reasons: She is a bright, articulate, and committed to

excelling in her studies. She loves theatre, so when I discussed the study with the students

in my class she was immediately enthusiastic about the study. When Amanda speaks, she

is very animated often using her hands to emphasize a point. She speaks in a breathy;

almost stream of consciousness style with very little punctuation apparent. She loves to

discuss plays, books and cheer leading her new found passion. She has Cerebral Palsy, so

breath control is an issue for her when she reads. The Cerebral Palsy causes her to catch

her breath at odd intervals, which causes her reading to sound choppy rather than smooth

and even. Amanda tends to break up sentences in two or three word segments rather than

read in meaning phrase groups. Her reading is an uneven mixture of fast and slow reading

(pacing) depending on how excited she is while reading. I choose to highlight Amanda in

this study because Readers Theatre helps students with their pacing and flow while

reading and I was curious to see if the Readers Theatre intervention could help her gain in

not only a higher words per minute score but also improve her smoothness, pace, and

phrasing while reading.

Discussion of Data:

The rationale for this study was to examine the process of using Readers’ Theatre

as an intervention instrument for developing and raising fluency scores of students with


varying reading abilities in a third grade classroom. I had two questions that guided this

research project:

1. What impact would the participation in Readers’ Theatre have on the attitudes,

interests, and motivation of 3rd grade students of varying levels in the language

arts classroom?

2. What impact would the implementation of Readers’ Theatre have on the

fluency scores of students within those varying levels? Would students in the on-

level or above- level show gains using the same intervention as supported

students?

During the period of mid-August through late November of 2008, the students in

my third grade class were immersed in an intervention for fluency referred to as Readers’

Theatre Workshop. Readers’ Theatre is an instructional intervention that allows students,

when they are reading, to have an authentic purpose for repeated reading. The scripts the

students read not only engage but motivate them as a reader to “practice” (re-read) their

parts. As the reader becomes the character it removes some of the readers’ self-

consciousness and allows them the luxury of reading the passage multiple ways in order

to sound like their character. As a result, the students in my class did show an increase in

reading fluency, as well as increases in their Multidimensional fluency scale. Through the

intervention of Readers’ Theatre students also made gains on the Pinnell’s Oral Reading

Fluency Scale. I analyzed the data using a paired sample t-test on the pre- and post-test

data. The probability that the scores were significantly different is .00000893 which

means that the chance that this result of the increased gains in fluency would have

happened without the Readers’ Theatre intervention is much less than even 1%.


Therefore, the data suggests implementing Readers’ Theatre as an intervention yielded a

rather significant difference.

Fluency actually comprises three components; word decoding automaticity,

reading pace, and prosody (Kuhn, 2004). Prosody which is reading with expression is

often overlooked. According to Donhower, (1991), if the reader has poor prosody,

emphasis may be placed on the unintended grouping of words so the author’s intended

meaning is lost. Readers’ Theatre forces the reader to group words expressively so that

the full meaning of the text comes through. Hudson (2005) explains that when reading

rate, accuracy, pitch, and comprehension improve, prosodic reading also improves

According to Kuhn & Stahl (2003), reading with prosody is an indication of

comprehension. If a reader understands what they are reading, they will read with

appropriate expression Samuels,(1979) Once the reader finds the voice behind the

character, their prosodic reading becomes apparent not only to their classmates but to

them as well. Through the use of Reader’s theatre the students in my class were more

motivated and confident during reading. One interesting side note is that this type of

prosodic reading has bled into other classroom reading as well. It was not limited to just

Readers’ Theatre scripts but to all texts; even those from science and social studies.

The following table indicates the students beginning words-per-minute level

of reading, and then each four-week interval reading score until the study was

concluded. The pink rows indicate the students in the supported level. The yellow

rows are the students in the on-level group. The green rows represent the advanced

level students. The highlighted data represent the three students that were interviewed

through the course of this project.

Table 5: Informal Reading Inventories


Name

1st Four

Weeks

2nd Four

Weeks

3rd Four

Weeks Fluency

Score

A Score

B Score

C Change

A-B Change

B-C Change A-C

Samuel 102 118 124 16% 5% 22% Esmeralda 68 87 101 28% 16% 49% David 54 65 73 20% 12% 35% Evan 59 71 95 20% 34% 61% Philip 87 91 112 5% 23% 29% Maria 115 123 134 7% 9% 17% Anny 116 126 136 9% 8% 17% Sanjay 93 119 128 28% 8% 38% Simon 91 101 117 11% 16% 29% Lina 117 119 127 2% 7% 9% Sidharth 105 112 126 7% 13% 20% Alexis 119 132 143 11% 8% 20% Richard 61 76 100 25% 32% 64% Alli 125 131 153 5% 17% 22% Vivian 112 123 126 10% 2% 13% Amanda 100 105 114 5% 9% 14% Ian 113 127 148 12% 17% 31% Aaron 121 135 151 12% 12% 25% Michael 123 136 150 11% 10% 22%

Based on this data the following assertion can be made: When Readers’ Theatre is

executed faithfully as an intervention, students will make gains in fluency. As the

students become immersed in the routine of Readers’ Theatre and begin to enjoy the

repeated readings they forget to feel self-conscious. The anxiety of reading aloud is

replaced with confidence in the performance. As Amanda said in one of our interviews,

“Readers Theatre lets me be someone that can be silly, sad, or even old. I like to be old

because I don’t even have to sound like me, it’s just fun!” Furthermore, it allows the

students an authentic purpose to practice reading which in turn makes them better

readers.


The following graph indicates the fluency progression of the three students: David,

Sanjay, and Amanda.

Figure 5:

Fluency Progression

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1st Four Weeks 2nd Four Weeks 3rd Four Weeks

Wor

ds P

er M

inut

e

David Sanjay Amanda

Throughout the twelve week study I loosely followed a five day time schedule. I

would select what Readers’ Theatre piece would be read that week, then model reading

the script with expression, inflection, and phrasing with transitions. This would allow the

students a chance to hear what the script should sound like. We would read through the

entire script, highlighting any difficult vocabulary words. Next, parts were chosen.

Throughout the week, the students would read and reread the text followed by a

discussion of story and character motivation. Mini lesson were conducted on a continual

basis working on specific skills such as; expression, proper volume, smooth delivery,

character motivation, and pacing. They would practice whole group rehearsing for the

final performance. On the last day, students performed in front of a class or group invited


to the performance. After the performance we would conduct an open meeting to discuss

not only the performance but that week’s script and rehearsals. Students would assess

their work and the work of their peers. The students’ critiques were never allowed to be

negative; we worked in an atmosphere of constructive criticism.

In the specific case of David, I saw a remarkable change that is still evolving. He

no longer stutters or repeats when he reads unless under duress. His prosodic reading has

increased as well as his words-per-minute scores. When David and I spoke about reading

and reading aloud specifically he had this to say: he told me that he did not like to read

aloud because he sounded funny. When I asked him what he meant, he said, “I don’t

sound like the other kids sometimes, I get lost when I read and I am afraid I won’t know

the words and then the kids will laugh.” After a few weeks of Readers’ Theatre I posed

the question again and got this response. “I like when my character is funny then I make

the kids laugh at what my character is doing but not at me.” At the conclusion of the

study I asked him again about reading aloud. David’s answer said it all. “Well I guess I

like it better.” “Why,” I asked. He said, “Well, now I can read anything. I still mess up

sometimes but I know what I am doing.” I told him he certainly did. When I asked him

did his reading improve? David said, “I’m getting better all the time, I like the way I

sound.”

My on-level student, Sanjay, made gains perhaps even more dramatic than

David’s improvement. He started reading at 93 words-per-minute and ended at 128 words

per minute, which is 8 points higher than the end of the year benchmark in 3rd grade. I

asked him at the beginning of the study if he liked to read aloud or independently to

himself, without hesitation he said he liked to read in his head because he could go faster.

I asked him, “What happens when you read aloud?” He said, “It doesn’t sound the same.”

“How do you mean?” Sanjay cocked his head and said, “It gets all pushed together.” I


said, “Do you mean like this”… and I read really fast but read in two word phrase groups

so that you couldn’t really understand the meaning of what I was reading. He grinned and

said “Yeah like that.” We worked a great deal on smooth and even pacing rather than

speed because Sanjay’s accent, (he is from India) caused him to read in a sing-song or

lilting fashion rather than fluidly and with meaning. Diction and inflection were other

areas we worked on. His decoding skills were good to begin with; all he needed was to

read more fluently. Now, he reads with expression although at times he loses this and

tends to mumble. We are still working on the phrasing but he now reads primarily in

larger, more meaningful, phrase groups.

Amanda, who is my advanced–level student, did not make overly impressive

strides, but she did make some improvements. By observation, her breath control was the

biggest improvement of all, yet there is no way for me to quantify this change. Now she

speaks more from her diaphragm rather than from her throat, which enables her to read in

bigger phrasing chunks. Her volume is still soft and we are still working on that area as

well. I asked Amanda if she thought her reading had improved and she said, “I think so

because I can go further when I read. I asked what she meant by that. She said, “Well I

can get to the end of the sentences now and I don’t think about it as much.” I asked if she

liked to read aloud. She said, “I always did, but I think I am better at it now, and I have a

great southern accent.” Amanda’s words per minute score went from a 100 to a 114. In

the oral reading fluency score she went up one range. In the MFS she went up in only one

area pace the other dimensions stayed the same. Although Amanda’s gains are not as

significant, as the other students in the study, the use of Readers’ Theatre in the

classroom allowed her to make worthwhile improvement.

I believe Readers’ Theater enhanced my students’ overall reading rate, word

recognition, accuracy and expression, resulting in improved comprehension. An added


benefit of Readers’ Theatre was that student attitudes toward reading changed as well.

The results of my project affirmed that utilizing Readers’ Theater leads to improved

levels of fluency and reading comprehension. The data clearly illustrates that Readers’

Theatre used in an ongoing basis has a place in elementary classrooms to improve all

aspects of fluency with students of all reading levels.

Conclusions:

This action research project was conducted to discover if introducing Readers’

Theatre as a strategy for fluency, on a daily basis, in the language arts curriculum would

elevate all students’ skills, regardless of level. In the past, I have used Readers’ Theatre

as a way to promote fluency with my struggling readers. In nearly every research article I

found, the focus was on the disfluent or the struggling reader. I uncovered very little

research that discussed incorporating Readers’ Theatre in the classroom to promote

fluency for the average or the above average ability groups. That being said, I believe that

my study shows promise that gains can be made for all students’ oral fluency regardless

of ability. Nearly every student showed reading rate gain.

Reading attitudes also changed in mostly positive ways, the biggest change I

found that when the students read other material beside their Readers’ Theatre scripts

they continued to read with inflection (prosody), phrasing with transitions and pace.

Implications:

Overall, I am very pleased with the results of this project. I believe the data

confirms my thinking that utilizing Readers’ Theatre to teach fluency is a worthwhile and

valid approach. This idea of utilizing Readers’ Theatre among all students regardless of

reading ability could be of great value to the educational community. I will definitely

share my findings, not only with my 3rd grade team, but also with the administration. It

just might promote the increased use of Readers’ Theatre as a form of fluency instruction.


One of the most rewarding benefits is the love of reading this project has instilled in my

class. No matter what subject they are studying, they always see an opportunity to

perform Readers’ Theatre. Another important element to consider is how cost effective

implementing Readers’ Theatre is during these hard economic times. The teacher and

students need nothing more than imagination to begin.

Limitations:

In my classroom of nineteen students, I did see a marked improvement in fluency

through the use of Readers’ Theatre. However, in order to draw conclusive evidence that

this intervention would be successful with other students of varying levels of reading

ability I feel a larger sample size would be beneficial. I would like to see this study

conducted in another 3rd grade class with the same amount of emphasis placed in the

classroom for the intervention each day. Another area of concern is that this study is

reflective of my third grade class. If this study was conducted in other grades would the

results be the same? Would the same patterns of improvement be apparent in second

grade or in the upper grades of elementary school? Therefore, it would be helpful if this

study was conducted in other grade levels to see if the gains made there would also be

significant. I would also suggest that these grade levels conduct Reader’s Theatre with

students of varying reading levels in order to compare the data. This way we would have

a clearer understanding of whether this intervention is useful in other grades and at

different levels within different grades as well. The final limitation of my study is the

short amount of time this study was conducted I would like to see if Readers’ Theatre has

a lasting effect upon students fluency. What would happen if this study was conducted

over one year’s time? Would we see continuing gains? What would be the pattern of

improvement or would the gains reach a plateau after a certain period of time? These are

all valid questions to consider, but having used Readers’ Theatre as an intervention to


increase students fluency I would be inclined to continue the use in my own classroom.

As the results of my study I believe that Readers Theatre has a place in elementary

classrooms as one method that teachers can implement to raise fluency and prosodic

reading.


Appendix A

Levels of Performance for Word Decoding Accuracy

Independent Level:

97-100%

Instructional Level:

90-96%

Frustration Level:

< 90%


Appendix B

O r a l R e a d i n g

F l u e n c y ( O R F ) T a r g e t R a t e N o r m s

Grade Fall

(WCPM)Winter

(WCPM)Spring

(WCPM)

1 2 3 4

30-60 50-90

70-110

10-30 50-80

70-10080-120

30-60 70-10080-110

100-140

5 6 7 8

80-120100-140110-150120-160

100-140110-150120-160130-170

110-15-120-160130-170140-180

Source: Adapted from “AIMS wed: “Charting the Path to Literacy,” 2003, Edformation, Inc. Avaliable at www.aimsweb.com/norms/reding_fluency.htm. Data

are also adapted from “Curriculum-Based Oral Reading Fluency Norms for Students in Grades 2 through 5,”


Appendix C M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l

F l u e n c y S c a l e U s e t h e f o l l o w i n g s c a l e s t o r a t e r e a d e r f l u e n c y o n h e d i m e n s i o n s o f e x p r e s s i o n a n d v o l u m e , p h r a s i n g , s m o o t h n e s s , a n d p a c e . S c o r e s r a n g e f r o m 4 t o 1 6 . G e n e r a l l y , s c o r e s b e l o w 8 i n d i c a t e t h a t f l u e n c y m a y b e a c o n c e r n . S c o r e s o f 8 o r a b o v e i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s t u d e n t i s m a k i n g g o o d p r o g r e s s i n f l u e n c y . Dimension 1 2 3 4

A. Expression and Volume

Reads with little expression or enthusiasm in voice. Reads a word as if simply to get them out. Little sense of trying to make text sound like natural language. Tends to read in a quiet voice.

Some expression. Begins to use voice to make text sound like natural language in some areas of the text, but not others. Focus remains largely on saying the words. Still reads in a quiet voice.

Sounds like natural language throughout the better part of the passage. Occasionally slips into expressionless reading. Voice volume is generally appropriate throughout the text.

Reads with good expression and enthusiasm throughout the text. Sounds like natural language. The reader is able to vary expression and volume to match his/her interpretation of the passage.

B. Phrasing Monotonic with little sense of phrase boundaries, frequent word-by-word reading.

Frequent two- and three-word phrases giving the impression of choppy reading; improper stress and intonation that fail to mark ends of sentences and clauses.

Mixture of run-ons, mid-sentence pauses for breath, and possibly some choppiness; reasonable stress/intonation.

Generally well phrased, mostly in clause and sentence units, with adequate attention to expression.

C. Frequent extended pauses, hesitations,

Several “rough spots” in text

Occasional breaks in smoothness caused by

Generally smooth reading with some


Smoothness

false starts, sound-outs, repetitions, and/or multiple attempts.

where extended pauses, hesitations, etc., are more frequent and disruptive.

difficulties with specific words and/or structures.

breaks, but word and structure difficulties are resolved quickly, usually through self-correction.

D. Pace (during sections of minimal disruption)

Slow and laborious.

Moderately slow.

Uneven mixture of fast and slow reading.

Consistently conversational.

Source: Adapted from “Training Teachers to Attend to Their Students’ Oral Reading Fluency,” by J. Zutell and T. V. Rasinski, 1991, Theory Into Practice, 30, pp. 211-217.

Appendix D O r a l R e a d i n g F l u e n c y

S c a l e

4. Reads primarily in larger, meaningful phrase groups. Although some regressions, repetitions, and deviations from the text may be present, these do not appear to detract from the overall structure of the story. Preservation of the author’s syntax is consistent. Some or most of the story is read with expressive interpretation. Reads at anappropriate rate.

3. Reads primarily in three- and four-word phrase groups. Some smaller groupings may be present. However, the majority of phrasing seems appropriate and preserves the syntax of the author. Little or no expressive interpretation is present. Reader attempts to read expressively and some of the story is read with expression. Generally reads at an appropriate rate.

2. Reads primarily in two-word phrase groups with some three- and four-word groupings. Some word-by-word reading may be present. Word groupings may seem awkward and unrelated to the larger context of the sentence or passage. A small portion of the text is read with expressive interpretation. Read significant sections of the text excessively slowly or fast.

1. Reads primarily word-by-word. Occasional two- or three-word phrases may occur – but these are infrequent and/or they do not


preserve meaningful syntax. Lacks expressive interpretation. Reads text excessively slowly. A score of 1 should also be given to a student who reads with excessive speed, ignoring punctuation and other phrase boundaries, and reads with little or no expression.

Source: Adapted from Listening to Children Read Aloud: Oral Fluency, by G. S. Pinnell, J. J. Pikulski, K. K. Wixson, J. R. Campbell, P. B. Gough, & A. S. Beatty, 1995, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/95762.asp

Appendix E Reading Attitudinal Survey

Elementary Reading Attitude Survey

Date___________ Grade ______ Name___________________________________

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?

6. How do you feel when your class has reading time?

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 the Readers’ Theatre scripts?


10. How do you feel about reading different kinds of books?

11. How do you feel when the teacher asks you questions about what you read?

12. How do you feel about doing reading workbook pages and worksheets?

13. How do you feel when your teacher reads a story to you?

14. How do you feel about reading your school books?


15. How do you feel about Readers’ Theatre?

16. How do you feel when it time for reading class?

17. How do you feel about the stories you read in reading class?

18. How do you feel when you read out loud in class?

19. How do you feel when you read aloud to someone at home?

20. How do you feel about performing in class?


21. How do feel about portraying a character while you read aloud?

Kear, D.J. & McKenna, M. C. (1999). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers. In S. J. Barrentine (Ed.). Reading assessment: principles and practices for elementary teachers. A collection of articles from “The Reading Teacher.” p. 199-214. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Appendix E Addendum:

Results from the Reading Attitudinal Survey Table 3 & 4 Pre-Test 1 Ex. 4 Poor 1 2 3 4 Question 1 How do you feel when you read a book on a rainy Saturday?

3 5 6 5

Question 2 How do you feel when you read a book in school during free time?

5 6 3 5

Question 3 How do you feel about reading for fun at home?

4 4 8 3

Question 4 How do you feel about getting a book for a present?

5 5 4 5

Question 5 How do you feel about spending free time reading?

4 5 6 4

Question 6 How do you feel when your class has reading time?

5 7 3 4

Question 7 How do you feel about reading during summer vacation?

5 3 7 4


Question 8 How do you feel about reading instead of playing?

1 5 6 6

Question 9 How do you feel about the Readers’ Theatre scripts?

4 6 6 3

Question 10 How do you feel about reading different kinds of books?

5 5 5 4

Question 11 How do you feel when the teacher asks you questions about what you read?

2 5 8 6

Question 12 How do you feel about doing reading workbook pages and worksheets?

6 3 5 5

Question 13 How do you feel when your teacher reads a story to you?

7 8 3 1

Question 14 How do you feel about reading your school books?

5 4 5 5

Question 15 How do you feel about Readers’ Theatre?

8

6

3

2

Question 16 How do you feel when it time for reading class?

4 6 4 5

Question 17 How do you feel about the stories you read in reading class?

6 5 6 2

Question 18 How do you feel when you read out loud in class?

3 6 5 5

Question 19 How do you feel when you read aloud to someone at home?

3 6 5 5

Question 20 How do you feel about performing in class?

4 4 6 5

Question 21 How do feel about portraying a character while you read aloud?

1 7 5 6



Appendix F Elementary Reading Attitude Survey

Do you enjoy reading? Y N Do you have reading time in class? Y N Do you choose to read in school? Y N Do you read at home? Y N Do you choose to read at home? Y N Do you go to the library? Y N Do you find things you like to read in the library? Y N Have you got books of your own? Y N Do you recommend books to your friends? Y N Does your teacher recommend things to read? Y N Does your teacher like reading? Y N Do you have a favorite author? If yes, who?

Y N

Do you choose to read picture books stories in chapters information books poetry comics magazines newspapers Computer texts?

Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Are you a good reader? Y N Who reads with you outside school: parent/caregiver...female parent/caregiver....male older sister older brother grandmother grandfather someone else no-one...I read myself

Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Which class story are you listening to? What have you read recently?


Elementary Reading Attitude Survey

Date________________ Grade ______ Name___________________

Check any of the statements below that you agree with: _____ Reading is a good way to spend spare time. _____ Reading is for learning but not for enjoyment. _____ Books aren’t usually good enough to finish. _____ Reading is rewarding to me. _____ Reading becomes boring after about an hour. _____ Most books are too long and dull. _____ There are many books I want to read. _____ I like to read aloud. Do you like to read? ____ yes ____ no ____ sometimes Listed below are several different kinds of books. Put a check mark next to each kind you like to read. ____animal ____science ____true stories ____poetry ____make-believe ____ about people ____science fiction ____funny ____mysteries ____series ____myths ____plays ____folktales ____riddles/jokes ____sports ____scary stories ____picture books ____instruction books ____ history ____adventure What is your favorite book? _____________________________________________________ What is your favorite author? _____________________________________________________


Appendix F Student Self-Evaluation

For each of the statements below, please show whether you agree or disagree by placing an x in the appropriate box.

1. I liked the Reader’s Theatre piece this week.

Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly agree agree disagree nor disagree

2. I liked my character this week.


3. I could have improved how I read my characters lines. Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly agree agree disagree nor disagree

4. My oral reading improved this week.



5. On a ten point scale rate your oral reading during your Reader’s theatre performance?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6. My silent reading has improved this week.


7. My reading was better at the performance than on my first read through. Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly agree agree disagree nor disagree

8. I feel comfortable reading in front of others.


9. I would not change anything about my performance this week.



10. I contributed to the success of my group this week. Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly agree agree disagree nor disagree


Appendix G Interview Questions

Name: _____________________ Date: ______________

1. Describe how you feel about your Reader’s theatre part this week? 2. Describe the process you go through as you practice your part individually,

as a group, with a partner, and during the performance? 3. How do you contribute to the success of your group? 4. After listening to yourself read, what do notice about your oral reading this

week? 5. Describe what you sounded like on your first run through. 6. Describe how you felt and what you sounded like during the performance. 7. How has your reading improved this week?


Appendix H

Monday: Scripts were distributed to all students. Students would engage in a discussion

of story, characters, setting, and plot as I modeled reading the script with expression,

inflection, correct phrasing, and transitions. We would then make a list of difficult

vocabulary words. Discussion of meaning and the pronunciation of each word in a whole

group setting. Then character parts would be chosen and the students would highlight

their lines in the script. Finally we would read through the script together.

Tuesday: Students were placed in small groups. Students could listen to the Reader’s

theatre scripts on tape, they could work individually to practice their lines, they could do

partner work, or they could work in groups to practice their parts together. I would pull

groups of students to conduct mini lessons on phrasing and volume.

Wednesday: First students read their scripts individually using whisper voices. I then

would walk around the room helping students with word accuracy and intonation. Later

we worked in rotation centers: Students would listen to one another read and offer

suggestions for character development and phrasing. In the next center, they could

participate in partner-read or guided reading with mini lesson instruction on the skill of

the day. In the third rotation of the day the students would read into a tape machine and

record their part. Wednesday’s emphasis would be on inflection and smoothness.

Thursday: Thursday’s emphasis would be on developing expression, proper volume, and

smooth pacing. We would read scripts whole group. While reading, we would try

different ways to deliver lines that would reflect the character’s emotions. Later in the

class, we would listen to the tape recordings from Wednesday and offer suggestions to

one another on how they could improve their line readings. The last ten minutes of the

class was a dress rehearsal, where we worked through the script without stopping.


Students were encouraged to develop dialects and character voices if appropriate for their

characters. Thursday’s focus was on pitch variation and word emphasis (stress).

Friday: Class would begin with students working with partners or individually to

improve their character’s inflection while speaking. Later they would get together and

read through the script as a group. During the last 15 minutes of class the students would

have the opportunity to perform the scripts for other classes in the school.


Appendix I Research Participant Consent Form

The purpose of this twelve week study is to examine the process of developing and

raising fluency and prosody scores using Readers’ Theatre as an additional intervention in third

grade students. This study will be conducted during the language period for thirty minutes each

day and in no way will impede the success of the general education curriculum.

As a participant of this study, students will do everything with the class with the

exception of three taped interviews during the course of the study and a self evaluation report

every Friday.

There are no known risks for participation of this study. The benefits of this study is three

fold: research advocates Readers’ Theatre as an excellent intervention for developing fluency,

students will work one-on-one with the teacher in a small group setting, and students will work in

collaborative groups that will build positive social interactions focused on reading.

Further, there are no adverse consequences if you choose not to participate. I guarantee

all information I receive as a result of this study will be kept confidential. Students will be given a

pseudonym for the duration of the study in reporting any of the results. Any data collected will

remain in the possession of the researcher Alex Lorber.

If you have any questions regarding this study, please feel free to contact: Ms. Alex Lorber 7160 Amberleigh Way Duluth, Georgia 30097 770-814-8292 (home) 678-429-8211 (school)

______ I have read, understood, and received a copy of the above consent. I agree to participate in the Readers Theatre Intervention study. ______ I do not wish to participate in this study. Research Participant’s Signature: _______________________________ Date___/___/___ Parent or Guardian of Research Participant: __________________________ Date: ___/___/___


Appendix J Parent Consent Letter

Dear Parents and Students:

I am currently enrolled in a master’s degree in Early Childhood at Kennesaw

State University. As part of my program, I am conducting an action research project on

the advantages of using Reader’s theatre to develop oral fluency.

The purpose of this twelve week study is to examine the process of developing and

raising fluency and prosody scores using Readers’ Theatre as an additional intervention in third

grade students. This study will be conducted during the language period for thirty minutes each

day and in no way will impede the success of the general education curriculum.

As a participant of this study, students will do everything with the class with the

exception of three taped interviews during the course of the study and a self evaluation report

every Friday.

I guarantee all information I receive as a result of this study will be kept confidential.

Students will be given a pseudonym for the duration of the study in reporting any of the results.

Any data collected will remain in the possession of the researcher Alex Lorber.

I believe reader’s theatre is worthwhile as an intervention for helping all students develop

oral fluency. Reader’s theatre will help students gain smoothness, pace, proper intonation, stress,

transition, and phrasing. An additional benefit is that students will enjoy this creative interactive

reading experience while benefitting from an authentic repeated reading strategy.

If you are willing to be a part of this study please read the consent form thoroughly, sign

the paper, and return the form to Mrs. Alex Lorber. You can keep the second copy for yourself.

Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you so much for your support

and help.

Sincerely,

Alex Lorber


Appendix K Administration Letter

April 16, 2008

Dear Mr. Zoll: I am asking for your permission to conduct a research study in my

classroom during the 2008-2009 school year. This study is part of the action research

project I am conducting in order to fulfill the requirements for Kennesaw Sate

University’s Early Childhood Masters Program. The purpose of this study is to examine

the process of developing and raising fluency scores using Readers’ theatre as an

intervention with three third grade students of varying levels of competency. I believe

both struggling and proficient readers will benefit in this study and through this

experience will build positive social interactions focused on reading. The entire class will

participate but I will only use data from three specific students that fit the parameters of

my study.

Readers’ theatre is an authentic method of repeated reading which is a proven

strategy to aid students in developing fluency. Repeated reading helps the students read

with more expression and flow, which in turn, will aid in the comprehension of all texts.

Please complete the section below to indicate your agreement for me to begin this

research project. I thank you in advance for your continued support for my growth as a

teacher. Alex Lorber

____Yes I will allow Alex Lorber to conduct this study Signature: _____________________ Date: ___________ ____ No I will not allow Alex Lorber to conduct this study Signature: _____________________ Date: ___________


References:

Allington, R. (2004). Fluency: A vital key to comprehension. Instructor, 113(5), 12-13.

Dowhower, S. L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency’s unattended bedfellow. Theory Into Practice, 30, 165-175. Flynt, S. E. & Cooter, R.B. (2003). Reading Inventory for Classroom. Pearson Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Griffith, L.W., & Rasinski, T.V. (2004) A focus on fluency: How one teacher incorporated fluency with her reading curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 58, 126-137 Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Kuhn, M. (2004). Helping students become accurate,, expressive readers: Fluency instruction for small groups. The Reading Teacher, 58, 338-344 Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323. 63 Martinez, M., Roser, N. L., & Strecker, S. (1998). “I never thought I could be a star:” A reader’s theatre ticket to fluency. The Reading Teacher, 52, 326-334. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Opitz, M. F., Rasinski, T.V. (1998) Good-bye Round Robin. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Pikulski, J.J. & Chard, D.J. (2005). Fluency :Bridge between decoding and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58, 510-519 Pinnell, G.S. (1990). Reading Recovery: Learning how to make a difference. The Reading Teacher.43, 282-295 Rasinski, T.V. (1989) Fluency for everyone: Incorporating fluency instruction in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 42, 690-693 Rasinski, T. V. (1990). Effects of repeated reading and listening-while-reading on reading fluency. Journal of Educational Research, 83(3), 147-150.


Rasinski, T. V. (2000). Speed does matter in reading. The Reading Teacher, 52, 146-151. Rasinski, T. (2003a). Fluency is fundamental: Fluency is a bridge between two other major components of reading – decoding and comprehension. Instructor, 113(4), 16-20. Rasinski, T. (2003b). The Fluent Reader. New York: Scholastic Professional Books. Rasinski, T. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59, 704-706. 64 Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N., Linek, W., & Sturtevant, E. (1994). Effects of fluency development on urban second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Research, 87(3), 158-165. Rinehart, S. D. (1999). “Don’t think for a minute that I’m getting up there:” Opportunities for reader’s theater in a tutorial for children with reading problems. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20(1), 71-89. Samuels, S.J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher,32 (403-408 Tyler, B., & Chard, D. J. (2000). Using readers theatre to foster fluency in struggling readers: A twist on the repeated reading strategy. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16, 163-168. Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211-239. Worthy, J., & Prater, K. (2002). “I thought about it all night:” Reader’s theatre for reading fluency and motivation. The Reading Teacher, 56, 294-297. Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30, 211-217.

Documents

The Readers’ Theatre Experience and Its Effect on Oral ...ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~mwarner8/7511/Reader's_Theater_Lorber.pdf · The Readers’ Theatre Experience and Its Effect on