Running head: REPEATED READING OF POETRY

Repeated Reading of Poetry: An Analysis of Its Effects on Reading Fluency and Comprehension

Kristie Romano American International College

1

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

2 Abstract

This research project attempts to answer the question of whether reading fluency (rate, accuracy and prosody) improves in fifth grade students with small group directed instruction using repeated reading of poetry. In addition, the secondary question of whether improvements in reading fluency have a positive effect on reading comprehension is also addressed. To answer these questions, six focus group subjects participated in a four week intervention, incorporating teacher modeling, choral reading, cooperative repeated reading and whisper reading of poetry, and their fluency skills were observed and assessed. As a comparison, a control group was formed and both groups completed baseline and post-test assessments measuring their oral reading accuracy, automaticity and prosody, as well as their story retell comprehension. Results showed significant gains for the focus group in both oral reading rate and prosody, with less significant gains in oral reading accuracy and retell comprehension. These findings suggest that directed instruction using repeated reading of poetry does have a positive effect on overall reading fluency which, as a result, may improve comprehension skills with long-term instruction.

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

3

Repeated Reading of Poetry: An Analysis of Its Effects on Reading Fluency and Comprehension Imagine going through life without the ability to read fluently. Everyday situations would be difficult and potentially embarrassing. Whether perusing a menu at a restaurant, following directions for building a shelving unit, reading a textbook in science class, or simply trying to enjoy a good book recommended by a friend, reading fluency can mean the difference between a relaxing, enjoyable experience and a grueling, uncomfortable task. It‟s the ability to read fluently that makes everyday tasks manageable and pleasurable. It is also an ability that we often take for granted. So what exactly is reading fluency? Timothy Rasinski (2003), a leading expert on the subject of reading, defines reading fluency as “the ability of readers to read quickly, effortlessly, and efficiently with good, meaningful expression” (p. 26). It allows readers to focus more mental energy on comprehending what they read and less on identifying individual words because word recognition, decoding and phrasing has become automatic. Despite the importance that fluency plays in the big picture of reading, reading fluency has not necessarily been a major focus of reading instruction in schools over the years. In fact, according to the report of the National Reading Panel (2000), while fluency plays a critical role in comprehension, it “is often neglected in the classroom” (p. 11). In my experience, fluency has not been a major component of reading instruction beyond the early elementary years when phonics and decoding skills are taught. By third grade, comprehension takes a front seat to fluency in reading instruction, yet many students have not fully mastered the skill of reading fluently. By the time students enter my fifth grade classroom, there is an expectation that they are already fluent readers. While I am still providing my students with vocabulary and

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

4

comprehension strategies to help them make sense of what they read, there is often little to no explicit instruction with the lower elementary skills of phonics, decoding and oral reading. However, many of the fifth graders who come to me for reading instruction lack automaticity when reading and demonstrate weaknesses in rate, accuracy and/or prosody. It is these same students who lack confidence in their oral reading skills, struggle to comprehend grade-level texts, and have difficulty choosing independent reading books to hold their interest. Not only is reading not fun for these students, but it requires extra time, effort and energy to complete basic assignments both in reading and other academic subjects. These students are likely to fall behind their peers academically if their fluency needs are not being met. In addition, they may not be finding any enjoyment in the act of reading. Therefore, it is up to me to make reading fluency a regular component of my daily reading instruction. Through my research, I hope to learn that implementing repeated reading strategies will not only improve my students‟ reading fluency but also their comprehension. In addition, I would like to see my students have fun with oral reading through their exposure to the genre of poetry. By improving my students‟ reading fluency, it is my goal to provide students with the skills they need to succeed throughout their lives.

Hypothesis There are two main questions I am trying to answer by carrying out this research project: 

Does reading fluency (rate, accuracy and prosody) improve in fifth grade students with small group directed instruction using repeated reading of poetry?



Do improvements in reading fluency have a positive effect on reading comprehension?

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

5 Literature Review

The scope of current research and literature available on the topic of reading fluency is overwhelming, yet many common themes stand out. First and foremost, reading fluency and reading comprehension have a strong connection, and it has been found that “a lack of reading fluency is also a reliable predictor of reading comprehension problems” (Hudson, Lane, & Pullen, 2005, p. 702). Given this relationship and how important it is for students to develop solid reading comprehension skills, one might conclude that fluency would naturally be a main focus of instruction. Yet, beyond the early elementary years, fluency is often focused on less and less despite the fact that many students have not mastered the skill. However, this is a problem for older students, especially as they begin reading more expository texts. According to Pamela Hook and Sandra Jones (2004), developing the ability to read fluently happens during Stage 2 of Jeanne Chall‟s stage theory of reading development, which for most students occurs during second and third grade. “This is the last stage where the student is developing skills related to „learning to read‟ and after this stage, the child will be required to shift to an emphasis on „reading to learn‟” (p. 16). This is concerning to me as I currently have fifth grade students who are not meeting grade-level reading fluency benchmarks, which may be causing them to have difficulty comprehending reading material in a variety of curriculum areas. Unfortunately, the bulk of our reading instruction is focused on vocabulary and comprehension rather than fluency. So how do I help these students? Knowing what fluency is comprised of is one step towards helping my students. Reading fluency is not simply how fast a person can read, but consists of three components: accuracy, rate and prosody. Accuracy is “the ability to recognize or decode words correctly” (Hudson et al., 2005, p.703). This skill can be assessed by listening to a student read and dividing the number of

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

6

words read correctly (including self-corrections) by the total number of words read. Rate refers to a student‟s speed when reading aloud and can be assessed by counting the number of words read correctly during a one-minute timed reading. For assessing both rate and accuracy, Rasinski (2003) suggests using a “One-Minute Reading Probe” (p. 82 & 159), as it can be completed in a short amount of time while providing valuable information when given regularly. The third component of fluency, prosody, is comprised of the rhythm, phrasing and expression of oral language. While this aspect of fluency has not been studied as much as accuracy and rate, fluency scales have been developed to assess students‟ prosody skills. Such scales include the “National Assessment of Educational Progress‟s [NAEP] Oral Reading Fluency Scale” (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), the “Multidimensional Fluency Scale” (Rasinski, 2003, p.173), and the “Six Dimension Fluency Scale” (Fountas & Pinnell, 2008). It is important to keep in mind that assessing prosody is more subjective than assessing accuracy and rate. Each of these three components plays an important role in developing fluency and, according to the data from the NAEP‟s 2002 oral reading study (2005), all three components “are related to each other, and all three are related to reading comprehension” (p. v). When planning fluency lessons in my classroom, it is important for me to consider, focus on and assess all three aspects of fluency. To accomplish the goal of helping all students to become fluent readers, Rasinski (2003) suggests four steps towards building reading fluency. 

Model fluent oral reading on a daily basis



Provide oral reading support, using activities such as choral reading, paired reading, and reading with audiotapes/CDs



Include many opportunities for practice, using activities such as repeated reading



Provide instruction on phrasing for prosody development

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

7

In my classroom, I already model fluent oral reading both during reading instruction and by reading aloud a variety of trade books. In addition, I would like to increase the amount of fluency support and practice my students receive by incorporating repeated reading into my lessons. Research has shown that “repeated oral reading substantially improves word recognition, speed, and accuracy as well as fluency [prosody]. To a lesser but still considerable extent, repeated oral reading also improves reading comprehension” (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2006, p. 21). By including repeated reading into my instruction using a variety of methods, such as choral reading and paired reading, not only should my students‟ reading fluency improve, but their comprehension as well. For students who are continuing to struggle with reading fluently, I can also incorporate explicit phrasing instruction, such as chunking connected text, into small group instruction. As a means to provide this support and practice, Rasinski (2003) suggests using poems as a medium for teaching fluency skills. He states, “Students delight in the words, phrases, and various literary devices of poems. Because it is meant to be read aloud, with all its rhyme, rhythm, and repetition fully articulated, poetry is a natural for building reading fluency” (p. 146). I agree that poetry allows students to explore prosody while working to improve their reading rate and accuracy. Also, according to Sherri Faver (2008), “Poetry is a good choice for teaching fluency because of its rich and playful language. Poetry naturally encourages children to want to read and have fun while reading” (p. 351). I find poetry to be a very motivating genre for my students to read and would like to see my students enjoy reading. Rasinski (2003) provides a list of “Can‟t-Miss Poetry Books” (p. 118 & 119) that I can choose from in addition to the poetry resources I already have available to me in my classroom.

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

8

After examining research on reading fluency and learning about the abundance of strategies available for teaching fluency skills, I am excited to make it a daily part of my reading instruction. I hope the information that I take away from my research will help me to improve my students‟ fluency performance, as well as work to increase their reading comprehension. I am sure that strengthening both of these skills will be an asset for my students as they prepare to enter middle school next year. Subjects The subjects for this research were chosen from my class of fifth grade students at Annie L. Sargent Elementary School in North Andover, Massachusetts. My class is composed of twenty-five students, thirteen boys and twelve girls. No students are on Individualized Education Plans, but one student has a 504 plan to address attention issues. For reading instruction, all students participate in the regular fifth grade Scott Foresman Reading Street curriculum. While most instruction is done in a whole group setting, differentiated instruction is provided using leveled guided reading books. My focus and control groups are composed of twelve students who represent a broad spectrum of reading fluency and comprehension levels. Fluency and comprehension levels were determined by reviewing each student‟s Reading Street selection and benchmark test scores from this school year. There are three boys and three girls in each group, and the fluency and comprehension levels of each group are comparable. To protect the identities of the research participants, I have coded the names using F to denote the focus group and C to denote the control group, followed by a student‟s initials. See Table 1 for a list of focus and control group students along with their fluency and comprehension levels.

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

9

Table 1: Focus and Control Groups

F-KF

F-LH

F-CH

F-AW

F-AD

F-RD

                 

Focus Group female low fluency low comprehension female low fluency low-average comprehension male average fluency average comprehension female average fluency low comprehension male average fluency high-average comprehension male high fluency high comprehension

C-CS

C-SS

C-JS

C-EG

C-JL

C-LV

                 

Control Group male low fluency low comprehension male low fluency low-average comprehension female average fluency average comprehension female average fluency low comprehension male average fluency high-average comprehension female high fluency high comprehension

Instrumentation and Data Collection To begin my research, I needed a baseline assessment of both reading fluency and reading comprehension. The baseline assessments I chose would also be used as a post-test to measure any changes in fluency and comprehension. For reading fluency, I opted to use the Scott Foresman Reading Street Unit 4 Fluency Benchmark for fifth grade titled “Moving On,” which was a 256 word long fictional passage consisting of both dialogue and narrative description (Scott Foresman, 2008, p. T65). Students were scored on three aspects of reading fluency: accuracy, rate, and prosody. To carry out the assessment, both focus and control group students were asked to read the passage aloud for one minute while I kept a running record of errors. Accuracy was scored as a percent by dividing the number of words read correctly by the

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

10

total number of words read. Rate, or automaticity, was scored as words correct per minute (wcpm). To score prosody, an adaptation of Zutell and Rasinski‟s “Multidimensional Fluency Scale” (Rasinski & Padak, 2005, p. 11), taken from 3-Minute Reading Assessments: Word Recognition, Fluency & Comprehension, was used. On this scale, students were rated on four skills: expression and volume, phrasing and intonation, smoothness, and pace. Each skill was given a point score of one to four, with four being the highest, allowing each student to receive up to sixteen total points. For comprehension, I first chose to give my students a multiple-choice comprehension test, thinking it would give me a good sampling of how well they understand various texts independently. However, I decided against using this type of assessment since multiple-choice questions do not allow students to think for themselves and students who are good guessers may get questions correct even though they may not fully comprehend what was being asked. Instead, I decided to use the Reading Street Unit 4 Fluency Benchmark and score students based on their recall of the information in the passage. For this assessment, after students had completed the one-minute oral fluency reading, I asked them to continue reading the passage silently until they reached the end. When they were finished, I took away the passage and asked them to tell me what happened in the story, including any details they could remember. I took notes as they recalled events from the story and scored their response using Rasinski and Padak‟s (2005) “Comprehension Rubric” (p. 12) taken from 3-Minute Reading Assessments: Word Recognition, Fluency & Comprehension. Each student received a comprehension score of one through six, with six being the highest, depending on the inclusion of a main idea along with supporting details given in a logical order.

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

11

To monitor students‟ progress as the research was being conducted, I initially planned to carry out similar running records, along with a comprehension recall assessment, at the end of each week. However, after trying to do this at the end of the first week of the intervention, I realized it would be too difficult to complete twelve of these assessments each week along with the intervention and regular classroom instruction. Instead, only the focus group‟s prosody was monitored on a weekly basis, using the Multidimensional Fluency Scale, for their first and last reading of the weekly poems. Accuracy and rate were also informally assessed through observations throughout the week. In addition, students were asked if they noticed any improvements in their reading throughout the week. This served as a means to track their fluency progress each week as well as their progress over the entire four week period. While these assessments provided me with important information on my students‟ fluency and comprehension progress, my daily observations were also an important part of the data collection process. I recorded observations of students‟ fluency and comprehension throughout the four weeks of implementing my research. Observations came from students‟ participation in whole group reading instruction, as well as the focus group students‟ participation during their small group repeated reading intervention. Research Procedures For my research, students in the focus group participated in small group directed fluency instruction using the genre of poetry along with repeated reading activities. This intervention was a supplement to our regular Reading Street curriculum, taking place in the afternoons upon completion of our whole class daily reading lessons. All students, including my focus group and control group, participated in the same reading instruction, but only the focus group received the

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

12

fluency intervention lessons. These interventions were carried out on three different days each week for a total of four weeks. For the repeated reading activities, I chose four poems, focusing on one poem each week (Appendix C). The poems came from Scholastic‟s Perfect Poems with Strategies for Building Fluency. The poems in this book are grade-level appropriate and have good qualities for fluency practice. Students were provided with a copy of each poem for the repeated reading activities. In addition, a “Cooperative Repeated Reading Response Form” was used for the cooperative repeated reading activities, which was taken from Rasinski‟s The Fluent Reader (2003, p. 92). During the first day of each week, the focus group met with me as a guided reading group and I introduced them to a poem. I modeled it by reading it aloud and asked for observations about my reading fluency, with specific focus on accuracy, rate, expression, and phrasing. After a brief discussion, we did a choral reading of the poem. To finish our lesson, each student was asked to read the poem aloud and group members provided feedback on one area of fluency the student did well and one area to work on. As students read the poem, a rating of their prosody, using the Multidimensional Fluency Scale, was recorded for progress monitoring. This lesson took about 15-20 minutes. The second day we met, focus group students briefly came together as a guided reading group as I modeled reading the poem for a second time. Then, students were paired up and participated in cooperative repeated reading. One student read the poem to a partner three times. The partner listened and provided assistance when needed, as well as completed a “Cooperative Repeated Reading Response Form.” Once three readings were done, partners switched roles and repeated the process. On the response form, students rated their partner on a scale of 1 (excellent) to 5 (fair) on three aspects of fluency: decoding, pacing and expression. Students

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

13

were rated twice, once on their first reading and once on their final reading. I moved around to observe each pair as they were reading. This activity took about 10-15 minutes. On the final practice day, focus group students were asked to whisper read their poem independently at least three times. They used whisper-phones (Appendix D) to allow them to hear their reading more clearly even though they were using a quiet voice. This also kept them from disturbing other students. Once students felt ready, they read their poem to me and I provided feedback. Again, their prosody was rated using the Multidimensional Fluency Scale and recorded as a comparison to see if improvement was made during the week. In addition, students were asked if they noticed any improvements in their reading fluency since the beginning of the week. This took about 10-15 minutes. Results Focus Group vs. Control Group: Assessment Results The results of the baseline and post-test assessments provided measures of oral reading accuracy, rate and prosody, in addition to each student‟s comprehension of the selected passage. Each reading quality was analyzed by looking at both individual scores and overall group averages to identify possible trends and to make comparisons. When looking at oral reading accuracy, slight changes were noted in the percentages of both focus and control group subjects over the four week period (Figure 1). The baseline and post-test data revealed that accuracy rates remained relatively stable, falling within a range of 96 to 100 percent of words read correctly for all participants. This indicates that the selection read by the students was appropriate for their instructional or independent reading levels and, given that their accuracy scores were already high on the baseline assessment, there was not a lot of room for growth. For ten out of the twelve subjects, the difference in their accuracy scores was a

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

14

change of one percent or less. Only two subjects, F-AW and C-CS, showed significant increases in accuracy, gaining three percentage points from the baseline to the post-test. It should be noted that these students had two of the lowest baseline accuracy scores among the entire group, 96 and 97 percent respectively, thereby offering the most room for improvement. Looking at only those subjects who improved their accuracy, five of the six focus group subjects maintained or improved their score, as compared to only four of the six control group subjects. A more measurable change was seen in the scores for oral reading rate, or automaticity, during the four week period (Figure 2). Between the baseline and the post-test assessments, the oral reading rate for all twelve subjects showed an increase. However, unlike the accuracy results, a greater overall increase was seen in the scores of the focus group students when compared to the scores of the control group students. On average, the focus group‟s automaticity increased by 21 words correct per minute (wcpm) while the control group‟s rate increased by only 12 wcpm. When analyzing individual student‟s results, four students in the focus group increased their automaticity by greater than 15 wcpm, as opposed to only one student in the control group (Table 2). Two of these students, F-CH and F-AW, showed very significant increases of greater than 30 wcpm. Table 2: Oral Reading Rate on Baseline and Post-Test Assessments

F-KF F-LH F-CH F-AW F-AD F-RD

Focus Group Baseline Post-Test 103 121 118 132 123 156 99 131 130 155 171 174

Change +18 +14 +33 +32 +25 +3

C-CS C-SS C-JS C-EG C-JL C-LV

Control Group Baseline Post-Test 102 112 96 121 128 130 126 137 132 142 168 182

Change +10 +25 +2 11 +10 +14

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

15

The data from the Multidimensional Fluency Scale, measuring oral reading prosody, highlighted some of the most significant differences between the fluency levels of the focus group and the control group (Figure 3). When looking at the total scores for reading prosody, the focus group scored an average of 12 points on the baseline assessment and 14.7 points on the post-test, showing an average increase of 2.7 points. In contrast, the control group scored an average of 11.3 and 11.7 on the baseline and post-test assessments, respectively, resulting in an average increase of 0.4 points. These averages show that the focus group made greater gains in their oral reading expression than the control group. Analyzing individual scores reveals the same result. In the focus group, five of the six subjects‟ scores increased from the baseline to the post-test, four of which went up by three or more points. The sixth focus group subject remained the same with a score of 16, which was the maximum score possible. In the control group, three subjects‟ scores stayed the same, while two went up slightly and one went down by one point. When analyzing the retell comprehension scores, the baseline and post-test results revealed similar levels of improvement for both groups of subjects (Figure 4). The focus group improved their retell comprehension by an average of 1.5 points, with all subjects making either a 1 or 2 point gain. Similarly, the control group‟s retell scores went up by an average of 1.3 points, however the individual scores were more varied and consisted of a 3 point increase, a 2 point increase, three 1 point increases and one score remaining the same. While the average improvement was similar for both groups, a trend was noted among individual scores. With the exception of one subject, the largest gains were made by the students with the lowest baseline scores (1 or 2 points). C-CS increased his score from 1 to 4 and F-LH, F-AW and C-SS all increased their scores from 2 to 4. Also, when looking at the post-test scores, all subjects in the

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

16

focus group achieved a score of 4 or higher, whereas only four control group subjects achieved that score. Focus Group: Weekly Fluency Observations While the focus group was compared to the control group for the baseline and post-test assessments, observations were also made regarding the focus group subjects‟ improvements with reading fluency during each week. First, looking at oral reading accuracy, it was observed that, after hearing a model and participating in a choral reading, all subjects had good accuracy upon their initial reading of a poem. If subjects had errors in their initial reading, their accuracy level improved with repeated practice. Second, improvements were also seen with oral reading rate. By the third day each week, when subjects had become more familiar with reading each poem, they read at a more conversational pace with greater automaticity. When questioned, all subjects stated that reading the poems became easier and more automatic with repeated practice. Finally, a main focus of each practice session was on oral reading prosody. Subjects were rated using the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (MFS) for both their first reading and final reading each week to monitor their improvement (Appendix B). Throughout the four week period, all subjects‟ weekly MFS scores showed an increase of at least 1 point, with the exception of four students during week one, whose MFS scores were maintained. Also, each subject improved their initial fluency score to 14 or above by the final reading of each poem, regardless of how low their initial score was. During regular reading instruction, informal observations of focus group subjects noted all six students volunteering to read aloud on a regular basis. At the start of the intervention, FKF, F-CH and F-LH had some difficulties with choppiness, phrasing or losing their place when reading, while the other three subjects read with good accuracy and rate. By the end of the

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

17

intervention, all subjects were observed to be reading aloud with appropriate accuracy and rate except for occasional difficulties with an unfamiliar word. Focusing on expression, all subjects quickly improved their prosody over the four week period, using the skills they had practiced in the small group intervention. To gain further insight into the potential benefits of repeated poetry readings, focus group subjects were interviewed and asked how their fluency had improved during each week. While all subjects provided positive feedback overall about the benefits of the research activities, the individual student comments from each week were very informative. F-KF noted that she didn‟t read too fast so she didn‟t stumble as much, and her expression had improved. F-LH said that knowing the words helped her to read more smoothly, making difficult stanzas easier to read, and that she was reading with better expression. F-CH felt that he was controlling his intonation and pacing better, and the repeated readings helped to strengthen his decoding. F-AW noticed many improvements throughout the four weeks, including better pacing, phrasing, decoding and expression. F-AD responded that his intonation and expression had improved, and that it was becoming easier to read both silently and aloud in other situations. F-RD, who was already a very skilled reader, noted that he was reading with greater confidence and was using better expression and intonation at different parts of the poems. Discussion Analyzing the results of the baseline and post-test assessments in combination with the weekly observations of the focus group‟s progress revealed some potential benefits to using repeated readings of poetry to improve fluency. Specifically, significant improvements were seen in both automaticity and prosody when reading orally. With automaticity, the assessments of oral reading rate showed a significant difference between the focus and control groups‟

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

18

progress (Figure 2). The focus group‟s average gain was 9 wcpm greater than the control group‟s average gain, with three focus group subjects increasing their rate by 25 wcpm or more, as opposed to only one subject in the control group. Also, the focus group subjects were observed to be reading the weekly poems more smoothly and with less hesitation by the end of the week after repeated reading practice. This observation held true when these subjects read other texts orally during regular class lessons. These results suggest that the direct instruction and repeated reading practice given to the focus group did help to improve their overall reading rate. When students are given opportunities to practice reading a selection multiple times, it allows them to hear and feel themselves reading at a faster pace while also improving their decoding. This experience, as the results suggest, may help readers to carry over these skills to other reading selections. Like the automaticity results, the MFS baseline and post-test data showed a significant improvement in prosody skills for the focus group as compared to the control group (Figure 3). Each subject in the focus group improved their baseline MFS score by at least 3 points or reached a maximum score of 16 by the end of the four weeks. In contrast, no control group subjects improved their score by more than 2 points and half of the subjects‟ scores showed no change. These results suggest that direct instruction focused on elements of prosody, in combination with using poetry for repeated reading activities, has a positive effect on oral reading expression. Looking at the results of the weekly informal MFS assessments of the focus group (Appendix B), in addition to students‟ feedback, supports this conclusion. All six focus group subjects showed not only weekly increases in their prosody levels when reading practiced poems, but also long-term improvement from week one to week four on the unpracticed narrative assessment passage. In addition, they were observed to read with improved expression

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

19

and phrasing when reading aloud from other texts. When questioned, these students recognized for themselves that they had improved their expression, intonation, phrasing, and pace, which are all qualities of prosody. These improvements may have been due in large part to the use of poetry for the repeated reading. While repeated reading can be done using any type of text, use of poetry allowed the subjects to “play” with the words, making their own interpretations of the poems and deciding how to incorporate expression, phrasing, intonation and pace to convey these interpretations. After the first week of carrying out the activities, the focus group subjects were more willing to take the teacher model of the poem and “run with it,” making it their own. But most importantly, students seemed to have fun deciding how they wanted to read the poems, which could be a motivating factor in improving overall prosody. Similarly, oral reading accuracy also showed improvement (Figure 1), but its connection to repeated reading instruction was less clear than the previous two fluency qualities. When analyzing the data, the results of the oral reading accuracy assessments did not definitively prove or disprove whether repeated readings of poetry alone help to improve a student‟s oral reading accuracy. Improvements were seen by both groups of subjects, making it unclear as to how much the focus group‟s practice with repeated readings influenced their post-test accuracy rates. However, if carried out for a long enough time period, it seems likely that decoding skills may improve with ongoing repeated reading practice, thereby improving students‟ oral reading accuracy. As noted in the previous section, both the focus and control groups had similar average increases in their comprehension scores, with the focus group achieving slightly higher post-test scores (Figure 4). While it is clear from the data that the fluency levels of the focus group subjects did show improvement in all three areas (accuracy, rate and prosody) over the four week

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

20

period, it remains unclear as to whether increases in subjects‟ retell comprehension was a direct result of their improved fluency. Given that the control group did not receive the specialized fluency instruction, the question remains as to what caused the increase in their comprehension scores. It is possible that these subjects remembered many details of the selection from the baseline reading, making it easier to add more details to their retell during the post-test assessment. Similarly, the same situation could have occurred for the focus group subjects, influencing their comprehension scores. While this clearly could have been a part of the gains in comprehension, the focus group did achieve higher scores overall on the post-test assessment, suggesting that their improvements in fluency may have assisted their comprehension. Overall, providing direct fluency instruction that incorporates a variety of repeated reading activities does appear to have a positive affect on reading fluency. Discussing what reading fluency is, demonstrating the qualities that a fluent reader has, modeling fluent reading, giving opportunities for peer and self assessment, and allowing for plenty of repeated reading practice, in the long run, can help to improve students‟ reading fluency. Using poetry as a springboard for this instruction can be a motivating and natural way to introduce and practice oral reading fluency, and is especially beneficial for improving prosody. When students begin reading with greater fluency, their comprehension is maintained and may also show improvement as they are less focused on the decoding portion of the reading task and more focused on the meaning being conveyed. Limitations While this research resulted in some interesting findings, there were several limitations that may have affected this study. One of the biggest was the short time table available to carry out the research. While the focus group subjects did show overall improvement in reading rate,

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

21

accuracy and prosody during the four week period, it remains to be seen as to whether they will continue to carry over these improved skills into their everyday reading without further directed instruction. Also, greater gains may have been seen if the research had been carried out over a longer time period, especially with oral reading rate. In regards to comprehension, while all subjects showed growth in their story retell scores, it was unclear whether this was related to the improvements in their reading fluency or if it was a benefit of having read the selection twice. Continuing the research over several months may have helped to clarify this question. Another limitation was the period of the school year during which the research was carried out. Subjects took the assessments and participated in the repeated reading activities from early May through early June. During this time, state and district mandated testing was taking place, which not only affected the class‟s normal routine but was also tiring and stressful to the research subjects. This research may have been more effective had it been carried out in the middle of the school year, during a time when the research activities could have been melded into the regular classroom routine and when students were not already undergoing standardized testing. The classroom environment may have also limited the outcome of this research. Since the baseline and post-test assessment had to be carried out in the classroom setting, there were numerous interruptions that may have affected student results. In addition, some of the focus and control group subjects may have overheard other subjects reading, therefore giving them an advantage when it was their turn to read. While every effort was taken to avoid this problem, it may have affected the final data. The make-up of the focus and control groups had their limitations as well. Each group was carefully chosen to include students from a wide range of fluency levels in order to provide

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

22

strong models for lower readers. However, the subjects who already had high fluency levels did not have as much room for improvement. Had the focus and control groups been composed only of students with the lowest fluency skills, the final data from the research may have shown greater gains as these students would have had more room for growth. In addition, only twelve students out of a class of twenty-five were included in the research project, and merely half of those students received the instructional intervention. Not only was this a small number of students, but it was difficult to limit the intervention to just those students when there were other students who may have benefited. If more students had participated, more definitive trends may have been noted in the data. Implications/Recommendations After implementing this research intervention, the data and observations collected revealed potential benefits to incorporating small group directed instruction of fluency along with repeated reading activities into daily reading lessons. Over a short period of time, significant gains can be made with reading rate and prosody when students are provided with models of fluent reading, vocabulary to describe their own reading fluency, and plenty of opportunities to practice, such as choral reading, cooperative reading, and whisper-phone reading. In addition, the research suggests that oral reading accuracy and reading comprehension skills may improve over time as fluency skills improve. Carrying out this intervention for an entire school year would likely yield greater improvements in these areas. The results of this research have changed the way I will teach reading in my own classroom. The changes I observed in the focus group over the short period of four weeks were much more significant than I had expected, and the activities students participated in did not take up a large part of my reading instruction. In fact, after the first week, students were already

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

23

familiar with the routine and required very little direction to carry out the repeated reading activities beyond the directed instruction at the beginning of the week. With students being selfdirected to complete cooperative and whisper reading activities, I will be able to meet with other groups of students at the same time, making my reading period more manageable. Teaching fluency-related vocabulary and using poetry to practice these skills had a great impact on students‟ fluency development. Using vocabulary words, such as intonation, expression, pace and phrasing, helped students to identify strengths and weaknesses in their own reading. It also gave them a focus when practicing to improve their fluency skills. In addition, because poetry is often written in phrases and conveys strong feelings, it was a natural way to improve prosody skills, while still increasing their oral reading accuracy and rate. Using poetry allowed students to “play” with the poems as they practiced, experimenting with the message being sent through the poem by how and when they chose to change their pace, expression, intonation and phrasing. In addition, students seemed to enjoy reading the poems, which was a motivator for completing the repeated reading activities. One particular component of the research, the use of whisper-phones, made a large impact on my students. They were very motivated to use them and indicated that hearing their own voice while reading was very helpful for improving their fluency. Also, using the whisperphones was not disruptive to the rest of the class, so other students were able to continue their independent reading activities while whisper-phones were being used. Overall, this research project has shown the positive impact that directed instruction using repeated reading of poetry can have on both fluency and comprehension. Students can benefit in the short-term by improving their oral reading rate and prosody, while also working towards increasing their oral reading accuracy and overall reading comprehension with

REPEATED READING OF POETRY continued, long-term instruction. Successfully improving fluency and comprehension skills at the fifth-grade level can have long-reaching effects, both academically and with everyday life skills. When students are armed with the skills needed to learn, grow and function in their communities, they have the opportunity to become successful, confident adults making a difference in our future world.

24

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

25 References

Armbruster, B.B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2006). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Daane, M.C., Campbell, J.R., Grigg, W.S., Goodman, M.J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading (NCES 2006-469). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Faver, S. (2008). Repeated reading of poetry can enhance reading fluency. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 350-352. Fountas, I.C. & Pinnell, G.S. (2008). Six dimensions fluency rubric. Retrieved April 11, 2010, from http://lakeharriet.mpls.k12.mn.us/uploads/dimensions_fluency.pdf Hook, P.E. & Jones, S.D. (2004). The importance of automaticity and fluency for efficient reading comprehension. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 30(2), 16-21. Hudson, R.F., Lane, H.B., & Pullen, P.C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Perfect poems with strategies for building fluency. (2004). New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. Rasinski, T.V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. Jefferson City, MO: Scholastic Professional Books.

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

26

Rasinski, T.V. & Padak, N. (2005). 3-minute reading assessments: Word recognition, fluency & comprehension. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. Scott Foresman Reading Street Grade 5 Unit and End-of-Year Benchmark Tests: Teacher’s Manual. (2008). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). NAEP Oral Reading Fluency Scale. Retrieved on April 20, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/studies/ors/scale.asp

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

27 Appendix A

Baseline and Post-Test Assessment Data

Percent of Words Read Correctly

101 100 99 98

Baseline Post-Test

97 96 95 94 F-KF

F-LH

F-CH

F-AW

F-AD

F-RD

Focus Group Subjects

Percent of Words Read Correctly

101 100 99 98

Baseline Post-Test

97 96 95 94 C-CS

C-SS

C-JS

C-EG

C-JL

C-LV

Control Group Subjects

Figure 1. Oral reading accuracy results for focus and control groups (maximum of 100%).

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

28

Words Correct Per Minute (wcpm)

200 180 160 140 120 Baseline

100

Post-Test

80 60 40 20 0 F-KF

F-LH

F-CH

F-AW

F-AD

F-RD

Focus Group Subjects

Words Correct Per Minute (wcpm)

200 180 160 140 120 Baseline

100

Post-Test

80 60 40 20 0 C-CS

C-SS

C-JS

C-EG

C-JL

C-LV

Control Group Subjects

Figure 2. Oral reading automaticity (rate) results for focus and control groups.

Points on Multidimensional Fluency Scale

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

29

18 16 14 12 10

Baseline

8

Post-Test

6 4 2 0 F-KF

F-LH

F-CH

F-AW

F-AD

F-RD

Points on Multidimensional Fluency Scale

Focus Group Subjects

18 16 14 12 10

Baseline

8

Post-Test

6 4 2 0 C-CS

C-SS

C-JS

C-EG

C-JL

C-LV

Control Group Subjects

Figure 3. Oral reading prosody results for focus and control groups (maximum of 16 points).

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

30

Retell Comprehenson Score

7 6 5 4

Baseline Post-Test

3 2 1 0 F-KF

F-LH

F-CH

F-AW

F-AD

F-RD

Focus Group Subjects

Retell Comprehension Score

7 6 5 4

Baseline Post-Test

3 2 1 0 C-CS

C-SS

C-JS

C-EG

C-JL

C-LV

Control Group Subjects

Figure 4. Retell comprehension results for focus and control groups (maximum of 6 points).

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

31 Appendix B

Points on Multidimensional Fluency Scale

Weekly Prosody Scores of Focus Group (using Multidimensional Fluency Scale)

18 16 14 12 10

Day 1

8

Day 3

6 4 2 0 Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week of Intervention

Figure 5. Weekly poetry readings for subject F-KF (maximum of 16 points).

Points on Multidimensional Fluency Scale

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

32

18 16 14 12 10

Day 1

8

Day 3

6 4 2 0 Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week of Intervention

Figure 6. Weekly poetry readings for subject F-LH (maximum of 16 points).

Points on Multidimensional Fluency Scale

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

33

18 16 14 12 10

Day 1

8

Day 3

6 4 2 0 Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week of Intervention

Figure 7. Weekly poetry readings for subject F-CH (maximum of 16 points).

Points on Multidimensional Fluency Scale

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

34

18 16 14 12 10

Day 1

8

Day 3

6 4 2 0 Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week of Intervention

Figure 8. Weekly poetry readings for subject F-AW (maximum of 16 points).

Points on Multidimensional Fluency Scale

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

35

18 16 14 12 10

Day 1

8

Day 3

6 4 2 0 Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week of Intervention

Figure 9. Weekly poetry readings for subject F-AD (maximum of 16 points).

Points on Multidimensional Fluency Scale

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

36

18 16 14 12 10

Day 1

8

Day 3

6 4 2 0 Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week of Intervention

Figure 10. Weekly poetry readings for subject F-RD (maximum of 16 points).

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

37 Appendix C

Poetry used for repeated reading interventions

Intervention Week

Poem Read by Focus Group

Week 1

“A Secret in my Pocket” by Karen Baicker (Perfect Poems, 2003, p. 49)

Week 2

“Mom‟s Allergic” by Mary Sullivan (Perfect Poems, 2003, p. 19)

Week 3

“The Red Ball” by Liza Charlesworth (Perfect Poems, 2003, p. 39)

Week 4

“Sick” by Shel Silverstein (Perfect Poems, 2003, p. 71)

REPEATED READING OF POETRY

38 Appendix D

Example of whisper-phone used for whisper reading activities

Figure 11. Whisper-phone made from two connecting elbows of 1 ½ inch PVC pipe.