gaillindsayksumed.weebly.comgaillindsayksumed.weebly.com/.../3/5/4/83546698/action… · web...

Running head: Rereading 1

Rereading Action Research

Gail Lindsay

Kennesaw State University

Abstract

This study attempts to determine if providing differentiation by choice motivates students to

reread and therefore improves students’ reading performance. Kindergarten students were

provided a choice board with rereading strategies. They were allowed to choose the groups they

wanted to work from during their reading workshop block. Their behavior was monitored and

data collected to see if engagement levels changed. They were given a pre-test and post-test

DRA to analyze the data for reading achievement.

Keywords: Rereading, Prosodic Reading, Fluency, Comprehension, Differentiation, Reading

Motivation

Rereading Action Research 2

Introduction

Background of Research

Rereading is an evidence-based strategy that increases fluency and comprehension.

When students decode too slow, it impedes their ability to comprehend. Therrien (2004) notes

“Poor readers often spend a great deal of their cognitive resources on decoding and have little

left for comprehension. Fluent readers on the other hand, decode words quickly and accurately,

thus retaining many resources they can use for comprehension” (p. 252). Comprehension is the

end goal when learning to read. Therrien and Kubina (2006) state “Fluency serves as a bridge

between decoding words and comprehension” (as cited in Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, &

Tarver, 2004, p. 156). Comprehension is essential to work on with young readers and making it

meaningful for an entire class is challenging.

I had a classroom of 20 kindergarten students. At my school, we teach reading through

the reader’s workshop model. My workshop model consists of ten minutes of shared reading,

ten minutes of whole group word work, a five minute mini lesson, ten minutes of buddy reading,

and 40 minutes of independent reading. During the independent reading time, I am pulling

guided reading groups or conferring. In kindergarten, it is a challenge to keep them motivated to

reread and on task for 40 minutes. They have 7-10 books on their reading level, and this is what

they have been rereading from. According to Clark et al. (2009) “Although fluency instruction

methods can be effective, motivation to engage in them is usually low for both students and

teachers” (p. 359). I wanted to provide some more motivating ways to reread, so that my

students can build their reading stamina which will in turn build their fluency and


comprehension. According to Clark et al. (2009) “As is true with most instructional activities,

varying the type of fluency practice used in the classroom is desirable” (p. 360). By

differentiating rereading strategies based on their choice or fit this should increase student

engagement and therefore, increase their reading fluency. Tomlinson (2008) states that finding

their fit also requires “that what we ask students to learn connects with what they care about.

When knowledge, understanding, and skill help students make sense of their world, do things

they want to do, or develop a sense of personal agency, students will give whatever it takes to

succeed” (p.28).

Teaching Philosophy

As I taught reading this year, students were required to reread for 40 minutes, so that I

could use that time for pulling guided reading groups. I found it very challenging to get

kindergartners to be motivated to stay on task and reread texts that are on their independent level.

When they were finished, they wanted to stop and move onto a new task. The way that I had

been instructing them is when they were done, “good readers reread familiar texts.” I had them

go back and continue to read and this is when the off-task behavior started. Gambrell (1996)

stated “Without attention to reading motivation, some students may never reach their full literacy

potential” (as cited in Marinak et al., 2015, p. 51). I felt that differentiation was important for my

students and if my students could choose rereading strategies that were the right fit for them, this

would motivate them to reread for the required reading time and benefit their reading abilities. I

felt that using choice boards with my students would allow them to find the rereading strategies

that fit and interest them best. Choice boards that have research based rereading strategies would

provide my students with a challenging reading curriculum.

Statement of Problem and Research Question


The lack of differentiated rereading strategies was causing my students to become

engaged in off-task behavior. This off-task behavior wasn’t allowing students the time they

needed to be working on fluency skills which develop their comprehension. This exhibited

behavior made me ask: “Would and in what ways differentiating rereading strategies would

motivate my students to reread and improve students’ reading performance?”

School Demographics and Context

Mt. Bethel Elementary School has 1,068 students. 831 are white, 124 are Asian/Pacific

Islander, 31 are African American, 49 are Hispanic, 31 are multi-racial, and two are American

Indian/Alaskan. The median household income in Mt. Bethel’s zip code is $102,186 per year.

3.7% are eligible for the Free or Reduced Lunch program. The state average for the free or

reduced lunch program is 62.6%.

Mt. Bethel is a School of Excellence and was just named a 2016 National Blue Ribbon

School by the Department of Education. Mt. Bethel has extremely supportive parents with high

expectations for their children, staff, and the community. The students at Mt. Bethel are high

achieving with over one-third of the students qualify for Gifted services. Parents are very

involved and have a plethora of opportunities to volunteer in the classrooms and around the

school. The PTA has won numerous awards. In 2014-2015, our PTA won 2nd place for

Outstanding Unit in the state of GA and 1st place for Cobb and 6 other counties. We also have a

very strong Foundation that raises over $200,000 a year to provide technology and STEM

instructors, specialized training for the teachers, and grants for teachers to buy special

technology or supplies for their classrooms. The Foundation also sponsors 15 after school clubs

to enhance the educational experience of students after school.


Significance

The significance of this research applied to the concern for my students’ reading

achievement and their motivation to become life-long learners who find reading enjoyable and

read with confidence and good comprehension. I wanted my students to be excited for reader’s

workshop and stay on-task through the entire duration of the workshop time. I wanted to see

them challenged and their reading levels to be reflective of their hard work.

Also, another significance of this research was my growth as a teacher. By reflecting on

my findings, I could improve my practice which would benefit my students’ learning.

Definition of Terms

Terms critical to the study:

Differentiation refers to a wide variety of teaching techniques and lesson adaptations that

educators use to instruct a diverse group of students, with diverse learning needs, in the same

course, classroom, or learning environment. (Ed. Glossary, 2014).

Choice Board is a differentiation strategy that allows students to choose the activities they would

like to complete.

Fluency is the ability to read with prosody, accuracy, and speed.

Comprehension is defined by Oxford Dictionaries as the action or ability to understand

something.

Workshop Model is a structure that is given to the children to use. They work at their pace as the

teacher comes around and conferences to instruct them at their level.


Guided Reading is small group reading instruction that focuses on the needs of the students in

the group.

Review of Literature

Introduction

Reading fluency is an important part of the reading curriculum, which includes accuracy,

prosody, and automaticity. Reading fluency enables the reader to comprehend information more

clearly. Gambrell, Block, and Pressley (2002) state “The academic importance of reading

comprehension cannot be understated, leading researchers to claim that the most important thing

about reading is comprehension” (as cited in Ness, 2016, p. 59). Repeated reading or rereading

is used to develop fluency. The more students reread texts, they develop their prosodic reading

abilities and speed which will free up cognitive resources to allow for comprehension. “The

National Reading Panel (2000) categorized fluency as an essential component when reviewing

reading. Based on available research, the Panel found that students improve oral reading fluency

to a greater extent with systematic, guided practice, rather than independent sustained silent

reading or encouraging students to read more” (Kostewicz, Kubina, Selfridge, & Gallagher,

2016, p. 24). Sometimes students can lack motivation to reread texts for an extended amount of

time. “The issue of engagement is an important one, given the evidence suggesting strong

linkages between engagement and achievement in reading and the important role of student

interest in promoting higher reading achievement” (Little, McCoach, & Reis, 2014, p. 385).

Differentiating through choice or interest motivates students by allowing them to pick the

rereading strategy they would like to use.


This research project will take place over a 5 week time period during the 2016-2017

school year in a kindergarten classroom at Mt. Bethel Elementary School. It will be conducted

for 40 minutes a day during the independent reading time of reader’s workshop. This action

research project is designed to improve overall reading achievement and improve reading

motivation, so students meet or exceed Georgia Standards of Excellence in reading.

This study seeks to find out if differentiating rereading strategies will motivate students

to reread and improve their reading performance.

This paper reviews past literature that discusses the importance of fluency and

comprehension, if rereading can be a viable strategy to use to promote reading fluency, and ways

to implement it into a reading curriculum. Additionally, this paper will review the effects of

differentiation through choice, and if it is tied to an increase in motivation and on-task behavior.

The Connection between Fluency and Rereading

Fluency is an important component of reading. Faver (2008) examined the benefits of

repeated reading as an instructional strategy to increase reading fluency. Faver (2008) defines

reading fluency as “a multidimensional skill that must be explicitly taught and modeled” (p.

350). Fluent readers decode words automatically and use expression when reading. Once

students become fluent, it allows for better comprehension of the read text. Struggling readers

read slowly and have to decode words and their comprehension is affected by this process.

Repeated reading is a strategy that can help a student build their reading fluency. Rasinski

(2003) posits “Practicing short passages three to five times can help students develop greater

automaticity and expression in their reading, especially if that practice is given with formative

feedback” (as cited in Faver, 2008, p, 17). Three types of repeated readings are suggested: read

along, assisted repeated reading, and unassisted repeated reading. A read along takes place with


the teacher or another adult. The two read along together, so the child hears the fluency and

expression in the adult’s voice. Assisted repeated reading is when two students are paired

together. Unassisted repeated reading is when the child reads independently and practices a text

that has already been read. In discussion of how to use poetry and performances for the repeated

readings, Faver (2008) states, “Poetry naturally encourages children to want to read and have fun

while reading” (p. 351).

Prosodic Reading and Fluency

Prosody is an important component of fluent reading. Miller and Schwanenflugel (2006)

as well as; Schwanenflugel, Hamilton, Kuhn, Wisenbaker, and Stahl (2004) stated, “Although

prosody is rarely studied by researchers examining the impact of various interventions on

students’ fluency, evidence suggests that it is a meaningful component of fluency that helps to

explain variation in students’ reading comprehension” (as cited in Ardoin, Morena, Binder, and

Foster, 2013, p. 392). Therrien (2004) examines the procedures that need to be used to increase

reading fluency. When decoding is too arduous of a process it impedes the flow of thought that

is needed for comprehension. According to LaBerge and Samuels (1974), “Reading fluency

problems stem from readers’ poor decoding skills. When decoding is too slow, a ‘bottleneck’ is

created that impedes the flow of thought and hampers comprehension” (as cited in Therrien,

2004, p. 252). Fluent readers decode quickly and accurately and then can use their cognitive

resources for comprehension. Also, fluent readers read with prosody. Struggling readers lack the

ability to use prosodic cues. Readers who don’t use these do not divide sentences into

meaningful phrases and this contributes to their lack of comprehending texts. Logan (1997)

insists “Reading from text is complex and requires integration across all levels of processing-

from decoding individual words to acquiring meaning from sentences, paragraphs and the text as


a whole. Failure at any one of these levels may result in reading fluency difficulties” (as cited in

Therrien, 2004, p. 253).

The Link between Fluency and Comprehension

The development of fluency may increase a student’s comprehension. Huang, Nelson,

and Nelson (2008) cite the National Reading Panel’s five subcomponents of reading: “phonemic

awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension” (p. 34). Fluency is the ability to

read text with accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. Comprehension is the ultimate goal in

reading and is linked to fluency through prosody. Rasinski, Blachowicz, and Lems (2006) stated

“Comprehension therefore is linked to fluency through prosody, which is commonly known as

‘reading with feeling’ or incorporating the various aspects of oral expression” (as cited in Huang

et al., 2008, p. 34). Students need reading practice time in order to become better readers where

they are reading with fluidity, and they can then make sense of the text. Huang et al. (2008) state

“While the average student reads approximately six-to-eight minutes per day, it is estimated that

poor readers engage in even less reading time” (p.34). Stanovich (1986) calls this the “Matthew

Effect” (as cited in Huang et al., 2008, p. 34). This is where the “Rich get richer and the poor get

poorer” (Huang et al., 2008, p. 34). Students who read less find reading more difficult and

therefore, don’t read. Students who read more become better at it and will then read more and

become better and better. “Some sentences are too long or complex in structure, and we have to

hold too much in mind before we can understand what we read. We get lost and may feel

discomfort and dislike for the book. Our motivation to continue wanes. Any one of these factors

can disrupt our reading fluency, significantly interfering with our comprehension” (Bashir and

Hook, 2009, p. 197). Without reading practice, a student’s ability to comprehend and synthesis

their material will become laborious. Huang et al. (2008) posits “Reading is an essential


component of education which is linked to an individual’s overall achievement and success over

the lifetime” (p. 33).

Specific Rereading Strategies

“Reading strategies are self-directed actions where readers flexibly take control with a

certain degree of awareness to retrieve, store, regulate, elaborate, and evaluate textual

information to achieve reading goals” (Yen-Hui, 2016, p. 1790). Rereading or sometimes called

repeated reading is a reading strategy that can be used within a literacy curriculum. Certain

components and framework could be needed for setting up rereading’s in a classroom setting.

Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, and Tarver (2004) note “Fluency serves as a bridge between

decoding words and comprehension” (as cited in Therrien & Kubina, 2006, p. 156). They feel

that the best way to teach fluency is through repeated reading. “Research shows that repeated

readings can facilitate reading achievement” (Therrien et al., 2006, p.156). There are four

elements to decide if and how to implement. First, determine if students have the prerequisite

skills. Repeated rereading is recommended for students who already have the foundational

reading skills. Second, choose an appropriate format for the intervention; peer tutoring, whole-

class activity, or pull-out program. Third, implement essential instructional components. These

include; reading aloud the passage to the student by either the teacher or a peer, provide positive

feedback and correct any errors, have the student reread until a certain performance level is met.

Fourth, have student’s select appropriate reading materials. The texts should be on the students

reading level. These should be “passages read with 85% to 95% word accuracy that can be read

by students in one to two minutes are preferable” (Therrien et al., 2006, p. 158). According to

the author, these components can help create a successful environment for implementing

rereading as a fluency strategy. “Using essential instructional components and selecting


appropriate materials maximizes the effectiveness of repeated reading” (Therrien et al., 2006, p.

159).

Choral and Echo Reading

Research shows that Choral and Echo Reading are ways to improve a reader’s fluency.

Jones, Conradi, and Amendum (2016) discuss the benefits of two strategies to improve accuracy

and rate. Echo Reading is where students echo the original reader of the passage. The student or

students read using the same expression and rate as the reader until the passage is finished. The

original reader models fluent, expressive reading, so the students can hear prosodic reading with

timely speed. In Choral reading the teacher and class or small group read the selection together

while the students are mimicking the teacher’s voice. “WCCR [Whole Class Choral Reading]

taps into the performance or extrinsic aspect of reading motivation and has recently been shown

to be connected to oral reading fluency” (Paige, 2011, p. 435).

Shared Reading

Many scholars: Evans, Willamson, & Pursoo (2008); Gong and Levy (2009); Justice,

Pullen, & Pence (2008); Piasta et al. (2012) noted “Studies have proposed that reading strategies

that make print references, either verbally or nonverbally, could promote children’s attention to

printed text during shared reading and thus contribute to this preparation for formal reading and

writing teachings” (as cited in Roy-Charland, Perron, Boulard, Chamberland, & Hoffman, 2015,

p. 1286). Shared reading can be used to work on beginning literacy, but also to help a reader’s

ability to read challenging texts. Tierney and Readence (2005) state “In Shared Reading the

teacher and students typically read chorally, with students first reading a text in a supportive

environment while gaining confidence” (as cited in Jones et al., 2016, p. 8). The use of poetry

for shared reading experiences can be effective and motivating for students. “At its best, poetry


delights children not only with sound, but with emotional intensity and insight as well” (Gill,

2015, p. 22). The rhythm and the repetition of poetry helps children commit the words to

memory. Once the children have memorized the poem, they can be rereading to work on their

fluency. Jones et al. (2016) asserts that shared reading is another research backed rereading

strategy to use to improve fluency.

Readers Theater

Readers Theater can be very effective with young children who are just beginning to read

and are not yet reading independently. It can be varied in a way that helps them develop what

they will need to become independent readers. Children who are not yet able to read can

participate through choral reading. The narrator can be a teacher who reads most of the script,

but the children chorally read certain phrases. Prompt cards on a pocket chart can be used for

this type of Readers Theater. “As the children’s literacy skills increase, they can take a greater

role and will eventually take charge of performing an entire script” (Moran, 2006, p. 320). Start

off by examining any pictures from the story you are using. Make sure to make connections and

discuss any challenging vocabulary. Then the children can move to scripts that have a mixture

of texts and pictures and use color coding to assist the young readers. Eventually, the students

will be able to read more challenging scripts with less pictures and more words. Also, Readers

Theater with young children takes a great deal of script modeling and how to read with

expression. “Children learn more from what we do than from what we teach” (Moran, 2006, p.

321). Fluency includes prosody and by modeling this expressive reading, the children are

learning how to incorporate this in their reading.

Listening Center through the Use of Technology


Listening Centers can be effective tools to motivate students to reread and develop their

prosodic reading. “While past studies and interventions focused on reading speed as their main

goal, now more emphasis is being placed on exploring the role prosody plays in reading, and

how listening to an audio model of a text while reading may act as a form of scaffolding, or aid,

to reading comprehension” (Etsuo Taguchi1, Gorsuch, Lems, and Rosszell, 2016, p. 101).

Listening Centers can be combined with technology to further benefit students. Morgan (2014)

states “Although many educators are critical of technology implementation and question whether

the need to use digital resources is based on scientific evidence, recent brain research supports

the idea that these resources benefit students and that exposure to technology affects learning

favorably” (p. 36). Students technological abilities and needs differ from one another. Some

students become extremely engaged in a subject when they have the ability to use technology.

Herther (2009) wrote “Data from the University of California–Los Angeles’s Semel Institute for

Neuroscience and Human Behavior revealed that the brain activity of digital natives tends to

increase while they navigate a web page as opposed to when they read something in print

format” (as cited in Morgan, 2014, p. 37). Using technology to teach reading can help teachers

instruct students effectively and meet their needs.

What is Differentiation?

Hall, Strangman, and Meyer (2013) define differentiated instruction: “Differentiated

instruction allows all students to access the same classroom curriculum by providing entry

points, learning tasks, and outcomes tailored to students’ learning needs” (as cited in Watts-

Taffe, Laster, Broach, Marinak, McDonald Connor, and Walker-Dalhouse, 2012, p. 304).

Differentiation is a variety of strategies that are geared to fit each child’s specific needs. There

can be different ways to meet the needs of children. Tomlinson (2001) asserts “Differentiating


instruction can occur by focusing on the process by which students learn, the products or

demonstrations of their learning, the environment in which they learn, or the content they are

learning” (as cited in Watts et al., 2012, p. 304). These processes work together and should

affect one another. When something is differentiated one way, it may cause the teacher to

change the assessment or instruction to fit that student or group. Watts et al. (2012) report

school based research studies have been done where teachers were assigned certain ways to

differentiate reading instruction and compared the findings to teachers who didn’t. Watts et al.

(2012) reported “These studies showed that from kindergarten through third grade, students

made greater gains in word reading and reading comprehension when their teachers

differentiated instruction, using small, flexible learning groups during a center or station time,

than did students whose teachers provided high-quality but primarily whole-class instruction”

(pp. 304-305).

Does Differentiation Motivate Students?

“Students tend to comprehend little and lose focus of classroom instruction when their

teachers fail to use instructional strategies that match students’ learning styles” (Morgan, 2014,

p. 34). Differentiation calls for a teacher to use strategies that will help each child be successful.

For some students, this may be ways to motivate them and keep them engaged and on-task.

“Because today’s society is more diverse than ever before, more pupils with different needs are

sitting in the same classroom” (Morgan, 2014, p. 36). Diverse students can learn differently or

need different tools to motivate them. Teachers need to vary their instruction based on students

to best fit their multiple intelligence. By meeting students’ needs and interests this will motivate

students more than taking an instructional approach of one-size fits all. “Embedding these

interests through offering students options within the curriculum can motivate students who were


previously having difficulty or not interested in school” (Servilio, 2009, p. 2). Teachers who are

unaware of student learning styles will likely teach in a manner that prevents pupils from doing

their best work. Differentiated instruction can alleviate or eliminate this disengagement”

(Morgan, 2014, p. 34). “Once you begin to differentiate, you will find that your students are

more successful and more motivated, and there will be no turning back” (Birnie, 2015, p. 65).

How Does Motivation Affect Reading Performance?

Schiefele et al. (2012) shares “A multitude of studies have suggested that students’

motivation impacts their processes and products of learning above and beyond cognitive

characteristics such as intelligence or prior knowledge” (p. 427). Schiefele et al. (2012)

reviewed prior studies and reported that they have shown reading competence is extremely

important for academic success. Mol and Bus (2011) as well as Wigfield and Guthrie (1997)

claim “Motivation is assumed to be of particular significance because it affects the amount and

breadth of students’ reading, which, in turn, facilitates the development of reading competence”

(as cited in Schiefele et al., 2012, p. 428). Reading is an active process and students need to

practice in order to draw meaning from texts and comprehend them. Students need reading

motivation, so that they can gain competence in all areas of reading.

Summary

As I reviewed all the literature I found that rereading was a viable instructional tool to use

to increase a student’s fluency level. By using rereading, students would learn to read with better

prosody and speed. There are three types of strategies that were suggested; read along, assisted

readings, and unassisted readings. These would allow the reader the practice needed to no longer

sound out words, but read the passage with speed and ease. I also found that the literature finds


that comprehension is linked to prosodic reading. When a student is fluent enough with a

passage to read it with feeling, it allows them the cognitive space to construct meaning from it.

Additionally from the literature, I found that there are specific strategies that can be used for the

read alongs, assisted readings, and unassisted readings that students will find engaging to

practice their rereadings; such as, choral reading, echo reading, shared reading, Readers Theater,

poetry, and technology tools that read to students. The literature discusses that differentiation is

critical to help motivate and reach all their students’ needs. Reading competence is extremely

important for students to succeed in all academic areas. Without the motivation to practice

reading skills, students may not learn to read at a level that allows them to gain the breadth of

knowledge needed for some of their academic subjects. In my action research project, I

investigated if differentiating rereading strategies would motivate my students to reread and

improve students’ reading performance.

Methodology

Purpose

The research question that was addressed through this project is: Would and in what ways

differentiating rereading strategies motivate students to reread and improve students’ reading

performance? The purpose of this study was to measure the progress made in reading

performance when my students were given their choice on the strategies they would use to reread

material on their reading level during reader’s workshop. Rasinski, Rikli, and Johnson state

“Rereading the same passage repeatedly has been found to have a positive impact on both

fluency and comprehension” (as cited in Mraz et al., 2013, p. 165). Additionally, their

motivation to reread and stay on-task during the 40 minutes designated for independent reading

time was also monitored and reported. “Motivation is associated with several important


correlates, such as higher reading achievement, greater conceptual understanding, and a

willingness to persevere when reading tasks become challenging” (Marinak, Malloy, Gambrell,

& Mazzoni, 2015, p. 51). I hoped that this study would prove to increase their on-task behavior

and motivate them to reread during the entire duration of their independent reading time and in

turn increase their reading levels.

Setting

This action research project took place over a five week period at Mt. Bethel Elementary

School during the 2016-2017 school year. It is a suburban school located in East Cobb

(Marietta), GA. Mt. Bethel has 1, 068 students. One of our school goals this year is to

implement differentiation across all subject areas. Also starting last year, there has been a push

to refine our reading instruction to help show growth in our already high standardized test scores.

School Digger (2016) shows Mt. Bethel’s average standard score on the Georgia Milestone for

the 2015-2016 school year as 97.4%. Mt. Bethel’s state ranking of all elementary schools in

Georgia is 30th. Due to these school wide goals, my action research is designed to improve

student achievement in reading and increase motivation to practice learned reading skills.

Participants

My class was capped at 20 students to comply with the EIP/student ratio. I had 11 boys

and nine girls. Most of them are five years old, but a few had turned six already. Two of the

students in my class were EIP. I didn’t have any identified special needs students; however, two

of my students were repeating kindergarten and one was on Tier 2 of RTI and had significant

medical needs. I had 11 white students, five Asian students, two African American students, and

two Hispanic children. None of the students in my class were considered ESOL.


This Action Research Study reported on seven of the 11 boys and six of the nine girls

from my general education kindergarten classroom. Each student was referred to by a letter

using A-M.

Innovation and Research Design

I taught reading through a Reading Workshop Model that consisted of shared reading,

read alouds, a mini lesson, word work, buddy reading, and independent reading time. The

research was gathered and reported on only during the independent reading time. I incorporated

a choice board (appendix A) that students were allowed to choose the activities they will

complete. They had to complete two a day and could repeat the activities if they choose. I met

with the students at the end of the week to collect their choice boards and discussed with the

students their progress on completing the activities.

This research project design was Mixed Method. Quantitative Data was collected

through a pretest/post-test Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) and a non-engagement

scan-tally mark chart. The qualitative data was collected using teacher journaling to reflect on

my practices and look for strengths and weaknesses to report on.

Instruments, Data Collection, and Data Analysis & Procedures

At the beginning of the 5 week period, I administered a DRA to the 13 children, so that I

can get a baseline of their reading performance. At the end of the 5 weeks, I administered

another DRA to track their growth. This information was placed in an adjacent column bar chart

using Microsoft Excel to compare their progress and illustrate the mean and median.

Additionally, I kept a daily scan-tally mark chart (Appendix B) that tracked how many off-task

redirections I made during the independent reading time. This chart monitored their motivation


for rereading during this time. I inputted this data into Microsoft Excel to graphically display

observations via a stacked bar chart. Also, I kept a teacher journal with paper and pencil that I

used to reflect back on my teaching practices and used this information in a narrative write up.

Results

The students were extremely engaged for the duration of the 5 weeks. They enjoyed

making their own choices as to which rereading strategy group they were going to do for that

day. They worked in groups to make their decision and moved with their group to reread. I

placed them in their groups based on their DRA instructional level. They had to stay with their

group because most of the choices required them to have a buddy or small group to reread with.

I was surprised that they mostly wanted to reread within the Readers Theater, Step into the Story,

Technology, or Choral Reading strategy group. Some of the other strategy groups had been used

since the start of the year, and they rarely picked these.

By the end of the 5 weeks, most undesirable behaviors had diminished. Talking

continued to be an issue, but it was on-task, engaged talking. I hadn’t thought about how noisy

all the rereading would be, so quite often I would have to ask them to quiet down. The Step into

the Story group was really loud and sometimes redirection would be needed because they found

it so fun, and it felt like play to them. I made a few changes within the groups as I reflected and

journaled each day. I found that I had to take the noise level down, so I changed the buddy

reading into reading with a stuffed animal. I hoped that the students would be excited about this

and choose this group instead of some of the louder ones.

I was really pleased with the growth that the children made with their reading

performance. Their mean reading performance increase on the DRA was 43%. The most


successful student had a 50% increase from the initial DRA assessment, while the least was 0%

(no growth). Intuitively, one can gather that most students showed an increase in performance.

Most of the children grew their reading level by one or more levels. It is important to note that

the DRA levels increase by increments of one until level four. After that, they increase by

increments of two. Student I’s reading level stayed the same. This was an interesting finding for

me because I have been concerned about this child all year. He is on Tier 2 already and the

family is looking into a possible reading disability. I feel the data shows the growth that I may

have seen in a 9-12 week period resulting in my five week project.

Data Analysis

I was able to organize my data in Microsoft Excel Charts to see the results in an

organized manner. It helped me better compare the DRA pre-test and post-test; as well as, the

information from the Off-Task Redirection Tally Chart. The information in the tally chart

helped me to see what the off-task behaviors were in more detail, so I could make conclusions

and comparisons.

Quantitative data was collected by using pre- and post-test DRA’s. The data from this was

used to answer if the students’ reading performance has improved by differentiating rereading

strategies. As stated earlier, there was a significant increase in the percent mean DRA

assessment scores. However, that does not tell the whole story. I also observed changes to the

median and mode of the assessment scores. If all three statistical measures either trend together

or converge, it would further support the program’s success. In figure 1, the table and

calculations clearly show this to be true, as mean increased 43%, median increased 100%, and

mode increased 33%.


DRA Pre- and Post-Test Data Collection Chart

Student DRA Pre-test

DRA Post-test

A 16 24B 14 20C 14 20D 12 16E 10 14F 10 12G 6 12H 6 10I 4 4J 3 4K 3 4L 3 4M 2 3

Diff Diff%Mean 7.9 11.3 3.4 43%

Median 6.0 12.0 6.0 100%

Mode 3.0 4.0 1.0 33%

Standard Deviation 4.8 6.9 2.2

Figure 1


The students took a pre-test and post-test DRA. I took the data from seven boys and six

girls to use for my sample. On average (mean), the class scores grew by 43%. The median,

representing the center score actually doubled. While, the most frequent score (mode) increased

by 33%. Interesting to note, the students’ scores were highly dispersed based on an increase in

standard deviation. This would lead one to conclude, that the median is the better measurement

of classroom success. All the data shows growth based on differentiating the reading groups by

choice (Figure 2).

Qualitative data was collected by using a daily scan-tally mark chart for the times I had to

redirect their off-task behavior. This data answers if differentiating by choice is motivating them

to stay on task and reread for the duration of Reader’s Workshop. Additional qualitative data

was pulled from reviewing my teacher journal. Figure 3 illustrates an example of the tally chart

along with the actual observed data below:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M0

5

10

15

20

25

DRA Assessment Results Comparison

DRA Pre-test DRA Post-test

Figure 2


Off-Task Redirection Tally Chart

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

TK

TCH

NP

DR

OT

TK=Talking TCH=Touching NP=Not Participating

DR=Disrespectful OT=Other

Figure 3

Wee

k 1

Wee

k 2

Wee

k 3

Wee

k 4

Wee

k 5

Mon

day

Tues

day

Wed

Thur

sday

Frid

ayM

onda

yTu

esda

yW

edTh

ursd

ayFr

iday

Mon

day

Tues

day

Wed

Thur

sday

Frid

ayM

onda

yTu

esda

yW

edTh

ursd

ayFr

iday

Mon

day

Tues

day

Wed

Thur

sday

Frid

ayTK

1012

1011

1212

108

1213

1211

78

1112

1312

1110

89

1011

9TC

H2

21

10

10

00

10

31

00

00

10

00

00

00

NP

11

12

00

00

01

00

10

00

11

11

10

01

1D

R0

10

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

OT

11

00

00

10

00

00

00

10

00

00

00

10

013

1612

1412

1310

812

1512

149

811

1214

1412

119

910

1210

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25


The table and chart above illustrate the distribution of behavioral redirects over the course of the 5 weeks.Off-Task Redirection Chart


The findings from the Off-Task Redirection Chart show that most behaviors improved.

As previously noted, talking continued to be an issue; however, the talking was due to them

being on-task instead of off-task. When it came to touching other students, the behavior seemed

to come in waves. There would be multiple days of redirection, it would calm for a week, then

creep back into the students regime. This same pattern was also observed with participation.

Depending on the specific days, focus on redirection to participate came in waves. Reasons for

this are described in the Limitations section below.

Conclusion

My conclusion of this study is that providing a choice of rereading strategies motivates

students to reread and does increase reading performance at a faster rate than would have

normally been seen. Also, I can conclude that providing a choice helped the readers stay focused

for the length of the reading block and can eliminate most undesirable behaviors due to their

increase in motivation for the rereading strategies that were implemented. Due to their on-task

rereading performance, they built up their fluency which increased their comprehension of

tougher reading material. This was evident in their DRA level growth.

Limitations

A limitation of my study is that it may not be effective for students that are on the RTI

process. This was seen with student I’s scores. He struggled with the new rereading strategies

the same as he had before.

Another limitation is that the chart for off-task redirection doesn’t differentiate between

off-task talking and on-task talking. It was still marked as a redirection because it needed to be


addressed, but there is a difference between talking due to student engagement and talking from

a lack of engagement.

External effects is also another limitation. The holiday breaks, schedule changes, sleep,

food, etc. were all limitations. They would affect the behaviors of the children and their

participation.

Additionally, sample size was a limitation in the study’s effect and could be further

validated and perhaps refined over a larger population of kindergarten classes.

Discussion

I think that my project was successful because the students were able to show better than

normal growth in their reading levels. This was due to student engagement with the

differentiated rereading strategies. I believe that differentiating rereading strategies by choice

made a positive impact on my students’ behaviors and kept them interested and on-task for the

duration of reading time.

Implications for Future Research and Classroom Practice

In the future, my rereading strategy groups will continue to use differentiating by choice.

The groups will be modified from the beginning to include the quieter and independent strategies

that it eventual evolved into. Also, I will make the limit of students in each group much smaller

to help with the noise level. Including more technology based groups will be beneficial to keep

the room quieter, but continue to provide the motivation of rereading that my students need.

Furthermore, I will share my project findings with my team to encourage them to implement

rereading choice boards in their classroom to help with their student engagement.


References

Ardoin, S. P., Morena, L. S., Binder, K. S., & Foster, T. E. (2013). Examining the impact of

feedback and repeated reading on oral reading fluency: Let’s not forget prosody. School

Psychology Quarterly, 28(4), 391-404.

Bashir, A., & Hook, P. (2009). Fluency: A key link between word identification and

comprehension. Language, Speech & Hearing Services In Schools, 40(2), 196-200.

Birnie, B. F. (2015). Making the case for differentiation. Clearing House, 88(2), 62-65.

Clark, R., Morrison, T. G., & Wilcox, B. (2009). Readers’ theater: A process of developing

forth-graders’ reading fluency. Reading Psychology, 30(4), 359-385.

doi:10.1080/02702710802411620

Concise Oxford English dictionary. (2004). Retrieved from

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/comprehension

Enrollment information for Mt. Bethel Elementary School. (2016). Retrieved from

http://elementaryschools.org/directory/ga/cities/marietta/mount-bethel-elementary-

school/130129000507/

Enrollment information for Mt. Bethel Elementary School. (2015). Retrieved from

http://places.findthehome.com/l/140950/East-Cobb-Marietta-GA

Etsuo Taguchi1, T., Gorsuch, G., Lems, K., & Rosszell, R. (2016). Scaffolding in L2 reading:

How repetition and an auditory model help readers. Reading In a Foreign Language,

28(1), 101-117.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/comprehension


Faver, S. (2008). Repeated reading of poetry can enhance reading fluency. The Reading Teacher,

62 (4), 350.

Gill, S. R. (2015). Shared reading of poetry. New England Reading Association Journal, 51(1),

22-31.

Hidden curriculum (2014, August 26). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform.

Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum

Huang, L.V., Nelson, R.B., & Nelson, D. (2008). Increasing reading fluency through student-

directed repeated reading and feedback. California School Psychologist, 13, 1333-40.

Jones, J., Conradi, K., & Amendum, S. J. (2016). Matching interventions to reading needs: A

case for differentiation. Reading Teacher, 1-10. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1513

Kostewicz, D.E., Kubina, R. M., Selfridge, K. A., & Gallagher, D. L. (2016). A review of fixed

fluency criteria in repeated reading studies. Reading Improvement, 53(1), 23.

Little, C. A., McCoach, D. B., & Reis, S. M. (2014). Effects of differentiated reading instruction

on student achievement in middle school. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(4), 384-

402.

Logan, G.D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspective from the instance theory of

automatization. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 123-146.

Marinak, B. A., Malloy, J. B., Gambrell, L. B., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2015). Me and my reading

profile. Reading Teacher, 69(1), 51-62.

Morgan, H. (2014). Maximizing student success with differentiated learning. Clearing House,

87(1), 34-38.

http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum


Moran, K. K. (2006). Nurturing emergent readers through readers’ theater. Early Childhood

Education Journal, 33(5), 317-323. doi:10.1007/ s10643-006-0089-8

Mraz, M., Nichols, W., Caldwell, S., Beisley, R., Sargent, S., & Rupley, W. (2013). Improving

oral reading fluency through readers theatre. Reading Horizons, 52(2), 163-180.

Ness, M. K. (2016). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content area classrooms:

Teacher use of and attitudes towards reading comprehension instruction. Reading

Horizons, 55(1), 58-84.

Paige, D. D. (2011). “That sounded good”: Using whole-class choral reading to improve fluency.

Reading Teacher, 64(6), 435-438.

Roy-Charland, A., Perron, M., Boulard, J., Chamberland, J., & Hoffman, N. (2015). If I point, do

they look?: The impact of attention-orientation strategies on text exploration during

shared book reading. Reading and Writing, 28(9), 1285-1305. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-

9571-2

Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Moller, J., Wigfield, A., Nolen, S., & Baker, L. (2012). Dimensions

of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading

Research Quarterly, 47(4), 427-463. doi:10.1002/RRQ.030

School Test Score Ranking (2016). Retrieved from

https://www.schooldigger.com/go/GA/schoolrank.aspx#

Servilio, K. L. (2009). You get to choose! Motivating students to read through differentiated

instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 5(5), 2-11.


Therrien, W.J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading.

Remedial & Special Education, 25(4), 252-261.

Therrien, W. J., & Kubuina, R. M. (2006). Developing reading fluency with repeated reading.

Intervention in School & Clinic, 41(3), 156-160.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). The goals of differentiation. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 26-30.

Watts-Taffe, S., Laster, B., Broach, L., Marinak, B., McDonald Connor, C., & Walker-Dalhouse,

D. (2012). Differentiated instruction: Making informed teacher decisions. Reading

Teacher, 66(4), 303-314.

Yen-Hui, W. (2016). Reading strategy use and comprehension performance of more successful

and less successful readers: A think-aloud study. Educational Sciences: Theory &

Practice, 16(5), 1789-1813. doi:10.12738/estp.2016.5.0116


Appendices

Appendix A:

This is the choice board that will be given to the students at the beginning of each week.

They will be required to check off two a day. They may repeat the activities if they wish, but

may not repeat an activity in the same day.

Name__________ Date________Reading Choice BoardReaders Theater

Choral Reading

Partner Reading

Echo Reading

Timed Reading

Read the Word Wall

Poetry Journal

Step Into the Story

Listening Center


Appendix B:

This is the off-task redirection tally chart. Each week I will use a new one. I will check

off every time that I have to make a redirection to get a child back on-task.

Off-Task Redirection Tally ChartMonday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

gaillindsayksumed.weebly.comgaillindsayksumed.weebly.com/.../3/5/4/83546698/action… · web...

Documents