The effect of instruction and practice through readers theatre on young readers’ oral reading fluency

This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University]On: 04 October 2014, At: 07:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

The effect of instruction andpractice through readerstheatre on young readers’oral reading fluencySusan KeehnPublished online: 05 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Susan Keehn (2003) The effect of instruction and practicethrough readers theatre on young readers’ oral reading fluency, Reading Researchand Instruction, 42:4, 40-61, DOI: 10.1080/19388070309558395

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558395

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19388070309558395

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558395

reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reading Research and Instruction Summer 2003, 42 (4) 40-61

The Effect of Instruction and PracticeThrough Readers Theatre

on Young Readers' Oral Reading Fluency

Susan Keehn

Abstract

This study compared difference in treatment effect when Readers Theater wasimplemented in two ways as an instructional intervention to promote oral readingfluency in second grade classrooms. The study also examined the effect of ReadersTheater intervention on students at different levels of reading ability. Multiple measureswere used to determine pre- and post-intervention performance of students in readinglevel, rate, accuracy, comprehension, and prosody. Although students in both treatmentgroups at all levels of ability made statistically significant gains, there was nosignificance between students who received Readers Theater plus explicit instruction inaspects of fluency and students who received only the Readers Theater intervention.Low achievement students made significant gains in rate, retelling, and expressivenesswhen compared with students at average and high achievement levels. High-achievement readers made significant gains in measures of reading ability whencompared with low-ability readers.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) assessed thereading fluency of America's children for the first time in 1995 and found 44%of fourth graders to be "disfluent" in reading. In their report PreventingReading Difficulties in Young Children (1999), the National Research Councilidentified fluency as a key "stumbling block" to skilled reading. The NationalReading Panel (2002) examined fluency as "an essential part of reading" (p. 3-28). Indeed, reading fluency has long been considered an important factor inreading development and achievement. As young children move beyond theemergent stages of reading, fluency is purported to be an important step "indeveloping effective and efficient readers" (Allington, 1983, p. 561).

In spite of attestations of fluency's vital role in reading proficiency,fluency appears to be a neglected aspect of regular classroom readinginstruction, (Allington, 1983; Hoffman, 1987; Rasinski & Zuteil, 1990;Richards, 2000). One reason for the lack of fluency instruction may be thatconflicting views exist over the role of fluency in skilled reading. For example,some researchers consider oral reading fluency to be an outcome of decoding

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Effects of Instruction and Practice 41

and comprehension (Gough, 1972; Rumelhart, 1978), while others assert thatfluent oral reading is a contributor to both decoding and comprehension(Breznitz, 1987; Briggs & Forbes, 2001). Another explanation may be thedifficulty of examining a construct, such as fluency, when there is no consensualview of that construct among its investigators. Fluency is sometimes defined asthe ability to recognize words rapidly and accurately (e.g., LaBerge, & Samuels,1974). In other sources (e.g., Coots & Snow, 1982; Schrieber, 1987) fluency isdefined in terms of the connections readers make between the natural phrasingin speech and the phrasal segmentation in oral reading. Notions of fluency havealso been expanded to include the suprasegmental features of prosodie readingperformance. In the latter definition, fluency involves reading with intonationand expression (e.g., Clay & Imlach, 1971; Dowhower, 1987; Karlin, 1985).Thus, fluency, as a feature of reading performance, continues to be variantlyviewed.

Responding to the varying beliefs about fluency, Rasinski (1986) andLipson and Lang (1991) conclude that researchers have been too narrow in theirviews of fluency. The problem, Rasinski argues, is lack of awareness offluency's complexity. He asserts that researchers have "made the tacitassumption that each factor [i.e., rate, accuracy, phrasing, prosody] alone wasresponsible for fluent reading" (Rasinski, 1986, p. 3). Indeed, more recentlyeducators (e.g., Richards, 2000; Strecker, Martinez, & Roser, 1998) offerevidence to support the notion that reading fluency is a multidimensionalconstruct.

In spite of differing notions regarding the components of fluency, thereis general agreement regarding the oral reading behaviors of disfluent readers.Reviewing the research in fluency, Reutzel (1996) summarized the "at-riskindicators" for oral reading fluency: (1) slow, labored pace; (2) poor flow orcontinuity, indicated by pauses, false starts, and/or regressions; and (3) poorphrasing, evidenced by choppy reading, improper stress and/or intonation.

There may also be general agreement about the period of readingdevelopment in which a young reader begins to develop fluency. Researcherswho have described the oral reading behavior patterns for children at differentstages of reading development (e.g., Chali, 1979; Ehri & Wilce, 1983; LaBerge& Samuels, 1985) point to a critical juncture at which readers begin to focusgreater attention on meaning and improved fluency rather than on features ofprint and decoding. Although there is some disagreement on how childrenprogress through these "stages" and when each develops, investigators (e.g.,Chali, 1979; Ehri & Wilce, 1983) suggest that the child reads in qualitativelydifferent ways over time. There is a convergence of evidence that transitionalreaders "need to shift their focus from the individual word to connected discourseand to integrate their fragmented knowledge" (Chomsky, 1976, p. 289).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

42 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 2003, 42 (4)

Instructional Practices that Promote FluencyDifferent conceptions about reading fluency have led to

experimentation with different instructional practices to promote fluency.Toward helping young readers move beyond slow, word-by-word readingtoward more fluent oral reading, researchers have identified the variousmethods as effective: rereading, modeling, explicit instruction, reading inmanageable texts, and Readers Theater.

Rereading. Samuels (1979) introduced rereading, an instructionalprocedure in which students read a text repeatedly until they achieve adesignated rate and then repeat the process with a new text. In a number ofstudies (e.g., Blum & Koskinen, 1991; Chomsky, 1978; Herman, 1985;Samuels, 1979; Sindelar, Monda, & O'Shea, 1990) opportunities to rereadimproved poor readers' rate and accuracy. The National Reading Panel (2000)affirmed repeated reading as a tested and proven method for increasing readingfluency. In addition, researchers have found that rereadings contribute tocomprehension (Dowhower, 1986; Reutzel & Hollingsworth, 1993).

Modeling. A second instructional factor that appears to foster fluentoral reading is modeling. Empirical research indicates that students who heargood oral reading models have an advantage prosodically over students whohave not had such models (Chomsky, 1976; Dowhower, 1991; Hoffman, 1987;Snow, Coots, & Smith, 1982). These investigations point to the need forstudents to hear models of fluent, prosodie reading in addition to havingopportunities for rereading.

Explicit instruction. Additionally, researchers have argued for the valueof providing students explicit instruction in aspects of fluency (Zuteil &Rasinski, 1991). Some instructional models (e.g., Hoffman's Oral RecitationLesson, 1987; Rasinki, Padak, Linek & Sturtevant's Fluency DevelopmentalLesson, 1994) have combined modeling and rereading with discussion of textand opportunity for oral reading performance, combinations that resulted ingrowth in students' oral reading performance. The implication is thatinstructional attention to the aspects of fluency can build students'metacognitive awareness of fluency production. As Aulls (1982) states, "inorder to break out of word-by-word reading and to begin to group words,beginners must be aware that it is possible to read in some other way than wordby word" (p. 348).

Manageable text. Reading researchers have also documented theimportance of practice in manageable texts—texts that "fit" the reading level ofthe student—for the development of oral reading fluency (cf., Carver & Leibert,1995; Gambrell, Wilson, & Gantt, 1981; Guszak, 1992). Most suggest that thechild needs to be able to read the text with 95% accuracy in word recognition.These investigators assert that only when readers can read the materials withease do they have the opportunity to develop fluency.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


Readers Theater. Additionally, numerous observational claims havesupported the value of Readers Theater, an interpretative activity in whichstudents repeatedly read a script based on a story in preparation for an oralreading performance, as a vehicle for oral reading practice (cf. Busching, 1981;Edmiston & King, 1987; Forsythe, 1995; Sloyer, 1982; Winegarden, 1978;Young, 1991). Martinez, Roser and Strecker's study (1999) in second gradeclassrooms provided empirical evidence that Readers Theater promotes gains inoral reading fluency, as well as growth in overall reading proficiency. Theyassert that Readers Theater offers repeated reading in a motivational context, aseach rereading becomes a "rehearsal" for a performance. Millan and Rinehart(1999) also reported the benefits of Readers Theater for Title I students.

Purpose of the StudyThis study was conducted to further examine the effectiveness of

Readers Theater as an instructional intervention in reading. In particular, thestudy investigated the impact of Readers Theater on students at different levelsof reading development in second grade. In addition, the study was designed toexamine the benefit, if any, of explicit instruction in addressing fluency in theprimary classroom.

Thus, the purpose of this study was to measure and describe the effectsof different instructional treatments on the acquisition of oral reading fluency insecond graders at different levels of reading ability. Using Readers Theater asthe instructional intervention for fluency, this study investigated the conditionsunder which fluency improves during the second half of second grade. Threequestions were asked: (1) What is the effect of rereading, modeling, and use ofappropriate text via Readers Theater on second graders' oral reading fluency?(2) Does explicit instruction in fluency add to students' growth in oral readingfluency (beyond growth accounted for by rereading, modeling, and use ofappropriate texts)? (3) Does fluency instruction increase the oral readingfluency and the reading comprehension scores of students at different levels ofreading skill in different ways?

Method

Participants and SettingThe study took place in a rural school district in central Texas. Students

in the district are 50% Hispanic, 35% Anglo, 10% Afro-American, and 5%Asian. Sixty-five percent of the district's students qualify for the federal freelunch program. Four second grade classrooms were selected at random toparticipate in the study. Participants (N= 66)were the students in these fourclassrooms. The second grade teachers ranged in teaching experience from fiveto ten years.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

44 Reading Research and ¡nsiruction Summer 2003, 42 (4)

Daily observations for two weeks prior to the study revealed similarcomponents of reading instruction within the four classrooms. All teachersused the same basal reading series, but none followed the teacher's manualclosely. All classrooms participated in the Accelerated Reader Program© as amotivational incentive. All teachers read orally daily to their students andallowed at least 20 minutes for independent reading. Although all four teacherswere familiar with Readers Theater, none had implemented Readers Theater inhis/her classroom.

MaterialsAssessments of reading level. During the first three days of the study,

each participant was administered two assessments to determine his/her readinglevel: word lists from Leslie and Caldwell's Qualitative Reading Inventory(1990) and oral reading passages and comprehension questions from the GrayOral Reading Test (revised by Wiederhold & Bryant, 1985). To minimize anyeffect for test form, students were randomly assigned to either Form A or FormB of the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT). For the posttest, Form B wasadministered to students who were pretested for Form A, and Form A wasadministered to students who were pretested with Form B. During the threedays following the study, students were also presented the word lists from theQualitative Reading Inventory (QRI).

Measures of comprehension. In addition to the questions in the GrayOral Reading Tests, comprehension was also assessed by unaided recall of textread, a comprehension measure supported by research (e.g., Gambrell, Pfeiffer,& Wilson, 1985; Irwin & Mitchell, 1983; Morrow, 1989). After silently readingan unfamiliar story, D.W. Rides Again! (Brown, 1993) for pretest and ArthurBabysits (Brown, 1992) for posttest, each student was recorded as he/she retoldthe story. Guidelines for administration of the retellings followedrecommendations of Morrow (1989) as the child was asked to "tell the story asif I were a friend who had not heard it" and, if needed, was prompted once to"tell anything else you remember about the story."

Adapting Irwin and Mitchell's (1983) holistic evaluation of retellingswhich outlines five "levels of richness," the retellings were scored by twoindependent research assistants who judged the extent to which each retelling(1) identified main characters, (2) identified story problem, (3) sequenced storyevents, (4) made reference to solution of story problem, and (5) addedelaboration (e.g., dialogue, details, descriptions). After the retelling, the studentwas asked six questions to further probe his/her comprehension of the story. Ifthe student's responses to the probes revealed understanding of any of the fiveelements, the student was credited as having demonstrated that element ofcomprehension.

Measures of oral reading fluency. The fluency of each student's oral

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


reading of a portion of the text read silently was scored using the Oral ReadingFluency Scale of the 1995 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP).The NAEP measure assesses phrasing, adherence to the author's syntax, andexpressiveness using a four-point holistic scale (See Appendix A). A secondmeasure of oral reading fluency, the Diagnostic Fluency Assessment (Martinez,Roser & Strecker, 1999), was also used. The Diagnostic Fluency Assessmentprovides for the examination of multiple aspects of fluency: rate, accuracy,fluidity, phrasing, and expressiveness (See Appendix B). Additionally, weeklyrates were taken of students' first reading of a script and students' final readingof the same script.

Script preparation. The scripts for Readers Theater were based on textschosen for their potential to promote prosodie reading and enhance students'awareness of character (Busching, 1981; Feitelstein, Kitz, & Goldstein, 1986;Sloyer, 1982). Adaptations to the script format were made with as minimal achange from the original text as possible, using the following guidelines: (1)Long narrations were broken into parts to provide parts for two separatenarrators; and (2) when necessary, brief narration was added to provideexplanation of story action revealed only by the illustration.

Two readability measures were used to determine the difficulty ofthe reading material:

Fry's readability formula (1968) and RightWriter computersoftware (Rosenblum, Gansler, & Frank, 1990). These measureswere applied to the scripts to ensure that the reading level of thetext was appropriate for the reading abilities of the children withina particular repertory group. The scripts for one group, based onMarshall's Fox series, measured readability ranging from 1.7 to2.1. The scripts for the second group, based on Marc Brown'sArthur series, ranged in readability from 2.4 to 2.8. The scriptsfor the third group, based on Marshall's fairytales and Marshall'sCut-Up series ranged from 2.9 to 3.6 in readability.

Thus, the readability measures were used to verify that scripts wereoffered at three levels of difficulty during each week of the intervention.

Design and TreatmentThe intervention took place in second grade classrooms over nine

weeks during the third quarter of the school year. Students in all fourclassrooms received the intervention of Readers Theater over the nine-weekperiod. Two of the four classrooms were randomly chosen to receiveimplementation of Readers Theater repertory groups plus instruction via weekly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


mini-lessons and daily coaching in strategies intended to increase oral readingfluency (Treatment 1). Two of the four classrooms were randomly chosen toreceive only implementation of Readers Theater repertory groups, withoutadditional or specific fluency instruction (Treatment 2).

Assignment to repertory groups. In both treatment groups, studentswere identified by reading ability for comparison purposes. Assignments toability groups were based upon district mid-year assessments and theassessment component of the school's Accelerated Reader Program©. Thegroups were comprised of students reading above grade level (high abilitygroup), on grade level (average ability group) and below grade level (low abilitygroup).

Treatment 1. The purpose of Treatment 1 was to implement a classroomReaders Theater program along with a series of explicit instructional lessonsaddressing fluency. The lessons were designed to focus students' attention onspecific aspects of oral reading fluency. Topics of the lessons were thefollowing:

Week 1 How does fluent reading sound?Week 2 Why practice?Week 3 Ending punctuation as pitch markerWeek 4 Comma as phrase and prosodie markerWeek 5 PhrasingWeek 6 Stress and italics as stress markerWeek 7 Use of the voice as tool for expressivenessWeek 8 Using expressiveness for characterizationWeek 9 What is a fluent reader?

Additionally, teachers in Treatment 1 classrooms were directed to"coach" their students as they practiced reading the Readers Theater scripts,providing feedback to students about their oral reading and modelingexpressiveness for them. Specific "coaching" examples include the following:

Example A: Try reading that again, Courtney. You read all the wordscorrectly, but the pace dragged. This time try to read alittle faster.

Example B: Jose, if I were going to the principal's office, I'd be scared.Listen as I read that part in a scared voice. Now try onyour own.

Example C: Your voice put words into groups that go together. That'sgood phrasing, Ernie. It helps the audience get the meaning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


Teachers in Treatment 1 classrooms received training in ReadersTheater from the researcher prior to the study. The researcher also providedweekly training regarding the explicit instructional lessons. The researchermade systematic observations in the Treatment 1 classrooms daily during the 40minutes devoted to Readers Theater.

Treatment 1 classrooms had a five-day plan of Readers Theaterimplementation. Each day 40 minutes were devoted to Readers Theater. OnDay 1 the teacher gathered the children and presented the mini-lesson for theweek. Directly following the mini-lesson, the teacher introduced the threebooks on which the week's scripts were based, reading each book as fluentlyand expressively as possible. Upon completion of this modeling of fluentreading, the teacher placed the three books in the classroom library. Then eachchild was given a personal copy of the script based on one of the three books.The script was the one that the child's repertory group would prepare forperformance that week. Upon receipt of the script, the child practicedindependently or with a buddy.

On Day 2 the students met in repertory groups, gathering in circles.The teacher passed out "master scripts" with individual parts highlighted. Thechildren began immediately to read the script as a group, with each childreading the part he had been handed. Upon completion of the initial groupreading, children passed the scripts and began another reading of the script, witheach child taking a different part. This procedure continued throughout the 40minutes of practice. During these 40 minutes, the teacher in the Treatment 1classroom circulated among the groups, providing feedback and coaching forfluency.

The procedure for Day 3 was very similar to Day 2. On Day 3 thestudents met again in repertory groups. The teacher passed out the masterscripts and children took turns reading different roles. Meanwhile, the teachercirculated among the groups, listening to the oral readings, modeling, coaching,encouraging and providing specific suggestions to foster fluency. During thefinal minutes, students in each of the three repertory groups determined whowould read which parts in Friday's performance.

Practice during Day 4 involved students reading only their assignedparts. Again, the teacher circulated among the groups, coaching for fluency andexpressiveness. During the final minutes, students within repertory groups madedecisions about where to stand, how to introduce the story, and how to identifycharacters.

On Day 5 the three repertory groups within each classroom performedfor an audience. After each performance the teacher invited the audience to offerpositive comments to the performers.

Treatment 2. The purpose of Treatment 2 was to examine the effect ofimplementing only Readers Theater on students' oral reading fluency. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


implementation of Readers Theater in these classrooms differed in two ways.First, students in Treatment 2 classrooms did not receive explicit instructionregarding fluency via mini-lessons. Second, teachers in Treatment 2 classroomswere not encouraged to coach or model; rather, they were directed to "monitor"their students as they practiced reading the Readers Theater scripts. Specificexamples of monitoring include the following:

Example A: This group was very efficient in passing scripts. Youused your practice time well today.

Example B: Let's get back to reading the script. Your performanceis only two days away.

Teachers in Treatment 2 classrooms received training in ReadersTheater procedures from the researcher prior to implementation of theintervention. The researcher also made daily, systematic observations inTreatment 2 classrooms during the time devoted to Readers Theater.

Data AnalysesAnalyses used pre- and post-assessment measures of reading rate,

accuracy, story retelling, scores on the Gray Oral Reading Tests, the wordidentification portion of Leslie and Caldwell's Qualitative Reading Inventory,the Oral Reading Fluency Scale from the National Assessment of EducationalProgress, and the fluidity, phrasing, and expressiveness subscale measures ofthe Diagnostic Fluency Assessment. To determine whether changes from pre-to post-intervention scores were significant, paired t-tests were used. Todetermine if explicit instruction in fluency added to students' growth in oralreading fluency, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to control fordifferences on pretest measures. Then post-intervention measures werecompared.

Students were identified as belonging to one of three groups (lowability, average ability, high ability), based on reading skill as determined byperformance levels in the Accelerated Reader Program©, by district-designedreading assessments, and by classroom teachers. An analysis of covariance wasemployed to adjust for difference in the pre-intervention scores of abilitygroups. The equalized scores of students in the three ability groups were thenexamined (using Bonferroni pairwise comparison) to identify differences onpost-intervention results. Pre-and post-tests scores by ability group were alsoanalyzed using paired t-tests.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


Results

What is the effect of rereading, modeling, and use of appropriate textvia Readers Theater on second graders' oral reading fluency?

Results indicate that students in both treatment groups madestatistically significant growth in oral reading fluency during the nine-weekReaders Theater intervention. Table 1 presents the pretest and posttest actualmean scores.

Does explicit instruction in fluency add to students' growth in oralreading fluency (beyond growth accounted for by rereading, modeling, and useof appropriate texts)?

There was no significant difference in growth made by the twotreatment groups in terms of rate, accuracy, retelling, fluidity, phrasing,expressiveness, or overall reading ability. That is, analysis showed that explicitinstruction did not add differentially to students' oral reading fluency growth.Table 1 presents means scores by treatment group.

Table 1Pre- and Post-Test Actual Means Scores by Treatment Group

Measure

Rate

Accuracy

Retelling (5 pt. scale)

NAEP (4 pt. scale)

Fluidity (5 pt. scale)

Phrasing (5 pt. scale)

Expressiveness (5 pt. scale)

Word ID from QRI (grade level)

Gray (grade level equivalence)

Pre

83 wpm

96.10%

3.9

2.5

2.7

2.8

2.5

2.4

3.2

Treatment 1

Post

93 wpm*

97.70 %

4.5*

3.2*

3.5*

3.5*

3.8*

3.5*

4.5*

SD

22 wpm

1.60%

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.7

1.7

1.3

p-value

0.0014*

0.3950

0.0455

0.0004

0.0015

0.0018

0.0381

0.0000

0.0004

p<.05

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


Table 1Pre- and Post-Test Actual Means Scores by Treatment Group

Measure Treatment 2

Pre Post SD p-value

Rate

Accuracy


NAEP (4 pt. scale)






88 wpm

97%

3.5

3.0

3.2

3.3

3.1

3.6

4.0

97 wpm*

9 8 %

4.3

3.5*

3.7*

3.8*

4.0*

4.4*

5.0*

26 wpm

1.70%

0.6

0.7

0.9

0.9

0.9

1.5

1.2

0.0078

0.1998

0.1408

0.0026

0.0301

0.0009

0.0268

0.0000

0.0003

*p<.05

Does fluency instruction increase the oral reading fluency and thereading comprehension scores of students at different levels of reading skill indifferent ways?

Paired-tests were also conducted by ability group. Table 2 presents theresults of that analysis. The t-test comparisons showed that the low-abilitygroup made statistically significant gains on all eight measures except accuracy.The average-ability group made significant gains on all measures except rate,and the high-ability group made significant growth in five areas (retelling,phrasing, expressiveness, and on the Gray Oral Reading Tests and QRI wordidentification tests). That is, all children, regardless of reading ability, madegrowth through the intervention of purposeful rereadings via Readers Theater.

Because the 95%-98% range for accuracy was too small to use as acriterion for statistical analysis, accuracy was not analyzed as a dependentvariable. Rather, the high accuracy measures were interpreted as verificationthat the scripts used in the study met individual students' reading levels.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


Table 2Pretest and Posttest Actual Mean Scores by Ability Group

Measure Treatment 1

Low-Ability Readers Avg.-Ability Readers High-Ability Readers

Pre Post SD Pre Post SD

82 86 27 97 100 19

96% 98%* 1.5% 97% 98% 1%

3.7 4.3* .7 4.0 4.5* .5

2.5 3.2* .8 3.6 3.8 .4

2.7 3.5* 1.0 3.6 3.9 .8

2.9 3.4* .9 3.8 4.3* .7

2.8 3.6* .9 3.5 4.3* 1.0

2.7 3.7* 1.4 4.5 5.5* 1.3

3.3 4.7* .7 5.0 5.6*evel equivalent)

*p<.05

Analysis of data across ability groups showed statistically significantdifferences in retelling scores. Post-hoc analysis indicated that the students oflow reading ability made significant gains (p<.05) on retelling scores whencompared with students of average and high reading abilities. They also madesignificant growth in expressiveness (p<.05) and in rate (p<.01) when comparedwith students of average and high reading abilities. Table 3 presents the adjustedmean scores on post-intervention measures by ability group.

The only other significant differences found among the low, average,and high ability groups were for high-ability readers on the Gray Oral ReadingTests and QRI word identification test. Even when scores were adjusted for pre-intervention differences, the high-ability group scored significantly higher thanthe low-ability group on both measures. They did not, however, scoresignificantly higher than the average-ability readers. As reported earlier inTable 2, data analysis indicated that the low-ability readers made significantgrowth in more areas than did the average-ability or high-ability readers.

Rate (wpm)

Accuracy (percentage)

Retelling (5-pt. scale)

NAEP

Fluidity (5-pt. scale)

Phrasing (5-pt. scale)

Expressiveness(5-pt. scale)

Word ID from QRI(grade level)

Gray(grade level equivalent)

Pre

75

97%

3.3

2.2

2.4

2.2

2.1

1.4

2.2

Post

104*

98%

4.7*

3.2*

3.5*

3.1*

3.9*

2.3*

3.8*

SD

22^

2%

.6

.7

.7

.8

.8

.7

1.1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


Table 3Adjusted Means on Post-Intervention Measures by Ability Group

Measures

Rate

Accuracy


NAEP (4 pt. scale)






Low-Ability

112 wpm*

98%

4.79*

3.41

3.75

3.50

4.14*

3.63

4.26

Ability Group

Avg.-Ability High-Ability SD

88 wpm

98%

4.34

3.31

3.64

3.52

3.63

4.00

4.81

92 wpm

98%

4.38

3.50

3.60

3.93

4.10

4.25*

5.15*

24 wpm

1.73

0.61

0.72

0.88

0.98

0.85

1.69

1.28

* p < .05

Discussion

This study replicates earlier findings that Readers Theater is a viablevehicle for oral reading fluency. Second grade students at all levels of readingability made significant gains in rate, phrasing, fluidity and expressiveness, aswell as in comprehension and word recognition measures via theimplementation of Readers Theater in their classrooms. The repeated readingswithin the Readers Theater format appeared to help second graders developword recognition and comprehension. In addition, students in the studyaveraged a 30 word per minute increase in rate from a first reading on Mondayto the "performance" reading on Friday.

In this study, the addition of explicit instruction in fluency did not addto students' growth in oral reading fluency. Students in both treatment groupsmade significant gains, and no significant difference was found between the twotreatment groups. This finding suggests that rereading in text that fits is thecritical factor in fluency improvement. Observational records showed that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


students in the study reread the scripts 12 to 20 times during the four-daypreparation for a performance. This extensive practice may account for thestudents' growth in oral reading fluency. The addition of instruction to enhanceawareness of the skills involved in fluent oral reading did not add to the criticalfactor of reading practice. The finding suggests that repeated practice inappropriate text is a key factor in fluency improvement, equalizing otherinstructional effects.

A partial explanation for the lack of difference between the twotreatment groups may lie with the "natural" coaching and modeling behaviorsby teachers in Treatment 2 classrooms. Observational records show that theteachers, although instructed to "monitor" the repertory groups, did participateby encouraging expression and by modeling expressive reading. It can beargued that the modeling and natural coaching provided by the Treatment 2teachers was similar to that in Treatment 1 classrooms.

As indicated above, students in the low-ability group made significantgain in rate and in comprehension when compared with their average and high-ability peers. It may be argued that students of lowest ability had the most"room to grow." Their mean rate grew from 75 wpm to 104 wpm. Meanwhile,readers of average ability only grew in rate from 82 to 86 wpm, and the highability readers only grew from 98 wpm to 100 wpm. The reading practiceprovided by Readers Theater served to narrow the gap between the reading ratesof low-performing students and higher-performing students.

Second, it may be that the growing ability of the low-performingreaders made their easier texts so accessible that they could read at a faster pacewith greater comprehension. The finding of significant gain on retellingmeasures among the low-ability readers appears to support LeBerge andSamuels' contention (1974) that increased rate yields increased comprehension.

The low-ability readers also made significant gains in expressiveness.Their mean pre-intervention score was 2.1 (out of 5); their post-interventionmean score for expressiveness was 3.9 (out of 5). Again, it can be argued thatthe low-ability readers had the most room to grow. Conversely, because thehigh-ability readers neared the top of the five-point scoring scale, a ceilingeffect of the measurement instrument may have been a factor.

It is important to note that observational and anecdotal records revealthat transfer of fluency from practiced text to unrehearsed text occurred in thesixth to seventh week of Readers Theater. For example, a student who hadpreviously been a "robot" reader suddenly read a word problem in math withexpressiveness during the sixth week of the study. The parent of a low-abilityreader excitedly called her child's teachers during the seventh week of theintervention to report that her son had read the new cereal box "as if he were acircus announcer." According to their teachers, other students read their socialstudies textbooks with phrasing for the first time during the sixth and seventh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


weeks of Readers Theater. Such anecdotal evidence may point to an optimaltime span for reaping the benefits of instruction to foster fluency growth.

Implications for Instruction

Several findings may be of interest to educators. First, Readers Theaterholds promise as an instructional methodology for fluency development.Through Readers Theater students were offered modeling and repeated readingin manageable text toward the goal of an oral reading performance. It may bethat the match of reading material to students' reading abilities played a key role(as suggested by Dowhower, 1987; Gambrell, Wilson, & Gantt, 1981; andGuszak, 1992). That is, the three Readers Theater repertory groups within theclassroom were offered text that was easy enough to be mastered by the student.It may be that the practice allowed such mastery, freeing the child's attention tofocus on phrasing and expressiveness (as argued by LaBerge & Samuels, 1974).It may be that hearing good modeling of the text read aloud helped thesechildren understand what the reading was supposed to sound like (as argued byBear & Cathey, 1989; Eldredge, 1990; Heckelman, 1969). It may be thatstudents' growth as a result of Readers Theater was a combination of multipleoptimal conditions, including 15 or more repeated readings, manageable text,and modeling of fluent reading.

Additionally, observation and anecdotal evidence show that students'interest in Readers Theater was sustained over the nine weeks ofimplementation. Students maintained enthusiasm for the stories and scripts.They viewed practice sessions as rehearsal sessions for eagerly anticipatedperformances. Thus, Readers Theater appears to serve as a motivational tool forfluency practice and improvement. This finding supports similar reportsregarding the motivating potential of Readers Theater (Martinez, Roser, &Strecker, 1999; Worthy & Prater, 2002).

Third, the study indicates that sufficient practice in manageable textsmay equalize differences in fluency instruction. That is, explicit instruction inaspects of fluency did not add value. The findings support earlier arguments(e.g., LaBerge & Samuels, 1985) that practice in appropriate text is a key factorin fluency growth.

Fourth, the study suggests that practice in manageable text may helpstruggling readers match the level of their more able peers in rate andexpressiveness. This may be encouraging news to educators who seekinstructional practices to benefit lower-achieving students. The study may alsosuggest that series books help make texts manageable. That is, the familiarityof the readers in the study with the characters and vocabulary in the series booksmay have helped the readers. The implication, then, may underscore the needfor teachers to ensure that the scripts (texts) offer support to match the abilities

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


of the readers and to provide for meaningful practice in those texts among low-ability readers.

Finally, the study offers some evidence that six to eight weeks ofinstructional intervention to foster oral reading fluency may be needed iftransfer is to be made to unfamiliar texts. Regular and repeated practice inrereading, as offered in multiple consecutive weeks of Readers Theater, holdspromise for such transfer of benefit to new texts.

References

Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected goal. The Reading Teacher, 36,556-561.

Anderson, B. (1981). The missing ingredient: Fluent oral reading. TheElementary School Journal, 81, 173-178.

Aulls, M.W. (1982). Developing readers in today's elementary school. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Baumann, J. F., Hoffman, J.V., Moon, J., & Duffy-Hester, A. M. (1998). Whereare teachers' voices in the phonics/whole language debate? Resultsfrom a survey of U.S. elementary teachers. The Reading Teacher,57(8), 636-650.

Bear, D., & Cathey, S. (1989, November). Writing and reading fluency andorthographic awareness. Paper presented at the meeting of theNational Reading Conference, Tucson, AZ.

Blum, I. H., & Koskinen, P. S. (1991). Repeated reading: A strategy forenhancing fluency and fostering expertise. Theory into Practice, 30(3),195-200.

Breznitz, Z. (1987). Increasing first graders' reading accuracy andcomprehension by accelerating their reading rates. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 79(3), 236-242.

Brown, M. (1993). D.W. rides again. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.Brown, M. (1992). Arthur babysits. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.Busching, B. (1981). Readers' theater: An education for language and life.

Language Arts, 58(3), 330-338.Carbo, M. (1978). Teaching reading with talking books. The Reading Teacher,

32, 267-273.Carver, R. P., & Hoffman, J. V. (1981). The effect of practice through repeated

reading on gain in reading ability using a computer-based instructionalsystem. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(3), 374-390.

Carver, R. P., & Leibert, R.E. (1995). The effect of reading library books atdifferent levels of difficulty upon gain in reading ability. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 30, 26-48.

Chall. J. S. (1979). The great debate: Ten years later, with a modest proposal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


for reading stages. In L.B. Resnick, & P.A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory andPractice of Early Reading (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Chomsky, C. (1976). After decoding: What? Language Arts, 53, 288-296.Chomsky, C. (1978). When you still can't read in third grade: After decoding,

what? In S. J. Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say about readinginstruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Clay. M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behavior (2nd ed.) Exeter,NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M., & Imlach, R. H. (1971). Juncture, pitch, and stress as readingbehavior variables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,10, 133-139.

Collins, J. (1982). Discourse style, classroom interaction and differentialtreatment. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(4) 429-437.

Coots, J. H., & Snow, D. P. (1982). Effects of phrasal segmentation on textcomprehension and oral reading. (Tech. Report TN2-82/33). LosAlamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED222892).

Dowhower, S. L. (1986). Effects of repeated reading on selected secondgraders' oral reading and comprehension. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated readings on selected second gradetransitional readers' fluency and comprehension. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 22, 389-406.

Dowhower, S. L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency's unattendedbedfellow. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 165-175.

Edmiston, B., Enciso, P., & King. M. L. (1987). Empowering readers andwriters through drama: Narrative theater. Language Arts, 64(2), 219-228.

Ehri, L. C , & Wilce, L. S. (1983). Development of word identification speed inskilled and less skilled beginning readers. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 75, 3-18.

Eldredge, J. L. (1990). An experiment using a group assisted repeated readingstrategy with poor readers. Unpublished manuscript, Brigham YoungUniversity, Provo. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 314721).

Feitelstein, D., Kita, B., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Effects of listening to seriesstories on first graders' comprehension and use of language. Researchin the Teaching of English, 20(4), 339-356.

Forsythe, S. J. (1995). It worked! Readers theatre in second grade. The ReadingTeacher, 49(3), 264-265.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


Fry, E. B. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading,7, 513-516.

Gambrell, L., Pfeiffer, W., & Wilson, R. (1985). The effects of retelling uponreading comprehension and recall of text information. Journal ofEducation Research, 78, 216-220.

Gambrell, L. B., Wilson, R. M., & Gantt, W. M. (1981). Classroom observationsof task-attending behaviors of good and poor readers. Journal ofEducational Research, 74, 400-404.

Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game. Journalof the Reading Specialist, 6, 126-135.

Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In F. Kavanagh & G. Mattingly(Eds.), Language by ear and by eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Guszak F. J. (1992). Reading for students with special needs. Dubuque, IA:Kendall-Hunt Publishing.

Heckelman, R. B. (1969). Using the neurological-impress remedial-readingtechnique. Academic Therapy Quarterly, 1, 235-239.

Herman, P. A. (1985). The effect of repeated readings on reading rate, speechpauses, and word recognition accuracy. Reading Research Quarterly,20, 553-564.

Hoffman, J. V. (1987). Rethinking the role of oral reading in basal instruction.Elementary School Journal, 87, 367-374.

Irwin, P. A., & Mitchell, J. N. (1983). A procedure for assessing the richness ofretellings. Journal of Reading, 26, 391-396.

Karlin, A. (1985). Intonation in oral reading and reading comprehension.Reading Horizons, 25(3), 169-175.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic processingin reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 193-323.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1985). Toward a theory of automatic informationprocessing in reading. In H. Singer, & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoreticalmodels and processes of reading (3rd ed.). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (1990). Qualitative reading inventory. New York,NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Lipson, M. Y., & Lang, L. B. (1991). Not as easy as it seems: Some unresolvedquestions about fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 218-227.

Martinez, M. G., Roser, N. L., & Strecker, S. K. (1999). "I never thought Icould be a star": A readers theater ticket to fluency. The ReadingTeacher, 54(4), 326-335.

Martinez, M. G., Roser, N. L., & Strecker, S. K. (1999). Diagnostic FluencyAssessment. Unpublished assessment scale, University of Texas,Austin.

Morrow, L. M. (1989). Using story retelling to develop comprehension. In K. D.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


Muth (Ed). Children's comprehension of text. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.

Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J.J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., &Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud: Oral fluency.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

Rasinski, T. V. (1986). Developing models of reading fluency. Newark, DE:International Reading Association (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 269721).

Rasinski, T. V. (1990). Investigating measures of reading fluéncy. EducationalResearch Quarterly, 14(3), 37-44.

Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N., Linek, W., & Sturtevant, E. (1994). Effects of fluencydevelopment on urban second-grade readers. Journal of EducationalResearch, 87, 158-165.

Rasinski, T. V., & Zuteil, J.B. (1990). Making a place for fluency instruction inthe regular reading curriculum. Reading Research and Instruction, 29,85-91.

Reutzel, D. R. (1996). Developing at-risk readers' oral reading fluency. In L.Putnam (Ed.). How to become a better reader: Strategies forassessment and intervention (pp. 241-254). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Merrill.

Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P.M. (1993). Effects of fluency training onsecond graders' reading comprehension. Journal of EducationalResearch, 86(6), 325-331.

Rhodes, L. K., & Dudley-Marling, C. (1988). Readers and writers with adifference. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rosenblum, B., Gansler, R., & Frank, R. (1990). RightWriter [Computersoftware]. New York, NY: Turning Point Software, Inc.

Rumelhart, D. (1978). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dormic(Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Samuels, S. J.(1979). The method of repeated reading. The Reading Teacher,32, 403-408.

Schreiber, P. A. (1980). On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal ofReading Behavior, 12, 177-186.

Schreiber, P. A. (1987). Prosody and structure in children's syntactic processing.In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral andwritten language (pp. 243-270). New York: Academic Press.

Schreiber, P. A. (1991). Understanding prosody's role in reading acquisition.Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 158-164.

Sindelar, P. T., Monda, L. E., & O'Shea, L. J. (1990). Effects of repeatedreadings on instructional- and mastery-level readers. Journal ofEducational Research, 83(4), 220-226.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


Sloyer, S. (1982). Readers' Theater: Story dramatization in the classroom.Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Snow, D. P., Coots, J. H., & Smith, K. (1982). Speech prosody and children'sperception of sentence organization. (Tech. Note 2-82/34). LosAlamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory (ERIC DocumentReproduction service No. ED 222 890).

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences ofindividual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 21, 360-407.

Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (1985). Gray Oral Reading Tests Revised.Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Winegarden, A. D. (1978). The value of readers theatre: Claims, programs, andresearch. Unpublished manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproductionservice No. ED 182793).

Young, T. A. (1991). Readers theatre: Bringing life to the reading program!Reading Horizons, 32(1), 33-40.

Zuteil, J., & Rasinski, T. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students'oral reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 212-217.

Appendix A

NAEP's Oral Reading Fluency Scale

Level 4 Reads primarily in larger, meaningful phrase groups.Although some regressions, repetitions, and deviationsfrom text may be present, these do not detract from theoverall structure of the story. Preservation of the author'ssyntax is consistent. Some or most of the story is read withexpressive interpretation.

Level 3 Reads primarily in three-or four-word phrase groups.Some small groupings may be present. However, themajority of the phrasing seems appropriate and preservesthe syntax of the author. Little or no expressive interpretationis present.

Level 2 Reads primarily in two-word phrases with some three-orfour-word groupings. Some word-by-word reading may bepresent. Word groupings may seem awkward and unrelatedto larger context of sentence or passage.

Level 1 Reads primarily word-by-word. Occasional two-word or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

60 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 2003. 42 (4)

three-word phrases may occur—but these are infrequentand/or they do not preserve meaningful syntax.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

Listening to Children Read Aloud, 15. Washington, D.C.: 1995.

Appendix B

Diagnostic Fluency Assessment

1. Rate - words per minute (absolute scores)

2. Accuracy - Percentage of words correctly recognized (absolute percentages)

3. Fluidity (smoothness of the reading)1. Hesitations in every line of print with many false starts; frequent

prompting; frequent repetitions; no rhythm or cadence2. Several extended pauses, hesitations, and/or repetitions that are

disruptive to the reading; occasional prompting; impression ofchoppiness

3. Occasional inappropriate pauses; only occasional hesitation orrepetition; rare prompting; only occasional choppiness

4. Smooth reading overall with few pauses, hesitations, orrepetitions; word or structural difficulties are quickly self-corrected; no choppiness

5. Smooth, connected reading with no inappropriate pauses orhesitations; rare false start is immediately self-corrected;appropriate varied rhythm and cadence

4. Phrasing1. Reads in a word-by-word manner; ignores phrase boundaries and

punctuation or creates inappropriate boundaries2. Overuses inappropriate phrasing; breaks phrasing within

meaningful units; may break between subject and verb; someattention to punctuation boundaries

3. Some inappropriate phrasing; attends to punctuation boundaries4. Usually chunks text into meaningful units; attends to punctuation

boundaries5. Consistently chunks text into syntactically meaningful units;

attends to punctuation boundaries

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014


5. Expressiveness1. Reads with equal stress to each word; reads in a monotone with

no expression; fails to mark end of sentences or dialogue withrise/fall of voice

2. Uses minimal expression; reads with inappropriate stress; usesintonation which fails to mark end of sentences and clauses

3. Uses some appropriate expression; reads with reasonable stress;uses intonation which marks end of sentences and clauses

4. Generally uses appropriate stress and intonation with adequateattention to expression including voice change at dialogue andappropriate rise and fall of voice

5. Consistently attends to appropriate stress, intonation, andexpression including consistent voice changes for dialogue;demonstrates sensitivity to mood and tone; alters rate as neededfor dramatic effect

Source: Martinez, M.G., Roser, N.L., & Strecker, S.K. (1999).Diagnostic Fluency

Assessment. Unpublished assessment scale, University of Texas, Austin.

Recieved: November 18 2002

Accepted: February 21, 2003

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

00 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

The effect of instruction and practice through readers theatre on young readers’ oral reading fluency