A Study on the Effects of Readers’ Theatre on First
Grade Fluency Growth
Kacey A. Spencer
Statement and Explanation of Research
Question
My research focused on the question, “How
does Readers’ Theatre affect the fluency of first
grade students?” The students who participated
in this study were Tier II students. This means
that they were below grade level in literacy and
reading and required some literacy
intervention. I chose to focus on improving
student fluency which I believe is comprised of
two parts: prosody (expression and awareness
of text) and accuracy. Another question I hoped
to answer was, “Will Readers’ Theatre have a
positive influence on students’ attitude about
reading?”
Review of Literature and Theoretical
Grounding
The two academic articles my research was
based in were “Implementing Readers Theatre
as an Approach to Classroom Fluency
Instruction” by Young and Rasinski and “A Study
of the Effects of Readers’ Theatre on Second
and Third Grade Special Education Students’
Fluency Growth” by Corcoran. Corcoran stated
that the best way to improve student fluency is
through repeated readings. To incorporate
repeated readings in fluency instruction and
increase student motivation, Corcoran suggests
Readers’ Theatre. I used Corcoran’s idea of a
pre and post-intervention survey to determine
if Readers’ Theatre improved student interest in
reading. However, I disagreed with Corcoran’s
definition of fluency and method of assessment.
In this regard, I leaned toward Young and
Rasinski’s methods. They believed that fluency
is about accuracy, automaticity, and prosody.
Unlike Corcoran, they believed that words per
minute (speed) was unimportant. They argued
that when fluency becomes about speed,
comprehension and prosody is lost. When
implementing my intervention, I kept speed out
of it and focused on accuracy and prosody.
Method
Participants
Eagle Elementary (pseudonym) is an upper-
middle class school in Rochester, MN. Four first
grade students were involved in the
intervention: two males, two females. Three of
the students were classified as English Language
Learners (ELL). The school used the
Independent Reading Level Assessment to
determine student reading levels. The
participants were at levels 1B, 2B, and 2G. This
was considered below level for the participants.
I, Kacey Spencer, was a participant observer.
Materials
I provided a selection of poems from Where the
Sidewalk Ends, A Light in the Attic, and Falling
Up, all written by Shel Silverstein. I provided
two tools for students to monitor their
progress: exit slips (Appendix E) and a pre/post-
intervention survey (Appendix A). I used three
tools myself to collect data: an accuracy
assessment (Appendix B), a deviation from print
(DFP) tracker (Appendix C), and a prosody rubric
(Appendix D).
Daily Format
Day One – I introduced myself to the students
and had them fill out a pre-intervention survey.
This survey asked questions that gauged
1
student interest in reading and performing. I
then modeled reading “Falling Up” by Shel
Silverstein without prosody. Students were
disengaged and having side conversations. After
I finished, I asked the students what they
noticed. Most could not tell me what the poem
was about. I then modeled reading the same
poem with prosody. Students’ eyes were
focused on me the entire time. After I finished, I
asked students what they noticed. I explained
that the students were going to be practicing
reading poems with expression and flow as they
just witnessed.
Monday – I brought in a collection of poems
from which students could choose. Each
student took turns doing a cold read (reading a
passage for the first time) while I filmed it. I
used this recording for accuracy and prosody
data collection. Each student was given enough
time to read his or her entire passage. After a
poem was read, the students and I discussed its
meaning. After everyone had a chance to read,
he or she completed and exit slip.
Tuesday – Students again took turns reading the
poem they chose on Monday. There was no
filming on this day. Some students were still
struggling to get through their passage on this
day. I modeled reading their poem with prosody
and then had them read it again. The student
could read his or her poem easier after hearing
it read with prosody. I asked students to
brainstorm prop and costume ideas to go with
their poem. Students filled out exit slips.
Wednesday/Thursday – Each student practiced
his or her poem aloud. If students were still
struggling at this point, I suspected it to be
because of unknown vocabulary. I focused on
the tough words and asked the students to use
context clues to define it. I sometimes used a
synonym to aid understanding. I followed up
with students and their prop/costume progress.
At the end of the session, each student
completed and exit slip.
Friday – This was a student’s last chance to
practice. Each student then read his or her
poem to a first-grade class. I filmed this
performance. I used this recording for accuracy
and prosody data collection.
This routine was repeated for three weeks. On
the final performance day, students filled out a
post-intervention survey.
Data Collection
Teacher Assessment – Using the recordings of
the cold reads and performances, I would
highlight deviations from print (DFP) and
calculate student accuracy. The formula to
calculate accuracy was the total number of
words in the script minus the DFP, and then
divide that number by the total number of
words in the script. This would give me a
percentage of accuracy. When it came to
highlighting DFP, I color-coded each type: blue
for partial pronunciations, pink for
substitutions, yellow for omissions, orange for
insertions, green for repetitions, and purple for
waiting for aid. For prosody I used a rubric that I
created by combining two separate rubrics
provided to me by Dr. Nancy Eckerson. Rubric
columns measured students above, at, or below
grade level in expression, awareness of text,
volume, reading in turn, and cooperation with
group.
Student Assessment – On the first and last day
of intervention, students filled out a survey to
show their current interest in reading, reading
aloud, reading to others, and acting out what
they read. At the end of every meeting,
students filled out an exit slip with yes or no
questions for self-assessment and
accountability.
2
Findings

Quantitative

Accuracy – Each student improved in accuracy from cold read to presentation (hot read). The largest
jump in accuracy was Student B’s week one read which went from 34% to 89%.

Student A Student B
100 100

% Accuracy (based on DFP)

% Accuracy (based on DFP)

80 80

60 60
Cold Read Cold Read
40 40
Hot Read Hot Read
20 20
0 0
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

Student C Student D
100 100
% Accuacy (based on DFP)

% Accuracy (based on DFP)

80 80

60 60
Cold Read Cold Read
40 40
Hot Read Hot Read
20 20

0 0
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

**Student D’s week one cold read data was lost.

3
Prosody – All students improved in prosody from their cold read to their hot read.

Student A Student B
15 15
Prosody (based on rubric)

Prosody (based on rubric)

10 10
Cold Read Cold Read
5 Hot Read 5 Hot Read

0 0
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

Student C Student D
14 14
Prosody (based on rubric)
Prosody (based on rubric)

12 12
10 10
8 Cold Read 8 Cold Read
6 Hot Read 6 Hot Read
4 4
2 2
0 0
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

**Scores are out of a total of 15 points.

Deviations from Print – Student A would often use decoding techniques to pronounce words she did not
know. This led to a lot of partial pronunciations during cold reads. Student B tended to wait for teacher
aid rather than use decoding techniques. Student C used decoding techniques during cold reads leading
to many partial pronunciations. During hot reads, Student C often omitted words or entire sentences.

4
 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3
Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot
Student NO
A DFP

Student NO
B DFP

Student
C

Student N/A
D

Exit Slips – Students took their time to fill out exit slips in the beginning. After week one, students began
circling thumbs up (yes) without pausing to consider the questions. I would agree that Student A got to
work, was on task, and did her best work every meeting.

I got to work right I stayed on task I did my BEST My teacher would

away the whole time work agree
Student A

Student B

5
 Student C

Student D

Pre/Post-Intervention Surveys – Three out of four students had a positive change in attitude about
reading aloud. Three out of four students had a positive change in attitude about acting out what they
read. Student D was the only student to be absent several days during the intervention. He was also
hesitant to participate. This may be a reason for his negative feelings after the intervention.

I like to read.
I like to read out I like to read to I am a good I like to act out
loud. others. reader. what I read.
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
A Y Y S Y Y Y Y Y S Y
B Y Y N S N S S N N N
C S Y N Y Y Y S Y N Y
D Y N Y N Y Y S N N Y
Y = Yes N = No S = Sometimes; Green = Positive Change , Red = Negative Change, White = No Change

Qualitative showed great prosody and awareness of text in

small group practice. When performing for a
Students were visibly more excited to meet in
large group, his prosody was absent, and he
the morning as the days progressed. Students
tended to omit lines from his script. This may
became more confident in their reading.
have been due to stage fright. Student D lacked
Student A was recommended by her homeroom
confidence. He was very capable of reading the
teacher for this intervention because she was
text, but he did not enjoy performing.
shy and had trouble speaking in front of peers.
Student A began to take on a leadership role in Conclusion and Implications
the group. She always volunteered to practice
Both qualitative and quantitative data showed
reading first and spent time outside of school
that Readers’ Theatre had a positive influence
making props and costumes for her
on student fluency in both accuracy and
performance. Student B had a habit of relying
prosody. Reader’s Theatre not only improves
on teachers to give her the answer. Being the
fluency, but it increases student confidence and
youngest at home, she was used to being
motivation.
babied. I saw her move away from waiting for
the teacher to provide the answer and begin Final Reflection
using decoding techniques to sound out words.
Student B also became excited to share her What role did inquiry, self-assessment, and
poem outside of the intervention. Student C problem-solving play in this project?

6
Inquiry played a large role in putting together
my action research plan. For a while, I was
unsure where I would find a placement for my
action research, so I tried to find an
intervention that would work at most grade
levels. Once I decided on an intervention, I had
to decide what data would be valid and how to
collect them. Self-assessment played a role
when I planned to record an intervention
lesson. After my first recording, I realized that
my lesson didn’t have enough planning and
structure. I made corrections to improve before
submitting my lesson recording. I had to
problem-solve when I lost data, forgot my
recording device, and had a student be absent
several times.
What role did you play as a change-agent who
impacted student growth and learning?
I was an extra aid who could pull students from
class for enrichment that they might otherwise
not have. I cannot imagine the impact the
qualitative growth and positive changes in
attitude toward reading may have for these
students in the future.
What sources of information about teaching
and learning from professional literature,
colleagues, and other resources did you utilize?
The intervention idea was presented to me as a
reading assignment by my professor, Dr. Nancy
Eckerson. I worked with a classmate to find
resources for Readers’ Theatre and found
research articles on my school’s library
database. I consulted my cooperating teacher
for procedural advice and to consolidate
qualitative data.
What role did reflection and self-assessment
play on your growth and development as a
teacher?
My lesson planning improved after watching a
recording of my intervention. I created more
structure for each day. I have reflected on ways
I could improve future Readers’ Theatre by
having a larger selection of scripts and
establishing better group norms.
Do you believe that research about our
students, our classrooms, our schools, and our
practice is a regular and systematic part of our
teaching lives?
I absolutely believe this to be true. Education is
a science; research finds the best ways to
educate students of all needs. It would be
irresponsible to continually use non-researched
based methods without collecting data to prove
its efficacy.
How did you use formative assessment in
monitoring learning and other data practices to
inform your practice?
My formative assessments throughout the
week consisted of observation. If I notice a
student needs extra support, I would model
prosody or discuss tough vocabulary words.
What is your developing theory about
instructional interventions that impact literacy
development of English learners and
underachieving students?
While correlation is not causation, these
interventions are called “research-based” for a
reason. They have shown to have a strong
impact on student literacy development. I saw
what felt like a large amount of growth in just a
small amount of time for all four of my
students. With the resources and right
interventions, one could potentially get all
students reading at grade level.
References
Chase, Y., & Rasinski, T. (2009). Implementing
Readers Theatre as an Approach to
Classroom Fluency Instruction. Reading
Teacher, 63(1), 4-13.
Corcoran, C. A. (2005). A STUDY OF THE
EFFECTS OF READERS' THEATER ON
7
 SECOND AND THIRD GRADE SPECIAL GROWTH. Reading Improvement, 42(2),
EDUCATION STUDENTS' FLUENCY 105-111.

Appendix A – Pre/Post Intervention Survey

I like to read. Yes Sometimes No

I like to read out
Yes Sometimes No
loud.

I like to read to
Yes Sometimes No
others.

I am a good
Yes Sometimes No
reader.

I like to act out

Yes Sometimes No
what I read.

8
Appendix B – Cold & Hot Read Accuracy Assessment

9
Appendix C – DFP Color Coding

10
Appendix D – Prosody Rubric

Needs
At Level - 2 Exceeding - 3
Improvement - 1
Expression Student reads Student's voice Student reads
(prosody) with no inflection changes with highs and
and sounds sometimes and is lows and
monotone and able to use some constantly uses
flat inflection expression
Awareness of Student sounds Student pauses Student groups
Text (smooth) choppy and does for some words and
not pause for punctuation and phrases together
punctuation tends to group appropriately
words together and reads with
even flow
Volume Student speaks Student usually Student
(Oral Delivery) too softly for speaks loud consistently
audience to hear, enough for speaks loudly
or shouts so that audience to hear enough for
audience is audience to hear
uncomfortable
Reads in Turn Student takes Student takes Student takes
(Oral Delivery) turns on a turns accurately turns accurately
sporadic basis on somewhat on a consistent
consistent basis basis
Cooperation with Student has Student Student
Group difficulty in sometimes consistently
working with works well with works well with
others others others

11
Appendix E – Exit Slips

I got to work right

away.

I stayed on task the

whole time.

I did my BEST work.

My teacher would
agree.

12