The Effects of Reader’s Theater
on Fluency and Motivation
Elizabeth Norwood
Marsha Warren
First Grade
Blackburn Elementary
Background
We both currently teach first grade at Blackburn Elementary School in Newton,
NC. Marsha has been teaching for thirteen years. She taught fourth grade for
half a year, a K/1 combination class for one year, and first grade for twelve years.
Elizabeth has been teaching first grade for eleven years.
During our experiences with teaching, we have seen many struggling readers and
have sought different methods that are research based and have proven to be
effective to help these students. During our master’s classes we have learned that
repeated readings have been shown to improve students’ fluency (National Reading
Panel report, 2000). We’ve used repeated readings in our classrooms, but find that
students become bored with them. We think this is because the text is not
interesting and also because repeated readings become monotonous.
Because repeated readings are so effective, we have been looking for ways of using
them in our classrooms that will keep the attention of our students. We’ve always
been interested in Reader’s Theater, which incorporates repeated readings, but
haven’t used it consistently as a strategy in our classrooms. We knew that we
wanted to address fluency in our study and when we came across research that
pointed to Reader’s Theater as an effective way to work on fluency (Rasinski,
2004), we decided to implement it in our classrooms.
Since we teach first grade, our students often lack fluency because they are
working so hard on decoding the words they are reading. Readers have a limited
amount of conscious attention that can be used on reading. Because our students
are beginning readers and most of this attention is being used on decoding, other
reading tasks, such as comprehension and fluency, tend to receive little to no
attention (Griffith & Rasinski, 2004).
In reading this research and attending our master’s classes, as well as the
experiences we have had in our classrooms, we developed these research questions:


What are the effects of Reader’s Theater on fluency?
What are the effects of Reader’s Theater on motivation?
What Does Research Say?
There have been many different views of what fluency consists of over the years.
Some say it is only accuracy, some include rate, while others also think prosody and
phrasing play a part. We believe that fluency is all of these measures.
In researching this topic we found that studies have been conducted that show a
positive correlation between Reader's Theater and fluency. Reader's Theater gives
students an authentic reason to engage in repeated readings of text (Rinehart,
1999; Tyler & Chard, 2000). Reading performances encourage students to
construct meaning through reading at an appropriate rate, instead of just reading
quickly (Worthy & Prater, 2002).
We have found through research that Reader's Theater is a wonderful way to
engage students in repeated readings in a meaningful way. It gives students the
opportunity to practice skills that they need in order to perform in front of an
audience, which could be motivational for them (Kozub, 2000). This can also build
confidence in their reading ability which should, in turn, affect and improve
motivation. With increased motivation they may have the desire to read more
which will also affect their fluency.
Participants
In Marsha's first grade class there are twenty students; eleven boys and nine
girls. She has five different reading groups based upon reading levels as
determined by the K-2 Literacy Assessment for Catawba County Schools. Three of
the five groups are reading at or above grade level. One group is reading slightly
below grade level, and the other is reading well below grade level. In Elizabeth's
first grade class there are 20 students; eleven boys and nine girls. She has three
different reading groups and two students who are pulled individually. Two of the
groups are reading at or above grade level. The other group is reading slightly
below grade level and the two students who are pulled individually are reading well
below grade level.
We chose the reading group from each classroom that was reading slightly below
grade level to use for our study. These students have basic reading skills, but are
not reading as fluently as we would like for this time of year. In these groups we
have noticed that their reading is choppy and they don't seem to enjoy reading.
Research has shown that Reader's Theater is an effective way for increasing
student fluency and motivation in reading (Rinehart, 1999). We felt that by finding
interesting scripts and giving the students a purpose for reading fluently
(performing) we would see an increase in both areas.
In Marsha’s study group there are 5 students, 2 boys and 3 girls. Two of these
students are repeating first grade, and another is served in speech. These
students are all reading on a pre-primer to primer level. In Elizabeth’s study group
there are 7 students, 4 boys and 3 girls. One of these students has been diagnosed
with ADHD, and another is served in speech. These students are also on a preprimer to primer level in reading as well.
Intervention/Instruction
We decided to implement Reader’s Theater in our classrooms during our guided
reading time for 20 minutes each session for four weeks. Prior to this study, we
used this time to read and reread passages from basals, leveled readers, and other
reading level appropriate materials. We chose to use this time because we were
already using it to read materials as a group on their reading levels, the only change
we made were the materials they were reading.
We chose two scripts and decided to spend eight days per script. Prior to
beginning our study we assessed student motivation using the Garfield Reading
Inventory. The Garfield Reading Inventory typically consists of 20 items- 10
academic questions and 10 recreational questions- to gauge how students feel
about reading. We decided to use only 10 questions for our study- 5 academic and
5 recreational- because we felt that 20 questions were too many for our first
graders. We also thought we could get just as clear a picture of their reading
motivation from 10 questions as we could from 20. When we cut the inventory
down to half, we took out questions that we felt were redundant in some way. We
also made sure that 5 pertained to reading in an academic way, while 5 pertained to
reading for recreational purposes.
On day 1 we assessed each student’s fluency by using Rasinski’s Multidimensional
Fluency Scale and their rate of reading in terms of words correct per minute.
During days 2 through 4 we practiced the passage as a group using shared reading,
choral reading, and echo reading. On day 5 we assigned parts and practiced with
them through day 7. On day 8 we videotaped our group using a flip camera and
showed this tape to our students. The cycle started over the next day with a
post-assessment of the previous script, as well as a pre-assessment of the next
script.
Data Collection and Analysis Methods
In our study we collected data on both fluency and motivation formally and
informally. For fluency we used Rasinski’s Multidimensional Fluency Scale at the
beginning, as well as at the conclusion of our study. Rasinski’s Multidimensional
Fluency Scale defines fluency using four different measures: expression and
volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pace.
As we listened to each child read the first script before we started our study, we
rated them using the Rasinski’s Multidimensional Fluency Scale. The student
received a score in all four areas. We added these scores together to get an
overall fluency rating. Rasinski’s scale states that scores below 8 indicate that
there may be a concern with fluency, while scores of 8 or above indicate that the
student is making good progress in fluency.
We used running records in our study to collect data five times. Students were
told that they were going to read a passage for one minute. After they read for a
minute, we counted how many words they read correctly in that time. We got a
baseline for each child’s rate of reading in words correct per minute (wcpm) on day
1 of our study using the first script. This was a cold read for the students. At the
end of the 8 day cycle, we then reassessed wcpm on the same script to see how
much improvement there was in the rate of reading. After doing this, we assessed
wcpm on the second script before starting to practice it, as well as assessed again
on the same passage at the end of the 8 day cycle. As the study went on and we
had more data to go off of, the students would ask how many more words they
read correctly than they did the previous time. At the conclusion of our study, we
did a final running record on a third script that the children had never seen
before. We used this final rate of reading score to compare to where each child
was at the beginning of the study to judge how much improvement was made.
To collect data on motivation we used the Garfield Reading Inventory (McKenna &
Stahl, 2009). The Garfield Reading Inventory that we used contained 10 questions.
Five of these questions pertained to how the student felt about reading in an
academic setting, while the other five questions pertained to how the student felt
about reading for recreational reasons. Prior to beginning our study, we
administered the Garfield Reading Inventory to our students by reading each item
aloud and having them circle the Garfield picture that corresponded to how they
felt about that particular item. They had four choices of Garfield for each
question- one that meant dislike, one that meant indifferent, one that meant liked,
and one that meant enthusiastic. We coded these results in the following way:
dislike = 1, indifferent = 2, like = 3, and enthusiastic = 4. We then added the scores
for each item together and took an average. We used the average and again used
the same scale to give an overall score for attitude and motivation towards reading.
We also used this inventory in the same way at the end of our study.
Throughout our study we took detailed anecdotal notes concerning each student’s
reading. Each day we only took anecdotal notes on two of our students. We
predetermined which two students we would observe each day making sure that
each student was observed an equal amount of time. During our sessions we took
notes on sticky notes regarding the child’s attitude and reading fluency on that
day. These notes were then placed inside a folder for that specific child. At the
conclusion of our study we typed these anecdotal notes into Wordle to see what
key words were identified. Wordle put these key words into a visual display that
helped us to see what behaviors stood out.
Results
In analyzing the data from the Garfield Reading Inventory, we noticed that half of
our students scored a 4 on motivation at the beginning of our study. This is the
highest score that can be achieved. We feel that this is an inaccurate depiction of
the motivation that we observe in our classrooms on a daily basis. We think that
many of our students did not answer these items truthfully. We feel that one
reason for this may be that our students wanted to please us and make us think
that they enjoy reading more than they do. During the course of our study we
found that our students’ motivation toward reading improved. This was the case
not only on their post-study inventories, but also in our classroom observations.
We also saw a dramatic increase in the amount of words correct per minute from
the pre-assessment to the post-assessment of each script. In almost all cases
there was an increase in overall words correct per minute from the beginning of
the study to its conclusion.
In Elizabeth’s class there is one student, K.S., who did not make growth in words
correct per minute from the beginning of the study to the end, however, she did
make progress from the pre-assessment to the post-assessment of each individual
script. We think there are several reasons for this. She is a very young first
grader- she will not turn 7 until the middle of May. Because she is so young, she is
also quite immature. In reading group it is frequently observed that she is
careless and doesn’t pay attention to each individual word, but rather makes
random guesses according to the first letter of the word. When she does this, she
tends to laugh it off as if it is unimportant. She does have the skills necessary to
read the text that was used in this study as is shown by the growth made with
each individual script. This shows that repeated reading is a good strategy to use
with her.
In analyzing our data from Rasinski’s Multidimensional Fluency Scale we noted that
all students made improvements in their overall fluency rating. We were pleased to
see that 10 out of our 12 students had scores above an 8 which shows that they
are making good progress in fluency. We had two students (K.S. and M.C) that
although they made some progress, their scores were still below an 8. We
discussed reasons for the scores of K.S. above. M.C. is in the process of being
screened with our Exceptional Children’s program because of learning difficulties.
We believe these difficulties attribute to his scores.
Discussion
We have learned many things in doing this research project. Through this study
we have found that Reader’s Theater is an effective strategy for incorporating
repeated readings into our guided reading routines. The high interest materials
used in Reader’s Theater help to motivate students to read the same text
repeatedly without becoming bored. Also, because they are preparing to perform
for an audience, they have an authentic reason for these repeated readings. Since
Reader’s Theater is meant to be performed, it helps the students focus on the
areas of fluency that we think are important: expression and volume, phrasing,
pace, and smoothness.
In our classrooms we observed many positive changes in our students’ attitudes
toward reading. Many of our students were quicker to come to reading group while
we were using Reader’s Theater. They were disappointed if something changed in
our schedules and we weren’t able to work on Reader’s Theater that day. While
other students were reading, it seemed that everyone was following along with the
script. This was a change because many times in reading groups, our students lose
their place in the text while someone else is reading because they aren’t interested
in what is being read.
Even though we used some of our lower level readers, we can see that Reader’s
Theater would also benefit higher leveled students as well. Even these stronger
readers often need help working on their fluency when they read orally. Using
Reader’s Theater helps students focus on fluency, not just reading quickly.
After completing our study, we think that Reader’s Theater would be a nice
addition to our reading curriculum for those students who are reading on a preprimer level or above. We feel that students who are ready for Reader’s Theater
should have a solid working knowledge of sight words.
We did notice that many materials were written at a level that was higher than
what was needed for the students in our study. However, we know that there are
appropriate materials available for lower level readers- they are just difficult to
locate. We spent a lot of time searching the internet for scripts that contained
sight words that our students have mastered, as well as words containing vowel
patterns that they have been introduced to through our phonics curriculum. The
best resource we found was the website, www.readinga-z.com. They had many
scripts to choose from that were already leveled. However, the leveling system
that they used differed slightly from the one we use at school, so we had to read
through the scripts and judge whether or not they were appropriate.
This study shows that Reader’s Theater can be beneficial to lower level readers. A
great deal of the research we read pertained to higher level readers and showed
how Reader’s Theater could benefit them as well. We think that this proves that
Reader’s Theater could be used successfully with all levels of readers who have a
solid base of sight word knowledge. The results of this study would be important
for teachers of readers such as these.
We plan to continue Reader’s Theater in our reading groups in the future and
extend it to include groups of all reading abilities where it would be appropriate.
We feel we didn’t see more growth in student fluency during our study because we
only did the intervention for four weeks. We think that if we had implemented
Reader’s Theater sooner or continued it longer, we would have seen a bigger
change. It will be interesting to see the growth achieved next school year when we
implement Reader’s Theater from the beginning of the year.
Resources
Griffith, L., & Rasinski, T. (2004). A focus on fluency: how one teacher
incorporated fluency with her reading curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 58(2),
126-137.
Worthy, J., & Prater, K. (2002). The intermediate grades: "i thought about it all
night": reader's theater for reading fluency and motivation. The Reading Teacher,
56(3), 294-297.
Martinez, M., Roser, N., & Strecker, S. (1998). "i never thought i could be a star": a
reader's theater ticket to fluency. The Reading Teacher, 52(4), 326-334.
Kozub, R. (2000). Reader's theater and it's affect on oral language fluency.
Reading Online, 634. Retrieved from
http://www.readingonline.org/editorial/august2000/rkrt.htm
Rasinski, T. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 46-51.
Tyler, B., & Chard, D. J. (2000). Using reader's theater to foster fluency in
struggling readers: a twist on the repeated reading strategy. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 16, 163-168.
Rinehart, S.D. (1999). "don't think for a minute that i am getting up
there":opportunities for reader's theater in a tutorial for children with reading
problems. Journal of Reading Psychology , 20, 71-89.
Holl, B., & Morgan, F. (2002). Reading a-z.com your reading
resource center. Retrieved from http://www.readinga-z.com
McKenna, M., & Stahl, K. (2009). Assessment for reading
instruction second edition. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Feinberg, J. (2009). Wordle. Retrieved from
http://www.wordle.net
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: an
evidence-based assessment of scientific research literature on
reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda,
MD: National Institutes of Health.