The participants in this study were two third grade girls, of middle and lower academic achievment, including one English Language Learner (ELL), and 1 third grade boy of middle acdemic achievement at a Title I school.

The most significant finding of this study was that all three students, as a result of participation in reader’s theater, developed their oral fluency in terms of phrasing, smoothness, pace, juncture, intonation and stress. The data suggests that the intervention positively affected the growth of my three students’ oral language fluency. The ELL student’s results were no different than those of the other two students. All made fluency gains. The assertions made as a result of the study were supported by the data.

The study sought to discover the value of reader’s theater participation on students’ growth in oral language fluency.

As I round out my fifth year as a third grade teacher, I continue to reflect upon my balanced literacy program. I frequently self-evaluate my strengths and weaknesses. I was recently introduced to a book, Good-Bye Round Robin: 25 Effective Oral Reading Strategies (Opitz & Rasinski, 1998), in one of my graduate classes. Upon reading it, I realized that I have never intentionally focused on the teaching of oral reading strategies. This book opened my eyes to another essential component of any reading program. As I read further, I was affirmed by the realization that I was already implementing some of the authors’ suggested strategies. However, I now know that there are many exciting ways to aid my students’ growth in oral language fluency, expression and correct phrasing. All primary teachers should address their students’ acquisition of oral fluency.

"At a minimum one might expect the fluent reader to read orally with accuracy, quickness, and expression." (Rasinski, 1989, p.690). Opitz and Rasinski (1989) found twelve solid reasons why oral reading is an important component of a reading program. Oral reading helps students realize that reading is a natural part of life and that it is a language process related to writing and speaking. Students who engage in oral reading exercises, to share or perform, have greater confidence, fluency, expression, and correct phrasing. When reading orally, students pay more attention to typographical cues, further strengthening their comprehension. As a result, students will develop and improve their listening comprehension and vocabularies. In addition, they will also better meet the standard of using the spoken language in a variety of ways to communicate with different audiences for a variety of purposes. English Language Learners (ELL) benefit from repeated practice, comprehensible input, time and repetition in a low anxiety environment. Struggling readers are able to monitor themselves to see if their reading sounds like language and makes sense. Students need to learn different oral reading strategies. Furthermore, oral reading can reveal specific comprehension and decoding strategies that a child uses, as well as those that require further development.

A primary task confronting a reading teacher is to first determine which of the many oral-reading strategies s/he wants to use. It would be both impractical and time-consuming for a teacher to employ all that are available. Students would not have the necessary time to acquire automaticity. Secondly, teachers must then assess every student’s level of oral fluency for strategies that need more development. Then, s/he should teach specific strategies to help fill any gaps in learning. Next year’s students may require teaching in different oral reading strategies; therefore, different strategies may need to be implemented. The third step requires that s/he use this strategy in its most effective form. For example, Rasinski (1989) found that the use of repetition is most effective when students encounter the target words in repeated exposures to one text or to a variety of texts. This is important to consider if s/he wishes to teach this strategy. Finally, a teacher must ask if s/he will be able to ensure that a student will continue to implement the learned strategy throughout her/his future educational years.

One misconception is that teaching reading fluency is only important when students show big gaps in learning (Rasinski, 1989). These students are then referred to specialized instruction classes. According to Allington (1983), achieving fluency is recognized as an important component in proficient reading, but it is often neglected in reading instruction. Another commonly misheld conception is that round-robin reading is a means to help children in their oral reading. Opitz and Rasinski (1989) see it as a prohibitive waste of time, an invalid form of assessment, and a potential source of anxiety for students.

Readers’ theater is one instructional strategy a teacher can use to achieve oral language fluency in her/his students. Kelleher (1997) defines readers’ theater as "the oral interpretation of literature presented by readers who bring forth the full expression of the literature through their oral reading" (p.6). A question for discussion is: Why should a teacher implement readers’ theater? Readers’ theater uses oral reading to enhance comprehension and encourages students to read for pleasure. It helps to develop life-long readers and enables all readers to enjoy reading in a non-threatening environment. It invites students to listen to and enjoy the written word, as well as providing an opportunity for non-proficient and proficient readers to work together. The re-reading of material encourages better retention of vocabulary and key concepts. Performances can also be used to spotlight student writing and other curriculum content. Scripts of quality writing serve as models for students’ own writing. Students enjoy the activity and are willing to spend the time to read, write, and use thinking skills. Teachers can select scripts that integrate other curricular subjects, as well as listening and speaking. Finally, readers’ theater exposes children to a wide variety of quality literature and gives them an opportunity to share their creativity with others. Performance reading "can allow students to see that reading aloud can be more than simply reading from their textbooks." (Person, 1990, p.428).

In his study, Rinehart (1999) found, when given additional practice time, less-skilled readers were on equal footing with better readers. Tutors in his study saw important links between motivation, practice, and confidence. Readers’ theater offered Rinehart’s group an integrated language event with an authentic communication purpose. His findings also suggested that readers’ theater can give students the necessary support, exposure, and practice which benefit even beginning readers in reading higher levels of fluency on targeted text. As a result, reading levels were extended beyond initial pre-determined levels of fluency. Apart from being accurate, their reading of targeted text was more expressive, indicating higher levels of oral reading (Zutell & Rasinski, 1991). Teachers implemented readers’ theater within broader instructional intents. Rinehart’s (1999) study revealed that this process was time-efficient, as it took only an extra thirty minutes of daily instructional time for the students to make oral fluency gains.

Millin and Rinehart (1999) studied the effects of participation in readers’ theater on oral reading ability and motivation of second-grade Title I reading students. The experimental group met with their Title I teachers and engaged in readers’ theater instead of their routine lessons. Millin and Rinehart then tested and compared the experimental group with the control group, measuring the effects of readers’ theater on oral reading acceptability, words per minutes (rate), oral reading comprehension, and attitude toward reading. Their results indicated that involvement in readers’ theater enhanced oral reading word recognition, comprehension, and also boosted confidence and motivation toward reading. Participating students knew the vocabulary and now used more expression. "The classroom teachers felt that students who had previously read word-by-word or who had ignored punctuation now read more fluently and paid more attention to content (Millin & Rinehart, 1999, p.10). Their findings seemed to transfer to reading achievement levels in other material, which has positive implications for students in future educational studies. Their results also proved that teachers who are committed to a balanced reading program can focus on oral reading without sacrificing skill instruction, because the skill instruction is embedded in readers’ theater activities.

In her study Kelleher (1997) found that readers’ theater participation resulted in her struggling students becoming the most expressive in their performance. Reading had real meaning for them, and they began to see that reading is fun and enjoyable.

Readers’ theater appears to be a practical and efficient tool. Participation in readers’ theater would allow proficient and non-proficient readers to work together and gain oral fluency. The gains in oral language fluency, expression and correct phrasing resulting from participation in readers’ theater, once they became automatic, would transfer throughout a student’s future educational years.

After studying oral fluency and readers’ theater, I find myself anxious to further investigate these areas. In particular, I would like to explore the following: Will participation in readers’ theater, an oral language activity, affect the growth of my students’ oral language fluency? Will it aid all of my students, including ELL students? How will my teaching style be affected?

Participants:

I conducted my research at a K-5, Title I elementary school in a large urban setting. The school provides free lunches to 208 students and reduced lunches to 67 students. The participants were selected from a third grade class at this school. The students at the school come from a mix of middle-income and low-income families. Out of 802 students, there are approximately 18% Limited English Proficient (LEP) Spanish-speaking students at our school. I currently teach 19 third graders. The cultural diversity consists of five ELL students where Spanish is their native language. 25% of my students are Hispanic.

For the purposes of the study, I selected six third grade students, representing high, middle, and lower academic abilities. The third grade students involved in this study included four boys (one-ELL) and two girls (one-ELL). This number was later reduced to two girls (one-ELL) and one boy due to illnesses and pullout groups. By selecting these students, I was able to focus my observations on how participation in readers’ theater, an oral language activity, affects the growth of my students’ oral language fluency.

Intervention:

I selected readers’ theater as my intervention. I adapted the procedure used in Millin and Rinehart’s (1999) study to the needs of my students and my study. The students focused on one readers’ theater script and performance each week for over the course of the three-week study. 45-50 minutes was allotted for this study each day. Scripts were taken from the book, The Big Book of Thematic Plays: 25 Exciting, Easy-to-Read Plays With Instant Activities on the Topics You Teach, compiled and edited by Tracey West. Each day of the week focused on a different aspect of oral language development through reader’s theater.

On Monday, I read the original storybook, if available, from which each play was adapted. A discussion of the story, specifically characters, setting, and plot, followed. Student responses were encouraged. I then read the script, modeling reading with expression and paying close attention to phrases and inflections. I pointed out each character and narrator part. Finally, I chose parts for the students, doing my best to keep student preferences in mind. In order to ensure that each participant in my study had an adequate number of lines, I made the final decisions on the assigning of parts. The students then marked their individual parts with a highlighter.

On Tuesday, students had several options to practice and develop their readers’ theater. One option was to listen to a tape-recorded reading of the script. A second option was to read their lines aloud individually. A third option was to read their individual lines aloud in partners. The final option was for students to meet in small groups and listen to each other read. After listening to each other read when they met in pairs and/or small groups, the students then gave and received positive feedback and suggestions. The emphasis for this day was on character and voice.

On Wednesday, I listened to a whole-group rendition of the script. The focus of the day was on volume, expression, phrasing, and transition. I served as an advisor. The students were instructed to mark their scripts where they believed they should pause. Students then re-read their scripts aloud, speaking slowly for understanding. The students also wrote down ideas for props. All props were made at or brought from home.

On Thursday, students practiced on their own with the tape recorded script, in partners, or with me. We then had a dress rehearsal with student-created props.

On Friday, the students had the opportunity to perform for two to five, K-2 classrooms. Throughout the entire week, students were encouraged to take their scripts home to practice. They were also encouraged to read their parts aloud to their family and/or friends. This same schedule was followed each week.

Data Collection:

This is a qualitative study. Prior to the start of the three-week intervention, I gave baseline tests to all six children. The testing included Informal Reading Inventories (IRI) (Stieglitz, 1997) that were rated according to the Allington Fluency Scale (Allington, 1983), adapted by T. Rasinski and further adapted by C. Andrews-Beck (see Appendix A), Opitz and Rasinski’s (1998) Multidimensional Fluency Scale (see Appendix B), and Poway Unified School District’s (1998) Fluency Rubric (see Appendix C). The Allington Fluency Scale focuses on phrasing, juncture, and intonation and stress. The Multidimensional Fluency Scale focuses on phrasing, smoothness, and pace. My district’s Fluency Rubric addresses all of the above. The children’s IRI’s were tape-recorded and timed. Students stopped once their instructional level was reached in both word recognition and comprehension. Mike and Shelby scored a Level 3 and Krista scored a Level 2. Reasons for their lower scores are addressed in the Discussion section.

Following the three-week intervention, the same IRIs that were used to provide base-line scores were re-administered as post-tests to the three remaining students and rated on the same fluency scales and rubric. The same independent leveled reading selection, as determined prior to the start of the three-week intervention, was chosen to observe whether the fluency intervention, reader’s theater, had affected the growth of students’ oral language fluency. The only difference to note is that the IRIs were not timed for reasons commented on in the Discussion section of this paper. The final reading scores were then compared to the initial base-line scores to determine the influence of the readers’ theater intervention.

Data Analysis:

Data analysis procedures were modeled after the suggestions given by Ruth Shagoury Hubbard and Brenda Miller Power in, The Art of Classroom Inquiry: A Handbook For Teacher-Researchers (1993). Data was clearly displayed in chart form for analysis purposes. The Reading Specialist at my school served as a co-analyst for all pre- and post-testing. Field notes of the tape recordings of the IRIs were taken. Comparisons between field notes and tape recordings of the IRI’s were done and then analyzed according to the Allington Fluency Scale, the Multidimensional Fluency Scale, and my district’s Fluency Rubric. Two different scales, as well as one fluency rubric, were used as multiple sources of data for triangulation. Webb (1965) is credited for the term triangulation. (Webb in Hubbard and Power, p.92).

Additional data collected included field notes documenting daily observations of students’ oral language fluency development. Field notes were also made on all performances each Friday. Following suggestions found in Hubbard and Power (1993), all data was reviewed, analyzed, indexed and categorized as identified themes emerged on a weekly basis to support evolving assertions with respect to reader’s theater and its affect on the growth of the students’ oral language fluency.

In analyzing data, my biggest finding across the three cases is that all three students improved in all three tests making fluency gains, as shown by Tables 1-3. There was no disconfirming evidence across my three test measures.

The Reading Specialist consistently scored the students higher or equal to my scoring. (see Tables 1-3). Although there were differences in the scores, we both concurred that gains were made from pre- to post-test scores for each student. I’ll discuss the implications of this in the Discussion section.

Participation in reader’s theater provided an opportunity for the children to increase oral language skills. This study showed that participation in readers’ theater, an oral language activity, positively affected the growth of my students’ oral language fluency. Shelby, Krista, and Mike all made fluency gains, as shown by Tables 1-3. There is an increase in their post-test scores on the Allington Fluency Scale, Multidimensional Fluency Scale, and School District Fluency Rubric. Please note that the only time an increase did not show occurred when a student had already tested at the highest score possible on the pre-test. Students who received the highest score possible in the pre-test ended with that same score on the post-test.

Participation in readers’ theater enhanced the skills of all of my students, especially Krista, an ELL student. She made fluency gains, as shown by Tables 1-3. She also increased her score on the Allington Fluency Scale, Multidimensional Fluency Scale, and School District Fluency Rubric. Although I can’t support it with data, I strongly feel that she, more than the other 2 students, benefited from repeated practice, comprehensible input, time and repetition in a low anxiety environment.

Based on field notes, observations show that students were engaged throughout class time during the three-week study.

Case 1, Shelby:

In Test 1, the Allington Fluency Scale (see Appendix A), Shelby made a marked improvement in phrasing, juncture, intonation and stress as shown in her post-test scores.

In her pre-test, I noted that Shelby was reading mostly in longer phrases (three or more words) about half the time, with some shorter phrasing. She also showed that she was not reading word by word. She demonstrated appropriate sentence juncture over 75% of the time and internal juncture 50% of the time. Shelby read mainly in monotone, but with some inflection. In her post-test, she read mostly in longer phrases, with minimal short phrases. In juncture, she displayed sentence and internal juncture over 90% of the time. She read with expression and intonation, with few errors. She also emphasized appropriately.

The Reading Specialist also noted in the pre-test that Shelby was reading mostly in longer phrases, with some shorter phrasing, with no word by word reading. Shelby showed appropriate sentence juncture 90% of the time and over 75% internal juncture. The Reading Specialist noted that she attempted to read with expression, but it was done imperfectly or awkwardly. The Reading Specialist observed that in her post-test, Shelby read mostly in longer phrases, with minimal short phrases. She displayed sentence and internal juncture over 90% of the time. She read with expression and intonation, with few errors. She also emphasized appropriately.

In test 2, the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (see Appendix B), I rated Shelby in her pre-test for phrasing as having a mixture of run-ons, midsentence pauses for breath, and possibly some choppiness; however, she had reasonable stress/intonation. In smoothness, I noticed occasional breaks caused by difficulties with specific words and/or structures. In pace, she had an uneven mixture of fast and slow reading. In her post-test, Shelby was generally well phrased, mostly in clause and sentence units, with adequate attention to expression. She had generally smooth reading with some breaks, but word and structure difficulties were resolved quickly, usually through self-correction.

The Reading Specialist measured no differences in both her pre- and post-tests, and gave Shelby the same score for both tests that I had given her in her post-test.

In test 3, PUSD Fluency Rubric (see Appendix C) pre-test, I scored Shelby as having moderate, developing fluency in the pre-test. In the post-test, I felt she had capable reading fluency.

The Reading Specialist scored her as moving from capable reading fluency in the pre-test to strong reading fluency in the post-test.

Case 2, Krista:

In Test 1, the Allington Fluency Scale (see Appendix A), Krista made an improvement in phrasing, juncture, and intonation and stress as shown in her post-test scores.

In her pre-test, I noted that Krista was reading mostly in longer phrases (three or more words) about half the time, with some shorter phrasing. She also demonstrated that she was not reading word by word. She demonstrated appropriate sentence juncture over 75% of the time and internal juncture 50% of the time. Krista read mainly in monotone, but with some inflection. In her post-test, she read mostly in longer phrases, with some shorter phrasing. She did no word by word reading. She showed appropriate sentence juncture 90% of the time and over 75% internal juncture. She attempted to read with expression, but did so imperfectly or awkwardly.

The Reading Specialist, consistent with my observations, noted in the pre-test that Krista was reading mostly in longer phrases, with some shorter phrasing, and no word by word reading. However, she noted that Krista showed appropriate sentence juncture 90% of the time and over 75% internal juncture. The Reading Specialist recorded that she attempted to read with expression, but imperfectly or awkwardly. The Reading Specialist observed that in her post-test, she read mostly in longer phrases, with minimal short phrases. She displayed sentence and internal juncture over 90% of the time. She read with expression and intonation, with few errors. She also emphasized appropriately.

In Test 2, the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (see Appendix B), in Krista’s pre-test scores for phrasing, she had a mixture of run-ons, midsentence pauses for breath, and possibly some choppiness; however, she had reasonable stress/intonation. In smoothness, I scored Krista as having several "rough spots" in text where extended pauses, hesitations, and so on, are more frequent and disruptive. In pace, I scored her as moderately slow. In her post-test for phrasing she still had a mixture of run-ons, midsentence pauses for breath, and possibly some choppiness; however, she had reasonable stress/intonation. In smoothness, I noticed occasional breaks caused by difficulties with specific words and/or structures. In pace, she had an uneven mixture of fast and slow reading.

The Reading Specialist scored Krista in her pre-test as generally well phrased, mostly in clause and sentence units, with adequate attention to expression. She had occasional breaks in smoothness caused by difficulties with specific words and/or structures. She had an uneven mixture of fast and slow reading. The Reading Specialist said Krista ended in her post-test as still generally well phrased, mostly in clause and sentence units, with adequate attention to expression. She had generally smooth reading with some breaks, but word and structure difficulties were resolved quickly, usually through self-correction. Krista’s reading was consistently conversational.

In Test 3, PUSD Fluency Rubric (see Appendix C), Krista improved from moderate, developing reading fluency in the pre-test, to strong developing fluency in the post-test as scored by me.

The Reading Specialist scored her as capable developing fluency in the pre-test and strong reading fluency in the post-test.

Case 3: Mike

In test 1, the Allington Fluency Scale (see Appendix A), I noted in the pre-test that Mike was reading mostly in longer phrases, with some shorter phrasing, and no word by word reading. Mike showed appropriate sentence juncture 90% of the time and over 75% internal juncture. I determined that he attempted to read with expression, but imperfectly or awkwardly. I observed that in his post-test, he read mostly in longer phrases, with minimal short phrases. He displayed sentence and internal juncture over 90% of the time. He read with expression and intonation, with few errors. He also emphasized appropriately.

The Reading Specialist scored Mike as always reading mostly in longer phrases with minimal short phrases. She scored him as always reading with intonation, with few errors, and emphasizing appropriately. However, she scored him as having no expression in the pre-test, and having better expression in the post-test.

In test 2, the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (see Appendix B), I saw that in the pre-test Mike’s phrasing was a mixture of run-ons, mid-sentence pauses for breath, some choppiness and reasonable stress/intonation. I scored him as generally well phrased, mostly in clause and sentence units, with adequate attention to expression. In smoothness, I scored Mike as having generally smooth reading with some breaks, but word and structure difficulties were resolved quickly, usually through self-correction. In pace, I scored him as an uneven mixture of fast and slow reading. In his post-test, Mike was generally well phrased, mostly in clause and sentence units with adequate attention to expression. In smoothness, I scored Mike as still having generally smooth reading with some breaks, but word and structure difficulties were resolved quickly, usually through self-correction. Mike’s reading was consistently conversational.

The Reading Specialist scored Mike both in the pre- and post-tests as generally well phrased, mostly in clause and sentence units. In the pre-test she scored him as not giving adequate attention to expression, whereas in the post-test, she noted improvement, but felt that he still needed to work at it. She also felt Mike demonstrated generally smooth reading with some breaks, but word and structure difficulties were resolved quickly, usually through self-correction in both the pre- and post-tests. The Reading Specialist was unable to score him in pace, stating that he read too quickly both times and was not consistently conversational.

In Test 3, PUSD Fluency Rubric (see Appendix C), I scored Mike as having moderate, developing reading fluency in the pre-test. In the post-test I scored him as having strong reading fluency.

My most significant finding was that all three students developed their oral fluency in terms of phrasing, smoothness, pace, juncture, intonation and stress. Participation in reader’s theater, an oral language activity, provided an opportunity for the children to increase their oral language skills. The data (see Tables 1-3) suggests that the intervention positively affected the growth of my three students’ oral language fluency. In analyzing data, across the three cases, all three students improved in all three tests, making fluency gains, as shown by Tables 1-3. There was no disconfirming evidence across my three test measures. Participation in readers’ theater aided all of my students, including Krista, an ELL student. Her results were consistent with Shelby and Mike’s results. All made fluency gains.

Reader’s theater made a big difference in my students’ oral fluency scores. I know my students enjoyed the activity and were enthusiastic about spending the time to read, write, and use thinking skills. This is demonstrated in my field notes by the observation that the students were never disengaged. In fact, upon ending our readers’ theater time each morning, the students unanimously moaned and groaned, pleading for more time.

This intervention provided an opportunity for both non-proficient and proficient readers to work together. In my opinion, through informal interviews with my students in my field notes, readers of all abilities felt that they were working on equal ground, as they were working and enjoying reading in a non-threatening environment.

Readers’ theater provided an authentic purpose for reading for my students. With this purpose, students were dedicated to working on expression and correct phrasing. They wanted the audience to thoroughly enjoy their reading performance.

I limited my study to three students for various reasons. One boy, George, was absent the day that I administered the baseline tests. I therefore, assessed him right after my introduction to reader’s theater. He excelled in his oral fluency in phrasing, whereas usually he reads in monotone, with no expression. I asked him how he knew to read that way, and he referred to my lesson that morning. He was, therefore, eliminated from my study. Another student, Danny, had so many pullout reading and writing groups in the morning that it was impossible to include him in all of my lessons. Danny was also eliminated from my study. Finally, Matt had to be eliminated because he missed one out of the three weeks, due to an illness.

The Reading Specialist consistently scored the students higher or equal to my scoring. This left me with a good feeling. Our Reading Specialist is highly regarded in our district. She has 20 years of experience in education. She has tested students in oral fluency for 10 years. I was glad that I had not inflated my scores and that we both felt the students made oral fluency gains, as shown by all three-test measures.

Implications:

One limitation that was immediately brought to my attention was that the IRI passages that I selected for my Base Line were expository text. I couldn’t anticipate at the phrase level, as I could have with narrative text. Because I used narrative plays, I should have selected narrative text for the IRI assessment. Though I was able to assess phrasing, smoothness and pace with this type of text, I feel that it was not the best vehicle for demonstrating the wonderful expression and intonation/stress that the students had gained as a result of their experiences performing reader’s theater. Another selection that lent itself to fluency would be more appropriate. In my future studies, I will select narrative text for the IRI assessment.

In future research, I would not time the students in their initial reading of the baseline IRI. I believe that the students felt very rushed, as per my conversation afterwards with them, and my best professional judgement is that it affected their oral fluency performance. The students gave up reading for meaning. Comprehension was tested in the pre-test, and all three students’ scores fell below their initial school year IRI scores.

When administering the baseline IRI’s, students stopped once their instructional level was reached in both word recognition and comprehension. I believe their independent level did not lend itself to fluency. In the future, I will only check for oral language fluency.

I would recommend starting out with ten students. I had hoped to have six students involved in my study but, due to illnesses and pullout groups, I ended up with just three. By starting out with ten students, I believe that I would have a better chance of ending up with six students.

I caution that there are important things to consider when using two analysts. It is always possible, if not probable, to have different scores. I feel that, although there were differences in the scores, gains were made from pre- to post-test scores for each student and, as a result, did not make a difference for my study. In regards to future research, I will also consult a third analyst.

In order to triangulate, I decided to use several assessments. I speculate that, for my purpose in this three-week study, I had chosen too many assessments. I narrowed it down to using the IRI’s, checking only for oral fluency, and the Allington Fluency Scale (see Appendix A), the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (see Appendix B), and my school district’s Fluency Rubric (see Appendix C). In future studies, I would recommend no additions in assessments.

I was very pleased with the way I set up the intervention with regards to the daily class time allotment and the Monday-Friday scheduled activities. This worked well for a three-week study. In future studies, if I have more weeks in which to conduct my research, I would still follow the same instructional scheduled activities and daily class time allotment; however, I would not do the intervention every day. I would more likely do the intervention every other day, using the same instructional activities, and have the students perform every two weeks. I feel that this is a more realistic goal in striving to teach all of the language arts standards.

In retrospect, I would have picked two or more easier, shorter scripts, for the first week’s performance. The script I selected had over thirteen parts in it and I doubled up the parts for some of the children. I feel it would have been better for all of the students to have had more lines with easier language and a better opportunity to practice phrasing, smoothness, and pace working in smaller groups. They wouldn’t be so concerned with decoding, and could better focus on phrasing and intonation. I chose scripts with more lines and easier language for the last two weeks of my study.

I noticed that my students weren’t as excited about the serious play, "How the Rainbow Was Born," as they were about "April Fools the School," a light-hearted, funny play. I would like my students to be a part of the script selection. I plan on having the students take part in writing their own scripts for future research projects. I feel that this would increase their interest and motivation.

Most importantly, I learned that readers’ theater is a worthwhile intervention for helping all students, including ELL students, develop oral fluency. I gleaned from my study that reader’s theater helped my students to make gains in phrasing, smoothness, pace, juncture, intonation and stress. It offered my ELL student repeated practice, comprehensible input, time and repetition in a low anxiety environment. Apart from its worthiness, readers’ theater provided all of my students with a fun reading experience, an opportunity for all readers to read on equal ground, and an authentic purpose for reading.

Nonetheless, my research gave me a solid base of ideas that I am prepared to use for my next study. Based on the success and positive results of my ELL student in my study, intend to integrate this intervention on a larger scale with all ten ELL students designated to be in my classroom next school year. I think the results of this study could have huge implications for further studies with ELL students. Although I can’t support it with data, I feel strongly that Krista, more than the other two students, benefited from repeated practice, comprehensible input, time and repetition in a low anxiety environment. I am convinced it would be worthwhile to implement the intervention on a larger scale.

_____________(1998). "Draft of Fluency Rubric," Poway, CA, Poway Unified School District.

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

Hubbard, R. S., Power, B. M. (1993). The Art of Classroom Inquiry: A Handbook For Teacher-Researchers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kelleher, M. E. (1997). Readers’ Theater and Metacognition. The New England Reading Association Journal, 33, 4-12.

Millin, S. K., Rinehart, S. D. (1999). Some of the benefits of readers theater participation for second-grade Title I students. Reading Research and Instruction, 39, 71-88.

Opitz, M.F., Rasinski, T. V. (1998). Good-bye Round Robin. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Person, M. E. (1990). Say It Right! The Reading Teacher, 43 ,428-429.

Rasinski, T.V. (1989). Fluency for everyone: Incorporating fluency instruction in the classroom. The Reading Teacher,42, 690-693.

Rinehart, S. D. (1999). "Don’t Think for a Minute That I’m Getting Up There": Opportunities for Readers’ Theater in a Tutorial for Children with Reading Problems. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20, 71-89.

Stieglitz, E.L. (1997). The Stieglitz Informal Reading Inventory: Assessing Reading Behaviors from Emergent to Advanced Levels. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Zutell, J. & Rasinski, T.V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30, 211-217.

Children’s Literature:

West, T. (2000). The Big Book of Thematic Plays: 25 Exciting, Easy-to-Read Plays With Instant Activities on the Topics You Teach. New York, N.Y.: Scholastic, Inc.