ACTION

RESEARCH PROJECT

Action Research Project: Fall 2014

By: Brittany Bisese

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

Initial Meeting and Documentation:

Our Meeting:

My cooperating teacher and I corresponded through email to discuss which children

I should choose for my action research. From the beginning, she was very open to me
having my choice of any student I wished in the class. To narrow down which children to
choose, I asked her if she could think of two or three students that are higher-level readers
who could use an extra challenge in the classroom. She offered me the names of three
children of which I picked two for my group.

Student C- This student was chosen because of his significantly advanced reading ability.
He is reading at a Level K, which is well above his first grade classmates. Mrs. Wiggins
asked if I could pull him out to give him the extra challenge outside the classroom that she
feels she is unable to give him inside the classroom. She suggested working with him on
expression and phrasing.

Student A- This student was also chosen because of her advanced reading level. She is
reading at a level I. Mrs. Wiggins had begun to notice that she had been getting into more
trouble than usual because she could breeze through her work. I was asked to include
Student A in my Action Research group also in order to challenge her and increase her
expressive reading skills and comprehension.

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

Evidence:
Oct. 1st, 2014: Brittany

Good morning Ms. Wiggins,

Brittany and I are working on solidifying our Action Research groups and a topic for each
group. We want first and foremost to serve you the best we can, so please let us know how
we can best serve you! We were thinking that I, Molly, could work with Lauren and
Kingston on primarily reading since we are supposed to focus on reading. Then we wanted
to know if you have 2 or 3 students (potentially who would benefit from an extra
challenge) that Brittany could work with primarily in reading/fluency. Do you have any
suggestions?

Thank you so much for your time,
Molly Brown and Brittany Bisese

Oct. 6th, 2014: Mrs. Wiggins

That sounds great! For extra challenges I suggest C and N, and maybe, A. I am assuming
extra challenges you are meaning higher readers who need more? If not, let me know and I
will send you some more names. Maybe throw in comprehension with the higher ones. :)

October 6th, 2014: Brittany

Hi Ms. Wiggins,

I hope you enjoyed your conference and weekend! Yes, I am referring to students who are
stronger readers who would benefit from an extra challenge in reading. I am thinking of
working with C and A.
Can I get your opinion on what I have in mind? I am thinking of working with them on their
fluency. I will have to assess them and see what area of fluency they would benefit most
from. If they are excelling though, I can move on to teaching more vocabulary and
comprehension. Do you have suggestions based on what you know about the abilities of
these two students?

Thank you for your time,
Brittany Bisese

Oct. 8th, 2014: CT

Overwhelmed with so much to do! Your plans are fine. C is reading on level K or higher [I
found out later that he can go up to M]. I have purposely not taken him higher than K
because there are so many good books he has yet to read and also I do not want to risk
mature content. A is more of I/J.

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

The Question & Initial Assessment:

Initial Meeting with Mrs. Wiggins

Question 1: What are best practice strategies to increase
dluency in young readers?

First Meeting- Initial Assessment

Interest Inventory, WCPM, Multidimensional Fluency
Scale
Question 2: What are best practice strategies to improve
rate, expression and comprension in young readers?

Second & Third Meeting- Initial Assessment

WCPM, Oral Retelling Assessment and Self-Assessment
of Fluency
Question 3: What are best practice startegies to improve
student comprehension?

Fourth & Fifth Meeting- Final Question

Question 4: What are best practice
strategies to expand students' oral
retelling skills thorugh narrative texts?

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

Metamorphosis of the Question:

Question 1: What are best practice strategies to increase fluency in young readers?
Question 2: What are best practice strategies to improve rate, expression, and
comprehension in young readers?
Question 3: What are best practice strategies to improve student comprehension in young
readers?

Question 4: What are best practice strategies to expand

students oral retelling skills through narrative texts?

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

Reflection of Initial Assessment & Data:

Initially, Mrs. Wiggins suggested that based on their performance in the classroom,
to work with Student A and Student C on their fluency skills. Thus I devised my first
question: What are best practice strategies to increase fluency in young readers? My
initial assessment spanned 7 assessments. For Meeting 1, began my initial assessment
through administering an interest inventory, assessed their fluency rate with two WCPM
assessments per student, and assessed their expression/volume, phrasing,
smoothness/accuracy, and pace with the Multidimensional Fluency scale. After the first
meeting, I decided for Meeting 2 to administer a third WCPM assessment with a more
difficult passage and a brief comprehension assessment. Based off this data, in Meeting 3, I
led my students in a self-assessment of their own fluency before finally settling on my
decision to pursue comprehension as a focus. Then in Meetings 4 & 5, I refined my question
to its final form.
I began with an interest inventory, which supplied me valuable information about
what my students are enjoy and are interested in. Then, for the first of three WCPM
assessments per student, I chose passages that were on each students individual reading
level to see where they were. Student A worked with a Level I short passage called Getting
to School and scored 76 WPM with 96% accuracy. Student C was given a Level K short
passage called Baseball on which he scored 92 WPM with 97% accuracy. He also finished
the passage before the minute was up, so it was not a fully accurate representation of his
abilities. I gave them each a second passage. Student A worked with the passage The
Dinosaur Hunt on which she scored 76 WPM with 95% accuracy. Student C read a passage

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

from Marleys Big Adventure and scored 89 WPM with 96% accuracy. Based on the very
high accuracy levels, I found that these passages were too easy for the students and I
decided re-assess their WCPM with a harder passage in Meeting 2.
Also in Meeting 1, I asked the students to re-read these same passages so that I
could assess their fluency using Zutell and Rasinskis Multidimensional Fluency Scale
(Rasinski, n.d.). In this assessment, students receive a score of 1 through 4 for each of four
areas of fluency expression/volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pace. A score of above 8
indicates that they are making satisfactory progress in their fluency. Student A scored 4s in
each area except expression/volume she scored a 3 because she would get quieter or
would sometimes slip into a light monotone as she was reading. Her total score was 15/16.
Student C scored all 4s as well except for a 3 in smoothness. I saw throughout reading with
him in the classroom the next day or so that this was not characteristic of his reading. His
final score was a 15/16. I began to think that fluency may not be my students main need so
I decided to observe their expression and phrasing and assess further to be sure.
For Meeting 2, I decided to try assessing the students WCPM with harder passages
that came from the stories, One Smart Chick and Corduroy. Student Cs passage was not
as difficult as intended and he scored a WCPM of 94. Student As passage was not as
difficult as I had anticipated for her so her results were inconclusive. Because the passage
was too easy, she scored 117 WCPM with 98% accuracy. However when I averaged Student
As two WCPM scores, Student A averaged 76 WPM. Next, I averaged Student Cs three
scores and Student C averaged 92 WPM. According to Hasbrouck and Tindals Oral Reading
Fluency Norms, Student Cs 92 WPM compared closely with the expected norm of 106
WPM for a 2nd grader in the 90th percentile at the beginning of 2nd grade (Hasbrouck,

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

2012). Student As score of 76 WPM closely compared with the expected norm of a 2nd
grader in the 75th percentile at the beginning of 2nd grade. As a result of these tests, I
realized that my students did not need additional assistance with their rate, so I wanted to
be sure that they did not need assistance with expression before changing my topic.
To assess fluencys fifth component, comprehension, I decided for Meeting 2 to add
a short comprehension assessment asking each student to orally retell the story and
answer higher-level text-implicit questions. For Student C, I used the story Corduroy and
for Student A I used the story One Smart Chick. I was surprised at how little the students
could retell from these stories that were on their independent reading level. They rushed
through their retellings, gave very few details and neither student could determine story
elements such as the problem or the solution in their story. They also, struggled with
answering text-implicit questions, which required them to read between the lines in their
text. This was the main indicator that my students needed comprehension instruction
rather than fluency instruction. However, I wanted to ensure that my students did not need
assistance in expression or fluency before officially moving to comprehension.
In Meeting 3, I asked my students to self-assess each aspect of their own fluency.
These included accuracy, speed or rate, and expression. I created a rubric using the Garfield
interest inventory (McKenna & Kear, 1990). Before giving the assessment, I explained to
the students what each category of fluency meant and modeled examples and non-
examples. Then I asked them to read a passage and told them afterwards they would assess
their abilities in each category. I also told them that the assessment would help me know
where they can use help. After reading the passage and reviewing the areas of fluency, the
students were still a little confused at what each category was. Although the students

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

struggled with assessing themselves, I listened to them as they read and decided officially
that they did not need further assistance in fluency and were ready to move to
comprehension.
Thus from my initial assessment data, I found that both students were advanced in
their fluency skills but were struggling with retelling, story structure and answering text-
implicit questions. Thus I decided that Student A and Student C would be best served
through working to improve their comprehension skills. In Meetings 4 & 5 I determined
how I needed to refine my question. I saw that I needed to choose one component of
comprehension to narrow my focus. Thus after doing a little research, I found that oral
retelling involved multiple comprehension processes including first decoding, then
monitoring comprehension, identifying story structure, asking and answering questions
and ultimately summarizing. I decided that in order to improve their oral retelling skills, I
should focus mainly on one of these areas, identifying story structure. This is mainly
because I saw them struggle with this in my first oral retelling assessment. However, I did
add question answering into these lessons also. After these meetings, I settled on my final
question, What are best practice strategies to expand students oral retelling skills through
narrative texts?

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

10

Timeline for Meetings with Students A & C:

Pre-Session

Initial Meeting with Mrs. Wiggins (via email)

o Choose which students she would like me to work with
o Identify strengths and weaknesses of the students
Identify first essential question- (Based off of their strengths and
weaknesses)

Session 1

Initial Assessment: (Four of Seven Initial Assessments)

o Interest Inventory
o WCPM timed passage test (2 per student)
o Multidimensional Fluency Scale (MDFS)
o Passages Used:
Student A: Getting to School Level I Fluency Passage
The Dinosaur Hunt Level I narrative text excerpt
Student C Baseball Level K Fluency Passage
Marleys Big Adventure by Josh Grogan Level K
narrative text

Session 2

Initial Assessment: (Two of Seven Initial Assessments)

o Reassess WCPM (3 of 3 per student)
o Comprehension Assessment
o Passages Used:
Student A: Danny the Dinosaur by Syd Hoff narrative text
except
Student C: Corduroy by Don Freeman narrative text excerpt

Session 3

Initial Assessment: (One of Seven Initial Assessments)

o Objective: Students will identify which components of fluency they
need to work on through a self-assessment of their own fluency and
will identify two fix it up strategies to be considered proficient.
o Self-Assessment of Fluency
o Passages:
Student A: One Smart Chick by Paul Shipton & Trevor Dunton
Level I narrative text
Student C: Corduroy by Don Freeman Level K narrative text
excerpt

Session 4

Action Research Meeting: Story Structure through Oral retelling

o Objective: When given a sorting activity, students will accurately
categorize 13 out of 15 statements about the story Click Clack Moo;
The Cows that Type according to setting, characters, goal/problem,

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

11

events, and resolution. Students who sort 10 or fewer statements

correctly will be retaught.
o Assessment: Click Clack Moo Story Structure Sort
o Passage: Click Clack Moo; The Cows that Type by Doreen Cronin &
Betsy Lewin narrative text

Session 5

Action Research Meeting: Cause and Effect

o Objective: When given a matching activity, I will identify and describe
cause and effect relationships between events in the story Click Clack
Moo the Cows that Type with at least 4 our of 5 relationships matched
correctly.
o Assessment: Click Clack Moo Story Structure Sort
o Passage: Click Clack Moo; The Cows that Type by Doreen Cronin &
Betsy Lewin narrative text

Session 6

Midpoint Assessment: Story Structure through Oral retelling

o Objective: ??
Student A: ??
Student C: ??
o Assessment: QRI Oral Retelling Coding Form (organized by story
structure elements)
o Passage: Fathers New Game- 2nd grade Qualitative Reading Inventory
(QRI) Passage

Session 7

Action Research Meeting: Story Structure through Oral retelling

o Objective: Today I will retell the story, The Frog Prince including
details about the characters, setting, problem, events, and solution
with 70% accuracy.
o Assessment: Oral Retelling Coding Form: The Frog Prince
o Passage: The Frog Prince by Edith H. Tarcov and James Marshall
narrative text
Cause and Effect Categorization Sort

Session 8

Action Research Meeting: Story Structure through Oral retelling

o Objective:
Student A: Student A will retell the story The Three Snow Bears
according to characters, setting, problem, events, and
resolution with 75% accuracy.
Student C: Student C will retell the story The Three Snow Bears
according to characters, setting, problem, events, and
resolution with 70% accuracy.
o Assessment: Oral Retelling Coding Form: The Three Snow Bears
o Passage: The Three Snow Bears by Jan Brett narrative text

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

12

Session 9

Final Assessment: Story Structure through Oral retelling

o Objective:
Student A: Student A will retell the story Little Pig Joins the
Band according to characters, setting, problem, events, and
resolution with 80% accuracy.
Student C: Student A will retell the story Little Pig Joins the
Band according to characters, setting, problem, events, and
resolution with 75% accuracy.
o Assessment: Oral Retelling Coding Form: Little Pig Joins the Band
o Passage: Little Pig Joins the Band by David Hyde Costello- narrative
text

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

13

Anecdotal Timeline: Each with Student A and Student C

Date

Strategies
Incorporated

10/9/2014
Meeting 1
Initial Data

-Interest and
Fluency
Assessments

10/15/2014 -Fluency & Oral

Meeting 2
Retelling/
Initial Data Comprehension
Assessment

Anecdotal
Assessment
Observations Data

Based on my
Assessment/
Reflection I
will
Both student -WCPM
- I will reassess
A and student Student A: students
C were quiet, On both
WCPM with
enthusiastic
passages, she more difficult
and compliant scored 76
passages
during the
WCPM with - I will monitor
lesson! They 95-96%
Student Cs
seemed
accuracy
phrasing and
happy to be
-WCPM
Student As
chosen for
Student C: On expression
special
each passage, moving
attention with he scored 89 forward.
the teacher! WPM with
96%
accuracy and
92 WCPM
with 97%
accuracy.
-MDFS
Student and
Student C
She scored a
16 possible
points with 8
being
satisfactory.
-Student A
struggled
only slightly
with her
expression
-Student C
had slight
difficulty
with
phrasing.
-Both
-WCPM
- I will begin to
students were Student A:
focus more on
eager to work 117 with
comprehension,
and enjoyed
98%
yet I will assess

Reflect/ Respond

-From these
assessments I learned
that these passages
were too simple for
the students to give a
full representation of
their WCPM skills.
- I also observed
during the MDFS
assessment that
Student C seemed to
read with accurate
expression, pace, and
phrasing yet he would
pause at odd times in
the passage.
-As for Student A, I
found that she would
slip into a monotone
at times in her
reading if she read for
a long period of time.

-Student As passage
for the WCPM
assessment was not as
difficult as expected

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

-Non-linguistic
Representations:
Visual Itinerary
(Marzano,
2001).

-Identifying
Story Structure
&
Summarization
through Oral
Retelling (NRP,
2000; Reutzel &
Cooter, 2012;
Bernfeld et al.,
2013; Brown &
Cambourne,
1987; Lapp,
Fisher, &
Johnson, 2010.)

-Question
Answering- Text
implicit
questions (NRP,
2000; Marzano,
2001)

10/17/2014 -Fluency Fix it
Meeting 3
up Strategies
Initial Data (Reutzel &
Cooter, 2012)

-Self Assessment
of Fluency
(Reutzel &
Cooter, 2012)

-Teacher
Modeling
(Armbruster,
2001)

-Explicit

14

the session!

accuracy-
avg. of initial
scores: 76
WCPM
-WCPM
Student C: 94
WCPM with
96%
accuracy-
avg. of three
scores: 92
WCPM

fluency one last

time to ensure
that
comprehension
is their greatest
need.

and thus was not a

fully accurate sample.
-Student Cs passage
was also not as
difficult as
anticipated. His scores
were consistent with
his previous scores.
-Comprehension:
Both students
struggled when I
asked them to give a
retelling of their story
without talking
through the book with
them. Their retellings
had very little detail
and they had trouble
answering my
questions that asked
them to identify story
structure. Also, they
struggled to answer
text implicit
questions.

Student A
seemed
quieter than
usual today,
however she
still applied
herself to
each
assignment I
gave.
Student Cs
behavior was
his typical
respectful and
happy
demeanor.

-Data was
inconclusive
because
students did
not fully
understand
the
assessment.
-They each
circled the
happy cat for
each area of
fluency and
did not give a
verbal
response to

-I will begin
working with
Student A and
Student C on
comprehension.
-I will see
where they
most need help,
with retelling,
story sequence
or answering
text-implicit
questions.

- Even though I gave

explicit definitions of
each concept, did a lot
of modeling of
examples and non-
examples and made
visuals of each
concept, my students
struggled with the
ideas of fluency
accuracy and rate.
- Although the
students did not
successfully assess
their own fluency, I
listened carefully for

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

Teaching of
Fluency Areas &
Strategies (NRP,
2000)

-Kid-friendly
objective
displayed
(Marzano, 2001)

-Providing
examples and
non-examples
(Marzano, 2001)

-Graphic and
semantic
organizers/
Non-linguistic
Representations
(NRP, 2000;
Marzano, 2001)
10/20/2014 Comprehension:
Meeting 4
Story Structure
Refining

Question
-Kid-friendly
objective
displayed
(Marzano,
2001).

-Explicit
teaching of
concepts of:
setting,
characters,
goal/problem,
events, and
resolution (NRP,
2000)

-Giving
examples
throughout the
story of each

15
which areas
of fluency
they need
help in.

The students
had read the
story before
and were
excited to be
reading the
story again.
Student A
returned to
her normal
cheerful self.
Student C
remained
constant in
his demeanor.

-Student A
sorted 11
story
elements
into the
correct
categories
with heavy
scaffolding.
-Student C
sorted 13 out
of 15 story
elements
with heavy
scaffolding
also.
-By heavy
scaffolding, I
mean that I
gave them
reminders
and asked
them

Student Cs phrasing
and Student As
expression and saw
that they only
struggled with these
skills only on the first
MDFS assessment.

-I will assess
other areas of
comprehension
and see where
their greatest
need is.
-However, the
students show
a need to
develop their
understanding
of story
structure. It is
likely that I will
provide
another
exposure to
these concepts.

-From this lesson, I

learned that having
first graders write in a
graphic organizer is
very difficult. I should
have provided a
bigger organizer or
chart paper with lines
on it to accommodate
them better.
-Also, I should not
have provided so
much scaffolding to
my students. I need to
let them give an
authentic their
understanding
without prompting.
- Based on the
assessment sort, they
struggled with these
concepts and they
were clearly new to

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

concept
(Marzano, 2001)

-Interactive read
aloud (Reutzel &
Cooter, 2012)

-Individual
Graphic
organizer to
record examples
of each category
(NRP, 2000;
Marzano, 2001)

-Board to paper
(TLAC)- Wrote
examples we
brainstormed of
each story
element on a
large chart,
which students
copied onto
their own
graphic
organizer
(Lemov, 2010).

-General
Prompting
(Morrow, 2005)
10/22/2014 Comprehension:
Meeting 5
Cause and Effect
Refining

Question
-Kid-friendly
objective
displayed
(Marzano, 2001)

-Reviewed story
structure
elements

-Explicit

16
questions
that helped
them get
closer to the
answers.

Both students
were ready
and excited to
work together
today. They
were pleased
to hear we
were working
with Click
Clack Moo
again!

This
assessment
was not fully
clear, thus
my students
did not
perform
highly on the
lesson.
Student A
and Student
C both
matched two

the students. I
realized focusing on
story-structure would
be a beneficial for the
students.

-After this
lesson, I met
with my
professor and
decided to
narrow my
topic down to a
specific area of
comprehension.
-Because of
their previous
struggles with
retelling and

-I realized in this
lesson that I need to
clarify my concepts of
cause and effect.
Cause should be
presented as a verb,
one event,
causes/caused
another event or to
cause- means to
influence or help
something else
happen.

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

teaching of
Cause and Effect
(NRP, 2000)

-Provided
examples
throughout the
story of cause &
effect
relationships
(Marzano, 2001)

-Interactive read
aloud (Reutzel
& Cooter, 2012)

17
relationships
correctly.
However
when I asked
them
questions
about the
relationships,
they were
able to
describe
them to me.

story structure,
I decided to
make this my
main focus.
-I will focus on
improving
students ability
to identify story
structure
elements
through oral
retelling

-Also, effect should

have been presented
as an effect is a result
of an action.
-My assessment was
not clearly
measureable also.
Although I had a table
that outlined all the
relationships between
cards, I didnt label
them and got
confused in the
process. I should have
had them sequence
them in a timeline
format because one
event can be an effect
of something in the
story and can cause
something else.
-The students
understood more
about the concept
than my assessment
showed because they
could verbally explain
many of the
relationships.
10/23/2014 Comprehension: Student A was Based on the - I will provide -Students were able to
Meeting 6
Story Structure her cheerful
QRI
further practice recall story element
Question
through Oral
and usual self. assessment, for students to examples with
Solidified:
Retelling
Student C
Student C
read the
assistance.
Midpoint

attended the scored a
passage on
-This passage may
Assessment -Kid-friendly
meeting with 30/49, which their own and
have been more
objective
a good
is 61% of
identify story
difficult for the
displayed
attitude and a elements
elements.
students than the
(Marzano, 2001) smile.
recalled.
-I want them to previous passages.

Student A
be able to
However after re-
-Identifying
scored a
provide
analyzing the
Story Structure
21/49, which examples
vocabulary and story
&
is 43% of
without my
plot, it was should
Summarization
elements
scaffolding!
have been close to
through Oral
recalled.
- I will try
their reading level.
Retelling (NRP,
incorporating
-I think that the major

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

2000; Reutzel &
Cooter, 2012;
Bernfeld et al.,
2013; Brown &
Cambourne,
1987; Lapp,
Fisher, &
Johnson, 2010.)

-Question
Answering- Text
to self
connection
questions

-Question
Answering- Text
to text
connection
questions &
Examples-
Asked girls to
think about the
characters, plot,
etc. in another
story. (Marzano,
2001)

-Explicit
teaching of
concepts of:
setting,
characters,
goal/problem,
events, and
resolution (NRP,
2000).

-General
Prompting
(Morrow, 2005)
10/24/2014 Comprehension:
Meeting 7
Story Structure
through Oral
Retelling

Student C
seemed to
have more
trouble

18

According to
the Oral
Retelling
Coding form,

more verbal
and visual
strategies to
see how my
students
respond.
-Also, I will re-
teach the story
structure
elements in
hopes that an
additional yet
different
presentation of
the information
will help the
students
understand.

difference was that

they had to read the
story on their own
versus having the
story read to them.
-Student A began to
lose stamina while
reading near the end
-Student C loses
stamina in the middle
of reading when he is
struggling.

-I continue to
think that
Student A and
Student C need

-I learned from a
previous lesson that it
is more effective
when I the teacher

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

-Kid-friendly
objective
displayed
(Marzano, 2001)

-Identifying
Story Structure
&
Summarization
through Oral
Retelling (NRP,
2000; Reutzel &
Cooter, 2012;
Bernfeld et al.,
2013; Brown &
Cambourne,
1987; Lapp,
Fisher, &
Johnson, 2010.)

-Explicit re-
teaching of
setting,
characters,
goal/problem,
events, and
resolution

-Question
Answering- Text
to self
connection (ex.
How would you
feel if you were
the frog?)

-Silent reading
then group
retelling/turn
and talk

-Non-linguistic
Representation
(NRP, 2000;

paying
attention
today because
he was
excited from a
birthday
party he had
been to the
night before.
Student A
seemed to be
her normal
cheerful self.

19
Student A
significantly
improved
scoring a
31/45, which
means 69%
of the story
elements
were
identified.
Student C
scored a
26/45, which
means 58%
of the story
elements
were
identified.

more practice
identifying
story structure
through
retelling.
- I will continue
to offer
students more
opportunities
to talk through
and visualize
their thoughts
on paper.
- I will begin
setting separate
goals for
Students C and
A because they
are beginning
to show
differences in
their growth.
-My goal of
70% may have
been ambitious
for Student C
but was nearly
met by Student
A.
-I will try an
additional
approach:
Looking at how
story elements
influence the
story.
- I will also
focus on asking
students to
make text to
text and text to
self
connections
within the
story.

record students
responses for them
since they are still
very young! In this
group retelling, I had
one student begin by
retelling the story
then randomly paused
the student and asked
the other student to
continue the retelling.
I feel like this strategy
worked well because
it caused them to
listen closely to one
another and to have to
sequence events so
that they could pick
up where the other
student left off.
-I believe that adding
more visual and
verbal components
(such as more text
connection question,
group retelling, and
the graphic organizer)
to the lesson
contributed to the
significant rise in
Student As
assessment scores
compared to the QRI
assessment where she
only read silently then
immediately retold
the story and scored
43%.
-I think that Student
Cs slight regression
was due to the length
of the passage and his
distracted behavior
for the day
-The passages were

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

Marzano, 2001)
I recorded their
retelling on
chart paper and
the three of us
worked together
to decide what
category of story
structure each
idea should go
in.

-General
Prompting
(Morrow, 2005)
10/30/2014 Comprehension:
Meeting 8
Story Structure
through Oral
Retelling

-Kid-friendly
objective
displayed
(Marzano, 2001)

-Identifying
Story Structure
&
Summarization
through Oral
Retelling (NRP,
2000; Reutzel &
Cooter, 2012;
Bernfeld et al.,
2013; Brown &
Cambourne,
1987; Lapp,
Fisher, &
Johnson, 2010.)

-Non-linguistic
Representation
(NRP 2000,
Marzano, 2001)

20
equal in difficulty if
not more so for the
Frog Prince because it
was significantly
longer than the QRI
passage.

Students A
and C
maintained
normal
behavior
during our
session. It
was difficult
to maintain
their
attention
because there
were a lot of
people
coming in and
out of our
room today.

-Student A
scored a
43/52, which
equates to
83% of story
elements
correctly
identified
through
retelling.
-Student C
made
considerable
gains also
because with
his score of
45/52, which
is 87% of
story
elements
identified
through
retelling.

-Because my
students seem
to be very
visual and
verbal, I will
continue to
incorporate
turn and talk
time and higher
level questions
in my next
session. Also, I
will include a
picture walk
before having
them read the
text silently to
cater to their
visual sides.
-For my final
assessment, I
must return to
silent reading
so I will set my
accuracy goals
higher than
when we met
for Meeting 6
but slightly
lower than

- I decided to read this

book aloud to the
students because it
was a significantly
higher-level text. Also,
I wanted to spend the
main portion of our
time in discussion on
WHY certain story
elements are chosen
and HOW they
influence the story. At
first, the students
struggled to answer
questions such as,
How would the story
be different if the
setting was changed?
However, I was
pleased with the
students responses as
the conversation
progressed.
-Also, the students
made a text-to-text
connection as they
compared and
contrasted the story
with another version
of Goldilocks and the

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

12/2/2014
Meeting 9
Final
Assessment

-Question
Answering- Text
to self
connection

-Question
Answering Text
to text
connections
(with the story
Goldilocks and
the Three Bears)

-Higher level
questioning:
Analysis of Story
Elements
(Blooms
Taxonomy)

-Analysis of
Story elements

-Turn and Talk
(Reutzel &
Cooter, 2012)

-General
Prompting
(Morrow, 2005)
Comprehension:
Story Structure
through Oral
Retelling

-Kid-friendly
objective
displayed
(Marzano, 2001)

-Question
Answering-Text
to self
connection
questions

Student A and
Student C and
Student A
were excited
to be pulled
out today! It
had been so
long since we
met so they
couldnt wait
to get started!

21

-Student A
and C both
scored 15/16
on the
assessment
which
equates to
94% of story
elements
identified
correctly
through
retelling.

todays goals
because the
story was read
aloud to the
students.

Three Bears.
-I believe that reading
the story aloud,
discussing how story
elements influence
the story, and making
connections helped
the students be very
successful on this
assessment. This
builds on my previous
finding that allowing
students to talk about
their reading helps
improve their
comprehension.

- If I had more
time, I would
include another
lesson where
we would
compare texts
to one another
according to
their story
elements. Then
based on
assessment
results, I would
reteach or
move into

-I was blown away

after this meeting! I
was so impressed and
proud of my students
for how well they did
with relatively little
scaffolding. I saw
them progress from
very little details in
their summaries and
little knowledge of
story elements to
understanding and
identifying story
elements within a

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

-Question
Answering- Text
to text
connections
(compared story
structure and
moral to The
Littlest Pilgrim
by Brandi
Dougherty)

-Picture walk
(Reutzel &
Cooter, 2012)

-Defined difficult
vocabulary
(Reutzel &
Cooter, 2012)

-Higher level
questioning
(Blooms
Taxonomy)

-Turn and Talk

-General
Prompting
(Morrow, 2005)

22
teaching other
comprehension
strategies such
as monitoring
comprehension
and question
generating.
Then I would
build up to how
to write and
create
summaries.

detailed summary!
They began to make
their own text to text
connections between
this story and The
Littlest Pilgrim, which
I had taught them a
vocabulary lesson on
the day before! I
couldnt believe their
progress and am so
proud of all their hard
work!

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

23

Data & Student Progress:

WCPM Averages compared to Second Grade Norms:
120
106
100
80

92
76

Average WCPM

79

60
2nd grade: Student A- 75th
percentile at the beginning of
the year Student C- 90th
percentile at the beginning of
the year

40
20
0
Student A

Student C

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

24

Student A Data: Identifying Story Structure through Oral Retelling:

1

94%

0.9

83%

0.8

70% 69%

0.7

75%

80%

0.6
0.5

Objective

43%

Results

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0
Meeting 6

Meeting 7

Meeting 8

Meeting 9

Student C Data: Identifying Story Structure through Oral Retelling:
1

94%
87%

0.9
0.8

70%

0.7

61%

0.6

70%

75%

58%
Objective

0.5

Results

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0
Meeting 6

Meeting 7

Meeting 8

Meeting 9

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

25

Student Progress Monitoring Charts:

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

26

Student A Samples Work:
Initial Retelling Assessment- Meeting 2 Midpoint Assessment- Meeting 6

Meeting 8 Assessment:

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

27

Student C Sample Work:
Initial Retelling Assessment- Meeting 2 Midpoint Assessment- Meeting 6




















Meeting 8 Assessment:

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

28

Strategies Used:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Fluency Fix it up Strategies (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012)

Self-Assessment of Fluency (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012)
Interactive Read-Aloud (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012)
Graphic and semantic organizers/ Non-linguistic Representations (NRP, 2000;
Marzano, 2001)
5. Question Answering- Text Implicit (NRP, 2000; Marzano, 2001)
6. Question Answering-Text to self connections (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012)
7. Question Answering- Text to text connections (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012)
8. Question Answering-Higher level questioning (Blooms Taxonomy)
9. Identifying Story Structure & Summarization through Oral Retelling (NRP, 2000;
Reutzel & Cooter, 2012; Bernfeld et al., 2013; Brown & Cambourne, 1987; Lapp,
Fisher, & Johnson, 2010.)
10. General Prompting (Morrow, 2005)
11. Kid-friendly objective displayed (Marzano, 2001).
12. Teacher Modeling (Armbruster, 2001)
13. Explicit Teaching (NRP, 2000)
14. Providing examples and non-examples (Marzano, 2001)
15. Turn & Talk
16. Picture Walk (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012)
17. Defined difficult vocabulary (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012)

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

29

Data Reflection:

Over time, I saw tremendous growth in both Student A and Student B. As discussed

previously, I found in my initial data meetings (1-5) that in the first three meetings, Student
A and Student Cs main needs were not in their fluency skills. Based off of an interest
inventory, three WCPM assessments per student, an assessment using the
multidimensional fluency scale, an oral retelling-comprehension assessment, and a self-
assessment of fluency, I found that my students were above grade level in their rate,
proficient in their fluency skills, yet needing growth in their oral retelling and story
structure identification skills. Going into meeting 4, I thought that I had to cover all areas of
comprehension, yet after a second assessment with story structure and a cause and effect
assessment, I found that my students needed me to first work with them on their oral
retelling and story structure identification skills before moving on to more difficult
comprehension strategies such as cause and effect or summarization.

Meeting 6 served as the midpoint for my project and as I assessed Student A and

Student C using a 2nd grade passage from the Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) with an
accompanying Oral Retelling Coding Form. Through this assessment, I was finally able to
gather my first quantifiable assessment of their oral retelling and story structure
identification skills. Their scores of 43% (Student A) and 61% (Student C) indicated that I
should begin trying some verbal and visual strategies to see how the students responded. I
also decided that I would reteach the elements of story structure in order to improve their
identification skills.

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

30

After meeting 7s assessment, I found that this additional re-teaching, talking about
the story together, and adding a chart to record our group retelling significantly impacted
students scores. Student A progressed from a 43% to a 69%! Student C regressed slightly
from 61% to 58%. I gathered that this may be due to the fact that he seemed to be
unusually distracted that day and the passage was a good deal longer than the QRI passage.
I decided from this assessment to continue incorporating visual and verbal strategies (turn
& talk/group discussion and thinking charts), to separate goals for each student, to
introduce how story structure impacts the story, and to start helping student to make text
to text and text to self connections.
After meeting 8, I found that my students make significant growth, especially
Student C. Student A progressed from 69% to 83% and Student C progressed from 58% to
87%! I contributed this growth to the additional strategies that I had added which all
involved focusing on appealing to visual and verbal learners. I took this a step further for
my final assessment in meeting 9 and included more questioning and text connections and
substituted the thinking chart for a picture walk at the beginning of the story. At the end of
this assessment, both students C and A scored a final score of 94%, showing tremendous
from their first quantifiable assessment in meeting 6 to their final assessment.

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

31

Final Reflection:

Overall, I feel that I learned a significant amount from this experience. I found that

oral retelling is truly a powerful way to measure students comprehension and that
identifying story structure is a comprehension strategy that pairs nicely with this topic. My
students grew tremendously through focusing on these two strategies and through
incorporating a variety of best practice, oral retelling, comprehension, and universally best
practice strategies also. I learned from this experience that it is crucial to build up a strong
base of initial data for each student to help clearly identify their needs. Also, I learned that
as a teacher, it is necessary to continue assessing students until it is clear what their needs
truly are. Assessment is the key to guiding instruction and the teacher must choose her
assessments wisely and that are based in best practice.

There are a few things that I feel like I did well and a many things I would do

differently in the future based off this experience. Through the process I learned and spent
a significant amount of time choosing texts and passages for my students. It is crucial that
texts are on the appropriate instructional level for students or else the data will not be
accurate. So I spent a good deal of time learning about leveling passages, Lexile levels, and
learning to look at a books length, vocabulary level, phonics incorporated, and topic to
determine whether a book may be appropriate for my students. Also, I feel that after each
meeting, I used my assessments and observations to determine where my instruction
would go, even to the point of changing my entire project multiple times. I found out the
hard way that assessment truly does guide instruction and the teacher must be willing to
lay down her plans for the needs of the student. Also, I searched throughout the process for
the strengths of my students and found that both Students A and C were visual and verbal

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

32

learners. Once I realized this, I began to utilize their strengths in the strategies I
incorporated in each lesson. This led to significant success by the end of our meetings.
Finally, I am glad that I gave my students a kid-friendly objective each day because I think
that it helped us stay on task and allowed the students to know exactly what I expected of
them.

In the future, I will ensure that all of my assessments are rooted in best practice and

are measurable. Initially, I generated my assessments for meetings 2 and 4 on my own and
they were not rooted in best practice because I was overwhelmed with options and didnt
know where to look first. I would have like to have found the oral retelling coding form for
my meeting 2 assessment so that I could have had a more quantifiable initial assessment
for my students oral retelling and story structure identification skills. Also, I will ensure
that in the future I will record more specific examples of how I incorporated each strategy
into the lesson. I realized that I should have been more specific in my anecdotal records the
hard way and will be far more specific in the future. Also, I feel as though it took me a while
to really begin incorporating a lot of the visual and verbal strategies because I was still
learning what they meant and how to use them. Looking back, if I had incorporated these
strategies earlier, my students may have experienced more growth. Finally, if I had more
time with my students, I would spend more time comparing story structure elements
between stories, then would begin to incorporate more comprehension strategies based on
their need, and then finally help them learn to give and write a formal summary.

From this process I learned that students constantly exceed expectations. I felt Wes

Moores words ringing in my ears throughout this project that Students are products of
their expectations. As I reflect on this process, I think about how I should have set higher

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

33

objective goals for my students. Despite my unsure and lower expectations, my students
were phenomenal and still grew! They blew me away with their hard work and focus and
far exceeded my expectations. I learned that I need to not be afraid to set higher
expectations for my students and also be willing to come along side them support them in
order that they meet those expectations. Also, I feel like I experienced hands-on the best
practice idea of finding student strengths and incorporating them to see student growth.
Students will grow if the teacher takes the time to find students strengths and incorporate
them into the classroom. This is why it is crucial that a classroom teacher structures her
instruction to appeal to all types of learners so that each students strengths are addressed.
Overall, I am pleased with the growth of my students and am grateful to have had the
opportunity to serve them this semester.

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

34

Best Practice For Improving Reading Comprehension;
A Comprehensive Review
Brittany K. Bisese
Samford University

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

35

Abstract:
This paper synthesizes various research studies that reveal best practice strategies for
reading comprehension instruction. The paper explains the six reading comprehension
strategies and three comprehension instructional strategies as recommended by the
National Reading Panel (NRP) that have been shown to increase student success. These six
comprehension strategies include, monitoring ones own comprehension, using graphic
and sematic organizers, question answering, question generating, identifying story
structure, and summarization (Report of the National Reading Panel, 2000). The three
instructional strategies include explicit, collaborative, flexible teaching. Finally, the paper
explores reciprocal teaching and oral retelling, which are two methods of teaching students
to use multiple comprehension strategies simultaneously to deeply understand the text.

Keywords: comprehension strategies, comprehension instructional strategies,

reciprocal teaching, oral retelling

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

36

Best Practice for Improving Reading Comprehension;

A Comprehensive Review:

The National Reading Panel (NRP) identifies reading comprehension as intentional

thinking during which meaning is constructed through interactions between text and
readerthe content of meaning is influenced by the text and by the readers prior
knowledge and experience that are brought to bear on it (Report of the National Reading
Panel, 2000). Thus reading comprehension requires the student to access their prior
knowledge and experiences thus far and combine them with specific comprehension
strategies to construct meaning from a text. Researchers have concluded that the six
comprehension strategies listed in this paper consistently increase student success in
comprehension (Report of the National Reading Panel, 2000). However, in order for these
strategies to be effective, they must be effectively taught. Thus researchers have identified
three instructional strategies that are critical to effective comprehension instruction.
Finally, reciprocal teaching and oral retelling are two strategies that teachers should
incorporate so that students learn to use multiple comprehension strategies at once while
reading. Through using multiple comprehension strategies at once, students will increase
their comprehension skills.

In 1997, the United States Congress charged the National Institute of Child Health

and Human Development (NICHD) and the United States Secretary of Education to
assemble a national panel to assess the large body of research about reading instructional
strategies (Report of the National Reading Panel, 2000). From this body of research, the
panel was asked to compile and present what they found to be the most effective strategies
for reading instruction, the readiness of schools to implement these strategies and an

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

37

implementation program. From their research, the panel identified five areas of reading
instruction to focus their study, Alphabetics, Fluency, Comprehension, Teacher Education
and Reading Instruction, and Computer Technology and Reading Instruction. After
reviewing over two hundred studies involving reading comprehension strategies, the NRP
concluded that there are 7 highly effective strategies that increase student comprehension
(one of which will be discussed in the instructional strategies section.) Thus, the remaining
six strategies include monitoring ones own comprehension, using graphic and sematic
organizers, question answering, question generating, identifying story structure, and
summarization (Report of the National Reading Panel, 2000). Also, activating students
prior knowledge and using mental imagery are two additional strategies that have also
been shown to improve student reading comprehension (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn,
2001).

Monitoring ones own comprehension is all about metacognition. Metacognition is

described simply by the National Institute for Literacy as students thinking about
thinking (Armbruster et al., 2001). Thus, monitoring comprehension requires students to
consciously assess their own thinking to decipher what specifically in the story they do
understand, what they do not understand, and when to they need to use a fix-up strategy
(Armbruster et al., 2001). To teach this strategy, teachers must explicitly teach students to
ask themselves the following questions while reading:

Where in the passage am I having difficulty?

What specifically is confusing me?

Can I restate a difficult passage in my own words?

Can I find the information I need by looking back through the text?

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

38

Can I look ahead in the story to find the information I need? (Armbruster et al.,
2001).

Each of these questions allow the student to monitor their own understanding and to know
when to pause and apply a fix-up strategy. Another strategy for monitoring
comprehension is the click or clunk strategy. In this strategy, students learn from the
teachers modeling to reflect at the end of each paragraph or section to think about if the
information clicked or if it has clunk and they need to apply a fix- up strategy (Reutzel
and Cooter, 2012). If a student does not understand part of a passage, students should use
one of following fix-up strategies as suggested by researchers Collins and Smith. These
include:

Overlook the problem and continue reading

Read ahead for before deciding to ignore the issue or ask for help

Develop a hypothesis about what may be happening and see if it is correct through
further reading

Pause and reflect on the reading done thus far to answer a question and reread if
necessary

Utilize resources- Finding answers in the environment, scholarly individuals, and

reference guides (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012).

Next, the NRP identifies graphic and semantic organizers as crucial components of

reading comprehension instruction. Graphic organizers can be in the form of Venn

Diagrams, maps, charts, graphs, clusters, or frames. Semantic organizers however, connect
ideas to one central concept and are often found in the form of a web (Armbruster, 2001).
It is no surprise that organizers are best practice for reading comprehension because, non-

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

39

linguistic representations, including graphic organizers, are one of the nine McRel high-
yield instructional strategies that increase achievement across all ages and disciplines
(Marzano, 2001). Non-linguistic representations lead to a 27 percent gain in student
achievement (Marzano, 2001). Organizers lead to such high student success because they
help students make text connections, identify story structure, and visualize relationships in
the story, thus contributing to an organized summary of the reading (Armbruster et al.,
2001). Depending on the age of the students, organizers will vary in complexity. Teachers
must consider what is developmentally appropriate for students when selecting an
organizer. For example, a younger reader may be sufficiently challenged by an organizer
that tells story structure as beginning middle and end. However a more advanced reader
may be able to tackle a more detailed organizer leading to a more in-depth understanding
of the passage (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012).

Another effective comprehension strategy is answering questions. For students to

be successful, questions must be intentionally selected from various levels of Blooms

taxonomy and asked clearly (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012). When effective questions are
asked, they help students to focus their attention on what matters most in the story
(Armbruster et al., 2001). Also, answering them promotes engagement in the text because
it requires students to think actively (Armbruster et al., 2001). Effective questions
promote active thinking because they challenge students to monitor their own
comprehension and provide an avenue to make connections (Armbruster et al., 2001).
These connections can be within the text, with another text, or with a personal experience
and or the prior knowledge of the student.

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

40

Also, teachers need to ensure that they are teaching students about question-
answer relationships so that they can understand how to derive information from a text
and understand it in as much depth as possible. Students need to understand that
information from the text can be explicitly stated (is text-explicit), can be implied by the
text (text-implicit) or completely from their own prior knowledge (scriptal) (Armbruster et
al., 2001). Researchers Raphael and Au composed their own model of teaching question
and answer relationships through the four categories of right there think and search
author and me and on my own (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012). In their model, researchers
suggest that the teacher explicitly teach students the difference between knowledge that is
found either in the book or in my head. Then, the teacher should scaffold instruction
until students can distinguish between these two concepts on their own. Next, the teacher
should teach students that when searching for information in the text, it will either be
right there or may require students to think and search. Once this concept is grasped,
student will learn the difference between the in my head subcategories which are author
and me and on my own. Practicing identifying these types of questions helps students
learn how to find all four types of information from the text and ensures that the teacher is
asking questions that fulfill each category (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012).

In addition to answering questions, students should be able to generate their own

questions as well while they are reading. These questions should pertain to the main ideas
of the text that may require them to understand various parts of the text (Armbruster et al.,
2001). For informational texts, elaborative interrogation is a technique that helps students
strengthen their knowledge of the text by asking students to create why questions about
a passage and answer them (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012). Also, giving students question

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

41

stems with key words to help them write questions that appeal to both cognitive and
metacognitive dimensions help increase their comprehension abilities (Reutzel and Cooter,
2012).

Next, teaching students to identify story structure and realize how these elements

impact the story is a critical component of reading comprehension. Teacher should begin
this process by helping students identify text features such as the table of contents,
headings, charts, etc. through a text feature walk as a class or in pairs (Reutzel and Cooter,
2012). This exercise asks students to identify each feature and make predictions about
what the text may be about. Then with narrative texts, the teacher should use graphic
organizers to help students begin to recognize and then organize the components of story
structure starting with what happened in the beginning middle and end then progressing
to more detailed organizers depicting the characters, setting, and other story elements.
Story maps in particular are helpful for students to visualize the components of a simple
story (Armbruster et al., 2001). These experiences should be scaffolded through making
graphic organizers more complex as the students progress or through asking students to
retelling the story as an alternative to a graphic assessment (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012).

Finally, the culmination of all the other text strategies is the ability to summarize a

text. Summaries, written or oral, help students synthesize all that they have learned into
main ideas, let go of the extraneous details, and organize them in a way that connects all
details to the main idea of the story (Armbruster et al., 2001). To teach this strategy, the
teacher should begin with a chart on how to create a summary and then model each step
and her own thinking (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012). Then she should have groups finish the

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

42

summary and discuss as a class. Additional group practice should be given to students
before they are expected to produce a summary entirely on their own.

Researchers have discovered that effective comprehension instruction includes

three main instructional strategies. Without best practice instructional strategies,

comprehension strategies will not be fully effective. The teacher must first teach explicitly,
meaning that she offers a clear explanation of the strategy and when to apply it, models the
strategy in various ways, provides time for guided practice with students and scaffolds
instruction so that students can apply the strategy on their own (Armbruster et al., 2001).
Next, the NRP found in their research that comprehension should have a collaborative
learning component (Report of the National Reading Panel, 2000). Students need this
experience to talk through their thoughts and learn from others to come to a deeper
understanding of the text. Finally, teachers need to help students learn to incorporate
multiple strategies while reading. One of the best ways to teach students this skill is
through reciprocal teaching (Report of the National Reading Panel, 2000).
Experts from the online source, Reading Rockets describe reciprocal teaching as a
way for students to utilize their summarizing, predicting, questioning, and clarifying skills
to work as a group to understand a text (Reciprocal Teaching, 2014). In a video within the
article, expert Shira Lubliner models how to teach reciprocal teaching in a small group to
students. Before the conversation, students should have a clear understanding of each of
the four skills: predicting, questioning, clarifying and summarizing. Students understand
each of the four roles as predictor, questioner, clarifier, and summarizer and have a visual
reminder of each. Ms. Lubliner begins by reading the passage aloud to students, however
students can read the passage silently for more of a challenge (Students Take Charge,

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

43

2014). Then while they are reading, the students take notes on sticky notes or index cards
to practice note-taking skills and prepare what they will say in the discussion. Then Ms.
Lubliner prompts the summarizer who begins the conversation by identifying and stating
the main ideas of the passage. Then the questioner points out difficult words in a passage
and develops questions about tricky parts of the passage. This students also practices
metacognitive skills by identifying what they do and do not understand. Next the clarifier
will try to resolve those questions and clarify the unfamiliar words using knowledge that is
text explicit, implicit or scriptal. Finally, the predictor will draw conclusions about what
they think will happen next. The students then all shift right their roles change as another
section of the passage is read. This collaborative strategy helps tie together many best
practice strategies so that students learn to use multiple comprehension strategies at once
as they read various texts (Students Take Charge, 2014).
Researchers find that One of the most effective One of the most effective processes
for finding out whether a children understand what they read is to ask them to retell it.
(Bernfeld et al., 2013; Brown & Cambourne, 1987; Lapp, Fisher, & Johnson, 2010). This is
because oral retelling helps students demonstrate their ability to combine multiple
comprehension skills to construct an organized and through summary. Researchers
recommend that to get an authentic view of students free recall from a passage, the
teacher should use as little prompting as possible (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012). The teacher
should ask the student to retell the story using a prompt such as Retell me the story as if
you were telling it to a friend who has never heard it before (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012).
Then to thoroughly retell the story, the student must first be proficient in decoding words
to recognize the words of the text. Then, to derive meaning from the text while reading, the

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

44

student must utilize skills such as identifying story structure, monitoring comprehension,
and asking and creating questions. Finally, the student must fuse all of these components
together into one summary without the assistance of a graphic organizer. This is no easy
feat and should be differentiated to fit the learning needs of various students.

Overall, researchers have concluded what is best practice when it comes to reading

comprehension instruction. Six specific strategies, including monitoring comprehension,

utilizing graphic and semantic organizers, answering leveled questions, generating
questions, identifying text structure, and summarizing were all deemed by the NRP to be
the most effective strategies for comprehension (Report of the National Reading Panel,
2000) Also, from their comprehensive study, researchers found that these strategies are
most effective when they are taught explicitly, collaboratively, and flexibly so that the
reader learns to employ more than one strategy at a time (Armbruster et al., 2001). Finally,
reciprocal teaching and oral retelling give students an avenue to effectively apply these
strategies in conjunction with one another to come to a rich understanding of the text. Thus
if teachers employ these best practice strategies, students should show progress in their
comprehension abilities.

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

45

References:
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first [electronic resource]:
the research building blocks for teaching children to read : kindergarten through
grade 3 / [writers, Bonnie B. Armbruster, Fran Lehr, Jean Osborn]. [Washington, D.C.] :
National Institute for Literacy, National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, U.S. Dept. of Education. 42-47.
Bernfeld, L.E.S., Morrison, T.G., Sudweeks, R.R., & Wilcom, B. (2013). Examining reliability
of reading comprehension ratings of fifth grade students oral retellings. Literacy
Research and Instruction, 52(1) 65-86.
Brown, H., & Cambourne, B. (1987). Read and retell. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lapp, D., Fisher, D., & Johnson, K. (2010). Text mapping plus: Improving comprehension
through supported retellings. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(5), 423-426.
Marzano, R. (2001). Marzano's (Nine) High-Yield Instructional Strategies. Adapted from
Classroom Instruction that Works: Research- based Strategies for Increasing
Student Achievement. Palm Beach School System. 1-5.
Morrow, L.M. (2005). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and
write (5th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Reciprocal Teaching. (n.d.). Reading Rockets. Retrieved October 9th, 2014.
National Reading Panel. (NRP). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching
Children to Read : An evidence-based Assessment of the Scientific Research
Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction. National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development, 1-15.
Reutzel & Cooter (2012). Teaching Children to Read: The Teacher Makes the Difference

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

46

(6th ed.). Childhood Education, 257-277.

Students Take Charge: Reciprocal Teaching [Motion picture]. (2014). United States of
America: Reading Rockets.

Additional References & Texts:

All About me...Interactive Mini Book. (n.d.). Retrieved December 6, 2014, from
http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/All-About-meInteractive-Mini-Book-
778658

Brett, J. (2007). The three snow bears. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

Caldwell, L., Caldwell, J., & Caldwell, L. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Costello, D. (2011). Little Pig joins the band. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.

Freeman, D. (1968). Corduroy. New York: Viking Press.

Garfield Reading Inventory: McKenna, M., & Kear, D. (1990). Measuring Attitude Towards
Reading: A New Tool for Teachers. International Reading Association.

Hasbrouck, Jan. (2012). Screening, Diagnosing, and Progress Monitoring for Fluency: The
Details. Reading Rockets. http://www.readingrockets.org/article/screening-diagnosing-
and-progress-monitoring-fluency-details

Hoff, S. (1958). Danny and the dinosaur. New York: Harper & Row.
Shipton, P., & Dunton, T. (2000). One smart chick. Barrington, Ill.: Rigby.
Tarcov, E., & Marshall, J. (1993). The Frog Prince. New York: Scholastic.

Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion : 49 techniques that put students on the path to
college / Doug Lemov ; foreword by Norman Atkins. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass, c2010.

Rasinski, T. (n.d.). Assessing Reading Fluency. Pacific Resources for Education & Learning.
http://literacyconnects.org/img/2013/03/Assessing-Reading-Fluency-by-Timothy-
Rasinski.pdf

Shades of Meaning, Cause and Effect and a FREEBIE! (2014, January 14).,
http://theappliciousteacher.blogspot.com/2014/01/cause-and-effect-and-freebie.html
Strategies that Promote Comprehension. (n.d.). Texas Education Agency.
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/strategies-promote-comprehension

ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

47

WCPM and MDFS passages from Reading A-Z: (trial expired so couldnt access information)
For A:
-Getting to School http://www.readinga-z.com/projectable/nonbook.php?id=57
-Clarences Show http://www.readinga-z.com/projectable/nonbook.php?id=1106
-For C:
-Baseball- http://www.readinga-z.com/projectable/nonbook.php?id=68
-The Treasure Map
http://www.readinga-z.com/projectable/nonbook.php?id=1368