Findings/Results
Quantitative Data
After completion of the action research study, the change scores on the DIBELS
assessment of reading rate for both classes were analyzed to determine the difference
in means. Upon analysis, it was found that the mean gain for the intervention group was
5.6 while the mean gain for the comparison group was -2.6 (see Figure 2).Completion of
repetitive readings of a readers theater script has shown to positively influence the
students words read correctly per minute based on the fact that the mean gain for the
intervention class was significantly higher than that of the comparison class.
The students change scores on Rasinskis Fluency Rubric were analyzed to
determine the effect readers theater has on prosody. The mean gain for the intervention
group was 3.92 and the mean gain for the comparison group was -0.17 (see Figure 2).
Upon analysis of these scores, it is apparent that repeated readings of readers theater
scripts have a positive impact on student prosody while reading.
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
pretest
posttest
Figure 2. Bar Graph of the DIBELS Reading Rate and Rasinskis Fluency Rubric mean
pre/post test data.
The effect of repeated reading of readers theater on reading rate and prosody
versus independent reading was determined by entering all assessment change scores
into an Independent Samples t-test. The intervention groups mean gain scores were
higher on reading rate and prosody. The Del Siegle spreadsheet determined a p-value
of 0.26 on the DIBELS reading rate assessment and a p-value of 0.0000025 on the
fluency rubric (see Table 1 below). In order for results to be significant the p-value must
be less than 0.05. Because the p-value of the reading rate assessment was greater
than 0.05, the results cannot be attributed to the readers theater intervention. The gains
could have occurred by chance. The p-value of the fluency rubric was 0.0000025
signifying that the intervention positively affected the prosody of the students in that
group. These results did not occur by chance.
Table 1
Del Siegle Independent t-test Data
Assessment Measure
Mean Difference
SD
Two-tailed p
DIBELS Reading
Rate
8.2
13.8
0.26
4.08
0.9
0.0000025
Fluency Rubric
Note. SD=Standard Deviation
Qualitative Data
Throughout the entire action research study, the researcher kept a log of things
that she noticed, heard, questioned, and learned. This helped her to qualitatively
analyze the effect of repeated readings of readers theater versus that of independent
reading. During each day of the study, the researcher took detailed notes in order to
determine commonalities across the intervention.
The first theme that was noticed was motivation to read independently. The
students in the intervention group did not have to be encouraged to read their scripts. In
fact, as noted in the researcher log, I had at least five students ask me if they could
take their scripts home to read. They are reading by choice. This occurred on the first
day of the intervention. Throughout the intervention, the researcher did not have to
redirect the students while they were asked to read their scripts. They took this time
seriously and spent it preparing for their performances. On the other hand, the students
in the comparison class had to be reminded to read quietly during this time. There were
several times that students were redirected and reminded to focus on their books.
Another theme that arose while analyzing the qualitative data was responsibility
for reading well. The students in the intervention class took responsibility for their
reading and made certain that they were prepared for the weekly performances. For
instance the researcher noted, I have seen three students get up to get a dictionary.
This was to check pronunciation and meaning so that they were ready to read aloud to
the class. The exact opposite was noticed in the comparison class. No student ever
came to the teacher to ask help with pronunciation or meaning throughout the entire
study. Students also highlighted difficult words, wrote out pronunciation keys, and asked
for help when needed. These are all ways that students certainly took over the
responsibility of making sure they were prepared to read well for the class.
Lastly, it was noticed that reading with expression came up regularly within the
researcher log. Students took this study seriously and wanted to read as well as they
possibly could. They stepped into the characters shoes and adjusted their voices and
accents accordingly. Reading with expression was noticed outside of the intervention
time, as well. For instance, as mentioned in the researcher log, The students were
reading an article aloud to the group and I definitely noticed that they were paying
attention to commas and other punctuation. This was a drastic improvement over how
they read prior to the study.