The Principals Role as Leader of Change

[Leader of Change]
-Presented to the Department of Educational Leadership
and Postsecondary Education
University of Northern Iowa
-In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the
Master of Arts in Education or Advanced Studies Certificate
-by
Casey J. Kettmann
Resurrection Elementary School
Dubuque, IA
(November 15, 2015)
-Dr. Dewitt Jones and Dr. Benjamin Forsyth

Introduction:
For this action research project I worked with both third grade classrooms at Resurrection
Elementary in Dubuque. There is a total of 37 students in third grade. For the action research I
decided to focus my attention on fluency. Most of the students in third grade do not fall below
the line of having poor fluency, but they can all improve on becoming more fluent readers.
Almost all of the students come from a middle to upper class family with one or two on free and
reduced lunch. One of the students goes to the resource teacher every day for 45 minutes to work
on math and reading.
Why Fluency?
There are a few reasons as to why I chose to focus on fluency. The first reason that I
chose to focus on fluency is because of the big emphasis on it with FAST. FAST stands for
Formative Assessment System for Teachers. A law was passed recently that if students were not
reading fluently (determined by a set number for each grade level) by the end of third grade they
would need to be retained or attend summer school. With this being such a big emphasis in the
state of Iowa and with having such big implications, I felt it was necessary to dive into this with
my action research.
Another reason I chose fluency is because it is a goal for our school this year. With the
data that we have collected from FAST, it has been determined that we need to do a better job
with fluency instruction. Results of FAST has shown us that in grades K-2 that there are not as
many non-fluent readers as there are in grades 3-5. Focusing on third grade was important to me
because it appeared that this was the year that number of students that were fluent readers started
to decline.

Literature:
There is much research out there that supports fluency improvement. I first want to
explain why fluency is so important with research backing that argument. Then I will give many
different ways to improve fluency based off of research. Finally I will tie all the research together
with what I did in my action component of the action research project.
According to Rasinski (2014), Fluency matters because its an essential element of
proficient and meaningful reading. Good readers are so automatic or effortless at the bottom up
word processing requirement for reading, they can focus on the more important requirement for
reading comprehension (p.5). Rasinski (2014) goes on to say, Struggling readers are not
automatic in their word recognition, so they must use their cognitive resources for the more basic
bottom-up of word recognition, thereby depleting what they will have available for more
important top-down task making meaning (p.5). Rasinski hit the nail on the head with the
emphasis of why fluency is so important to who we are as readers.
In terms of the importance of fluency Allington (2009) states, Focusing on fluency,
reading aloud accurately with expression and comprehension, has been named one of the five
pillars of scientific reading instruction (p.6). Samuels and Farstrup (2006) add, Fluency is not a
dichotomous variable where one is either fluent or not. It is a developmental variable, meaning
with continued instruction and the growth in skill over many years, the student can become
fluent at reading more difficult texts (p.v). Allington (2009) goes on to say, Fluency-accurate,
expressive reading-is one aspect of reading proficiency and it seems important for reading
comprehension (p.6). With many different ways of explaining the important of fluency through
literature, I will now present different strategies and techniques that will help foster fluency
growth.
3

Repeated reading was a strategy to help improve fluency that kept coming up as I read
many different pieces of literature. Repeated readings is when a student reads the same text over
and over again until the rate of reading has no errors. This strategy can be done individually or in
a group setting. Allington (2009) states, repeated readings produce the most powerful effects
when students are rereading high success texts and when they are monitoring their reading rate
and fluency using some evaluative process (p.79). Samuels and Farstrup (2006) add, Repeated
Reading can enhance reading speed, comprehension, and expression (p.115). There have been
many studies that have supported repeated reading and I will mention two of them that have had
the most success.
In a meta-analysis done by Therrien (2004), the results were overwhelmingly positive of
the effects of repeated reading. Therriens (2004) conclusion was, The mean fluency effect size
increase was large (ES = 1.37, SE = .177), and the mean comprehension effect size increase was
moderate (ES = .71, SE = .265). Consequently, it appears that repeated reading has the potential
to improve students overall reading fluency and comprehension abilities in regards to new
material (p.257). Therrien (2004) concluded by saying, Transfer results (i.e., measures of
students ability to fluently read or comprehend new passages after having previously reread
other reading material) from this analysis indicate that repeated reading may also improve
students ability to fluently read and comprehend new passages (p.257).
Another study done by Ardoin, S., Eckert, T., & Cole, C. (2008) produces strong support
for repeated reading as well. Their results from the mean of 450 students tested was 106.57 wpm
in the first passage, 124.36 wpm in the second passage and 130.65 in the third. These results
show great growth of over 24 words per minute increase in students. Ardoin, S., Eckert, T., &
Cole, C. (2008) conclude by saying, Results of the study replicate and extend existing research

on variations of Repeated Readings interventions. The current study demonstrated that the
Repeated Reading intervention significantly improved childrens oral reading fluency on
intervention passages in comparison to the Multiple Exemplars intervention (p.248).
Readers theatre is a fun strategy that students enjoy to improve fluency. Young and
Rasinski (2009) said, Readers Theatre can create an academic avenue that leads to increased
reading fluency, regardless of whether students are striving or thriving (p.4). They also did a
study with some positive results based off of the use of readers theatre. Young and Raskinksis
(2009) data showed that word recognition accuracy went from 98.9% to 99.2%, which was a .3%
increase. Also, words correct per minute went from 62.7 to 127.6, which was a 64.9 increase
from fall to spring. Finally Young and Rasinski (2009) stated, Readers Theatre had a profound
positive effect on all readers and gave an opportunity for struggling readers to read fearlessly.
Their performance reflected proficient reading that was adequately paced, prosodic, confident,
accurate, and filled with meaning and enthusiasm (p.12).
Choral reading is another strategy to help increase fluency. According to Allington
(2009), Choral reading provides students, especially struggling readers, with valuable oral
reading practice. With practice they become more fluent readers and when they read more
fluently, they better understand the text they are reading (p.18). Poore and Ferguson (2008) say,
It has been repeatedly shown that, compared to solo reading, stuttering is reduced by 90100%
during choral reading (p.14). The purpose of this action research project isnt about focusing
improving fluency for those that stutter, however this just shows how choral reading can help all
different types of non-fluent readers.
Another researched supported technique for increasing fluency is singing as reading.
Rasinski, Homan, and Biggs (2009) stated, Singing lyrics to songs is a form of reading that is

nearly ideal for fluency instruction. This to us is a natural form of repeated exposure to text that
will build reading fluency (p.201). A study done by Rasinski, Homan and Biggs (2009) had
students use singing to read three days a week for 30 minutes produced some pretty good
evidence for singing as reading. At all grade levels and at all sites, treatment students
consistently made a minimum of a full year instructional-level gain in the 9-week
implementation (p.202). Looking at this data shows how impactful singing is for improvement
in fluency. Those are phenomenal gains in fluency within a relatively short period of time.
The next fluency building skill is using poetry. Young (2014) suggests, The teacher and
student read the poem aloud together. However, the teacher stays slightly ahead of the student
and reads with appropriate expression while the student chases the teacher (p.52). Young
(2014) continues by saying, Next, the student rereads the poem aloud independently. The
teacher carefully listens for accuracy in word recognition and for appropriate expression.
Research suggests that the expression modeled by the teacher can be heard in the students
rendering of the text (p.52). Poetry is a great way to hear the expression component of fluency.
Sometimes with such a focus on words read correctly per minute as being the most important
part of fluency, expression can be forgotten, while in all reality it is an integral component
fluency.
A final great fluency technique that is backed by research is modeling. According to
Rasinski (2014), The value of adults reading to children is compelling. Reading to children
increases childrens motivation for reading, enlarges their vocabulary, and also improves their
comprehension. Reading to children also provides children with a model of what oral reading
should be (p.7). Modeling can be as simple as reading directions aloud to students, reading a
small passage out of a book, or reading a newspaper article. This does not take a ton of effort and

by doing it the students are able to hear what they should sound like in terms of speed, accuracy,
and expression.
Description of study:
For this study I worked on research based interventions with all of third grade. The first
intervention that I did was fluency flags. This intervention was done three days a week for
several weeks. The first day I would model the first two sentences. Then the students would read
the passage to themselves silently for one minute. When the minute was complete, they would
circle the word on the passage where they left off at. They would then count up how many words
they read during that minute and would chart it on a separate piece of paper. The second day of
the week I would model another sentence for them out loud and then they would start from the
beginning of the passage and read for a minute. They would then record their words read in a
minute on the chart again. We would repeat this same process for the third day. The students
really got used to the routine of doing this and became really good at doing it in a timely manner
by the end of the study.
Now we call this fluency flags at our school, but the technical name is actually repeated
reading. As I stated earlier, repeated reading is a strategy that kept coming up as I did my
research on fluency. As Allington (2009) stated, repeated readings produce the most powerful
effects when students are rereading high success texts and when they are monitoring their
reading rate and fluency using some evaluative process (p.79), this is exactly what I did with the
fluency flags. As stated earlier, the students would read the same passage three times and they
would chart their words correct per minute after each time.
Another intervention that I did with students was choral reading. With choral reading I
did it a number of different ways and a number of different times throughout the day. The first
7

way that I did it was in religion class. Instead of having one person read a paragraph and take
turns, I had the whole class read it together out loud. Sometimes I would join them when reading
and sometimes I would let it be student led. They were able to hear all of their classmates pace
and expression. I think it was beneficial for both the lower level fluency readers and also the
higher ones. The reason it is important for the higher fluency rate students too is because some of
them need to learn to actually slow down when reading, read with more expression and have
better comprehension. By doing this they can learn some of these important aspects of fluency
from their classmates.
Another way I did choral reading was in math. Students worked with partners to work on
a page out of their book together. Instead of me verbally giving out the directions, I would tell
them what page to complete and have them read the directions and the problems together out
loud. Sometimes I would pair high fluent readers with low fluent readers and other times I would
pair high level with high level and low level with low level. I think it is good to be able to choral
read with all different types of readers. Students were really able to hear the differences in the
way to read, and hearing those differences are important in growing as an all-around fluent
reader.
A final strategy I worked on with the students was modeling. Teachers do modeling more
than they think on a regular basis. During the time of this study I tried to emphasize modeling
more in my classroom. One way that I did this was modeling before students did their fluency
flags. As mentioned earlier I modeled two sentences from the passage on the first and second
days of doing the passage.
Another way I modeled fluency was through doing a read aloud book. The students sat on
the carpet and I read aloud to them from a book. I really focused on reading with a good pace

and being very expressive. Sometimes I would stop and go over words that students didnt
understand because that can really hinder fluency rates as well. We did this several times a week.
A final way I did modeling was just going over sentences in different books across
different subjects. Instead of just reading from the book and students following along, I made
sure to mention before I read that I was trying to model what a fluent reader sounds like.
Teachers read to their students all the time, but I think students dont always know what they
should be listening for when hearing a fluent reader. By making a point to tell the students to
listen for fluency through modeling I believe that students will be more inept to listening and
learning what fluent reading sounds like.
I would have loved to have done all of the interventions and strategies to improve
fluency, but I did not have time to complete them by the time this was completed. The examples
that I didnt have time to do were readers theatre, poetry, and singing as reading. Research
suggests that all of these are great techniques and I am looking forward to implementing them in
the coming months.
Analysis:
In looking at the data I found, there was a lot of great information. The first thing I want
to show is the baseline data, which was what the students scored on FAST. Each student is
identified with a number to protect them from being named. The number they have in this first
graph will stay with them on all the graphs after. In this graph the green bar means that the
student is considered fluent by state standards. The students that have a red bar are considered
non-fluent or below the number of words per minute set forth by the state. The words per
minute bar is an average of three passages that they read aloud to me in early September.

As you can see there are six students below the line for words per minute, with one of
those students very close to the line. 31 of the students are above that 91 words per minute line.
Even though there are not too many students below 91 words per minute, the increase in fluency
is important to all students, both struggling and excelling. Keeping these numbers in mind will
be important when looking at our final results.

10

Next I want to look at just the fluency flag data. Looking at the data shows how the
fluency flags really allowed for the students to grow in the fluency rate. Almost all of the
students improved each time they read the same passage. The data also confirms that every time
the students read the same passage they almost always continued to improve.
Not all of the students showed that growth, but in class A in the first week 95% of
students improved from their first to their third read. In week two 89% of students went up from
first read to third read. Finally in week three 95% of students had higher words read per minute
in the third read than in the first read.
In class B the data also supports fluency flags, but just not with quite as high of
percentages as Class A. In class B 83% of students improved from their first to third read in
week one. In the second week 72% of students went up from the first to third read. Finally, in
week three 94% of students improved from their first read to their third read.
Finally when looking at this data I want to look the students that were deemed struggling
on the FAST assessment and see how they did on the fluency flags. Out of the 6 students who
were below the 91 words read per minute, all 6 of the students showed an improvement in words
read per minute while doing their fluency flags in at least 2 of the three weeks we did them. I
think this is so important because those are the students we are really focusing on when
performing this fluency intervention. Seeing any sort of an increase in their fluency is an
important step in the right direction in the students becoming a fluent reader by the end of third
grade.

11

Week
1-1st

Week
1-2nd

Week
1-3rd

Week
2 1st

Week
2-2nd

Week
2-3rd

Week
3-1st

Week
3-2nd

Week
3-3rd

12

Class
A
Stude
nt #
88

126

146

163

140

162

168

146

147

159

56

151

164

170

140

145

170

152

160

160

58

107

119

112

64

100

106

133

134

158

60

152

174

111

139

136

140

100

161

161

62

129

174

157

139

130

141

120

125

127

64

71

106

142

119

124

137

128

136

137

66

126

143

147

111

113

131

115

127

152

52

62

107

112

56

65

84

90

101

122

68

153

173

174

138

159

129

108

127

141

70

161

174

172

132

164

171

134

161

161

90

86

91

174

94

109

117

111

113

134

92

81

130

123

76

103

118

101

110

140

94

118

174

174

162

162

171

131

100

100

96

92

103

174

111

153

170

129

110

138

98

167

174

174

165

167

169

159

161

160

100

138

173

173

166

170

170

160

160

160

102

107

126

146

109

123

130

119

78

132

104

82

174

99

127

147

161

141

136

161

110

98

79

158

99

72

91

74

73

74

13

Class
B
Stude
nt #

Week
1-1st

Week
1-2nd

Week
1-3rd

Week
2 1st

Week
2-2nd

Week
2-3rd

Week
3-1st

Week
3-2nd

Week
3-3rd

72

88

86

90

75

76

77

76

78

54

74

110

107

127

128

116

108

86

161

133

76

93

120

131

115

98

126

43

63

58

78

119

151

174

132

162

171

125

133

166

54

92

125

173

107

107

130

89

128

144

122

174

174

174

171

140

168

161

161

169

80

174

140

152

151

111

138

145

149

152

82

108

153

174

130

115

131

151

160

158

84

153

157

173

129

120

164

119

126

126

124

106

128

143

100

89

76

84

120

123

86

123

108

174

100

116

116

100

151

161

106

146

162

170

100

103

126

130

144

170

108

129

108

108

109

111

176

148

116

159

112

91

104

153

115

88

126

122

117

128

114

140

133

135

107

107

107

86

130

126

118

120

130

172

125

123

138

150

160

174

116

174

174

174

171

155

170

161

161

161

120

100

144

174

100

140

140

100

144

164

14

Finally I want to look at the students fluency rates at the end of the interventions. For
this I conducted another running record on a cold read. The graph below shows the students in
the same order as they were on the initial graph. Even though I already showed the graph earlier
regarding students baseline FAST data, Ive put the scores of that and the final cold read side by
side to show the comparisons.
In class A 58% of the students increased their words read correctly per minute from the
first cold read to the second cold read. This was a pretty good percentage, but I was a little
disappointed as I thought it may be higher. I believe that a reason for this could be because on
first score the words read was an average of three separate cold reads and the second score was
just one cold read score. I would have liked to been able to done the average of three cold reads
for the second score as well, but that is a very time consuming process and I just wasnt able to
complete that.
In looking at the data from class B you can see that 77% of students improved their
words read correctly per minute from the first cold read to the second cold read. These results
were much higher than Class As results. Im not sure what factors played into it, but it was good
to see those big increases.
To get a better gauge of how the students did in their fluency, I combined all the students
from both classes and found that 68% of students grew in words read correct per minute. I think
this average of the whole group gives a better snapshot of the results of the fluency interventions.
I think to see that much growth in fluency rate over a relatively short period of time really says a
lot about the fluency interventions and strategies that I put into place. It will be interesting to see
the results of another cold read a few months from now and whether or not those kids that didnt
improve do improve and those students that did, improve even more.

15

Class A
187
181

173

168
154

153

165

151
137

127

156
153

151

132

141
136

152

140
124

117

131

130

122

116 118
114
108

116

112
104

105

90

89
80

69
59

64
52

14

13

12

11

10

15

17

16

18

19

Class B

164

148

146

144

140

180
174

169

160

154
153

133 133
120

113

136

129

158

118
108

98

95

93

166
164

138

132

117

110

160
154

123
113

92

82

81

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

16

18

Conclusion:
I believe that there were a few great findings through this action research project. The
first is that fluency flags seem to have a positive effect on reading fluency in terms of words read
correctly per minute. The data of the weekly fluency flags showed pretty overwhelming numbers
in support of it. This was evident with the comparison of the initial cold read with the second
cold read a few months later, where well over half of the students improved their fluency rate in
such a short period of time.
Overall I think that all of the interventions put in place had a positive impact on fluency
rate. While the fluency flags (repeated reading) was my main focus and had a lot to do with the
improved fluency rate from the first to the second cold read, a lot of other factors played a role as
well. My implementation of choral reading on a regular basis had an impact while modeling to
students has also had a positive impact on students. While those last two pieces of intervention
are hard to qualitatively measure, I truly believe they also had a positive impact on the students
reading fluency.
Reflection on Action Plan:
The first thing that I want to reflect on is the limitations of this plan. One of the
limitations is the amount of time to implement the plan. I was only able to use the fluency
strategies for a few months, and some I wasnt able to use at all because of the shortness of this
plan. This is something that I am going to continue to do over the rest of the school year. If the
results of the whole school year match up with what I have done up to this point, I am going to
be very happy with the progress made by the students.

17

Another limitation, or Id like to call it more of a flaw, would be during the fluency flag
activities, the students could lie about their scores. I have found on several occasions that some
of the students I deemed as struggling with fluency would have the most words read per minute
in the class. On occasion I would test those students orally to see if it matched up with the score
they came up with. For almost all of those students that I tested out loud, their score declined
compared to when they did it themselves.
A final limitation I had was the sample size. Looking back at it I would have like to have
done work across grades 3-5, rather than just grade 3. The reason I chose not to do this is because
of lack of time and lack of consistently. There would have been four additional teachers trying to
do the same exact thing as the two third grade teachers did. Once again, I think time also played
a factor in my decision not to go bigger. If I had more time I think I would have. I know that
other teachers are doing similar types of fluency interventions in their room and over the course
of the school year I think that data would show similar types of results as mine did, but there
would be differences in how it was done.
I want to end with a final thought on this action research project. I enjoyed the data
collection for this project; it really allowed for me to see the improvements in fluency based off
of the numbers. I also liked researching different strategies that help with fluency improvement.
Being able to learn about some new techniques and actually applying them in the classroom was
very beneficial. It will also be a benefit to me when I am a principal because I can share that
research and my data with my staff and teach them how to improve student fluency.

18

References
Allington, R. (2009). What really matters in fluency: Research-based practices across the
curriculum. Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.
Ardoin, S., Eckert, T., & Cole, C. (2008). Promoting Generalization of Reading: A Comparison
of Two Fluency-Based Interventions for Improving General Education Students Oral
Reading Rate. Journal of Behavioral Education J Behav Educ, 237-252.
Poore, M., & Ferguson, S. (2008). Methodological variables in choral reading. Clinical
Linguistics & Phonetics, 13-24.
Rasinski, T. (2014). Fluency Matters. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education,
7, 3-12.
Rasinski, T., Homan, S., & Biggs, M (2009). Teaching Reading Fluency to
Struggling Readers: Method, Materials, and Evidence, Reading & Writing Quarterly,
25:2-3, 192-204, DO
Samuels, S., Farstrup, A. (2006). What research has to say about fluency instruction. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Therrien, W. (2004). Fluency and Comprehension Gains as a Result of Repeated Reading: A
Meta-Analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 252-261.
Young, C. (2014). Considering the Context and Texts for Fluency: Performance, Readers
Theater, and Poetry. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7, 46-57.
Young, C., & Rasinski, T. (2009). Implementing Readers Theatre as an Approach to Classroom
Fluency Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 4-13.

19