Action Research

Knox

Initial Meeting with Teacher on September 27, 2015

Description of Meeting:
My cooperating teacher and I discussed the action research through email. She was very
open to whatever I would like to do, so I told her that I would like to work with the middle tier
students regarding fluency. She responded and told me that that seemed like a great plan, and
she gave me a list of three students who she would like me to work with: Student X, Student Y,
and Student Z. She did not give me any more details on these students, so I had to ask her about
them all at our next meeting.

Second Meeting with Teacher on September 29, 2015

Description of Meeting:
I briefly met with my teacher in person on my day in the classroom. She gave me my
three students who are all close to the green zone. The school has the students in zones or red,
yellow, and green. Students in the pink zone are those who are in the upper part of the red zone.
These three students are somewhere in the yellow zone of reading, but they vary a bit here. She
asked me to work with these students to try to give them extra intervention. She thought that
these students needed extra work to improve their expression in reading. She did not give me
extra information on these students, so I worked with them and began to see the parts of
expression that they needed help in.
Students Chosen:
Student X: The school is really targeting this student this year to push her into the green
zone. She is not far behind in the class, but she is not one of the students who is at the top of her
class. She is right in the middle of her class and is an E level reader. She struggles with reading

Action Research

Knox

with expression. She reads word by word and does not consider the expression behind the words
she reads. Through meeting with this student, my goal is to work on teaching her basic aspects
of reading with expression such as paying attention to end marks and looking at quotation marks.
Most of all, I want her to read less robotically and with more prosody and expression.
Student Y: This student is almost in the green zone in reading. He is in the upper yellow
zone. He is fairly fluent, but he is a slower reader. He does not think about every word that he
reads, but his expression is definitely lacking. He is an E level reader, and he reads these texts
without much difficulty. I definitely can see how I can work with this student on his expression,
and I believe that we can work together to get him in the green zone for reading. My goal is to
work on end marks with this student and reading with quotations. He does not read incredibly
robotically, but he still needs work on using his different expressions as he reads.
Student Z: This student is closer to the red zone in reading. He is a level D reader, but he
really struggles in reading. He is more of a word-by-word reader, so he really struggles with
expression. He is a slower reader, but I need to work with expression at his level that he is
reading currently. He needs work on reading in an expressive voice as well as focus on end
marks in reading. Through working with him, I need to help him focus on the importance of
looking at the words he is reading and seeing how he should read them with expression. He
needs the most work on reading with prosody as well as
The Question:
After these initial meetings and meeting with the students, I saw that a common problem
with these students was expression and prosody. I chose to ask: What strategies are most
effective strategies for increasing prosody and expression in reading? After reading with the
students, I saw that their comprehension was pretty good, so I know that they understand what

Action Research

Knox

they read. Their main struggles were in prosody; furthermore, I spoke with my teacher, and she
recommended focusing on expression. Prosody and expression are closely related, so I believe
that I can focus on these aspects together with these groups. These students are on a medium
reading level, but I believe by working on prosody and expression, they will be able to increase
their reading level.

Timeline
Pre-Session
Initial meeting with Ms. Gartman via email
o Discussed my idea for project
o Ms. Gartman chose the students
o I asked to focus on fluency with middle students
Second meeting with Ms. Gartman in person
o She gave me the students reading levels
o We decided to focus on prosody and expression
Identified the essential question

Session 1
Initial assessments (five different assessments will be given throughout the project)
o Reading Survey over interest in categories
o We Went to The Park Multidimensional Fluency Scale and WCPM
o Students X and Y read Pack A Picnic- E level reading formative assessment
of the students expressive reading
o Student Z read At the Pond- D level reading formative assessment of the
students expressive reading

Session 2

Give students the attitudes toward reading assessment to complete the four initial
assessments
Echo reading of a Whipping the Eggs

Session 3

Students fill out a self assessment over fluency

Choral Reading of an E level book
o After choral reading, have each student read the same book individually

Action Research

Knox

Session 4

Give the Multidimensional Fluency Scale Assessment over Ann (online)

Repeated reading strategy of The Old Mirror
Reading a levelized boom in different voices
I will complete a midterm analysis to see the students progress

Teach a lesson plan on expression in reading that focuses on exclamation points and
question marks
o Including choral reading

Session 5

Session 6

I will read a Berenstain Bears book and model proper expression

Reading levelized text using a Bag of Expression

Session 7

Give students the same self assessment given during session 2

Give the multidimensional fluency scale assessment over We Went to the Park

Initial Assessment Reflection

Administered September 29, 2015; October 20, 2015; October 22, 2015
Student X
I realized that assessing fluency was more difficult than I had originally thought. I saw
that the best assessment was a simple observation as she read a levelized text, because she could
read something on her level and I could see her ability in reading with prosody and expression.
She first read We Went to the Park, and I used the multidimensional fluency scale. She scored
98% in word recognition accuracy and read 41 WCPM. Her total score on the fluency scale was
a six with the lowest scores of 1 in expression and volume and phrasing and intonation. She
scored a 2 in smoothness and pace. Although she misread words in this, she self corrected
quickly. I asked her questions for the Reading Interest Survey and recorded the answers for her.

Action Research

Knox

She did not know the answers to many of these questions, but she told me that she loves the
Berenstain Bears. I decided to use this information for future readings with the students. In her
reading of a levelized text, she will still choppy but had great comprehension. She asked
questions aloud as she read and talked about the book with me. I saw that her comprehension
was good from this assessment, so I know that I do not need to work with her in this area. In her
Garfield Elementary Reading Attitude Survey administered in the next session, she scored in the
22 percentile for reading. She scored a 28 in recreational reading and a 24 in academic reading,
resulting in a total score of 52. She was very honest as she filled out this survey, and she told me
that she enjoys reading. I gave her a self-assessment over her fluency, and she circled a frowning
face in all four areas. I realized she did not have confidence in her reading. These assessments
gave me more information about this student as an individual and her feelings about reading as
well as information about her needs as a reader. I see that my main focus needs to be on
expression and prosody.
Student Y
I saw that the best way to assess this students fluency was also observation during his
reading of the levelized text found in the classroom. He and Student X read the same text, and
he struggled with the same issues that Student X did. He struggled reading sight words and
lacked any expression in his reading. He read We Went to the Park, while I used the
multidimensional fluency scale to assess him. He scored 88% in word recognition accuracy and
read 53 wcpm. Overall, he scored a 9 on this scale. His lowest scoring sections were in
expression and volume and phrasing and intonation. He received a 2 in expression and volume
and a 1 in phrasing and intonation. His smoothness and pace were very good, and he scored a 3
on both of these. I saw that I did not need to work with him on smoothness or pace but that I
need to focus on expression and volume and phrasing and intonation. I recorded his responses to

Action Research

Knox

the Reading Interest Survey. He really enjoys the Pete The Cat series, so I tried to keep that in
mind in the future. He loves video games such as The Legend of Zelda. He clearly enjoys
action, so I tried to focus on that in future lessons. In our next session, I gave him the Garfield
Elementary Reading Attitude Survey. He scored a 30 in recreational reading and a 32 in
academic reading. Overall, he scored a 62 and was in the 52 percentile. I gave him a selfassessment, and he gave himself a frowning face on expression. I see from all of these
assessments that I need to work most on his expression and prosody. His comprehension and
rate seem fairly good, so I need to help him improve his expression.
Student Z
I saw fairly quickly that Student Z was the student who struggled most in reading. I
knew that he was on a level D in reading, but I gave him the same reading. I chose We Went to
the Park for the multidimensional fluency scale for all of the students, because it was a first
grade passage. He read word-by-word and very monotone in this reading. He scored 80% in
word recognition accuracy and 37 WCPM. I noticed the wide gap between his scores and the
other scores, so I had to change some instruction in the future. He scored a 7 on the
multidimensional fluency scale with his lowest score in expression and volume with a 1. He
scored a 2 in the other areas on the scale. While he was reading, I noticed that he made up words
as he read. I had to think about this in my instruction in later sessions. He did very well on his
levelized text. He read a level D text, and I wondered if he could even move up to a level E. He
did misread some words and was expressionless, so this furthered my push to work on
expression. I recorded his responses on the Reading Interest Survey. He could not think of
many of his favorite books, but he also liked Pete the Cat. He really enjoys playing video games
in his spare time. I gave him the Garfield Elementary Reading Attitude Survey. He scored a 28
in recreational reading and a 37 in academic reading. While he completed this survey, he told me

Action Research

Knox

that he really enjoyed reading for fun. I was unsure if he really meant that, but he did tell me
that. Overall, he scored a total of 65 and was in the 62 percentile. I gave him a self-assessment,
and he gave himself a smiling face in expression. I saw that he did not have an understanding of
expression, because he was very robotic as he read. From these assessments, I saw that Student
Z enjoys reading but struggles with his prosody and expression. He needed more help in reading
than the other students, so I had to modify some of the lessons in the future.

Tracking Data Collection and Student Progress

I completed a chart on every student in the action research group as I worked with them.
I recorded the strategy taught, the assessment, observations, and next steps for instruction.
Student X:

Action Research

Knox

Action Research

Student Y:

Knox

Action Research

Knox

Action Research

Knox

Action Research

Student Z:

Knox

Action Research

Knox

Action Research

Knox

Action Research

Knox

Strategies Used
Echo Reading
Choral Reading
Bag of Expressions
Teacher Modeling
Repeated Readings
Reading with Given Expressions

Assessments Used
Multidimensional Fluency Scale (used 3 times)
Student Self Assessment (given 2 times)
Elementary Reading Attitude Survey
Formative Assessment of Levelized Reading
Reading Survey
Formative Assessments with Anecdotal notes of levelized books

Necessary Changes in Instruction

Action Research

Knox

I saw earlier on that simply modeling expressive reading and having them echo me on their turn
for reading would not work. I realized that I needed to change my plan of reading a book each
time and having them use different group reading strategies. I still read to the students to provide
that model. They heard examples and nonexamples for expressive reading, but I had to engage
them and get them to really care about expression. They struggled immensely in choral reading,
because they all read at different paces. Instead of reading together, one student really carried
the group while the others did not participate. My original thoughts for this project changed
during the midpoint assessment, when I realized that there was not much progress. I partly
changed the focus from prosody and expression to entirely expression. I included parts of
prosody as well in modeling less robotic reading, so I continued to assess over both to see the
growth. I had thought originally that my timeline contained many good strategies for expression,
but I saw that these strategies were not as influential as some other ones could be. Due to this, I
chose to teach a small group lesson to the students over reading the punctuation. I chose this due
to their lack of expression change with different punctuation. I then began to research at some
ways for teaching expression, and I found expression sticks or cards. I chose to ask the students
to read a book on their level in various voices, and at that point I saw a change. The students
LOVED it, and I loved it as well. I saw that this was more beneficial than choral reading,
because the students were truly engaged and excited. I changed my last instruction for the
students due to this discovery and created a bag of expression. I saw the greatest benefit when
the students had different ways to practice than reading normally while showing expression. The
students drew a way to read a page from a levelized book, and then they had to model that. I
also had to focus a little differently on Student Z. He was the student who struggled most in
reading, and I saw that one reading for him was not enough. The first time he read, he was

Action Research

Knox

decoding words (even on his level), so I had him repeat pages that he struggled with. When he
repeated pages, he would first read to decode and then could practice reading with expression.
The other students could read and model some expressive reading right away, but I would have
to have them reread some to ensure that they were modeling proper expression. Overall, I saw
that the students needed more than reading and groups. They needed that engagement to help
them learn ways to read with expression to sound less robotic.

Final Assessment Reflection

Administered December 1, 2015
The final assessments revealed quite a bit of growth from the midpoint assessments. I
honestly was unsure due to the midpoint assessment, but I changed my assessment. I chose to
have the students read We Went to the Park, which they read for their initial assessment. I
assessed using the multidimensional fluency scale but focused on their expression and volume
and phrasing and intonation. I believe that this was an accurate portrayal of the students growth
in reading with expression. The students also completed self-assessments to show how they
believe they did in reading the passage.
Student X:
This student surprised me most in her reading. An incredibly noteworthy point for this
student was her desire to continue reading after a minute had passed. I allowed her to finish,
because she wanted to. I think this improvement was astounding! Her word recognition
accuracy was 97% and she had 65 WCPM. She scored 3s on all areas of the multidimensional
scale. Overall, she definitely improved her expression and volume and phrasing and intonation
from the beginning. In her self-assessment, she gave herself a smiling face for expression. I can

Action Research

Knox

see how she has grown not only in confidence but also ability! I agree that her expression
received a smiling face.
Student Y:
This student did an excellent job in his reading. He chose to continue reading the passage
as well, and he read very smoothly. He read with 95% word recognition accuracy and read 74
WCPM. He scored a 3 on all areas of the scale except for phrasing and intonation, where he
received a 2. He did an incredible job reading and really showed his understanding of
expression. I gave him the same self-assessment he completed earlier to complete again. He
gave himself a smiling face in expression, and I believe he has grown in his confidence and
knowledge of reading with expression.
Student Z:
This student improved in his reading. While it was not as large of an improvement, he
still improved. His word recognition accuracy was 91% with 49 WCPM. He scored a 2 on all
areas of the scale. After he read, he said that he sounded very robotic. We talked for some time
about reading with expression, because I explained to him that he sounded somewhat robotic but
read with much more expression than previously. We discussed the difference of reading in an
excited voice and reading with expression. When he completed the self-assessment, he
originally gave himself a frowning face. I spoke with him about this, because he read with much
more expression than before. I encouraged him and told him that I believed he was improving
on his expression. He decided to change the face to a medium face instead. I believe that
Student Z has definitely improved in reading with expression. He also has a basic understanding
of expressive reading, which will help him in the future.

Data And Student Progress

Action Research
Baseline Data for students:

Self Evaluations:
Student X:

Knox

Action Research

Student Y:

Student Z:

Knox

Action Research

Midpoint Data for Students:

Knox

Action Research
Final Data for Students:

Self Evaluations:

Knox

Action Research
Student X:

Student Y:

Student Z:

Knox

Action Research

Knox

Data Analysis
In a note before the data analysis, the multidimensional fluency scale is somewhat open
to the testers judgment. While there is a rubric, there is room for differing answers. Due to this,
some of the data might not adequately express the students growth; however, my anecdotal
records serve as evidence of the students progress. This analysis will focus only on expression
and prosody.
Data for Student X:
Student X originally had very little expression and intonation. She scored a 1 on the
fluency scale. She knew that she struggled in fluency and gave herself very low scores. She
grew in expression with every lesson. She needed to be reminded to focus on expression, and
then she really flourished. I assessed her again using the multidimensional fluency scale at the
midpoint of this project. She scored a ten on the scale, which shows good progress in fluency.
Her expression greatly improved, but her phrasing and intonation were lower. She began to selfcorrect herself as she read to sound more expressive. While focusing on quotation marks, she

Action Research

Knox

showed her ability to make a distinction between the speakers in voice. During the end of this
project, she had several hard days. While I taught her my lesson, we worked individually
together. She tried very hard on the assessment, but she needed to repeat some sentences to
model proper fluency. She showed growth in the final assessment. While a number might not
necessarily show that, I know and have seen her improvement. She read with much more
expression and prosody. She sounded more conversational in reading, which is one of the goals
of expression. Although her number score for expression did not improve, it is obvious that she
has improved in her ability to read with expression. Her prosody did increase, and she was able
to read more fluidly.
Data for Student Y:
Student Y began with some expression but little to no prosody. He proved himself to be
the strongest reader of the three. His score overall on the scale was much higher than the other
students. As we worked together, I saw that he could read well. Decoding was not an issue to
him. When we read together, his expression was much better. It began to improve immediately,
possibly because he could read better than the other students. At the midpoint assessment, his
expression stayed the same but prosody greatly improved. His expression had improved but not
enough for a higher number on the scale; however, I noticed improvement while working with
him. He showed growth during the lesson on reading the punctuation in sentences. He needed
to reread some sentences to model the proper expression, but he showed growth through these
repeated readings. During formative assessments, my notes showed great growth in expression.
At the final assessment, his expression increased in score while prosody decreased. This might
be partly due to our heavy focus on expression rather than prosody. He showed improvement in
my anecdotal records however, so I definitely saw growth through this project.

Action Research

Knox

Data for Student Z:

This student showed lower expression and prosody from the beginning. His first
assessment somewhat showed his trouble areas, but it is not an accurate depiction. He appeared
to have no real sense of reading with expression. The first few formative assessments revealed
his struggle of decoding the passages we read, so he could not read with expression. Choral
reading had no success because he could not keep up. At the midpoint assessment, I saw that
something needed to change. He scored 1 for expression and prosody. I changed the instruction
and thought of different ways to teach expression. This student began to truly show growth once
I began incorporating engaging activities. He began to love reading with expression. He
understood the importance of the tone of voice when he read, so he began to think of that as he
read. When we did the bag of expression, he got so excited that he would make up words. I saw
this issue and made him read twice to first understand and then read. This improved his data,
because he did not have to decode. At his final assessment, the student showed growth from his
midpoint assessment in both expression and prosody. He was still slower, but he was less
monotone and robotic. He showed a greater understanding of reading with expression.

Final Reflections
Before reflecting on each student, I chose to reflect on the entire process. This project
taught me so much. I see the influence that small group instruction can have on students. My
teacher told me that the students will tell her ways that I told them to read with expression. They
will share with her how to properly read with expression. I saw the impact that this makes on
these students. While the numbers might not always show growth, I know they did grow through
my observations and hearing them. I also realized different ways I could have assessed the
students. Next time, I might use a created rubric instead of the scale that was more catered to

Action Research

Knox

what I was looking for. I also realized that I should have used the same passage for the midpoint
assessment as I did in the beginning and final assessments to have more accurate data.
Student X:
This student has greatly improved overall. She was very low in reading at the beginning
of this project, but she has shown so much growth. She began to correct herself when she read to
have more expression. I believe that this skill is incredibly important, because she knows how
expressive reading should sound. She showed expressive reading with exclamations! This
proved her deeper understanding of the texts. She loved engaging lessons where she could have
fun and be silly. I learned that she needed less motivation than the other students, but she really
struggled when she got flustered in reading. I saw how important it was to continue to encourage
her and motivate her when she did not want to work.
Student Y:
This student showed growth. While he did not have as much to improve as the other
students, he still continued to improve. I appreciated how seriously he took this project. He had
fun when we did fun activities, but he worked hard the entire time. He showed that he really
wanted to improve in his reading. He shared that games (I assume he meant the expression bag)
were his favorite part and wanted to do more of them. He was definitely the leader of the group
readings, so I chose to avoid those for the students. He worked very well in a group setting with
the other students, and his attitude encouraged them to work harder. I did not have a hard time
motivating him, but I tried to continue to find ways to keep him engaged.
Student Z:
Student Z was more difficult in this project, but he showed growth. I was challenged to
see ways that worked for improving expression for him specifically. He was frustrated with

Action Research

Knox

reading at the beginning, because he could not determine the words. After I began to give him
books that were easier for him, I saw more growth. I saw the importance of differentiation even
in this project. He absolutely loved reading in different voices and the expression bag. He
thrived from doing this. Although I had to explain the difference in expression and reading
excitedly, he understood the important parts of reading with expression. He now knows how to
sound less robotic. He is the student who most showed the impact that repeated reading has on
progress. He really thrived from this as well. It was very important to keep him engaged
throughout the whole time. I had to think of creative ways, such as the reading chair, to keep
him excited.

Student Self Progress Monitoring Chart

The students completed a progress chart over the lesson every week. Many times, they
did not include what they learned but included how they felt about our lesson. I was interested to
see what they enjoyed and did not enjoy in each lesson. I also completed a chart for them to
track their scores. I did not want them to focus on their scores necessarily, because they worried
about the time in the fluency assessment. I have these charts to track their progress, but I do not
want them to associate a number with their reading. I want them to see their improvement over
time and how they can continue to work. I created these charts for them to view their progress in
both expression and prosody.

Action Research
Student X:

Knox

Action Research

Student Y:

Knox

Action Research

Knox

Action Research

Student Z:

Knox

Action Research

Knox

Action Research

Knox

Expression and Strategies for Improvement

Following the American Psychological Associations Guidelines
Ellie Knox
Samford University

Action Research

Knox

Abstract
Expression is an aspect of fluency that can be difficult to assess, therefore it can be
difficult to improve. Expression is often included as subset of prosody, but it is a key part of
fluency that cannot be overlooked. Teachers must model proper fluency for their students to
understand how expressive reading should sound. There are many strategies that teachers should
use to teach expression, but modeling is key. Assessing expression may be difficult because it is
so biased, but informal assessments are informative for teachers. Expression is the connection to
fluent reading and comprehension, so teachers must help their students develop expressive
reading.
Expression
While expression is not always included in the elements of fluency, it is a key piece of
fluency that cannot be overlooked. Prosody is also a key element in fluency, and it sometimes
encompasses expression in its definition. Expression should stand alone as an individual element
of fluency. According to Timothy Rasinski (2004), expression in reading occurs when [a
students reading] sounds like natural language. The reader is able to vary expression and
volume to match his or her interpretation of the passage (pg. 48). If students read in a
monotone voice, then they are not reading expressively. If students are not reading expressively,
they do not comprehend the material fully. Rasinski wrote (2004), If readers read quickly and
accurately but with no expression in their voicesand if they ignore most punctuationthen it
is unlikely that they will fully understand the text (pg. 47). In a study conducted by Pinnell et
al. over fourth grade fluency (1995), only 13% of these students read with at least minimal
expression while 55% of them were considered fluent (pg. 9). The research studied both
expression and the pieces of prosody that coincide with expression. Fluent readers are those who

Action Research

Knox

can speak with a clear understanding of the text. Tim Rasinski called expression the
connecting bridge to comprehension (Tim Rasinski on Fluency 2011). If expression is a bridge
to comprehension and that is the main goal in reading, then expression is very important.
Teachers must learn how to correctly teach, assess, and improve expression to equip students to
more fully comprehend the texts.
Teaching and Modeling Expression
Students must first hear proper expression modeled to understand how to then use it in
their individual reading. The best method for teaching expression is through modeling. A
teacher must model proper expression repeatedly to the students for them to understand how they
should sound. A teacher should give examples but also non-examples of how reading with
expression should sound (Fluency Rubric 2014). For early readers, this is difficult because they
read word by word. As students improve in their automaticity, then they can also improve their
expression. Modeling is important for readings that students are going to practice individually.
A listening passage preview, described by Noltemeyer et al. (2014), is an excellent way for
teachers to model reading with expression (pg. 222). Teachers also use guided fluency
instruction. After they read and model proper fluency, they discuss the quality of their voice with
their students. Next, the teacher questions the students regarding her voice and expression
(Rasinski, pg. 3-4). Teachers model the proper way to read, and students can see how they
should sound while reading. They must first see it modeled to connect how their voices should
sound.
Strategies for Improving Expression
There are multiple strategies for improving student expression while reading. In each
strategy listed, the teacher must first read the passage or story aloud, so the students hear how

Action Research

Knox

their voices should sound. Rasinski provided a model for fluency instruction where teachers
should first provide guided fluency instruction and then provide assisted practice (pg. 2-4). Echo
reading is a key strategy for improving expression. The teacher reads a passage expressively,
and then the students will echo the reading. Through doing this, the students will be able to read
directly after the teacher and copy her voice. As she models proper expression, they too will
begin to model proper expression (Rasinski 4). Similar to echo reading, choral reading involves
the teacher reading a passage and several students read together with the teacher (Rasinski, pg.
4). When the teacher reads with the students, then they will match their voices to the teachers.
While many strategies directly involve the teacher, other strategies focus on the students. Partner
reading pairs a struggling reader with a more fluent reader (Reutzel & Cooter, 2013, pg. 156).
While practicing expression, a student who struggles in this area will pair with an expressive
reader. Students will work together to model their voices after the teacher. The final strategy for
improving expression is repeated reading. Rasinki says, Repeated reading is one of the most
powerful tools we have at teaching fluency (pg. 6). There are many ways to teach expression;
however, they all include the teacher first modeling and then the students reflecting the teachers
reading.
Assessing Expression
The most informative way to assess expression is through use of a Multidimensional
Fluency Scale. While expression is harder to assess, it must be assessed and viewed as
important. Moser et al. wrote (2014), Expressive reading is harder to assess, but it is essential
when trying to obtain a broader view of childrens fluent reading abilities (pg. 77). The
Multidimensional Fluency Scale, while leaving room for some bias for the grader. While there is
some bias, research proves that it is still an accurate assessment of fluency (Moser et al., 2014,

Action Research

Knox

pg. 59). Although the Multidimensional Fluency Scale might be the most accurate formal
assessment, there are many informal assessments that teachers use to assess their students
expression in reading. Rasinksi wrote (2004), The best way to assess prosodic reading is to
listen to a student read a grade-level passage and to then judge the quality of the reading using a
rubric that scores a student on the elements of expression and volume, phrasing, smoothness, and
pace (pg. 47). Rasinski combines both prosody and expression into one element; therefore,
expression can be assessed similarly to prosody. Teachers must listen to their students to hear
their expression, so that is the most appropriate way to informally and formatively assess.
Although assessing expression might be more difficult than assessing other aspects of fluency,
research shows that assessment is important to track students progress in reading.
Conclusion
Expression is a critical part in reading fluency that is sometimes combined with prosody.
Teachers must model proper expression first and foremost in the classroom for students to
connect how the teachers voice sounds and how their voices should sound. There are so many
strategies that are used for improving strategies including choral reading, echo reading, and
partner reading. While assessment can be difficult, there are both formal and informal ways for
the teachers to assess their students. Students must read with at least minimal expression to have
comprehension of the passage, so teachers must teach expression in fluency.

Action Research

Knox

References
Moser, G., Sudweeks, R., Morrison, T., & Wilcox, B. (2014). Reliability Ratings of Children's
Expressive Reading. Reading Psychology, 58-79. doi:10.1080/02702711.2012.675417
Noltemeyer, A., Joseph, L., & Watson, M. (2014). Improving Reading Prosody and Oral Retell
Fluency: A Comparison of Three Intervention Approaches. Reading Improvement, 221232. Retrieved from Ebsco.
Rasinski, T. (2004). What Research Says About Reading. Education Leadership, 61(6), 46-51.
Pinell, G. (1995, January). Listening to Children Read Aloud: Data from NAEPs Integrated
Reading Performance Record (IRPR) at Grade 4 (Report No. NAEP-23-FR-04).
Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED378550.pdf
Rasinski, T. (n.d.). Guided Fluency Instruction: Moving Children To Independence. Retrieved
October 3, 2015, from
http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/fluencyformula/pdfs/Instruction.pdf
Reading Rockets. (2014,4,25). Fluency Rubric.
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo_l2NIwfng
Reutzel, D., & Cooter, R. (2013). Reading Fluency. In The Essentials of Teaching Children to
Read: The Teacher Makes the Difference (Third ed., pp. 142-171). Pearson.
Tim Rasinski on Fluency. (Scholastic). (2011). Teacher Talks. Retrieved from
http://www.scholastic.com/livewebcasts/teacher_talks/2010-2011/tim_rasinski.htm