Teaching Fluency through Whole-Class Repeated Reading

Janis S. McTeer
Timothy V. Rasinski
William P. Bintz
Kent State University

Abstract

Fluency has been identified as one of the five vital components of proficient reading.
Fluent readers read text accurately, at an appropriate rate, with expression, and proper
phrasing. Readers who struggle with fluency and read unfamiliar text in a halting,
laborious, and monotone fashion are often said to be at-risk. Designed to improve the
fluent reading of at-risk readers, repeated reading (RR), a fluency intervention, is highly
researched and has helped many at-risk readers improve their fluent reading. Students
participating in RR practice the same text until it is read fluently. RR is individualized
and may limit the social interaction of at-risk students with their fluent reading peers and
teacher. Whole-class repeated reading (WCRR), an extension of RR, was designed not as
an intervention but as a fluency instructional method which involves students in a class in
the fluent reading and discussion of a text as they rehearse for a performance. Eighteen
second grade students attending Mrs. Wright’s class participated in a six-week mixed
methods study of WCRR. Students reread selected text, in company with their
classmates, rehearsing for a performance. Findings reveal a significant increase in the
number of words students could identify correctly in the final assessment along with
improvements in the elements of the Multi-Dimensional Fluency Scale (MDFS)
(expression and volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pace).

Introduction

Fluency is often overlooked in the classroom (Rasinski, 2010; Rupley et al., 2020) even
though research on fluency and its importance for reading proficiency is abundant (Rasinski, et
al., 2017; Bidwell, 2017; Chang, 2020; Förster, et al., 2018; NRP, 2000). Studies have shown
that fluency instruction can increase students’ word recognition, accuracy, prosody and
comprehension (Rasinski, et al.).
A study of RR and its positive effects on at-risk readers’ fluency encouraged me (Author
1) to use RR as an instructional method in my second-grade classroom. My hope was to improve
the fluent reading of my at-risk readers. Following is a short introduction to the current study
along with an in-class view of WCRR at work.
This mixed-methods convergent parallel design examined WCRR as a fluency
instructional method to affect the fluent reading of students in a second-grade classroom. WCRR
instruction continued for six weeks, three to four days a week, 20 minutes a day. Three questions
guided the study:
 1. What will pre- and post-assessments given before and after WCRR instruction indicate
about student reading fluencies?
2. What student fluency behaviors will teachers observe during WCRR instruction?
3. What qualitative observations of student fluency behavior during WCRR will teachers
describe that do or do not support quantitative assessment findings?
When I, (Author 1) walked into the second-grade classroom which would become my
research site, I saw a roomful of busy students working quietly under the direction of their
teacher, Mrs. Wright (all names included are pseudonyms). This was the day we would begin
whole-class repeated reading (WCRR) and I was excited to observe Mrs. Wright’s students’
reactions.
I began teaching WCRR by first modeling fluent reading of the poem, Hot Dog by Shel
Silverstein. The students sat together on the floor in front of the poem, hung on the classroom
wall. They listened intently as I read the poem modeling fluent reading and pointing to the words
and punctuation as I read.
After the initial reading, students and I discussed unknown words and the text’s meaning.
I asked if any of them had a pet and what kind. After reviewing the array of pets living in
students’ homes, we talked about the consequences (good or bad) of having a hot dog for a pet.
Answers were varied and interesting. “What if you sat on it?” asked one student. “You’d always
have a snack ready.” volunteered another.
When all students had shared their thinking about the poem, I read it again pointing to the
words and punctuation, modeling fluent expressive reading. I then turned the pointer over to a
student volunteer and they pointed to the words of the poem as the class and I read along.
I watched as students read the poem together. After several readings most students began
to recognize words in the poem automatically. However, a few students had trouble reading; they
followed the pointer but could not read the highlighted word. Lilly was among those who
struggled reading the poems. Although, she looked up occasionally to attempt to read, most of
the time her head was down and it appeared she knew very few of the words.
Hot Dog was our focus poem the first week and we read it several times during our daily
WCRR sessions, employing different pointers, voices, and clapping patterns. By the end of the
week Lilly was looking up more often attempting to read the poems.
As the study progressed and new poems were introduced, I noticed Lilly was visually
tracking and reading more words in the poems. She read Hot Dog more confidently, looking up
at the posters instead of down at the floor. Eventually Lilly raised her hand to point to words in
the poems and led the class in reading.

Literature Review

Fluency, one of the five components of proficient reading emphasized by the National
Reading Panel (NRP, 2000), is further defined here. The elements of effective fluency instruction
and their importance for improving the fluent reading of at-risk readers follows. Next, studies
involving RR and its effect on the fluency of at-risk readers are presented. Lastly, WCRR, its
relationship to RR, and how it is used as a fluency instructional method are provided.

Fluency
According to the NRP (NRP, 2000), fluency is one of the five competences of proficient
reading and is identified by (a) automatic word recognition as measured by reading rate (words
read correct per minute, wcpm), (b) prosodic or expressive reading that reflects the meaning of
the text, and (c) comprehension of texts being read.
Automaticity in word recognition allows students to read words quickly and accurately.
Young and Rasinski (2018), define automaticity, “Automaticity refers to the ability that students
read words swiftly and with minimal cognitive effort” (p. 476). The authors state further that
minimizing cognitive effort in word recognition allows the reader to use valuable cognition to
comprehend the text being read. According to the NRP (2000), repeated exposure to text
improves automaticity producing fluent reading that sounds much like talking with peers or
parents (see also, Morris, & Gaffney, 2017; Schwanenflugel, et al. 2004).
Reading with automaticity allows students to focus on text meaning and read with
expression and proper phrasing (prosody) (Rasinski, 2010; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003).
Schwanenflugel and Benjamin (2012) define expressive or prosodic reading as, changing the
level of the voice or the rhythm of the reading, emphasizing certain words or phrases, pausing
between words, or lengthening out words and phrases. (p. 35). When children read with
automaticity, accuracy, and expression it indicates they understand what they are reading (Kuhn,
& Stahl). Schwanenflugel and Benjamin believe teachers should model prosodic reading in the
classroom and should encourage their students to use proper expression and phrasing when
reading aloud.
Fluency is part of developing oral language and decoding skills which build a “bridge” to
reading comprehension (Chard, et al., 2012). Fluent reading permits the reader to spend less time
and energy decoding words and more time and energy identifying the meaning of the text
(Rasinski, 2010; Mraz, et al., 2013). Reading fluently while simultaneously comprehending text
is the goal of proficient reading (Gorsuch and Taguchi, 2010).

Fluency Instruction

The aim of effective reading instruction is to develop readers who can read fluently and
comprehend text at the same time (NRP, 2000). To that end, educators should provide fluency
instruction which includes the reading of complex, connected text along with instructional
activities which engage the reader (Schwanenflugel, et al., 2009).

Kuhn (2020, pp. 2-3) offers four principles for teachers to consider when looking for
effective fluency instruction:

1. Modeling fluent reading is the first principle of good instruction. Solari et al. (2017)
also encourage modelling along with timely instructional scaffolding when students
are practicing sounds, word skills, and comprehension.
2. Students must participate in a substantial amount of reading to reach fluency. Solari et
al. suggest that purposeful reading will allow students to incorporate new learning
with what they already know.
3. Fluency instruction should take advantage of challenging texts which require teachers
to provide significant scaffolding to students.
4. Direct teaching of prosodic elements such as, pacing, smoothness, expression, etc., is
needed to help students learn to recognize and focus on them.
Unfortunately, when fluency is included in the curriculum it is often characterized by
timed readings in which students are prompted to read faster and faster. Effective fluency
instruction avoids a focus on speed and instead provides examples of fluent reading students can
use to construct their own models of reading fluency (Rasinski, et al., 2017). Richards (2000)
reminds us that although reading rate is a characteristic of fluent reading, “Teachers should not
be satisfied with such a simple definition of fluency” (p. 535).

Fluency and At-Risk Readers

At-risk readers are students who struggle with reading and reading related skills and are
at risk for developing a reading disability (Solari, et al., 2018). One identifier of an at-risk reader
is their non-fluent reading (Solari, et al.). They often lack the automaticity necessary to read
words accurately with little effort and struggle decoding words which are unfamiliar to them.
Their reading often lacks expression and tends to be arduous (Rasinski, 2010).

Repeated Reading

Repeated reading (RR) was developed by Samuels (1979) as an individualized

intervention to improve the fluent reading of at-risk readers. Students participating in RR are
given a short piece of text to read out loud. Listening to the fluent reading of a paraeducator or a
recording device, students read the text parroting the correct word identification and expression
of their model until they read the text independently and fluently. The student is then transitioned
to longer and more challenging texts for practice.
Fluent reading is fostered by reading text repeatedly. The more a text is read, the easier it
is for readers to recognize words effortlessly (Allington, 2014; Rasinski, 2010; Kuhn & Sthal,
2003). Kuhn (2020) acknowledges effective fluency instructional methods facilitate, “extensive
opportunities for practice” (p. 3). Kuhn & Sthal reviewed research studies on RR and
determined it improved both fluency and reading achievement in student participants (p. 14).
They suggested it may be the increase in the volume of reading through RR that brought about
the improvement in students’ fluency.
RR is well-researched and has improved the fluent reading of many types of learners.
Studies reveal RR has increased the fluent reading of students with disabilities, English learners,
and low-socioeconomic students (Chard, et. al, 2002; Gorsuch & Taguchi, 2010; Sulzby, et. al,
2017).
Whole-Class Repeated Reading (WCRR)

WCRR was developed as a fluency instructional method to support the fluent reading of
all students. WCRR is an adaptation of repeated reading and is designed to have students reread
text until it is read accurately, automatically, and expressively. As a component of a strong
literacy program WCRR can build fluency.
During WCRR students listen as the teacher models fluent reading of a new text while
pointing to the words and punctuation in the text. Unfamiliar words and text meaning are
discussed after the first reading. Students’ background knowledge of the text is activated through
a discussion of experiences with and knowledge of the text. A second reading of the text is done
by the teacher pointing to text and punctuation, who afterwards checks for any misunderstanding
or questions. After two teacher readings, students begin pointing as the class follows along.
Engagement in reading the same text multiple times can be maintained using interesting pointers,
different voices, and incorporating various student grouping and hand patterns.
 Students read and rehearse text during WCRR to eventually present for other classes,
school staff, or parents. Performance opportunities motivate students to keep rereading text and
to focus on an expressive rendering of the text. Mrs. Wright commented that her at-risk students
have few opportunities to perform fluent reading for others. WCRR gives all students the chance
to engage in fluent and confident performances for others and bask in the accolades they receive
from their audience.
Because WCRR is new to the field of reading instruction current literature is limited to
research conducted by Paige (2011), who examined the use of whole-class choral reading
(WCCR) as an intervention to improve the fluency of at-risk readers. Paige used methods
comparable to the current study to examine the fluent reading of 112 sixth-grade at-risk readers.
A 200 to 250-word narrative passage was introduced to students by the teacher who reviewed
unfamiliar words and activated students’ prior knowledge to help improve their comprehension.
The teacher then read the text modeling fluent reading, including phrasing, prosody, reading rate,
and punctuation. Results of the study, as reported by participant teachers, revealed improvement
in students’ prosodic reading along with an increased ability to read unfamiliar “syntactic
structures” in new text (p. 12).
RR in the Paige (2011) study was used as an intervention to improve the fluency of at-
risk readers. The current study was conducted to investigate findings of WCRR as an
instructional method to support the fluent reading of all students.

Implementing WCRR

This section will introduce WCRR in detail and provide procedures for implementing it
into the classroom. Guidelines for choosing texts will be discussed and step by step instructions
provided, along with help for teachers with students who struggle with reading.
Steps for implementing WCRR into classroom instruction are provided in Table 1. Table
1 may be copied, cut out, and placed in the WCRR center until procedures are committed to
memory.

Table 1
WCRR Implementation
WCRR Implementation Guide
Teacher…
introduces new text by reading it once
modeling fluent reading, pointing to the text.
discusses unfamiliar or difficult words and
connects text with students’ prior knowledge.
rereads the text, pointing to words and
punctuation, while modeling fluent reading.
rereads text with students, listening for
mispronounced words.
continues to reread with students providing
feedback on students’ reading. (Once
Students…
listen as text is read.
share experiences related to text and
understanding of unfamiliar words or text
meaning.
listen.
begin pointing to text, suggesting different
voices, clapping patterns, or student grouping
patterns to be used.
take turns pointing to text with each
rereading. New voices or reading patterns are
suggested. Different pointers may be used.
 introduced, previous steps are only used when
a new text is presented.)
and students reread weekly text for one half
of WCRR session. Teacher provides feedback
on students’ reading.
rereads texts from previous weeks with
students during the last half of WCRR
session.
send copies of text home with students on
Monday to be read with family during the
week.
allow other students to point or suggest
reading patterns.
follow same pointing and reading patterns as
above.
read text at least five times to family members
during the week. Returns text to school on
Friday.

Text Choice

Texts for the study included poems, a song, and a Reader’s Theatre script. Fiction and
non-fiction texts were used.

Poems and songs are best for WCRR because they are usually short and more than one
text can be read multiple times during a WCRR session. Longer texts can be written into
Reader’s Theater scripts and practiced for performance. However, as scheduled performances
draw near, more of WCRR time may be necessary for rehearsing longer texts.

Texts for the study were not chosen by reading level, though most were in the second-
grade range. It is difficult to find texts at a reading level all students will be able to read
successfully especially when a few students, like Lilly, were unable to read most words of the
texts used. The goal of text selection was to find poems and songs which would engage students
in rereading until texts were read fluently. Authors such as, Shel Silverstein, Jack Prelutsky,
Jacqueline Woodson, Paul Fleischman, Judith Viorst, Maya Angelou, Pat Mora, and Emily
Dickenson provide engaging and powerful poems which will involve students in reading. I Was
Walking in a Circle by Jack Prelutsky and Snowball by Shel Silverstein were above the level of
some students yet provided an incentive to keep all students reading multiple times during
WCRR.
Glasswell and Ford (2010), state,
The bottom line is if you are going to help me become a reader,
avoid assigning me texts that will cause me to disengage from
reading. When you do this, all I do is get better at figuring out ways
to avoid reading (p. 59).

Pointing to the Text

An important aspect of WCRR is print referencing which in WCRR is pointing to the

text. Justice, et. al (2008), state that print referencing helps children internalize print concepts,
such as how and why we use words in text. They found that non-verbal print referencing, such as
pointing to words, had a greater impact on whether students focused on words than did verbal
referencing, such as calling attention to specific words. This attention to print helps students
develop early literacy skills (Baker, 2013).
 Using entertaining pointers can increase students’ motivation to read texts multiple times.
Feathers, wooden spoons, toothbrushes, magic wands, or dinosaur tails invite students, even
timid ones, to take a turn pointing to the text while the class reads along. Pointers, along with
incorporating interesting voices or hand clapping patterns are just a few of the ways to help
students attend to text.
Instruments may also be added to highlight text or accompany a reading. Use instruments
to emphasize repeated phrases or important words. These methods of highlighting text can also
create variety and cultivate interest in reading text multiple times.

Differentiation of Instruction

RR was developed as an intervention or differentiated instruction for students who

struggle with fluency. It involves the repeated reading of text until it can be read fluently. It has
already helped many students develop fluent reading as discussed in the research above.
WCRR incorporates the repeated reading of text as its core tenet. All students are
supported by peers and the teacher as they read together and experience the fluent reading of
text. Discussions of unfamiliar words and phrases and engaging students’ background knowledge
help students improve their word knowledge and comprehension of text.
Paige (2011) defines choral reading as, reading aloud with a group or whole class,
WCRR falls under the umbrella of this definition. Rasinski (2010), writes about choral reading,
Even the poorest, most disfluent student can benefit from choral
reading. During choral reading, the student reads or attempts to
read a text while at the same time hearing a more fluent reading of
the same text by classmates and the teacher. When this is done on a
regular and repeated basis, the student begins to internalize the
fluent reading of the text being read (p. 35).

WCRR Study Methodology

A mixed methods convergent parallel design (Creswell & Clark, 2011) was used for this
study. Quantitative data gathered before and after the study revealed changes in students’ fluent
reading while qualitative data gathered during the study revealed how it did/did not support
quantitative findings.

Theory

WCRR follows social constructivist theory which states knowledge is constructed

through our social interactions (Mishra, 2015). WCRR is designed to involve the entire class
working cooperatively as they prepare text for a performance. This collaboration helps all
students learn not just text but prosody and text meaning as they discuss and reread poems and
songs together. Because our reality is the result of our interactions with others, “social
constructivists are interested in the collective generation of meaning among people” (Au, 1998).

Study Participants
Study participants included 18 second graders (8 boys and 10 girls) and their teacher
attending a charter school in the southwest area of the United States. According to data supplied
by the school district’s diagnostic testing program, 64% of second graders at the school were one
or more years behind in reading.
Mrs. Wright, the students’ teacher, was a 16-year veteran teacher, two of her teaching
years were at the study site. Mrs. Wright had been actively searching for a reading program that
would help her students improve their reading scores and agreed to participate in the study.
WCRR instruction for this study generally took 20 minutes three or four days a week
(Monday through Thursday and some Fridays) and was implemented over 24 days. During
WCRR, a new text was introduced on Monday and read for the first 10 minutes. This day-to-day
focus on the new weekly text was followed by reading texts from previous weeks for the
remainder of the session.

Small group fluency instruction continued during the study. According to Mrs. Wright, it
consisted of first, discussing a fluency attribute such as pacing. Next, Mrs. Wright would read a
short text modelling the fluency attribute. Students then read the same text with another student
practicing the attribute while Mrs. Wright listened to their reading. Fluency instruction lasted
approximately 15 minutes and time did not allow students to read more than a few pages of the
text. Repeated reading of texts was not part of fluency instruction nor did students review texts
from previous days before beginning a new text. Rasinski (2010) reminds us, if we allow a
student to read a text once and they do not read it well we do not allow the student to “master”
the passage before moving to the next selection. “Essentially, we are allowing students to
practice mediocrity in their reading” (p. 39).

Quantitative Data Collection

Quantitative data were collected through 3-Minute Reading Assessments (Rasinski and
Padak, 2005). Using a running record format (Stouffer, 2021) pre-assessments administered by
me Author 1) before WCRR instruction began disclosed the student’s fluency level while post-
assessments revealed any changes in their fluency occurring during the study. Students were
given a different passage to read for the post-assessment. Assessments were given according to
directions found in the 3-Minute Reading Assessment instructions. Because the study focused on
fluency, the comprehension section of the assessment was not used for this study.

The fluency portion of the assessment consisted of three sections. First, Word
Recognition Accuracy which is the percentage of words read correctly in the passage. Secondly,
Reading Fluency-Automaticity or the number of words read correctly during a 60 second oral
reading. Lastly, the Reading Fluency-Expression section is determined by using the MDFS.
Because of the subjective nature of the Reading Fluency-Expression rubric, Mrs. Wright and I
(Author 1) assigned specific criteria to some sections of the MDFS. For instance, in the
smoothness section we wrote “six or more extended pauses or hesitations” as criteria for the
number 2. This ensured each student was evaluated using the same criteria.

Qualitative Data Collection

Qualitative data were collected through video recordings, observations, field notes, and a
teacher interview. Video recordings, observations, and field notes of the students participating in
WCRR were made during instruction time while the interview with Mrs. Wright was completed
when post-assessments had been administered and students had given their final performance.

Results

On the study’s final day, the students were prepared to read what they had rehearsed for
their parents. Lilly stood in the front row. As I watched, the class read the poems, performed a
readers’ theater script, and sang the song they had prepared. Lilly read with confidence and joy. I
could hear her voice above the rest of the class. At last, she saw herself as a fluent reader.
Below are qualitative and quantitative findings for this study. Findings for each research
question are presented.
My (Author 1) work with WCRR occurred over a 6-week span in which, on average, 20
minutes three to four days a week were spent on WCRR. Prior to and after the study the children
were asked to read a grade level passage from which their word recognition accuracy, word
recognition automaticity, and prosody were assessed.
Research question one, “What will pre- and post-assessments given before and after
WCRR instruction indicate about student reading fluencies?” was answered using quantitative
data. Data analysis findings are discussed below.
Before analysis could begin, a One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for normal
distribution was performed on the data. Results are displayed in Table 2 below. If results show a
p value less than 0.05 (p = <0.05), the distribution is not normal.
Normality of distribution determines which test will be used to further analyze data. If the
data were normally distributed the paired samples t-test was used. Data not normally distributed,
were analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. Sections of the assessment with mixed
normalcy findings were treated as not normal.

Table 2
Results of the One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normal Distribution
Students (n=18)
Test Section Pre Post Distribution
Word Recognition .01 .00 Not normal
Accuracy
Reading Fluency- .20 .20 Normal
Automaticity
Reading Fluency- .11 .02 Normal/Not
Expression Normal

Results of data analysis for each section of the assessment are found below. Table 3
displays descriptive statistics for the word recognition portion of the assessment using the
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test.

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Word Recognition Accuracy: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
 Students (n = 18)
Pre-assessment
Mean 94.17
Std. Deviation 5.89
Post-assessment
Mean 96.94
Std. Deviation 4.11

Word recognition accuracy improved from 94.2% to 96.9% of words read. While an
improvement of over 2% in word recognition may not seem large, keep in mind that most of
these students were already proficient in word recognition (95% is generally considered
instructional level reading). Table 4 shows findings for the reading fluency-automaticity portion
of the assessment.

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for Reading Fluency—Automaticity: Paired Samples T-Test
Students (n = 18)
Pre-assessment
Mean 78.28
Std. Deviation 39.07
Post-assessment
Mean 90.00
Std. Deviation 35.24

Reading fluency-automaticity (oral reading fluency - ORF) was measured as the number
of words read correctly per minute (wcpm). In the pre-assessment students read at an average
rate of 78.3 wcpm. In the post assessment, students’ average rate improved to 90.0 wcpm, a gain
of 11.7 wcpm over the course of WCRR instruction. The average weekly gain for the WCRR
students was 1.95 wcpm.
Fuchs, et al. (1993) in their two-year study of students grade one through six in five
school districts using a Curriculum-Based Measurement monthly, found norms for student
growth in reading, science, and math. The weekly gain experienced by students in the current
study is substantially greater than the 1.5 weekly wcpm gain that Fuchs et al. suggested as an
ambitious goal for grade two. ORF norms developed by Hasbrouck and Tindal (2017) suggest
that second graders performing at the 50%ile should make a weekly gain of 1.4 wcpm. The
WCRR students exceeded the expectations suggested by both sets of researchers.
Prosody, or expression in oral reading, was assessed by listening to each students’
reading and rating the oral performance on the MDFS (Rasinski, 2010; Zutell & Rasinski, 1991).
The version of the MDFS used in this study rates students on four dimensions of prosody –
expression and volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pace and total scores range from 4 to 16.
Table 5 provides the results of data analysis of the MDFS.

Table 5
Reading Fluency—Automaticity: Paired Samples T-Test
 Students (n = 18)
Pre-assessment
Mean 9.67
Std. Deviation 3.48
Post-assessment
Mean 12.61
Std. Deviation 3.52

In the pre-assessment the WCRR students’ average score on the MDFS was 9.67 (SD
=3.48); at the post-assessment, the average score had improved to 12.61 (SD = 3.52). Seven
students scored below proficient on the pre-assessment. Five of those seven moved to the
proficient or above proficient level and two remained below proficient. Both students scoring in
the proficient level in the pre-assessment remained at that level. Of the nine students in the above
proficient group, two fell one or more levels and the other seven remained above proficient.
Though some students remained at the same level, they made gains in one or more areas of the
assessment. However, gains were not significant enough to move them to a more advanced level.
Inasmuch as prosody is a key, but often neglected, component of fluency, and one that is
reflective of comprehension (to read with expression one needs to monitor the text that is being
read), the demonstration of improvement in prosody in over 75% of the students suggests
WCRR’s has potential to improve comprehension.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Research question two, “What student fluency behaviors will teachers observe during
WCRR instruction?” was answered using qualitative data.
Observation notes, teacher interview transcripts, and field notes were printed out,
separated, and compared to find possible categories. Using the constant comparative method
(Glaser and Strauss,1967), comparison among categories provided new categories as additional
ideas about the similarities of information progressed. Notes concerning insights as comparisons
continued were made in the margins of the notes. Finally, three categories, student fluency
behaviors, engagement, and self-confidence, emerged and became the overarching themes of the
qualitative data.

Merging of Quantitative and Qualitative Data

When data analysis was complete for both sets of data. Results were compared to learn
how qualitative data and quantitative data answered the research question 3, “What qualitative
observations of student fluency behavior during WCRR will teachers describe that do or do not
support quantitative assessment findings?” Quantitative assessment findings for Mrs. Wright’s
students were significant in all assessment areas. Observations and comments made during the
teacher interview of her students reading during WCRR instruction agree with assessment
findings. Table 6 provides a comparison of assessment findings for Mrs. Wright’s students and
her comments during the teacher interview.

Table 6
Merging of Quantitative and Qualitative Data
 Assessment Findings
Section 1: Word Recognition Accuracy
Percent of words read correctly,
Assessment data shows students made
progress in percent of words read correctly
Section 2 Reading Fluency—Automaticity
Number of words read correctly,
Post-assessment data describes a significant
increase in words read correctly.
Section 3 Reading Fluency—Expression
This section of the assessment was used to
evaluate a student’s growth in expression and
volume, phrasing and intonation, smoothness,
and pacing.
Teacher Comments
“Student 29 is one of the lowest [level]
readers in my class and he’s functioning and
enjoying it…I’ve seen him saying it”
“Even those who didn’t recognize many
words at the beginning are fully participating
now.”
“I think expression they did [improve] and
you’ll hear that when they do their
performance this Friday.”

Merging quantitative and qualitative data shows Mrs. Wright’s observations and
comments made during the teacher interview do support assessment findings. Not only did
students improve on the assessment but Mrs. Wright observed the change in their reading of texts
during WCRR.
Take Aways

Findings from this research project indicated that WCRR is a promising instructional tool
to increase fluency and prosody with a variety of short texts, primarily poetry. These findings
have important implications for teaching fluency and prosody, but also supporting reading
comprehension.
One implication is to expand forms of poetry in English Language Arts (ELA), as well as
across the curriculum to teach fluency (both automatic word recognition and prosody). Appendix
A illustrates a variety of forms of poetry that are entertaining, engaging, and even silly. For
example, whole classes of students can read and theatrically perform the poems in Hey you,
c’mere!: A poetry slam (Swados, 2002). In small groups, they can also collaborate to create and
perform their own poetry slam in the classroom.
Students can also read reverso poems (Singer, 2013a; 2013b; 2016). This clever form of
poetry presents a single poem both forward and then backward. When the poem is read top to
bottom, it means one thing; when it is read from bottom to top, it means something else. Students
can also write and perform their own reverso poems in the classroom.
Another implication is to use poetry to teach important content across the curriculum.
Appendix B illustrates a variety of poetry and riddles teachers can use to teach content area
material, while still supporting student development of fluency, prosody, and comprehension.
For example, in mathematics, Marvelous Math (Hopkins, 1997) is a collection of poems on
important mathematical concepts. “Sky” is one rhyming poem that teaches about decimals,
fractions, and percentages.
In science, Science Verse (Scieszka, 2004) is a collection of poems on important science
concepts. “Water Cycle” is one poem that is based on the nursery rhyme “It’s raining, it’s
pouring…” by Mother Goose. It is an engaging and rhyming poem that can also serve as an
informative introduction to the water cycle.
 In social studies, A World of Wonders: Geographic Travels in Verse and Rhyme (Lewis,
2002) is a collection of poems on important social studies topics. “How to Tell Latitude from
Longitude” is a powerful poem that teaches fundamental differences between latitude and
longitude.
Teachers can also use riddles across the curriculum. In mathematics, the work of Greg
Tang is particularly noteworthy as it combines math with poems and pictures. It highlights
problem solving and uses rhyming riddles to help students think creatively and strategically in
mathematics. For example, The Grapes of Math (Tang, 2001) uses riddles to teach addition,
Math Fables (Tang, 2004) to teach counting and grouping numbers, and The Best of Times
(Tang, 2002) to teach multiplication.
Still another implication is that WCRR can be used with longer, whole texts to integrate
fluency, prosody, and comprehension. Using longer texts, however, requires a shift in planning
and instruction. WCRR is designed to be implemented in a 30-minute block of time and requires
texts to be read at least twice. Short text can meet both requirements. It is difficult for longer
texts, like a traditional 32-page picture book, to meet both requirements. However, these texts
can be rewritten as reader’s theaters and practiced in short segments each day for a longer period
until they can be read fluently.
Nevertheless, using WCRR with whole texts and with research-based instructional
strategies has much power and potential to integrate instruction in fluency, both automatic word
recognition, prosody, and reading comprehension. Given that fluency development, particularly
when it involves attention to prosody, is related to reading comprehension, it is a logical
extension to utilize content rich text when teaching fluency.
Appendix C is a collection of highly entertaining and engaging patterned and predictable
picture books. They are organized by pattern and include repetitive, cumulative, familiar cultural
sequential, pictures/illustrations, rhyme/rhythm, familiar problem (plot), familiarity in other form
(songs), and chronological sequence.
Appendix Dis a collection of patterned and predictable books across the curriculum that
can be used with research-based instructional strategies to increase fluency, improve prosody,
and enhance reading comprehension. Here, we highlight two strategies: readers’ theater and
choral reading.
Readers’ theater brings stories and characters alive through oral interpretation and
performance (Harste, et al., 1988). It is a popular and effective instructional strategy that
integrates reading, listening, speaking, and acting. Students read aloud a script adapted from a
piece of literature, bringing it alive by using different voices, expressions, and gestures.
Similarly, choral reading is an instructional strategy that supports student fluency, self-
confidence, and motivation in reading. Choral reading introduces students to different kinds of
choral arrangement and can be done individually, in small groups, or as a whole class (Short, et
al., 1995). Appendix E illustrates a variety of choral arrangements and examples of predictable
and patterned texts that can be used with each arrangement.
It is important to note that WCRR satisfies all the suggested requirements of fluency
instruction (Kuhn, 2020; Solari et al., 2017). WCRR provides (a) modelling and timely
scaffolding, (b) substantial and purposeful reading, (c) challenging texts, and (d) direct teaching
of prosody.
Finally, we believe WCRR is a forward-looking instructional strategy. It has much power
to support development of student fluency with short texts. We also suspect it has potential to
improve student reading comprehension with whole texts. We hope this article and these
resources will start some new conversations and exploration of additional possibilities for using
WCRR with all students.
 Appendix A
Forms of Poetry

General Rhyming Poetry

Bagert B. (2002). Giant children. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.
Lewis, J. P. (2005). Please bury me in the library. Orlando, FL: Gulliver Books.
Shapiro, K. J. (2003). Because I could not stop my bike. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.

Poetry Slam
Swados, E. (2002). Hey you, c’mere!: A poetry slam. New York: Alfred A. Levine Books.

Reverso Poems
Singer, M. (2013a). Follow follow: A book of reverso poems. New York: Dial Books.
Singer, M. (2013b). Mirror mirror: A book of reverso poems. New York: Dutton Books.
Singer, M. (2016). Echo echo: Reverso poems about Greek myths. New York: Dial Books.

Pocket Poems
Katz, B. (2004). Pocket poems. New York: Dutton Children’s Books.
Katz, B. (2009). More pocket poems. New York: Dutton Children’s Books.

Silly Dilly Songs

Lansky, B. (2006). Oh my darling, porcupine: And other silly sing-along songs. New York:
Meadowbrook Press.
Katz, A. (2008). Smelly locker: Silly dilly school songs. New York: Margaret K. McElderry
Books.
Katz, A. (2010). Too much kissing!: And other silly dilly songs about parents. New York:
Margaret K. McElderry Books.

Rhymes for Rope Skipping, Hand Clapping, Ball Bouncing and Fun
Sierra, J. (2005). Schoolyard rhymes: Kids’ own rhymes for rope skipping, hand clapping, ball
bouncing, and just plain fun. New York: Random House.

Rhymed Stories for Two Voices

Hoberman, M. A. (2001). You read to me, I’ll read to you: Very short stories to read together.
Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
Hoberman, M. A. (2004). You read to me, I’ll read to you: Very short fairy tales to read
together. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.

Marching Songs
Crisp, D. (2008). The ants go marching! Child’s Play International.
Dunn, S., & Thurman, M. (1994). Gimme a break, rattlesnake! Stoddart Publishing.
Ouren, T. (2003). When Johnnie comes marching home. Picture Window Books.
 Appendix B
Content Area Poetry and Riddles

Poetry
Adler, D. (2006). You can, toucan, math. New York: Holiday House.
Fleischman, P. (2013). I am phoenix. New York: HarperCollins.
Hopkins, L. B. (1997). Marvelous math: A book of poems. New York: Scholastic.
Hopkins, L. B. (2002). Spectacular science: A book of poems. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lewis, J. P. (2002). A world of wonders: geographic travels in verse and rhyme. New York: Dial
Books for Young Readers.
Lewis, J. P. (2012). Edgar Allan Poe’s pie: Math puzzlers in classic poems. Boston, MA:
Harcourt Children’s Books.
Pappas, T. (1993). Math talk: Mathematical ideas in poems for two voices. San Carlos, CA:
World Wide Publishing.
Scieszka, J. (2004). Science verse. New York: Viking.
Swinburne, S. R. (2010). Ocean soup: Tide-pool poems. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.
Winters, K. (2018). Hungry for science: Poems to crunch on. Toronto, CA: Fitzhenry &
Whiteside.

Riddles
Tang, G. (2001). The grapes of math. New York: Scholastic.
Tang, G. (2002). The best of times. New York: Scholastic.
Tang, G. (2004). Math fables. New York: Scholastic.
 Appendix C
Patterned and Predictable Books

Repetitive Pattern
Charlip, R. (1987). Fortunately. New York: Four Winds Press.
Fox, M. (1994). Tough Boris. New York: Trumpet.
Gravett, E. (2011). Wolf won’t bite! New York: Simon & Schuster.

Cumulative Pattern
Gray, K. (2015). How many legs? London, UK: Hodder Children’s Books.
Gray, K. (2000). Eat your peas. London, UK: Random House.
Watson, J. (1989). Grandpa’s slippers. New York: Scholastic.

Familiar Cultural Sequence

Elting, M., & Folsom, M. (2005). Q is for duck. HMH Books for Young Readers.
Martin, B. (2011). Chicka chicka boom boom. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sendak, M. (1991). Chicken soup with rice. New York: Harper Collins.

Pictures/Illustrations
Ahlberg, J., & Ahlberg, J. (1999). Each peach pear plum. New York: Viking.
Blabey, A. (2015). Piranhas don’t eat bananas. Gosford, AU: Scholastic.
Shaw, C. (1988). It looked like spilt milk. New York: Harper Collins.

Rhyme, Rhythm
Charlip, R. (1999). I love you. Meridian, ID: Cartwheel.
Fox, M. (2007). Where the giant sleeps. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Familiar Problem (Plot)

Marshall, J. (2000). The three little pigs. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
Pinkney, J. (2017). The three billy goats gruff. Boston, MA: Little Brown Books.
Wiesner, D. (2001). The three pigs. New York: Clarion.

Familiarity in Other Form (Songs)

Adams, P. (2003). There Was an Old Woman Who Swallowed a Fly. Child’s Play International.
Long, S. (2002). Hush Little Baby. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books.

Chronological Sequence
Shulevitz, U. (2003). One Monday Morning. New York: Square Fish.
Wood, A. (1991). The napping house. Orlando, FL: HMH Books for Young Readers.

Appendix D
Patterned and Predictable Books across the Curriculum
Predictable and Patterned Literature in English/Language Arts
Creech, S. (2001). A Fine, Fine School. New York: HarperCollins.
Hubbard, P. (1996). My Crayons Talk. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Hutchins, Pat. (1971). Good-Night, Owl! Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Wood, A. (1992). Silly Sally. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace and Company.

Predictable and Patterned Literature in Mathematics

Burns, M. (1994). The Greedy Triangle. New York: Scholastic.
Cotton, C. (2002). At the Edge of the Woods: A Counting Book. New York: Henry Holt and
Company.
Dodds, D. A. (2007). Full House, An Invitation to Fractions. Somerville, Massachusetts:
Candlewick Press.

Predictable and Patterned Literature in Science

Robertson, M.T. (2009). Food Chain. London, UK: Frances Lincoln Children’s Books.
Rose, D. (2003). One Nighttime Sea. New York: Scholastic.
Swope, S. (2000). Gotta Go! Gotta Go! New York: A Sunburst Book.

Predictable and Patterned Literature in Social Studies

Igus, T. (1996). Two Mrs. Gibsons. San Francisco, CA: Children’s Book Press.
Mason, M.H. (2010). These hands. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Raven, M.T. (2005). America’s white table. Chelsea, MI: Sleeping Bear Press.
Warren, S. (2012). Dolores Huerta: A Hero to Migrant Workers. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall
Cavendish Children.

Predictable and Patterned Bilingual Multicultural Literature

Borden, L. (2014). Baseball is… New York: Margaret K. McElderry Books.
Carle, E., & Iwamura, K. (2003). Where are you going? To see my friend! New York: Orchard
Books.
Guy, G. F. (2005). Siesta. New York: Greenwillow.
Mora, P. (2009). Gracias, Thanks. New York: Lee & Lowe Books.

Predictable and Patterned Multicultural Literature

Ho, M. (2000). Hush! A Thai lullaby. New York: Scholastic.
Johnson, d. (2010). Black magic. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Morales, Y. (2016). Just a minute: A trickster tale and counting book. New York: Chronicle
Books.
Park, L. S. (2008). Be–bim bop. New York: Clarion.
 Appendix E
Choral Reading Arrangements

A Cast of Voices
Bodsworth, N. (2004). A nice walk in the jungle. New York: Puffin.

A Cast of Background Voices

Benjamin, A. H. (1996). What if? London, UK: Little Tiger Press.

Dual Voices
Watson, J. (2018). Grandpa’s Slippers. New York: Scholastic.

Echoing Voices
“Boa Constrictor”. In Silverstein, S. (2014). Where the sidewalk ends. New York: HarperCollins.

Unexpected Voices
Yolen, J., & Dotlich, R. K. (2013). Grumbles from the forest. Honesdale, PA: Wordsong.

Antiphonal Voices
Cuyler, M. (1993). That’s good, that’s bad. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Building/Accumulating Voices
Fox, M. (1992). Hattie and the fox. New York: Aladdin.

Animal Voices
Calmenson, S. (1995). Dinner at Panda Palace. New York: HarperCollins.
References
Allington, R. L. (2014). How reading volume affects both reading fluency and reading
achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(1), 95-104.
Au, K. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse
backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 297-319.
Baker, C. (2013). Print-referencing: A key to interactive shared reading. Dimensions of Early
Childhood, 41(1), 25-34.
Bidwell, S. M (2017). Using drama to increase motivation, comprehension, and fluency. Journal
of Reading, 34(1), 38-41.
Chang, I. (2020). Influences of executive function, language comprehension, and fluency on
young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 18(1),
44-57.
Chard, D. J., Pikulski, J. J., & McDonagh, S. H. (2012). Fluency: The link between decoding and
comprehension for struggling readers. In Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.),
Fluency Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices (pp. 90-113). The Guilford Press.
Chard, D., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for
building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386-406.

Cresswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Sage.
Förster, N., Kawohl, E., & Souvignier, E. (2018). Short- and long-term effects of assessment-
based differentiated reading instruction in general education on reading fluency and
reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 56(April), 98-109.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of
academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22(1),
27-48.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine, as
cited in Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Glasswell, K. & Ford, M. P. (2010). Teaching flexibly with leveled texts: More power for your
reading block. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 57-60.
Gorsuch, G. & Taguchi, E. (2010). Developing reading fluency and comprehension using
repeated reading: Evidence from longitudinal student reports. Language Teaching
Research, 14(1), 27-59.
Harste, J., Short, K.G., & Burke, C. (1988). Creating classrooms for authors. Heinemann.
Hasbrouck, J. & Tindal, G. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms. Technical Report No.
1702. https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED594994.
Justice, L. M., Pullen, P. C., & Pence, K. (2008). Influence of verbal and nonverbal references to
print on preschoolers’ visual attention to print during storybook reading. Developmental
Psychology, 44(3), 855-866.
Kuhn, M. R. (2020). Whole class or small group fluency instruction: A tutorial of four effective
approaches. Education Sciences, 10(5), 145-156.
Kuhn, M. R. & Stahl, S. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3-21.
Mishra, R. K. (2015). From monologue to dialogue: Interpreting social constructivism with a
Bakhtinian perspective. International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(1), 73-81.
Morris, D. & Gaffney, M. (2017). Building reading fluency in a learning-disabled middle school
reader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(5), 331-341.
Mraz, M., Nichols, W., Caldwell, S., Beisley, R., Sargent, S., & Rupley, W. (2013). Improving
oral reading fluency through readers theatre. Reading Horizons, 52(2), 163-181.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidenced-based assessment of
the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
.
Paige, D. (2011). 16 minutes of " Eyes-on-text " can make a difference: Whole-class choral
reading as an adolescent fluency strategy. Reading Horizons, 51(1), 1-20.
Rasinski, (2010). The fluent reader: Oral and silent reading strategies for building fluency, word
recognition and comprehension. Scholastic.
Rasinski & Padak, N. (2005). 3-Minute reading assessments: Word recognition, fluency, and
comprehension. Scholastic.
Rasinski, Paige, D., Rains, C., Stewart, F., Julovich, B., Prenkert, D., Rupley, W. H., & Nichols,
W. D. (2017). Effects of intensive fluency instruction on the reading proficiency of third-
grade struggling readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 33(6), 519-582.
Richards, M. (2000). Be a good detective: Solve the case of oral reading fluency. The Reading
Teacher, 53(7), 554-537.
Rupley, W. H., Nichols, W. D., Rasinski, & Paige, D. (2020). Fluency: Deep roots in reading
instruction. Education Sciences, 10(6), 1-11.
Samuels, S.J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403-408.
Schwanenflugel, P. J. & Benjamin, R. G. (2012). Reading expressiveness: The neglected aspect
of reading fluency. In Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency Instruction:
Research-Based Best Practices (pp. 35-54). The Guilford Press.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Hamilton, A. M., Kuhn, M. R., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (2004). Becoming a
fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral reading of young readers.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 119-129.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Kuhn, M. R., Morris, R. D., Morrow, L. M., Meisinger, E. B., Woo, D.
G., Quirk, M., & Sevcik, R. (2009). Insights into fluency instruction: Short- and long-
term effects of two reading programs. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(4), 318-336.
Short, K. G., Harste, J. C., with Burke, C. (1995). Creating classrooms for authors and
inquirers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Solari, E. J. Denton, C. A., & Haring, C. (2017). How to reach first-grade struggling readers: An
integrated instructional approach. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(3), 149-159.
Solari, E. J., Grimm, R. P., McIntyre, N. S., & Denton, C. A. (2018). Reading comprehension
development in at-risk vs. not at-risk first grade readers: The differential roles of listening
comprehension, decoding, and fluency. Learning and Individual Differences, 65(June
2017), 195-206.
Stouffer, J. (2021). Seeking middle ground: Analyzing running records from the top and bottom.
The Reading Teacher, 74(6), 769-784.
Sulzby, E., Branz, C. M., & Buhle, R. (2017). Repeated Readings of Literature and Low
Socioeconomic Status Black Kindergartners and First Graders. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 9(2), 183-196.
Young & Rasinski, (2018), Readers Theatre: Effects on word recognition automaticity and
reading prosody. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(3), 475-485.
Zutell, J. & Rasinski (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students' oral reading fluency.
Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 211-217.