dzuhlke.weebly.comdzuhlke.weebly.com/uploads/8/7/3/2/8732373/action_research_proje… · web...

Running Head: INCREASING STUDENT ACHEIVEMENT IN RETELLING 1

Explicit Teaching of Retelling Strategies to Increase Narrative Comprehension in Students

An Action Research Project

Dana Zuhlke

Michigan State University

April 22, 2011

INCREASING STUDENT ACHEIVEMENT IN RETELLING 2

Abstract

My research project examined the connection between Reading Comprehension and

reading fluency in beginning readers. Not all good readers are good at comprehension, thus

showing a disconnect somewhere in the development of readers. The goal of this research project

was to lessen that gap. I focused on trying to increase the quality of student retells from narrative

stories read aloud, thus increasing their comprehension. Over a two week time period, I

explicitly taught various retelling strategies such as visualizing and sequencing to my whole first

grade class. I collected qualitative data samples of student work after each strategy taught to

analyze. I chose to closely follow a group of eight students who had scored low on the DIBELS

test that assesses retelling and fluency. It was my goal to see an increase in the retelling scores of

the focus group the following time they took the test. After analyzing the data I collected, I

determined that not only did I see an increase in their retelling qualities, I saw an increase in their

reading levels as well.


Explicit Teaching of Retelling Strategies to Increase Narrative Comprehension in Students

Imagine for a moment finishing the last sentence of a great book. What about that book

kept you interested? What did you do as a reader to help you understand the picture the author

was trying to paint in your imagination? As adult readers, we do not realize that we ask ourselves

questions as we read to comprehend the text we are reading. Yet, it is something we do all the

time. But young readers are not born with this metacognitive skill, it is learned. Often the

students finish reading a text, and then have no idea what it was they just read. How do you teach

someone to be a reflective reader? This is a problem of practice I have faced in my first grade

classroom on more than one occasion. Beginning readers spend so much of their effort on

decoding the words in the text that they lose the meaning of what they are reading. The purpose

of my action research project is to examine the effect of explicitly teaching reading

comprehension strategies, specifically retelling. The main research question that will guide my

study is the following: How much of an increase, if any, will I see in retelling on the DIBELS if I

explicitly teach various retelling strategies? As I think more in-depth about this question, further

questions come to mind. Will teaching other comprehension strategies such as visualizing and

predicting alongside of retelling create a greater increase in comprehension? What is the

relationship between comprehension and reflective reading?

Theoretical Framework

I grounded this action research project in the three main theories of Reading

Comprehension: the Schema Theory, Mental Models, and the Proposition Theory (Gunning,

1996). Kitao (1990) defines the Schema Theory as an “interaction between the reader’s own

knowledge and the text” and it is the most basic comprehension tool for students. Mental Models


can be thought of as creating a movie in one’s head as they are reading (Casper, Catton, &

Westfall, 1998). The third theory of Proposition is best described as the reader “constructing a

main idea or macrostructure as they process the text” (Gunning, 1996). These three theories

connect deeply to the ideas behind my action research project. Being that I teach first grade, I

used the Mental Models to determine if the strategies I explicitly taught really caused an increase

the retell quality of my students. I wanted to use the Schema Theory to increase the background

knowledge and help my students make more meaningful connections as they read, not only for

this study, but in future reading experiences. I focused on all three theories when I was planning

the strategies to enhance my students’ comprehension of text through their retelling.

Literature Review

The purpose of this literature review is to describe and synthesize research about the role

of comprehension as children are learning to read. The main research question that guided my

study is the following: How much of an increase, if any, will I see in retelling on the DIBELS if I

explicitly teach various retelling strategies? Research from many sources was chosen to address

this purpose. I located many of the studies from the online database through Michigan State’s

Library. I searched for key words like: “reading comprehension” “retelling strategies” and

“primary grades”. This helped me focus specifically on the age of students I was studying. In all,

I reviewed a total of 10 resources, 8 of them being based on empirical research.

As I reviewed the literature, I noticed the articles kept falling into the same few

categories. First, I start with the connection between comprehension and fluency, which data

shows that not all fluent readers are excellent at comprehending. There is a disconnect in the

development of these two skills. This is due to the developmental levels of school-age children


and their ability to retain information. It is crucial in students being able to decode what they

read, but to also store the information in their short term memory. This allows them to be able to

recall the information after reading to comprehend. Second, I discuss the three main theories of

Reading Comprehension: The Schema Theory, the Mental Model, and the Proposition Theory.

Third, I focus on the effectiveness of designing and implementing a reading intervention

curriculum. Finally, I conclude with a summary of all the literature findings and how they apply

to my first grade class struggling with quality retells of narrative stories.

Connection between Reading Comprehension and Fluency

Very often it is noticed in children learning to read that there is a disconnect between

their reading comprehension and reading fluency. A fluent reader may not always be excellent at

comprehending. This is due to a number of things. One factor is the child’s developmental level

of Phonological Short-Term Memory (PSTM). This affects the processing speed of children’s

spoken narrative comprehension. In one of the studies I researched, 67 children, ages 6-11, were

assessed on various comprehension skills, such as auditory-visual reaction time and Narrative

Language. The findings were that attention and processing speed are important to a child’s

understanding of a spoken narrative (Marinellie, Montgomery, & Polunenko, 2009).

Another reason for the disconnect is the students’ application of metacognitive strategies.

This involves the reader thinking about their thinking, specifically asking questions as they are

reading to sort through the information given in the text. Many young readers either are not at

this point in their development, and studies show that it is a skill that needs to be taught. One

article I researched was about a case-study of the metacognitive strategies that a female third

grader used during reading of texts from different genres, specifically narrative and


informational (McTavish, 2008). Findings were that when she applied different strategies for the

various genres, it resulted in comprehension difficulties of the informational text.

Three Theories of Reading Comprehension

We as teachers need to close the gap between Reading Fluency and Reading

Comprehension. “Teaching students strategies that will help them in other reading situations

gives students tools to be successful beyond the story of the week, as this approach may be more

likely to result in improved comprehension as a result of students’ abilities to organize and

analyze stories” (McGee, 2009). It is more beneficial to teach students strategies they can apply

later on to comprehend stories in their own independent reading. Gunning (1996) states that there

are three main theories of Reading Comprehension: the Schema Theory, Mental Models, and the

Proposition Theory. These are the building blocks of bridging the gap between fluency and

comprehension. Kitao (1990) defines the Schema Theory as an “interaction between the reader’s

own knowledge and the text” and it is the most basic comprehension tool for students. A reader

connecting to something that they already know is a personal way to make the reading more

meaningful.

Mental Models can be thought of as creating a movie in one’s head as they are reading

(Casper, Catton, & Westfall, 1998). Gunning (1996) states that, “a mental model is constructed

most often when a student is reading fiction. The reader focuses in on the main character and

creates a mental model of the circumstances in which the character finds him or herself.” An

example of this comprehension is demonstrated in students stopping to draw what they are

“seeing” happen in the story at several points as they are reading. Often readers do not change

the picture they have in their heads with the introduction of new details as the story continues.


The third theory of Proposition is best described as the reader “constructing a main idea

or macrostructure as they process the text” (Gunning, 1996). This to me is the hardest theory to

work with in young readers, as main idea is an abstract concept to them. They see information in

the text as black and white, with very little up for interpretation.

Designing and Implementing Reading Intervention

So how do you implement the theories of Reading Comprehension in a classroom

setting? Baker, Chard, Howard, & Santoro (2008) stated that students from classrooms who were

participating in using a read-aloud curriculum demonstrated higher levels of comprehension and

vocabulary knowledge, and included higher quality of information in retelling. The researchers

designed a framework for teaching comprehension of narrative and informative text to first-grade

students during their read-aloud time. They assessed both students who were at-risk, and who

were on track to be reading at grade-level.

There is other research showing that repeated exposure to stories, role-playing, cloze

activities, and retelling are effective strategies in reading intervention (Slocum & Spencer, 2010).

They studied the effect of narrative intervention on a group of 5 preschoolers enrolled in a Head

start program. The findings were significant increases in the retelling skills of the preschoolers

involved in the intervention curriculum.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the research suggests that in order to close the gap in students’ ability to

comprehend what they read they need to be explicitly taught various comprehension strategies,

such as retelling. These strategies, when implemented in a strategic curriculum are most effective

in developing higher quality retells from students (Slocum & Spencer, 2010). There are many

other factors to take into account with beginning readers in order to make the curriculum work


for them. The students’ developmental level and Phonological Short-Term Memory capability

needs to be included in the activities incorporated (Marinellie, Montgomery, & Polunenko,

2009). The activities should also be centered around the three theories of Reading

Comprehension: The Schema Theory, The Mental Model, and The Proposition Theory. The

easiest of these for students to connect to is the Schema Theory. If they do not see the meaning in

what they are reading, it has no value to them. With that being known, it is extremely important

to choose stories and text that taps into the students’ schema and background knowledge.

My research for my study still left the following questions unanswered: Will teaching

other comprehension strategies such as visualizing and predicting alongside of retelling create a

greater increase in comprehension? What is the relationship between comprehension and

reflective reading? I discovered the answers to these as results from my own action research

findings.

So in order to see the increases in comprehension through reading intervention programs,

one must focus on three things: appropriate activity choice for the developmental level of

students, interesting texts that they can connect to, and explicit teaching of strategies that they

can apply to future reading. Our goal as a teacher is to make students independent, not only in

their reading, but in their lives outside of the classroom. Teaching students strategies they can

apply as they grow as readers is the most effective way to achieve this.

Method

I conducted this research plan over two weeks’ time. My timeline goal was to have the

project completed before the students were assessed again on the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators

of Basic Early Literacy Skills) test in April. I experimented with teaching a variety of retelling

strategies such as visualizing and sequencing during our read-aloud time.


Setting and Participants

The research setting for this project was a self-contained, first grade classroom in a public

school. The participants range in age between 6 and 7 years old. The sample size is 8 participants

(n=8). 5 of the participants were females and 3 are males. I chose to focus on these students

because they all scored Intensive on the DIBELS test in retelling. I gave each of the students in

the study a pseudonym, which I used to analyze data, to protect their identities.

Research Approach and Design

For my action research project, I utilized both qualitative and quantitative data, using a

case study design. I selected a case study approach because this allowed me to empirically focus

on this small group of students in my classroom setting, and the effect of explicitly teaching

retelling strategies on their comprehension. Using both qualitative and quantitative data also

allowed me to build a better case and makes my results more reliable if they showed similarities.

Data Collection Methods

I collected data in three different ways. First, I used field notes as students were

responding orally about the stories we were reading. I collected their drawings from visualizing

activities, and analyzed them for understanding. Second, I kept Running Records data to track

their progress on Comprehension and Fluency. Third, I used the data collected from the DIBELS

test that the students took in April 2011 to compare to the data collected from their previous test,

taken in December 2010. The mixture of the data tools and types of data collected are meant to

help triangulate and make the data more validated.

Data Analysis


In this analysis, I used Inductive Analysis as described by Mertler (2009, p. 140-141). I

sorted the data into categories and themes that I noticed in the groups of data collected. This

helped me organize and analyze the various kinds of qualitative and quantitative data from the

students in my focus group.

Limitations

As I collected data for this research project, it had its limitations, one of these being

personal bias. To stay away from this, I chose my focus group as the students that scored

intensive on the DIBELS test previously. This helped to eliminate the bias because any small

growth I find in their scores will be progress for the students. Since the whole class was tested on

DIBELS, I had data from everyone to compare scores from my sample group to the rest of the

class. I was also limited by the DIBELS testing window, which was determined by the group of

testers that pulled my students out of class to test them.

Findings

As I began to analyze my findings, they began to fall into a few themes. I was looking for

not only the quality of the retelling, but the quantity. Most of the students on the December 2010

DIBELS could either not retell anything they had just read, or only could remember a few things.

They seemed to not answer in sentences, but short fragments. After two weeks of explicitly

teaching retelling and comprehension strategies, I gathered a great deal of data. I analyzed and

organized the data into three themes: Quality of Student Retells, Fluency versus Comprehension,

and DIBELS Retelling Scores.


Theme #1: Quality of Retells

The first theme I saw emerge when analyzing my findings was an increase in the quality

of the students’ retells. I did several activities with the different senses, such as using the

students’ sense of smell to illicit a visualization. This was an introductory activity before we took

visualizing to narrative text. The students seemed to all feel successful, even if they could not

write about a story, they could tell me about it, or draw a picture. I also explicitly taught the

comprehension strategies of Inferencing, Metacognition, Determining Importance, and using

Schema. Figure 1 shows the increase in the quality of my focus groups’ retells using the

comprehension strategies I taught. I used activities I collected as I taught the strategies, and

scored one from the beginning of the study and one at the end using a four-point rubric. The

students were scored on how many details they could retell from the story, 4 being three or more

meaningful details, 3 being 2 meaningful details, 2 being one meaningful detail, and 1 being no

meaningful details.

Sean Valerie Andrea Lindsey Eric Darcy Daniel Renee0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Figure 1: Retell Quality

Beginning Retell ActivityEnding Retell Activity

Focus Group

Rubr

ic Sc

ore


In all of my focus students, I saw an increase in retell quality. One of my students, Sean,

who is was not able to answer about what he read at all, and by the end of the study, was able to

answer two or three sentences about the story with prompting. Sean is the lowest reader in my

class, and has to work very hard to decode words. Early in the study, we did a visualizing

activity where I read-aloud from The Lotus Seed by Sherry Garland. I read small chunks of the

story and had the students draw what they saw in their heads that was happening at those points.

Sean was not able to add much detail to his pictures, and when asked to retell the story using his

pictures, he was not able to recall much of it, only that it was about a flower. As we worked more

with visualizing, he was able to add more and more details and retell quite a bit more from the

stories he read through his pictures. This was true for all of my focus group. Not only did I see an

increase in the quality of the students’ oral retells and their drawings, but in their written

responses to stories as well. The students seemed to make the biggest increase in their retells

when we focused on the comprehension skill of visualizing.

Theme #2: Fluency vs. Comprehension

Another theme I saw across the entire sample group was an increase in Running Record

Levels. Running Records are done as a “cold read,” where students are not familiar with the text,

and they track both Comprehension and Fluency, which was another question I had wanted to

answer by my study. Figure 2 shows the increase in Reading Levels that I saw.

Running Record Levels, December 2010 vs. April 2011

Student pseudonym December 2010 April 2011 Level ChangeLevel (comprehension %)

Sean 4 (80%) 6 (100%) +2Valerie 6 (80%) 12 (80%) +6


Andrea 4 (80%) 6 (100%) +2Lindsey 6 (80%) 10 (80%) +4Eric 8 (90%) 14 (100%) +6Darcy 8 (80%) 16 (90%) +8Daniel 6 (80%) 14 (80%) +8Renee 8 (90%) 14 (100%) +6

Average: +5.75 Levels The Reading Levels were determined by the students being able to read the text at least

at a 90% fluency level, and the comprehension questions were asked after the text was read

aloud. By the end of first grade, students need to be reading at about a level 16. The average

number of Reading Levels the students moved was 5.75 levels from December 2010 to April

2011. The largest increase I saw was an 8 level jump in both Darcy and Daniels’ Reading Levels.

In addition, I saw in all the members of the focus group either an increase in their comprehension

or that it stayed the same, which does show that Comprehension and Fluency are interconnected,

although one doesn’t rely on another.

Theme #3: DIBELS Retelling Scores

A third theme that I focused on was the DIBELS retelling scores. The students were

assessed on their Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) in

words per minute (WPM), and Retell Quality, in which the students were scored using a rubric of

1-4. Students were pulled out of my classroom to test in a quiet setting with another person.

Figure 3 shows the results from December 2010 and April 2011 for my focus group.

DIBELS Scores, December 2010 vs. April 2011

Students December 2010 April 2011 Change NWF NWF Number of Words

Sean 21 19 -2Valerie 15 40 +25Andrea 26 45 +19


Lindsey 27 25 -2EricDarcyDaniel Renee

22 43 42 30

29504143

+7+7-1

+13DORF(% Accuracy) DORF(% Accuracy) Change(WPM)

Sean 3(20%) 9(50%) +6Valerie 7(39%) 21(67%) +14Andrea 5(29%) 9(50%) +4Lindsey 7(37%) 14(54%) +7EricDarcyDanielRenee

Sean ValerieAndrea LindseyEricDarcyDanielRenee

8(50%)18(67%)17(65%)14(58%)

Retell(Retell Quality)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)

16(64%)58(52%)74(97%)28(78%)

Retell(Retell Quality)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0)

14(1)12(1)20(1)

+8+40+57+14Change

00000

+14+12+20

All of my students made gains in their Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), the largest of which

was Daniel, increasing from 14 wpm to 74 wpm. As far as Retelling, the students either made

gains or stayed the same.

Summary

Overall, the students in my focus group made gains in both Comprehension and Fluency.

This is evidenced in an increase in Running Record Reading Levels, ORF scores from DIBELS,

and my field observations of their work. On average, the students increased 5.75 reading levels,

increased their comprehension, and increased their fluency by 18.75 wpm.

Discussion


I was very pleased with my findings. The students thoroughly enjoyed the comprehension

lessons, and I could also tell felt successful as their Comprehension and Fluency increased over

the course of the study. What I enjoyed the most was seeing them carry it over to their

independent reading, telling me about what their stories made them think of as they were

reading, and what connections they could make with the text.

Interpreting with Theory

Return for a moment to the Three Theories of Comprehension: The Schema Theory, The

Mental Model, and The Proposition Theory (Gunning, 1996). The easiest of these strategies for

students to connect to was the Schema Theory. First grade students love to tell stories and still

have that ego-centric mindset. If it does not relate to them, it has no value. If they can see

themselves in the characters that they are reading about, the text is more meaningful. I chose a

variety of texts that I knew would appeal to different students, so that everyone could find value

in what we were reading. I also thought using Mental Models through visualization contributed

to the increases in comprehension and retell quality. I presented the strategy of visualization in

many ways, so that the students were using all their senses to make the “movie in their heads” as

we were reading. This was shown in the increase of quality in the students’ retells in class.

Reflecting with an Action Plan

The purpose of my action research was to see if I explicitly taught retelling strategies, if I

would see an increase in DIBELS retelling scores. Along with teaching various other

comprehension strategies, such as visualizing and inferencing, I was able to see an increase in


not only the retelling scores, but in Fluency and Comprehension of the texts the students were

reading. I was also able to see the connection between Comprehension and Fluency, which was

another question I had developed as my research began.

My next step would be to continue using the comprehension strategies and referring back

to them as often as possible so the students begin to use them automatically. I hope that they

carry on with them as they are developing in their reading, and I plan to explicitly teach them

again next year.

Conclusion

In completing this research project, I feel it was successful. The students enjoyed it, and I

enjoyed watching them grow in their reading. In the future, I recommend not only sticking to

Narrative text, but extending the comprehension strategies into Expository text as well. This

genre can often be harder for students to comprehend, and having strategies they can rely on may

help to alleviate some of the frustration.

Another recommendation I have for trying these strategies in the future is starting as early

as possible. I briefly explained strategies toward the beginning of the year, but never taught them

explicitly until this research project. Giving students their own tools to use pushes them to

independence, and thus taking charge of their own learning.

The action research process overall is a great opportunity to reflect on one’s teaching.

Seeing the results that you want in a project helps empower a teacher to want to strive to do even

more. If I am seeing results with this, what kind of results would I see if I took it farther? Good


teachers are life-long learners, so we should want to revise our teaching practices to reflect this

point.

References

Applegate, A.J., Applegate, M.D., & Modla, V.B. (March 2009). “She’s my best reader; She just can’t comprehend”: Studying the relationship between fluency and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 62 (6), 512-521.

Baker, S.K., Chard, D. J., Howard, L. & Santoro, L.E. (Feb 2008). Making the very most of classroom read-alouds to promote comprehension and vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 61 (5), 396-399, 401-408.

Casper, M., Catton, J., & Westfall, S. (1998). Comprehension: Theories and strategies.Dominican University of California. San Rafael, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.dominican.edu/academics/education/faculty/madaliennepeters/compprehension.html

Gunning, T.G. (1996). Creating reading instruction for all children. Chapter 6, 192-236.

Kitao, K.S. (1990). Textual schemata and english language learning. Cross Currents,3, 147-155.

Marinellie, S.A., Montgomery, J.W., & Polunenko, A. (July 2009). Role of working memory in children’s understanding spoken narrative: A preliminary investigation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30 (3), 485-509.

McGee, I.E. (2009). Shifting from a developmental retelling framework to independent reading and retelling: Case study. Dissertation, Walden University, 3355051.

McTavish, M. (2008). “What were you thinking?”: The use of metacognitive strategy during engagement with reading narrative and informational genres. Canadian Journal of Education, 31 (2), 405-430.

Paris, A.H. & Paris, S.G. (Jan-Mar 2003). Assessing narrative comprehension in young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 38 (1), 36-77.

Slocum, T.A. & Spencer, T.D. (June 2010). The effect of a narrative intervention on story retelling and personal story generation skills of preschoolers with risk factors and

http://www.dominican.edu/academics/education/faculty/madaliennepeters/compprehension.html

http://www.dominican.edu/academics/education/faculty/madaliennepeters/compprehension.html


narrative language delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 32 (3), 178-199.

dzuhlke.weebly.comdzuhlke.weebly.com/uploads/8/7/3/2/8732373/action_research_proje… · web...

Documents