manzone h read64067_action_researchpaperfinaldraft
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
LITERATURE CIRCLES 1
The Impact of Literature Circles on Reading Comprehension and Student Interest
Hilary A. Manzone
East Carolina University
LITERATURE CIRCLES 2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify if the use of literature circles in a fourth grade
classroom had an impact on student reading comprehension and student interest in reading. The
sample included 48 fourth grade students ranging from ages 9-10. The control group received the
traditional self-selected reading instruction and conferencing while the intervention group
received literature circle instruction. Pre and posttest mean scores and analysis of variance
indicated no significant difference in vocabulary acquisition (p=0.929 for posttest and p= 0.596
for pretest scores) or comprehension scores (p=0.087 for posttest scores and p=0.374 for pretest
scores) between traditional vocabulary instruction and interactive vocabulary instruction.
Although the results showed no significant difference, qualitative data is available to support this
study.
LITERATURE CIRCLES 3
The Impact of Literature Circles on Reading Comprehension and Student Interest
Every student should have access and exposure to literacy to become productive citizens
of society. Unfortunately, not all students learn to read at the same rate and at the same time.
Literacy offers individuals an opportunity for better careers, education, and social lives
(McCormik & Zutell, 2011). Individualized instruction and flexible grouping have become
important strategies for teachers to use to help meet the needs of struggling students (Gambrell,
Morrow, & Pressley, 2007).
When implemented properly, literature circles provide opportunities for students to work
in a flexible grouping atmosphere while being engaged. Student interest in literature helps
promote success in reading comprehension. The purpose of this paper was to describe an action
research project that utilizes quasi-experimental design methods to investigate the use of
literature circle groups during a balanced literacy block while noting the impact literature circles
have on student interest and reading comprehension. A literature review that supports this line of
inquiry follows.
Literature Review
To prepare students to become productive and knowledgeable citizens of the future,
teachers need to provide students with the skills and strategies needed to become successful
readers and writers. Literacy education should include authentic and genuine research-based
practice in which students are engaged. When meaningful activities are provided during literacy
instruction, students are more apt to stay engaged and be willing to take part in learning
(Gambrell, Morrow, & Pressley, 2007). Literature circles are one example of an effective
research-based activity that has the potential to promote student interest and achievement. The
LITERATURE CIRCLES 4
purpose of this literature review is to describe research for the following research question: Does
the use of literature circles in a fourth grade balanced literacy classroom improve student interest
in reading and reading comprehension?
Defining Literature Circles
Daniels (1994) defines literature circles as small discussion groups in which all members
have chosen to read the same text. During school or outside of the classroom, students read a
determined portion of the text while taking on a specific responsibility for the next group
discussion. For each session, students come prepared with notes related to their reading to help
them perform well on their literature circle job. The literature circle jobs are rotated throughout
the meetings. Extension activities can be built in following the completion of a book. Lastly,
when students become fluent with group discussions during literature circles, jobs may or may
not be eliminated based on preference (Daniels, 1994). During literature circles, students are
required to perform many tasks that hold them accountable for their own reading. Students may
be reading aloud or with a partner, writing their role assignment, or discussing questions or
opinions about the book they are currently reading (Farris, Nelson, & L'Allier, 2007).
In addition, “literature circles are student-centered dialogues generated from individuals
having previously read and reflected upon self-selected texts” (Long & Gove, 2003, p.352). The
purpose of literature circles is to allow students to work comfortably in a social atmosphere
while practicing skills and reading works of literature (Farris, Nelson, & L'Allier, 2007).
Literature circles are similar to book clubs where students are reading a similar book and
facilitating their own conversations. Casey (2008) suggests, however, that literature circles are
more specific to the literature roles students perform. For example, students may have the task of
being the “Artful Artist, Word Wizard, Discussion Leader, Dramatic Reenactor, Story Elements
LITERATURE CIRCLES 5
Correspondent, and Personal Connector” (Stien & Beed, 2004, p. 512). Each role requires
students to think more critically about the literature in an engaging and creative way. Roles may
be changed periodically as the group progresses and discussions take place after the reading
assignment and written activity are completed.
Motivation and Student Interest
Motivation is a key component that separates “superficial and shallow reading” from
“deep and internalized” reading (Gambrell, Morrow, & Pressley, 2007, p.19). Students need the
drive to participate and focus on their learning. Motivation is one tool that can help students
become more interested and devoted to reading.
Burns (1998) found that student choice, mixed ability groups, interaction amongst
students, and time provided to complete literature circle roles led to student motivation which
had a positive effect on overall academic achievement. Yet, there were several factors Burns
used to determine what a successful literature circle should include. For example, she based the
books around a common theme based on the student’s background to keep students focused and
excited. She also gave students choice in book selection which in turn created motivation. Lastly,
the time given for social interaction allowed for deeper levels of conversation resulting in higher
comprehension.
Casey (2008) conducted a study on the use of learning groups based on common student
interests in a middle school classroom. The purpose of the study was to pique interest and
student engagement. Casey pointed out that student interest in reading results from an
improvement in literacy development. An increase of literacy development occurred with the
struggling readers who were strategically placed in learning groups. Casey (2008) found that
LITERATURE CIRCLES 6
learning groups helped disengaged students become engaged and motivated to read when their
interests and needs were met.
Similar to literature circles, Gambrell et al. (2007) stated that using flexible groupings
can spike student interests, meet individual learning preferences, and allow students to feel
comfortable in a familiar social setting while meeting their academic needs at the same time. To
implement flexible grouping successfully, teachers need to provide structure and expectations.
Literature circles can be organized into a flexible group format where students can select their
book of choice.
Based on research, using literature circles during a balanced literacy block has proven
effective. Day and Ainley (2008) focused their research on English Language Learners in an
elementary classroom. The teacher who participated in this study was skeptical about the
productivity of literature circles at the beginning. Towards the end of the research, she slowly
became a believer in and user of literature circles. She found them to increase student
productivity and motivation in reading. This study proved literature circles to be effective,
especially with English Language Learners. Literature Circles can be a useful tool, even with the
little amount of time in a school day. With the inclusion of literature circles groups in a balanced
literacy classroom, students will be more likely to participate based on an increase in motivation
of reading a text they were able to choose.
Critical Thinking Skills and Literature Circles
Higher level thinking occurs when students are challenged by not only their teachers, but
also by their peers. They are more likely to challenge one another when the text is meaningful
and all students are participating (Farris, Nelson, & L'Allier, 2007).
LITERATURE CIRCLES 7
Long and Gove (2003) found that an improvement in critical thinking skills was evident
the first day literature circles were implemented in the classroom. In addition, there was an
increase in student interest since the literature chosen was relevant to the students’ lives. Interest
in literature helped support their participation and collaboration during literature circles resulting
in more high level literature discussions. Critical thinking is a skill that requires time and
practice. Long and Gove (2003) suggested incorporating teacher involvement during literature
circles to aid students in thinking critically by modeling and encouraging higher level of
thinking.
McCall (2010) conducted a study on the integration of social studies into literature
circles. The research used trade books encompassing a common social studies theme that pre-
service teachers used to discuss in their literature circles. Although the participants were not
students, the research findings were quite comparable to research conducted on student literature
circles. The author found that social studies trade books can offer content that focused on other
important social studies issues that textbooks do not always include. In addition, the
incorporation of literature circles allowed participants to reach a deeper level of thinking while
reading the text and when provided a sufficient amount of discussion time.
Day and Ainley (2008) noticed that students were unaware that they were developing a
higher level of thinking during literature discussions. The simple allotment of time provided for
students to have deeper conversation about a text evidenced by this study proves to be effective.
Using literature circles provide opportunities for teachers to increase their student’s critical
thinking skills and can impact their interest in reading and comprehension.
Scaffolding and Literacy Skills Promoting Overall Reading Achievement
LITERATURE CIRCLES 8
According to Gambrell et al. (2007), scaffolding instruction for the different components
of literacy such as comprehension and fluency promote independent reading. Using a gradual-
release model to scaffold instruction helps students to transition from observing the teacher to
assuming responsibility of a certain literacy task. Gambrell et al. (2007) suggest with the
integration of a gradual-release scaffolding model, students can take part in more authentic
reading tasks such as collaborative learning or literature circles.
Scaffolding instruction can be used in a variety of ways. For example, Pearson (2010)
conducted a study on using talk features during literature circles to aid students during literature
circle discussions. These discussions helped them understand what literature circles roles look
like. Pearson (2010) found that when students used purposeful talk during literature circles, it
helped them become collaborative thinkers. Yet, she also found that to transition students from
more exploratory talk, there needs to be more modeling by the teacher as well as additional
lessons on how to use talk features. These lessons should be taught over a long period of time
and for students to grasp the concept. Therefore, consistent modeling and scaffolding needs to be
occurring in the classroom to reinforce these strategies.
Mills and Jennings (2011) conducted a study to engage students in conversations in an
effort to discuss ways to improve literature circles. Students were asked to reflect on their
literature circle practices and make observations of other literature circle groups through the
viewing of video clips. Students took initiative of their own learning and developed several
strategies to improve the structure of their group discussions. Mills and Jennings (2011) found
that students created more productive and intellectual dialogue through these reflective
discussions. They also point out suggest teacher guidance is essential in showing students how to
effectively improve literature circles by creating more productive and intellectual dialogue.
LITERATURE CIRCLES 9
Another important point is that the lessons the students learned throughout this study can be
adapted in other content areas such as science or social studies (using reflection to guide their
discussion and to make discussions better.)
Many teachers may feel the pressures of complying with the local district and state
standards and meeting the educational requirements. Time spent on literacy may be focused
primarily on standardized testing or specific objectives that need to be taught within a certain
amount of time. Many authentic reading tasks such as literature circles may be compromised to
meet these state and local needs. These authentic tasks should be taken in consideration after
much research has proven that incorporating meaningful reading activities impacts student
achievement. Therefore, research suggests that teachers should be presented with research-based
practices for literature circles and given the encouragement to endorse these literacy groups
within their classroom.
Conclusion
Incorporating literature circles within a literacy block provides many benefits to teachers
and students. Student motivation, interest in reading, effective scaffolding instruction, critical
thinking skills practice, and increased comprehension are all results of a well-planned and well
implemented literature circle. Although this research is focused on elementary students, it is
evident that literature circles are adaptable to many environments such as McCall’s (2010) study
with pre-service teachers using a social studies curriculum. Research has demonstrated through
many studies that using flexible grouping within the classroom such as literature circles can have
a positive correlation on student interest and reading achievement.
LITERATURE CIRCLES 10
Developing literature circles that encourage motivation, student interest, critical thinking
skills, and effective scaffolding are elements may have a positive effect on a student’s overall
reading achievement and student interest in reading. A description of the methodological details
that support the proposed action research study follows.
Methodology
This research study was based on a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design to
determine whether literature circles have an impact on reading comprehension and student
interest. This study included both a control and treatment group that had already been
randomized by the elementary school administration at the beginning of the school year. The
action research study examined how effectively the intervention literature circles impacts the
treatment group by analyzing the results of the pre and post assessments.
Both an independent variable and dependent variable were present in this study.
The independent variable is the reading instructional format. It is characterized by two levels:
traditional instruction and the literature circles instruction. The traditional instruction consisted
of the following instructional strategies: self-selected reading and conferencing during the self-
selected portion of the literacy block. The literature circles’ instruction consisted of flexible
literature circle groups which met three to four times a week during the self-selected reading
portion of the literacy block. Each self-selected reading block lasted 45 minutes each. The
dependent variable, reading comprehension and student interest, was operationally defined as a
score on the pre and post assessments as well as the pre and post surveys.
Participants
LITERATURE CIRCLES 11
The participants in this study ranged in ages from 9 to 11 from two fourth grade
classrooms in an eastern North Carolina elementary school. Variations in student’s background
include African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, Asisan and multiracial. The sample size
comprised of a total of 48 students chosen from two self-contained classrooms. Each classroom
consisted of 24 students. The researcher met with these two classes once a day as a result of
block scheduling.
The morning group, which was the control group, contained 6 students being served in
Title I reading for reading support and two students with Individualized Education Plans. This
group consisted of 12 females and 12 males with 6 African American students, 12 Caucasian
students, 5 Hispanic students, and 1 Asian student. The morning group meets from 9:25 to 11:30.
Self-selected reading time occurs from 9:25 to 9:55.
The afternoon group was chosen for the treatment group since it is the homeroom class of
the researcher. The afternoon group consists of 14 girls and 10 boys. One of the boys is pulled
out for special education resource during the entire literacy block and was unable to participate
in the study. In the treatment group, there were 14 Caucasian students, 8 African American
students, 1 Hispanic student, and 1 Multi-Racial student. The afternoon group contains 7 students
being served in Title I reading for reading support and three students with Individualized
Education Plans. The afternoon group meets from 11:30-12:05 and from 1:00-2:45. The
literature circle session will occur from 11:30 to 12:05 and 1:05-1:20.
Setting
The research was conducted in a suburban eastern North Carolina elementary school.
This particular school provides Title I services school-wide grades kindergarten through five. In
LITERATURE CIRCLES 12
addition to Title I, other programs offered include ALP 2 Reading Programs, ALP 1 Reading
Programs, Academically Gifted Program, Q for L Enrichment programs, after school tutoring,
and a positive behavior and intervention support (PBIS) program. The school met Adequate
Yearly Progress goals in 2010 but did not meet AYP (adequate yearly progress) in 2011. The
school was also recognized as meeting high growth for the ABCs in of Public Education in North
Carolina to promote school accountability. As a result, this school received the title of “School of
Distinction.” The actual setting for the implementation of literature circles was the researcher’s
classroom and students were familiar with the classroom and materials needed.
Data Collection and Analysis
Three forms of data sources were used for the triangulation of data. Inquiry data
(survey), observational data (researcher log), pre and post tests, and student artifacts were
collected in effort to document changes in student interest in reading and reading comprehension.
Data was collected during a six week period with three to four literature circle sessions per week.
A student interest survey was administered prior to implementation of literature circles in the
beginning of January 2012. McKenna and Kear (1990) provide a tool for measuring student’s
attitudes toward reading called “An Elementary Reading Attitude Survey.” This was used at the
beginning and the end of the study to track student interest in reading during the six week period.
The survey asked the students specific questions related to their interest in different genres of
text, their feelings about reading assessments, and where they enjoy reading. An example of this
survey can be found in Appendix A.
In addition to the reading interest survey, a pre and post-test was given prior to the study
using a curriculum based measurement to test reading comprehension in January 2012. The
LITERATURE CIRCLES 13
easyCBM test is found on the easyCBM website and can be found in Appendix B. The pre and
post tests were used at the beginning and the end of the study to document changes in reading
comprehension. The averages from tests were measured for data analysis.
Student work samples of completed literature circle job tasks were collected and graded
with the use of a rubric scale to analyze student products for the first two weeks. The results of
these student work samples will provided the researcher with evidence of student reading
comprehension based on the score. The following weeks, students used their writing journals to
make reflections and create questions related to their book. Extension activities were provided if
students finish their independent reading earlier than their classmates. Students were also given
opportunities to take Accelerated Reading quizzes after completion of the book to test their
understanding of the book. All of these tasks provided insight into student interest based on the
effort level demonstrated for each literature circle meeting.
Lastly, a teacher researcher log was used to track informal observations of students
during literature circle sessions. It was also used to track informal student interview questions
about the literature circle format and discussions. Reflections were recorded on a daily bases
based on the analysis and results of each session.
Data Analysis
An independent samples t-test was used to compare the difference in the means scores of
the control group and the treatment group of the reading comprehension assessments.
Quantitative data gathered from pre and post tests cbm comprehension assessment was
reported, compared, and displayed using a graph or computer-generated report .The themes in
the qualitative data from student interest surveys and the teacher researcher log were analyzed
LITERATURE CIRCLES 14
and the results were documented. The researcher log observations and notes were systematically
analyzed and coded for themes related to the research question.
Lastly, after triangulating data sources, I was able to draw conclusions from the gathered
data and relate it to the research question. Validity was considered when making generalizations
about the data.
Intervention
The intervention treatment was implemented during the self-selected reading time in the
regular literacy block schedule. The starting date was January 16th, 2012 and lasted until the end
of February 2012 during the week of the 27th. The first week was dedicated to collecting data
from pre and post assessments, interest surveys, review of expectations, and student choice in
books. The following five weeks included literature circle sessions that lasted approximately 45
minutes three to four times per week on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.
Prior to the implementation of the research study in January 2012, students were exposed
to the literature circle roles such as Artful Artist, Word Wizard, Discussion Leader, Dramatic
Reenactor, Story Elements Correspondent, and Personal Connector during the month of
December 2011 as a whole group (Stein & Beed, 2004). They took turns practicing each role in
small groups to reinforce how each role is appropriately used. This exposure to the roles
provided background knowledge before the study began to help students transition easily into
their discussion groups.
During the first week in January 2012, students were given a review on literature circle
roles and a set of expectations and rules to follow during the sessions. This lasted approximately
30 minutes and gave students an opportunity to ask any questions or concerns they had regarding
LITERATURE CIRCLES 15
the literature circle format or jobs. They were given their first student interest survey to
document current attitudes towards reading on January 17th. In addition, I shared the list of
books students can choose from for their literature circle groups by giving them a brief
description of the story. The books were chosen from sets of leveled books provided by Title I in
the 2011-2012 school year. I was careful to choose books that contained short chapters that
would be manageable during the literature circle time frame. Students were asked to choose their
3 favorite books and list them in order from most favorite to least favorite on a piece of paper.
Based on their feedback, I was able to sort students into groups based on interest, but was
strategic in placing students in groups where they would be comfortable with the reading level of
the text.
From weeks two through five, students were taking part in the literature circle discussions
three to four times a week for approximately 45-60 minutes depending on the length of time
needed to prepare and settle into their groups and the depth of literature circle conversations. The
sessions for the first two weeks included time for choosing literature circle roles (3-5 minutes),
reading the required text (15-20 minutes), completing the literature circle job (10 minutes), and
lastly have a literature circle group discussion (15 minutes). During the 4th week of intervention,
jobs were eliminated and journal reflection tasks were introduced to eliminate time wasted for
choosing jobs and having sidebar conversations. The elimination of literature circle jobs proved
to be successful the positive student feedback and the increase of pages read by students.
Therefore, students would spend 1 minute gathering materials, 20-25 minutes reading the
required text while reflecting in their journals, 10 minutes for reflection and extension activities,
and 10-15 minutes for literature circles discussions.
LITERATURE CIRCLES 16
Validity and Reliability or Trustworthiness
The types of validity chosen for this study included truth-value validity, outcome validity,
and catalytic validity. My focus was on the accuracy of the facts and findings and ability of
enabling the study to increase my understanding of literature circles with the goal of
transforming my teaching practices for the future (Hendricks, 2009).
Threats to validity included inaccuracy of data recorded, insufficient credibility, and
researcher bias. In effort to limit inaccuracy of data, I planned on providing sufficient detail
when recording notes during observation and interviews. The threat of insufficient credibility can
be reduced with the use of triangulating the data sources by using multiple sources including pre
and post assessments on comprehension, student interest surveys, teacher researcher logs, and
graded student work samples with the use of a rubric. A testing threat may be present when
administering the pre and post tests since the pre and post tests are the same test. In addressing
research bias, eliminating any preconceived ideas of biases before implementation of the study
helps to reduce the threat of biases during the study. Researcher bias may be present due to the
fact that the ultimate goal is to show improvements within the intervention group. Peer
debriefing may be a useful strategy when dealing with all three threats of validity in this study.
Another threat that is difficult to control is the threat of reliable data of reading comprehension
due to the short six-week period the study is being conducted.
Findings and Results
Pre and Post Test Data
In order to analyze the data from the pre and post test scores of the easy-cbm
comprehension assessment, a Del Siegle's T-test calculator was used to determine the mean and
LITERATURE CIRCLES 17
standard deviation of the control and intervention groups. Calculations can be found in Appendix
C: Del Siegle's T-test Spreadsheet Calculations. The data provided in Table 1.1 shows the
control group’s pretest mean score of 58.54% and posttest mean score of 63.95%. The
intervention group’s pretest mean score was 58.75% and the posttest mean score was 62.50%.
Table 1.1:
Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores of Control and Intervention Groups.
Group N Pre Test Mean Score Post Test Mean
Score
Group A
(Control Group)
24 58.54 63.95
Group B
(Intervention
Group)
24 58.75 62.50
Because there were an equal number of subjects in each group, the equal variance was
used. The results indicated that the Group Factor was not significant (p= .91479 and was greater
than p=0.05); therefore, the two groups did not vary significantly on reading comprehension
posttest scores. In order for p-values to be statistically significant, the scores need to be less
than .05. Since all the data values presented within the analysis were greater than .05, none of the
scores from either class proved to be significantly different. Results can be found in Table 1.2
below or in the Del Siegle's T-test Spreadsheet Calculations for Reading Comprehension
Assessment located in Appendix C.
LITERATURE CIRCLES 18
Table 1.2:
Mean and Standard Deviation of Control and Intervention Groups.
Group N Mean SD
Group A
(Control Group)
24 4.16666667 12.8254728
Group B
(Intervention
Group- Literature
Circles)
24 4.58333333 13.9810949
t (46) = 0.107, p=0.91, d= 0.031
Survey Data
In order to analyze the data from Garfield Elementary Reading Attitude Survey, a Del
Siegle's T-test calculator was used to determine the mean and standard deviation of the control
and intervention groups. Calculations can be found in Appendix D: Del Siegle's T-test
Spreadsheet Calculations of Reading Interest Survey. The data provided in Table 1.3 shows the
control group’s average reading attitude mean score before implementation of 60.91 and reading
attitude mean score after implementation of 57.38. The intervention group’s average reading
attitude mean score before implementation of 58.33 and reading attitude score mean score after
implementation of 57.42. There was a decrease for both the control group and intervention group
in both reading attitude scores prior to implementation and to the scores after implementation.
The difference of the control group was 3.53 points and the difference between the intervention
group was 0.91 points.
LITERATURE CIRCLES 19
Table 1.3:
Survey pre and post Mean Scores between Control and Intervention Groups
Group N Survey Prior to
Implementation:
Mean Score
Survey After
Implementation:
Mean Score
Difference in
Mean Scores
Group A
(Control Group)
24 60.91 57.38 3.53
Group B
(Intervention
Group)
24 58.33 57.42 .91
t (46) = 1.21, p=0.23, d= 0.349
Because there were an equal number of subjects in each group, the equal variance was
used. The results indicated that the group factor was not significant (p= .233618 and was greater
than p=0.05); therefore, the two groups did not vary significantly on the survey results. In order
for p-values to be statistically significant, the scores need to be less than .05. Since all the data
values presented within the analysis were greater than .05, none of the scores from either class
proved to be significantly different. Results can be found in Table 1.4 below or in the Del
Siegle's T-test Spreadsheet Calculations for Reading Interest Survey located in Appendix D.
Table 1.4:
Del Siegle’s T-test calculations for Reading Interest Survey
Group N Mean SD
LITERATURE CIRCLES 20
Group A
(Control Group)
24 3.54 6.90292419
Group B
(Intervention
Group- Literature
Circles)
24 0.88 8.33699195
Researcher’s Log
The researcher observed and took notes from prior to the collection of data to the last day
when posttests were administered. Elements of the log included specific strategies introduced to
students, observations of student response to intervention, unexpected happenings, general
reflections, challenges and celebrations, communications between teacher and students or
students and students, observations of student behaviors or body language, and reflection of
overall research process. The observations within the control group were consistent. Students
continued their daily routine of self-selected reading and conferencing with the teacher as well as
participating in small guided reading groups during this time. At times, there were some students
out of their seats getting a drink of water, at the computer taking AR tests, or losing focus and
looking out the window. Most students within the control group did not finish their chapter book
within the six week research period. The observations of the intervention group receiving the
literature circle treatment were quite different. Students were able to sit with their literature circle
groups after the second week of implementation and read without distractions (getting water,
tissue, etc.). They finished their required chapter and shared their reflections with their groups
LITERATURE CIRCLES 21
within the time frame given. All students finished their literature circle book within the six week
period of research implementation.
Discussion and Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to see if literature circles impacted student comprehension
and student interest in reading during a six-week period. Although both groups’ mean scores for
comprehension increased from the pretest to the posttest, the independent t-test did not indicate a
correlation between literature circles and reading comprehension. The quantitative data from this
study indicated there was not a significant difference in reading comprehension amongst the two
groups of students. The pretests and posttests were designed to control some of the validity
threats the study.
In addition, the analysis results of the independent t-test for the reading interest survey
data was similar to the analysis results of the reading comprehension t-test. It did not indicate a
correlation between literature circles and interest in reading. Although the control group’s
attitude decreases slightly more than the intervention group’s attitude toward reading, the
quantitative data from this study indicated there was not a significant difference in interest in
reading. Thus, the quantitative results of the study do not support literature circles as a strategy to
increase reading comprehension and/or reading interest any more than traditional instruction.
Even though the quantitative data does not support the research, Pearson (2010) suggests that if
an educator’s aim is for student’s to be more elaborate and reference the text more often in
literature circles, there would need to be more modeling taught over a longer period of time
where children can explore both the texts and the responses to them (p.9).
Based on the qualitative data collected from this study, the themes and patterns of student
behaviors and reactions to literature circles provide evidence that it has a positive impact on
LITERATURE CIRCLES 22
student reading comprehension and student interest in reading. In the control group, there were
some observations during self-selected reading of students becoming bored, getting out of their
seat to avoid reading or searching for Accelerated Reading tests to take on the computer. In the
intervention group, observations included students who were reading without distractions
(getting water, looking out the window, etc.), students reflected in their writing journals with
questions, unknown words, and reactions, students shared enthusiastic comments about the
chapters read. Notes from the researcher log suggest that students were more motivated to read
the whole chapter within one day when working with a group under a certain time frame.
Students in the control group did not have set guidelines or a set time frame to finish a book.
Students from the intervention group stated that they felt they accomplished more when working
within a small group and felt as if they understand the book better. They were also excited to
take Accelerated Reading tests when they finished the book. All the students that took
Accelerated Reading tests on the books they read passed the quizzes.
Although the intervention group received the literature circle intervention, it was during a
short period of time of 6 weeks. The literature circle groups took a couple of weeks to adjust to
the format and schedule of the groups even with prior explanation and practice before the
research process began. Many of these factors could have made an impact on the results of the
quantitative data and therefore, the qualitative data should be examined in support of the
research.
Implications and Future Research
Although the correlation literature circles and reading comprehension and student interest
in reading is weak based on the research presented in this action research project, further
research into the link between literature circles and reading comprehension and interest may help
LITERATURE CIRCLES 23
explain what happens when that link is weak. Understanding why a class or student may not
have a positive correlation between literature circles and reading comprehension can help
researchers and teachers design instruction to help those students comprehend what they read,
which is an ultimate goal of education.
In addition, it may be helpful for students to reflect and analyze their literature circle
discussions and group management to make improvements or changes (Mills & Jennings, 2011).
With the short time period of 6 weeks, students were not given additional time to reflect on their
practices and talk about solutions to their disagreements that arose in their groups.
Reflection
Based on the results of this study and the positive feedback from my students who
received the intervention of literature circles, I continued the use of literature circles in my
intervention group as well as implementing them with my other class that was previously the
control group. In addition, I noticed that requiring students to complete specific jobs during
literature circles was time consuming and did not provide enough reflection and discussion
within literature circle groups. For example, a student with the job of a word finder would be
focusing on searching for unfamiliar words in the text rather than reading the text for overall
meaning. Changing my literature circle requirements to a more reflective format gave students
the opportunity to create questions, connections, etc. during every literature circle meeting.
I learned a lot about student motivation as well with the implementation of literature
circles. They seemed to work harder at finishing their chapter knowing that they were working as
a group rather than reading at an independent pace. They were conscious of completing their
reflections in their journal and making sure to create valid questions relating to the text. This
seemed more genuine then the self-selected reading reflection sheets I provided them previously.
LITERATURE CIRCLES 24
Based on the results of the study, the positive feedback from students, and the overall productive
feelings I felt after the implementation of literature circles, I am going to continue using this as a
piece of my literacy teaching block. Although I only conducted this in a fourth grade classroom,
this could work in various grade levels with the constant modeling and reflection on the literature
circle discussions. My intention is to use this framework during the course of the year to see the
added benefits of a longer implementation period versus the short six week period I used to
conduct this study.
It is important to me to share these findings and results with the colleagues at my school
and provide support and feedback to those who would like to implement them during their own
balanced literacy block.
LITERATURE CIRCLES 25
References
Burns, B. (1998). Changing the classroom climate with literature circles. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 42(2), 124-129.
Casey, H. K. (2008). Engaging the disengaged: Using learning clubs to motivate struggling
adolescent readers and writers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(4), 284-294.
doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.4.2
Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in the student-centered classroom. York,
Maine: Pembroke Publishers.
Day, D., & Ainley, G. (2008). From skeptic to believer: One teacher’s journey implementing
literature circles. Reading Horizons, 48(3), 157-176. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Farris, P. J., Nelson, P. A., & L'Allier, S. (2007). Using literature circles with English language
learners at the middle level. Middle School Journal, 38(4), 38-42. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Gambrell, L. B., Ed, Morrow, L. M., Ed, Pressley, M., Ed, & Guthrie, J. T., Ed. (2006). Best
practices in literacy instruction. New York: Guilford Publications.
Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research: A comprehensive guide for
educators. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River: Merrill.
King, C. (2001). "I like group reading because we can share ideas": The role of talk within the
literature circle. Reading, 35(1), 32. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
LITERATURE CIRCLES 26
Long, T., & Gove, M. (2003). How engagement strategies and literature circles promote critical
response in a fourth-grade, urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 57(4), 350-361.
McCall, A. L. (2010). Teaching powerful social studies ideas through literature circles. Social
Studies, 101(4), 152-159. doi:10.1080/00377990903284104.
McCormik, S., & Zutell, J. (2011) Instructing students who have literacy problems. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education Inc.
McKenna, M.C., & Kear, D.J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for
teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43(8), 626–639. doi: 10.1598/RT.43.8.3
Mills, H., & Jennings, L. (2011). Talking about talk: Reclaiming the value and power of
literature circles. Reading Teacher, 64(8), 590-598. doi:10.1598/RT.64.8.4
Pearson, C. (2010). Acting up or acting out? Unlocking children's talk in literature circles.
Literacy, 44(1), 3-11. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2010.00543.x
Stien, D. & Beed, P. (2004). Bridging the gap between fiction and nonfiction in the literature
circle setting. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 510-518.
LITERATURE CIRCLES 27
Appendix A
Garfield Attitudes Toward Reading Survey
LITERATURE CIRCLES 28
LITERATURE CIRCLES 29
LITERATURE CIRCLES 30
LITERATURE CIRCLES 31
LITERATURE CIRCLES 32
LITERATURE CIRCLES 33
Appendix B
Easy-CBM- “The Magnifying Glass”
LITERATURE CIRCLES 34
LITERATURE CIRCLES 35
LITERATURE CIRCLES 36
LITERATURE CIRCLES 37
LITERATURE CIRCLES 38
LITERATURE CIRCLES 39
LITERATURE CIRCLES 40
LITERATURE CIRCLES 41
Appendix C
Del Siegle's T-test Spreadsheet Calculations for Reading Comprehension AssessmentValue used for Group 1 ------------------> 1 This speadsheet was prepared by Del Siegle for use in EPSY 341Value used for Group 2 ------------------> 2 Note: The df for the Unequal Variance Independent t-test is an approximation.
p of F-Max--> 0.68251938 Effect Size Independent t-test Use Equal Variance d=
Equal Unequal 0.03108691 No Control GroupVariance Variance 0.03248743 Control Group is Group 1
Group 1 Group 2 Mean diff. -0.41666667 -0.41666667 0.02980215 Control Group is Group 2Mean 4.16666667 4.58333333 SE 3.87278844 3.87278844SD 12.8254728 13.9810949 t-value -0.10758828 -0.10758828n 24 24 df 46 23
two-tailed p 0.91479019 0.91479364
Paired t-test Correlation-> The scores are not paired.
1 Group 1 Group 2 Mean diff. The scores are not paired. 1Mean N/A N/A SE The scores are not paired. 2SD N/A N/A t-value The scores are not paired.n 48 0 df The scores are not paired.
two-tailed p The scores are not paired.
Group (IV) DV 2nd DV if calculating a paired (correlated) t-test1 5 51 0 01 -20 -201 -15 -151 30 301 15 151 5 51 -15 -151 -5 -51 5 51 -5 -51 10 101 5 51 20 201 0 01 20 201 30 301 10 101 10 101 5 51 0 01 -5 -51 0 01 -5 -52 5 52 0 02 25 252 10 102 15 152 0 02 15 152 0 02 -10 -102 -5 -52 10 102 -5 -52 30 302 -10 -102 -30 -302 5 52 5 52 -15 -152 20 202 15 152 -10 -102 15 152 5 52 20 20
LITERATURE CIRCLES 42
Appendix D
Del Siegle's T-test Spreadsheet Calculations for Reading Interest SurveyValue used for Group 1 ------------------> 1 This speadsheet was prepared by Del Siegle for use in EPSY 341Value used for Group 2 ------------------> 2 Note: The df for the Unequal Variance Independent t-test is an approximation.
p of F-Max--> 0.37193387 Effect Size Independent t-test Use Equal Variance d=
Equal Unequal 0.34995818 No Control GroupVariance Variance 0.38630971 Control Group is Group 1
Group 1 Group 2 Mean diff. -2.66666667 -2.66666667 0.31985957 Control Group is Group 2Mean -3.54166667 -0.875 SE 2.20940977 2.20940977SD 6.90292419 8.33699195 t-value -1.20695884 -1.20695884n 24 24 df 46 23
two-tailed p 0.23361811 0.23383151
Paired t-test Correlation-> The scores are not paired.
1 Group 1 Group 2 Mean diff. The scores are not paired. 1Mean N/A N/A SE The scores are not paired. 2SD N/A N/A t-value The scores are not paired.n 48 0 df The scores are not paired.
two-tailed p The scores are not paired.
Group (IV) DV 2nd DV if calculating a paired (correlated) t-test1 0 01 -7 -71 0 01 -16 -161 -3 -31 -8 -81 2 21 -7 -71 -9 -91 5 51 -11 -111 -18 -181 -7 -71 1 11 -5 -51 10 101 3 31 -5 -51 -8 -81 3 31 -2 -21 -7 -71 -4 -41 8 82 4 42 -5 -52 -8 -82 -3 -32 3 32 -10 -102 15 152 4 42 2 22 -4 -42 22 222 -3 -32 -5 -52 -9 -92 -1 -12 -15 -152 13 132 -7 -72 -2 -22 -8 -82 1 12 -4 -42 1 12 -2 -2
LITERATURE CIRCLES 43
Appendix E
IRB completion Report
CITI Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative
Human Research Curriculum Completion Report
Printed on 9/10/2011
Learner: Hilary Manzone (username: greenhi10)
Institution: East Carolina University
Contact Information Department: MaED in ReadingPhone: 919-600-4047Email: [email protected]
Group 2.Social / Behavorial Research Investigators and Key Personnel:
Stage 2. Refresher Course Passed on 09/10/11 (Ref # 6585835)
Required ModulesDate
Completed
Refresher Course 101 Introduction 08/30/11 no quiz
SBR 101 REFRESHER MODULE 1 - History and Ethics 08/30/11 4/5 (80%)
SBR 101 REFRESHER MODULE 2 - Regulatory Overview 09/07/11 4/5 (80%)
SBR 101 REFRESHER MODULE 3 - Risk, Informed Consent, and Privacy and Confidentiality
09/07/11 5/5 (100%)
SBR 101 REFRESHER MODULE 4 - Vulnerable Subjects 09/10/11 3/4 (75%)
SBR 101 REFRESHER MODULE 5 - Education, International, and Internet Research
09/10/11 4/5 (80%)
How to Complete The CITI Refresher Course and Receive the Completion Report
09/10/11 no quiz
For this Completion Report to be valid, the learner listed above must be affiliated with a CITI participating institution. Falsified information and unauthorized use of the CITI course site is unethical, and may be considered scientific misconduct by your institution.
Paul Braunschweiger Ph.D.Professor, University of Miami
LITERATURE CIRCLES 44
Director Office of Research EducationCITI Course Coordinator
Return