Manzone h read64067_action_researchpaperfinaldraft

LITERATURE CIRCLES 1

The Impact of Literature Circles on Reading Comprehension and Student Interest

Hilary A. Manzone

East Carolina University


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.


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


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


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


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).


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


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.


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.


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


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 withthese two classes once a dayas 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


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 fourliterature 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.” Thiswas 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


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 testscbm 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


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 datewas January 16th, 2012 andlasted 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

45minutes 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


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 weeksincluded 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.


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


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 24 58.54 63.95

(Control Group)

Group B 24 58.75 62.50

(Intervention

Group)

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.


Table 1.2:

Mean and Standard Deviation of Control and Intervention Groups.

Group N Mean SD

Group A 24 4.16666667 12.8254728

(Control Group)

Group B 24 4.58333333 13.9810949

(Intervention

Group- Literature

Circles)

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.


Table 1.3:

Survey pre and post Mean Scores between Control and Intervention Groups

Group N Survey Prior to Survey After Difference in

Implementation: Implementation: Mean Scores

Mean Score Mean Score

Group A 24 60.91 57.38 3.53

(Control Group)

Group B 24 58.33 57.42 .91

(Intervention

Group)

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


Group A 24 3.54 6.90292419

(Control Group)

Group B 24 0.88 8.33699195

(Intervention

Group- Literature

Circles)

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


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


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


explain what happens when that link is weak. Understanding why a class or student may not

have a positive correlationbetween literature circles and reading comprehension can help

researchers and teachers design instruction to help those studentscomprehend 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.


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.


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.


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.


Appendix A
Garfield Attitudes Toward Reading Survey


Appendix B
Easy-CBM- “The Magnifying Glass”


Appendix C
Del Siegle's T-test Spreadsheet Calculations for Reading Comprehension Assessment
Value used for Group 1 ------------------> 1 This speadsheet was prepared by Del Siegle for use in EPSY 341
Value 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 Group
Variance Variance 0.03248743 Control Group is Group 1
Group 1 Group 2 Mean diff. -0.41666667 -0.41666667 0.02980215 Control Group is Group 2
Mean 4.16666667 4.58333333 SE 3.87278844 3.87278844
SD 12.8254728 13.9810949 t-value -0.10758828 -0.10758828
n 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. 1
Mean N/A N/A SE The scores are not paired. 2
SD 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-test
1 5 5
1 0 0
1 -20 -20
1 -15 -15
1 30 30
1 15 15
1 5 5
1 -15 -15
1 -5 -5
1 5 5
1 -5 -5
1 10 10
1 5 5
1 20 20
1 0 0
1 20 20
1 30 30
1 10 10
1 10 10
1 5 5
1 0 0
1 -5 -5
1 0 0
1 -5 -5
2 5 5
2 0 0
2 25 25
2 10 10
2 15 15
2 0 0
2 15 15
2 0 0
2 -10 -10
2 -5 -5
2 10 10
2 -5 -5
2 30 30
2 -10 -10
2 -30 -30
2 5 5
2 5 5
2 -15 -15
2 20 20
2 15 15
2 -10 -10
2 15 15
2 5 5
2 20 20


Appendix D
Del Siegle's T-test Spreadsheet Calculations for Reading Interest Survey
Value used for Group 1 ------------------> 1 This speadsheet was prepared by Del Siegle for use in EPSY 341
Value 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 Group
Variance Variance 0.38630971 Control Group is Group 1
Group 1 Group 2 Mean diff. -2.66666667 -2.66666667 0.31985957 Control Group is Group 2
Mean -3.54166667 -0.875 SE 2.20940977 2.20940977
SD 6.90292419 8.33699195 t-value -1.20695884 -1.20695884
n 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. 1
Mean N/A N/A SE The scores are not paired. 2
SD 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-test
1 0 0
1 -7 -7
1 0 0
1 -16 -16
1 -3 -3
1 -8 -8
1 2 2
1 -7 -7
1 -9 -9
1 5 5
1 -11 -11
1 -18 -18
1 -7 -7
1 1 1
1 -5 -5
1 10 10
1 3 3
1 -5 -5
1 -8 -8
1 3 3
1 -2 -2
1 -7 -7
1 -4 -4
1 8 8
2 4 4
2 -5 -5
2 -8 -8
2 -3 -3
2 3 3
2 -10 -10
2 15 15
2 4 4
2 2 2
2 -4 -4
2 22 22
2 -3 -3
2 -5 -5
2 -9 -9
2 -1 -1
2 -15 -15
2 13 13
2 -7 -7
2 -2 -2
2 -8 -8
2 1 1
2 -4 -4
2 1 1
2 -2 -2


Appendix E
IRB completion Report

CITICollaborative 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 Reading
Phone: 919-600-4047
Email: greenhi10@students.ecu.edu

Group 2.Social / Behavorial Research Investigators and Key Personnel:

Stage 2. Refresher Course Passed on 09/10/11 (Ref # 6585835)

Date
Complete
Required Modules d

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, 09/07/11 5/5 (100%)
and Privacy and Confidentiality

SBR 101 REFRESHER MODULE 4 - Vulnerable Subjects 09/10/11 3/4 (75%)

SBR 101 REFRESHER MODULE 5 - Education, International, 09/10/11 4/5 (80%)
and Internet Research

How to Complete The CITI Refresher Course and Receive the 09/10/11 no quiz
Completion Report

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
Director Office of Research Education
CITI Course Coordinator
Return

Manzone h read64067_action_researchpaperfinaldraft

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Manzone h read64067_action_researchpaperfinaldraft

Recently uploaded

Manzone h read64067_action_researchpaperfinaldraft