Abstract:
Educators
Classroom teachers
often seek instructional methods that will engage young people in collaborative
learning experiences. Literature circles (lit circles) have been identified as one
means of providing a collaborative educational experience. But what does this
process look like in a classroom and how do students respond to this method?
This article explores the implementation of literature circles in a middle
level classroom and the impact on student interest in reading and student
interaction.
Teachers often find
student interest in reading wanes during the middle school years. Even students
who seem to enjoy reading find that other interests interfere with their desire
to pick up a book. Yet the ability to comprehend what one is reading and to go
beyond the surface text to make inferences are skills that are crucial for
continued success in school and ongoing learning. Helping middle level students
learn to analyze and think critically about what they read is essential to
their success. Students who do not read for pleasure but only do so when they
are completing school assignments is a problem that can affect students’ future
learning and academic success (Sullivan, 2002).
It is important prevent
this growing tide of aliteracy, the condition where
one has the ability to read but chooses not to (Sullivan, 2002). Because of
this concern, one of the goals of secondary language
arts education areit
to get students interested in reading and to help them find enjoyment in
reading and talking about books.***I edited this sentence because you’re
expressing more than one goal here.***
Working collaboratively
is another skill that young people need to develop. Most individuals like to
get together and talk about what they are interested in and what they find
enjoyable. This is also true with books. Book clubs are surfacing everywhere
because people who enjoy reading are finding ways to talk about what they read.
Lit circles have been identified as a means of developing this collaborative
process in the classroom.
This focus on student
engagement in discussions of readings as well as higher-level thinking should
be strong components in language arts classes.
Indeed, the “literature
centered reading-as-thinking mentality is . . . reflected in some state
standards and assessments. Some
progressive states like .” (Daniels (2002,
p. 5). Students who develop these skills also do better on standardized reading
tests. While much of the research has been in elementary classrooms or focused
on other outcomes, Daniels’ research did have positive results. In his study, 8th
grade
students in ,
(Daniels, 2002, p. 8). However, none of
these positive results can be accomplished if students are unwilling to read.
In the course of a
literature circles exploration in a college methods course***the repetition of
“course” in this phrase is confusing.***, pre-service teachers
raised questions about the benefits of literature circles for early adolescents.
These future teachers wondered if providing choice and peer-lead discussions
via literature circle methodology would ‘hook’ middle level students – getting
them to read more and enabling them to discuss what they read at a higher level
or if the students.***What’s going on with the last four words of this
sentence?*** They wondered if pre-adolescents could truly
collaborate and critically discuss literature without the daily guidance and
direction of the teacher.
In response to these
questions, an investigation was begun. Two teachers from a small, suburban
middle school agreed to collaborate in this process. The students in their
three sections of 8th
grade were predominantly from middle class families. Many of the students were
struggling to find success in the language arts class – with grades
consistently falling in the low C and D range.
According to their teachers, this was often because these students did
not complete the reading assignments. There was very little cultural diversity
among these students, (the classes enrolled one African American student and
one Latino student) although there was a wide range of academic ability.
The teachers for these
classes had never used literature circles, preferring to utilize a
teacher-directed, whole class approach to the study of literature. These
teachers voiced concerns about their students’ disinterest
in reading and lack of involvement in class discussions. They wanted to find ‘a
better way’ to engage all of their students in reading. We decided to try
literature circles as a method, using Daniels’ (2002) book as a starting point.
We began by creating a
survey that was designed to gather information about students’ interest in
reading and discussion of literature. We wanted to see if there would be any
difference in scores on this student interest survey following the
implementation of a literature circles unit, and whether the students preferred
working together or individually when reading and discussion literature. The
survey was the start of a 9-week, team-taught literature circles unit.
Using Nancy Atwell’s
ideas about student choice in book selection (Atwell, 1989) and incorporating
an adaptation of Daniels’ role sheet process, (Daniels, 2002,
chap 7) we developed a unit that gave students a choice about which novel they
read and also used literature circle discussions conducted by the students.
With a range of reading abilities present in the room, we sought to
differentiate the level of the texts selected. As Tomlinson has stated, varying
the books based on readability offers students the opportunity to meet
objectives while engaging in a novel that fits their skill level (Tomlinson,
2001).
In selecting our sets
of books, the readability of each book was a determining factor, as well as a
link to the theme of ‘survival’. The teachers had used the survival theme
previously with a single text, so we decided to use it as an over arching
theme, a connection between all of the books students would read. We began the
unit with an exploration of the concept of survival, linking to current
television programs as well as current events. The survey was given to each
student to complete, asking them to identify their reading habits and interest.
This same survey was to be given to students at the conclusion of the unit. The
results of this pre-test indicated that only about half of the class expressed
an interest in reading, while 36% of the class agreed that they ‘prefer to do
anything other than read’. In addition, the class was split regarding how comfortable
they were with sharing ideas about books and discussing literature with their
peers.
Throughout this unit of
study, mini-lessons were conducted that provided an opportunity for students to
learn and review various reading skills as well as group interaction skills.
Practice in using the role sheets and understanding what was expected from each
role was also included early in the unit.
Using short stories, students were asked to complete abbreviated role sheets
(Daniels, p. 107 & 112) so they could practice discussions guided by the
teachers.
Collaborative skills
were also identified as a focus for this unit. Students practiced interaction
and discussion skills before they launched into their literature circles study
through mini discussions on brief readings.
These were followed by debriefings about how they worked in groups and
what they could do to enhance their peers’ interactions. Because increasing
students’ ability to work effectively in groups was an objective, team building
activities were also conducted and connections were made to the concept of
survival and the necessity of relying on others at many times to survive in
various situations. After each regular literature circle discussion, students
were asked to assess their own and the group’s effectiveness. Class time was
also spent reviewing how to ask open-ended questions (rather then closed,
fact-based questions) and looking at connections between the literature,
current events and personal experiences in order to enhance the roles of
questioner (discussion director) and the researcher (investigator).
Other mini-lessons
focused on the review and introduction of literary terminology. In their book
groups, students were given definitions and terms in puzzle form and had to
match them to complete the puzzle.
Examples of the terms were located and shared, and students were asked
to find examples from the books they that were reading. About three-fourths of the way into the unit,
each literature circle group wrote a group essay using self-selected literature
terms and applying them to their book by locating and describing examples. The
student work that was produced during this time identified that students were
meeting the objectives regarding their ability to use literary terms in discussing
their books, and to think at higher levels.
Perhaps the most
excitement was generated when the students exchanged journals and role sheets
to create a quiz for another group. We
talked about ‘fair’ questions, ‘content’ questions and ‘application’ questions,
and the students were excited to take their peer-developed quiz and to see how
other teams did on the assessment they created.
At the heart of the
unit were the student discussion groups.
Early in the unit, students were given a ‘book talk’ and read brief
sections from each book. Students were
allowed to choose their own book, identifying their ‘top three’ choices. As
teachers, we took into account student ability and social relationships to
establish groups that were somewhat balanced.
However, some students with less ability selected more complex books, while
some students who might easily read Steinbeck chose texts that were not as
challenging. We honored the students’ choices, and groups were formed based on
their selection, with individuals getting either their first or second choice
book. Each group then established a schedule of reading, based on the dates we
set and the end date for the unit.
In excerpts from the
group essays, you can see student understanding of literary terms in their
writing. Reading The Outsiders, by S.
E. Hinton, a student contributed this to his group essay, “Conflict such as
Character vs. himself or herself***Perhaps an explanation of this category, by way
of introduction, is in order. I, for
one, found the subject of this sentence confusing, maybe because of
the way that it is phrased, I’m not sure.*** is when a character
can’t decide what to do. An example is
when Ponyboy doesn’t know if he should tell Darry and Sodapop where he is or
not. It is an example of the literary term because it tells us that Ponyboy is puzzled about what he should tell his brothers.
This has impact in the book because Ponyboy wants to
get closer to Darry but doesn’t know how to make it
happen, and that causes all sorts of problems.”
And while reading The Pigman, another student wrote, “First person point of
view uses ‘I’ when telling the story. This gives you a good idea of what the
person is really feeling. If The Pigman was
not written in first person, we would not have gotten the in-depth look at what
each of the two main characters were thinking and feeling.”
In another assessment,
the reader response journal, you can hear students make connections between the
book and their own lives. From a group
reading Shark Beneath the Reef, a
student wrote in her journal, “The author does a nice job with suspense in this
chapter. When Tomas goes down in the water for so long I get nervous,
especially when he saw the shark’s tail. I would’ve been really scared and swam
away.” From a student reading Charlie Skeddadle, “ I thought it was cool the way she
described the snow. She says that ‘it
glistened and made the mountains look beautiful.’ I thought that was important because then the
reader can picture the scene in their head.
She (the author) uses this kind of describing throughout the entire
book.” Yet another writes, “I thought The Outsiders was a great book filled
with adventure and real life. It shows
the meaning of friendship and family.
When Johnny writes that letter to Ponyboy I
finally understood something that I hadn’t before. When Johnny said ‘Stay gold, stay gold.” He
wanted Ponyboy to stay good the way he was.”
Throughout the unit, it
was clear the students were thinking about what they were reading in more
thoughtful, critical ways. In one role sheet, a student completing the
‘connector role’ wrote “ In the Diary of
Anne Frank, you can see why they
(the people in hiding) are arguing because they’ve been stuck together
for too long. When I’m with my friends for a whole day or overnight, we
sometimes get sick of each other.” On another role sheet, the discussion
director for a group reading Charlie
Skedaddle moved beyond the ‘so what happened?’ questions and asked deeper
questions about the book like: “ Why
was Charlie sad after he killed a soldier when that was what he said he wanted
to do all along?” These questions, and
others like it, produced interesting and insightful conversations among the
students.
We were all pleased
that the students were working so hard and really thinking and talking about
what they read. This certainly didn’t mean that every day was a smooth ride.
Some groups got off task easily and we constantly had to circulate and help
them re-focus. Some students did not
spend the time preparing their daily work and were chastised by their peers for
their seeming ‘lack of effort’. We found
that we had to return to our team building and group interaction lessons
frequently to help groups work through their differences. Because the students
were producing role sheets and journals and group response, we were able to
gather lots of antidotal***Do you mean anecdotal
perhaps? Maybe I’m just
unfamiliar with the adjective antidotal in this
context, but anecdotal evidence is
the conventional phrase.*** evidence about their work. Rubrics were used to score all of the student
work, and everything was kept in a portfolio so each group had a record of all
of itstheir
work.
At the end of the unit,
students took the same survey that they did at the start of the unit. There
were 66 students who took both the pre- and post-tests.
Student scores were coded and the names removed. Eyeballing the scores, it was
evident that there were some changes in student response to the questions
between the pre- and post- test. However, there was not an overwhelming shift
in scores, so what these changes meant was unclear.
The difference between
the pre and post-test was calculated for each student’s response to each
question, and a Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks
test was conducted to see if there was any significant change in student
responses after the literature circles unit. The z scores calculated for all
questions identified that the change was not significant for any of the
questions.
Finding that the
difference in scores was not significant was interesting. While we didn’t have
statistical support for literature circles as a means of enhancing student
enjoyment of reading or peer discussions, the teachers agreed that it had
appeared that the students had been enthusiastic readers during our unit. Even
though we had observed highly engaged student conversations and reviewed
thoughtful written work that seemed to reflect interest and involvement on the
part of the students, there was no evidence that this method correlated with
greater student interest in reading or preference for collaborative
discussions. We went in search of ‘the rest of the story’ and decided to look
at student responses on an individual level.
As we discussed our
findings, we felt it was important to learn more about why some students seemed
to be less excited about picking up a book to read at the conclusion of the
literature circle unit, as well as why some seemed a bit more interested in
reading. The survey results were reviewed, focusing on the questions related to
interest in reading. Any score for these questions that shifted either up or
down on the scale was identified. This
shift was categorized as ‘the student’s reaction
to the use of literature circles in relation to their interest in reading and
collaboration with peers in discussions.’ The total numerical change in score
was not calculated, but each response that changed in some way between the pre-
and post-test was identified. The resulting shifts in student responses were
divided into the following categories:
Negative Reaction Category = a student response
that:
is a score that
indicates the student was less
in agreement with the statement: “I enjoy picking up a book to read when I have
free time” than they were before the unit. (N = 7 )
OR
is a score that
indicates the student was more
in agreement with the statement: “I prefer to do anything other than read a
book” than they were before the unit. (N = 17)
Total scores in
negative reaction category = 24
Positive Reaction Category = a student response
that:
is a score that
indicates the student was more
in agreement with the statement: “I enjoy picking up a book to read when I have
free time” than they were before the unit. (N =
20)
OR
identify a score that
indicates the student was less
in agreement with the statement: “I prefer to do anything other than read a
book” than they were before the unit. (N = 15)
Total scores in
positive reaction category = 35
is a score that does
not change from the pre- test to the
post- test
Subcategories identified within
the categories listed above are as follows:
Contradictory category = a student response to
the two questions that:
places the student in
BOTH the positive and negative reaction categories (N = 4)
Double positive category = a student response
that:
places the student in
the positive reaction category twice (N = 4)
Double negative category = a student response
that:
places the student in
the negative reaction category twice (N = 4)
Following the literature circles unit, the
classroom teachers conducted a whole class unit using another novel. At the end
of this unit, students were randomly selected from the defined reaction
categories (listed above) for interviews. Three students were randomly selected
from the ‘positive’ group and three were selected from the ‘negative’
group. In addition, one student from the
‘double negative category’, one from the ‘double positive category’ and one
from the ‘contradictory category’ were randomly
selected, with care taken to ensure that no one student was representing more
than one category. Interviews were conducted with these 9 students, using the
following questions:
Questions for
literature circles follow up:
1)
What was it
that you liked or didn’t like about literary circles?
2)
You indicated on your survey that your interest in picking up a book to read
went (up / down) after the literature circles unit. Can you recall why you might have answered
this way?
3)
After you completed your literary circle unit, you read a book as a whole
class. Did you find the whole class
discussion approach easier /harder/ more enjoyable/more challenging than the
literature circles unit?
4)
Would you prefer to have further studies in literature use the literature circles
method, the whole class discussion of a book or a mixture of the two? Why?
From the students in
the negative reaction category who
shifted to a less favorable response to reading a book, we heard these comments
and many like them:
“I felt overwhelmed
during the literature circles unit – we were always reading!”
“There are more people
to share ideas when the whole class is reading the same book.”
“I feel more challenged
when I work on my own to get the work done and not in a small group – I push myself
harder that way when I am only responsible for myself.
“I felt like literature
circles was too much work.”
“Things are easier when
the whole class discusses together.”
“It was a challenge to
keep up with the reading schedule we set in our literature circles group.”
“I didn’t like it when
we disagreed on things in my group.”
“Sometimes the group
goofed off and I don’t think I get as much done then.”
“Literature circles was
fun, but sometimes it seemed like I had to keep the group moving – I had to do
more work.”
“It’s just easier when
the whole class is reading together.”
All of these student
said they would prefer to read in a whole class setting where the teacher lead
the discussion, although many said that it was more enjoyable discussing the
books with their friends.
From the students in
the positive reaction category, who
shifted to a more positive interest in reading, we heard these comments and
others of a similar nature:
“I like that I got to
choose the book I read.”
“In the group you felt
like you had to do your part so you would have stuff to talk about.”
“I prefer lit circles
as a way to learn because groups force you to try harder to get your part
done. In a larger group you don’t always
have to get your work done, you can sort of ‘hang back’ from the discussion. It
was hard, though.”
“In lit circles you
could do more, you are not reading for nothing – you are talking about what you
read and you could draw pictures and do other stuff about the book that I like
better.”
“Being able to discuss
with everyone, you know what you learned, you get different points of view and
it makes it easier to understand.”
“You can ask questions
in lit circles, it is easier to talk to a small group.”
“I felt more challenged
in lit circles because I had to explain myself so my friends could get what I
meant.”
The student from the double positive category was
particularly pleased with literature circles, and repeatedly said how much they***he/she?***
liked choosing their own book and talking in a relaxed way – not worrying about
when the teacher would call on them and if they had the ‘right’ answer. While
the responses were similar to those in the positive category, one comment was
particularly poignant: “In lit circles I got to put in my ideas – that doesn’t
usually happen when the whole class is doing it (discussing).”
The student from the double negative category echoed the
comments from students in the negative category, although this statement seemed
to reflect their overall sentiment: “I didn’t like depending on anther person
to get my work done. I prefer to get
things done by myself.” Perhaps it is a learning preference, but this
individual was particularly adamant that they didn’t like working in groups. In addition, this individual expressed
concern that some of their literary circles group might “be wrong in what they
say about the book. When the teacher
leads the discussion, I know I am getting the right ideas about what we read.”
The student from the contradictory category summed up his
perspective by saying, “ Lit circles weren’t bad – I mean, it was a lot more
fun talking with our friends about what we read, and the book was OK. But I had to actually do the reading because my friends would get on me if I wasn’t ready
or goofed around. So I kinda like them but I didn’t
like to have to always keep up on things. I have a life beyond school –
basketball and stuff, and keeping up with the reading and the role sheets and
the journals was a pain.”
From the survey results, the student work and
the interviews with students, it is clear that while literature circles can
generate interest in reading for some students, this collaborative learning
process can be a ‘turn off’ for others. A critical point to be taken from this
study is that teachers need to think carefully about individual student
learning preference and how that impacts student interest in reading and
student reaction to classroom instructional practices. It also is important to
consider that some students may feel pushed to participate more in literature
circles because they can’t ‘hide’ like they can in a large class
discussion. Educators need to consider
that literature circles may be negatively perceived by students because they
are expected to read more and think more critically than they may in a whole
group setting.
What did we learn? While not a statistically
significant number, individual survey results and subsequent analysis show that
some students were more enthused about reading following the literature circles
unit and some really enjoyed the collaborative process. The pattern of survey
responses and interview comments also identified that there are students who do
not like to be forced to work together, and this hindered their enjoyment of
reading. Whether this perception stems
from the fact that some students may feel like they carry a greater load in a
group discussion or feel they have to do more work to in a literature circle
unit, these issues must be a factor in teacher decision making. Teachers must
consider how they structure the group interaction to ensure that no one student
consistently carries the responsibility of leading the literature circles.
Survey results and interview comments also identified students who felt that they were more involved in the discussion, more challenged and thus learned more from participating in the literature circles. A strong wish for more learning experiences like literature circles was also expressed by these students during their interviews. Certainly, whole class discussions of a single book are positive experiences for some students and literature circles are positive experiences for others.
While this study did
not identify literature circles as a statistically significant way to get all
students interested in reading, when you look at individual student data and
responses, it is clear that some students react more positively to this
collaborative reading process. It is important then, for teachers to recognize
that differentiated instruction is not just about meeting the needs of one or
two particular students, but must also address the preferred learning mode of
all students. When students feel that
they have an opportunity to learn in a way that best meets their needs and enables
them to be successful, they are more positive about the experience. In this way, literature circles can have a
positive impact on individual students’ interest in reading and support their
learning.
In addition, teachers
need to recognize that if they want their students to develop group interaction
skills, some students will be pushed to work in ways that are not as
comfortable for them. However, we need
to consider that whole class instruction is also uncomfortable for some
students. It becomes an issue of
balance. Teachers will want to balance
their instruction between whole class and literature circle units.
The most exciting
results from this study/unit were the actual work produced by the students.
Journal reflections and final products reflected a high level of thinking and
creativity. By placing the learning in their hands and allowing them to work
collaboratively with their peers, students met the teachers’ expectations.
Student interest in reading increased for some students when they were engaged
in this preferred learning method and some students developed a greater comfort level about sharing their ideas and
collaborating in their study of literature.
These results argue for more research regarding the use of literature circles in the classroom, and suggest that the implementation of some literature circle units within the curriculum may be appropriate as educators work to create school curricula that positively impacts a wider range of learners. We know we want our students to be engaged readers and to enjoy reading, and we need to keep searching for ways to make that happen. Literature circles can help.
References
Atwell, N. (1998). In the Middle: New Understandings About
Writing,
Daniels, H. (2002). Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in Book
Clubs & Reading Groups 2nd Edition.
Sullivan, E. (2002).
Reaching reluctant young readers: A handbook for librarians and teachers.
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction In
Mixed-Ability Classrooms 2nd Edition.
Submission Number: ooooooooooooo
Submission
Title: oooooooooooooo
A: 1
B: 2
C: 2
D: 2
E: 2
F: 2
G: 2
H: 2
Final Grade: Y=Accepted
Pending Minor Corrections
Comments: I found
this discussion of your lit circle experiment interesting on several
levels. I appreciate the window your
essay opens into the world of middle school pedagogy. As an English professor at the college level,
I was struck by the similarities between our two worlds. Obviously, there are degrees of complexity,
but some of the underlying problems are very similar. For instance, I find myself struggling with
the problem of “aliteracy” with my
students also. And by the way, I’m
grateful for having learned the word “aliteracy” from
this essay. I saw some similarity with
the kinds of comments you received from your students as well. It certainly seemed to me that many of the “negative”
comments, from an instructor’s perspective, could be
read in a positive light. Complaints
about having to work hard, while often not intended as such, can be
read as high praise. Your concluding
comments nudge in that direction to some degree, but my preference would be to
push that further. For example, I would
take much pride in the comment by the student
who complained that his/her “life” had been inconvenienced by the
increased amount of reading the lit circle demanded. The absence of a work ethic
is not a “learning style,” and I sensed that some, if not most, of the students
who wanted to return to the teacher-driven lectures were not
motivated by “style” issues insofar as style refers to an optimum
learning experience as we teachers would define it. I guess I am suggesting that I read the
comments you provide as showing a
more positive overall outcome for your lit circle than you are suggesting
yourself. I only offer
these two cents as a response, not an editorial suggestion. Apart from some editing concerns that I have
noted above, I found this to be an
engaging essay and vote to accept it for AEQ, pending corrections. I enjoyed and learned from your work. I hope these comments are helpful.
Reviewer: ZED