ii

Piedmont College

School of Education

Virtual Literature Circles:

An Exploration of Teacher Strategies for Implementation

Melissa J. Bridges

A Dissertation submitted to the

School of Education

in partial fulfillment of the -

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

Degree Awarded:

Summer Semester, 2015

 ProQuest Number: 3722949

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 3722949

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 iii

© 2015
Melissa J. Bridges

All Rights Reserved

 iv

Abstract

Virtual Literature Circles:

An Exploration of Teacher Strategies for Implementation

by

Melissa J. Bridges

Chair: Dr. Kenyon Brown

This qualitative study explored the strategies that teachers use to implement

virtual literature circles in middle and high school classes and university Reading

programs. Through questionnaires, interviews, and document analysis, several strategies

that support student learning were identified, including guided questions, rubrics with

clear expectations, and targeted feedback. Making the process student-centered rather

than teacher-centered, using appropriate platforms with small groups, and including a

face-to-face component also supported student learning.

Additionally, an examination of teacher perceptions of benefits and challenges of

virtual literature circles revealed more advantages than disadvantages. Benefits included

improved writing, specificity, and critical thinking; connections to other subject matter;

peer interactions; ease of differentiation; technology integration; flexibility; teacher

collaboration; engagement; and student-centered practice. Challenges included

technology access issues and glitches, student apathy, superficial student responses, and

time issues.

Keywords: virtual literature circles; online literature circles; ELA; reading

 v

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my family, whose love, support, and

encouragement made it all possible. Through countless hours working at the computer

and missing many gatherings, they stayed constant, and for that, I am truly grateful. In

particular, Scott Hamilton, who spent as many hours babysitting for me as I did writing,

deserves extra thanks. His wonderful love, unwavering support, and constant reassurance

mean so much to me. To my daughter and son, who helped with pseudonyms and

technology, I am also thankful. I am blessed beyond measure with a great family!

 vi

Acknowledgements

This dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance of my

committee chair, Dr. Kenyon Brown, to whom I am extremely grateful. His

encouragement and commentary on the many drafts of this document helped me stay

focused and productive. I would also like to acknowledge my committee members, Dr.

Kathleen O’Keefe and Dr. Katrina Short, who both gave of their time and expertise to

guide me in developing this dissertation.

Additionally, I would like to thank the questionnaire respondents and interview

participants, without whom this study would not have been possible. Their willingness to

share their insights and time with me is much appreciated. Furthermore, the Georgia

Council of Teachers of English graciously allowed me to set up a poster and a table at

their conference to advertise my study and obtain more participants, and for that, I am

grateful.

Finally, my friends and colleagues who listened to me throughout the process

deserve many accolades for their encouragement and help. Thank you all!
 vii

List of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 1 - Screenshot of GoogleDocs files for sharing …………………. 103

Figure 2 - Screenshot of student comments in reply to

teacher’s posted questions ……………………………………… 104

 viii

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1 - Research Questions and Themes from Online Questionnaire…… 94

Table 2 - Research Questions and Themes from Interviews of Middle Grades

Educators…….…….…….…….…….……..…….……… 110

Table 3 - Research Questions and Themes from Interviews of University

Educators…….…….…….…….…….…….…….………….…… 128
 ix

List of Appendices

Appendix Page

A - Georgia Common Core Performance Standards………….………….…… 172

B - GCTE/NCTE Letter………….………….………….………….…………. 177

C - Letter of Invitation and Initial Questionnaire………….………….……… 178

D - Informed Consent Form………….………….………….………….……… 180

E - Semi-structured Interview Questions………….………….………….……. 182

F - Code Samples………….………….………….………….………….……… 183

G - Sample Coded Interview………….………….………….………….……... 184

H - Questionnaire Respondent Demographic Information………….…………. 197

I - Questionnaire Responses………….………….………….………….……… 198

J - “Sara’s” Culminating Activity Menu………….………….………….……… 202

K - “Wendy’s” Program Chart………….………….………….………….…….. 204

 x

List of Abbreviations

AP Advanced Placement

CCGPS Common Core Georgia Performance Standards

ELA English Language Arts

ELL English Language Learner

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

ESL English as a Second Language

EQ Essential Question

GALILEO Georgia Library Learning Online

GCTE Georgia Council of Teachers of English

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

ILA International Literacy Association

IRA International Reading Association

LMS Learning Management System

MOO Multi-user, Object Oriented

NCTE National Council of Teachers of English

RRT Reader Response Theory

VLE Virtual Learning Environment

ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

 xi

Table of Contents

Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Dedication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

List of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Chapters

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background of the Problem ..................................... 1

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose of the Study ......................................... 2

Rationale and Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Researcher Perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Researcher Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

II. Review of Literature ........................................... 14

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Literature Review Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Conceptual Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 xii

History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Literature Circles in the 1980s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Importance of Independent Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Impact of Reader Response Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

The Collaboration Connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Literature Circles Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Theory Underpinning Literature Circles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Addressing Common Problems in Traditional Literature Circles. . . 35

Virtual Literature Circles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Blended Learning Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Serving Various Populations with Virtual Literature Circles. . . . . . 48

Establishing Virtual Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Benefits of Virtual Media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Practical Virtual Applications in Classrooms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Virtual Literature Circles and Educational Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

III. Methodology .................................................. 64

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Rationale for Research Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Method: Rationale for Qualitative Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Participant Selection and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Information Needed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Procedures for Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

 xiii

Data Collection Phase I: Questionnaires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Data Collection Phase II: Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Data Collection Phase III: Documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Procedures for Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Issues of Trustworthiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Chapter Summary ........................................... 87

IV. Findings ...................................................... 88

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Questionnaire Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Supporting Student Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Following the Daniels Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Writing Assignments/Projects Assigned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Differentiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Face-to-Face Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Student Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Technology Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
 xiv

Access to Technology/Technology glitches . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Superficial Student Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Interview and Document Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Middle Grades Team of Five Educators at “OLCS” . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Middle Grades Educator, “Sara” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Themes for Middle Grades Educators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

High School Educator, “Will” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Comparison of Middle Grades Educators to High School Educator. 115

University Educators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

University Educator, “Wendy” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

University Educator, “Mark” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Themes for University Educators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Chapter Summary .......................................... 128

V. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Findings Related to Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Clear Expectations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Guidance and Feedback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Appropriate Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Student-centered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Small Group Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Face-to-Face Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Perceived Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

 xv

Improved Writing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Improved Specificity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Critical Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Connections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Peer Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Ease of Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Technology Integration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Flexibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Teacher Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Student-centered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Perceived Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Technology Access/Glitches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Student Apathy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Superficial Student Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Limitations of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Relationship of Findings to Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Implications and Recommendations for Future Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Conclusion ................................................ 156

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
 1

Chapter I

Introduction

Background of the Problem

Literature circles have been used for centuries as a means of discussing texts, but

in the 1980s they became a powerful classroom tool to increase student motivation to

read (Clarke & Holwadel, 2007; Stien & Beed, 2004), thereby leading to improved

critical thinking and reading comprehension (Clarke & Holwadel, 2007) and increased

achievement scores (Daniels, 2002; Harvey & Daniels, 2009). Now, with the advent of

new technologies, a new venue has become available for teachers who wish to harness

the power of literature circles while utilizing an online environment for discussion. The

Internet, with its ability to host both synchronous and asynchronous discussion forums,

allows teachers to structure virtual literature circles that can lead to improved educational

outcomes as well.

In fact, many teachers want to incorporate more technology into their curricula to

meet standards, and they are encouraged to do so by integrating “new literacies”—skills

that will enable students to communicate effectively via technology in a global

environment and thereby increase their ability to collaborate cross-culturally, building

relationships in the process (“The NCTE Definition,” 2013; “New Literacies,” 2009).

Nevertheless, educators do not necessarily know how to do these, and may also not know

how to structure their lessons so that learning can occur.

Statement of the Problem

In particular, English Language Arts (ELA) teachers are beginning to use virtual

literature circles more frequently. The problem, however, lies in a lack of studies that can
 2

demonstrate exactly how teachers are designing online experiences that support student

learning. Thus, it is important to determine what strategies ELA teachers are employing

to ensure that their students are supported and learning in the virtual environment. That

learning can be considered in light of the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards

[CCGPS] (“English Language Arts,” 2013).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to identify the strategies that ELA teachers use

when implementing virtual literature circles, as well as to uncover any challenges a

virtual environment poses. Additionally, this study was designed to reveal any benefits

offered as perceived by practitioners.

For example, the standards for Literary and Informational Reading from the ninth

and tenth grade CCGPS reveal several areas in which virtual literature circles can

effectively be used (“English Language Arts,” 2013). Students are asked to “cite strong

and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well

as inferences drawn from the text” (“English Language Arts,” 2013), determine themes,

and analyze characters in ELACC9-10RL1-3. Furthermore, they are asked to consider

how words and phrases are used, how text structure affects the story, and to analyze point

of view or a cultural experience from readings in the Craft and Structure Standards

(“English Language Arts,” 2013). A list of the Standards is included in Appendix A.

Arguably, a well-crafted virtual literature circle plan can address all of these standards.

Additionally, selected Writing Standards might also be addressed. For instance,

depending on assignments, students could be asked for persuasive, expository, and even

narrative writing, and they would also be engaged in the Range of Writing Standard, in
 3

which students write routinely over a range of tasks, purposes, and audiences (“English

Language Arts,” 2013). Speaking and Listening Standards are addressed as well; students

in virtual literature circles are engaged in “a range of collaborative discussions” (“English

Language Arts,” 2013), not to mention those that call for technology use from the

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the International Literacy

Association (ILA), formerly known as the International Reading Association [IRA] (“The

NCTE Definition,” 2013; “New Literacies,” 2009).

Rationale and Significance

Traditional literature circles are a proven way to increase student motivation to

read (Clarke & Holwadel, 2007; Stien & Beed, 2004), thereby leading to improved

critical thinking and reading comprehension (Clarke & Holwadel, 2007) and increased

achievement scores (Daniels, 2002; Harvey & Daniels, 2009). The benefits of traditional

literature circles can be extended with the use of technology and virtual literature circles

for online discussion of texts. Because discussion can occur synchronously and

asynchronously, teachers can structure their virtual literature circles in a way that works

for them while also addressing curriculum standards. By integrating “new literacies”

related to technology, teachers can assist students in becoming effective communicators

in a global environment and increase their ability to collaborate cross-culturally, building

relationships in the process (“The NCTE Definition,” 2013; “New Literacies,” 2009).

Nevertheless, educators do not necessarily know how to do so and may not know how to

structure their lessons so that learning can occur.

This study is significant because it addresses specific strategies that teachers can

use when integrating virtual literature circles into their own classes. Because simply
 4

integrating technology is not a solution to challenges, this study also addresses how

scaffolding is used to assist students and facilitate their online conversations as well as

how to better accommodate struggling readers, gifted readers, and shy students. It

illuminates various student-to-student and teacher-to-student power issues so that

teachers can minimize these challenges as well. Student learning is the outcome, but

teacher guidance is what will make that learning a reality, and this study fills the gap for

those who want to integrate virtual literature circles with positive results.

Research Questions

The following central question guided the study:

How do ELA teachers create a virtual literature circle experience that supports student

learning?

The following subquestion further informed the study:

What are the benefits and/or challenges, if any, that teachers perceive in the use of virtual

literature circles, and how can these be addressed?

Researcher Perspectives

As an ELA educator for 20 years, I have personal experience using literature

circles in my secondary classes. I have used them consistently for the last eight years with

varying degrees of success, depending on the class. Prior to literature circles, I had taught

single novels to a whole class through intense novel study over a period of weeks. The

students and I found it to be a grueling, painful process that took a lot of joy out of

reading.

Thus, when I researched literature circles for an action research project, they

sounded like a cure for the monotonous process that, while it did require deeper thinking
 5

and analysis, did not foster students’ love of reading or get them excited about sharing

what they read. I used the book Mini-Lessons for Literature Circles (Daniels & Steineke,

2004) as my handbook for designing the process. It provides a variety of brief lessons

that helps teachers tailor their literature circles for their particular groups of students. I

began using literature circles with a group of gifted freshmen, whom I taught in tenth and

twelfth grades as well. The group was extremely receptive to the idea of literature circles,

and it was a project we undertook together with a great deal of passion, because these

were generally strong, fluent readers. It was an enriching experience for us, and in tenth

grade, we collaborated with the science teacher to read texts that had a science focus in

order to build on interdisciplinary connections. Again, the experience proved fruitful,

with student feedback being positive and suggestions offered about lengths of reading

cycles, response styles, and projects. I did not teach them again until twelfth grade, and in

their year off from me, they did not have literature circles. When they returned, they

asked about doing them again, but they had read most of our supply of popular novels.

Thus, in this year we focused on classic texts, still forming small groups based on their

choice of novels. While they did not necessarily enjoy the classics as much as popular

fiction, they had reached a maturity level where they appreciated them anyway and could

compare them in quality to the other novels they had read.

I observed many benefits firsthand in this process. First, engagement with the

texts was high, which was a result of the popular novels included in the selections.

Students indicated real joy at being allowed to choose from these popular novels, citing

how stifled they felt reading Accelerated Reading selections in elementary school.

Additionally, they liked not having a test at the end of the reading, and we discussed how
 6

those tests tended to isolate facts rather than lend themselves to deeper meanings. They

wanted to share their reading experiences through projects, but they also wanted choice in

these; many of them preferred to use music and technology as vehicles to share their

texts, but these projects were designed to be “hooks” to convince other students to read

their novels. While some students still expressed dissatisfaction with reading in general,

they were much happier with the literature circle method; not only did it allow them to

work with peers, it also allowed them to experience genres they might not otherwise have

chosen, such as sci-fi or non-fiction.

As I saw the benefits my gifted students experienced using literature circles, I

decided to expand their use with my regular education students, many of whom had a

deep dislike of reading and exhibited low fluency. Again, I used Daniels’ and Steineke’s

(2004) book as my guide, but I used more basic lessons with this group, which needed

more guidance in terms of how to have discussion and how to demonstrate support and

encouragement for one another. I found less encouraging results with this group, because

many of them simply did not read, which lead to very ineffective group discussion. While

I offered book selections that were appropriate for their reading levels and that were

interesting, at least to me, in terms of content, I still had trouble convincing students to

read. In fact, some boasted that they had not read a book since elementary school! In an

effort to stimulate discussions, I allowed them to read in class so that they could at least

discuss somewhat. I also suggested audio books to help those with low fluency.

Nevertheless, they often simply failed to turn in responses, and their projects were not as

thought-provoking as they could have been. While they told me that they liked working

with peers and having choice, they seemed to simply dislike reading in general.
 7

Though I had mixed results I have not stopped using literature circles, because I

see so much value in them. When students do read, they can engage in lively discussion

about the books, analyzing characters and themes, and learning how the author’s craft

contributes to their enjoyment of the stories. Many of them, when they give books a

chance, find a newfound love of reading, or at least rediscover an old passion.

As technology use by students has skyrocketed, with most of them having access

to smartphones, tablets, and laptops, I began to wonder if using technology in the

literature circle process would help students interact more and on a deeper level than they

do in class, when it is easy to become distracted by social issues peers find interesting.

Because my school changed from a block schedule to a seven period day, time was at a

premium, so I wondered if asynchronous discussion boards, such as those offered on

Edmodo, would assist with encouraging greater textual connections and insights. After

surveying my students to determine Internet access, I found that one entire class of

honors American Literature students had access, so I decided to try the interactive online

component. I had already taught them the previous year and had used traditional literature

circles, so they were familiar with the format. Also, our school allowed students to bring

their own technology to class, so that fact was encouraging regarding access.

In this class, we were reading The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne,

arguably a very difficult novel that can be challenging for students, which was the case

with my students. I had already introduced them to Edmodo early in the year as a way of

posting their assignments, contributing comments during individual assignments, and

responding to polls, and they found it was similar in structure to Facebook. They even

installed the mobile app on their smartphones and Kindles. They indicated they liked this
 8

platform, so I posted an assignment for them to each post three comments or questions in

regard to their readings of sections of the novel. I told them they had to respond to

someone at least once in their postings, and that they needed to consider deeper

meanings, such as themes and characterization, and not just basic content. They seemed

to like the idea, but had lots of questions; they wanted to know if they had to answer their

questions, if they were supposed to write a lot, if they needed to refer to the novel pages

specifically, and if they were getting a grade for the assignment. I explained that other

students should attempt to answer their questions, though they could offer insights if they

had them in regard to their own question. I told them the goal was not to write a lot, but

to have a lively conversation with their peers, and that, yes, referring to novel pages could

at times be helpful, but was only required when using a direct quote. The grading issue

with this group was extremely important, so I told them that they would definitely get a

grade for posting the three times, and that they needed to conform to the guidelines, such

as one response to another student to facilitate a discussion.

The results were interesting. Some students posted often but briefly; others

dutifully posted the three comments and no more. Some did not post at all, claiming they

could not. Questions tended to be simplistic rather than complex, as I would have liked,

but discussion about it afterwards lead me to believe it was because they were struggling

with the vocabulary and content. Overall, the comments students posted showed me they

were trying to engage with the text, and their questions were relevant and valid, however

simplistic they might be. A benefit of having the transcript was that I could follow all of

the comments, not just listen in to select groups at certain times as face-to-face literature

circles require. Thus, I was able to follow up on misconceptions that other students did
 9

not or could not correct. Most students told me that they liked the online component and

that they often got very quick feedback when other students were online; they really

enjoyed the social component that felt like a Facebook chat. In contrast, several of them

expressed dissatisfaction with having to read through the comments to find something to

respond to, but I felt that their reading others’ postings was key to the process and gave

them insights that they would not normally hear in small groups. Ultimately, I did not

actually take a grade on their postings, treating the assignment more as a diagnostic tool.

In retrospect, I would have not made this a whole-class discussion, even though

the whole class was reading the same novel. Had I allowed them choices for small groups

instead of the whole class, or even if I had assigned them to certain groups, it would have

potentially been easier for them to respond; even though they would have missed other

class members’ insights, the smaller number of responses would have helped them not be

so overwhelmed.

Nevertheless, this initial foray into the world of virtual literature circles was

encouraging, and though I have not required it again, students occasionally still post

questions on Edmodo to fellow students about readings and assignments. I would like to

use it with my other groups, but access issues will change the way I ask students to

respond. For instance, we might all go to the computer lab and participate in a

synchronous discussion instead of the asynchronous format I used previously.

Researcher Assumptions

Based on my own experiences as a secondary ELA teacher who has used both

face-to-face and virtual literature circles, I bring several primary assumptions to this

study. First, literature circles are a valuable method of fostering reading and student-led
 10

discussion. I believe that students need to experience multiple perspectives so they come

to understand the multiplicity of ways to view literary works, and I also believe that

students need to hear other voices than the teacher’s so they come to appreciate differing

views. No one is required to like a certain book or agree with another student’s

interpretation, but engaging in discourse about it surely contributes to student

understanding of larger ideas and fosters diversity of opinions. Participating as young

people in these discussions can teach tolerance and respectful ways of disagreeing.

Additionally, I am an advocate of Rosenblatt’s reader response theory (1983)

which addresses the importance of the reader in bringing meaning to any literature read.

Rosenblatt (1983) argued that there is not one correct answer for a reading, but that

multiple interpretations are possible, each one dependent on the individual reader’s own

prior knowledge and experience. This school of literary criticism runs counter to other

interpretive schools of thought, such as New Criticism, which insists on one “correct”

explanation (Klages, 2012). While many teachers attempt to demonstrate to students the

tenets of various disciplines of literary criticism, including Marxist, feminist,

biographical, historical, and others, other teachers may operate from a different paradigm

that values diversity of views less than I do. I must be on guard against my own

subjectivities regarding these various modes of interpretation, since not everyone

subscribes to the notion of multiple perspectives and realities, a social constructivist

norm.

Finally, integrating technology into school subjects is a necessity, not only

because students are themselves so enamored of it, but also because in our global

economy, students will be required to utilize technological applications while

 11

collaborating with a variety of people. If I can combine literary endeavors with

technology, I will be fulfilling not just student choice, but also standards that call for

students to use technology effectively as they navigate complex meanings in literature.

One other bias I have concerns the role sheets that Daniels (2002) and others use

in their literature circles. At the high school level, I do not use them because I feel that

they can inhibit student discussion; my students would simply complete the role sheets

without having done any actual reading. Even though I know that other educators have

used them effectively by adapting them, I cannot dismiss the notion that they are

simplistic. I must have an open mind should participants use them and listen to their

perspectives and reasoning, because I also believe that we can learn from each other.

Definition of Terms

Throughout this study the definitions for relevant terminology are as follows:

 Literature circles

Daniels (2002) defined literature circles as “small, peer-led discussion groups whose

members have chosen to read the same story, poem, article, or book” (p. 2).

 Virtual/online literature circles

Much like traditional literature circles, online or virtual literature circles consist of

small groups of students who choose to read the same text and respond to it in an

electronic format, be it email, discussion board, or a social media site like Edmodo

or Facebook. Many options exist for student sharing, such as posting a digital project

(Bowers-Campbell, 2011; Klages, Pate, & Conforti, 2007; Whittingham, 2013).

 Digital literacy
 12

Digital literacy is the awareness, attitude and ability of individuals to

appropriately use digital tools and facilities to identify, access, manage,

integrate, evaluate, analyze and synthesize digital resources, construct new

knowledge, create media expressions, and communicate with others, in the

context of specific life situations, in order to enable constructive social

action; and to reflect upon this process. (Martin, 2008, pp. 166-167)

 Scaffolding

Scaffolding is demonstrating and/or modeling for students how to engage in

particular activities, especially in helping them build connections to their cultural

backgrounds (Beach, Appleman, Hynds, & Wilhelm, 2011).

 Differentiation

Differentiation refers to strategies that help teachers meet the needs of

academically diverse learners through five classroom elements that can be

differentiated, including content, process, products, affect, and learning

environment, as well as three student characteristics to which teachers can

respond when differentiating, which are readiness, interest, and learning profile

(Tomlinson & Strickland, 2005).

 Reluctant readers

This reader can be characterized as one who is reluctant to participate in reading

activities, is unwilling to read, has a negative attitude about reading, and displays

low confidence or self-esteem and may attempt to hide his or her inability to

ready by making excuses not to read (Taylor, 2012).

 Fluent readers
 13

Fluent readers know how to utilize prior knowledge and apply it to text, visualize

what they are reading, question and determine the significance of texts, make

inferences, synthesize, and monitor for meaning (Taylor, 2012).

 English Language Learner (ELL) readers

ELLs are defined as students in grades preK-12 who are currently enrolled in

United States public schools and are learning English as a second language [ESL]

(Course Crafters, 2011).

 Educational outcomes

Educational outcomes, for the purposes of this study, go beyond the basic benefits

of literature circles to include improved reading comprehension, analysis of

deeper meanings of literature, and the use of evidence-based reasoning in student

responses, whether written or spoken (“English Language Arts,” 2013).

 Reading comprehension

Reading comprehension is the ability to recognize and understand the meanings

communicated by texts (Wilhelm, 2013).

 Reading fluency

Reading fluency refers to students’ ability to recognize words quickly (Taylor,

2012).
 14

Chapter II

Review of the Literature

Statement of the Problem

Literature circles have existed for a long time, albeit without this nomenclature

(Daniels, 2002). Variously called literacy circles, literature studies, book clubs, literature

discussion groups, literature study groups, and cooperative book discussion groups, a true

literature circle goes beyond simple plot discussion to encourage various perspectives in

order to promote deeper understanding of texts (Cavanaugh, 2006). Since the 1990s, as

found with Daniels’ work in the field with his colleagues and the first edition of

Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in Book Clubs & Reading Groups (1994/2002),

much has been written about the potential for literature circles to have positive impacts

on students, including increased motivation to read (Clarke & Holwadel, 2007; Stien &

Beed, 2004), improved critical thinking and reading comprehension (Berne & Clark,

2005; Clarke & Holwadel, 2007), and increased achievement scores (Daniels, 2002;

Harvey & Daniels, 2009).

More recently, the growth of virtual forums for discussing literature has created a

new area for research. Because of a new educational focus on students’ acquisition of

21st century literacies (“New Literacies,” 2009; “The NCTE Definition,” 2013), an

emerging area of research exists for the study of how teachers are using virtual or online

literature circles to support student learning.

In particular, English Language Arts (ELA) teachers are beginning to use virtual

literature circles more frequently, but there is little research that reveals how teacher

strategies for virtual literature circles support learning in an online environment. Thus, it
 15

is important to determine what strategies ELA teachers are employing to ensure that their

students are learning in the virtual environment. As Deng and Yuen (2010) expressed,

“How a community utilizes various communication tools to support online and offline

interaction remains a fuzzy area” (p. 238), thus demonstrating a need for continued

research in this area.

This study’s findings can assist teachers who are interested in integrating virtual

literature circles into their own classes by providing useful strategies for implementation

as well as uncovering benefits of their use. Additionally, because challenges to

integration are inherent, such as student apathy and lack of student access to technology,

this study’s findings reveal how teachers minimize these challenges.

Research Questions

The following central question guided the study:

How do ELA teachers create a virtual literature circle experience that supports student

learning?

The following subquestion further informed the study:

What are the benefits and/or challenges, if any, that teachers perceive in the use of virtual

literature circles, and how can these be addressed?

Key Words

The following key search terms were used to research the topic:

 Literature circles

 Virtual/online/digital literature circles

 Teacher/teaching strategies

 Power relations
 16

 Challenges

 Struggling readers

 Fluent/gifted readers

 English language learners (ELLs)

 Students with disabilities and reading

 Scaffolding

 Differentiation

 Facilitating

 High school/secondary

 English Language Arts (ELA)

 Teaching methods

 Reading comprehension

 Challenges for moderating online discussion

 Technological learning strategies education

 Socially networked classrooms

 Blended learning strategies

 Web 2.0

 New literacies

Literature Review Methodology

To investigate this topic, the researcher began by conducting a general search on

Georgia Library Learning Online, or GALILEO, for relevant journal articles from various

databases, including ERIC, JSTOR, Academic Search Complete, and Education Source,

and electronic books related to literature circles first, then virtual, online, or digital
 17

literature circles. Next, the topic was further defined by searching for subtopics related to

literature circles and virtual literature circles, namely, challenges, struggling readers,

fluent readers, ELL readers, comprehension strategies, facilitating online discussion, and

teaching methods. These searches yielded information on blended learning and Web 2.0

technologies, which also led to issues of differentiation and power relations. Print-based

books were also searched in relation to literature circles and socially networked

classrooms.

Conceptual Development

History

Literature circles have been a staple of language arts classes since the 1980s

(Daniels, 2002; Harvey & Daniels, 2009). As Daniels (2002) clarified, however, literature

circles have existed significantly longer than that in America, beginning in 1634 with

Puritan Anne Hutchinson’s women’s study group that held shipboard discussions of

sermons, a practice she continued once she settled in Boston. The dominant patriarchal

society soon felt threatened by these women’s meetings and banned the practice. Later,

as social mores relaxed in the early nineteenth century, book groups and parties again

sprung up as a popular social pastime for women (Daniels, 2002). The practice started as

a hobby for affluent white women, but some African-Americans adopted the practice as a

means of self-education and a way to transcend slavery (Daniels, 2002). Laskin and

Hughes (1995) documented how, after the Civil War, these literature study groups

became a nationwide practice by women who studied American and English literature

and also debated the hot topics of the day.

 18

At the turn of the century, women in these groups began to utilize the social skills

they gained in their book clubs to impact society, with results in various arenas such as

women’s suffrage and prohibition (Daniels, 2002). The book clubs continued over the

years and received a boost from the Great Books movement of the 1950s, and more

recently with Oprah Winfrey’s book clubs (Daniels). Now, both men and women engage

in book clubs.

Literature Circles in the 1980s

Bringing literature circles to the classroom became prominent in the 1980s with

educators reinventing the wider adult phenomenon for children (Daniels, 2002). One

educator in particular, Karen Smith, was an early user of classroom literature circles

(Daniels). Smith somewhat stumbled upon the practice when children discovered her box

of miscellaneous paperbacks in multiple copies and asked to read them (Daniels). What

happened next created a snowball effect, as children grouped themselves by interest and

began discussing the novels; as Smith noted the process, she began inviting others to

observe and streamline the process to include the teacher (Daniels). As Daniels

explained, the term “literature circles” as used by teachers is credited to Kathy Short and

Gloria Kaufman; Short wrote about them in her 1986 dissertation “Literacy as a

Collaborative Experience.” Jerome Harste and Carolyn Burke at the University of Indiana

supervised her work and later included literature circles in their own 1988 book, crafted

with Short (Daniels, 2002). Daniels explained that these educators all agree that three

areas are involved with literature circles: independent reading, Rosenblatt’s (1983)

Reader Response Theory, and collaborative learning.

 19

Importance of Independent Reading

Independent reading is now a central component in literacy. In a 1985 study, its

importance was emphasized due to the increase in reading achievement that had been

noted; the authors concluded that children in third or fourth grade should read

independently at least two hours each week (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkerson,

1985). More recently, the Standards for English Language Arts also emphasized the need

for students to read a broad range of texts independently for enjoyment (ILA/NCTE,

1996). As Kasten and Wilfong (2007) explained, “Independent reading is like the practice

time athletes need to become good at their sport, or the time musicians need to get good

at their instrument. All skills require time for practice” (p. 2); clearly, reading is a skill

that needs to be honed through independent practice.

Literature circles can be a primary tool for encouraging this habit. Reading

researcher Allington (2002) revealed that a decade-long study showed that the best

learning happened when students read extensively and independently; he advised that

providing students with books they can and will read results in more reading being done

along with greater proficiency in what is read. Additionally, he suggested that giving

students time to have conversation with their teachers and peers about the books they are

reading will also lead to more reading (Allington, 2002), an idea that Gambrell (2011)

also supported, saying that students are more motivated to read when they can interact

socially about the books they are reading.

In this present era with its emphasis on testing, it is notable that in 2011 in the

U.S., only 43 percent of seniors taking the SAT demonstrated reading that was at a level

appropriate for college (Burke, 2013). Some researchers feel that with competing
 20

technologies and media, independent reading has been reduced (National Endowment for

the Arts, 2007; Burke, 2013). Thus, teachers must provide guidance to students and

model reading for students (Burke, 2013), a function that literature circles can provide.

Independent reading improves students’ ability to read well; in fact, as Allington

and Gabriel (2012) reported, “When students read accurately, they solidify their word-

recognition, decoding, and word-analysis skills. Perhaps more importantly, they are likely

to understand what they read—and as a result, to enjoy reading” (p. 12). Allowing them

to choose what they read, a key idea in literature circles, boosts their reading motivation

and makes it more likely they will choose to read more (Allington & Gabriel). While

many classroom teachers include independent reading as part of their curriculum, most

also tend to guide their students, lending expert assistance as students make progress in

reading; this accountability positively impacts students’ reading growth (Sanden, 2012).

A study by the National Endowment for the Arts (2007) found that when students

read for pleasure, they demonstrate greater academic achievement and “frequent readers

also score better on writing tests than nonreaders or infrequent readers” (p. 14).

Furthermore, the study’s findings showed that such independent readers consequently

have “more financially rewarding jobs” and show greater civic mindedness, such as

voting and visiting cultural centers, than those who are deficient readers ( p. 17), though

this is the only such study touting this benefit. Nevertheless, independent reading clearly

impacts more than classroom test scores, and literature circles can play a valuable role in

increasing students’ desire to read for pleasure.

 21

Impact of Reader Response Theory

Along with independent reading, Rosenblatt’s (1983) Reader Response Theory

(RRT) posited the importance of the reader in bringing meaning to any literature read. In

this school of literary criticism, Rosenblatt (1983) argued that there is not one correct

interpretation for a reading, but that multiple interpretations are possible, each one

dependent on the individual reader’s own prior knowledge and experience. This approach

runs counter to New Criticism, whose proponents insist that one correct explanation is

possible (Klages, 2012). It took many years, but by the 1980s, RRT had finally gained

wider acceptance by academics (Daniels, 2002). In fact, a leader in interpreting the

theory, Probst (2004), explained that response comes first in any reading and that it

cannot be ignored in any interpretation. Both Rosenblatt (1983) and Probst (2004)

suggested that no “wrong” reading exists, only ones that develop contingent with

students’ experiences and maturity.

Furthermore, Keene and Zimmerman (1997) clarified the process by showing that

the comprehension strategies of mature readers are connected to their own responses, or

the personal connections they make while reading. Teachers need to show students the

processes required for effective reading comprehension, a practice that can occur through

literature circles (Daniels, 2002; Keene & Zimmerman, 1997). To further clarify, “As

students decode, describe, and react to a shared reading event, their individual identities

and experiences shape conversations and the texts being considered while the

conversations and texts shape the individual identities and experiences of the

participants” (Casey, 2008, p. 286). Daniels (2002) concluded, “from a theoretical point

of view, we can say that literature circles are a form of independent reading, structured as
 22

collaborative small groups, and guided by reader response principles in light of current

comprehension research” (p. 38).

The Collaboration Connection

Collaboration is a requirement for literature circles to work (Daniels, 2002).

Daniels, however, found it necessary to differentiate terminology, noting that

“cooperative learning” reflects a more traditional school-oriented task of breaking down

activities by groups, versus the higher order, student-centered work done in

“collaborative learning.” Collaboration refers to “student-initiated inquiry, choice, self-

direction, mutual interdependence, face-to-face interaction, and self- and group

assessment” (Daniels, 2002, p. 35). The benefits of collaboration are well established; for

instance, Johnson, Johnson and Holubek (1994) documented achievement gains when it

is used, and Daniels (2002) has collaborated on numerous studies on group dynamics

(Daniels & Bizar, 1998; Daniels & Zemelman, 1985; Zemelman & Daniels, 1988;

Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 1998) which revealed that there are certain “predictable

and controllable elements” (Daniels, 2002, p. 35, emphasis in original) that result in

groups that are highly productive. Literature circles obviously conform to the

requirements, which Schmuck and Schmuck (2000) identified as clear expectations,

cooperatively developed norms, shared leadership and responsibility, open

communication, varied patterns of friendship, and conflict resolution plans. Utilizing

collaboration, even online opportunities, allows teachers to “give students the chance to

collectively think and work smarter” (DeCosta, Clifton, & Roen, 2010).
 23

Literature Circles Process

No matter what they are called—whether literature circles, book clubs, reading

groups, etc.—the definition has remained the same: “Literature circles are small, peer-led

discussion groups whose members have chosen to read the same story, poem, article, or

book” (Daniels, 2002, p. 2). The process is student-driven, because members of each

group determine their reading amounts within a schedule and are responsible for their

assigned readings and their contribution to the group. Students typically meet several

times a week until a novel is completed to discuss what they have read.

Goals for literature circles vary according to the teacher using them, but generally

include creating fluent readers who love books (Daniels, 2002; Owens, 1995; Short,

1995). Most teachers also want to foster comprehension, critical reading, and in-depth

thought about what is being read (Daniels, 2002; Day, Spiegel, McLellan, & Brown,

2002; Ferguson & Kern, 2012; Owens, 1995; Short, 1995), Another goal is developing

collaboration and cooperation (Daniels, 2002; Owens, 1995; Short, 1995) and

autonomous student discussion (Daniels, 2002). Savvy teachers also use it to provide a

diversity of viewpoints, from authors and genres to students themselves (Owens, 1995;

Samway & Whang, 1996).

Even though students drive the literature circle model, literature circles work

better when students have a clear understanding of how to discuss the literature they are

reading; to that end, Daniels and Steineke (2004) provided teachers with a guide to

teaching “mini-lessons” designed to foster acquisition of key skills, such as questioning

strategies to go beyond basic understanding, providing evidence of student reasoning, and

even acquiring positive conversational skills, which are indeed a learned behavior. In
 24

essence, these lessons provide the scaffolding that students need to be successful in

literature circle discussions. It is important to note that this guidance takes place

separately from the literature circle discussion so that conversations can flow naturally.

As students progress and become more adept at the process, teachers can relinquish even

this guidance and allow students to lead their own self-directed mini-lessons (Norwick,

1995).

In fact, these mini-lessons are key to improving students’ reading comprehension

skills. Research shows that not only is a supportive classroom environment necessary for

comprehension, but that certain skills must be explicitly taught (Duke & Pearson, 2008;

Ferguson & Kern, 2012). For example, teachers must provide a clear description of the

strategy and when and how it should be used; they should model the strategy in action,

following it with collaborative use of the strategy in action and then guided practice with

the gradual release of responsibility, ultimately leading to independent use of the strategy

(Duke & Pearson, 2008). Teachers who have utilized this method have seen improved

reading comprehension occur (Ferguson & Kern, 2012), and it works well through the

mini-lesson format.

Within the literature circles themselves, Daniels (2002) advocated for assigned

roles within the groups, at least on a temporary basis until students learn how to discuss

effectively. For example, students might rotate between various roles such as connector,

questioner, literary luminary, illustrator, summarizer, researcher, vocabulary enricher,

and travel tracer (Daniels, 2002, p. 103). Some teachers find these roles very stifling and

too limiting (Ferguson & Kern, 2012), but it is clear that Daniels does not believe in

using them for more than three weeks to avoid that very problem (Daniels, 2002, p. 100).
 25

Furthermore, their use at the high school level is not recommended by some teachers,

because less structure is better for these students who are attempting to create new

relationships with others and engage in authentic conversations (Crawford-McKinney &

Hogan, 2008, p. 122). In a middle school study, students reported that they did not like

the literature circles as their teachers implemented them, because the teachers had

provided a list of questions and assigned roles; in this cooperative model, students felt as

if they had no voice in the choices made and the discussion topics that emerged (Johnson,

Freedman, Thomas, & Crawford, 2006). Yet, in a more collaborative approach, in which

students are active participants in their learning, they have freedom to discuss texts on a

variety of levels (Crawford-McKinney & Hogan, 2008, p. 122). Other teachers only

assign roles if the need arises, positing that they want to see what roles naturally develop

(Day et al., 2002).

In contrast, another teacher used Daniels’ (2002) model but revised her role sheets

(Ferguson & Kern, 2012) to align with the comprehension strategies proficient readers

use most (Duke & Pearson, 2008; Keene & Zimmerman, 1997). In the original model by

Daniels (2002), her students often completed the role sheets without reading; the new role

sheets facilitated the acquisition of comprehension and created more accountability

(Ferguson & Kern, 2012). Her new role sheets were labeled Sensory Image Maker,

Inference Maker, Questioner, Connector, and Importance Determiner/Synthesizer

(Ferguson & Kern). Two of the seven key strategies (Importance

Determiner/Synthesizer) were combined, and “fix-up strategies” were embedded in all

five of her new literature circle roles (Ferguson & Kern). This combination of literature

circles with comprehension strategies resulted in students having to read more deeply in
 26

order to complete the role sheets, and their responses reflected that depth and

comprehension (Ferguson & Kern). The accountability of the role sheets helped the

middle school students stay focused, but the new model also allowed for the spontaneous

discussion necessary in successful literature circles (Ferguson & Kern).

While role sheets can help the literature circle process, Daniels (2002) offered

more specifics about how the literature circles should work, pointing out the importance

of student choice in selecting texts to read. He asserted that students cannot come to love

reading unless they can choose what to read; he stated, “For reading to become a lifelong

habit and deeply owned skill, it has to be voluntary, anchored in feelings of pleasure and

power” (Daniels, 2002, p. 19). Having choices appeals to students, and even though there

is a limited offering, they still appreciate the element of control (Samway & Whang,

1996). Furthermore, while students may not be able to choose their old favorites, teachers

can consider the types of books they enjoy and add selections which might appeal to

them while offering a richer reading experience (Samway & Whang). Additionally, the

choices the students make group them by their interest in the same book, resulting in a

heterogeneous ability group (Daniels, 2002). This student choice fulfills one the tenets of

differentiation as established by Tomlinson and Strickland (2005), namely, relying on

student interest to flexibly group students.

Though students might choose to read in a group with their friends, thereby

eliminating the interest grouping component, the situation is not problematic as long as

students are engaging in the process of literature circles (Daniels, 2002). Overall,

however, the teacher must make available a variety of texts so that real choice exists, and

to ensure that different groups are reading different selections (Daniels, 2002). The best
 27

choices for literature circles are those books which invite responses and engender

questions (Crawford-McKinney & Hogan, 2008, p. 121). Teachers should choose high-

quality books that reflect themes about which students care and which demonstrate

excellent writing (Monson, 1995).

In addition to choosing worthy texts, the scheduling of literature circles must also

be regular and predictable, meaning that they must be implemented on a continual basis

throughout the school year (Daniels, 2002). While it may take some time to establish the

foundation, the result will be a better program in which students have time to meet;

Daniels (2002) recommends no less than twenty minutes and up to forty-five minutes for

those who know the process well. The teacher builds the time into the schedule and

communicates that to students so they can plan their meetings (Daniels, 2002).

Beyond choice, variety, and scheduling, teachers must not discount the

importance of writing and drawing as responses to literature (Daniels, 2002; Norwick,

1995). Students should be taking some sort of notes as they read, whether using the

previously mentioned role sheets, writing response logs, or jotting ideas on Post-its. This

kind of informal, open-ended response is essential as a starting point for discussion and

later as fodder for potential projects to synthesize their understanding (Daniels, 2002;

Norwick, 2005).

In fact, while literature circles are most centered on student discussions about

their reading, writing as a benefit must also not be discounted (Day et al., 2002). Many

teachers embed writing activities into their literature circles experiences; for instance,

Samway & Whang (1996) commented that they believe book discussions improve

student writing (p. 134). In their model, they ask students to consider what they learned
 28

about writing from reading and talking about the book; students might notice author

dialogue or descriptive language, and then use it in their own writing (Samway & Whang,

1996). Other teachers use journals or response logs to track students’ writing growth as

they respond to the literature (Hill, 1995). Others use pre- and post-journal entries to help

students prepare for discussion, then to reflect on the ideas they heard (Day et al., 2002).

As Day et al. (2002) argued, “Writing and talking also support one another: by writing,

students talk more, and by talking, students write more” (p. 87). Just as literature circles

are about personal responses to reading, Burke (2013) reminded readers that “All writing

is personal” (p. 65). Thus, literature circles can be a means of improving student writing

as well, though it is not necessarily considered central to the process (Day et al., 2002).

Furthermore, Daniels (2002) reiterated the importance of students developing

their own discussion topics for the group: Teachers should not provide questions in any

form at all because student ownership of their discussion is central to the concept of

literature circles (p. 22). Daniels affirmed that this practice is challenging and requires

students to act as mature readers, doing such things as choosing texts, determining

assignments and discussion topics, and sharing their own ideas about their reading. When

teachers do these things for them, students will be less likely to achieve “literary and

intellectual independence” (Daniels, p. 22). This concept is based on Rosenblatt’s (1983)

RRT, which stated that meaning is not given to readers, but is rather created by the

reader. Social interactions, not teacher-led questions, form the basis of reflection and

ultimately help students gain deeper levels of meaning about the books (Day et al., 2002;

Samway & Whang, 1996). In fact, research supports the idea that students in inclusion

classrooms benefit from literature circles because they are seen as valued participants
 29

who can contribute meaningfully to classroom discussion (Blum, Lipsett, & Yocom,

2002). While students in inclusion settings have unique needs that might require different

objectives from other students in a regular education curriculum, immersing them in a

literature circle experience can expose them to meaningful conversations about books

(Day et al., 2002).

These “open, natural conversations” are, in fact, the basis of traditional literature

circles (Daniels, 2002, p. 22). While traditional schooling tends to favor objective

questions and “correct” answers, literature circles instead promote open-ended, divergent

questions of value (Daniels). This experience, again, reflects Rosenblatt’s (1983) RRT,

which values students’ personal responses above all. Furthermore, it relates to what Eeds

and Wells (1989) called “grand conversations” (p. 4) about literature; namely, that

students should develop their own discussions about literature rather than having a

teacher direct them. Additionally, Daniels (2002) admitted that he does not promote the

practice of teachers who require students to go beyond discussion to “[force] students

onward to an explicit structural analysis of the literary components of a work” (p. 23).

For him, discussion is often enough, and literature circles are “based on a faith in self-

directed practice” ( p. 23). While he expressed that his desire is for students to grow in

their understanding of the author’s craft as they read more, he still advocated for much

reading and responding to literature as a starting point (Daniels, 2002). As time

progresses, and with the aid of teacher-led mini-lessons, students can hone their skills as

readers, delving into ideas such as author’s craft and style (Daniels & Steineke, 2004).

Teachers’ roles in traditional literature circles are clearly defined by Daniels

(2002): their role is not to teach, but to facilitate and be “supportive, organizational, and
 30

managerial” ( p. 23). Literature circle advocates encourage teachers to serve as fellow

members of a group, but definitely not as teacher, only as another member engaging in

the same process (Daniels, 2002; Samway & Whang, 1996). In Daniels’ (2002) view, this

modeling by real, adult readers is critical to students seeing how complex the process is,

even for mature readers. While it can be difficult for teachers to put aside their own

agendas and interests, it is vital for a productive literature circle conversation (Samway &

Whang, 1996).

Not only are teacher roles different, evaluation of the literature circles is different

as well. As Daniels (2002) explained, because this method is not about right and wrong

answers, traditional assessments will not work; instead, more authentic assessment is

needed, such as teachers’ observational logs, performances, interviews, and even

portfolios. These types of ongoing, varied evaluations can help teachers be responsive to

student needs (Day et al., 2002; Hill, 1995). Additionally, students must take the

responsibility to self-evaluate as well, which is a key component in Daniels’ (2002)

model, and other proponents of literature circles as well (Hill, 1995; Samway & Whang,

1996). This student evaluation can occur in multiple ways; for example, one student can

be the observer for the day and mark on a grid the skills witnessed or heard, or students

may critique their literature circle process by watching videotapes of one of their

meetings (Daniels, 2002). Other teachers use a yes/no checklist (Knowlton & Knowlton,

2001), while others use rubrics (Kist, 2010). As Samway and Whang (1996) pointed out,

assessment of both struggling and fluent readers’ needs is essential, because merely

providing them with opportunities to select and discuss books will not be enough to make

them grow as readers.

 31

Above all, Daniels (2002) advocated for literature circles to embody “a spirit of

playfulness and fun” (p. 25). He reasoned that children learn first by playing, and that fun

activities inject the engagement needed to keep students involved in a complex process

(Daniels). Literature circles work because they recreate a natural process that effectively

scaffolds learning, and learning will follow fun (Daniels).

When the students finish their reading, they may or may not create a project to

share their book with the class, but Daniels (2002) warned that it may not be an effective

activity to conduct, though it may help to foster interest in books for other groups. After

all, adults do not finish reading a book and create a project; they discuss it and read

another (Harvey & Daniels, 2009). In place of projects, one teacher used “follow up

assignments” that issued from the discussions groups had about their books; they either

explore ideas the book raised or focus on literary elements, creating assignments that

caused students to reflect on the book and find passages to support their ideas (Samway

& Whang, 1996). Upon completion of the book and/or project, however, new groups will

form based on interest in a new selection from the teacher’s collection. This variety is

important to ensure diversity, not just for student members, but to hear new perspectives,

which is both “enriching and challenging” (Daniels, 2002, p. 26). Daniels explained that,

even in very academically diverse classrooms, students can still choose books that are

appropriate for their levels; in fact, even special education students who might have a

book read to them can participate in discussion successfully. When enacted properly,

literature circles will nullify the need for official ability grouping (Daniels, p. 27).
 32

Theory Underpinning Literature Circles

Since Daniels and his colleagues’ work in the 1980s, the use of literature circles

has spread to millions of students and is considered a best practice by NCTE (Daniels &

Bizar, 2005; Harvey & Daniels, 2009). Along with Rosenblatt’s (1983) reader response

theory, which emphasized students’ experiences as a means of understanding literature,

constructivist principles provide a rationale for utilizing literature circles in the

classroom. Like Rosenblatt (1983), Dewey (1916/2009) believed that students learn best

when they participate in and construct their own learning. Dewey (1916/2009) argued

that being social is itself communication, but also that “all communication (and hence all

genuine social life) is educative. To be a recipient of a communication is to have an

enlarged and changed experience” (p. 13). To this end, then, literature circles, as loci of

conversation, will necessarily have an impact on students. As Harvey and Daniels (2009)

argued, “In well-structured groups, we leverage each other’s thinking. We learn more not

just because we all bring different pieces of the puzzle, but because, through talk, we can

actually make new and better meaning together” (p. 38).

Similarly, Pragmatists believe that human experience is what helps people make

meaning; thus, a community of learners led by a teacher who supports an active role for

students can help guide students to deeper understandings (Ozman & Craver, 2008). For

Dewey, a Pragmatist, the role of the teacher for students is to link life experiences to

other experiences, thereby making education a social experience that fosters a sense of

community (Ozman & Craver, 2008). Likewise, in Rosenblatt’s (1983) RRT, students

link their prior experience to their reading, making meaning by connecting their own life

to the content, making multiple meanings possible. Literature circles draw on this
 33

experiential learning. As Ozman and Craver (2008) explained regarding Dewey’s

Pragmatism, the teacher is

an exceptionally competent person—one who possesses breadth and depth of

knowledge, understands current conditions that affect the lives of students, knows

how to organize and direct student investigations, understands psychological

development and learning theory, provides a supportive environment in which

students can learn, and possesses a refined understanding of school and

community resources that are available for teaching and learning. (p. 145)

Literature circles represent such a nexus of student-centered community and teacher

knowledge of pedagogy. Daniels (2002) explained, “We teachers need to open up our

heads and show exactly how effective readers think…then we need to give kids plenty of

time to practice applying these strategies…in real conversations about real books” (p.

38). Such an approach demonstrates Pragmatist principles; after all, the word

“pragmatism” comes from a Greek word that means “work” (Ozman & Craver, 2008).

Further theory underpinning literature circles is Vygotsky’s (1978) work, used to

formulate the notion of social constructivism, which suggests that individuals in groups

work together to construct knowledge. Theoretically, literature circles work well because

they tap into students’ social tendencies, which Vygotsky related in his Sociocognitive

Theory from 1962 (Gillani, 2003). In Vygotsky’s view, human development and learning

manifest from social and cultural interaction within what he calls the zone of proximal

development [ZPD] (Gillani, 2003). It is within this ZPD that students are challenged

beyond their current level of understanding but not frustrated with overly difficult

material (Beach et al., 2011; Vygotsky, 1978). The teacher scaffolds—provides guidance
 34

and modeling—for what students need to know and be able to do in order to practice

independently (Beach et al., 2011). Teachers and students can contribute to scaffolding;

in fact, when learners converse, all grow as a result of the scaffolding that peers provide

(Vygotsky, 1978). By participating in social communities, students learn effective

behaviors and practices (Beach et al., 2011). Collaboration and interaction result in

learning; as Vygotsky (1978) related, “every function in cultural development appears

twice: first, on the social level, and later on the individual level; first between people, and

then inside . . . all the higher functions originate as actual relationships between

individuals” (p. 46). Literature circles demonstrate this phenomenon perfectly—they

require collaboration with the same peers over a period of weeks, which addresses the

social aspects, while the individual responses requested by teachers allows for processing

by each student on a personal level. Daniels (2002) supported such a view, stating that

higher levels of understanding are reached through personal responses, which are then

shared with others to build meaning and insights.

In education, “social constructivists believe that knowledge is transactional,

socially constructed, and distributed among co-participants” (Gredler, 2009, p. 26).

Literature circles fit such a view; as students converse in their small groups, they

essentially build knowledge together, sharing insights and understandings (Daniels,

2002). Furthermore, according to Miller (2003), Vygotsky “argues that the effects of

literature excite the individual reader aesthetically, but that the teacher must aim, further,

to form reflective consciousness through ‘intelligent social activity’ that extends the

‘narrow sphere of individual perception’” (p. 290). Thus, literature circles act as the
 35

“intelligent social activity” which then helps students transcend their own perceptions

and experience an enlarged interpretation of their readings.

Addressing Common Problems in Traditional Literature Circles

Daniels (2002) concluded that literature circles naturally result in students

heterogeneously grouping themselves into appropriately leveled books in which they are

interested. But what happens when challenges arise? This is the point at which teacher

strategies must be utilized.

Daniels enumerated a list of common problems that occur in traditional face-to-

face settings for literature circles. He identified five main types of difficulties, including

off-task discussions; shallow, superficial conversations; mechanical, rigid interactions;

groups that lose focus; and asymmetrical groups in which one or two members dominate

with the others not contributing (Daniels, 2002). Daniels related that often the causes are

similar, including poor book choice, student failure to read and prepare, “regular reading

residue,” incomplete training, reliance on role sheets, “skillification,” assessments, and

personal or cultural issues (p. 222).

Aside from choosing worthy books for students to read that will provide a

plethora of discussion topics, the most common problem, and one that will affect both

traditional and virtual literature circles, is students simply not reading them (Daniels,

2002). Daniels advised that teachers solve this problem by using typical classroom

management strategies, such as treating it as any other assignment and conferencing with

students about the behavior and/or speaking to parents. He also advised using a point

system to involve unmotivated students, using bonus points on a strictly all-or-nothing

basis, but eliminating them as students begin reading for pleasure (Daniels). Other
 36

teachers cite a lack of accessibility for students not reading, positing that incomplete

background knowledge or limited vocabulary could interfere with book completion (Day

et al., 2002). The solution is to ensure access to a wide variety of books at different

reading levels (Daniels, 2002; Day et al., 2002). Alternatively, students can use audio

books or can decide on a theme or genre, and group members can choose a book on their

ability level so that they can participate in the discussion (Day et al., 2002). A well-

placed mini-lesson can also address vocabulary or comprehension issues (Day et al.,

2002).

To confront what he calls “regular reading residue,” Daniels (2002) recommended

helping students move beyond “narrow reading habits” by continuously modeling deeper

commentary through read-alouds and talking about the books (p. 222-223). This issue is

also potentially connected to incomplete training in how to effectively participate in

literature circles; Daniels contended that training is never really complete, and that if

students are still not doing it properly, it is because teachers have not trained them well

enough (p. 223). By starting every literature circle meeting with a mini-lesson and ending

with a sharing session, routine maintenance can address these challenges, though

sometimes more intensive re-training may be needed (Daniels, 2002).

As already discussed, role sheets can stifle open-ended conversations (Ferguson

& Kern, 2012), and Daniels (2002) agreed, pointing out that they can create mechanical

groups who depend too much on them (Harvey & Daniels, 2009). His solution is to

eliminate the role sheets in favor of more open-ended responses, such as response logs,

Post-its, or drawings (Daniels, 2002; Harvey & Daniels, 2009).

 37

Additionally, teachers who try to use literature circles to improve students’ skills

as related to standards can unwittingly contribute to group malfunction (Daniels, 2002).

Because a goal is autonomous student discussion, his recommendation is to teach those

skills separately from literature circles (Daniels); mini-lessons can work well here

(Daniels & Steineke, 2004). Similarly, too much assessment can be damaging to the

groups, causing disruptions and intrusions; instead, Daniels (2002) recommended

allowing students to self-assess as much as possible, using checklists for student

observers and video recordings of their discussions which they critique.

Another challenge is the shy and introverted students who do not enjoy group

activities. Daniels (2002) believed that literature circles are a way to accommodate them,

because such an informal, small group atmosphere may allow them the opportunity to

speak up and be heard more. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that it may be in some shy

students’ best interests to allow them to work alone or in pairs when the situation

warrants it (Daniels). Conversely, Day et al. (2002) found that length of time in a group

often had an effect on participation, with reticent students becoming more participative

after more sessions. They also emphasized the importance of teachers observing and

talking to students, as well as providing journal writing, as factors that contributed to

shyer students becoming more involved in discussions. In contrast, domineering students

can also be a challenge. Daniels (2002) recommended using mini-lessons to solve this

problem, but also referenced Nancy Steineke’s method of giving “talking chips” to

students; when they are out of chips, they are not allowed to contribute any more that

day; this “balanced participation” can also help the dominant students practice listening

(p. 230). Day et al. (2002) recommended a similar strategy, but also suggested that
 38

teachers have students track their participation levels so they become aware of how much

or little they are contributing; this strategy can be done by recording discussions and

tallying up the number of times each group member speaks, or a student can be assigned

the role of “Tally Master,” who is responsible for keeping track of each group member’s

participation as discussion progresses.

Many teachers also worry about struggling readers, those who are reluctant or

unwilling to read, are non-participatory, negative, and display low confidence or self-

esteem and may attempt to hide their inability to read by making excuses not to do so

(Taylor , 2012). These readers can also benefit from literature circles. Popular literature

can appeal to them and encourage them to read, and active class environments are

associated with greater learning (Taylor, 2012). Monachino (2003)demonstrated that

reluctant readers’ comprehension was improved, as were their decoding skills, as a result

of active participation in the discussion groups.

Similarly, English language learners (ELLs) can benefit from the use of literature

circles, because “talk…is the foundation of literacy” (Fisher, Frey, & Rothenberg, 2008,

p. 8). Literature circles can fulfill ELLs’ need to be immersed in conversation, but it is

important that they be integrated following a strategy that consists of modeling, guided

instruction, collaborative tasks, and independent tasks (Fisher et al., 2008); literature

circles aptly fit into the collaborative tasks section. Because of the social nature of

discussion, children naturally learn through the scaffolding presented by their peers

(Fisher et al., 2008; Vygotsky, 1978). Beyond choosing appropriate books at the students’

reading levels, one strategy recommended is to use sentence frames as a way of reducing

the linguistic burden on ELLs; for example, students might be provided with stems like “I
 39

agree with this because…” or “I still have a question about…” (Fisher et al., 2008, p. 96).

These linguistic frames benefit students in oral and written tasks because they act as

scaffolds and differentiation (Fisher et al., 2008). Daniels and Steineke (2004) shared a

similar strategy in their mini-lessons for helping students learn to ask good questions as

well as to offer constructive support during discussions, further demonstrating the

appropriateness of literature circles for all learners. In their practice, prior to meeting in

the discussion groups, students brainstorm what that support should look like, then

groups share their ideas while the teacher creates a master list on the board which

students can write down and refer to during discussions (Daniels & Steineke). For

improving questions students ask, students write down three questions that fostered

extended discussion and three that did not, then they discuss why that happened, thereby

analyzing what kinds of questions generate more talk (Daniels & Steineke).

Nevertheless, reading comprehension strategies must be taught to students so they

can develop reading fluency, which occurs when students recognize words quickly

(Taylor, 2012). Recommended strategies include questioning the text, using K-W-L

charts, think-alouds, directed reading activities, and anticipation guides (Taylor, 2012),

many of which take place during literature circle activities. For example, active text

questioning is one role that Daniels (2002) suggested using in literature circles, and mini-

lessons help teachers model the use of think-alouds (Daniels & Steineke, 2004).

Predicting is also an important strategy to foster reading comprehension, and it is closely

tied to activating prior knowledge and previewing material (Duke & Pearson, 2008);

again, a mini-lesson on questioning strategies would facilitate the use of this strategy by

groups (Daniels & Steineke, 2004). Story maps and explicit teaching on how text
 40

structure leads to organizing ideas has also been identified as a proven comprehension

strategy, as is the use of graphic organizers to help students understand texts (Duke &

Pearson, 2008). Furthermore, struggling readers need to read a variety of texts at different

levels and for different purposes, and literature circles fulfill that need (Crawford-

McKinney & Hogan, 2008; Owens, 1995).

Fluent readers, in contrast, can present other challenges with literature circles;

they are often the ones who read ahead and spoil endings for other readers (Daniels,

2002). Research is scarce on fluent readers and literature circles, except for the notion

that the groups are heterogeneous (Daniels) and that differentiation for their needs

happens through modifying the content, processes, and products (Tomlinson &

Strickland, 2005). Researchers from New Zealand reported using literature circles with

their fluent readers on the basis of trying to find activities for readers whose reading

levels are well above their peers’ chronological age, but their process, while based on

Daniels (2002) work, had less to do with fluency than practicing the model (Cameron,

Murray, Hull, & Cameron, 2012). In fact, the teachers implied that literature circles were

a special privilege for accomplished readers and touted their benefits, such as

independent work away from the teacher (Cameron et al.). They then grouped them by

ability to become a model for the reading groups and let them conduct a fishbowl activity

to demonstrate to the other members of the class (Cameron, et al.). While this is one

method of reaching gifted and fluent readers, fluency does not necessarily equate to

comprehension (Rainey, 2013). Literature circles’ lack of ability grouping contributes to

the success of heterogeneous groups, allowing all types of students to learn to work

together effectively (Daniels, 2002).

 41

While students can and do learn to collaborate effectively through literature

circles, it is possible that a rare lack of chemistry among group members can also

contribute to literature circle dysfunction (Daniels, 2002). Daniels again maintained that

proper training can overcome even this issue, but when it does not, and students simply

do not get along well together, teachers can re-group them or attempt to build community

through various methods such as lessons on friendship and responsibility. In the case of

cultural issues, such as those that might not favor mixed male-female groups or those that

value independent work, it is important to teach children to move beyond their comfort

levels to engage in collaborative work, because modern society clearly values the ability

to work with mixed groups (Fisher, et al., 2008). In a general sense, adolescence is

fraught with social and peer issues that can lead to discussion problems. Gender roles,

class, and racial identity can play a significant role in classroom interactions (Beach et

al., 2011). An awareness of these issues can help teachers curb literature circle

dysfunction.

One researcher hailed literature circles as holding the “theoretical promise of

democratic pedagogy” (Lloyd, 2006, p. 31). Nevertheless, girls might be less likely to

actively participate in class discussions due to female social expectations (Beach et al.,

2011), while boys tend to be disruptive in small groups (Evans, 1996). Additionally, in

one study, the researcher noted that students became isolated by gender and/or race,

which affected the discussions in both content and style (Lloyd, 2006). This asymmetrical

power structure resulted in students from marginalized cultural positions losing their

interpretive authority and in students from more dominant cultural positions perceiving

even greater power among peers (Lloyd, 2006).

 42

Furthermore, while student voice is valued in literature circles, the inherent

complexity of academic, social, and cultural contexts impacts the student-led discussion

(Evans, 1996). Where an individual positions him- or herself in a group affects the

interactions that occur; for instance, dominant positions might command other students,

who might or might not accept the behavior (Evans). While teachers are often aware of

these positions of power and submission, taking control of the situation simply presents

another form of power; as Evans asked, “how do we disrupt oppressive positioning

without becoming oppressive ourselves in the process?” (p. 201). It is foreseeable that

teachers will, however unintentionally, continue to place students in contexts that

promote silencing and marginalization even within a practice that is intended to disrupt it

(Evans, 1996). While attempting to avoid gender and race isolation in the groups,

teachers might simultaneously be inhibiting student choice, which is integral to the

process (Lloyd, 2006). Group power dynamics must be given thought while incorporating

literature circles to avoid uneven power distributions.

Additionally, the issue of access can be seen as a power issue. Anderson and

Simpson (2007) contended that it is even a moral issue; if access is not available to all,

then some students are disadvantaged from the outset. Recent studies suggested that

minority and impoverished students are less likely than their white peers to have Internet

access at home, so some school officials worry that the technology component of

homework in blended models will not get done (Fairbanks, 2013). In an effort to curb

that problem, schools can offer options, such as opening school technology access early

and/or late; one school used grant money to create hotspots in local communities so

students could access the Internet for assignments, while another put hotspots on school
 43

buses (Fairbanks, 2013). Access is an issue that schools using online learning will have to

confront to minimize inequities.

Of course, time is also an issue in today’s world of accountability. Many teachers

like the idea of using literature circles but worry that they may take up too much time in

the curriculum. As one teacher explained, the art of teaching is finding and doing what is

right for the individual classroom, and what works may change from week to week

(Redman, 1995). Daniels (2002) recommended teachers find areas they can remove from

their curriculum by discarding activities students least enjoy, such as worksheets and skill

drills. Daniels added that reading and discussing are “not a radical departure from the

mandates of most official curriculums” (p. 225). Because literature circles address many

reading standards, teachers can easily justify the time spent, citing NCTE as well as

Common Core state standards (“English Language Arts,” 2013). Alternatively, teachers

can use literature circles in three week cycles intermittently throughout the school year

(Daniels, 2002). Of course, virtual literature circles can overcome time challenges; Lewis

and Allan (2005) concluded that virtual environments allow geographically separated

individuals to transcend time and space hindrances and find access to each other at

mutually suitable times, as long as access is available.

Regardless of the challenges, quantitative and qualitative research has made it

clear that literature circles are a successful strategy (Daniels, 2002; Ferguson & Kern,

2012; Hill, Johnson, & Schlick Noe, 1995). Furthermore, such authentic activities foster

deeper engagement and conversations, as well as make connections to students lives,

which has been shown to increase students’ standardized test scores (Newmann, Bryck,

& Nagaoka 2001).

 44

Virtual Literature Circles

Will virtual literature circles do the same? From wikis to message boards,

Facebook, Moodle, and even email, a variety of virtual venues is available to enable

students to take their literature discussions out of the classroom and into cyberspace. But

why modify a learning activity that works? The answer is that technology simply allows

teachers more flexibility to teach effectively (Oakes, 1998). Furthermore, students enjoy

the process, and teachers see benefits for their teaching practice when it is used (Larson,

2008; Falter Thomas, 2014; Moreillon, Hunt, & Ewing, 2009).

Knowlton and Knowlton (2001) addressed the benefits of using online

discussions in secondary schools in particular. These authors asserted that, while students

are familiar with and comfortable using technology, they are not as skillful at using

technology in educational ways . Similarly, other researchers found that, though students

are social, it is still necessary to teach them technological learning strategies (Grossman,

2009; Horstmanshof & Brownie, 2013). Asking students to use online discussions to

make personal connections can add to their repertoire of ways to communicate with one

another (Knowlton & Knowlton, 2001). Further, by engaging in online discourse guided

by a teacher using a Socratic method, students will learn to ask increasingly difficult

questions based on Bloom’s Taxonomy to which the responses will necessarily cause

them to question their own ideas; thus, the process can extend their learning and their

classmates’ learning (Knowlton & Knowlton, 2001).

Utilizing technology to conduct literature circles seems to be a trend (Bowers-

Campbell, 2011; Klages et al., 2007; Whittingham, 2013), and technology in general is an

important component in education. In fact, the International Literacy Association (ILA),

 45

formerly IRA, issued a position statement in May 2009 regarding 21st century

technologies, positing that

To become fully literate in today's world, students must become proficient in the

new literacies of 21st-century technologies. IRA believes that literacy educators

have a responsibility to integrate information and communication technologies

(ICTs) into the curriculum, to prepare students for the futures they deserve. (“New

Literacies,” para. 1)

Similarly, the National Council for Teachers of English (NCTE) issued a position

statement in February 2013 stating that

Active, successful participants in this 21st century global society must be able to

 Develop proficiency and fluency with the tools of technology;

 Build intentional cross-cultural connections and relationships with others

so as to pose and solve problems collaboratively and strengthen

independent thought;

 Design and share information for global communities to meet a variety of

purposes;

 Manage, analyze, and synthesize multiple streams of simultaneous

information;

 Create, critique, analyze, and evaluate multimedia texts;

 Attend to the ethical responsibilities required by these complex

environments. (“The NCTE Definition,” para. 1)

 46

To develop these new literacies, teachers must create learning opportunities that will

foster student collaboration and communication in a technologically rich environment

(Larson, 2009).

Language arts teachers, in particular, can utilize technology in literature study.

More and more researchers are investigating the use of virtual literature circles in classes

through the use of some sort of online discussion (Bowers-Campbell, 2011; Klages et al.,

2007; Whittingham, 2013). Furthermore, as Cavanaugh (2006) stated “Technology can

be both a facilitator of literacy and a medium of literacy” (p. 6), and it is changing the

way reading and writing are taught.

Thus, the question becomes, how will virtual environments influence the process

of literature circles? Various educators have utilized diverse online media to conduct

literature circles. None have yet analyzed the strategies that language arts teachers are

employing with virtual literature circles to result in positive educational outcomes. What

is it, for instance, that these teachers do to make the online learning environment work?

What structures are in place to guide the students, as the teacher cannot be there in person

to facilitate?

Blended Learning Models

Researchers believe that these strategies must be addressed in a blended learning

environment, in which a combination of traditional and online components is occurring in

a classroom (Chew, Turner, & Jones, 2010). Blended learning seems simple on the

surface, but the application is complex, which has direct implications for educators using

it (Chew et al., 2010). Categories such as synchronous and asynchronous; formal and

informal; and online or offline define the virtual learning environment, or VLE (Chew et
 47

al.). A VLE can consist of online learning materials, announcements, emails, discussion

boards, and chat rooms utilized by the educator or institution (Chew et al., 2010).

Synchronous tools are those that allow users to log in simultaneously and

communicate as if they were in a face-to-face meeting; these tools will create a transcript

of the discussion for users (Lewis & Allan, 2005). Examples of these tools “include

conference or chat rooms, instant messaging, internet telephony and video conferencing”

(p. 36). In contrast, asynchronous tools allow users to log in at their convenience and post

content that others may view at their own convenience; email, bulletin boards, and

mailing lists are asynchronous tools (Lewis & Allan). Asynchronous communications

offer interactive discussion but with the benefit of having time to think, as a writing

activity would (Grisham and Wolsey, 2006). Blackboard, WebCT/Vista, Desire2Learn,

Moodle, Tappedin.org and Ning, a social networking platform, are specific synchronous

or asynchronous tools (Beach et al., 2011).

Teachers will need to make many decisions as they implement a virtual

environment. Structure is necessary to achieve the desired outcomes, so the teacher’s role

is to provide a presence that will help learning occur through proper design, facilitation,

and direction (Chew et al., 2010; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Thus, it is teacher

strategies that will determine if learning is occurring; merely replacing traditional

methods with technology will not be effective—only carefully crafted blended learning

will achieve results (Chew et al., 2010; O’Toole & Absalom, 2003).

Understanding how to design a blended learning environment to produce learning

is necessary (Deng & Yuen, 2010). Using both online and face-to-face methods for
 48

discussions could potentially result in greater learning because students with different

learning styles can be accommodated (Lewis & Allan, 2005; Meyer, 2003).

Serving Various Populations with Virtual Literature Circles

Beyond learning styles, students with different educational needs must also be

considered, whether face-to-face or virtual literature circles are used. Various populations

need to be served, from struggling readers to gifted, fluent readers, English-language

learners, and special education students.

The use of technology can certainly assist struggling readers, and it has been

proven to enhance reading skills (Taylor, 2012). Furthermore, students with disabilities,

who might be absent more often due to their conditions, can be easily accommodated

through virtual media (Cavanaugh, 2006). Computers can also benefit students with fine

motor issues, as well as those with severe disabilities, because even voice-activated

controls can be used to post comments about books (Cavanaugh, 2006).

Nevertheless, traditional literature circles are predicated on the assumption of

talk—and talk is different in a virtual setting involving discussion boards; whether

students converse via typed comments or actually videotape their responses, strategies

that work for the traditional literature circle may need to be adjusted or created to fit the

virtual environment. Still, collaboration online equates similarly to face-to-face

collaboration (Klages et al., 2007).

The same power dynamics issues that might plague traditional face-to-face

literature circles can be just as problematic in an online environment; Limburg and Clark

argued that “ the same dynamics of privilege and disenfranchisement that exist when

teaching …in three-dimensional space persist when teaching it in cyberspace” (p. 50).
 49

Classroom diversity as related to culture, gender, socioeconomic status and even sexual

orientation can sometimes produce tension and can present itself not only in classrooms

but in online communications as well, so teachers must guard against commentary that

marginalizes students. Zembylas and Vrasidas (2005) explained, “An ethical online

pedagogy requires paying attention to ways in which interactions across difference

promote relationality, humility, criticality, and responsibility” (p. 77). One important

consideration for online components is to establish clear guidelines at the beginning to

address interaction etiquette, which can then lead to students construing the learning

environment as safe and non-threatening (Li, 2008).

Teachers have a responsibility to listen for “silences” too; as Zembylas and

Vrasidas (2007) pointed out, silence is not always about marginalization, but can be

interpreted as confusion, non-participation, or even the need for reflection. Because

participation is essential in an online discussion, Zembylas and Vrasidas recommended

clear guidelines for the number of posts to be made, frequent interactions with students,

quality facilitation of discussions, and ensuring that asynchronous discussions are part of

evaluation to allow for time to reflect.

Cultural differences can be seen in online interactions as well. As teachers

develop online learning communities, awareness of general cultural and social

explorations is necessary to create relevant educational experiences; issues to consider

include “differences in conceptions of roles and relationships, cultural and social

expectations regarding the perceived role of women, the balance between keeping

rules and valuing particular relationships, legality concerns, different concepts of

 50

time, and even humor” (Rogers, Graham, & Mayes, 2007, p. 203). By considering issues

of diversity, teachers can make their virtual communities places where collaboration can

thrive.

Establishing Virtual Communities

To foster that collaboration, an understanding of the requirements of establishing

virtual communities is required. Students and/or teachers may decide to conduct their

meetings synchronously or asynchronously. In the case of virtual literature circles,

teachers will need to share with students the purpose of forming the VLE (Lewis &

Allan, 2005); doing so will ensure that all members understand the specific goals of the

group. From there, teachers can determine the structure of the community, the members,

how they will work and learn together, the infrastructure and administrative support

required, and the type of design needed for the VLE (Lewis & Allan, 2005). Conditions

that will lead to growth of the online community include commitment and trust, comfort

zones, collective responsibility and co-dependency, and humor and fun (Lewis & Allan,

2005). With these in place, the success of the VLE is more promising (Lewis & Allan,

2005).

While some educators worry about using technology because they believe it does

not promote social skills, this is not entirely the case (Klages et al., 2007). In fact, as early

as 1993, Harrington found that online discussions fostered free communication,

potentially even more because of a lack of social constraints afforded by the virtual

environment. The “socially constructed learning” that online discussions offer seem to

benefit students (Larson, 2009, p. 646).

 51

Fitzmaurice (2009) argued that online discussions, which may lose the “quick

back and forth dialogue” (p. 268) of in-class discussions, still offer asynchronous

spontaneity. Fitzmaurice (2009) used both synchronous and asynchronous methods to

teach graduate Shakespeare seminars, and he stated that “thoughtful, text-based reading”

(p. 269) along with reading of online discussion posts can foster improved student

writing. Additionally, personal interaction, whether in person or online, resulted in

students remembering more material (Fitzmaurice, 2009).

Benefits of Virtual Media

Participation in virtual literature circles can also offer other benefits as Tao and

Reinking (1996) pointed out in their study of using email for learning. English as a

second language (ESL) learners might be more apt to participate in virtual environments,

which would thereby contribute to a changing pattern of interaction in classes with ESL

learners while also affording them the opportunity to practice their language skills more.

Furthermore, the anonymity of email might also encourage other shy learners to

participate; students have time to compose a thoughtful response when using virtual

environments, and they also seem more confident writing rather than speaking (Beach et

al., 2011; Tao & Reinking, 1996). Whereas in traditional literature circles, shy,

struggling, or English language learners might not participate, an asynchronous online

venue offers more time for students to construct a comment, helping them feel less

hesitant to participate (Larson, 2009) and potentially allowing them as much air time as

more dominant students (Bowers-Campbell, 2011; Carico & Logan, 2004). For the more

talkative students, asynchronous online discussions seem to minimize their domineering

effect, because everyone can comment in his or her own time (Beeghly, 2005); in fact, in
 52

one study, students reported that although some people did tend to post more than others,

it did not result in them feeling someone had dominated the conversation, and they also

commented about the insightful comments the shyer students in class had made online

(Beeghly, 2005). An added benefit is the ability for students to increase their

collaboration beyond their own classroom group to wider, even global audiences

(Anderson, 2008; Castek, Bevans-Mangelson, & Goldstone, 2006; Stewart, 2009). This

extension of learning can provide students access to ideas and cultures they might not

otherwise encounter (Castek, et al., 2006).

Finally, other researchers argued that using online designs may not only be an

excellent vehicle for literature circles, but may also reduce some of the problems teachers

encounter using them, like group discussion waning when the teacher leaves (Bowers-

Campbell, 2011).

Practical Virtual Applications in Classrooms

Knowlton and Knowlton (2001) are some of the few researchers who have

specifically studied the use of online discussions with secondary students, and they

offered practical tips for including them in classes. Deeper levels of understanding in an

online discussion will not occur without careful planning, and guidelines must be in place

to ensure success (Knowlton & Knowlton, 2001). Because of the various contexts in

which online learning can take place, the practices Knowlton and Knowlton suggested

are designed to be used in a variety of settings.

The first step is to establish “an appropriate context that frames the discussion”

(Knowlton & Knowlton, 2001, p. 41). To do so requires some groundwork, such as

ensuring that students first know how to utilize the technology and make posts. From
 53

there, a specific strategy they recommend is to “clearly define the topic and establish

guidelines for participation in the discussion” (Knowlton, & Knowlton, 2001, p. 43). At

the same time, Knowlton and Knowlton cautioned against too rigidly defining the topic,

because productive discussions often happen when students freely communicate, which is

a tenet of Daniels’ (2002) literature circles methods. Additionally, high school students

will need to be explicitly taught that they must reply to their classmates’ posts; the

temptation just to post to receive a grade is quite likely without this instruction

(Knowlton & Knowlton, 2001).

Other aspects that must be taught are the concepts of being part of a community

and what that entails, such as “civility, respect, and reciprocity” (Knowlton & Knowlton,

2001, p. 44). This is different from face-to-face literature circles, because the online

environment lacks the visual, non-verbal cues which students are accustomed to relying

on; thus, Knowlton and Knowlton advised teaching students to be “self-aware” (p. 44)

when posting, or to think about how their comments might be received by their

classmates.

To actually enact the process, Knowlton and Knowlton (2001) advised the use of

a “heuristic for promoting learning” (p. 47). This strategy is as follows: students make

initial posts to a clearly defined question, to which the teacher responds using a Socratic

questioning technique to encourage the student to think more deeply about the topic;

students then respond to the teacher’s questioning with answers they have evaluated as

contributing to discussion using an appreciation of Bloom’s taxonomy; finally, teachers

relinquish control and become moderators and facilitators while continuing to guide

students as necessary and provide resources when needed (Knowlton & Knowlton, 2001).
 54

A final strategy Knowlton and Knowlton suggested was the use of authentic role-

playing, in which students become characters and respond in that particular role, which

might be useful to increase their communication skills and awareness.

Just as Daniels (2002) suggested, Knowlton & Knowlton (2001) advocated for

students to self-assess in this process, but cautioned that students must know the criteria

for self-assessment, perhaps through the use of a simple yes/no checklist. They also

recommended using peer evaluations (Knowlton & Knowlton, 2001).

Similarly, Larson (2009), in an online discussion board with fifth graders, used a

strategy in which she began by giving students a prompt with subquestions, to which she

asked all students to respond, then allowed students to read and reply to their other group

members’ responses. Because students showed an interest in designing their own

prompts, the researcher and teacher demonstrated how to do so and relinquished control

of the discussion to the students for the rest of the study (Larson, 2009).

Carico and Logan (2004) used a Multi-user, Object-Oriented (MOO)

environment, which is an “online, text-based environment where numbers of people can

‘meet’ at the same time” (p. 294). This tool is synchronous, and their students enjoyed the

ease of commenting without having to look back at previous posts (Carico & Logan,

2004). Carico and Logan contended that MOOs engender participation through the

anonymity offered by the online environment, based on analysis of student feedback and

transcripts of conversations. As part of their process, Carico and Logan also pointed out

the benefits of the transcript created by the online discussion; they required students to

read, analyze, and discuss their contributions because much happens very quickly in the

MOO. Specifically, students find “one or more sustained discussion segments from the
 55

transcripts, delete any extraneous comments, and take a close look at the discussion” (p.

298), which can mean marking them for various types of analyses or examining “content,

structure, participation patterns, and standards of learning” (p. 298). Like others who

advocate for a blended environment, Carico and Logan (2004) warned that MOOs are

only one part of fostering literary communication, as they were only a part of a larger

project in which they integrated technology and literacy through email, discussion

boards, and MOOs.

In contrast to the entirely online MOO, Day and Kroon (2010) used a combination

of face-to-face and virtual literature circles in a sixth grade classroom, three of each

format. To introduce the literature circles, Kroon would read a chapter of a book and then

demonstrate a strategy for thinking about it, from sticky notes about personal connections

to questions to literary elements, which students shared in small groups, to finally

conducting a “fishbowl” discussion to demonstrate how to successfully engage in talk

about books (Day & Kroon, 2010). This use of mini-lessons to teach students discussion

techniques helped them navigate their own small groups based on what was observed in

the fishbowl discussion, which then readied them for participation in the online

discussions on ThinkQuest, a threaded discussion board (Day & Kroon, 2010). Day and

Kroon (2010) pointed out that there was a need for different guidelines for the online

discussions versus the traditional ones; students sometimes navigated to other web sites

while they were supposed to be discussing, and occasionally the conversation would

wane; again, a lesson on how to keep conversation flowing helped (Day & Kroon, 2010).

Like Carico and Logan (2004), they also had students code the transcripts of their

discussions to help them think about their conversations more deeply (Day & Kroon,
 56

2010). Additionally, Day and Kroon felt that one online discussion over an entire novel

was helpful in eliminating problems such as spoiling endings, and that it also facilitated

improved conversation among students.

Scharber (2009) demonstrated how to use Moodle to conduct an online book club;

“Moodle is free, open-source classroom management software that provides the security

and affordances necessary to host safe, interactive online” literature circles (p. 434), and

it allows for both synchronous and asynchronous uses. In this instance, students finished

reading a book, then a librarian posted a question daily for one week to which students

could respond at any time; there was also a real-time chat feature that became popular .

One chat per week was scheduled, with the librarian facilitating in the 30 minute time

frame (Scharber, 2009).

Beeghly (2005) used virtual literature circles with her adult learners who were

preparing to teach literacy in K-12. Students were assigned to groups early in the

semester and remained in them throughout the semester. They had to read the books prior

to discussion in class; an online discussion on Blackboard would follow (Beeghly, 2005).

She also required her students to bring a written response analysis to class on the day of

discussion to give them a starting point from which to discuss; small groups met first for

30 minutes, followed by a whole class discussion (Beeghly, 2005). Beeghly suggested

that the face-to-face time established a comfort level with students before beginning the

virtual portion of the assignment, to which she provided a rubric; students were required

to post at least three times as well as to reply to others’ posts, all over a two week time

period. The most important outcome she observed was that the ability for students to

respond in their own time facilitated meeting their needs (Beeghly, 2005, p. 18). At the
 57

same time, student feedback reflected the importance of the community building that had

taken place in the face-to-face class meetings (Beeghly, 2005).

Another idea for utilizing virtual literature circles is to use a wiki, which is a web

site on which anyone can edit the content at any time, even collaboratively (Kist, 2010;

Richardson, 2010). Moreillon, Hunt, and Ewing (2009) had students create wikis and

used other Web 2.0 technologies “to organize, discuss, and present their responses to the

texts and to collaborate with others in their classroom and beyond” (p. 24). Not only did

students discuss the literature, they also honed writing skills and created multimedia

projects on their books (Moreillon et al., 2009). As in other successful virtual literature

circles, Moreillon et al. expressly taught online etiquette and modeled appropriate

communication strategies for both face-to-face and online conversations; the use of four

different literature circle cycles with different genre foci varied the experience for

students and allowed them to explore different responses and products regarding their

literary selections.

Conversely, virtual literature circles can be in the form of weblogs, or blogs,

which are easy-to-create web sites to which writers publish their musings; they are

updated frequently and can contain links; “They demand interaction” (Richardson, 2010,

p. 18). It is this “give-and-take dialogue” (Kist, 2010, p. 62) that makes blogs well suited

to the virtual literature circle. Kist provided teacher Rachelle Ring’s detailed rubric for

blogging responses to a novel, containing categories such as number of entries, class

participation, reflection, and writing (p. 63).

Even Google Groups can be used to foster virtual literature circles; one teacher,

Mike Slowinski, used it to help his high school students discuss novels with college
 58

students (Kist, 2010). His expectations were detailed in his handout “Online Literature

Circles: Expectations and Requirements” (Kist, 2010, p. 84). Categories included posting,

grading, and extra credit, as well as sections on online etiquette, characteristics of good

responses, and areas students can improve their responses (Kist, 2010).

Hyler and Hicks (2014) advocated for the use of Cel.ly for virtual literature

circles; “Cel.ly is the social networking tool that is great for organizing, collaborating,

and getting students to think critically, especially during digital literature circles” (p.

112). Hyler and Hicks modeled their virtual literature circles after the Daniels (2002)

model, providing students with the traditional roles, but with each role having a digital

job. For instance, the Discussion Directors had to use Cel.ly to collaborate, while the

Summarizers had to prepare a summary, then create short videos of themselves reading it

using YouTube or a smartphone (Hyler & Hicks). For the Vocabulary role, students had

to use Quizlet, a free online tool that allows students to create flashcards, while the

Illustrators created comics through Toondoo or Pixton (Hyler & Hicks). Finally, the

Passage Picker chose important sections of the reading, then created a podcast using

Audacity or Soundcloud; the Connection Makers made real world connections to the

reading and utilized Wikispaces to share them or had to share various links to web pages

with the group (Hyler & Hicks).

Facebook and other social media platforms, such as Ning, can be used for virtual

literature circles as well. While much controversy can surround these sites, which have

largely been used for personal connections, there is no denying their importance in

adolescents’ lives (Richardson, 2010). Richardson cautioned teachers to emphasize the

use of Facebook in classrooms as “interest-based” as opposed to “friendship-based” (p.

 59

136). Despite the concern some teachers have, Richardson’s research showed that using it

had the potential to create a strong sense of class community and that students were very

engaged because of their familiarity with the site. Stewart (2009) detailed a study of this

platform used by a school librarian. In this study, the librarian formed a group of six

volunteer students who agreed to read one book per month and use Facebook to discuss it

and engage in tasks related to it. She used four features of Facebook, including chat,

posts, discussion board, and the wall, and assigned roles as per Daniels (2002; Stewart,

2009). Additionally, as Knowlton and Knowlton (2001) recommended, she taught them

online social skills and utilized a T-chart that listed appropriate behaviors for online

discussion skills and clarified necessary group skills (Stewart, 2009). Ultimately, Stewart

concluded that using Facebook allowed the librarian to use a popular social forum as

scaffolding for an academic environment that helped develop students’ literacy skills.

An educational alternative to Facebook is Edmodo, a free, secure online site for

collaboration, which Falter Thomas (2014) utilized in her action research study with

middle school students and pre-service teachers. As Falter Thomas explained, Edmodo

can be used with whole groups, small groups, or even one-on-one, much like Facebook.

In this study, the students were placed in small groups on Edmodo, so that only the group

could see their posts (Falter Thomas). The pre-service teachers were taught how to

incorporate higher level questioning so that student comprehension would be improved,

and they did not use role sheets, which they considered potentially confusing for the

students (Falter Thomas). Over the course of a four week cycle, students were expected

to post at least four times each week in response to the teachers’ posted questions;

discussions occurred asynchronously, because there were four different middle school
 60

classes meeting at different times, and the pre-service teachers could not meet at the same

time either (Falter Thomas). Students could post outside of class or use classroom

computers if necessary. As the pre-service teachers facilitated the online discussions, they

tried to dialogue with students, not only asking higher level questions but asking for them

to make connections as well (Falter Thomas). According to Falter Thomas, the “students

were more engaged in their learning and were more motivated with online literature

circles compared to their previous face-to-face literature circles, reportedly because they

knew they were going to discuss their book with an authentic audience” (p. 50). The data

revealed that both students and teachers considered the virtual literature circles to be

engaging and motivating and wanted to continue using them (Falter Thomas, 2014).

Virtual Literature Circles and Educational Outcomes

Through the many modes that virtual literature circles can be conducted, many

ideas exist for implementing them. Nevertheless, Casey (2008) warned that the successes

achieved in these activities are “not something that can be neatly packaged and

reproduced across classrooms but instead is organic and emerges within each setting

according to the unique characteristics of the participants and the content being

considered” (p. 292). It is clear there are many benefits to literature circles, from

contributing to classroom community (Richardson, 2010; Whittingham, 2013) to offering

marginalized students the opportunity to be heard (Cavanaugh, 2006; Fisher, et al., 2008),

and even to creating lifelong readers (Marchiando, 2013). What remains to be seen, even

through the many models for implementing virtual literature circles, is how these impact

educational outcomes.
 61

One quantitative study by Thomas and Hofmeister (2002) concerned the cognitive

complexity of student responses in virtual literature circles. Essentially, like this

qualitative study, the authors wanted to determine if the use of technology would impact

student learning, yet they admitted that it is difficult to measure cognitive complexity

thus, they developed a cognitive complexity rating scale for the study (Thomas &

Hofmeister, 2002). The study spanned two weeks and covered a random sample of 25

third and fourth grade students who used an electronic discussion board for virtual

literature circles. Thomas and Hofmeister conducted two phases. The first was to

analyze student responses in chronological order to determine if there were gains in their

cognitive complexity as demonstrated by the comments; the second phase was to analyze

the cognitive complexity of student responses as they related to the type of prompt used.

One of the authors developed a simple four point rating scale to assess the cognitive

complexity, but the inter-rater reliability was quite low at .37% (Thomas & Hofmeister,

2002). The results indicated that “It seems reasonable to claim that the cognitive

complexity of the student responses did not meaningfully increase with continued use of

Virtual Literature Circles” (p. 238) but that it did vary according to prompt type. The

authors admitted that the findings were small and that the instrument created needs to be

refined, but also decided that more study is needed; specifically, Thomas and Hofmeister

recommended that “Future studies of Virtual Literature Circles should focus on

intervention strategies using carefully chosen question prompts in order to utilize this

emerging message board technology to increase student cognitive complexity” (p. 240).

Additionally, Klages, Pate, and Conforti (2007), while summarizing many of the

benefits already mentioned—collaboration, engagement, improved technology use—also

 62

claimed that students gained increased subject area knowledge through their online

communications about the texts they were reading, which was accomplished through the

students’ further research about their books for their email discussions as well as for their

final product for the assignment, the creation of a web page. Similarly, Moreillon et al.

(2009) concluded that their assignment requiring digital creation fostered increased

comprehension and responses to the literature. Simpson’s (2010) study concerning online

collaborative learning demonstrated that over time and through the use of scaffolded

worksheets, which she termed “rap sheets,” students showed an increase in “critical

reflection through application and synthesis of knowledge” (p. 127).

Summary

This review of relevant literature demonstrates that traditional literature circles

have become an indispensable tool in language arts classrooms. Not only do they foster

autonomous student discussion (Daniels, 2002), they increase students’ critical thinking

and comprehension (Daniels, 2002; Day et al., 2002; Ferguson & Kern, 2012; Owens,

1995; Short, 1995). They meet the needs of diverse learners, from English language

learners to fluent readers, all while nurturing a collaborative, cooperative environment

(Daniels, 2002; Owens, 1995; Samway & Whang, 1996).

As technology takes an even greater role in classes today, there is room to expand

the benefits of traditional literature circles into a virtual venue. While questions remain

about the use of virtual literature circles, many teachers want to know how to integrate

them into their curriculum so that learning is maximized and challenges minimized. In

her review of literature on the concept, Coffey (2012) recommended more studies to

investigate the quality of the online discussions as well as a deeper look into the social
 63

issues inherent in the virtual environment. This study’s findings can assist teachers who

want strategies to ensure their students are learning in the virtual literature circle.
 64

Chapter III

Methodology

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to identify the strategies that teachers use when

implementing virtual literature circles, as well as to discover benefits and to uncover any

challenges a virtual environment poses. A goal of the research is to assist English

Language Arts (ELA) teachers who wish to integrate virtual literature circles into their

classes by providing them with clear direction in how to proceed to support student

learning and fulfill curriculum standards, which in Georgia refers to Common Core

Georgia Performance Standards [CCGPS] (“English Language Arts,” 2013). The use of

virtual literature circles can meet the goals of the National Council of Teachers of

English (NCTE) and International Literacy Association (ILA) for integrating new

literacies into classrooms, thereby increasing students’ ability to interact in a global

environment through technologies (“The NCTE Definition,” 2013; “New Literacies,”

2009). While much research exists about traditional literature circles (Clarke &

Holwadel, 2007; Daniels, 2002; Day et al., 2002; Harvey & Daniels, 2009; Samway &

Whang, 1996), little research is available about their virtual counterparts, making this

study a viable means of filling that gap and providing teachers useful information to

enhance their virtual literature circles.

The following research question guided the study:

How do ELA teachers create a virtual literature circle experience that supports student

learning?

The following subquestion further informed the study:

 65

What are the benefits and/or challenges, if any, that teachers perceive in the use of virtual

literature circles, and how can they be addressed?

This chapter describes the study’s research methodology and includes a rationale

for the research approach, a discussion of the role of the researcher, a description of the

research sample, a summary of information needed, an overview model of the research

design, data collection and analysis methods, ethical considerations, issues of

trustworthiness, and limitations of the study, followed by a summary of the chapter.

Rationale for Research Approach

While one notable study utilized a quantitative approach to virtual literature

circles (Thomas & Hofmeister, 2002), most studies regarding the phenomenon depend

instead upon a qualitative approach in order to provide rich descriptions about the content

of student responses, student and teacher perceptions, and methods used to foster

discussion (Beeghly, 2005; Bowers-Campbell, 2011; Carico & Logan, 2004; Day &

Kroon, 2010; Klages et al., 2007; Larson, 2009; Moreillon et al., 2009; Scharber, 2009;

Simpson, 2010; Stewart, 2009). Qualitative research design allows for “discovery,

insight, and understanding from the perspectives of those being studied” (Merriam, 2009,

p. 1). As Merriam (2009) explained, “Qualitative researchers are interested in

understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds,

and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (p. 5). Thus, a qualitative study is

best suited for deeper exploration of experience when variables that cannot be easily

measured are present and there is a need for hearing the voices of those being studied

(Creswell, 2013; Hoepfl, 1997).

 66

For this particular study of teacher strategies that facilitate virtual literature

circles, a qualitative study allowed the researcher to gain an overall picture of what

educators do to influence their students’ learning while minimizing any challenges in this

environment. As Creswell (2013) explained, in this type of study, “quantitative measure

and the statistical analyses simply do not fit the problem” (p. 48, emphasis in original). It

was important to determine the lived experiences of the educators using virtual literature

circles so that insight could be gained, because meaning and understanding are

constructed in the natural setting in which people are interacting (Creswell, 2013;

Merriam, 2009). In my role as researcher, I was able to ask key questions as they

emerged from the data gathered, thereby allowing for a fuller picture of the phenomenon

of virtual literature circles as it emerged (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).

Furthermore, while the previously identified researchers have studied virtual

literature circles, this study offers a new perspective on the topic as well as more in-depth

information, which Hoepfl (1997) identified as important features of qualitative research.

By focusing on teacher strategies that support student learning in the virtual literature

circles, I can contribute to the knowledge base, giving teachers specific, proven strategies

that have worked for other teachers in the field; the in-depth analysis allows teachers

wishing to implement virtual literature circles a glimpse into other educators’ classrooms

so that they may choose what aspects of their processes they may wish to replicate in

their own environments.

Creswell (2013) explained that researchers’ philosophical assumptions will

necessarily inform their studies and thus must be delineated. This study is based on the

experiences of teachers using virtual literature circles and how their practices support
 67

student learning while minimizing any challenges. To be considered for the purposes of

this study, teachers’ experiences with virtual literature circles were considered in relation

to their perceptions of student outcomes, such as engagement, level of analysis, and

evidential reasoning. It was imperative that I came to understand exact methods, why

they engaged in their practices, and how their choices influenced student learning. To that

end, my choice of qualitative study was phenomenological in nature, using grounded

theory methods, while my theoretical perspective and philosophical stance were informed

by social constructivism.

Method: Rationale for a qualitative research design. As Creswell (2013)

suggested regarding qualitative studies, my research was driven by my desire to

understand the phenomenon of virtual literature circles as experienced by ELA teachers,

as well as by my own ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological

philosophies. By clarifying my stance on these areas, I am able to demonstrate the

qualitative nature of my study.

Ontology. Ontology refers to how researchers view the nature of reality

(Creswell, 2013). In qualitative research, multiple realities are embraced by the

researcher (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). In this study, I wanted to hear the

perspectives of the teachers who are using virtual literature circles, and I believe that their

realities are shaped by their particular contexts (Merriam, 2009), which might be different

from my own experiences (Creswell, 2013).

Epistemology. Epistemology refers to how researchers view the nature of

knowledge (Creswell, 2013). In qualitative research, knowledge is gained by assembling

subjective evidence from individual experiences (Creswell, 2013). My study occurred in

 68

the field, i.e. interviewing teachers about their experiences using virtual literature circles

so that I came to know them and their practices in order to gain perspective. This practice

is consistent with qualitative research, because researchers should be seeking multiple

answers to their questions (Arghode, 2012) within the natural setting in which the

phenomenon occurs (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).

Axiology. Axiology refers to how researchers view the role of values in their

studies (Creswell, 2013). Research of any kind is biased and value-laden (Creswell,

2013; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Qualitative researchers, in particular, must actively make

their biases and values known, or as Creswell (2013) says, “position themselves” in the

study (p. 20). For example, my role as researcher was impacted by my own use of

literature circles with high school students, and the successes and failures I have observed

in my students’ use of them

Methodology. Methodology refers to how researchers proceed with research and

the language they use (Creswell, 2013). As Creswell explained, qualitative research

procedures “are characterized as inductive, emerging, and shaped by the researcher’s

experience in collecting and analyzing data” (p. 22). Inductive reasoning was used to co-

create the knowledge with the participants, and it fits a small sample size well as open-

ended knowledge is generated (Arghode, 2012).

Theoretical perspective. As Creswell (2013) explained, it is important for

qualitative researchers to clarify their philosophical assumptions, because they will

necessarily impact the study. Because my paradigm is one that values multiple realities,

my study was informed by social constructivism or interpretivism. In social

constructivism, people “seek understanding of the world in which they live and work”
 69

(Creswell, 2013, p. 24) and thus develop subjective, varied, and multiple meanings of

their experiences, which then allows researchers to seek complex and broad views rather

than narrow, limited ones; this approach causes researchers to rely on participant views to

develop their understandings and/or theories (Creswell). In this framework, knowledge

was co-constructed between the researcher and the practitioners, whose experiences and

interactions became the basis for understanding by the researcher, who functioned as the

key instrument (Creswell, 2013). When a researcher functions from this worldview, he or

she allows for complexity of viewpoints, and themes or patterns are found through the

process of induction, often developed via interaction and negotiation with others

(Creswell, 2013). In fact, this theoretical perspective underlies the process of literature

circles, because it involves peers making meaning together via their discussions (Beach et

al., 2011; Daniels, 2002; Vygotsky, 1978).

In this study, the participants were determined as the result of preliminary data

analysis gathered from questionnaires to ELA teachers in Georgia and other parts of the

United States. For the purpose of this study, data were gathered over a period of eleven

months, from June 2014 to April 2015. It focused on the experience of Georgia and U.S.

language arts teachers from middle school, secondary school, and university level who

used virtual literature circles in their classrooms, meaning that they reported the process

and outcomes observed from students, including engagement, levels of analysis, and use

of evidential reasoning, and any other variable they considered important in their

classrooms. In addition, the teachers chosen had at least one school year of experience

using virtual literature circles. This purposeful selection yielded rich data, because the

teachers chosen were not novices in the use of virtual literature circles.
 70

Because I wanted to understand the lived experience of teachers using virtual

literature circles, a general qualitative study using grounded theory methods provided a

beneficial method for doing so. Charmaz’s (2006) constructivist perspective of grounded

theory methods emphasizes “diverse local worlds, multiple realities, and the complexities

of particular worlds, views, and actions” (Creswell, 2013, p. 87). By collecting data over

the course of nearly a year using various methods, such as questionnaires, interviews, and

document analysis, I was able to uncover the practices used by the teachers that support

student learning when using virtual literature circles. Because the study was nearly year-

long, many variables and their interactions were included to present the full picture as the

researcher saw it. This study can also be characterized as heuristic, meaning that it serves

to illuminate readers’ understanding of the phenomenon being studied (Merriam, 2009).

To gather all of the necessary data, I included multiple sources, such as

questionnaires, interviews, and documents (Creswell, 2013). These varied sources of data

and methods of data collection allowed me to triangulate my findings, lending further

credibility to the study (Merriam, 2009, p. 215). Furthermore, because the practitioners

themselves had the opportunity to conduct member checks of my findings,

misinterpretation was minimized, and the study’s credibility and internal validity were

improved (Merriam).

Participant Selection and Description

The use of virtual literature circles is a fairly new phenomenon, but studies have

been conducted at elementary, middle, and high school, demonstrating that they are a

viable method of integrating new literacies into the ELA curriculum while strengthening

students’ analytical abilities regarding literature (Carico & Logan, 2004; Cavanaugh,
 71

2006; Klages, et al, 2007; Knowlton & Knowlton, 2001; Simpson 2010; Stewart, 2009).

In order to conduct the study, I began by contacting the Georgia Council of Teachers of

English (GCTE) for permission to contact its members (see Appendix B) via an

electronic questionnaire to determine who is using virtual literature circles, the grades

and subjects taught using them, their basic process, and any challenges faced, and to

ascertain whether they would be willing to be research participants (see Appendix C).

When I determined it was not possible to contact members that way, I then contacted as

many ELA teachers in Georgia as possible through email to their posted system email

addresses, attaching the questionnaire to determine ELA teachers’ perceptions regarding

the use of virtual literature circles. Because too few responded, I extended the search to

teachers in the US via posting on the NCTE open forum, then extended the search further

by contacting all that were mentioned on the Internet as using virtual literature circles. I

also reached out via Twitter, and personally attended a GCTE conference to seek

participants.

Questionnaires help researchers learn about relevant characteristics, attitudes and

beliefs of the population being studied (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). In such a self-

reporting format, the researcher relies on the respondents’ honesty and accuracy, which is

a limitation of the usefulness of questionnaires, yet they can still yield important

information that can further the study (Marshall & Rossman). The responses provided me

with initial data to begin determining themes and categories regarding virtual literature

circles.
 72

Information Needed

This study focused on ELA educators at middle, secondary, and university levels

who use virtual literature circles with their students. In seeking to understand their

experiences with the practice and the strategies they used, four areas of inquiry were

explored. The information needed to address the research focus included four categories:

contextual, demographic, perceptual, and theoretical, and are explained as follows:

 Contextual information was obtained in response to a questionnaire (see

Appendix C) that asked teachers to explain their current teaching situation

in which they are using virtual literature circles. This information provided

information such as grade level of students taught; specific subject area;

student ability levels; the teachers’ basic process; perceived benefits and

challenges, if any; how long they have been using virtual literature circles;

and training both teachers and students have had with the technology.

 Demographic information included teachers’ years of expertise, degrees,

and type of school in which they are working, such as rural, urban, or

virtual. It also included their school’s designation as Title I, if applicable.

 The educator participants’ perceptions of their experiences with virtual

literature circles were explored, including both challenges and successes.

 Theoretical grounding was achieved through an ongoing review of

literature in regard to virtual literature circles as related to social

constructivism. As explained previously, in social constructivism, a

variety of viewpoints is explored as people “seek understanding of the

world in which they live and work” (Creswell, 2013, p. 24); therefore,
 73

they develop subjective, varied, and multiple meanings of their

experiences, which then allows researchers to seek complex and broad

views rather than narrow, limited ones (Creswell, 2013), not unlike what

occurs in literature circles themselves, because peers make meaning

together via their discussions (Beach et al., 2011; Daniels, 2002;

Vygotsky, 1978). Social constructivism provided the interpretive lens,

allowing multiple viewpoints to develop from the data presented.

Procedures for Data Collection

Multiple methods of data collection were necessary for this study in order to

provide an in-depth understanding of how teachers use virtual literature circles to

maximize learning while minimizing challenges. As Creswell (2013) explained, using

interviews, questionnaires or surveys, and documents is an important aspect of qualitative

research, as it allows researchers to obtain a variety of data which can then be organized

into themes or patterns that emerge from the various sources. This study involved these

various methods in three phases.

Data collection phase 1: Questionnaires. Because the goal in this study was to

discover how teachers utilize virtual literature circles, I began by reaching as many

language arts teachers as possible via an electronic general questionnaire (see Appendix

C). It contained questions relating to their current teaching position and the grades and

subject(s) taught as well as questions pertaining to their use of virtual literature circles,

such as how they organize them and their perceptions of them. It also asked if they were

interested in participating in further research involving their use of virtual literature

circles.
 74

After receiving the responses, I coded them by demographic information, as well

as analyzed them for potential themes. Coding the data involves reducing it into

meaningful segments, then naming those segments (Creswell, 2013). This process of

category generation involves noting patterns that become evident (Marshall & Rossman,

2006). Next, researchers combine the codes into broader categories or themes, which can

then be displayed and compared in charts and tables (Creswell, 2013). These initial

responses illuminated emerging themes that became evident in continuing study.

Furthermore, for any respondents who indicated an interest in proceeding with

further research, I utilized purposeful sampling to choose specific study participants to

interview. As Creswell (2013) suggested, it is important that participants have experience

with the phenomenon being studied, in this case virtual literature circles. The interview

candidates were purposefully selected based on the level of reflection in the initial

questionnaires and the depth of information provided regarding the process and outcomes

observed from students, including engagement, levels of analysis, and use of evidential

reasoning, and any other variable they consider important in their classrooms. In addition,

the teachers chosen had at least one school year of experience using virtual literature

circles. This purposeful selection yielded rich data, because the teachers chosen were not

novices in the use of virtual literature circles. After purposefully selecting the candidates

from those who agreed to participate further, I contacted them via email to explain the

process and to provide them with a copy of the Informed Consent form (see Appendix

D). After receiving the signed Informed Consent forms, I proceeded to phase II of the

data collection.
 75

Data collection phase II: Interviews. Interviews provided the primary means of

data collection in this study, as teacher practice is the focus. As Patton (2002) asserted,

interviews serve to provide us with information that we cannot directly observe; they

present an opportunity to gain an individual’s perspective on the topic being studied.

Because the interviews occurred with teachers who were selected for in-depth study of

virtual literature circles, it was necessary in this meeting to clarify statements made in the

questionnaires and to determine the teachers’ perspectives on their practice of using

virtual literature circles. It is here that teacher perceptions of benefits and challenges

could be more clearly articulated.

As Creswell (2013) explained, the goal of using interviews in grounded theory

methods is to achieve saturation so that there is enough information to fully develop the

ideas. “Saturation” occurs when researchers begin to hear the same information

repeatedly (Seidman, 1991). According to Creswell (2013), 20 to 60 interviews are

recommended; however, in this study, it was difficult to find participants, so the

recommended number of interviews was not possible; nevertheless, common themes still

emerged.

Seidman (1991) posited that the interviews should reflect a range of participants

and sites so that more people can relate to the study participants’ experiences, but

declined to provide a number, noting that every study and researcher are different. For

the purposes of this study, I interviewed nine participants, reflecting educators at middle,

secondary, and university levels.

Interviews can be characterized as highly structured, semi-structured, and

unstructured (Merriam, 2009). Merriam suggested that qualitative studies tend to utilize
 76

more open-ended and less structured interviews, because these “formats assume that

individual respondents define the world in unique ways” (p. 90). In this study, I used a

semi-structured interview (see Appendix E), which allowed me to ask the participants

questions in whatever order they emerged while being guided by the issues needing to be

explored. Follow up to these interviews occurred via email after analysis of themes as

presented by the initial interviewees in order to clarify questions that the researcher had.

Because I have experience using literature circles, it is important that as the

interviewer I assumed neutrality regarding the interviewees’ responses (Merriam, 2009).

As Merriam explained, the success of the interview depends on the interviewer’s ability

to avoid allowing personal feelings about issues to cause argument or debate, which

would certainly destroy the rapport that has thus far been built between interviewer and

interviewee. Establishing rapport is important, which will maximize the amount of

information an interviewee is willing to share (Patton, 2002). More recent literature

cautioned researchers to show concern for the participants’ voices, “the power dynamics

that are inherent in the interview, the construction of the ‘story,’” and how the

information will be presented (Merriam, 2009, p. 108). In regard to power issues, Kvale

and Brinkmann (2009) suggested that interviewers approach the interview as a

collaborative partner, in which researcher and participant have equal opportunity to

question, interpret, and report, thus minimizing one-sided dominance.

In fact, Seidman (1991) noted, “The interviewing relationship is fraught with

issues of power—who controls the direction of the interview, who controls the results,

who benefits” (p. 76). Furthermore, interviewing can be affected by the social context,

including such issues as race and gender. As Seidman explained, even though
 77

interviewers might try to ignore these factors, they still potentially impact the relationship

with interviewees. To overcome these potential pitfalls, interviewers must not only

recognize their own experience with these variables, but also be sensitive to how

participants may be affected by them, as well as show courtesy, respect, and interest in

what the participant has to say (Seidman, 1991).

Data collection phase III: Documents. Yet another way to triangulate and

substantiate findings is through document analysis. Merriam (2009) referred to

documents as those that “represent some form of communication” (p. 139). Any teacher-

made forms, assignment sheets, or directions were collected and analyzed. According to

Merriam, not only can these documents help to verify hypotheses and offer new

categories for coding, they are also advantageous due to their stability; the researcher has

no effect on what is being studied, so the data are considered objective compared to other

forms. In a qualitative study, the researcher is considered the key instrument, and as such

brings his or her subjectivities into the study (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009); thus, such

documents offer yet another method of collecting data.

Procedures for Data Analysis

Collecting the data via questionnaires, interviews, and documents necessitated

analysis of each component. As Charmaz (2006) explained, using grounded theory

methods with this data analysis helps researchers see their data in new ways and assists

them in exploring ideas through analytic writing. “Grounded theory methods consist of

systematic, yet flexible guidelines for collecting and analyzing qualitative data to

construct theories ‘grounded’ in the data themselves” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 2). The purpose

of this study was not formulation of a theory, but rather emphasis on the methods
 78

themselves to determine themes. Collection and analysis in a qualitative study occur

simultaneously, and are “recursive and dynamic” as well as inductive (Merriam, 2009, p.

169; see also Charmaz, 2006). Glaser and Strauss (2012) referred to this process as

“constant comparison,” and it is particularly well-suited to qualitative research because it

allows researchers to generate ideas and insights about the data that lead to broad

categories or themes and ultimately, to theory.

Qualitative researchers begin their journey of data collection by “being open to

what is happening in the studied scenes and interview statements so that we might learn

about our research participants’ lives” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 3). The data are constructed

through observations, interactions, and materials gathered, which then suggest ideas to

pursue (Charmaz). The early information gleaned is studied, sorted, separated, and

synthesized through coding, which is the process of attaching labels to segments of data

to show what each segment is about (Charmaz). Charmaz recommended keeping codes

“short, simple, active, and analytic” (p. 50). Line-by-line coding is a helpful method of

parsing the data so that sense can be made of it (Charmaz, 2006; Merriam, 2009). Initial

coding helps researchers to create categories for data and to see processes (Charmaz).

This coding helps researchers make comparisons to other segments of data.

Glaser and Strauss (2012), who are known for grounded theory research,

identified four stages in the constant comparative method. The first involves comparing

incidents that are applicable to each category. The process begins with the researcher

coding each incident in the data into as many categories as possible as these categories

emerge (Glaser & Strauss). Glaser and Strauss recommended that as items are coded,

they must be compared to other items already coded, which will assist the researcher in
 79

identifying fully what defines a category. For example, the researcher should begin to

notice such details as when conditions occur and what happens to affect those conditions

negatively or positively, the consequences that ensue, how it is related to other categories,

and other properties that are suggested. Categories and properties are constructed by the

researcher and by the research situation itself, such as when a participant refers to an

incident in a certain way, and the researcher adopts the language the participant used to

code the data (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 2012). Charmaz (2006) cautioned

researchers to maintain an open mind and to consider the initial codes as provisional so

new ideas can emerge; that is why initial coding is often called “open coding” (Merriam,

2009). Additionally, these initial codes can help researchers see the gaps in their data, so

that they can add data where necessary (Charmaz, 2006).

As researchers code data into a category three or four times, conflicts in thinking

will emerge that lead to other ideas about how it should be coded (Glaser & Strauss,

2012). Glaser and Strauss (2012) recommended that when this happens, researchers stop

coding and record a memo of their ideas in order to note this new line of thought and stop

conflicting ideas by reflecting on what these new insights mean to their theories.

Charmaz (2006) explained that these analytic memos assist in forming interpretations.

Additionally, by having peers review these ideas, researchers can further delineate their

ideas and cross-check them for accuracy (Glaser & Strauss, 2012). From this point,

coding and constant comparison will continue (Glaser & Strauss).

The second step in constant comparison involves integrating categories and their

properties. Glaser and Strauss (2012) explained that as researchers constantly compare

their data, they stop comparing incident to incident and instead begin to compare the
 80

incident to properties of the category that resulted from initial comparison of incidents. In

this way, constant comparison allows the researcher to integrate all of the accumulated

knowledge into an integrated, unified whole, and from there, to make sense of each

comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 2012). Charmaz (2006) called this “getting a conceptual

handle” on the studied experience (p. 3).

The third step in constant comparison requires delimiting the theory. It is at this

point that the researcher begins to see the theory emerge, as fewer and fewer categories

are added and logic is clarified (Glaser & Strauss, 2012). Glaser and Strauss (2012)

explained that reduction occurs as researchers find underlying uniformities in their

original categories and properties, which then leads to a smaller set of higher level

concepts, further delimiting the terminology and text. The categories for coding are

reduced, resulting in more focused analysis on the parts that truly apply to the study

(Glaser & Strauss). Furthermore, theoretical saturation occurs as the researcher has coded

extensively, leading to even further reduction of categories; that is because the researcher

has become so immersed in the data it is a fairly quick process to compare new

information to old and code it appropriately (Glaser & Strauss). This delimiting and

reduction will assist the researcher in limiting the study only to data relevant to the

categories (Glaser & Strauss).

The last step in constant comparison is writing the theory, though in this study,

the generation of theory is not the goal; rather, the insights gained from the educator

participants will be the end result. After all of the data have been coded and compared,

the major themes should become apparent (Glaser and Strauss, 2012). The coded data

validate the ideas and provide illustrations to further explain them (Glaser & Strauss,). In
 81

contrast to their views, however, Charmaz (2006) explained that grounded theorists do

not discover theories or data; rather, researchers are a part of the world they study and the

data they collect (p. 10). In fact, she stated that her “approach assumes that any

theoretical rendering offers an interpretive portrayal of the studied world, not an exact

picture of it” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 10, emphasis in original), so researchers’ finished

theories are “constructions of reality” (p. 10). Thus, the final step was not generation of a

theory, but the interpretations gathered from the studied participants.

In this study, analysis began with the questionnaires. I read and used line-by-line

coding to search for any themes or patterns across the responses, such as commentary

regarding challenges, successful strategies, and teacher perceptions of the process; this

coding assisted me in exploring the larger concept (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2014). This

initial coding related to my research questions, so I searched for data which could answer

those questions (Merriam, 2009). These units of data were heuristic, meaning that they

revealed relevant information for the study while also causing the reader to think beyond

that information (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 2009). In addition, the units of data

were ones that could stand alone, interpretable without any additional information being

provided (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

These coded notes assisted me in establishing categories, which Creswell (2013)

indicated “represents the heart of qualitative data analysis” (p. 184). I utilized these

codes and others that were created throughout the analysis of questionnaires, interviews,

and documents. These codes and categories then led to the discovery of themes, or broad

units of information that suggested a common idea, reached through inductive analysis

(Creswell, 2013). Sample codes from this study are included in Appendix F.
 82

Transcription of interviews was also a key part of analysis. In addition to any

notes I made during the actual interviews, I also audio recorded the interviews for later

verbatim transcription, which was an ideal way to conduct analysis (Merriam, 2009).

Leaving space in the margins to record notes and codes allowed me to continue my

search for themes. One of the coded transcribed interviews is contained in Appendix G.

The analysis was ongoing throughout the study, with constant comparison of the

data to ensure that my focus remained on my research questions (Creswell, 2013; Glaser

& Strauss, 2012; Merriam, 2009). Interpretation occurs as the researcher moves “beyond

the codes and themes to the larger meaning of the data” and links it back to the body of

research literature already available (Creswell, 2013, p. 187). I also created a respondent

chart (see Appendices H and I) that helped me organize the data for reference.

Ethical Considerations

Throughout a study, researchers must clearly be aware of and concerned about

ethical issues (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). In particular, the data collection phase of

research is rife with potential ethical issues (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). For

example, privacy issues for participants should be considered, and participant

confidentiality must be protected, which can be facilitated through assigning pseudonyms

to each participant (Creswell, 2013). Additionally, researchers must consider whether

participants in the study are endangered by participating as well as the extent to which

participation might disrupt participants’ everyday lives (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). The

mere entry into their worlds requires that researchers consider the impact their presence

will have on participants, because their routines will be affected and they are donating

time to an activity that is not part of their typical schedule (Marshall & Rossman, 2006).
 83

To further avoid ethical threats to the study, various safeguards were utilized to

ensure that participants were protected. First, participants were provided with a written

informed consent form detailing the participants’ rights to voluntary participation, the

benefits and risks of participating, and the right to withdraw at any time (see Appendix

D). Furthermore, in collecting data from participants, whether through questionnaires,

interviews, or documents, identifying characteristics were removed, pseudonyms

assigned, and all notes, documents, audio files, and transcriptions were securely stored

and locked in a file cabinet at all times when not in use. All audio files will be destroyed

after January 1, 2018 but no later than January 31, 2018.

Issues of Trustworthiness

While quantitative studies depend on validity and reliability to establish

trustworthiness, qualitative studies refer to credibility, authenticity, transferability,

dependability and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Trustworthiness is established

through time spent in the field and examining multiple sources of data and interpretation

to triangulate findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The use of rich, thick description ensures

that findings are transferable between those being studied and the researcher (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985). Dependability and confirmability occur through an auditing of the research

process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Yin (2014) recommended that researchers maintain a

“chain of evidence” (p. 127) to increase reliability. Also referred to as an “audit trail,”

this log of researcher activity “describes in detail how data were collected, how

categories were derived, and how decisions were made throughout the inquiry”

(Merriam, 2009, p. 223). This audit trail is maintained by the researcher throughout the

process and is essentially a journal detailing the process; it includes the researcher’s
 84

reflections, questions, and decisions made regarding problems and issues that occurred

while collecting data (Merriam, 2009).

Furthermore, triangulation is a key tenet of qualitative research (Creswell, 2013;

Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 2009). As Merriam (2009) explained, the use of

multiple sources of data by comparing and cross-checking aids in triangulation.

Similarly, Creswell (2013) explained that when researchers “locate evidence to document

a code or theme in different sources of data, they are triangulating information and

providing validity to their findings” (p. 251). Triangulation in my study occurred through

the use of questionnaires, interviews, document analysis, member checks, and peer

review.

Peer review or debriefing can also function as a means of ensuring

trustworthiness; it acts as an external check of the research process (Creswell, 2013).

Also referred to as inter-observer agreement, this analog of interrater reliability in

quantitative studies helps researchers assess if their findings are plausible (Merriam,

2009). Lincoln and Guba (1985) contended that a peer reviewer helps the researcher stay

honest, asks difficult questions about the research, and allows the researcher to express

subjectivities about the process. I included peer review at several junctures of the process,

such as after reading and annotating the questionnaires and after document analyses. In

this study, a built-in peer review exists in the doctoral committee (Merriam, 2009), but I

also had a colleague in the doctoral process act as a peer reviewer as well.

In addition, member checks offered another way to increase the study’s

trustworthiness and to triangulate the findings (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). In this

strategy, the researcher asked participants for feedback on her findings and interpretations
 85

(Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The participants then judged the accuracy of the

researcher’s commentary, lending credibility to the study (Creswell, 2013). I used this

strategy after the interview and document analysis so that the educator participants could

verify my interpretations.

Finally, an explanation of my own subjectivities enhanced my study’s credibility.

In qualitative research, the researcher functions as the primary instrument of data

collection and analysis (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). As Merriam (2009) explained, a

human instrument is an ideal means of collecting data, due to the ability to respond and

adapt during the research process, which facilitates the goal of understanding in a

qualitative study. Nevertheless, because humans also have inherent biases, great care

must be taken to identify them at the outset of the study and carefully monitor them as the

study progresses (Merriam). Because I have personal experience with literature circles,

my study includes a description of those experiences to clarify my own perceptions and

biases, a process referred to as “bracketing” (Merriam, 2009). Furthermore, use of

piloting procedures with peers helped identify and eliminate biases in the use of

interviews (Chenail, 2011).

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

Researcher bias, accounted for through bracketing of the researcher’s experiences,

is one area that can become a limitation of a study. Humans are, by their very nature,

subjective and prone to allowing their biases to impact their research (Merriam, 2009).

Because I have used literature circles in my classes with varying degrees of effectiveness

and have forayed slightly into virtual literature circle discussions, my experiences have

the potential to impact my study. It might be possible, for example, for my constructivist
 86

tendencies to discount a different ideological approach to virtual literature circles.

Awareness of and explicit clarification of my biases improved my study’s

trustworthiness, as did open dialogue with participants, but researcher bias is still

considered a limitation of any qualitative study.

Furthermore, the study was limited by those who chose to participate. I had no

way of knowing who my potential participants would be, nor their particular situation.

Additionally, those who chose to participate brought their unique circumstances,

understandings, and subjectivities to the study, and it is possible that participants might

vary widely from those who did not participate.

Because I am addressing teacher strategies and perceptions, a further delimitation

is that I avoided student perceptions in favor of teacher viewpoints. My study, therefore,

addresses how teachers design their virtual literature circles to support student learning

while minimizing any challenges.

Another delimiting factor is the small sample size. Nevertheless, because

qualitative studies are phenomenological in nature, attempting to understand the lived

experiences of the participants (Creswell, 2013), participant experiences that reflect a

similar condition can provide “enormous power to the stories of a relatively few

participants” (Seidman, 1991, p. 45). Furthermore, researchers can counter challenges by

referring to the audit trail and how each decision related to the theoretical concepts; in so

doing, those who wish to apply the findings to their particular situation can determine if

the study fits them (Marshall & Rossman, 2006).

Additionally, what the researcher chooses to report from all of the data available

is constrained by time, space, and money (Merriam, 2009). The study could not continue
 87

indefinitely, so having exhausted all possible methods of contacting participants, such as

email, forum posts, and Twitter messages, the researcher spent approximately a year

collecting information and analyzing it.

While I did not want to limit the respondents to my initial questionnaire so that I

could determine what kinds of teachers are using virtual literature circles, I did limit my

study to ELA, as this is my certification area. I included middle grades, secondary, and

university levels; the choice not to use elementary educators is related to my certificate

area as a grades 6-12 teacher and to the differing developmental levels of elementary age

children.

Chapter Summary

This chapter discussed the use of a qualitative study format using grounded theory

methods to determine teacher strategies that support student learning in virtual literature

circles while minimizing any challenges. My purpose is to assist other teachers who wish

to integrate technology into their literature circle process by providing them with clear,

effective strategies that will strengthen their practices and student learning. To ensure this

happens, I explained my theoretical underpinnings and situated myself within the study,

shared my plan to recruit a sample, addressed my research data collection and analysis

procedures, and clarified ways to increase trustworthiness and limit bias while working

within the limitations and delimitations of the study.

 88

Chapter IV

Findings

Introduction

The purpose of this qualitative study was to discover strategies that teachers use

to support student learning in virtual literature circles, as well as to determine benefits

and overcome challenges that might occur in such a process. Data gathered through an

online questionnaire, practitioner interviews, and document analysis revealed findings

related to the research question, “How do ELA teachers create a virtual literature circle

experience that supports student learning?” Subquestions focused on the perceived

benefits and challenges, and how those can be addressed.

During the study, 20 questionnaires were completed, 11 of which had contact

information provided for possible interviews. Upon following up with the contacts, the

researcher interviewed six middle school educators, one former high school educator, and

two university professors regarding their virtual literature circles strategies.

Questionnaire Findings

The 20 completed online questionnaires (see Appendices H and I) revealed that

the ELA educators using virtual literature circles had used them from two months to over

15 years. Teachers taught third grade to college level, and also used virtual literature

circles with students identified as special education, regular education, and gifted,

including Advanced Placement (AP) classes.

Supporting Student Learning

Following the Daniels (2002) model. An analysis of the questionnaire data

revealed several themes that related to the research questions (see Table 1). In regard to

the question of how teachers create a virtual literature circle experience that supports
 89

student learning, the ELA teachers who responded reflected the Daniels’ (2002) model,

commenting on the importance of student voice and choice related to books and

discussion topics. For example, one respondent said that “students love choosing the

novels and engagement in reading is high” (Maria, personal communication, Dec. 2,

2014). Additionally, all recommended small groups of no more than six. Furthermore,

most respondents generally referenced the use of teacher-generated questions to guide

students in their online discussions. For example, one teacher mentioned that she might

have her students practice “picking out tone in passages, and using context clues,”

providing textual evidence to explain (Carly, personal communication, October 14,

2014). Several mentioned providing in-depth prompts so students could post appropriate

responses. Nevertheless, teachers also found it important to allow students to post their

own thoughtful questions on the discussion boards; one teacher explained that these

would be open-ended student-developed questions (Landon, personal communication,

December 7, 2014). Finally, most deemed it important for students to post in reply to

their peers’ comments to maintain a student-centered focus.

Collaboration. The questionnaire responses revealed that teachers create an

online experience that supports student learning by building in student collaboration.

Students not only responded to teacher prompts, but also were required to post in

response to their peers. This peer conversation helps students feel more independent,

according to one respondent (Cara, personal communication, February 19, 2015); another

explained that students “learn to ‘listen’ to others and respond to their ideas and

opinions” (Carly, personal communication, October 14, 2014).

 90

Writing Assignments/Projects Assigned. The use of writing assignments or

projects to accompany the virtual discussion was also a dominant theme in the responses

to the questionnaires and further extended student learning. One teacher used student-

chosen multiple intelligences projects along with an individual writing component, while

another required a technology-based culminating project and a book talk to share the

novel with all of the students in the class. Another teacher required students to write

constructed response paragraphs with textual evidence as part of her virtual literature

circles process.

Differentiation. Supporting student learning often happens through

differentiation. Many teachers pointed out that differentiation was easily accomplished

through virtual literature circles, especially since students can be grouped by interest, but

also by reading levels. As one teacher commented, she assigned different books to tiered

groups, allowing her to effectively differentiate (Sara, personal communication,

February 21, 2015). In addition, the teacher-generated questions could be differentiated

by ability level, with more emphasis on higher-order thinking questions for advanced

students, for example.

Face-to-face component. To further support student learning, in many cases,

teachers included a face-to-face component along with the online component. This theme

was further supported in the interviews.

Benefits

Student learning. Questionnaire analysis also revealed several themes regarding

the question, “What are the benefits, if any, that teachers perceive in the use of virtual

literature circles, and how can they be addressed?” The respondents indicated improved
 91

depth of student responses along with greater engagement in the online discussion

process. For example, one respondent said that virtual literature circles caused students to

“dig deeper in the text for meaning, in conjunction with identifying literary elements”

(Carly, personal communication, October 14, 2014). Overall, they commented that virtual

literature circles encouraged student analysis, comprehension, and reflection. As one

respondent stated, “Students get a chance to critically analyze and think as they reflect on

what they’ve read” (Cara, personal communication, February 19, 2015).

Collaboration. Another theme that the questionnaire responses demonstrated

related to collaboration. Teacher collaboration benefits were cited separately from student

collaboration benefits. One respondent commented, “My professional learning was

always enhanced by working in partnership with colleagues who taught me so much

about being even more powerful as a teacher. We built our professional capacity

together” (Becky, personal communication, October 23, 2014). Another described her

experience with colleagues as “very valuable” and indicated that they support each

other’s growth through virtual literature circles (Wendy, personal communication,

December 9, 2014).

Additionally, student collaboration was cited as a benefit of virtual literature

circles. These interactions created exposure to new and different ideas and methods; as

one respondent explained, “Students of different races, of different socioeconomic

statuses, and of different national origins become fond of each other and learn respect for

each other” (Wendy, personal communication, December 9, 2014).

Technology use. Teachers also pointed out the benefit that students learn to

navigate in an online academic environment with their peers. Because their future classes
 92

and/or careers will usually require technology use and skill working within an online

environment, teachers felt that virtual literature circles provided that necessary practice.

Additionally, students learned online etiquette skills and appropriate language in an

online environment.

Flexibility. Finally, the flexibility of the online environment was touted as a

benefit as well. One respondent related how useful it was in helping students who miss

class, while another mentioned that virtual literature circles facilitated her flipped

classroom environment.

Challenges

Access to technology/Technology glitches. Several themes also emerged in

regard to the question, “What are the challenges, if any, that teachers perceive in the use

of virtual literature circles, and how can they be addressed?” Teachers tended to

uniformly comment on the issue of access to technology; not all students have Internet

access at home or the devices needed to access it. To address this challenge, most

respondents indicated that they provide time in class to complete the online assignments

or use it as an anchor activity when students finish other assignments. Unfortunately,

several of them also reported technology glitches in class.

Superficial student commentary. Another challenge appeared to be superficial

student commentary, which was a common complaint. In fact, one said, “At first some

students wrote comments that had nothing to do with the book or were surface responses”

(Matt, personal communication, January 10, 2015). To address this challenge, teachers

recommended using rubrics to demonstrate what is expected of student responses. The

clearer the expectations were, for instance, using a bullet-pointed list of criteria, the more
 93

likely students were to provide a better response. Another said that “students want to

seem to do a fairly quick answer—we battle chat language and work hard to impress

upon the students that this is a formal learning environment” (Maria, personal

communication, November 6, 2014).

Time. Finally, another theme in regard to challenges related to the time it takes for

teachers to read all of the posts and to comment on them. While the questionnaire

respondents did not indicate a way to overcome this challenge, the interviews did offer

some insight on ways to deal with the time consuming nature of the process for the

educators, mostly focusing on organizational strategies.

 94

Table 1

Research Questions and Themes from the Initial Questionnaires

Research Questions Themes Evident from Questionnaires
How do ELA teachers create an online  Use of teacher-generated questions
literature circle experience supports to guide students
student learning?  In-depth prompts
 Require students to post in reply to
other students’ comments
 Writing assignments or projects
along with virtual discussion
 Students post their own thoughtful
questions
 Collaboration among teachers and
or other classes
 Allow student choice and voice
 Often involves a face-to-face
component in addition to virtual
one.
 Differentiation to address student
needs
 Use of small groups, typically no
more than six

What are the benefits, if any, that  Depth of student response

teachers perceive in the use of virtual  Student engagement
literature circles, and how can they be  Students learn to collaborate in an
addressed? online environment.
 Learning to respect diverse cultures
and viewpoints
 Improved student familiarity with
technology
 Flexibility
 Encourages student analysis,
comprehension, and reflection
 Peer interaction
What are the challenges, if any, that  Access to technology; use anchor
teachers perceive in the use of virtual time in class or simply provide time
literature circles, and how can they be in class
addressed?  Superficial student comments;
provide rubrics to demonstrate what
is expected
 Time consuming for teachers
(reading posts in particular)
 Technology glitches
 95

Interview and Document Findings

Interviews were conducted with volunteer participants who indicated they had

used virtual literature circles for at least one school year. The researcher contacted those

who provided contact information and set up in-person, Skype, or Google Hangouts

interviews. The interviews all focused on the educators’ experience using virtual

literature circles, including why they wanted to incorporate them into their classes, their

processes, and perceived benefits and challenges, if any. After conducting the interviews,

each one was transcribed, coded for themes and categories, and analyzed. Documents,

where available, were also collected and coded for themes in order to achieve

triangulation of findings. Documents included assignment descriptions, rubrics,

culminating assessment options, and course syllabi.

In order to clarify the educators’ perceptions of their practice and to identify

strategies they used to support student learning in the virtual literature circles, an

examination of their strategies by grade level revealed age appropriate approaches.

Middle grades students needed more guidance, while high school students tended to

begin with some guidance and structure with a gradual release of the process to a more

student-driven model. Professors of university level students established clear

expectations for their students at the beginning of the process, but generally proceeded

with minimal instructor scaffolding.

Middle grades, Team of Five Educators at “OLCS”

This group interview consisted of a team of middle school teachers at “OL”

County School from grades six through eight and their media specialist; all hold a

master’s degree or specialist’s degree, generally in Curriculum and Instruction. The

 96

school has approximately 1,000 students and is a rural, Title I Reward School with 73%

of the students eligible for the free and reduced meal program. This team of teachers had

transitioned to a learning management system (LMS) called Canvas, which they used for

their virtual literature circles; their media specialist helped train them in its use and setup

and facilitated the process, particularly with the seventh grade teachers, who had set up

separate courses within the LMS so students could communicate about their books with

students in other class periods.

The process of literature circles is not new to the students or teachers, who have

all used face-to-face literature circles in the past. As one teacher explained, she simply

told them it was like book club or reading groups from their elementary experience; she

said, “they all make that connection, and they know” (Kayla, personal communication,

March 24, 2015). Students are familiar with the structure, and they are comfortable

completing written responses about their reading. Students choose a book from those pre-

selected by the teachers, who pick them to match a theme they are addressing in the

classes; they generally choose two fiction and two nonfiction books per year, though

more advanced students may read more. The online component is used twice per year.

Students are only allowed to choose a book that matches their Lexile level, or reading

ability, which has been determined by a Lexile test given by the school, and five books

are read in each class per cycle.

The teachers often begin with a face-to-face component, and they still have in-

person conferences with the groups. The online component is done in class, and it varies

by teacher how often they meet. For instance, the eighth grade teachers have students

meet three times a week for literature circles, with writing two days a week, but this year
 97

with the first literature circles, they met every day. Students have an online discussion

board with a completely online conversation, but the teachers guide the discussion with

guided questions. Each student must answer the guided question and respond to their

peers. An important part of the LMS is that students cannot respond to anyone else until

they have answered the guided question, which not only eliminates the students’ copying

others’ answers, but also ensures they have read; otherwise, they cannot answer the

question. Teachers add new questions every couple of days. Some teachers require an end

product, while others do not. The seventh graders this year will be creating movie trailers

to showcase their books. Sixth grade teachers have used book talk podcasts, which can

then be uploaded for all students to access. Specific directions, a checklist, and rubric

help guide students through successful completion of a podcast. These documents ensure

that students are aware of how to demonstrate their understanding of the books.

One of the aspects of the online discussion is the focus on students’ writing skills.

Teachers indicated that they “spend a lot more time on writing now than we did before,”

and they wanted to focus on improving the quality of the writing as well as students’

ability to think critically “(Gilda, personal communication, March 24, 2015). As a result,

they use a mnemonic device strategy called “RAPP”—Restating the question, Answering

the question, Proving it, then Proofreading it. According to the teachers, this process has

positively impacted student writing; one said, “it helps them become better writers”

(Gilda, personal communication, March 24, 2015). In fact, she explained, “We’ve never

had a group that’s been able to actually write even a complete paragraph with an opening,

central idea, [good supporting details], and a closing, and they can do it now” (Gilda,

personal communication, March 24, 2015). She attributed it to the virtual literature
 98

circles discussion responses which students are required to complete. Furthermore,

another teacher said the online component holds the students more accountable for their

writing and reading; they do not know who will be reading their comments, so they take

more care with them (Jordan, personal communication, March 24, 2015). Additionally,

they know that others will respond to them.

Beyond the writing improvement, teachers cited other benefits of virtual literature

circles. Students seemed more engaged with the virtual literature circles, and teachers feel

it is easier to grade the responses. One commented that she loves them, because they are

easier for her and her students, and she definitely wants to continue using them (Gilda,

personal communication, March 24, 2015).

Teacher collaboration was seen as especially beneficial, with teachers remarking

on learning from each other; some teachers have more technology skills than others, and

they are happy to share their expertise. Their school offers professional development on

the LMS, but these teachers also learn from their students; there is a sense of rapport at

this school, not just among the teachers, but with the learners as well.

Another benefit that the teachers cited was that students improve their

understanding of literary skills, such as the ability to identify theme, mood, and tone.

With the new standardized testing for Georgia, the students will need to demonstrate their

understanding of these devices in writing. The teachers commented that their students are

doing better finding literary devices, and they believe that is a result of their use of the

virtual literature circles.

In regard to challenges, there were few. According to the media specialist, there

was a small learning curve with the students learning where to post their replies; she
 99

provided individual assistance to teachers who needed it along the way and overcame

problems quickly. While technology access at home can be a challenge, teachers do not

require students to post at home; class time is allotted for it. On the other hand, students

who do have access at home enjoyed being able to post from there, and students also

enjoy the “bring your own device” policy at school, often using their cell phones or

Kindles to complete the work in class. At school, students have various options for

technology use, including iPads, Nooks, and laptops, so technology has not been a

problem for the teachers, and there have been fewer technology issues with the new LMS

than with their previous one.

Overall, the teachers in this middle school consider virtual literature circles a

beneficial experience for themselves and the students. The media specialist commented

“I think it was a positive experience. And with middle school students, it was a first

foray, and I think it went really well” (Shay, personal communication, March 24, 2015).

Their administration is very supportive of them, and their collaboration has only

increased with the use of the online component. Students are excited not only about the

technology aspect, but are excited about books as well, creating a win-win situation for

all involved. In fact, they hope to expand the use of the across-class collaboration next

year.

Middle Grades Educator, “Sara”

“Sara” is a third year educator teaching at a Title I public middle school in the

state of Georgia. She holds a master’s degree and currently teaches ELA to

gifted/advanced eighth graders, who move at an accelerated pace and engage in higher
 100

levels of text and analysis. She has been using virtual literature circles via Google Docs

for eight months.

Sara’s motivation for incorporating virtual literature circles into her classroom

stemmed from her desire for students to have the opportunity to read complete novels, to

have practice with academic conversation, and to have time to practice that conversation.

In her words, “Doing it online made the most sense” (Sara, personal communication,

February 21, 2015).

She crafted her literature circles around Daniels’ (2002) recommendation to

utilize roles for students, and students have a choice of novels to read. The teacher sets

the number of pages or chapters to be read for each novel for each cycle, and students

must post about every nine days; a cycle generally takes about six weeks to complete.

Sara indicated that novels can be chosen to fit a thematic unit as well. In addition, she

requires a performance task upon completion of the novel. For this culminating activity,

she offers students a menu of technology-based options, all of which require them to

show mastery of the literature skills addressed in the unit, including vocabulary, tone,

mood, theme, and summarization, providing textual evidence throughout (see Appendix

J). Her handout for the performance assessment features guiding questions for the

students to consider in their project. For instance, she tells them to consider the

following:

1. How can you embed the vocabulary we have learned in class into what

you are doing?

2. How can you reflect on tone and mood as it applies to the author’s

purpose?
 101

3. How can you show that you can summarize objectively?

4. How will you support your opinions with relevant evidence?

5. How can you elucidate the theme of your novel using textual evidence?

6. In what ways can you apply meaning to your understanding of theme?

7. How can you analyze theme in such a way as to reflect upon community

and/or humanity?

8. How can you tie in current events to your critical literacy analysis?

(Sara, personal communication, February 21, 2015)

The handout also features the applicable state standards that are addressed in the

assignment.

Sara’s specific process began with creating a Google account and making sure

that students also had their own Google account to use for school work. From there, she

made a list of student emails to use for the rest of the year and shared a single document

with a single group. She emphasized the importance of making sure that the permissions

allow for “Comments” only; otherwise, it is possible for students to accidentally or

maliciously delete or otherwise edit another student’s work.

In her work with students, she has created three options, each with its own

benefits and disadvantages. Option 1 features traditional literature circle roles,

specifically Passage Picker, Word Finder, Discussion Director, Summarizer, Connector,

and Artful Artist. These roles are all described in a document that she disseminates to

students, and each role is described clearly so students know what and how to post. In

fact, each one tells the students specifically how they will be graded. For instance, in the

“Passage Picker” role, she explained that students should use direct quotations, clear
 102

reasons and clear explanations about why they chose the passage, strong paragraph

format in their explanation, and six passages total for the course of the assignment. Sara

expressed that having these clear explanations helps the students understand what is

expected of them.

In Option 1, all but the Artful Artist post online; on the due date, the student with

that option meets face-to-face with his or her group to discuss it. The artist presents his or

her work without speaking, and group members explain what they see and how it

connects to the book. Then, the artist shares his or her paragraph explaining what the art

represents and why it is important to the story. Sara explained that this option is

beneficial to begin the process, because the skills are simpler and the students change

roles with each reading assignment. Additionally, students create their own discussion

questions. Sara also sees a benefit in some of the discussion occurring in the classroom,

because it is the only way for the Artful Artist to share his or her work. In contrast, a

disadvantage of this option is that it takes more work for the teacher to keep track of who

has which role and whether or not each one has completed it. To remedy this, she has

implemented a change in which she simply lists all the roles in the computer gradebook,

then as each student completes each role, she marks it, making it simpler to keep track of

who has done what. Sara explained, “I found that it is really important to have clear

grading expectations for each role. I began with a rubric that I shared with each student,

but then adapted it to bullet point expectations on each role” (Sara, personal

communication, February 21, 2015).

Option 2 is similar to Option 1, and was created in response to problems with

students losing work. In this option, students are still assigned a specific role to complete
 103

for sections of the novel; however, students in the individual groups only interact online

with the Discussion Director page. Also, Sara did not allow students to choose their role,

but assigned everyone to the same role each due date. To begin this option, the teacher

shares a folder with all of the students; in it are descriptions of all of the roles. As

students are assigned the roles, they must copy and paste the teacher’s original Word

document into their own Google Document. The teacher must also create individual

group folders and share the Discussion Director document with each group folder (see

Figure 1); the teacher “owns” the GoogleDoc and limits the members to “Comment”

only. In this function, students can highlight the text in the document, press “Comment,”

then add their ideas to the box (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. Screenshot of GoogleDocs files for sharing. Each Word document matches a

role for the virtual literature circles and is shared with the students.
 104

Figure 2. Screenshot of student comments in reply to the teacher’s posted questions.

Students highlight the questions, choose Comment, then add their comments in the box.

A variation in this option is to require all students to post on the Discussion

Director page each due date. The student whose actual role is Discussion Director has to

create discussion questions and respond to at least one student; the others answer one of

the Discussion Director’s questions and complete their assigned role posting as well. A

benefit to this option is that students cannot access each other’s documents, and thus

cannot accidentally or maliciously edit them, except on the Discussion Director page.

Students still get to discuss online, and the Artful Artist still has to present face-to-face. A

disadvantage, however, is that students get less discussion time online, because their

correspondence is limited to the Discussion Director page. Additionally, more

organization is needed for grading, because students have to share their work with the

teacher, which necessitates searching for names in email to grade individual work, a time

consuming task. Sara did not like this option as much, because assigning roles
 105

“eliminated a lot of the point” (Sara, personal communication, February 21, 2015); she

explained, “This breaks from the literature circle model and is less effective at achieving

strong academic conversations because the students only turn in their roles to me. The

Discussion Director is interactive, but no other role is” (Sara, personal communication,

February 21, 2015).

Option 3 is a more teacher-directed model in that the discussion questions are

teacher generated. Students are given a minimum of three questions to choose from on

the GoogleDoc, and the teacher shares this document to each group by giving each

member access, still limiting them to the “Comment” only function. Each student must

answer at least two questions and respond to one peer by the due date. To do so, students

highlight the question they are answering, press Comment, then post. Students then

respond to the other student comments. The advantage to this option is that students only

have to keep track of the teacher-generated document. Additionally, since the teacher

creates the questions, they can be more challenging for the higher level students, are easy

to differentiate, and can be focused on specific standards that need to be addressed. A

disadvantage is that the students do not initiate this discussion, but they do continue the

conversation by responding to each other’s posts.

The questions that Sara generates are all posted in the one Google document for

each of the sets of chapters to be read. For instance, in one book, Ender’s Game, she

focuses on character analysis for the first set of chapters. Students can choose from

questions ranging from how they feel about the characters, to how Ender’s decisions

affected the plot, to how adult characters influence the children’s actions. For the second

reading, the emphasis is on plot. She asks them to discuss how Ender’s decisions have
 106

affected the plot, how the author creates suspense, and what can be learned from the

game Ender plays, among others. The third reading focuses on “world and life

connections”; here, she has students look up John Locke and Demosthenes, pseudonyms

some of the characters take, and explain their connections to the characters and whether

they match the original Locke and Demosthenes. Another question is for them to discuss

their own personal successes as compared to Ender’s, or they may consider how the issue

of limited public access to information in the novel is related to our own government. The

fourth reading is focused on theme reflection. Students consider whether genocide is ever

justified; they also can discuss historical allusions from the book or issues of

manipulation and success, and may choose to answer an open-ended question designed to

help them provide their own themes from the book. In these ways, Sara guides the

students’ reading of the novel in terms of considering the standards and ideas she wishes

to emphasize, while also giving students a choice in their commentary.

There are several overall benefits for using GoogleDocs to conduct the virtual

literature circle experience. Sara points outs that the students enjoy it and like the

concrete, clear expectations that the roles create. Because she teaches middle school

students, they like having only one aspect to address each week, as dictated by the roles

or discussion questions. She also believes the process gives students time to practice

important reading and comprehension skills consistently, at their own pace and “on their

own terms a little bit” (Sara, personal communication, February 21, 2015). Furthermore,

shyer students who do not contribute as much to in-class discussions have an opportunity

to take their time and contribute to an ongoing conversation. Another benefit to the online

aspect is that students “get practice working with a program that will be present in their
 107

academic careers and their future careers” (Sara, personal communication, February 21,

2015). Students become more responsible for their own reading and learning, and it

promotes peer interactions and academic conversations. Finally, it is very flexible and

can be adapted for the learners in the classroom, and it allows for easier feedback.

While Sara acknowledges that not all of her students have Internet access or a

laptop, they often have a smartphone instead. She adapts assignments for those students.

For example, they have nine days between postings, so they can hand write their

responses, then use time in class when they get done with an assignment to type their

comments. This anchor assignment blends well into the classroom time. Because

GoogleDocs is accessible anytime, anywhere, down time they have can be used to

complete their online assignments.

Another challenge that Sara has encountered is late work; students often do not

adhere to the due date. The penalty is ten points off per day, and since her students are on

a percentage based grading system, they can only earn an A if they complete it in time.

Finally, while “lost” student work has created problems, Sara points out that it is

possible to “rescue” work by using the “Edit History” button in GoogleDocs, which

shows all of the edits and revisions to the document. In this way, the teacher can restore

“lost” work.

Sara explains that it is extremely beneficial to have a lot of book options for the

students to read, and they get to read many different texts. Nevertheless, next year she

plans to switch up the groups about halfway through the reading “so that each group will

have different books using the same roles as before…this will make students a

spokesperson for their book which makes them more responsible for knowing its contents
 108

and for completing the roles” (Sara, personal communication, February 21, 2015).

Another change she will make will be to add “extension questions” to her process so that

students are exposed to more higher-level questions.

Overall, the use of GoogleDocs for virtual literature circles is a work in progress

for Sara; she continues to adapt it to fit student and teacher needs. She recognizes the

power the process has to engender academic discourse for her middle grades students and

plans to continue using it, which she sees as excellent preparation for their high school

requirements and future careers.

Themes from Middle Grades Educators

The middle school teachers interviewed, all of whom hold a master’s degree or

higher, and who have from one to 25 years in the classroom, all talked about several clear

themes (see Table 2). For example, there is a high degree of teacher direction, with

teachers using guided questions and/or role assignment to support students’ online

discussions. Clear expectations are modeled. A face-to-face component is evident as well,

with teachers using that time to provide conferencing and further discussion with the

students as needed, though more advanced students in Sara’s classes only had a face-to-

face component to discuss their “Artful Artist” responses, which were on paper.

The use of small groups allowed teachers to differentiate for students by reading

ability, and questions could then be modified to achieve higher levels of critical thinking

when appropriate. Students were expected to respond to the teacher questions as well as

to each other, fostering peer-to-peer interactions. Teachers expected students to reference

the text, not only to show that they read, but to demonstrate their understanding. In fact,

writing was a clear focus, especially since the new standardized tests in the state will
 109

require these types of responses. Teachers reported that students improved their ability to

write with specificity and to show critical thinking in regard to literary devices, such as

theme, mood, and tone. In order to ensure that these types of responses happened, there

was an in-class focus on writing, so that students were aware of the expectations prior to

posting.

While access to technology was cited as an issue at home, these teachers allowed

students to use their own devices during school time and also offered technology time in

class. Thus, they were able to effectively overcome issues of access; because these

assignments are required for their classes, and these students do not necessarily have

access or the ability to travel to county libraries, the option of in-class work was central.
 110

Table 2

Research Questions and Themes from Interviews, Middle School Educators

Research Questions Themes Evident from Interviews
How do ELA teachers create an online  Use of teacher-generated questions
literature circle experience supports to guide students; clear
student learning? expectations
 Require students to post in reply to
other students’ comments as well
as teacher questions
 Collaboration among teachers and
or other classes
 Allow student choice of texts
related to a theme
 Has a face-to-face component in
addition to virtual one
 Time in class provided for online
discussion
 Differentiation to address student
needs, i.e. Lexile levels, advanced
and struggling readers
 Use of small groups, typically no
more than six

What are the benefits, if any, that teachers  Student engagement

perceive in the use of virtual literature  Improved writing, in terms of use
circles, and how can they be addressed? of specific examples and text
references
 Students learn to collaborate in an
online environment.
 Improved student familiarity with
technology
 Flexibility
 Ease of grading
What are the challenges, if any, that  Access to technology; use anchor
teachers perceive in the use of virtual time in class or simply provide
literature circles, and how can they be time in class
addressed?  Superficial student comments;
provide rubrics to demonstrate
what is expected
 111

High School Educator, “Will”

Will, the only secondary education participant, holds an Ed.S. and currently

works as a middle school administrator. He spent eight years as a high school English

teacher, during six of which he used virtual literature circles with his seniors as part of

classic novel study. Will’s process was facilitated because his students had already

experienced it as part of his colleagues’ classes in their previous years, so his need to

introduce it to his students was minimal, though he did explain what he expected from

students in a face-to-face class meeting.

They addressed four novel studies over the course of the class, all chosen to

reflect various eras, such as the Victorian or Modernist times. They spent four and a half

to six weeks on each book, and they used a discussion board format that utilized threaded

discussions for posts. Students did have some choice as to what book they would read,

but it was a limited pool; generally, there were four books discussed at one time. Will

divided each book into four threaded discussions. He began by guiding them and

supporting them through the first two by asking guided questions and giving feedback,

but by the third and fourth online discussions, students had begun to develop their own

ideas and questions. It became more student-centered, and they drove the discussions.

There were no end projects for the novels, because the class itself had a strong research

component with built in projects, so discussion was the focus. Will also incorporated an

interdisciplinary component when possible, getting students to connect ideas across

content areas. He especially enjoyed adding current events to the discussions to make the

conversations more relevant and meaningful.

 112

For Will, the virtual literature circles were extremely beneficial in terms of

freeing up class time for other content, while still allowing him to address the novels that

were required by his district. Nevertheless, he emphasized the need for feedback for all of

the students. As he said, just telling them their responses will be read is not enough; they

need to know that the teacher is going to respond to it, be engaged with it and offer

relevant communication about it. In fact, according to Will, the online discussions

actually created greater communication opportunities, because after students read his

feedback, they wanted to ask questions and discuss it further with him. In addition, he

posited that the online component actually “made it more personal than if I was actually

talking to them” (Will, personal communication, March 27, 2015). He believes that by

commenting to each student, he was able to encourage them and show that he was

“listening”; additionally, he found that the online conversations allowed him to respond

to students more than he would have been able to in person. In a large class, he explained,

it is not always possible to have a specific conversation with every student on a daily

basis in response to their comments. As a result, he created stronger relationships with his

students through the online discussions of the literature; his comments online drove

students to seek him out for further conversation; as he put it, that engagement with the

online component “opens up a whole other level of communication with them, more so in

the way they want to communicate” (Will, personal communication, March 27, 2015).

Will found that students demonstrated improved writing skills during the virtual

literature circles discussions. He attributes this result to the need to be clear and specific

in their responses in order to communicate effectively. He pointed out that students had

to learn to avoid sarcasm, for instance, because it does not always translate in the virtual
 113

environment. The students learned to write more appropriately, in a more scholarly

fashion, so that their ideas would be understood. In addition, because they were reading

others’ comments and responding to them, they learned to appreciate different

perspectives and ideas, which in turn created greater depth of discussion on the threads.

Furthermore, another advantage to the virtual literature circles was that technologically

savvy students found it a natural way to work and express themselves, finding comfort

and familiarity in the online postings; many of them might not speak up in class, but they

could “write a great response online” (Will, personal communication, March 27, 2015).

In terms of challenges, Will noted that students’ lack of self-motivation or apathy

was a hurdle to overcome, especially considering their online discussions were done

outside of class. With seniors in particular, he had to remind them their year was not

finished and the work really mattered. To help combat the apathy, he explained that even

when students wrote just a small amount, he expressed interest in their ideas and made

sure to comment to encourage their engagement with the process.

He cited the socioeconomic issue of access to technology as a challenge as well,

but he had a unique way to overcome this particular problem. First, his wife was the

manager of the county library, so she was able to set aside computers for his students to

use that were already set up for the threaded discussions. Furthermore, Will worked at a

program called “Seniors on Saturdays,” or “SOS,” in which he was available in his

school library from 8:00 AM-12:00 PM for any students wishing to come work.

Additionally, he came to work an hour early and stayed late to accommodate students

needing access to technology.

 114

A personal challenge for Will was that he expected students to embrace the

technology component, and when some did not, it was difficult for him to understand and

accept. As he said, “My expectations were that everybody was going to be fluent at it.

But we still have some who aren’t. That was difficult for me” (Will, personal

communication, March 27, 2015). Some of the cultural groups with whom he worked

saw little value in the technology aspect as well; he said it was “a lack of cultural

motivation…those students with that certain set of cultural groups that don’t value that

side of things” (Will, personal communication, March 27, 2015). Nevertheless, he wanted

to ensure that they participated, hence the various methods available for them to access

the technology outside of school. In addition, Will pointed out the time needed to read

and respond to the students’ posts could, at times, be challenging and overwhelming,

especially with large classes. He also commented that teachers need to be organized to

better facilitate the process.

Overall, Will enjoyed using virtual literature circles with his classes and felt that

the benefits in terms of his available class time were very positive. Students not only

improved their writing skills, but they also learned to express their ideas more

appropriately in an online environment. While he is out of the classroom now, he

supports his teachers’ use of the same process and points out the need for a very student-

centered delivery model, one in which they can build their own profile to individualize it

and one in which they can make private comments and ask questions without other

students seeing them. His experience showed him the importance of “meeting students on

the terms they understand” (Will, personal communication, March 27, 2015). As he said,

“To be honest, they understand [the technology] better than we do” (Will, personal
 115

communication, March 27, 2015); as a result, virtual literature circles allowed him to find

“middle ground” with them, creating a positive learning experience in the process.

Comparison of Middle Grade Educators to High School Educator

The high school educator interviewed also cited engagement as a key feature of

why he decided to use virtual literature circles; like the middle school educators, he

began the process by providing guided questions, but as students gained proficiency with

virtual literature circles, he released the process to them, thus creating a more student-

centered online experience.

Like Sara, Will cited the increasing use of technology by students as a critical

factor for including it in his classes, but he also cited the benefits of increased class time

for other content, achieved by using the entirely virtual literature circles. Unlike the

middle school educators, Will did not provide class time for students to work on their

responses; they were expected to find time before or after school or on weekends to post

to their discussion boards, but he facilitated the process through library availability at the

county and school levels.

Connections to other disciplines or to real world current events were an important

part of the postings for Sara’s and Will’s classes. Both wanted students to make text-to-

self and text-to-world connections in their discussions. In so doing, the students learned

to make more appropriate commentary that reflected an increasing awareness of multiple

viewpoints.

University Educators

Both university professors interviewed hold a Ph.D. and teach some form of

reading classes to current teachers or pre-service teachers, for example, Issues and Trends
 116

in Literacy, Approaches to Reading Instruction, and Reading Methods. As a result, both

of them are interested in ensuring that their students are adequately prepared to teach

their current or future students in regard to literacy and that they understand the

components that make up an effective reading program. As such, they model the

appropriate use of virtual literature circles.

University Educator, “Wendy”

Wendy is a 30 year veteran of a four year teaching institution located in the

northern part of the mid-West. She has been using a hybrid face-to-face and virtual

literature circle collaboration between her pre-service English teachers and high school

students in urban, rural, and suburban settings in her state since 2006.

The collaboration stemmed from an initial session at her state’s conference for

English teachers, at which she and a former student decided to work together on a

literature circle project. Because of her position as a university professor teaching pre-

service teachers, she has access to “fabulous veteran [English] teachers” in the state’s

high schools (Wendy, personal communication, January 26, 2015). The project is used in

her Reading Methods class to provide pre-service teachers the opportunity to genuinely

teach high school students and to determine if the career is right for them.

The syllabus that Wendy shares with her students demonstrates a clear focus on

fostering their own literacy and that of their students. She explained, “With your own

classroom quickly approaching, you have no doubt begun to ask yourself questions about

how you will teach your students to read, to make sense of their reading, and to love

reading” (Wendy, personal communication, January 26, 2015). From there, she outlines

the course goals, which include an emphasis on her students considering their own
 117

teaching goals as related to reading and literacy and an emphasis on participating

effectively in a collaborative team. In particular, for the virtual literature circles project,

her syllabus states,

Participating in the…project will put you in the role of teacher, where you will

work with your own students on the actual, messy, unpredictable, exciting, and

joyful enterprise of reading and discussing a book together, electronically and in

person. This work will lay foundational skills in goal-oriented planning and

assessment. (Wendy, personal communication, January 26, 2015)

Her 22 page syllabus explicitly outlines student outcomes as related to her class and her

state’s teaching standards.

In terms of the online component, the process does not utilize Daniels’ (2002)

model of literature circles, because it had to fit the needs of both pre-service teachers and

high school teachers and students. Thus, the students did not get to choose their own

groups; the high school teachers grouped them for the pre-service teachers. Also, the high

school students did not get to formulate their own questions and run their own groups,

because the pre-service teachers needed practice in forming good questions and fostering

relationships with the students. Both the pre-service teachers and the high school students

get some choice about their books, however. On Wendy’s syllabus, she explained that the

high school students have options, of which they rank their top three choices; similarly,

the pre-service teachers then rank their “top three choices, get one, then join a reading

group” (Wendy, personal communication, January 26, 2015).

From the start, it was important for Wendy to foster cross-cultural and cross-racial

conversations so the high school students, many of whom are from a rural setting that
 118

lacks diversity, could have important discussions with others not like themselves. Thus,

each year the project has involved teachers of high school students from rural, urban, and

suburban settings, and has included English language learners (ELLs) in recent years as

well.

The process involves the use of the university’s electronic learning management

system, on which the pre-service teachers post questions and comments and the high

school students post replies. There are seven weeks of postings, which are then followed

by a student individual or group multiple intelligences project and an individual writing

assignment. Additionally, the pre-service teachers visit the high school students in their

own classrooms and teach them, and then the high school students go to the university,

where they are given a school tour by their university teacher and experience college life

for a day. It is the first time many of the students have been on a college campus, and it

opens their eyes to the potential for them to attend such an institution. In fact, one of

Wendy’s goals is for them to see themselves as attending college, and 20% of them apply

to attend her university.

Wendy gives her students very clear direction for their postings, and has detailed

documents to help them create their discussion forums. In fact, the guidance she offers is

very concrete and specific, and tells them exactly what to include in their initial

presentation, while allowing them the opportunity to shape their high school students’

experiences as they want. For instance, she tells them to include an essential question and

their learning goals, but she does not tell them what these should be. She also requires

them to post a writing prompt that is related to their essential question, which she also has
 119

them answer so students have a model to follow. Her directions express the need for

professionalism as well as creating a climate conducive to relationship building.

The detailed rubric for the project with the high school students states the following for

the pre-service teachers’ work with them: “In your online work with your students, you

created excellent prompts which helped students grow in the learning goals you laid out

for them. You responded to student postings quickly, thoughtfully, and helpfully”

(Wendy, personal communication, January 26, 2015). The use of this specific language

provides her pre-service teachers guidelines as they work to foster the high school

students’ learning through the virtual literature circles.

Furthermore, relationship building is a key goal of the process, and the pre-service

teachers are required to post on their forums information about themselves to build that

sense of relationship. For example, they might post a PowerPoint about their summer

abroad trips, their jobs, and other types of college student life experiences. Wendy

believes this type of commentary boosts the relationship building piece, making it easier

for the high school students to envision themselves as future college students as well as

fostering the relationship between the pre-service teachers and their high school students.

For the pre-service teachers, the process helps them to experience authentic

teaching, to discover the realities of teaching teens. They use a backwards design model

(Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) to develop their lessons, in which they consider essential

questions [EQs] (the “big” questions about life) as well as the standards they will be

addressing; the use of textual evidence to support ideas is always included, because the

high school teachers require it to comply with standards. As part of this authentic
 120

experience, they realize the pitfalls of poor planning when their activities do not align

with their standards or EQs.

The types of questions posted are teacher-directed. Some of them are connection

focused; students might be asked to consider how they might react differently or similarly

to the characters in the novels. Others are text-centric and higher order level questions, in

which they might consider the structure of the text and its impact on the novel’s meaning.

Student responses to these questions show their understanding, or lack thereof, of the

reading. The pre-service teachers see the gamut of responses, from very academic

comments to those that show the students’ struggle to grasp English.

As part of their virtual literature circles experience, the pre-service teachers are

also required to create and assign a project for their high school students, for which they

must create a checklist and rubric to help the high school students correctly complete

their side of the work. In Wendy’s rubric for that part of the assignment, she identifies

what she expects:

Your project assignment used multiple intelligences, balanced the choices for

equal levels of difficulty and exertion, and provided students with meaningful and

feasible ways of responding to their reading. It both showed what students had

learned and took them further in their knowledge and understanding of your

learning goals. Your rubric was helpful, easy to follow, and fair. Your writing

met professional standards. You did a good job of responding to projects and

providing helpful feedback. (Wendy, personal communication, January 26, 2015)

 121

These detailed comments guide her pre-service teachers in the creation of their own

rubrics so that they can then guide the high school students to successful completion of

their virtual literature circles projects.

A significant benefit for all involved is the intense collaboration the process

entails. Not only is the professor involved with her pre-service teachers; she is also

connected to the high school teachers, many of whom are former students, and the high

school students, as well as the system administrators with whom she has to work to make

the collaboration happen at all. The collaboration among the diverse students helps them

to begin to develop a more global perspective, the idea that not everyone has the same

shared experiences. They come away from their face-to-face meeting at the university

having built new relationships and shared contact information, allowing them to

communicate even after this collaboration is over. Overall, Wendy finds it a fun and

interesting process, which she enjoys very much. She said, “It’s fun! It’s real, and it’s

interesting!” (Wendy, personal communication, January 26, 2015).

Furthermore, the high school teachers themselves sometimes volunteer additional

time in Wendy’s classroom to work with her pre-service teachers and provide them with

feedback from veteran teachers of high school students. While not all of the participants

choose to do so, this collaboration offers more authentic feedback to her students. The

pre-service teachers themselves collaborate extensively, as this course is part of their

junior level work; the intense nature of the program requires them to work together

intensely, and as a result, they get to know one another and their professor very well. In

fact, Wendy said, “I wind up with very intense relationships with my students because the
 122

process is very challenging; I support them all the way through and know them really

well” (Wendy, personal communication, January 26, 2015).

On the other hand, there are also challenges. The scheduling required to fit both

the high school and university calendars requires a lot of communication and work.

Additionally, the time required to read all of the posts is another challenge. The pre-

service teachers are required to post in reply to every high school student’s post, and the

professor requires her students to complete multiple revisions of their questions before

they are allowed to post them on the forum. Wendy also has to read her students’ posts

and reply to them when they need assistance. At times, the pre-service teachers are

overwhelmed with the amount of work required to do the process well. Wendy offers

them support to help them face the challenges, and they know they can depend on her for

assistance. One of the ways she supports them is through the use of rubrics and individual

feedback along the way; almost every assignment has a specific rubric. Such timely

formative assessment guides the pre-service teachers as it is needed.

In the beginning of the process, one of the systems was also concerned about the

privacy of the online forum, though it was triply password protected. She said, “It’s a

huge, very dysfunctional bureaucracy from my perspective, and from the perspective of

the people that actually work there too”; it took six months of seeking approval from

them before the collaboration was allowed to begin (Wendy, personal communication,

January 26, 2015). Finally, the administrators visited and saw the wonderful opportunity

such a partnership could provide, and the privacy issue has not surfaced again. As Wendy

put it, the participating “schools have been really delighted to have this opportunity for
 123

their students that they don’t need to pay for and is so enriching” (Wendy, personal

communication, January 26, 2015).

This collaboration is all made possible through a grant that covers the costs of

travel for the pre-service teachers and the high school students. Additionally, Wendy’s

dean and department are very supportive of this collaboration, as it aligns with their

views of what their students should be doing to prepare to enter the teaching field. Wendy

has prepared a very extensive document that details this entire process, both for the

benefit of her students, the cooperating high school teachers, and her department (see

Appendix K). It not only outlines her specific duties and responsibilities, but those of

each participant, as well as where the grant money is spent. Essentially, it becomes a tool

for her to promote the program she has developed.

Overall, Wendy finds the process rewarding for all involved and worth continuing

despite the challenges. Though she is retiring, her dean plans to continue the online

collaboration; Wendy said that the dean “thinks it’s exactly what should be going on,

thinks it’s really good” (Wendy, personal communication, January 26, 2015). She

declared, “It’s a good path for them…[it’s] relationship building…the high school

teachers, they are going to be my nieces and nephews for life. I feel so connected to

them” (Wendy, personal communication, January 26, 2015). Everyone involved reaps the

benefits of the process, from the pre-service teachers, to the high school students and

teachers, as well as the professor herself.

University Educator, “Mark”

Mark is a 40 year veteran of the classroom, with the last 30 years spent teaching

at a prestigious southern university. As the venue for classes has shifted from a face-to-
 124

face model to a virtual one, so too have Mark’s strategies. Where he used to incorporate

traditional literature circles in his courses, now that the classes are online, a virtual

discussion board component is the only way for him to continue the process of literature

circles with his graduate courses.

His students are enrolled in various types of programs, in which his course

offerings are electives, such as literacy or Reading Apprenticeship. He requires students

to participate in synchronous discussions with other students who have chosen the same

book. The books he offers as choices change each semester, but all of them are

considered “serious reading for adults,” the kind that have “garnered serious

consideration,” either because they are internationally known and/or have been awarded a

prize, such as a Pulitzer (Mark, personal communication, March 4, 2015). Students pace

themselves, and depending on the novels chosen, may read two, three or more books in a

fifteen or sixteen week course. Groups tend to be four or five students each, depending on

class sizes.

In terms of his requirements for participating in virtual literature circles, students

are given very specific information on the syllabus at the beginning of a semester, and he

posts comments on the discussion boards and communicates via email when appropriate.

He does not use whole class chats, “which tend to become unmanageable and to result in

several conversations proceeding at the same time” (Mark, personal communication,

March 4, 2015). Instead, he uses the online bulletin board to post questions associated

with each reading, and each student can respond either to his question or to another

student’s post. Each student is expected to post at least two responses to every discussion

topic, but may, of course, post more.

 125

Mark allows groups to set up their own chats; he uses Adobe Connect (a software

program that allows for online meetings, classes, webinars, etc.) and/or his university’s

online learning management system. Because these are graduate level students, the

groups are responsible for contacting each other and setting up weekly chats that last fifty

minutes minimum. He also informs them that he may occasionally join the chats and

reminds them that even if he cannot participate, he has access to every chat’s script. He

does enjoy participating in each group’s chat when he can, but when he cannot, he gives

them feedback via a group email if he sees they need it.

Mark’s goals and outcomes for his courses focus on metacognition. He wants his

students, who are classroom teachers or who plan to be, to become aware of their own

reading and the behaviors they access when reading. For instance, he wants them to

consider the difficulty they have with a text, the kinds of questions they ask when reading

it, what others notice about it that they did not, and vice versa. Mark emphasizes the

importance of modeling for his teachers; thus, he reads voraciously and comments on his

readings in his posts so that students can see this process. In fact, on one syllabus, he

explains his point:

We can’t teach what we don’t do. We must continually study our own

literacy. Why does each one of us read? What can we bring to our own

classrooms as readers? To me, the teaching of literacy becomes so much simpler

because I am a reader. Reading informs my life and my views. (Mark, personal

communication, March 4, 2015)

Mark shows his students a clear rationale for becoming more thoughtful readers via this

process.
 126

Mark explains on another syllabus why he believes literature circles are

important: The first reason is that by participating in one, participants learn firsthand

what it is like;

Secondly, and more importantly, I don’t believe that you should teach something

that you don’t personally do yourself. If reading isn’t part of your life, if you are

not affected by literature, you have no business teaching it. This assignment

provides you an opportunity to improve your personal literacy. (Mark, personal

communication, March 4, 2015)

In fact, improving their literacy is a benefit that he sees for his virtual literature

circles. As he says it, the process creates a “hyper-attention to reading and participating in

the world of reading” as well as an awareness of their own process (Mark, personal

communication, March 4, 2015). In addition, he cites the ease of use for his students,

some of whom are participating from other continents.

At the same time, Mark acknowledges that one of the challenges is getting his

students to understand that the virtual literature circles component is not “just another

hoop to jump through” for his course (Mark, personal communication, March 4, 2015).

Instead, it is a vital, integral part of their literacy goals. He works on convincing them of

its importance through his comments on the syllabi, as well as through his grading

procedures, which involve deducting points for missing the chats and posts.

While virtual literature circles are integral to his course, were Mark given the

opportunity to use face-to-face literature circles, he would rather do so; he prefers the

traditional classroom model and says, “I want to sit in a group with them; I want to look

at them. I want to see what they’re getting, what they’re not getting. You know, just like
 127

real teachers do” (Mark, personal communication, March 4, 2015). Nevertheless, Mark

has created a virtual literature circles process that facilitates his students’ literacy skills as

they prepare to teach reading in their content areas.

Themes from University Educators

Several different themes become salient in the university educators’ use of virtual

literature circles (see Table 3). Because university professors are working with

undergraduate students and/or adults, there is a self-directed focus for their students; they

are not expected to respond to the instructor, but to each other or their “students.” As

Mark said, his approach with virtual literature circles promotes “the idea of what you are

learning about yourself in relationship with others” (Mark, personal communication,

March 4, 2015). Nevertheless, there is also a significant difference in the way Mark and

Wendy conduct their virtual literature circles. Even so, collaboration is a theme, with

both professors desiring that their students communicate effectively with one another

and/or the high school teachers and students with whom they work. Additionally, both

professors commented on the time-consuming nature of reading the posts their students

generate, and both have a strong literacy focus, a result of their teaching teachers or pre-

service teachers in various reading classes and preparing them to educate youth.

Both professors also utilize emailing as a means of communicating with their

students, unlike the middle and high school educators, who comment within the

discussion boards or learning management system they use. Like the middle and high

school educators, there is a choice of texts for the students, but smaller groups of four or

five are more typical, possibly due to smaller class sizes.

 128

Both professors want their students to see the value in this process, which they

deem as necessary to create literate professionals who can communicate effectively with

their current or future students. The virtual literature circles component of their classes is

integral and the basis for much of their students’ grades.

Table 3

Research Questions and Themes from Interviews, University Educators

Research Questions Themes Evident from Interviews
How do ELA teachers create an online  Instructor guidance in form of
literature circle experience supports feedback; often involves emailing
student learning?  Require students to post in reply to
other students’ comments, not
instructor comments
 Allow student choice of texts
 Use of small groups, typically no
more than five
 Student driven discussions outside
of class

What are the benefits, if any, that  Student engagement

teachers perceive in the use of virtual  Student driven, student ownership
literature circles, and how can they be  Metacognition: thinking about their
addressed? own reading and learning
 Preparation for teaching students
 Improved literacy instruction
 Diversity
What are the challenges, if any, that  Getting students to understand the
teachers perceive in the use of virtual importance of the process;
literature circles, and how can they be overcome by promotion and
addressed? modeling
 Time for reading posts

Chapter Summary

Questionnaire data, interviews, and document analysis revealed key themes across

the ELA teachers’ experiences with virtual literature circles. Whether middle school, high
 129

school, or university level, collaboration among peers was an essential focus, and it

resulted in students showing greater awareness of other viewpoints and ideas. Small

groups were utilized by all, and students all had choices of texts, though at times those

texts were limited in regard to theme, Lexile level, or time period. Generally, there was

more guidance offered at the lower grades, which was gradually reduced as students age.

Consequently, detailed explanations were offered more often in the lower grades versus

the upper ones. Access to technology was a concern for the public school students, but

was assumed as a given for the university students. All teachers, regardless of the level,

viewed virtual literature circles as a vital component in their pedagogy, helping them

foster specific outcomes, whether those related to writing, specific details referenced, or

to literacy awareness issues. Additionally, most of the respondents included some form of

face-to-face interaction in addition to the online interactions.

 130

Chapter V

Discussion

Findings Related to Research Question

This study answered the question, “How do ELA teachers create a virtual

literature circle experience that supports student learning?” Practitioner experiences at the

middle school, secondary school, and university levels were explored through

questionnaires, interviews, and document analysis, and several themes emerged as the

study progressed.

Clear Expectations

Supporting student learning at the middle school level consisted of setting clear

expectations and providing rubrics for students to follow. The team of middle grades

educators used guided questions posted on the discussion forum for their students and

taught an explicit response called RAPP so students had a model to follow in their

responses. Sara utilized roles, which she explained specifically on handouts, and she

provided clear rubrics so that students knew exactly what was expected for each post that

they completed (Sara, personal communication, February 21, 2015). Middle grades

teachers who responded to the questionnaire also referenced the use of rubrics and

checklists to assist their students in online conversations. These methods allow students

to self-assess before they post, which Daniels (2002) and Knowlton and Knowlton (2001)

suggested as important.

It is evident from Sara’s documents that she is very explicit about what she

expects students to know and be able to do. When she has students respond to her

teacher-generated questions rather than creating their own, she focuses on a different
 131

literary aspect for each reading, including characterization, plot, allusions, and theme,

thus insuring that students are considering literary aspects required by the standards.

While they have choice about which questions they will answer, the questions are a

mixture of lower- and higher-order thinking responses. For example, students might

respond to the question on defining a literary foil, then explain how two characters

exhibit those characteristics, or they might instead respond to a question to consider the

novel’s theme, which they should “explain using evidence and a full analysis” (Sara,

personal communication, February 21, 2015). Similarly, in her culminating performance

assessment, the guidelines are very clear, with each option providing specific directions

on how to complete the project. Guiding questions help students show their mastery of

the literary skills (see Appendix J). Such clear expectations are beneficial for student

learning to take place.

Questionnaire respondents at the high school level also supported student

learning similarly. For instance, they provided online handouts and specific prompts to

assist students in making appropriate posts. For example, one respondent said that her

weekly discussion post required “250-300 words in response to one of three or four

teacher-generated questions or their own thoughtful question” (Becky, personal

communication, October 23, 2014). In her virtual literature circles, she indicated that the

design “integrates assessment for learning frameworks including clear criteria for

success, learning intentions, descriptive feedback from peers and teachers, and student

voice and choice/ownership of their learning” (Becky, personal communication, October

23, 2014). Such clear requirements help students achieve the learning goals.
 132

Wendy’s 22 page syllabus incorporated her rubrics for each stage of the class; for

the virtual literature circles component with the participating high schools, her

expectations were clear for her students. That explicit explanation of what was required

then made it easier for the pre-service teachers to craft a virtual literature circle

experience for their high school students. She modeled clear expectations in her rubrics,

then required the students to do the same. As a result, the high school students were

guided in their reading responses with teacher-directed questions. Furthermore, the

culminating projects the pre-service teachers designed also featured rubrics for the high

school students, so that again, expectations were evident for all involved.

As the researcher, it is clear that all of the interviewed teachers began with the end

in mind; all of them considered the goals and outcomes they wished to see before ever

embarking on the virtual literature circle journey. Whether through established state

standards or goals listed on a syllabus, the teachers communicated what they wanted their

students to learn from participating in the virtual literature circles. An excellent example

is Sara’s culminating project for virtual literature circles; not only does the document list

the standards she expected to be addressed, but also included questions for the students to

consider as they prepared their project (see Appendix J). Similarly, the college

professors’ syllabi contained clear goals for their classes. For all of the educators

interviewed, each experience was implemented with making those outcomes happen,

whether that was improved writing, emphasis on critical thought, or an awareness of

one’s own literacy. Thus, they were doing as previous researchers recommended—

creating a structure to help students achieve desired outcomes (Chew et al., 2010;

Garrison & Vaughan, 2008).

 133

Guidance and Feedback

Along with clear expectations established by the teachers, another theme that is

evident as teachers support student learning in virtual literature circles is the use of

guidance and feedback throughout the process. At the high school level, specifically with

seniors, Will began by providing guidance to his students on his threaded discussion

board. As time passed, however, he was able to let the process become more student-

driven, with them posting their own questions and comments. Most importantly,

consistent, timely feedback appeared to be the deciding factor in his students’ success

with virtual literature circles. He responded to almost all of his students’ comments, no

matter how short they were. As a result, he felt that he created a deeper relationship with

them that fostered even more discussion in person. As he explained, just telling students

their comments would be read was not enough; they had to see their teacher’s interest and

relevant comments. When that happened, they were excited to continue the conversation.

His comments are further supported by Falter Thomas’ (2014) study, in which she said,

“the excitement of knowing that what they wrote about will be viewed, and perhaps

valued by an authentic audience, was said to have created enjoyment and motivation for

students to think deeply and to take a risk of sharing their thoughts” (p. 50).

Similarly, Sara provided clear and consistent feedback on her Google Docs

platform; she posted follow up questions, clarifying questions, comments designed to

show her interest in their posts, and ideas the comments brought to her mind (Sara,

personal communication, February 21, 2015). Students knew that not only were their

posts read by her and others, but that comments would be made in reply; thus, more
 134

student responses appear to be generated by this give-and-take of teacher and student

commentary and feedback.

At the university level, feedback also played a central role, but in a different

sense. For example, Mark’s presence in his students’ synchronous discussions provided

obvious incentive for them to participate and to come prepared with cogent discussion

points. Though he might not “attend” all of them, his students knew that he would be

reviewing their comments on the transcriptions that were created from their discussions.

He consistently modeled the importance of being aware of their literacy and reading

habits through their other class posts, and his syllabi were very clear about his view of the

importance of practicing book discussions. For instance, he tells them, “I have some very

clear agenda items. One is that I hope you are not taking reading courses in order to

teach reading but you yourself do not like to read or do nothing to promote your own

personal literacy” (Mark, personal communication, March 4, 2015). In an entirely online

venue such as his, clear communication about goals and outcomes is essential, and

modeling its importance in his own posts reinforced for his students the seriousness with

which he takes the course content. Similarly, Wendy’s detailed checklists and rubrics and

consistent feedback about revision needs for her pre-service teachers helped them

develop their virtual literature circles so that the participating high school students

understood the requirements.

Without a doubt, teacher feedback is essential to the process; it is not enough for

the student posts to be read only (Gambrell, 2011). The most effective examples from this

study reflected keen awareness by the instructor of each student’s input on the discussion

boards, along with targeted comments to the student. While time-consuming, this kind of
 135

feedback seemed to be related to a more in-depth, productive online discussion, shown

particularly by Sara’s and Will’s comments regarding the issue (Sara, personal

communication, February 21, 2015; Will, personal communication, March 27, 2015). In

fact, feedback and comments by the teacher can guide students into deeper critical

thinking. As Fountas and Pinnell (2006) explained, such a method of commentary can

lead to very specific outcomes, whether to get students to notice text structure, for

instance, or for more intentional text referencing. Thus, feedback can result in the

students’ discussions becoming more standards-based than they might be otherwise. It is

also important to note that each teacher provided a grade to accompany the online

discussion posts, and most issued a point deduction for not “attending” or posting in a

timely manner. Tying the students’ online responses to a grade in the class also

emphasized the importance of the activity.

Appropriate Platforms

In the realm of technology, a platform often refers to the operating system and

computer hardware, but now has come to mean “a group of technologies that are used as

a base upon which other applications, processes or technologies are developed”

(“Platform,” 2015). The platforms used were as varied as the practitioners, indicating that

the type of platform is not as important as whether or not it fulfills the functions needed.

Privacy concerns were much more important for younger students, so password protected

options were generally chosen. Platforms and learning management systems which allow

for ease of student use were generally considered better, and Will in particular lamented

the fact that his students did not have the ability to customize their discussion boards with

profile pictures and private messages to him (Will, personal communication, March 27,
 136

2015). Student engagement with the platform might then be a consideration when

educators have a choice of platforms from which to choose.

Student-centered

Each of these educators had a student-centered focus, wanting to hear from the

individual students their thoughts as to what was being read. A real sense of “we are in

this together” permeated the interviews. The middle school teacher team, in particular,

expressed a strong collegiality with each other and a willingness to learn from their

students, accepting that students are often more technologically proficient than their

teachers. A positive culture was therefore established related to the virtual literature

circles. The questionnaire respondents indicated a similar finding—student engagement

was a result of their ability to have a voice in the process, not just in choosing novels, but

in the online responses as well. One questionnaire respondent said, “I have used the lit

circle concept many times pre-technology, and have never seen more rich conversation.

The access to a collaborative note-taking space gives them plenty to talk about” (Derek,

personal communication, January 12, 2015). The students’ ideas are central to the virtual

literature circles, and students know and understand that they are driving their discussions

and learning. As one online respondent said, “there is always a new experience,…[and]

students are and feel independent” (Cara, personal communication, February 19, 2015).

Practitioner experience did not seem to be a factor, since participants ranged from

teachers with one to 40 years of experience. What was a common factor among the

interviewees, however, was that all of them had advanced degrees, at least a master’s

degree, and a willingness to utilize technology with their students. Several acknowledged

the importance of technology and the need to meet students where they are; as Will said,
 137

teachers have to “meet them on the terms they understand” (Will, personal

communication, March 27, 2015). Perhaps the advanced degrees, many of which were in

Curriculum and Instruction, gave these participants knowledge and confidence to try such

student-centered and technology-rich learning opportunities. Even among the

questionnaire respondents, no matter the grade level taught, the teachers expressed a

willingness to share the ownership of the discussions with their students. These educators

do not favor the traditional lecture-centered classrooms of the past, but a more student-

centered approach in which learning hand-in-hand is valued.

Small Group Size

The use of small groups, never more than six, was also a theme that emerged at all

levels of virtual literature circles use, evident in both questionnaires and interviews.

Daniels (2002) identified groups of three to five as ideal, but in this study, up to six was

the norm, possibly due to large class sizes and/or the number of books available. A small

group is more manageable for students who have to read and respond to peers, and it also

allows for more novel options to be read (Day et al., 2002). As Day et al. indicated, it

also makes it easier to acquire copies of books as well as to find books at appropriate

reading levels.

Face-to-face Component

Face-to-face meetings were also a component of the virtual literature circles of

many of the teachers interviewed, more so for the team than for Sara, who only had them

meet in person to discuss the Artful Artist’s contributions, a role which she was gradually

phasing out of her process. The questionnaire respondents indicated an in-person meeting

as well. The face-to-face component appears to be significant; as Hyler and Hicks (2014)
 138

argued, “Face-to-face conversations teach students to actively engage with one another

and can have the lasting effect of building trust among peers when it comes to expressing

thoughts verbally instead of hiding behind written words on a collaborative online space”

(p. 117). Furthermore, Beeghly (2005) advocated for face-to-face time before beginning

the online portion of the literature circles to establish a comfort level as well as to build a

sense of community. Another use of a face-to-face meeting is to provide group feedback.

For instance, especially insightful student comments as well as specific problems that

may have been identified can be shared in the large group, providing clarification and/or

reflection where needed ( Beach et al., 2011).

Only Will and Mark indicated a completely online discussion; for Will, it saved

him valuable class time for other activities and content (Will, personal communication,

March 27, 2015), and for Mark, it was the only available venue (Mark, personal

communication, March 4, 2015). The inclusion of face-to-face meetings along with the

virtual literature circles suggests that teachers still want to be able to see their students’

reactions and to guide the discussions where needed. Such a conclusion is reinforced by

Mark’s comment: “I want to sit in a group with them; I want to look at them. I want to

see what they’re getting, what they’re not getting” (Mark, personal communication,

March 4, 2015). He clearly misses the chance to have face-to-face meetings with his

students, finding a strictly online environment less conducive to his goals. For teachers

who can include a face-to-face component, it appears to be a logical part of their classes,

whether used for feedback, ascertaining student understanding, or simply to improve

social skills. Hyler and Hicks (2014) even argued, “Listening and speaking through face-

to-face communication must remain a critical part of the human experience” (p. 107).
 139

Perceived Benefits

Hand in hand with the central research question is the subquestion, “What are the

benefits, if any, that teachers perceive in the use of virtual literature circles, and how can

they be addressed?” This question engendered a variety of responses, and generally

related to the teachers’ goals. Key themes emerged, including those related to writing,

specificity, critical thinking, peer interactions, technology use, flexibility, grading,

collaboration, engagement, and a student-centered focus.

Improved Writing

Improved writing was an outcome that was deemed beneficial by all the middle

school and high school teachers interviewed. Because their curricula are standards-driven

and new state standardized tests are being implemented that require students to form

constructed written responses, all of them wanted to ensure that students were practicing

this type of writing. As a result, all of them reported better writing by their students. This

finding was consistent with what Moreillon et al. (2009) reported. The findings in regard

to writing reinforce the literature review findings that suggested teachers try to

incorporate writing into the process as a means of promoting students’ writing skills

(Samway & Whang, 1996; Day et al., 2002). Furthermore, Myers (2014), who

experimented with a virtual classroom website called Nicenet, reflected that “Having

students engage in digital conversations affirmed my belief that the quality of their

written responses and their engagement was impacted by the use of digital tools” (p. 63).

Clearly, writing became a focus of these teachers’ virtual literature circles practices.

For the middle school teacher team, they found that students were writing well-

constructed paragraphs (Gilda, personal communication, March 24, 2015); for the high
 140

school teacher, Will, his students had to rely on specificity to make their points clear and

appropriate. In fact, he said, “It greatly increased my students’ understanding of that more

appropriate writing aspect” (Will, personal communication, March 27, 2015). All

credited the virtual literature circles process with helping students practice good

responses to literature. However, as the researcher, it is clear that these were outcomes

that the teachers communicated to their students and clearly expected; without that kind

of direction for their students, it is likely that responses would not have been as focused

or as appropriate. In fact, Knowlton and Knowlton (2001) emphasized that deeper levels

of understanding can only occur through careful planning and guidelines that assist the

students.

Improved Specificity

Additionally, improved specificity in the writing was touted as a benefit. Again,

this outcome is part of the standards-based classrooms in which these teachers work. The

specificity can be guided through the questions, or the teacher feedback can prompt it if it

is lacking. The new standardized tests that have been implemented require evidence to

support student comments (see Appendix A, specifically ELACC9-10RL1), so teachers

are emphasizing the use of text-based evidence in student responses.

Critical Thinking

In regard to critical thinking, these teachers generally referred to students

addressing what would be considered literary devices. For instance, when students

discuss theme, tone, and mood and give evidence for their reasoning, teachers identified

it as evidence of improved critical thinking. This aspect relates to the previous two,

improved writing and specificity, because often the prompts are in relation to these
 141

issues. As one online questionnaire respondent said, students had to “dig deeper in the

text for meaning, in conjunction with identifying literary elements” (Carly, personal

communication, October 14, 2014). Additionally, classroom lessons often focus on

finding these devices in the literature being read. Samway and Whang (1996) suggested

spending ten minutes per day on literary elements mini-lessons to assist struggling

readers. Sara’s guided questions document specifically requests students to consider

literary meanings such as theme, allusions, characterizations, symbols, and more (Sara,

personal communication, February 21, 2015). This finding aligns with the literature

review, which reflected that students improved their critical thinking and comprehension

through literature circles (Berne & Clark, 2005; Clarke & Holwadel, 2007; Daniels,

2002; Day et al., 2002; Ferguson & Kern, 2012; Owens, 1995; Short, 1995).

Connections

Along with critical thinking, most educators wanted students to make

connections between what they were reading and their own lives, current events, or other

literature. This type of response relates to Keene and Zimmerman’s (1997) idea that

mature readers do make these types of connections, thus improving their comprehension.

In addition, “Will” in particular commented that these types of connections,

interdisciplinary in nature, made the students’ reading more relevant, especially when

they were being required to read from the classic canon for their courses (Will, personal

communication, March 27, 2015); Sara’s guided questions had a section specifically

related to world and life connections, causing students to seek those connections in what

they read (Sara, personal communication, February 21, 2015). Furthermore, such

connections reflect Rosenblatt’s (1983) view of the importance of students’ experiences

 142

as a means of making sense of their reading. When students see connections to their own

lives and the world around them, the reading can then become more meaningful as well,

perhaps causing them to want to read more, certainly among most ELA teachers’ goals.

Peer Interaction

Another benefit, for all of the levels, was that of peer interaction. Middle grades

students, especially, need to practice appropriate academic discussions; as Sara

explained, these are a skill, and they only improve with practice and teacher guidance.

While students are often adept at purely social interactions, academic discussions become

the focus as they continue their educational careers. This type of collaboration is

referenced by Daniels (2002) and Johnson, Johnson and Holubeck (1994) as that which

leads to improved achievement. Additionally, this perceived benefit clearly reinforces

Vygotsky’s (1978) idea that when students converse, they all grow, because collaboration

and interaction contribute to learning.

For several of the practitioners, another benefit tied to peer interaction is

increasing students’ exposure to diverse ideas and cultures. Particularly for the college

students, who might be in class with students from other countries, having these online

conversations allows them the opportunity to experience ideas outside of their everyday

routine. This benefit is widely recognized in the literature (Anderson, 2008; Castek,

Bevans-Mangelson, & Goldstone, 2006; Stewart, 2009). Similarly, as Dewey

(1916/2009) argued, communicating means that the recipient will “have an enlarged and

changed experience (p. 13).

Several of the teachers commented that the use of virtual literature circles gave

even the quietest students a voice; while some students were not vocal in class, they
 143

could write an excellent response online, something that Sara attributed to the extra time

to consider what to write. Will made a similar comment, noting that he could often get a

“great online response” from students who never spoke up in class (Will, personal

communication, March 27, 2015). These findings are consistent with the literature

reviewed (Beach et al., 2011; Tao & Reinking, 1996). Furthermore, in the middle school

team, a large ELL population was noted, and teachers did not report any problems with

student participation; this may be due to the extra time as well as in-class time provided

for students to complete their postings. As Larson (2009) explained, such time can be

beneficial for the more hesitant ELL to participate successfully.

Ease of Differentiation

In this study, the public school teachers commented on the ease of differentiation

with virtual literature circles. Whether to further enrich advanced students’ experiences or

to build in greater scaffolding for the struggling readers and writers, the difference could

be easily accommodated and in such a way that other students did not know it was

occurring. The middle school team, for instance, ability grouped by Lexile levels (Gilda,

personal communication, March 24, 2015), and Sara asked higher-order questions of

more advanced students (Sara, personal communication, February 21, 2015). Not only

did student choices allow for differentiation based on their interests, but their processes

and products, as Tomlinson and Strickland (2005) suggested, were also easy to

differentiate based on student needs.

Technology Integration

Related to the “new literacies,” the integrated use of technology is another reason

the interviewed educators wanted to include virtual literature circles, and it was also
 144

mentioned by several of the online questionnaire respondents. The interviewees had

practiced face-to-face literature circles in the past and knew how successful they could

be, so the natural extension of that process was to go digital. Because the new

standardized tests will all ultimately be in an online format, practicing these literature

circles online only makes sense. While the NCTE and ILA both have position statements

on the new literacies (“The NCTE Definition,” 2013; “New Literacies,” 2009), teachers

in this study are more driven to include this type of technology due to the newly revised

standardized tests that will feature online writing. To them, virtual literature circles

combine the technology focus with the need to write showing evidence to support ideas.

Flexibility

Another benefit is the flexibility afforded by the use of the online venue.

“Flexibility” referred to different ideas for different teachers. Book titles can change

frequently, differentiation can be easily accomplished, grading and feedback can be

easily handled in a comment, and all of it is preserved in a transcript for reference

purposes.

Teacher collaboration

Collaboration was another clear benefit, and it was evidenced in almost all of the

teachers’ processes in terms of teacher-to-teacher collaboration. Even the online

questionnaire respondents indicated this as a benefit; one said her “professional learning

also was enhanced by working in partnership with colleagues who taught me so much

about being even more powerful as a teacher” (Becky, personal communication, October

23, 2014). All interviewees but Mark mentioned working with other professionals to

construct the process in some form or fashion and remarked on learning from each other.
 145

In that regard, the use of virtual literature circles offers some opportunities for improved

professional development by teachers and for teachers.

Engagement

Engagement with the process was evident, both for teachers and students. For

teachers, there is the sense that every discussion is different, that they can facilitate a

process that is interesting to both them and the students. The ideas generated are

generally student-driven, even when prompted by a teacher’s question. Nearly all of the

teachers commented on how the small, student-centered groups generated engagement;

the students knew that someone besides their teacher was reading their comments,

creating excitement for them, findings consistent with what Daniels (2002) touted.

Student-centered

Finally, the very fact that the process is student-driven is viewed as a benefit by

the teachers, because there is now a distinct shift in teaching styles being encouraged by

Common Core standards. Students are expected to learn by doing, not by the traditional

“sit and get” as in the past. Virtual literature circles promote a student-driven experiential

classroom environment while also embodying new literacies. In this way, Dewey’s

(1916/2009) constructivist principles are evident—students learn best when they

participate in and construct their own learning. While teachers still scaffold the learning,

virtual literature circles give students the opportunity to practice independently, a process

that Beach et al. (2011) advocated.

Perceived Challenges

Along with benefits cited, challenges also were identified, and were a focus in the

secondary research question, “What are the challenges, if any, that teachers perceive in
 146

the use of virtual literature circles, and how can they be addressed?” Fewer challenges

than benefits were mentioned by the practitioners studied, but tended to focus on

technology access and glitches, student apathy, superficial responses, and time issues.

Technology access/glitches

Technology access was the clear challenge for the public school students in

middle and high school, and it was mentioned as an issue by multiple questionnaire

respondents. While the schools had access and technology available, the students

themselves did not necessarily have the access or devices at home, though most did have

smart phones, according to the teachers. One middle grades questionnaire respondent

pointed out, “I cannot mandate all members of class participate in this outside of class

because not all of my students have access to the technology” (Stacy, personal

communication, December 2, 2014). As a result, teachers made allowances and

accommodations to deal with the problem. From providing in-class time to post to the

discussion boards to unique outside-of-school access, none of the middle or high school

teachers expected students to find their own access points. These schools were all high-

poverty schools as well, so it is encouraging that the students were given opportunities to

experience the technology in convenient ways. At the university level, of course, access

is assumed, considering the online nature of the courses themselves. Technology glitches

were also cited as a challenge by some of the online questionnaire respondents. None of

the teachers allowed students without access to avoid the work; all of them met student

access needs as their situation allowed, and often with creative solutions, like the

“Seniors on Saturday” option that Will discussed (Will, personal communication, March

27, 2015).
 147

Student Apathy

Student apathy, or at least less concern for the process, was often cited as well.

The middle school teachers did not report this as a problem, perhaps because virtual

literature circles are so widely integrated in their programs. At the high school level,

students were definitely described as apathetic about the process, and some were not

interested in the technology use at all, particularly some minority students whom Will

said did not value technology use. To counter that, Will had to remind students of the

importance of the virtual literature circles to their grade, which could ultimately affect

their graduating, as they were seniors. For Mark, the university level students at first saw

the virtual literature circles as “just another hoop to jump through,” but through

modeling and positive promotion of the process, he helped them see the significance of

participating in virtual literature circles as part of their own and their students’ literacy

development (Mark, personal communication, March 4, 2015). Teachers who are

invested in virtual literature circles as an essential part of their classes clearly

communicate their importance to students and model positive exchanges.

Superficial Student Responses

Especially in the questionnaire respondents’ comments, a challenge revealed was

superficial student commentary, with students trying to give “a fairly quick answer”

(Maria, personal communication, November 6, 2014). This problem was remedied by

teachers’ use of specific rubrics and checklists, which helped ensure that students knew

the guidelines they needed to follow to provide an appropriate response. With continued

practice and scaffolding by teachers, such superficial commentary will likely be

eliminated; as Langer (2000) determined in a five year study, “student performance in

 148

reading and writing is influenced by the instructional context the students experience as

well as on the larger educational environment that gives rise to what counts as knowing,

what gets taught and how” (p. 44), which suggests that teachers can overcome superficial

responses by their teaching practices. Furthermore, Bean (2002) suggested that

superficial student responses can largely be eliminated by providing adolescents with

engaging material to read and discuss, the very basis of Daniels’ (2002) literature circle

model.

Time

The issue of time spent in reading and evaluating was lamented by several of the

teachers (Wendy, personal communication, January 26, 2015; Will, personal

communication, March 27, 2015), though the middle school teachers all commented that

it was a time saver to use virtual literature circles and provide feedback. In contrast, Will,

Mark, and Wendy all spent considerable time reading and responding to their students,

with all of them commenting on late night reading sessions in order to provide proper

feedback.

Organizationally, the middle school teachers may have spent less time because

they had a system. Sara set up her grading program prior to the virtual literature circles so

that students who completed the roles in various orders could still be assessed without

causing confusion for her or them; she was able to keep up with them better that way.

Also, the middle school team’s LMS was connected to their gradebook, so

organizationally, that feature helped as well. Will said he did not have a system, just to

set up and start reading, but that in hindsight, a more organized method may have helped

him. For Wendy, her pre-service teachers needed very timely feedback, so she was up
 149

late at nights trying to make sure she responded so that they could be sure their high

school students had the best questions posted. Mark’s allowing his students to set up

chats whenever it was convenient for them was not so challenging for him; he could read

the transcript and still see what the conversation was like. Overall, however, some sort of

organization for grading seems warranted in this process, preferably one set up to

digitally coincide for ease of grading and marking. Interestingly, none of the practitioners

worried about the time spent to conduct virtual literature circles, a concern that surfaced

in the literature review (Daniels, 2002). Most likely, that worry was mitigated for these

teachers because of the many ways they tied virtual literature circles to their standards.

Limitations of Findings

This study was limited by the few respondents who chose to participate. Despite

nearly a year of trying to contact participants, 20 responded to the questionnaire and nine

consented to interview, thus limiting the study to these few participants’ experiences.

While the study was open to a national audience, only one of the interviewees came from

outside Georgia, though about half of the respondents to the questionnaire came from a

U.S. state other than Georgia, and one from Canada.

Not all of the participants had documents to share for analysis. Will had left the

classroom and experienced a move, making it impossible for him to find his documents.

However, he was able to describe his process.

Researcher bias must always be considered a factor in qualitative studies, though

care was taken to minimize bias as much as possible through triangulation of the data

obtained through questionnaires, interviews, and document analysis. Additionally,

member checks were utilized to ensure that the researcher accurately heard and
 150

interpreted the participants’ comments. The use of a semi-structured interview format

also ensured that the researcher remained focused on the research questions to avoid any

unintentional loaded questions or verbiage.

Relationship of Findings to Previous Research

While most of the topics in the literature review were borne out in this study, one

area not fully addressed in this study’s findings was the issue of power dynamics in terms

of marginalizing students. While access as a power issue was emphasized by the

participants, and Will pointed out that certain sociocultural groups lacked interest in and

access to technology, other issues were not addressed. For instance, gender, class, and

race as factors influencing discussion were not raised as concerns by the participants. In

fact, one of Wendy’s goals for her literature circles process with the participating high

school and pre-service teachers was to build cross-cultural and cross-racial relationships,

an area of which she was quite proud, even commenting that students often maintained

relationships after their face-to-face meetings. While power issues were expected as a

result of the literature review, they were not exhibited in this study in regard to gender,

class, and race as related to virtual discussions.

Implications and Recommendations for Future Practice

One of the most important findings of this study was the nature of feedback given

to the students. While teachers may completely abstain from commenting or may

provide comments to every student, it appears to depend on the teacher and the time he or

she wishes to invest in the process. Results of this study, however, indicate a strong need

for teachers to read and respond to all of the students to show them that, not only are their

opinions being read, they are being considered and are being graded, an important
 151

consideration for most students. A lack of teacher feedback might be construed by

students as teacher apathy, that teachers do not care about the students’ comments and

that they have only a passing interest in what their students are saying. This kind of

lackadaisical response will eventually result in the online discussions faltering and

failing. In fact, in a study by Herbert (2008) regarding college students’ perceptions of

online courses, quality instructor feedback was deemed critical; students wanted their

instructors to be responsive to their needs, and online feedback was how that occurred.

Similarly, Day et al. (2002) noted that responses to students’ writing increase student

motivation, and it builds relationships.

A concern here is how to provide that feedback in a private manner; depending on

the platform used, instructor comments might be visible to all of the students. According

to Horstmanshof and Brownie (2013), students could “feel vulnerable and exposed” (p.

65) in such an environment, so care must be taken to offer more private comments,

whether through email or some other vehicle. Overall, the best feedback has been deemed

that which is timely, accurate, and specific so that students can improve their

performance (Marzano, 2000).

Additionally, teachers who wish to incorporate virtual literature circles should

plan how they are going to organize the process for ease of grading, which can become

quite overwhelming when not considered properly. A number of checklists and rubrics

have been published to help with this aspect (Day et al., 2002; Fountas & Pinnell, 2006;

Knowlton & Knowlton, 2001), though teachers may wish to create a personalized system

to suit their needs.

 152

As Harvey and Daniels (2009) suggested, teachers must consider the difference

between assessment and evaluation. Assessment happens continuously, or formatively, to

shape instruction, but evaluation offers a summative report of where students are (Harvey

& Daniels, 2009). For teachers to assign the same grade to the small group virtual

literature circle, it will result in “low morale and lower quality work” (Harvey & Daniels,

2009, p. 275). Sara avoided that with her role sheets and rubrics, which made individual

students accountable for their work (Sara, personal communication, February 21, 2015).

Will used more formative comments to shape his students’ conversations and to keep

them talking (Will, personal communication, March 27, 2015). As Nichols (2006)

commented, simply listening to students talk provides educators with understanding of

their thoughts, allowing them to determine how they are constructing meaning, what

strategies they are using to do so, and how complex their thoughts are. To fully immerse

students in this kind of thinking, “we must move beyond listening, and actively engage

children in conversation” (Nichols, 2006, p. 34). The teachers in this study provided that

kind of “listening” and “conversation” through their feedback to the students, keeping the

discussion going while also determining where their students were in terms of their

comprehension.

In addition, while virtual literature circles can and do flourish in an entirely online

environment, it is clearly important that a face-to-face component occur whenever

possible. Research has suggested that such a blend of online and face-to-face methods

could result in greater learning, because students with different learning styles can be

accommodated (Lewis & Allan, 2005; Meyer, 2003).

 153

Additionally, teachers must plan for the type of discussion they want to happen;

students will not be able to generate the kinds of academic discussions that teachers want

to see without some guidance from the teacher (Knowlton & Knowlton, 2001). This

guidance can come from teacher questions, prompts, or roles, but must be stronger in the

earlier grades. As time passes and students understand the process better, teachers can

gradually release responsibility to the students for fostering discussion, but should always

be ready to intervene with guiding commentary, either online or in person.

Furthermore, while some educators worry that incorporating more technology into

the classroom might encourage students to avoid social interactions, the study did not

support this as a concern. In fact, Will’s experience suggested quite the opposite, as he

directly linked his students’ online discussions to even greater verbal commentary (Will,

personal communication, March 27, 2015). This finding is supported by multiple

researchers (Harrington, 1993; Klages et al., 2007; Larson, 2009). Even at the collegiate

level, Wendy remarked that one of her goals through the process was building

relationships (Wendy, personal communication, January 26, 2015).

A plan to allow for student access to technology must also be considered; whether

through in-class time allowed for posting or through after-hours access provided by the

local school or libraries, students must be able to use the technology. “Bring Your Own

Device” programs appear to be especially beneficial for students, as long as schools have

plans in place to provide access to devices for those who may not have them (Fredrick,

2015; Hower & Whitford, 2015). Additionally, schools who offer a 1:1 technology

component can overcome inequities; at the very least, students should be able to use

school equipment and wifi to complete the assignments (Fredrick, 2015).This issue of
 154

power, something Will termed a “cultural” or “socioeconomic” factor (Will, personal

communication, March 27, 2015), reinforces that minority or impoverished students were

indeed less likely to have home access than their white peers (Fairbanks, 2013). That

problem can be mitigated; as Cavanaugh (2006) explained, students can be successful

with online discussions “in a variety of classroom configurations, from the one-computer

classroom to the full computer lab” (p. 81).

Implications for Future Research

As the climate of standardized testing continues to evolve, it will be worth noting

how the increased use of online formats and constructed response type questions will

impact class instruction. A study which focuses on how the use of virtual literature circles

affects students’ performance on these tests would reveal potential benefits or

disadvantages to such an approach. Because multiple public school teachers commented

on the importance of preparing their students for the new testing format, it is logical to

assume that more and more teachers might consider utilizing a virtual literature circle

format, especially if these teachers’ students perform well on the tests in relation to others

who do not use them. While evidence of previous test performance “indicates that

students in literature-based classrooms will do as well or better on standardized tests”

(Sebesta, 1995, p. 208), the new tests may indicate something different. Additionally, the

CCGPS used in this study will be changing in school year 2015-16 to “Georgia Standards

of Excellence”; the revisions are only marginally different from CCGPS and mostly

involve verbiage changes and clarification of previous standards, but the conversion is

still in process (“Georgia Standards of Excellence,” 2015). Nevertheless, there is still a

 155

focus on testing and integrating multiple strands into evaluation, from reading, writing,

speaking and listening, and language standards as well.

Because this study’s findings suggested that teachers see improved writing as a

benefit of virtual literature circles, and literature circles historically have been viewed as

more discussion-based, a study investigating the ways teachers use writing as assessment

for virtual literature circles could prove beneficial. As Day et al. (2002) argued, “Writing

helps students become aware of their responses and think more deeply about what they

are reading” (p. 87). Furthermore, such a study might illuminate how virtual literature

circles address Common Core standards while also helping students develop as writers,

and it could provide insight into ways teachers can utilize virtual literature circles to

maximize class time to effectively meet more standards in one best practice.

Additionally, middle and secondary students who have access to technology

outside of school and who use it to post their discussions might be perceived to have an

advantage over students who do not have access. Indeed, Anderson and Simpson (2007)

pointed out that students who do not have access can be considered disadvantaged

compared to those who do, and even likened this power issue to a moral issue. A study

that focuses on the difference in academic performance, if any, for students with and

without access outside of school, as it relates to their virtual literature circle experience,

could be beneficial to teacher practice.

Finally, issues of power as related to gender, class, and race as factors influencing

discussion did not surface in this study, yet the literature review revealed these areas as

important for teachers to consider and make provisions to prevent marginalization of

students (Beach et al., 2011; Evans, 1996; Lloyd, 2006; Rogers, Graham, & Mayes, 2007;
 156

Zembylas & Vrasidas, 2005, 2007). Future studies could address these issues in teachers’

use of virtual literature circles in order to more specifically determine how they are being

addressed in practice.

Conclusion

This study suggested that the benefits of virtual literature circles vastly outweigh

the challenges. Benefits included improved writing, specificity, and critical thinking;

connections to other subject matter; peer interactions; ease of differentiation; technology

integration; flexibility; teacher collaboration; engagement; and student-centered practice.

Those challenges that do arise are manageable, whether teachers deal with issues of

technology access, student apathy, superficial student commentary, or time issues.

Teacher strategies, especially in the form of guided questions, rubrics with clear

expectations, and targeted feedback, are beneficial to creating an online learning

experience that supports student learning. Making the process student-centered rather

than teacher-centered, using appropriate platforms with small groups, and including a

face-to-face component also supported student learning.

 157

References

Allington, R. L. (2002). What I've learned about effective reading instruction from a

decade of studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. The Phi Delta

Kappan, 83(10), 740-747. doi:10.2307/20440246

Allington, R. L., & Gabriel, R. E. (2012). Every child, every day. Educational

Leadership, 69(6), 10-15.

Anderson, R., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkerson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation of

readers: The report of the commission on reading. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Education.

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The

theory and practice of online learning 2nd ed. (pp. 45-74). Edmonton: AU

Press.

Anderson, B., & Simpson, M. (2007). Ethical issues in online education. Open Learning,

22(2), 129-138. doi:10.1080/02680510701306673

Arghode, V. (2012). Qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigmatic differences.

Global Education Journal, 2012(4), 155-163.

Beach, R., Appleman, D., Hynds, S., & Wilhelm, J. (2011). Teaching literature to

adolescents. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Bean, T. W. (2002). Making reading relevant for adolescents. Educational

Leadership, 60(3), 34-37.

Beeghly, D. G. (2005). It's about time: Using electronic literature discussion groups with

adult learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(1), 12-21.

 158

Berne, J., & Clark, K. (2005). Meaning-making in ninth grade: An exploratory study of

small group, peer-led literature discussions. Illinois Reading Council Journal,

33(3), 31-38.

Blum, H. T., Lipsett, L. R., & Yocom, D. J. (2002). Literature circles. Remedial &

Special Education, 23(2), 99.

Bowers-Campbell, J. (2011). Take it out of class: Exploring virtual literature circles.

Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54, 557-567.

Burke, J. (2013). The English teacher’s companion. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cameron, S., Murray, M., Hull, K., & Cameron, J. (2012). Engaging fluent readers using

literature circles. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 20(1), i-viii.

Carico, K., & Logan, D. (2004). A generation in cyberspace: Engaging readers through

online discussions. Language Arts, 81, 293-302.

Casey, H. K. (2008). Engaging the disengaged: Using learning clubs to motivate

struggling adolescent readers and writers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,

52, 284-294.

Castek, J., Bevans-Mangelson, J., & Goldstone, B. (2006). Reading adventures online:

Five ways to introduce the new literacies of the Internet through children's

literature. The Reading Teacher, 59, 714-728. doi:10.1598/RT.59.7.12

Cavanaugh, T. W. (2006). Literature circles through technology. Worthington, OH:

Linworth Books.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through

qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing

 159

instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. Qualitative

Report, 16, 255-262.

Chew, E., Turner, D.A., & Jones, N. (2010). Chapter 1: In love and war: Blended

learning theories for computer scientists and educationists. In R. Kwan, J. Fong,

& F. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of research on hybrid learning models: Advanced

tools, technologies, and applications (pp. 1-23). Hershey, PA: Information

Science Reference.

Clarke, L. W., & Holwadel, J. (2007). Help! What is wrong with these literature circles

and how can we fix them? The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 20-29.

Coffey, G. (2012). Literacy and technology: Integrating technology with small group,

peer-led discussions of literature. International Electronic Journal of Elementary

Education, 4, 395-405.

Course Crafters (2011). Teaching English language learners: Practical articles by

educators from the ELL outlook. Haverhill, MA: Course Crafters.

Crawford-McKinney, K., & Hogan, K. (2008). Engaging struggling adolescent readers in

conversations about texts: Instructional strategies for successful experiences. In S.

Lenski & J. Lewis (Eds.), Reading success for struggling adolescent learners (pp.

116-132). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.

Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading

groups. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

 160

Daniels, H. & Bizar, M. (1998). Methods that matter: Six structures for best practice

classrooms. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Daniels, H., & Bizar, M. (2005). Teaching the best practice way: Methods that matter,

K-12. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Daniels, H., & Steineke, N. (2004). Mini-lessons for literature circles. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Daniels, H., & Zemelman, S. (1985). A writing project: Training teachers of composition

from kindergarten through college. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Day, D., & Kroon, S. (2010). Online literature circles rock! Organizing online

literature circles in a middle school classroom. Middle School Journal, 42(2), 18-

28.

Day, J. D., Spiegel, D. L., McLellan, J., & Brown, V. B. (2002). Moving forward with

literature circles. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional Books.

DeCosta, M., Clifton, J., & Roen, D. (2010). Collaboration and social interaction in

English classrooms. English Journal, 99(5), 14-21. Retrieved from

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0995-

may2010/EJ0995Focus.pd

Deng, L, & Yuen, A.H.K. (2010). Chapter 14: Designing blended learning

communities. In R. Kwan, J. Fong, & F. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of research

on hybrid learning models: Advanced tools, technologies, and applications (pp.

228-243). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 161

Dewey, J. (2009). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of

education. Waiheke Island: The Floating Press.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. (2008). Effective practices for developing reading

comprehension. Journal of Education, 189(1/2), 107-122.

Eeds, M., & Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning

construction in literature study groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 23

(1), 4-29.

English Language Arts. (2013). Georgia standards. Retrieved from

https://www.georgiastandards.org/Common-Core/Pages/ELA-9-12.aspx

Evans, K. (1996). Creating spaces for equity? The role of positioning in peer-led

literature discussion. Language Arts, 73, 194-202.

Fairbanks, A. M. (2013). Districts see value in ensuring home-school connections.

Education Week, 32(25), 12-15.

Falter Thomas, A. (2014). An action research study involving motivating middle school

students' learning through online literature circles. Journal of Ethnographic &

Qualitative Research, 9(1), 44-54.

Ferguson, L., & Kern, D. (2012). Re-visioning literature circles: Incorporating

comprehension strategy instruction in student-led discussions. New England

Reading Association Journal, 47(2), 23-30.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Rothenberg, C. (2008). Content area conversations: How to plan

discussion-based lessons for diverse language learners. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Fitzmaurice, J. (2009). Writing, reading, and asynchronous spontaneity in the online

teaching of Shakespeare. In I. Lancashire (Ed.), Teaching literature and

 162

language online (p. 268). New York, NY: The Modern Language Association of

America.

Fountas , I. C., & Pinnell, G.S. (2006). Teaching for comprehending and fluency:

Thinking, talking, and writing about reading, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fredrick, K. (2015). BYOD and 1:1--Living the mobile life. School Library

Monthly, 31(5), 24-26.

Gambrell, L. B. (2011). Seven rules of engagement: What's most important to know

about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 172-178.

doi:10.1002/TRTR.01024

Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education:

Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Georgia Standards of Excellence. (2015). Georgia standards. Retrieved from

https://www.georgiastandards.org/Common-Core/Pages/default.aspx Accessed 1

June 2015.

Gillani, B. B. (2003). Learning theories and the design of E-learning environments. New

York, NY: University Press of America.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2012). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

Gredler, M. E. (2009). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (6th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Grisham, D. L., & Wolsey, T. D. (2006). Recentering the middle school classroom as a

vibrant learning community: Students, literacy, and technology intersect. Journal

of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49, 648–660.

 163

Grossman, K. M. (2009). Creating e-learning communities in language and literature

classes. In I. Lancashire (Ed.), Teaching literature and language online (p. 333).

New York, NY: The Modern Language Association of America.

Harrington, H. L. (1993). The essence of technology and the education of teachers.

Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 5-15. doi:10.1177/0022487193044001003

Harvey, S., & Daniels, H. (2009). Comprehension and collaboration: Inquiry circles in

action. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Herbert, M. 2008. Staying the course: A study in online student satisfaction and retention.

Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(4). Retrieved from

http://www.westga.edu/ ~distance/ojdla/winter94/herbert94.htm

Hill, B. C. (1995). Literature circles: Assessment and evaluation. In B. C. Hill, N. J.

Johnson, & K. L. Schlick Noe (Eds.), Literature circles and response (pp. 167-

198). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Hill, B. C., Johnson, N. J., & Schlick Noe, K. L. (1995). Literature circles and response.

Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Publishers.

Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology

education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47-63.

Horstmanshof, L., & Brownie, S. (2013). A scaffolded approach to discussion board use

for formative assessment of academic writing skills. Assessment & Evaluation in

Higher Education, 38(1), 61-73. doi:10.1080/02602938.2011.604121

Hower, A., & Whitford, T. (2015). To BYOD or not to BYOD? Reading Today, 32(4),

16-17.
 164

Hyler, J. & Hicks, T. (2014). Create, compose, connect! Reading, writing, and learning

with digital tools. New York: Routledge.

IRA/NCTE. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE: International

Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1994). Cooperative learning in the classroom.

Edina, MN: Interaction.

Johnson, H., Freedman, L, Thomas, K., & Crawford, K. (2006, November). Actions that

create, actions that destroy: Middle school students’ thoughts on reading self-

efficacy and in-school practices. Paper presented at the 56th annual meeting of

the National Reading Conference, Los Angeles.

Kasten, W., & Wilfong, L. (2007). Encouraging independent reading. International

Journal of Learning, 13(10), 1-8.

Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). The mosaic of thought. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Kist, W. (2010). The socially networked classroom: Teaching in the new media age.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Klages, C., Pate, S., & Conforti, P. A. (2007). Virtual literature circles. Curriculum &

Teaching Dialogue, 9, 293-309.

Klages, M. (2012). Key terms in literary theory. London: Continuum International Pub.

Knowlton, D., & Knowlton, H. (2001). The context and content of online discussions:

Making cyber-discussions viable for the secondary school curriculum. American

Secondary Education, 29(4), 38-52.

 165

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research

interviewing. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Langer, J. A. (2000). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read

and write well. CELA Research Report Number 12014. National Research Center

on English Learning & Achievement. Retrieved from

http://www.albany.edu/cela/reports/langer/langerbeating12014.pdf Accessed 1 June

2015.

Larson, L. C. (2009). Reader response meets new literacies: Empowering readers in

online learning communities. The Reading Teacher, 62, 638-648.

Laskin, D., & Hughes, H. (1995). The reading group book. New York: Penguin.

Lewis, D., & Allan, B. (2005). Virtual learning communities: A guide for practitioners.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Li, Q. (2008). Knowledge building in an online environment: A design-based research

study. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37, 195-216.

Limburg, F., & Clark, C. (2006). Diversity initiatives in higher education: Teaching

multicultural education online. Multicultural Education, 13(3), 49-55.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lloyd, R. (2006). Talking books: Gender and the responses of adolescents in literature

circles. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(3), 30-58.

Marchiando, K. (2013). Creating lifelong readers: Student ownership and peer

interaction in literature circles. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 41(3), 13-21.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. 4th ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 166

Martin, A. (2008). Digital literacy and the “digital society.” In C. Lankshear & M.

Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 151-176).

New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and

higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65..

Miller, S. M. (2003). How literature discussion shapes thinking: ZPD’s for

teaching/learning habits of the heart and mind. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V.S.

Ageyev, S.M. Miller (Eds.) Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context

(pp. 289-316). New York: Cambridge UP.

Monachino, S. (2003). In what ways does differentiating reading instruction by interest,

through the use of literature circles, affect my reluctant readers? (Master’s

thesis). Retrieved from OAIster.

Monson, D. (1995). Choosing books for literature circles. In B. C. Hill, N. J. Johnson, &

K. L. Schlick Noe (Eds.), Literature circles and response (pp. 113-130).

Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Moreillon, J., Hunt, J., & Ewing, S. (2009). Learning and teaching in WANDA wiki

wonderland: Literature circles in the digital commons. Teacher Librarian, 37(2),

23-28.

Myers, J. (2014). Digital conversations: Taking reader response into the 21st

century. English in Texas, 44(1), 59-65.

 167

National Endowment for the Arts (Nov. 2007). To read or not to read: A question of

national consequence. Research Report #47. Washington, DC. Retrieved from

http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/ToRead.pdf Accessed 28 May 2015.

The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies. (2013, Feb.). National Council of

Teachers of English. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/

21stcentdefinition Accessed 16 Nov. 2013.

New literacies and 21st century technologies. (2009, May). International Literacy

Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/General/AboutIRA/

PositionStatements/21stCenturyLiteracies.aspx Accessed 16 Nov. 2013.

Newmann, F., Bryck, A., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and

standardized tests: Conflict co-existence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago

Schools Research.

Nichols, M. (2006). Comprehension through conversation: The power of purposeful talk

in the reading workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Norwick, L. F. (1995). Deepening response through the arts. In B. C. Hill, N. J. Johnson,

& K. L. Schlick Noe (Eds.), Literature circles and response (pp. 131-152).

Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Oakes, P. B. (1998). Virtual learning communities on campus. Delta Kappa Gamma

Bulletin, 64(2), 37.

O’Toole, J. M., & Absalom, D. J. (2003). The impact of blended learning on student

outcomes: Is there room on the house for two? Journal of Educational Media,

28(2-3), 179–190. doi:10.1080/1358165032000165680

Owens, S. (1995). Treasures in the attic: Building the foundation for literature circles. In
 168

B.C. Hill, N. J. Johnson, & K. L. Schlick Noe (Eds.), Literature circles and

response (pp. 1-12). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Ozman, H. A., & Craver, S. M. (2008). Philosophical foundations of education. 8th ed.

Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Platform. (2015). Techopedia. Retrieved from http://www.techopedia.com/definition/

3411/platform

Probst, R. E. (2004). Response & analysis: Teaching literature in secondary schools (2nd

ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rainey, L. (2013). The link between fluency and comprehension: Considering the whole

reader. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 41(4), 9-15.

Redman, P. (1995). Finding a balance: Literature circles and “teaching reading.” In

B.C. Hill, N. J. Johnson, & K. L. Schlick Noe (Eds.), Literature circles and

response (pp. 55-69). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Richardson, W. (2010). Blogs, wikis, and podcasts, and other powerful web tools for

classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rogers, P. P., Graham, C., & Mayes, C. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional

design: Exploration research into the delivery of online instruction cross-

culturally. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55, 197-217.

doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9033-x

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1983). Literature as exploration. 4th ed. New York, NY: Modern

Language Association.
 169

Samway, K. D., & Whang, G. (1996). Literature study circles in a multicultural

classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Sanden, S. (2012). Independent reading: Perspectives and practices of highly effective

teachers. The Reading Teacher, 66(3), 222-231. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01120

Scharber, C. (2009). Online book clubs: Bridges between old and new literacies

practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 433-437.

Schmuck, R., & Schmuck, P. (2000). Group processes in the classroom. 8th ed.

Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

Sebesta, S. (1995). Goals and assessment: How they go in circles. In B. C. Hill, N. J.

Johnson, & K. L. Schlick Noe (Eds.), Literature circles and response (pp. 199-

210). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Short, K. G. (1995). Foreword. In B. C. Hill, N. J. Johnson, & K. L. Schlick Noe (Eds.),

Literature circles and response (pp. ix-xii). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon

Publishers.

Simpson, A. (2010). Integrating technology with literacy: Using teacher-guided

collaborative online learning to encourage critical thinking. ALT-J: Research in

Learning Technology, 18(2), 119-131.

Stewart, P. (2009). Facebook and virtual literature circle partnership in building a

community of readers. Knowledge Quest, 37(4), 28-33.

Stien, D., & Beed, P. L. (2004). Bridging the gap between fiction and nonfiction in the

literature circle setting. The Reading Teacher, 57, 510-518.

 170

Tao, L., & Reinking, D. (1996, Oct. 31-Nov. 3). What research reveals about

email in education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the College Reading

Association, Charleston, SC. (ERIC ED 408 572)

Taylor, C. (2012). Engaging the struggling reader: Focusing on reading and success

across the content areas. National Teacher Education Journal, 5(2), 51-58.

Thomas, M., & Hofmeister, D. (2002). Assessing the effectiveness of technology

integration: Message boards for strengthening literacy. Computers and Education

38, 233-240.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Strickland, C. A. (2005). Differentiation in practice: A resource

guide for differentiating curriculum, grades 9-12. Alexandria, VA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

Processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, (Eds. &

Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Whittingham, J. (2013). Literature circles: A perfect match for online instruction.

Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 57(4), 53-58.

doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0678-5

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA:

ASCD.

Wilhelm, J. (2013). Understanding reading comprehension. Scholastic. Retrieved from

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/understanding-reading-comprehension

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.
 171

Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2005). Levinas and the inter-face: The ethical challenge

of online education. Educational Theory, 55(1), 61-78.

Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2007). Listening for silence in text-based, online

encounters. Distance Education, 28(1), 5-24. doi:10.1080/01587910701305285

Zemelman, S., & Daniels, H. (1988). A community of writers: Teaching writing in the

junior and senior high school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for

teaching and learning in America’s schools. 2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.
 172

Appendix A

Common Core Georgia Performance Standards

173
174
175
 176

(“English Language Arts,” 2013)

 177

Appendix B

Letter to GCTE and/or NCTE Seeking Permission to Contact Members

Dear ____,

My name is Melissa Bridges, and I am developing a research proposal for my doctoral

dissertation at Piedmont College entitled “Virtual Literature Circles: An Exploration of
Teacher Strategies for Implementation.” I am requesting your permission to invite
members of your association to participate in my study by completing an online survey.
Please find attached a copy of the survey that I plan to use for my research.

I am not requesting email addresses, phone numbers, mailing addresses or any personally
identifying information about the members of the association. Instead, I would like you to
email my letter of invitation to complete the online survey, on my behalf, to all of the
members of your association. The study participant’s identification will be completely
anonymous unless he or she chooses to provide identifiable information to continue with
further research.

I am not asking you to send the letter of invitation at this time. I must first obtain official
approvals from your organization. The intent of this email is to request your permission
to invite members of your association to complete my survey. Once I have all of the
appropriate permission letters, then I will forward to you the actual letter of invitation and
ask you to email the letter on my behalf at that time.

If you are not the person in charge of approving this type of request, I would very much
appreciate if you would forward the name and contact information of the person with
whom I should communicate. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you
by phone if that would be helpful. In addition, I would be happy to provide any further
information you may require in order to make a decision.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Melissa J. Bridges

mbridges1219@lions.piedmont.edu
 178

Appendix C

Letter of Invitation and Initial Questionnaire

Date:

Dear GCTE/NCTE member and fellow educator:

My name is Melissa Bridges, and I am writing to invite you to engage in a study that explores
how teachers using virtual or online literature circles use strategies to support student learning. I
am conducting this study as a doctoral student in the Department of Education at Piedmont
College, under the direction of Dr. Kenyon Brown.

The purpose of my study is to identify strategies that teachers are using when utilizing a virtual
environment for literature circles. In so doing, I hope to assist other teachers who might want to
incorporate virtual literature circles into their curriculum in hopes of not only engaging students
through technology but also in meeting standards regarding the new literacies.

If you are currently using virtual literature circles, I would greatly appreciate your contributions
to this study. The first step is to complete the online questionnaire (see link below) so that I can
determine how teachers are using virtual literature circles and to determine if you would be
interested in participating further. Specifically, you will be asked to identify how long you have
used virtual literature circles, grade levels and subjects taught, student ability levels, any training
you have received in using virtual literature circles, and to describe your use and perceptions of
virtual literature circles. The survey should take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete.

Should you decide to complete the questionnaire, your comments will be completely confidential
and all data will be stored in a password protected electronic format. Only if you agree to
participate further will you need to provide contact information. In that event, you will not be
identified by name in the published findings or in oral presentations, unless you choose to have
your name revealed. After the research is complete, I will share the results with you. The results
of the study will be used for scholarly purposes only.

If you do agree to participate further, I will contact you by July 2014 to set up initial interviews.

By clicking on the link below you acknowledge that you are at least 18 years of age, have read
this information, and agree to participate in this research. You are free to withdraw your
participation at any time without penalty. If you have any questions, feel free to contact via email
at mbridges1219@lions.piedmont.edu. If you have any ethical concerns about this survey please
contact: Ron Leslie, IRB Chair, Piedmont College rleslie@piedmont.edu. Thank you for your
participation.

Sincerely,

Melissa J. Bridges
Doctoral Candidate
College of Education
Piedmont College
A link to the questionnaire will be provided. Questionnaire follows:
 179

1. How long have you been using virtual literature circles?

2. Please identify the grade level of students you teach.
3. If applicable, what specific subjects do you teach?
4. Please identify if you teach the following:
a. Gifted
b. Special education
c. Regular education
5. Have you had any training in virtual literature circles? If so, what kind?
6. How do you structure your virtual literature circles? Please include how many
students are allowed in a group, what platform you use, and how long a literature
circle cycle lasts, along with any other information you deem relevant.
7. Please provide a brief explanation of your perceptions of the benefits and/or
challenges you face, if any, in incorporating virtual literature circles into your
classes.
8. If you would consider participating in further research, please provide your
contact information below. All participant information will be held strictly
confidential, and you will not be identified by name in any published findings or
oral presentations, unless you choose to have your name revealed.
Name:__________________________________________________
Email address: ___________________________________________
School where you teach: ___________________________________
 180

Appendix D

Informed Consent

Piedmont College
School of Education
Informed Consent

Title: Virtual Literature Circles: An Exploration of Teacher Strategies for Implementation

Principal Investigator: Melissa Bridges

I. Purpose:
You are invited to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study is to
determine the strategies that teachers use when implementing virtual literature circles,
as well as to uncover any challenges a virtual environment poses. Thus, a goal of the
research is to assist ELA teachers who wish to integrate technology into their
literature circles by providing them with clear direction in how to proceed to ensure
that student learning is supported. You are invited to participate because you are an
educator who responded to my initial questionnaire about your use of virtual literature
circles, and you indicated an interest in participating in further research. Participation
will require an initial interview session of approximately 45-60 minutes, a second 45-
60 minute interview, potential observations of your classes using virtual literature
circles if in-class activity occurs, copies of your teacher-made documents, and a third
interview of 45-60 minutes if you are selected for an observation.

I. Procedures:
If you agree to participate, you will be interviewed at least two times for a period of
45-60 minutes on each occasion. The interviews will be conducted either via Skype or
on site at your school or at a place convenient to you. I will conduct all of the
interviews, and they will be audio taped.

Additionally, if you conduct activities in class that would be advantageous to

observe for the purposes of the study, I will observe your class for the period related
to your virtual literature circle activity. I will videotape the classes.

Also, copies of any teacher made forms, rubrics, assignment sheets, etc. that help
clarify your virtual literature circle process will be needed.

A third 45-60 minute interview will occur if you are selected for an observation.

II. Risks:
During this study, you will not face any greater risk than you would in a normal day
of life and teaching. If you discuss or reveal something in an interview that you later
determine is a personal issue that should not be included in the data, you will have the
option to remove it from the study at any time.
 181

III. Benefits:
Participation in this study may benefit you personally, but will certainly benefit other
language arts teachers who wish to utilize virtual literature circles in their classes and
are seeking ways to integrate them. Not only may you experience professional growth
by reflecting on your practice, your students may reap the benefits of the knowledge
and strategies gained from the study.

IV. Voluntary Participation and Withdrawal:

Participation in this research is strictly voluntary. You do not have to be in this study.
If you decide to participate in this study and change your mind, you have the right to
drop out at any time. Whatever you decide, you will not lose any benefits to which
you are otherwise entitled.

V. Confidentiality
I will keep your records private to the extent allowed by law. I will use a pseudonym
rather than your name on study records. Only the Primary Investigator will have
access to the information which you provide. It will be stored on the researcher’s
personal computer and will be under password protection. The audio and video
recordings, data transcriptions, and copies of your teacher-made documents will be
kept in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s home when not in use for the study.
The recordings will be destroyed after January 1, 2018 but no later than January 31,
2018. Your name and other facts that might identify you will not appear when I
present this study or publish its findings.

VI. Contact Persons:

Contact Melissa Bridges at mbridges1219@lions.piedmont.edu if you have any
questions about this study. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a
participant in this research study, you may contact Ron Leslie, IRB Chair, Piedmont
College at rleslie@piedmont.edu.

VII. Copy of Consent Form to Subject

I will give you a copy of this consent form to keep. If you are willing to volunteer for
this research and be audio and video recorded, please sign below.

Printed Participant Name Participant Signature Date

 182

Appendix E

Semi-structured Interview Questions

1. Please provide your name, years of teaching, and highest degree obtained, and

describe the type of school at which you work.

2. Share with me why you decided to incorporate virtual literature circles into your

classes.

3. In your use of virtual literature circles, what outcomes from the students were you

expecting to see that relate to instructional goals and/or standards?

4. What outcomes did you see in evidence with the virtual literature circles?

5. Please explain your process and strategies for using virtual literature circles.

6. What benefits, if any, did you perceive in your use of virtual literature circles?

7. What challenges, if any, have you experienced in your use of virtual literature

circles, and how did you overcome them?

8. What worked well in your process for using virtual literature circles?

9. What will you do differently, if anything, this year in your use of virtual literature

circles?

10. Please provide me with any copies of assignments and/or other teacher-made

documents related to your use of virtual literature circles.

 183

Appendix F

Code Samples

Code Sample: Outcomes

Text Code Category

“They incorporated graded Outcomes Writing
student writing”
“So they were looking for Outcomes Critical thinking
that critical thought”
“One of really paying Outcomes Metacognition
attention to your own
process and how you make
sense of your own reading”
“I wanted to make sure Outcomes Text references/specificity
they were referencing the
text”
“Their writing became Outcomes Writing
much more specific”
“It greatly increased my Outcomes Writing
students’ understanding of
that more appropriate
writing aspect.”

Code Sample: Challenges

Text Code Category

“With a class of 32 and Challenges Time
you’ve got four different
threaded discussions going”
“It goes back to that Challenges Access
socioeconomic issue, the
demographics”
“They see it as just another Challenges Apathy
hoop to jump through.”
“A lot of our kids don’t have Challenges Access
technology access at home.”
“It’s so much work! Challenges Time
Saturday mornings I’m
reading things, and Sunday
night late I’m reading
things…”
“And there’s got to be an Challenge Apathy
aspect of self-motivation”
 184

Appendix G

Interview with “Will,” High School Educator

Researcher (R): You used to be a high school English teacher?

Will Snyder (WS): That’s correct…

R: Can you tell me how many years you’ve been in education?

WS: I’ve been in education for 11 years. Demographics

R:How many as an English teacher?

WS: Eight. Demographics

R: And what’s your highest degree obtained?

WS: I have a Specialists degree. Demographics

R: Were you always high school or middle school also?

WS: I was always a high school English teacher, and of course I’m an AP at the middle

school level. Demographics

R: Can you share with me why you decided to incorporate virtual literature circles into

your classes when you used them?

WS: Um. Because that’s the way the student is now. I found even in my short time in the

classroom, just the 8 years, if you want to get the student, if you want to grasp the

student, you gotta meet them on the terms they understand. The technology, just to be

honest, they understand it better than we do. You see that interest with them by the
 185

content, the information you get to gather I think you need a middle ground with them.

Benefits—Engaging So, I found it near impossible for them to give up; I had to have it.

R: Okay. Did you also use face-to-face literature circles?

WS: We did. We used face to face literature circles when appropriate PROCESS. I found

at a high school level. We were so… for the most part I taught seniors. Taught a few

years 9th grade and 10th grade, one year 11th grade, but mostly I was seniors.

Demographics I found my seniors, because it’s a research driven standards at that point,

because this was before CCGPS rolled through; the literature circles face to face became

more difficult. What I found was that the virtual side, I could still work through larger

texts with them, in the virtual aspect of things, so we could do the work we needed done

in class, Benefits—more work, time you know we met face to face every so often

literature circle wise, but it was more of a virtual thing for us, with the seniors.

R: Okay. So can you tell me about the way you worked the process, like from the

beginning of the school year, however you started it, how did it look for them?

WS: It was great for me, because I cheated! I had such fantastic teachers at the 9th grade

level, the 10th grade level, the 11th grade level, (3:55) that were already working that

process. So it was really just a matter of them learning me. So they already knew how to

do it well. The stuff that I, my changes to it were so minimal for them, the introduction of

it. It was basically novel driven, this is the novel we are working on the next 6 weeks; this

is how we’re going to work through it, um questions and answer sessions with them

online, um and then we began working together …online stuff like that. But really, in
 186

terms of training and presenting to them, there was nothing done on my part. My

colleagues all did the legwork for me. PROCESS

R: Okay. What platform were you using? (4:30)

WS: That’s a really good question. And I apologize, I cannot recall, but I will find out for

you.

R: That’s okay. There are so many different ones now, you can almost pick and choose.

WS: It was almost like I don’t want to say it was Blackboard, but it was very much like

Blackboard.

R: Okay. So it had a discussion board. Platform used Was it kind of like Facebook

maybe, with the chat functions or?

WS: Yes, and I was the one that created the actual segment that we discussed about. And

then they could talk through the thread. I would be able to go through the thread and look

at the threads and could make little subgroups. I could assign Group A and put four of

them together and give them a certain statement I wanted them to work on together in

that portion PROCESS. So yeah, it was like that, very threaded though.

R: Okay. So were you studying the novels, like one novel per the whole class, or was it

choice driven like Harvey Daniels’ literature circle model?

WS: Um no, we had very specific at the time, based on the county’s needs and desires for

seniors. So we had, um, a small selection of novels to choose from; they were all within

the realm of the literature of the Victorian era. They were era driven. There was a very

specific list of novels they could select from. CHOICES/Student driven If I had a
 187

student that really had a desire to read something outside I would let them; I would work

with them on the virtual side of it. Um. (6:02) but the list was not as grandiose as I would

have liked it to have been.

R: But there were different novels going on at the same time? PROCESS

WS: Yes. Very much so.

R: So did you guide the discussion with questions? Or how did that work?

WS: I found for me, what I would do, is we had typically were 4 threaded discussions.

The first two were basically me driving it, and them supporting through it, and then by

the time we got to three or four, they were beginning to develop their own ideas, their

own questions. So basically m y third and fourth would be more of an open-ended, “how

do you feel?” Tell me why this, tell me why that. I would really let them drive the

discussion. PROCESS-Teacher to student driven

And that’s kinda how it worked for all four. We had four total sessions every four and a

half to six weeks of the discussion. PROCESS

R: Okay, so four total sessions every 4 and a half to six weeks. So does that mean you

read 4 different books, is that what you’re saying?

WS: Yeah.. We read 4 different books. PROCESS, number of books read

R: Wow. That’s a lot.

WS. Well, the last one, because our class was considered what we called our “classic

novel research,” the first three was four and a half weeks, and the last one kind of
 188

doubled over with the third one because that week they began their senior research paper.

PROCESS—timing. It seems like a lot, but the way we were working it, it wasn’t

overwhelming. You gotta remember too that a lot of the classic novels that we were

looking at were not War and Peace. It definitely wasn’t Tolstoy. It was smaller pieces. It

was War of the Worlds. You know, very small, 100 pages, really wasn’t overwhelming.

R: So did they have to do an end project, or was it just the discussion piece?

WS: It was just discussion PROCESS because when we got to the 4th novel itself, their

research project also had another project portion attached to it, so it wasn’t just the

research itself; they also had to make a presentation about it, so when they got to the

presentation portion, they could work with others that had the same novel. The research

project was individually driven.

R: Did the students who were in different classes get to group together, or did you keep it

within a class?

WS: Um, no, we had it across classes. PROCESS

R: Okay. That’s cool. What were your outcomes that you were expecting to see that

related to instructional goals or standards (8:25)?

WS: Um, I found that a lot of times for me, I’m such a hard learner, I’m so thick headed,

it was very difficult for me to understand when a student could not access or work

through the virtual side of things. Because they are so fluent at it. So my expectations

were that everybody was gonna be fluent at it. But we still have some who aren’t. That

was difficult for me. CHALLENGE—technology use/Apathy My expectations of that

 189

end, weren’t…as often as they needed to be...because that was personal. That was a

personal issue that I needed to deal with myself and kind of get over myself on that.

R: So it wasn’t necessarily so much their technology access as their inability to overcome

little things with it?

WS: That and the lack of real cultural motivation CHALLENGE--Apathy to be honest

with you. Those students with that certain set of cultural groups that don’t value that side

of things. What worked for me very well too to kind of get over that, is fortunately my

wife is the county manager of the library system. So when I had students that didn’t have

access to that, they typically were in that neighborhood that was close to my wife’s

library. So we had computers that were set up for them, specifically for my students for

sake of time, that my wife would have set up so they could come in and work. So that’s

kind of how I tried to bridge that gap. But it was difficult for some. CHALLENGE—

Overcoming through access

R: Right. I know I expect mine to be very technologically savvy, and when they are not,

it’s very strange.

WS: Yeah, it’s shocking!

R: I’m older than them; they should know as much or more than I do!

WS: Yeah, they blow my mind! These middle school kids I’m working with now, I’m

like how did you do that?

R: I know; they are pretty impressive!

WS: The ones that come in and know nothing, and I’m shocked at how they don’t!
 190

R: I know. Let’s see. Did you, and I know you weren’t under Common Core then, but

whatever standards you had, were you looking for certain things, like literary devices or

other things like that that they needed to address in their discussions?

WS: Yes, and since we were still CCGPS at the time, not CCGPS, it was just GPS at the

time, there were still very specific standards that cover the segment like that

STANDARDS And so, that was presented in the discussion threads themselves when

you are writing, very specific use of this and that, OUTCOMES--Writing We worked

through that in class; it was more of a class-driven thing; it’s embedded into the

discussions themselves. PROCESS—Standards Embedded So it was introduced in that

fashion.

R: Okay. Can you give me an example? I know it’s been a while since you’ve been in

there, but like just with any novel, what they might be asked to do with their first

question?

WS: Um, well, War of the Worlds, one of my favorite novels, when we were working

through that, the Iraq War was still and still is very much happening. So I would pose the

question, PROCESS—Teacher driven question. of if this kind of thing is happening on

the other side of the world, of course it’s not an alien, but you’re having displaced

families, you’re having displaced towns, you’re having family members that are

unfortunately lost because of an invading country, how would you deal, tell me how

would your feelings be towards another group of people who wanted to assist you, which

is very much parallel to what goes on in War of the Worlds in terms of the inner fighting

and how would you deal with that? How can you compare that in terms of what’s going
 191

on across the world? I tried my best to pair it with the current events working in social

studies or their history class at the time. OUTCOMES--Connections

R: Okay. So very interdisciplinary?

WS: Yes. I love the interdisciplinary! BENEFITS--Connections

R: Me too! It makes it so much better. (11:58)

WS: You can’t hesitate. It seems like today’s student, and I was like that 20 years ago,

but I can’t be taught English in an English class, I can be taught English really well in a

social studies class. But you have to bring that in. BENEFITS--Connections

R: So what outcomes did you see in your students with the use of the virtual literature

circles? (12:20)

WS: Overall I saw great outcomes. I saw improved writing, and I found that their writing

became much more specific and much more I hate to say it, but they answered the

question far better, because you had to take the emotional aspect out of it. You can’t

communicate with someone in that threaded environment and use sarcasm this that and

the other, because it might not work. So they had to be very specific in how they wrote,

and they had to be very appropriate in how they approached it; it really had to be almost

written like a research paper, because you had to convey your information in a manner in

which the reader understood it. I found that really over the years, because I didn’t do it

the first two years, it greatly increased my students’ understanding of that more

appropriate writing aspect. BENEFITS—Writing and Specificity

 192

R: Do you think that the authentic audience helped to, that there are other people besides

you reading it?

WS: Very much so. You get that different perspective, get different ideas, which creates

much better discussion and deeper threads. BENEFITS—Peer interaction, diverse

perspectives

R: Okay, overall, and this kind of ties in with benefits, but are there any other benefits

that you perceived in the use of virtual literature? I have the writing and the specificity,

and their understanding of audience and perspective.

WS: Well, it freed me up in the classroom. BENEFIT--Time I didn’t have to work

through a lot of things more so in the classroom because of working virtually on things

like that, so I had more time in the classroom, digging deeper into things that we weren’t

working well on, or to present, to show other things that they enjoyed more, that still

were standards-driven and still moved us along. It just frees me up as an instructor, when

I can do it like that, so when I have my face to face time with them, I can really work

with them. BENEFIT--Time

R: Right. So you weren’t necessarily having the face to face meetings with them anymore

at this point for the lit circles?

WS: No, I mean we still did the face to face stuff rarely, I still think it’s imperative that

you do that; you still need to be face to face. FACE-TO-FACE COMPONENT But I

not would really strive to make time in class for us to have that available. I really wasn’t

wanting to make time in my class for the face to face. Because it freed me up and I really

lean more heavily on the virtual side of things. BENEFITS--Time

 193

R: Okay. In contrast, what challenges, if any, did you perceive in their use?

WS: Well, it goes back to that socioeconomic issue, the demographics. CHALLENGES-

-Apathy Access to technology. CHALLENGE—Access And there’s gotta be an aspect

of self-motivation when you go that route, because a lot of it was done outside of class.

So you gotta have self- motivation, you gotta have the drive to want to do it. So finding

ways to overcome that, for lack of a better term, apathy, CHALLENGE--Apathy I think

the students participate in that type of learning.

R: How did you overcome their apathy, or lack of participation?

WS: I, well, they’re seniors. I used to always give the speech, I really hate to think that

we’ll have to call your grandma the day before graduation and ask for that check back.

Silly stuff like that you’d be surprised. OVERCOMING APATHY And really showing

how interested I was and that I wanted to be a part of it and really engaging.

OVERCOMING APATHY--Promotion Even if they only wrote one or two words on

there, I made sure, I tried my best to respond to it.

R: So you responded to each comment?

WS: Uh, 90% of them. IMPORTANCE OF FEEDBACK

R: Okay, yeah, that’s the hard part, I think, of doing this.

WS: It is. And it’s hard to keep track of who you’re responding to, and how you’re

driving that certain discussion. CHALLENGE—Organization

R: Right. So that might be a challenge too?

 194

WS: Yep. Oh yeah, with a class of 32 and you’ve got four different threaded discussions

going on, (16:17) yeah! Four different books! CHALLENGE--Organization

R: Yeah, I’ve found that too. Did you develop any kind of system to deal with that?

WS: Um, no, I just sat at my table at home with coffee and went to work.

R: Right.

WS: I guess I needed to be a little bit more organized to a point. CHALLENGE--

Organization

R: I think it’s hard, but once you get a system in place, it works. I created a checklist.

WS: I should have done it. Many nights I’d be up at 2 in the morning reading threads.

CHALLENGE--Time

R: Yeah, I know what you mean. As far as those who were not so good about turning

them in, did you give class time (16:55) or did you have extra time outside of school for

them to access, at your school instead of the library…

WS: Oh, yeah. Yeah, and I was always at school about an hour early and stayed a little

late, and I also ran a program called “SOS” which was Seniors on Saturdays, and they

could come in on Saturdays into the library between the hours of 8 and noon, and I’d be

in there, they’d come, and I’d just work on my work, the program I made for, not just my

kids but all the kids to work on. OVERCOMING CHALLENGE—Access

opportunities
 195

R: So if you had to say the thing that worked the best in your process, what would you

say that would be? (17:30)

WS: The process of the virtual learners?

R: Yeah, what was the best thing about it in terms of what you did that was great?

WS: One thing…specific conversations with students, in terms of their threading,

something I wouldn’t be able to get to in class, each student by responding to them,

showing them that you’re listening to them or talking to them in a relevant manner for

their work, I found that that helped me kind of encourage them to continue to have

interest in what we were studying. So you know the idea that you are virtual, you’re not

in front of them, still made it more personal than if I was actually talking to them.

BENEFITS—Collaboration/conversation/deepened relationships

R: And that’s an interesting perspective, because a lot of the research says that they think

it would take away that relationship, but what you’re saying sounds like the opposite.

(18:17) that you were able to create more relationships through the individual

commentary. BENEFIT--Relationships

WS: Well, if you’re doing it the right way, and you’re really talking to them and reading

it and you’re understanding what they’re saying and you’re responding in a way that’s

relevant to them, and when they come in the next day, if they read it, they’re going to ask

you a question about it. And they’re going to talk to you about it. And it’s going to

prompt far more conversations in class than if you didn’t care about it, than if you just

read it and didn’t go into it. If you have any student threaded conversations, and you say,

“I’m going to read it,” That doesn’t do anything. If you read the conversation and you
 196

respond to it, you’re engaged with it, they see you’re engaged with it, that opens up a

whole other level of communication with them, more so in the way they want to

communicate. BENEFITS--Collaboration My son, all he does is text. All he does is talk

on Facebook, so that’s that was a way for me to get to some of those kids. They didn’t

talk in class, but man, they could write me a great response online. BENEFITS—

Collaboration/Shy students participate

R: Okay, I know you aren’t teaching it now, but if you had to go back and teach again,

and you were going to use this, what do you think you would change to make it better?

WS: I would find a different system. CHALLENGE—Platform You know when we

were doing it, and I wish I could remember the name; I’m sorry I’m struggling with that.

I would like to have had where they could build their own profile, this is their profile, this

is what they’re reading, this is where they’re at, this is the question that they have,

CHALLENGE—Platform issues and they could send it to me separate so that nobody

sees it CHALLENGE—Privacy . I’d like to have a more student centered delivery

model. CHALLENGE--Platform

R: Okay. Does the Canvas platform that your school uses offer that do you think?

WS: Yes. It does. The Canvas is great. They get into it, and really understand it, you can

do so much with it. I love watching my teachers use Canvas. It’s awesome…

R: Is there anything you would add that you think I should know?

WS: Not really…

 197

Appendix H

Questionnaire Respondent Demographic Information

Respondent Grade Levels Time Used Training Platform Used

#1 “Carly” 11/12 1 year None Edmodo
#2 “Becky” 7-12 12 years None Moodle
Facebook
#3 “Ann” 10/12 1 year? None MyBigCampus
#4 “Maria” 4-7 5 years None Moodle
#5 “Stacy” 6 2 months Participated in
college
#6 “Landon” 7 5 years None PBWorks
Wiki
Edublogs
#7 “Wendy” College 8 years Had trained Desire to Learn
juniors/seniors using the
platform before
#8 “Charla” Librarian 2 years None Wiki
#9 “Autumn” 9 1 year Used in college Edmodo
classes
#10 9-12 Not used None
#11 “Matt” 3 6 months None Edmodo
#12 “Derek” 9-12, now an 4 years None Wiki
instructional Google Docs
coach
#13 “Theresa” 8th grade 1 year None Adobe Connect
#14 “Mark” University level 15+ years Self-taught Desire2Learn
#15 Didn’t use
#16 “Cara” 7th 4 months None Discussion
threads
#17 “Sara” 8th grade 8 months None GoogleDocs
#18 “Sully” 9, 12 1 year none Discussion
boards
#19 “Jamie” 3rd grade Not used None Edmodo
#20 “Cadi” 9, 12 2 years Little Did not provide
 198

Appendix I

Questionnaire Responses

Respondent Components of Perceived Perceived Other

Process Benefits Challenges
#1 “Carly” Once per week Students depth of n/a Used
response to teacher response; throughout
question; practice improved tech semester;
model, then construct use; improved students may
paragraph about text “listening” and or may not
tone using text responding; be in groups
evidence; respond to preparing
another post; discuss students for
in class constructed
response on GA
Milestones
#2 “Becky” 6-8 books, no limit Students read; Many posts to Canada;
on # in group; 4 improved read; problems taught to
week cycle; weekly reading and occur when a others
discussion post to writing; teacher in the throughout
teacher generated integrates group is not as BC
question or their own assessment; invested as the
thoughtful question student voice and others
choice; improved
collegiality
among
colleagues
#3 “Ann” 6 per group; 6 week Student
cycle; commitment
and
participation
#4 “Maria” 4 teachers’ classes; Student choice; Students often
each reads 2 books high engagement give shallow
and posts one in reading; answers;
question per week (8 informal
novels total); 10 language
week cycle 2-3 times instead of
per year formal
#5 “Stacy” Groups of 2-9; Helps those who Cannot mandate
students choose are absent from participation
novel after they are class; because not all
previewed can access
technology
#6 “Landon” 4-5 students per Learning online Technology
group in 3-4 week etiquette and glitches;
cycle; divide them how to maneuver superficial
among all 3 of her in an online posting; posting
ELA classes; day by space; expanded late; timing for
day posting of conversations discussions and
 199

questions and and exposure to readings

responses; allowed new ideas due to
time in class for other sections’
those without tech involvement;
access; meetings on
book every week and
a half
#7 “Wendy” Involves pairs of pre- Authentic Expensive and Mid-west
service teachers experience; Pre- complicated; university
working with HS service teachers time professor
students online and determine if consuming, thus
face to face through career is right for pre-empting
grant opportunity; 4 them; HS other
novels; teacher students get assignments;
posted prompts of cultural labor intensive;
dense questions collaboration and access to
focusing on text and learn respect for technology
text-to-life others; high
connections; all student
students are engagement; HS
responded to; 2 students college
rounds of posts for impetus; student
first 6 weeks; achievement
assignment follows improves
with teacher help;
they visit schools
then students come to
college campus
#8 “Charla” Voluntary groups; Cannot require Librarian
one month cycle participation
meeting weekly; because not a
classroom
teacher
#9 “Autumn” 3-4 students in 3-5 Access to
week cycle; 4 novel assignments out
choices with similar of class; worked
themes; virtual well in flipped
assignments and class time frame
responses creating more
class time
#10 Did not use Access to
technology
#11 “Matt” Students grouped by Teaching
readiness, then they students how to
chose from 2 or 3 use the tech;
books; teacher surface level
created tasks posted and off-task
for them to complete; comments
teacher checked work
daily and
 200

conferenced online
and in person with
groups
#12 “Derek” Traditional lit circle Rich
structure with roles; conversation;
teams organized transparency for
digitally; links to teacher since
resources provided he/she can see all
and a collaborative the notes
note-taking template;
students work with
others who have
same role; must
comment on at least
2 other people’s
posts; live class
discussion with
iPads; more at his
website
#13 “Theresa” Done via breakout Cannot tell if Teaches at a
rooms in Adobe students virtual
Connect; 4-6 actually read school
students; assign
specific jobs, then
they are released to
discuss and record
several questions
pertaining to the
short story they read
before the session;
20-25 minutes
#14 “Mark” 5 per circle; 50 Teachers learn Impressing the
minutes; students that they cannot seriousness with
choose from books and should not which he takes
on syllabus; task is to teach what they the online
observe their own don’t do. literature circles
process and
metacognitively
study themselves so
they can be models
for their students
#15 Did not use
#16 “Cara” Groups of 5 on Flexible; always Technology not
discussion threads; new experiences; reliable;
students provided student centered; instruction has
with student choice; to be altered as
rubrics/checklists/and peer a result.
generic guiding conversation;
questions before students feel and
process; expectations are independent;
 201

are discussed critical analysis

and reflection
#17 “Sara” Has 3 options; most Flexible; instant Late work;
recent uses teacher feedback; chance some students
generated questions to engage in and don’t have
to which students practice access, but not a
respond to 2 and a academic problem
peer conversation; because
more time for assignment can
shy students to become an
think and anchor activity
respond; good
practice for
comprehension
and analysis;
peer interaction;
chance for
differentiation
and addressing
standards;
#18 “Sully” 2 week discussion Students just Online
boards following school
procedure;
“going through
the motions”
#19 “Jamie” Does not use virtual
lit circles, only face
to face, but does have
a virtual component
after they have read
the book together;
groups of no more
than 6; 15-20
minutes
#20 “Cadi” Group discussion None given Cannot see Online
online; no other students’ facial school
details expressions;
organizing and
structuring the
interactions
 202

Appendix J

“Sara’s” Culminating Activity Menu

Performance Assessment for Literature Circles

As we near the end of our Literature Circles, it is time to contemplate and “concretize” the class
lessons we have had, and some of the Google Doc discussions you have had with your classmates. We will
do this in the form of a performance assessment, or project that you will post and share on your group’s
own Google Doc.

As you begin to formulate what you might like to do, use these questions to show your mastery of our
literature skills for the unit. Think about the following:
1. How can you embed the vocabulary we have learned in class into what you are doing?
2. How can you reflect on tone and mood as it applies to the author’s purpose?
3. How can you show that you can summarize objectively?
4. How will you support your opinions with relevant evidence?
5. How can you elucidate the theme of your novel using textual evidence?
6. **In what ways can you apply meaning to your understanding of theme?
7. **How can you analyze theme in such a way as to reflect upon community and/or
humanity?
8. **How can you tie in current events to your critical literacy analysis?
**Challenge questions (Higher Order Thinking)

Create a Prezi which Create a movie with your

summarizes all aspects of your group members about
experience with your novel as your novel. Embed
well as your roles and pictures, music, and other
discussions on Google Docs. resources to address 3-4 of
You must include pictures and the above questions.
commentary about your topics,
and post the link to your Google www.vimeo.com or
Doc. www.kizoa.com/Video-
www.prezi.com Slideshow-Maker
Wild Card!! Create a YouTube Video
Choose your own cool technology application Newscast about your novel,
and create your own project using the novel and bring your novel to life!
you have read and the questions posed above. Each member of your group
If you choose this box, you must get your idea
can be a news reporter
approved by your teacher by the end of class
Monday 9/22 covering three- four
questions listed above.
www.youtube.com
Create a website which recaps Write an essay in your own
your research. Divide your Google Doc to answer three –
topic into three-four big
categories and use those four of the questions above.
categories as your main topics. You must apply the analysis
Use the questions above to guide skills we have been using in
you. class in order to address
Google Sites or these questions. This essay
www.weebly.com
should be 5 paragraphs long.
 203

**** 5 Bonus points for addressing our essential questions in addition to other topic requirements: What
makes a community strong? What elements of a community are necessary? What is an individual’s role in
the community?

Your project (or the link) must be posted to your own Google Doc page. Please create a separate
page for this activity. Label it “Performance Assessment for Lit Circles.” Make sure you
associate your name with your link. You will be assessed based on the guiding questions at the
top of this handout and your creativity in producing a thought-provoking, engaging project. Since
this will be for an individual grade, if you choose an activity that involved group participation
(Newscast, Movie), please be sure to indicate who did what aspect of the presentation.

(Standards for media use: ELACC8W6)

Standards connections:
1. Vocabulary acquisition: ELACC8L4 & ELACC8L6
2. Mood, tone, and author’s purpose: ELACC8RL4
3. Summarize objectively: ELACC8RL2
4. Support your opinions with relevant evidence from literature: ELACC8RL1,
ELACC8W1, & ELACC8W9.
5. Theme and textual evidence from literature: ELACC8RL2, ELACC8RL1, & ELACC8W9.
6. **Higher Order Thinking – theme, meaning, and evidence
7. **Higher Order Thinking - theme, meaning, and evidence
8. **Higher order thinking – text connections and evidence

Google Doc Literature Circle Standards:

ELACC8RL1, ELACC8RL2, ELACC8RL3, ELACC8RL4, ELACC8RL10, ELACC8W1, ELACC8W6
In addition to the above assignment, each group must present a 5-7 minute “book talk” about the
book you have been reading and your collective experience in working together in literature circle
groups. You may be as creative as your imaginations will allow, and this will be for a group
grade.

Due Friday 9/12. (Standards for writing and presentations: ELACC8SL4, & ELACC8W4:)
 204

Appendix K

“Wendy’s” Program Chart