運用文學圈提升台灣英語系學生之英文閱讀理解與動機

全文

(1)國立屏東大學英語碩士班碩士論文 Department of English National Pingtung University of Education Master’s Thesis. 運用文學圈提升台灣英語系學生之英文閱讀理解與動機 Implementing Literature Circles to Enhance Taiwanese English Majors’ Reading Comprehension and Motivation. 指導教授: 楊昕昕博士 Advisor: Dr. Hsin-hsin Yang. 研究生: 陳頎 Graduate: Chen Chi. 中華民國 105 年 6 月 June 2016.

(2)

(3)

(4) 摘. 要. 本研究旨在探討運用文學圈(literature circles)於大學英語系課程對提升學生英語閱讀理解與閱讀動機之成效。此研究探討文學圈如何提升學生研究閱讀理解和閱讀動機，同時檢視學生在文學圈中所獲得的學習成效，最後瞭解學生對於本課程的意見與回饋。本研究採用(1) 英檢中高級試題題庫、(2) 閱讀動機問卷、(3) 學生意見回饋單、(4) 訪談最為研究施測工具，邀請屏東大學 19 位英語系學生參與為期 18 週的研究，最後將所得資料同時採用量化和質化分析，量化分析採用描述性統計、成對樣本 t 檢定進行資料分析；質化分析方面，將資料轉譯、擷取並依照其概念相關性統整成一個類別。經過 18 週之後，主要研究結果顯示，雖全民英檢閱讀理解測驗分數並未有顯著提升，但在訪談與問卷中顯示文學圈中討論與分享有仍助於提升學生的內在閱讀理解；在沒有壓力的文學圈中閱讀有助於提升學生閱讀動機，課堂中學生也會進行很多討論小活動，同時也有很多的機會跟同儕互相彼此學習。另一方面，學生的外在動機減低，由此可以得知學生逐漸將外在動機轉為內在動機，因此學生藉由文學圈培養自己對閱讀的興趣，而不再只是因外在獎勵或老師要求而閱讀英文文章。最後，學生所遭遇的困難主要有： (1) 時間壓力、(2) 組員間的相處衝突、(3) 組員的單字識字量不足、 (4) 學習型態不同。. 關鍵字：文學圈、閱讀理解、閱讀動機. i.

(5) ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of implementing literature circles (LCs) on improving Taiwanese English-major university students’ English reading comprehension and motivation. Specifically, this study aimed to investigate how literature circles facilitate students’ reading comprehension and motivation, examine students’ performance and progress under different discussion roles in LCs program, and finally explore students’ perception to the LC program. The research adopted (1) GEPT high-intermediate-level tests, (2) reading motivation questionnaires, (3) students’ perception questionnaires, and (4) semi-structured interviews as instruments which were administered to a total of 19 English-major students at National Pingtung University within an 18 week period. The collected data was analyzed through quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative data was analyzed through statistics, including a paired sample t-test, to evaluate whether there was any significant difference on students’ reading comprehension and motivation before and after the LC program. The qualitative data gathered from interviews and questionnaires was transcribed and coded based on general conceptual similarities, in an effort to elicit important insights from students. After an 18-week experiment, results indicated that participating in literature circles was (1) effective in facilitating students’ reading comprehension, which students believed that was due to going through cycles of meaning negotiation and reflective sharing, although the GEPT reading comprehension score didn’t increase dramatically at the end of the semester; (2) reading in literature circles also improved students’ intrinsic reading motivation by providing (a) non-threatening learning environment, (b) interesting discussion activities, (c) chances to learn from peers in group. However, students’ extrinsic motivation decreased at the end of the semester. Therefore, we may say that for students, there was a transfer of motivation from an extrinsic to intrinsic ii.

(6) focus. Therefore, they could gradually develop their interest in reading English texts instead of reading for extrinsic reward or teachers demand. The difficulties students have encountered were related (1) time pressure, (2) interaction with groupmates, (3) a perceived lack of adequate English proficiency of their groupmates, and (4) differences in learning styles.. Key words: literature circles, reading motivation, reading comprehension. iii.

(7) Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................... 1 Background and Motivation.................................................................. 1 Significance of the Study ....................................................................... 5 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................. 5 Research Questions ............................................................................... 6 Definition of Terms .............................................................................. 6 CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................... 8 Literature Circles .................................................................................. 8 Theories underlying Literature Circles ................................................ 11 Scaffolding Theory .......................................................................... 11 Zone of Proximal Development, Interaction Hypothesis .................. 13 Cooperative Learning ...................................................................... 14 Reader-response Theory .................................................................. 15 Independent Reading ....................................................................... 16 Motivation .......................................................................................... 17 Previous Empirical Studies of Literature Circles in Taiwan ................ 18 CHEATER THREE ............................................................................. 20 Research Setting and Participants ....................................................... 20 Teaching Procedure ............................................................................ 21 Text Selection and Reading Materials ................................................. 24 Research Instrument ........................................................................... 27 Data Collection and Analysis .............................................................. 29 CHAPTER FOUR................................................................................ 31 Students’ GEPT Reading Comprehension........................................... 31 Student-generated Motivation Pre and Post Questionnaire .................. 32 iv.

(8) Student-generated Perception Questionnaire ....................................... 37 Students’ Performance in Discussion .................................................. 53 Students’ Perceptions to Implement LCs in This Course .................... 62 Other Interesting Findings .................................................................. 68 Difficulties Incorporating Literature Circles ....................................... 69 CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................. 74 Summary of the Study ........................................................................ 74 Pedagogical Implication ...................................................................... 77 Limitation and Suggestion .................................................................. 78 Appendix A ............................................................................................ 85 Appendix B-1 ......................................................................................... 87 Appendix B-2 ......................................................................................... 88 Appendix B-3 ......................................................................................... 89 Appendix B-4 ......................................................................................... 90 Appendix B-5 ......................................................................................... 91 Appendix C ............................................................................................. 92 Appendix D ............................................................................................ 95 Appendix E: .......................................................................................... 101 Appendix F ........................................................................................... 106 Appendix G .......................................................................................... 107. v.

(9) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background and Motivation Due to globalization and the high social-economic status of English-speaking countries, English has become the most widely-spoken lingua franca in the world; as a result, English learning has become a world-wide concern. This is certainly the case in Taiwan, where most people believe higher English ability will lead to a better life and brighter future (Chang, 2011). Perceiving the importance of leaning English, the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Taiwan in 2005 officially integrated English into its Nine-year Integrative Education Curriculum Standard, which stated that students in schools in Taiwan would begin learning English in elementary school at grade three (Wei, 2007). Yet despite these curriculum designed to boost English learning in Taiwan, outcomes of learning English are limited due to the fact of its EFL context; essentially, students do not have enough quality exposure to English outside of the classroom. This is especially the case for reading, where students usually read English in order to prepare for tests and examinations. Once they get into colleges and universities, many of them may need to deal with graduation requirements for both English and non-English majors, designating that students need to pass certain English proficiency tests such as TOEIC, TOEFL, IELS, General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) Therefore, some students might feel this type of reading lacks pleasure. As the result of the pressure to read and study for the purpose of passing these standardized proficiency tests, many students gradually lose their reading motivation and turn out to be “book haters” (Hsu, 2004). This is further supported by a recent survey conducted by Global Views Monthly in 2014, which indicates the average time of 1.

(10) reading has declined in general compared to the year 2012. Especially true for teenagers, the number has dropped from 4.08 hours to 2.66 hours per week. As this survey was conducted for investigating the reading situation of first language in Taiwan, reading motivation decrease in foreign language would undoubtedly be similarly affected. When people begin to read, they actually have numerous purposes for reading (Grabe & Stoller, 2002). For example, we decide to read casually on newspaper, interesting novels, or read intensively on a text book. Whatever your purposes to read, you read because you intend to get some information from written texts (Nuttal, 2005). Reading plays an important role in EFL classroom where reading is recognized as an essential process in the learning or acquiring of new knowledge (Chung, 1988). Therefore, reading abilities are highly related to academic success in language classroom. Especially in EFL context where learners need to read fluently in English to learn new knowledge (Su & Chen, 2010). Through reading, people can access different sources of knowledge, cultivate their mind, expend their viewpoints, and improve language abilities (Hsu, 2007). Similarly, Grabe and Stoller (2002) also introduce the concept of “reading to learn,” and state that it “typically occurs in academic and professional contexts in which a person needs to learn a considerable amount of information from a text” (p. 13). It usually take more time in the process of reading to learn than general reading comprehension, reading rate slower than general reading primary due to rereading and reflection. In addition, the reading process “makes stronger inferencing demands than general comprehension to connect text information with back ground knowledge” (Grabe & Stoller, 2002, p. 14).. In other. words, reading is a process that facilitates people getting information and learning from written texts. Afterward, it requires readers’ ability to remember, organize the information in the text, and finally connect text information with readers’ background 2.

(11) knowledge (Nuttall, 2005; Grabe & Stoller, 2002). I conclude that reading to learn plays an important role in EFL classroom where learners need to read amount of information from the text. Other studies also indicate a strong connection between reading and writing (Alharbi, 2015; Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Hsu, 2004), which also shows that reading comprehension can be enhanced by composing a text that is because students’ writing is usually formed based on what they have read (Alharbi, 2015). Reading works as input for writing; thus, the more students read the better they can write (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Hsu, 2004). Grabe and Stoller (2002) propose the concept of “reading to write” and specify that it is a process of integrating information that requires critical evaluation where readers must purposefully select, relate, integrate, and critique information from different sources being read (Grabe & Stoller, 2002, p. 14). Some researcher even suggests that reading and writing work similar in the process of meaning construction (Tierney & Pearson, 1983). In conclusion, reading English to learn information and write are important for higher education students because they need to develop their abilities to read, discuss, learn from, and compose academic texts. For many years, studies on reading instruction have put much emphasis on the issue of seeking out effective instruction methods to improve students’ reading comprehension. (Su & Chen, 2010). Studies on reading comprehension also. indicated that development of reading comprehension is facilitated by reading activity, providing students with instructional support before, during, after reading (Marshall, 2006). It implies that effective reading approach improves not only reading comprehension but also readers’ reading rate as well as reading motivation (Su & Chen, 2010). As for reading activity in Taiwanese university, students commonly participate in a teacher-led discussion, which they are going to preview the texts 3.

(12) beforehand or read silently during class, and then, join a whole-class discussion led by their teacher. For them, linguistic forms and decoding meanings are the top priority in reading course rather than reading for general comprehension. Reading instruction in Taiwanese EFL context emphasizes more on intensive reading which focus on vocabulary, grammar, sentence structures, paragraph translation (Huang, 2008). Although, there are whole-class discussion activities involved in reading instruction, they simply work as tool to elicit main idea or important details helping students to decode meanings or even memorize the texts in pursuit of higher grade. Moreover, students’ personal opinion is less concern in a teacher-led discussion. Students simply read to learn vocabulary, linguistic forms, and the most importantly memorize the texts and pass the course exam. Gradually, they lose their motivation to read in English (Huang, 2008). As the result, there is a need to seek alternative teaching methods to improve not only learning motivation but also reading instruction. In order to overcome the limitations of increasing English reading writing proficiency, the following research intents to implement, document, and analyze the use of literature circles in an EFL English-major reading and writing curriculum for Taiwanese college students. Literature Circles (LCs) are small student-centered reading groups where students gather together regularly to thoroughly read and discuss self-selected literature texts. In describing the features of LC’s, Daniel (2002) stresses that each member of an LC is responsible for a particular discussion role and that these roles must rotate. Through discussion and interaction, readers have chances to learn different perspectives and interpretations from their peers and gradually develop their critical thinking through this participating in this peer-lead activity (Monroe-Baillargeon & Shema, 2010; Lin, 2013). Additionally, Burns (1998) argues that LCs can create non-threatening and enthusiastic learning atmosphere for learners. In this setting, students are more cooperative in discussion and responsible for their 4.

(13) own piece of literature (Burns, 1998; Pitman, 1997). Studies indicate that LCs influence students positively in different ways, including (a) significant gains in reading comprehension (Brown, 2002; Chen, 2014; Briggs, 2010); (b) facilitating struggling readers, defeating reading difficulties, and improving reading skills (Timothy, Lipsett & Yocom, 2002); (c) assisting students in developing critical thinking skills (Lin, 2013; Lai, 2011); (d) and fostering reading motivation (Burns, 1998; Hsu,2004). In conclusion, Daniel (1994) argues that LCs “make kids both more responsible for and more in control of their own education, unleash lifelong readers, and help nurture a critical, personal stance toward ideas” (p. 31).. Significance of the Study Although literature circles have been utilized and documented in L1 English learning contexts (Chen, 2014), studies in EFL university contexts are few in number. In Taiwan, LC’s have been implemented in reading courses in primary (Lin, 2013), secondary (Lai, 2011), and tertiary for English majors (Chen, 2014) and non-majors (Hsu, 2004); however, further studies are required in order to verify and supplement findings. This study also tries to introduce literature circles to teachers in universities to enhance English Majors’ reading comprehension and motivation. The results provide information for teachers to understand students’ attitude and responses to literature circles. The findings also help teachers to examine the effect of implementing literature circles in EFL reading and writing course.. Purpose of the Study Perceiving the great importance of reading and a pressing need to find new strategies to improve Taiwanese English majors’ reading ability, the purpose of the 5.

(14) present study is to examine the effects of implementing literature circles in an EFL reading and writing course to the effect of literature circles on students reading comprehension and motivation. Also, the researcher try to examine students’ progress and responses to literature circles program.. Research Questions The present study aims to investigate the following research questions: 1. To what extent do literature circles facilitate students’ reading comprehension? 2. To what extent do literature circles facilitate students’ reading motivation? 3. According to the theory of readers’ responses, what are the students’ performance in LCs program based on their roles? 4. What are Taiwanese students’ responses to this LC program?. Definition of Terms Literature circles (LCs) Literature circles (LCs) are small groups of students that form temporarily to read and discuss self-selected reading texts. Each LCs member is responsible for a discussion role. When students finish a text, they share their texts with other circle members. Once circle members finish sharing, they form new reading circles and also select new texts (Daniels, 1994; 2002).. English as Foreign Language (EFL) EFL refers to English as foreign language, meaning English is learnt through education instead of using it in daily communication (Richard & Schmid, 2002). Kachru (1986) identified its presence in “Expanding Circles” (e.g., Taiwan, Japan, 6.

(15) and China), places “where English is learnt as a foreign language” (Ellis, 2008, p. 296).. Reading motivation Richards (1998) argues that motivation is what drives people to do things they want. As for reading motivation, Cambria and Guthrie (2010) defined motivation as individual’s value, belief, and behavior drive to read.. Reading comprehension Reading is a complex cognitive process that happens in the mind and includes eye movement and subvocalisation (Urquhart & Weir, 1998). As for reading comprehension, Grabe and Stoller (2002, p. 17) define reading comprehension as the ability to “understand information in a text and interpret it appropriately,” requiring the combination of different sorts of processes.. 7.

(16) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Literature Circles According to Daniels (1994), Literature Circles (LCs) are small student-centered temporary reading groups formed by students to read and discuss self-selected literary texts. LCs activities are derived from cooperative learning and provide clear roles and tasks in groups that allow students to conduct authentic discussion (Cooper & Robinson, 1998; Daniels, 1994). In this sense, LCs to some extent free students from teacher-dominated group work; in doing so, they create a more student-centered and non-threatening learning environment (Burns, 1998; Lin, 2002). In LCs, each member is assigned a discussion role (see Appendix B) with specific responsibilities in discussion, and these roles are rotated. During the discussion sections, LC members discuss according to their responsibility of discussion roles and share highlights of their readings within the groups. After finishing group sharing, LC members move into other circles sharing their thoughts on the readings with other new members. Once students finish a text, the next new circles are formed with the new selected texts (Daniels, 1994; Lin, 2002; Chen, 2014). Daniels (2002) suggested that LCs contain 11 key elements related to the organization of LCs operation, as well as book selection criteria, LCs formulation criteria, teachers’ and students’ roles, and discussion roles. As table one showed, the most important key concept to run LCs is that it provide a more student-centered learning environment for students to express their own thought and to be responsible for their choice of group members, reading materials and discussion tasks. Moreover, teachers act as a facilitator of students’ discussion. They simply provide help in case that have some questions exists. Teachers are responsible for overseeing, guiding, and 8.

(17) steering the book selection process to insure the right choice of book level (Daniels, 2002). However, they will not get involved in group discussion to provide any comments or opinions. Further detailed information is listed in the following:. Table 1 Key Elements of LCs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.. Students choose their own reading materials. Small temporary groups are formed, based on student choice. Every group reads different books. Groups meet on a regular, predictable schedule to discuss their reading. Students use written or drawn notes to guide their reading and discussion.. 6. Students generate discussion topics. 7. Group meeting is open, natural conversation about books, so personal experiences and comments are welcome. 8. The role of teacher is a facilitator, not a group member or instructor. 9. Discussion roles are rotated. 10. The atmosphere of the classroom is playfulness and fun. 11. While finishing books, students share with other classmates, and new groups are formed based on new reading choices. (Daniels, 2002, p. 18) Discussion Roles Discussion roles are crucial elements in forming literature circles. Daniels (1994; 2002) proposed nine kinds of discussion roles, including four required roles (a) discussion director (questioner); (b) literacy luminary; (c) illustrator; and (d) connectors, and four optional roles: (a) vocabulary enricher; (b) summarizer; (c) travel tracer; and (d) investigator, as showed in table 2. According to Daniels (2002), these four basic roles reflect the thinking skills that readers consciously or unconsciously use while reading. The connector and discussion director (questioner) roles reflect what skilled readers do, which they connect text contents to their life experience or analyze and seek to clear understanding of texts. As for literacy luminary role, the job 9.

(18) is to locate special or important sections of text for the group to share them aloud. Finally, illustrator role draw some kind of picture or images related to texts “that remind us that skillful reading requires visualizing, and it invites a graphic, nonlinguistic response to the text” (p. 103). Detailed descriptions about the tasks required for each discussion role are listed in the table 2:. Table 2 Descriptions of Discussion Roles/Tasks Required Roles. Tasks. Discussion director:. Develop list of questions group might want to discuss.. Literacy luminary. Locate a few special sections of text for the group to hear read aloud.. Illustrator. Draw some kind of picture or images related to the text.. Connector. Find connections between assigned text and world outside.. Optional Roles. Tasks. Summarizer. Prepare a brief summary of assigned reading.. Vocabulary enricher:. Designate especially important words in assigned reading.. Travel tracer:. Trace movement of characters or scene change and locate the interesting, puzzling, or important sections of the texts.. Investigator. Research background information on topics related to assigned texts.. (Daniels, 2002) Daniels (2002) states that these roles help “spark or sustain natural conversation” (p. 61), as well as promote interaction. Gradually, students build up their personal ideas and critical thinking through the discussion (Lin, 2013). 10.

(19) However, these roles are not absolute and can be revised according to teachers’ or students’ needs. Role sheets work as intermediate support to train and guide students to read better and discuss better in the peer-led LCs activity. The final goal of these role sheets aims to help students to internalized the discussion procedure rather than ask students to stick to the roles. It is favorable to come up with various roles or even adjust the process of LCs according to the needs (Daniels, 2002). Therefore, students don’t need to follow in a mechanical way the notes on the role sheets or take turns reading through the notes. Instead, students may have real interaction, which means organic discussion, sharing, challenge, debate, and negotiation of meaning. Thus students learn something from the texts as well as the discussion of the texts (Daniel, 1994).. Theories underlying Literature Circles The three essential theories supporting LCs are based in the tenants of constructivist, or more specifically, social cultural theory (SCT) learning: (a) scaffolding theory; (b) cooperative learning; and (c) Zone of Proximal Development. Social-cultural theory (SCT) theorists recognized the positive effect of interaction and cooperative learning in promoting language learning (Vygotsky, 1978). According to Lin (2013), different from traditional classroom settings, literature circles depend on cooperative small-group discussion that competent peers provide scaffolding for other members in the groups, increasing understanding of texts.. Scaffolding Theory Although Vygotski (1978) introduced many of the ideas centering around scaffolding in the early 20th century, the term scaffolding was introduced by Jerome Bruner (1978) in the 1950s. Originally it was developed to refer to helping young 11.

(20) children’s oral language learning, but later was generalized to apply to learning at all ages (Daniels, 1994). The underlying features of scaffolding are listed as following: Table 3 Underlying Features of Scaffolding (Daniels, 1994) Features. Descriptions. Predictability. There is a regular schedule of activities and a regular, recurrent pattern of steps within each event.. Playfulness. Parents and children are open to fun, spontaneity, and feeling. The activities are done primarily for enjoyment and closeness, not for practical outcomes.. Focus on meaning. Language is used to construct meaning and share real ideas. Form takes a back seat to content. Particular language features or ideas may be learned, but are addressed only when children attempt to use them in real talk, reading or writing.. Role reversal. Children get many chances to lead－to choose topics or books, to decide when to digress or talk, to elect whether to continue, stop, change topics or books, etc.. Modeling. The parent is a “joyfully literature adult,” providing demonstrations of mature and enthusiastic language behavior.. Nomenclature:. As scaffolded interaction becomes a 12.

(21) regular event, child and parent start developing their own minilanguage for talking about their activities. With bedtime stories, for example, this jargon might include terms like book, story, author, character, picture, ending, cover, and the like. Literature circles include plenty of the features listed above. Different from traditional teacher dominant classroom setting, LCs provide joyful, predictable, and meaning-centered learning environment. Teachers act as a facilitator to scaffold students that teachers demonstrate their literacy and structures of LCs. LCs are student-centered and meaning oriented activities that students are responsible for their choice of readings and their work in groups. Through books talk and sharing character, content, plot, genre, problems and conflict, students gradually obtain higher level reading abilities (Daniel, 1994).. Zone of Proximal Development, Interaction Hypothesis One of the essential theories supporting literature circles is Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD). ZPD refers to spatial distance between learners’ current ability and potential developmental state that learners could reach with the guidance of adults or competent peers (Vygotsky, 1978; Brown, 2007). ZPD is further supported by Long’s (1996, 1985) Interaction Hypothesis, which states that learning is a process of interaction with social environment (Ellis, 2008). Long believed that interpersonal communication and negotiations in discussion solve problems that arise 13.

(22) in discussion. He also claimed the importance of interaction due to its contribution to learning which provides learners with simplified and more comprehensible input. Thus, interaction can facilitate language acquisition (Ellis, 2008). As a result, Socialcultural theorists put much emphasis on personal interaction with social environment and cooperative learning (Brown, 2007). The key pedagogical implication of ZPD is that interaction promotes and support learning. Learners can sort out the existing problems through expert-novice interaction (i.e. interaction between teacher and learners) or even through novice-novice interaction (i.e. interaction between competent learners and novice learners) (Swain, Brooks & Tocalli-Beller, 2003; Ellis, 2008). Moreover, ZPD offers a new view on assessment, one that focuses more on assisted performance instead of solely on what learners can do without others’ assistance (Ellis, 2008).. Cooperative Learning The LCs program is a form of cooperative learning since it contains some of the important insights of cooperative learning (Lin, 2013). There are five key elements of cooperation: (a) positive interdependence (b) individual accountability and personal responsibility (c) promotive interaction (d) appropriate use of social skills (e) group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1994). In essence, once there is a clear task and goal, and individuals perceive that they can achieve their goals only if they count on other individuals, cooperation exists. More importantly, cooperative learning have more opportunities for students to obtain comprehensible input (Yan, 2010). Cooperative learning create interactive, student-centered learning contexts, where students listen and communicate with each other, ask question, negotiate and clarify ideas (Yan, 2010). Group interaction assists learners in negotiating and adjusting their language for more comprehensible input. 14.

(23) When students communicate in cooperative settings, students needs to understand the inputs so that they can modify outputs to make them more comprehensible to other members in group (Crandall, 1999). In LCs students interpret the texts through their understanding and past experience. In group discussion, students have opportunities reflect and share their opinions. Therefore, before students share their feelings or interpret the texts, they need to understand the texts beforehand so that they can share with their groupmates. As the result, students can learn from other people’s perspective and comprehend the texts more thoroughly through LCs discussion.. Reader-response Theory Literature circles are derived from reader-response theory which stress the importance of readers’ personal interpretation to literatures. Rosenblatt (1995) viewed reading as a transaction between the reader and the text (Chih,2010; Huang, 2008). Daniels (2002) claimed that “a text is just a ink on a page until a reader comes along and gives it life ” (p. 37), which stressed the importance of readers’ responses in reading. The important purpose of LCs is to generate students responses to literature (Marshall, 2006). When students generate their interpretation, they expose to the text with their previous experience, prior knowledge, perspective, belief, value and interact with the texts (Chih,2010; Huang, 2008). Rosenblatt (1995) also claimed that there is no one absolute or correct interpretation of literary work. In the transaction process, the readers construct meaning out of the text with their own interpretations instead of reading meaning that already exists in the texts (Kim, 2004). Thus, the group diversity from peers with mixed proficiency level and diverse cultural and ethnic identities would allowed readers to create various responses in literature circles (Hsu, 2004). Probset (1988), supporting Rosenblatt’s theory, stated that students 15.

(24) should be encouraged to make responses to their readings in good teaching. In addition, students would engage more in the reading when they were able to respond to the text with their own interpretation (Rosenblatt, 1995). Applying Rosenblatt’s theory in literature circles, students read the text from various perspective and have more chances to reflect themselves by taking various discussion roles in groups. Gradually, students develop meaningful and insightful reflection to the texts, and finally enjoy the pleasure of reading (Chih, 2010; Hus, 2004). Independent Reading Apart from social-culture and reader-response theory, independent reading is also the important key feature of literature circles that students are allowed to choose their own reading material and have more time to read independently during the class. Then, students gather together to talk with their peers about books they have read (Daniels, 2002). Studies have reported the benefits of independent reading on reading development and lifetime reading appreciation (Burns, 1998; Daniels, 2002; Norton, 1991). In this community-like setting, students have more opportunity to share their opinions and learn from each other, hearing different point of view or language, discovering important theme during group negotiate (Short & Klassen, 1993). More importantly, students become more motivated, engaged, and responsible for their learning in this socially interactive learning environment (Pitman, 1997). In order to improve reading comprehension, reader must engaging in the problem solving thinking process to get meaning from the texts (Briggs, 2010). With the real choice of reading materials, students are more likely to comprehend texts better at the same reading level (Briggs, 2010). When there are some challenges or difficulties in self reading, the strong desire to read can actually help to overcome the difficulties (Burns, 1998). 16.

(25) In conclusion, independent reading plays an crucial role in students’ lifetime literacy development (Huang, 2008 p. 10). As the result, students need time to read independently during class and should have power to select their own reading. Moreover, students love to talk and share. Literature circles create a well-structured and highly socially interactive environment for students to read as well share their perspectives (Daniels, 2002; Pitman, 1997), which may gradually foster students’ reading appreciation.. Motivation Richards (1998) argues that motivation is what drives people to do things they want, consisting of two components: (a) expectations and (b) values. The expectations and values model suggests that people tend to try what they believe they can achieve but avoid what they feel they are likely to fail to accomplish (Richards, 1998). As regards second language reading, Richards (1998) suggests four variables that are related to successful outcomes: (a) materials; (b) reading ability; (c) attitudes; and (d) sociocultural environment. The first two variables, materials and reading ability, influence the expectations of success in reading. The last two variables, attitudes and sociocultural environment, reflect the value of readers (Richards, 1998). The self-selection of reading materials, regarded as one of the most important elements in LCs (Huang, 2008; Daniels, 2002), can be said to influence the construct of expectations of success in reading because it involves the first two variables: materials and reading ability. Thus students, through the process of choosing texts that they find interesting as well as suitable for their current reading level, will hopefully find their anticipation of failure lowered as their willingness to read is raised. The construct of motivation has classically been divided into intrinsic and extrinsic modes. According to Deci (1975), people are motivated intrinsically through 17.

(26) internal rewards from ones’ “feelings of competence and self-determination” (Brown, 2007, p. 172). On the other hand, people are motivated extrinsically by outside rewards, such as, “money, prizes, grades, and even certain types of positive feedback” (Brown, 2007, p. 172). By allowing students to choose texts and roles, Literature circles (LCs) help exercise students self-determination and autonomy. By critically thinking and discussing texts and issues related to the texts, students’ feelings of competence can also be raised. Thus one can see how the importance of intrinsic motivation is raised through the process of forming LCs and related activities. Students will still have extrinsic motivation to succeed as they will ultimately receive grades and feedback, hopefully positive, from teachers and peers. However changing the classroom climate to a less teacher-dominated less-threatening learning environment, where the majority of learning takes place through social-interaction activities, surely raises the importance of intrinsic motivation compared with literature or reading classes that are grounded in test-based evaluative classroom measurements (Huang, 2008). As students are able to read texts and accomplish tasks through cooperative small-group discussions and social interaction, LCs provide scaffolding for students, and in doing so, gradually develop their reading ability (Marshall, 2006). Once students feel more confidence reading individually or achieve certain accomplishment in reading, their reading motivation tends to be reinforced even without extrinsic rewards. This further support by Norton (1991), who states, “when children discover enjoyment in books by themselves, they develop favorable attitudes toward them that usually extend into a lifetime of appreciation” (p. 2). Previous Empirical Studies of Literature Circles in Taiwan Literature circles have already been widely implemented at several schools in both first-language and EFL/ESL contexts, in order to train students to become better 18.

(27) readers. In Taiwan, LCs have been implemented in primary, middle, and high schools, as well as at the college and university level. Hsu (2008) implemented LCs in an EFL sixth-grader classroom with a total of 30 students. Her study mainly focused on increasing students reading comprehension and group discussion skills. Within 12 weeks, students were responsible for group discussion sharing, mini-play, reflective journals and questionnaires. Findings indicated that students made progress in their group discussion, being more able to achieve deeper understating of the texts, as well as achieve higher levels of critical thinking. Moreover, the classroom climate was found to be changed into a more student-centered setting. Finally, students reading motivation improved based on the questionnaire and self-reported results in interview. Lin (2013) applied LCs in a senior high school in southern Taiwan with a total of 37 students enrolled in the program. Her research investigated the effect of LCs on facilitating students’ critical thinking development based on Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy: (a) knowledge, (b) comprehension, (c) application, (d) analysis, (e) synthesis, and (f) evaluation. Within the 7 week course, the data collection procedure was divided into three phases. In the first and second phases, students were asked to preview the texts independently at home and conduct a comprehension test and worksheets in class. As for the third phase, students were formed into groups and worked cooperatively in order to discuss and complete the roles sheets, question logs, and response logs. Findings indicated that students did improve in their discussion and critical thinking skills, reflecting multiple critical responses and interpretation to the texts.. 19.

(28) CHEATER THREE METHODOLOGY Research Setting and Participants In order to apply and analyze the effectiveness of literature circles in a Taiwanese EFL context, the researcher was granted with the permission to observe and participate in a reading program centered on the integration of LCs into an elective reading and writing class taught by a professor experienced in the use of LC’s in Taiwan. Through LC activities, students read and discuss texts and related issues, work cooperatively, and negotiate meaning based on their discussion roles. Developing learners’ reading abilities as well as their critical thinking skills are also important goals of LCs. Finally, the most important goal of the program will be to improve students’ reading motivation and sustain reading (See Table 4 for listing of course objectives; for additional information on the course itself, see Appendix A: course syllabus).. Table 4 Course Descriptions of English Reading Writing Class Course name. English reading and Writing. The course objectives. (1) help students have better ability to correctly use grammar, (2) familiarize students with linguistic and rhetorical skills of appropriate word and phrase uses for different writing styles such as description, giving instruction, reasoning with examples, and expressing opinions, and (3) enrich students language awareness and resources through reading stories and fiction. 20.

(29) Participants A total of 19 EFL English-major students, 4 male and 15 female, from a National university located in the south of Taiwan enrolled in a non-required/elective English reading and writing course offered in the Spring of 2015 participated in the Literature Circles activities and agreed to participate in the study, which included participating in the class and LC program, filling out likert-scale questionnaires and agreeing to complete semi-structured oral interviews. All of the participants were from sophomore English-major students, and their English proficiency levels varied from low to high-intermediate level, based on their self-reported results of GEPT (a) intermediate b) high-intermediate level) and TOEIC (a) 610-650 b) 705 c) 855-925 ) tests scores, which correspond to CEFR B1 and B2 levels. (Wu, 2015). Teaching Procedure The research teaching procedure would lasted for eighteen week and was separated into six phases. In the first phase, the teacher began with brief introduction about literature circles and class regulations of the course, explaining the rational of literature circles and tasks students need to do for the following weeks. Later, English reading proficiency pre-test and questionnaire were administered to the students. In the beginning of second phase (week 2), students were grouped into five groups of 2 to 6. Students were allowed to select their own group members. After that, students were assigned a short article and a discussion role sheet. Then, the teacher demonstrated how each discussion roles work in literature circles and started mini-literature circles. Students randomly chose a role they like and tried to jot down some important points and wrote down on discussion role sheets after reading the assigned article. Last but not least, students were going to share their texts individually in front of the class. After running mini-literature circles, a book fair was held and the teacher presents selected novels to novels to students. Each group was 21.

(30) allowed to choose their own novels base on their interests; however, every member in the groups should read the same novels for the following weeks. In the third phase (week 3 to 10), the teacher began with series of lessons about texts analysis, paragraph and essay composition that would be helpful for students in writing and reflection. Later, the procedure repeated that students finished reading assigned chapters and had fifteen minutes discussion and then completed the role sheets. Finally, they would present their results individually to whole class. In the fourth phase (week 11 to 14), students were assigned series activities－ conversation preparation and mini play performance. Students would first choose a part that interests them the most and transfer the texts into conversation and a ten-minute mini play. Students would perform the play on week 14. In the fifth phase (week 15 to 16) would be the final creative presentation week which include poster advertising the book, videotaped dramatization, a new ending or character for the book, reader theater performance, etc. The final phase (week 17 to 18), at the end of the week, students conducted post questionnaires and reading comprehension post-tests. Afterward, students perception questionnaire to LCs program was administered. In the final week, semi-structured interview was conducted.. Table 5 Summary of Teaching Procedure in Six Phases Phase. Schedule. Phase I. Instruction. (Week 1). English Reading Proficiency Pre-test (GEPT High-intermediate). Phase II. Literature circle- preparation: (1) Grouping. (Week 2). (2) Demonstration 22.

(31) (3) Show the books and know the authors (4) Book selection Phase II (Week 3 to 10). Literature circle- 1 (1) Circle of Gold –Chapters 1~3 (G1) (2) Number the Stars–Chapters 1~4 (G2) Literature circle- 2 (1) Kira-kira – Chapters 1-4 (G3) (2) Warhorse－Chapters1~5 (G4) Literature circle 3 (1) Circle of Gold－Chapters 4~8 (G1) (2) Number the Stars－Chapters 5~8 (G2) (3) Kira-kira – Chapters 5-8 (G3) (4) Warhorse－Chapters 6-10 (G4) Literature circle 4 (1) Circle of Gold－Chapters 9-11 (G1) (2) Number the Stars－Chapter 9~12 (G2) (3) Kira-kira – Chapters 9-12 (G3) (4) Warhorse－Chapters 11-15 (G4) Literature circle 5 (1) Circle of Gold－Chapters 12~14 (2) Number the Stars－Chapter 13~17 (3) Kira-kira – Chapters 13-16 (4) Warhorse－Chapters 16-20 LC activities: 1. Literature circle (role sheets) → 20 minutes (Group leader leads) 2. Group or personal sharing and discussing → 5-10 minutes. Phase IV. Presentation instructions-1(T) Presentation instructions-2(T). (Week 11 to 14) Group activities: Drama time-1(G1+G2) Drama time-2(G3+G4) 23.

(32) Phase V (Week 15-16) Phase VI (Week 17-18). Final Group presentation: Group presentation-G1-2 Group presentation-G3-4 English Reading Proficiency Pre-test (GEPT High-intermediate) Post motivation questionnaires Students perception questionnaire Semi-structure interview. Text Selection and Reading Materials Hsu (2004) argues that text selection is the most important step in running literature circles. Topics should be suitable for readers to access and understand, interesting and attractive, authentic, and related to readers’ life experiences (Hsu, 2004; Chen, 2013). Topics and/or themes of the selected texts can cover different domains, such as courage, facing family death, family love, war and peace (For a brief summary of the four selected texts used in the program, see table 4). Table 6 Content Descriptions of Reading Texts Reading texts. Content Descriptions. Circle of Gold. A Coretta Scott King Award Honor trade book written by Candy Dawson Boyd and originally published in 1984. The story describes how a brave and optimistic teenager, Mattie, makes efforts to bring back the joy of her mother after the death of her father.. Number the Stars:. A Newberry medal trade book written by Lois Lowry and originally published. 24.

(33) 1989. It is a historical fiction that mainly describes the escape of a Danish Jewish girl, Ellen Rosen, from Nazis’ search during World War II. War Horse. A historical fiction written by Michael Morpurgo and originally published in 1982. The story describes the journey of a horse named Joey during war time. Through the viewpoint of Joey, readers witness the horror and curial the battle fields, as well as the love between human and animal.. Kira-Kira.. A story written by Cynthia Kadohata published in 2004 describing the life story of a young Japanese-American girl named Katie. Through the story, readers witness the life and work experience of Japanese Americans and their struggle to accomplish their American dream.. Missing May. A Newberry medal trade book written by Cynthia Rylant and originally published in 1992. The novel describes the life story of a twelve-year-old orphan, Summer, and details her struggle to overcome a difficult life. 25.

(34) Discussion Role Sheets In literature circles, discussion role sheets are crucial as they offer participants instructional scaffolding by clarifying tasks and direction concerning discussion. Participants may follow the descriptions on the sheets to share their ideas, feelings, and reactions. In the study, the researcher selected five discussion roles based upon Daniels (1994; 2002) and revised based upon the local context: (a) discussion director; (b) summarizer; (c) connector; (d) literacy luminary; and (e) vocabulary enricher. (See Table 5). Table 7 Task Descriptions about Each Role Roles. Task Descriptions. Discussion director. Your job is to generate questions that your group might want to discuss about the text. Usually, the best discussion questions come from your own thoughts and feelings. Don’t worry about the small details. After collecting all the questions and answers, you shall present them in class.. Summarizer. Your job is to prepare a brief summary of the assigned reading. Your group will be counting on you to give a quick statement that mentions key events, key points, and main highlights of the assigned reading. Please write down the summary and key points in the slots below.. Connector. Your job is to find connections between the text your group is reading and the outside world. This means connecting the reading to your own life, or to similar events at different times and places. You might also compare and contrast the content or the theme in your reading to other books or even to movies.. Literacy luminary. Your job is to locate a few special sections of the text that your group would like to hear read aloud. The idea is to help people remember some interesting, powerful, funny, puzzling, or important sections of the reading. Please read the paragraphs aloud by yourself in class. (2-4 paragraph at least). Vocabulary enricher. Your job is to list out a few especially important words in the assigned reading. Those words could be words that are 26.

(35) puzzling or unfamiliar. You may also run across familiar words that are repeated a lot, used in unusual ways, or are key meanings in the text. Highlight those words you want to share while you are reading and jot down the definition below.. Research Instrument Questionnaires of English Reading Motivation The questionnaires of English reading motivation were revised based on the studies of Gambrell et al., (1996), Chih (2010), Chen (2013), and Komiyama (2013). Two questionnaires (pre-test and post-test) of English reading motivation and practice were used for collecting data on students’ learning background and reading motivation to investigate the effects of Literature Circles on students’ reading motivation. The two questionnaires were presented separately at the beginning and the end of the course. Pre-test questionnaire comprised two sections (background and reading motivation), which were divided into 20 items. The first section, background, was designed to elicit students’ past reading experience and self-efficacy. The second section, reading motivation, consisted of 20 5-point Likert-scale questions ranging from “strongly agree (5 points)”, to “agree (4 points)”, to “neutral (3 points)”, to “disagree (2 points)”, to “strongly disagree (1 point)” as well as one open-ended question designed to elicit information about intrinsic motivation (items 1-12) and extrinsic motivation (items 13-20). General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) In order to investigate the effects of literature circles promoting reading comprehension, the researcher used the GEPT high-intermediate level test published by the Language Training and Teaching Center in 2013 in order to gather information about baseline scores from pre-test and final score from post-test. Two different tests were presented separately at the beginning and the end of the course. The GEPT 27.

(36) reading tests evaluate participants’ understanding of written texts. By comparing baseline and final scores, the researcher could hopefully examine whether there was a significant effect on promoting participants’ reading comprehension after the course. The GEPT examination consists of three parts with a total of 50 multiple-choice question items, sentence completion, cloze, and reading comprehension. Part one, sentence completions, consists of 15 multiple-choice questions. In the first part, participants need to select the words or phrases that best fit the sentence, testing the ability of understand vocabulary. The second part, cloze, consists of seven or eight multiple-choice questions testing grammar and sentence pattern comprehension. The final part is reading comprehension consisting 20 multiple-choice questions.. Semi-structured Interviews According to Merriam (2009), interviewing is a suitable data collection technique for case study to elicit phenomena that cannot directly be observed from human behavior. In the study the researcher utilized semi-structured interview to gather qualitative data. Semi-structure interview contains guided questions which usually are more open-ended format (Merriam, 2009). As Merriam (2009) concludes that “this format allows the researcher to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and new ideas to the topic” (p. 90) A total of 6 interviewees (3 males and 3 females) were selected from 19 participants. The interviewees were selected based on their attitude of participation in groups who were active and attentive in participating in group discussion. The interview procedures took about 10-15 minutes. All interviews are conducted in Chinese so that participants could understand the questions more clearly as well as answer or reflect the questions more thoroughly without any difficulties that caused by language barrier. Moreover, all interviews were recorded and transcribed. 28.

(37) Questionnaires of Implementation of Literature Circles The questionnaires were adopted from Huang’s (2008) question items which are well-designed to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation of Literature Circles in Reading and Writing course. It covers five parts which are “Response to English teaching guideline”, “Response to literature circle”, “Attitude toward reading materials”, “Attitudes toward journal writing”, “Self-evaluation” (Huang, 2008). The reason to regenerate from Huang’s questionnaire is that it provides objective and detail information about how students evaluate the course and examine effectiveness of Literature Circles in EFL context. The questionnaire consists of two main parts, Background information and Perception questionnaires. The first parts, background information consists of five open questions about gender, books read, participants’ rating on discussion roles, and problems participants encountering in discussion. The second parts, perception questionnaires, consists of five sections: perceptions to teaching, perceptions to literature circles, perceptions to reading English texts, perceptions to role sheets, and evaluation to the program, containing 63 5-Likert-scale questions and 10 open questions.. Data Collection and Analysis The present research applied a mixed-methods design composed of a classroom experiment with 19 participants and semi-structured interviews, in order to investigate whether literature circles facilitate Taiwanese English-majored students’ reading motivation and comprehension. Quantitative Analysis The quantitative data was gathered from GEPT English proficiency tests, and questionnaires for reading motivation and students’ perception of implementing LC in reading and writing course. Students’ reading proficiency was measured by GEPT 29.

(38) English proficiency test. As for reading motivation, it was measure by questionnaire regenerate from Chih (2010), Chen (2013), Komiyama (2013). Finally, students’ perception of implementing LC in reading and writing course was measured by perception questionnaire regenerate from Huang (2008 ). To test effect on students’ reading proficiency and motivation, the data were analyzed through SPSS by using paired-sample t-test to compare the pre-test and post-test testing any significant difference on students’ reading proficiency and motivation after the program. Finally, the score of questionnaires for LCs implementation in EFL context would also be computed in SPSS. Through the descriptive statistics, the results of the data would provide in-depth understanding of students’ attitude and evaluation about implementing literature circles into EFL context and their reading improvement after participating in LC program.. Qualitative Analysis As for qualitative phase, the data was gathered from students’ role sheets, semi-structured interviews. All the responses of role sheets and interview were transcribed categorized based on the issues in same pattern. The results of the role sheets were focused on progress students made in each discussion reflection, engagement, grammar, reading and writing skill. The results of semi-structure interviews were aimed to elicit the deeper phenomenon from students’ responses related to their comments, evaluation, suggestion, and benefits they gain from literature circles.. 30.

(39) CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter presents the results of the study concerning the effects of implementing literature circles on EFL university students. The data is presented into two parts: quantitative and qualitative. First, the results of quantitative data consist of students’ GEPT reading comprehension tests and reading motivation questionnaires. Second, the results of qualitative data focuses on students’ responses to the literature circles roles sheets, perception questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews.. Students’ GEPT Reading Comprehension This section presents the results of students’ GEPT reading comprehension pre-and posttests. which were analyzed through paired-sample t-tests. Results of paired-sample t-tests of GEPT test results, including mean scores and standard deviations, are shown in table 8.1. Results aid the researcher in investigating effects of literature circles on students’ reading comprehension. Based on the results, there is no significant difference between GEPT pretest and posttest ( t(18)= .635, p>.05 ) although the mean score of posttest did improve moderately at the end of the semester (M= 68.7 > 67.2). In other words, reading in literature circles did not help much in students’ reading comprehension proficiency. The following could be the reason why the results did not reach significant different in students’ reading comprehension proficiency. Firstly, the test content was adopted from GEPT high-intermediate questions, which include not only reading comprehension sections but also other sections such as grammar and sentence patterns. Thus, students may get lower grade because they did bad in other sections. Secondly, time limitation could be other reason to influent the results that it was really difficult 31.

(40) for students to improve overall reading comprehension abilities (i.e. reading strategy, grammar, vocabulary) within a semester. However, in the follow up interview and open-ended questions students maintained positive attitudes toward the benefit of LCs in reading comprehension. In short, although the mean score of the posttest increased, the changes did not reach the threshold of statistical difference between pretest and posttest due to the test content and time limitation. However, according to students self-report in interview and open-ended questions, they believe that reading in LCs did help them understand the texts through meaning negotiation.. Table 8.1 Paired-sample T-test of Students’ reading comprehension proficiency (N=19) Paired Difference. M. SD. SE. t. df. Sig.(2-tailed). Pretest posttest. 1.53. 10.48. 2.41. .635. 18. .534. Note: M: mean score, SD: standard deviation, SE: standard error, df: degree of freedom, sig: significance. Table 8.2 Means and Standard Deviation of Reading Comprehension Proficiency Paired Difference. M. N. SD. Pretest. 67.2. 19. 9.00. posttest. 68.7. 19. 12.53. Note: M: mean score, SD: standard deviation Student-generated Motivation Pre and Post Questionnaire In this section, the results of paired-sample t test of English reading motivation are presented and discussed, with additional data gathered from motivation pre and post questionnaires. The following sections are divided into three parts: the overall results of students’ English reading motivation; intrinsic motivation; and extrinsic 32.

(41) motivation. The results will answer the second research question: To what extent do literature circles facilitate students’ reading motivation? Overall Results of Students’ English Reading Motivation In this section, the results of paired-sample t-test of the overall results of students’ English reading motivation are showed and discussed. Paired sample t-test results (Table 8.3) indicates that there are were differences between pretest and posttest ( t(19)= -2.24, p<.05 ). In addition, the mean score of the posttest improved (M=.64> 3.46). It indicated students’ reading motivation improved after taking the semester-long literature circles program. In order to further examine whether there were any significant difference between students’ extrinsic and intrinsic motivation after taking this course, an independent t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.. Table 8.3 Paired-sample T-test of Students’ Overall English Reading Motivation Paired Difference. M. SD. SE. t. df. Sig.(2-tailed). Pretest posttest. -.186. .364. .084. -2.24. 19. .038. Note: M: mean score, SD: standard deviation, SE: standard error, df: degree of freedom, sig: significance. Table 8.4 Means and Standard Deviation of Reading Motivation Paired Difference. M. N. SD. Pretest posttest. 3.46 3.64. 19 19. .305 .556. Note: M: mean score, SD: standard deviation. Results of Students’ Intrinsic Reading Motivation A paired t-test was used to test whether there was an effect of literature circles on improving students’ intrinsic reading motivation. As shown in Table 8.6, the results of 33.

(42) paired t-test indicate that there were significant differences on students’ intrinsic reading motivation (t(18)= -4.80, p <.05 ) before and after taking this LCs program. Moreover, the results also show that the mean score of the post questionnaire is higher than that of the pretest (M= 3.62 > 3.18). It reveals that the majority of students’ intrinsic reading motivation increased after this LCs program, which is further support by students’ responses in open-ended questionnaire that they found English reading interesting and not difficult as they imagined through group work.. Table 8.5 Paired-sample T-test of Students’ Intrinsic Reading Motivation Paired Difference. M. SD. SE. t. df. Sig.(2-tailed). Pretest posttest. -.443. .403. .092. -4.80. 18. .000. Note: M: mean score, SD: standard deviation, SE: standard error, df: degree of freedom, sig: significance. Table 8.6 Means and Standard Deviation of Intrinsic Motivation Paired Difference. M. N. SD. Pretest posttest. 3.18 3.62. 19 19. .290 .540. Note: M: mean score, SD: standard deviation. In order to further investigate students’ intrinsic motivation, a comparison of the mean score and standard deviation of the 12-item questionnaire of intrinsic motivation is summarized in Table 8.7, so that we can understand which specific items of intrinsic motivation increased after the program. According to the results presented in Table 8.7, some of the items had increased in mean score among the 12 items (see item 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10). However, a significant difference was found only in item 11 among the 6 items after using paired-sample t-tests. This results reveal that more 34.

(43) students were willing to read English texts in their free time. In general, reading in literature circles did help students maintain positive attitudes to English reading so that their reading intrinsic motivation increased by the end of the semester. According to the results, students gradually developed their interest toward reading that they found reading interesting; thus, they were willing to spend time reading English texts when they were free.. Table 8.7 Summary of Means and Standard Deviation of Each Items of Intrinsic Motivation. Pretest. Posttest. Item Statement M 1. I like English texts. 2. I often think about how well my reading ability is. 3. It is a pain to read in English. 4. When teacher ask me the question I can answered it. 5. Reading in English is a good way to spend time. 6. After learning to read in English, I hope I will be able. SD. M. SD. 3.38. .496. 3.68. .885. 3.21. .535. 3.47. .611. 2.63. .761. 2.63. .597. 3.26. .562. 3.58. .507. 3.68. .671. 3.58. .607. 3.89. .737. 3.94. .705. 3.84. .501. 3.95. .621. 3.79. .631. 3.74. .733. 4.00. .471. 3.79. .787. 3.37. .684. 3.53. 1.020. 3.37. .761. 3.89. .809. to read novels, newspapers, and magazines. 7. I enjoy the challenge of reading in English. 8. It is fun to read in English. 9. I tend to engage myself in English. 10. I enjoy reading long interesting novels 11. I hope to have more time to read English materials in leisure time. 35.

(44) 12. Even though my English is not good enough I am still willing to read English texts.. 3.74. .653. 3.68. .820. Note: M: mean score, SD: standard deviation. Results of Students’ Extrinsic Motivation Table 7.8 showed the paired-sample t-test of item 12 to 20 of the pre-and posttest questionnaire that designed to elicit information about “Extrinsic motivation”. According to the result of Table 7.8, the results indicate a significant difference was found in students’ extrinsic reading motivation before and after the LCs program ( t(18)= 3.09, p<.05 ). Surprisingly, the mean score of posttest was marginally lower than that of the pretest (M= 3.57 < 3.84). The results reveal that most of the students remained similar attitude in extrinsic motivation or even decreased in their extrinsic motivation. Therefore, It is assumed that students became more attentive and autonomous when reading in literature circles. In other words, students read for pleasure or for other internal rewards instead of reading for external rewards such as teacher’s assignment.. Table 8.8 Paired-sample T-test of Students’ Extrinsic Reading Motivation Paired Difference. M. SD. SE. t. df. Sig.(2-tailed). Pretest posttest. .270. .38. .087. 3.09. 18. .006. Note: M: mean score, SD: standard deviation, SE: standard error, df: degree of freedom, sig: significance. Table 8.9 Means and Standard Deviation of Extrinsic Motivation Paired Difference. M. N. SD. Pretest Posttest. 3.84 3.57. 19 19. .445 .495. Note: M: mean score, SD: standard deviation. 36.

(45) Student-generated Perception Questionnaire This sections present students’ responses to the post-perception questionnaire. Data was collected from students’ perception questionnaire and analyzed through SPSS statistics software, and the results were analyzed in accordance with the order of frequency. The results focused on students’ opinions on course instruction, literature circles program, group discussion, reading materials, role sheets, and English literacy improvement. These results are used to answer research question four: What are Taiwanese students’ responses to this LC program?. Responses to Course Instruction According to Table 9, most of the students showed their positive attitude to the course instruction. The majority of students preferred literature circles to traditional reading instruction since the program was relatively new and interesting to the students (i.e., items 1 and 2). They also admitted the positive effect of LCs on cultivating thinking and analyzing skills, as well as their own reading motivation (i.e., items 3 and 4). Additionally, as shown in item 6, at least 58% of the students preferred the relaxed, less-pressured, and interactive atmosphere. Finally, 47% of the students thought that the teacher had good interaction with the students. In short, the results present students had positive attitudes to the LCs program. They were willing to join the novel way of classroom instruction. In addition, the majority of them believed that LCs brought positive effects in reading. Therefore, it could be an appropriate instruction approach in Taiwanese EFL contexts.. 37.

(46) Table 9 Students’ Responses to Course Instruction Item. Frequency and Percentage SD. D. N. A. SA. M. Q1: Literature. 0. 0. 4. 11. 4. 4. circles is more. (0%). (0%). (21.1%). (57.9%). (21.1%). 0. 0. 4. 11. 4. (0%). (0%). (21.1%). (57.9%). (21.1%). Q3: Literature. 0. 0. 4. 11. 4. circles help me. (0%). (0%). (21.1%). (57.9%). (21.1%). Q4: Literature. 0. 0. 7. 8. 4. circles improve. (0%). (0%). (36.8%). (42.1%). (21.1%). Q5: All in all, I. 0. 1. 7. 7. 4. like most of the. (0%). (5.3%). (36.8%). (36.8%). (21.1%). 0. 1. 7. 9. 2. (0%). (5.3%). (36.8%). (47.4%). (10.5%). Q7: All in all, the. 0. 0. 10. 7. 2. teacher has good. (0%). (0%). (52.6%). (36.8%). (10.5%). interesting than traditional reading instruction. Q2: I prefer literature circle to. 4. traditional reading instructions. 4. cultivate thinking and analyzing skills. 3.84. motivation in English. 3.74. activities in this literature circles program Q6: All in all, I like the classroom. 3.63. atmosphere in this literature circles program.. 38. 3.58.

(47) interaction with the students. Q8: All in all, I think the learning. 0. 0. 10. 7. 2. (0%). (0%). (52.6%). (36.8%). (10.5%). 3.58. effects of this course are good. Note: SD: strongly disagree, D: disagree, N: neutral, A: agree, SA: strongly agree. Students’ Perception to Discussion Roles in LCs Table 9.1 indicates the results of students’ perception to role sheets that help the researcher investigate the effect of discussion roles in LCs program and students’ perspective on certain role sheets. According to the results, students showed high interest in playing different roles in group discussion (72.7%). The results also indicate that role sheets could inspire students to read the texts from different perspectives and generate multiple interpretation from their partners (57.9%). As for students’ perception about the discussion roles, most students preferred connectors (M=3.84), followed by discussion director (M=3.63) and summarizer (M=3.58). The vocabulary enricher was regarded as the least favorite role of all. These results are similar to previous research studies. In Chen’s study (2013), the summarizer ranked the highest degree preference, whereas, discussion director ranked the lowest degree of preference. In Huang’s research (2008), students preferred connector the most, whereas illustrator was regarded as the least favorite role of all. One possible explanation is that some students may have difficulties playing certain roles because of their personal abilities constraints or heavy work load of certain roles. As students’ responses in survey, a majority of the students had difficulties playing discussion director and vocabulary enricher during discussion. Students pointed out that they had difficulties with the tasks of discussion director, having problem in 39.

(48) generating questions. It required students’ ability of reading comprehension, summary, and analysis. However, it was not easy for some students to fully comprehend the texts and figure out the important points to generate questions. Students answered in the open-ended question: The tasks of discussion director was not easy. It is not easy to analyze the whole story, and condense it into short paragraph (by Oscar). I think discussion director is the most difficult role in LCs program. I had no idea what kind of question I should write down. So, usually I followed the example questions to generate my own questions to ask my groupmate (by Alley). Discussion director is the most difficult, because I need to come up a bunch of questions and answered them after reading the story. I needed to fully understand the story, and then, summarized the important points so that I could generate questions. It was so complicated (by Flora). Apart from discussion director, students also felt troublesome to play as vocabulary enricher. They felt the task of vocabulary enricher was really boring and troublesome that they needed to continuously look up dictionary for the meanings and usages for new vocabulary. Moreover, they didn’t know which of the vocabulary they need to share with their classmates during the sharing sections.. I think vocabulary enricher is too troublesome for me (by Cindy).. The task of vocabulary enricher is very boring that the only things I could do is to look up dictionary (by Eden). I needed to endlessly look up dictionary when I was vocabulary enricher. Also, I didn’t know which vocabulary I should share with my classmate (by Narcissus). In conclusion, through students’ responses, the researcher can investigate the 40.