Strengthening the Reader Self-Efficacies of Reluctant and Struggling Readers Through Literature Circles

Struggling readers are more likely than more proficient readers to receive teacher-centered, subskills-focused reading instruction (Allington, Citation1983). Instruction in reading subskills is merited and supported by research (Scammacca, Roberts, Vaughn, & Stuebing, Citation2015; Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, & Ciullo, Citation2010) yet too often is the predominant form of reading instruction received by struggling readers (Allington, Citation1983). Struggling readers with low self-efficacy often doubt that their reading skills can be improved (Cho et al., Citation2015). Thus, struggling readers require a more balanced approach to literacy instruction to develop, hone, and successfully apply their reading skills within the context of authentic literacy. In this article, I argue that literature circles—a balanced literacy instructional strategy—can potentially strengthen the reader self-efficacies of reluctant and struggling readers.

A meta-analysis conducted by Scammacca et al. (Citation2015) revealed that struggling readers in Grades 4–12 receive primarily skills-based reading intervention, which can improve reading comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary. Thus, there is evidentiary support that targeted skills-based intervention is beneficial for struggling readers in Grades 4–12 (Scammacca et al., Citation2015). A similar synthesis of reading interventions for Grade 4–5 students with reading difficulties and/or disabilities found that researcher-developed interventions were particularly successful in helping students to improve their reading comprehension (Wanzek et al., Citation2010). Although reading subskills are foundational to literacy success, they cannot be the sole focus of reading instruction, particularly as students enter Grade 4. Kim et al. (Citation2016) cautioned, “Improvements in reading subskills, however, are not sufficient for deep comprehension” (p. 358). Moreover, reading instruction begins to shift in Grades 4–6 from developing reading subskills to applying those skills to increasingly difficult texts (Kent, Wanzek, & Al Otaiba, Citation2017). Yet opportunities to partake in authentic literacy experiences may be absent when a subskills approach to reading instruction is overemphasized.

“Despite the fact that balanced reading instruction is supported by the International [Literacy] Association, some schools have shifted toward direct instruction characterized by teacher-centered reading approaches” (Thames et al., Citation2008, p. 89). This is particularly true for struggling students, whom Allington (Citation1983) found were provided more skills-focused reading instruction while their peers received comprehension-focused instruction and read authentic texts. Allington (Citation1983) argued, “Good and poor readers differ in their reading ability as much because of differences in instruction” (p. 548). Like their peers, struggling readers benefit from reading instruction that encourages critical thinking as well as engaging in listening, reading, writing, and dialoguing (Thames et al., Citation2008). Recent research conducted by Kim et al. (2016) studied the effect of Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention, a supplemental reading program melding skills-based instruction with text-based discussion, on struggling readers in Grades 6–8. Students who received the Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention outperformed the control group in terms of word recognition, morphological awareness, and reading comprehension (Kim et al., 2016). Improving reading achievement as well as fostering students’ enjoyment of reading and motivation to read warrants a more balanced approach to reading instruction (i.e., mediating a reading subskills approach with authentic opportunities to engage in reading, writing, and speaking).

Yet improving the reading achievement of reluctant and struggling readers necessitates improving their reader self-efficacies. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief that he or she can succeed at a given task (Bandura, Citation1997). Often struggling readers have low reader self-efficacies (Ferrara, Citation2005). Thus, struggling readers must come to believe that they can read successfully by applying learned skills and strategies (McCabe & Margolis, Citation2001). Readers with low self-efficacies are unlikely to transfer their learning from the context in which they acquired their knowledge and skills to a different one (McCabe, Citation2003). Thus, self-efficacy can influence a struggling reader’s application of learned reading skills and strategies. Cho et al. (2015) found that when students received reading intervention, the reading outcomes of students with low reading comprehension yet higher self-efficacies were more likely to improve than those of students with lower self-efficacies.

For this study, I distinguish between reluctant readers and struggling readers. A reluctant reader is capable of reading (i.e., he or she has the skills to read) yet does not do so unless necessary for work or daily life (Chambers, Citation1969). A struggling reader often reads below grade level (Hoyte, Citation2006). The terms reluctant reader and struggling reader are often used synonymously. As Beers (Citation1996) explained, a reluctant reader (i.e., a person who does not enjoy reading) may evolve into a struggling reader because of a lack of reading practice. A lack of balanced literacy instruction can be detrimental to all students but particularly to reluctant and struggling readers. Thus, the purpose of this embedded multiple case study was to explore the potential influence of participating in literature circles on the reader self-efficacies of reluctant and struggling readers.

Review of the literature and theoretical framework

Literature circles fall within the realm of balanced literacy instruction. Carrison and Ernst-Slavit (Citation2005) explained, “The literature circle model, as a part of a balanced literacy program provides abundant opportunities for dynamic interaction among readers and text” (p. 110). A literature circle is a “small, peer-led discussion group whose members have chosen to read the same story, poem, article, or book” (Daniels, Citation2002, p. 2). Ultimately the goal of literacy instruction is to equip students to read authentic literature (Cooper, Robinson, Slansky, & Kiger, Citation2015). Authentic literature refers to trade books or narrative and expository texts in their original forms (Cooper et al., Citation2015) and contrasts skills-heavy basals readers created specifically to teach reading subskills. As a literature circle participant, each student reads authentic literature while honing his or her literacy skills. In preparation for literature circles, a student may engage in one or more of the following processes: (a) making predictions, (b) identifying important information, (c) making inferences, (d) monitoring comprehension, (e) seeking clarification, (f) asking and answering questions, (g) visualizing, and (h) summarizing (Whittaker, Citation2012). Each of these processes is a research-based strategy for constructing meaning (Cooper et al., Citation2015).

Research attests to the potential benefits of literature circles. For example, participating in a literature circle promotes higher order thinking through student-centered instruction (Cameron, Murray, Hull, & Cameron, Citation2012). Text-based discussions, such as those at the heart of literature circles, help students to develop reading strategies, improve prosody, increase their stamina and perseverance, and develop critical literacy skills (Pearson, Citation2010). Participation in a literature circle improves reading comprehension (Clarke & Holwadel, Citation2007) and, related to this, benefits students with low reading comprehension (Avci & Yuksel, Citation2011). Literature circles increase students’ motivation to read (Stein & Beed, Citation2004) and improve reluctant readers’ enjoyment of reading (Cameron et al., Citation2012). Therefore, literature circles are promising for reluctant and struggling readers.

Some commonalities between the present study and a study conducted by Hall (Citation2012) exist, including a focus on struggling readers, the instrument used to measure reader self-efficacy, and the utilization of text-based discussions. Hall utilized the Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS; Henk & Melnick, Citation1995) as one data source in her study of struggling readers’ interactions in text-based discussion groups. Hall found that struggling readers were initially reserved in their text-based discussion groups yet began to contribute more over the course of their group meetings. The present study, however, differs from Hall in its focus on reader self-efficacy and the inclusion of reluctant readers as participants. Thus, this study is unique in relation to research on both self-efficacy and literature circles.

I approached this study through the lens of social cognitive theory, fathered by Albert Bandura. Bandura (Citation2001) postulated that humans are cognitive agents influenced by their own thoughts and beliefs, including self-efficacy. This study—focused on the influence of participating in literature circles on the reader self-efficacies of reluctant and struggling readers in an intermediate grades classroom—was framed by social cognitive theory.

Self-efficacy is defined as confidence in one’s “ability to organize and execute a given course of action to solve a problem or accomplish a task” (Bandura, Citation1997, p. 3). Self-efficacy is task specific (McCabe, Citation2003). Thus, a student may have higher self-efficacy in one content area (e.g., mathematics) but lower self-efficacy in another (e.g., English language arts and reading). Four sources of information compose self-efficacy: (a) mastery experience, (b) vicarious experience, (c) feedback, and (d) physiological states (Pajares, Citation2003). One’s self-efficacy influences task engagement, the amount of effort put forth toward accomplishing the task, and persistence in the face of difficulty (Bandura & Schunk, Citation1981). Therefore, literacy educators must understand the role of self-efficacy in learning.

An individual’s cognitive ability as well as self-efficacy influence his or her literacy development (Corkett, Hatt, & Benevides, Citation2011). Furthermore, self-efficacy as a motivational factor can likewise influence literacy development (Schunk & Zimmerman, Citation2007). Readers with low self-efficacies may avoid or withdraw from tasks perceived as too difficult (Guthrie et al., Citation2007; Zimmerman, Citation2000). Consequently, readers with low self-efficacies may miss opportunities to improve their reading comprehension (Solheim, Citation2011). Pajares (Citation2003) cautioned that unwarranted low self-efficacy, rather than ability, can diminish a student’s academic achievement. Furthermore, recent research underscores the connection between self-efficacy and literacy development/achievement (Corkett et al., Citation2011; J. K. Smith, Smith, Gilmore, & Jameson, Citation2012; Solheim, Citation2011).

Research suggests that self-efficacy influences reading enjoyment, reading comprehension, and literacy-related achievement. J. K. Smith et al. (Citation2012) found a correlation between reading self-efficacy and reading enjoyment. The researchers found that Grade 4 and Grade 8 students with higher reading self-efficacies viewed reading as more enjoyable than their peers with lower reading self-efficacies (J. K. Smith et al., Citation2012). Solheim (Citation2011) found a correlation between reading self-efficacy and reading comprehension. Grade 5 students with high reading self-efficacies performed well on both multiple-choice and created-response reading comprehension questions (Solheim, Citation2011). Readers with low self-efficacies, however, performed better on created-response questions than multiple-choice questions (Solheim, Citation2011). Solheim’s research underscores the influence of a student’s self-efficacy on measures of reading achievement. In an era of high-stakes testing, such findings denote the importance of improving students’ self-efficacies to improve their reading comprehension and aptitude for multiple-choice standardized tests. Corkett et al. (Citation2011) also found a connection between students’ literacy (i.e., reading and writing) achievement and their self-efficacies. In their study, teachers’ perceptions of their students’ reading self-efficacies correlated with their students’ reading and writing abilities (Corkett et al., Citation2011). Literature circles—an engaging, student-centered instructional strategy utilizing authentic literature—can foster reading enjoyment, comprehension, and achievement.

There is a need to study the reader self-efficacies of Grade 4–6 students on two fronts. First, previous research suggests that Grade 4–6 students often fail to appraise accurately their reading self-efficacies (Corkett et al., Citation2011; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, Citation2003; Pajares, Citation2003; J. K. Smith et al., Citation2012). This is an issue of calibration, or the notion that one’s perceived self-efficacy is an accurate reflection of one’s actual performance (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, Citation2003). The ability to calibrate accurately one’s self-efficacy with one’s ability improves with age (Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, Citation1995). However, low self-efficacy can supersede skill (Bandura, Citation1997), which is potentially dangerous for readers in Grades 4–6. Because reading motivation is known to decline in the adolescent years (Unrau & Schlackman, Citation2006), educators must intentionally build the reader self-efficacies of Grade 4–6 students who are transitioning into adolescence. Second, the onus is on Grade 4–6 teachers to cultivate their students’ reader self-efficacies. Teachers in a study conducted by Corkett et al. (Citation2011) were unaware of the role literacy-related self-efficacy played in their students’ achievement. However, teachers need to be intentional in strengthening their students’ reading self-efficacies. Schunk and Zimmerman (Citation2007) recommended that teachers build students’ self-efficacies through encouraging feedback as well as opportunities to gain mastery experiences. For example, teachers can utilize cooperative learning opportunities to build a student’s self-efficacy through vicarious experience (Schunk & Zimmerman, Citation2007). Cooperative learning enhances vicarious experience, as a student will likely identify with at least one model in the group (Schunk, Citation1987). The focus on self-efficacy within the context of cooperative learning via literature circles led me to frame this study from the perspective of social cognitive theory.

Methodology

Results and findings

The self-reported reader self-efficacies of the reluctant and struggling readers who served as cases in this study improved between the RSPS pre- and posttests. These results corroborate findings from qualitative data. Yet the influence of participation in the literature circle on the reader self-efficacies of the other study participants (i.e., the students with higher reader self-efficacies) was not as pronounced.

Discussion

The results and findings of this study suggest that participating in literature circles could potentially improve the reader self-efficacies of reluctant and struggling readers. The reader self-efficacies of three reluctant readers (i.e., Grace, Humberto, and Naomi), two struggling readers (i.e., Lucita and Ximena), and two students identified as both reluctant and struggling readers (i.e., Tomás and Will) improved as demonstrated by an increase in their RSPS scores from pre- to posttest. Moreover, findings from the qualitative data analysis suggest that participating in literature circles positively influenced each of the seven cases. Four of the seven cases (i.e., Grace, Humberto, Tomás, and Ximena) explicitly stated that participating in literature circles led to improvements between their RSPS pre- and posttest scores. Mrs. Ian vocalized improvement in four of the seven cases (i.e., Lucita, Tomás, Will, and Ximena) in their demeanors toward reading and/or reading skills. Five of the seven cases identified at least one strength in terms of their reading ability following their participation in literature circles. More specifically, Grace, Humberto, Lucita, and Naomi explicitly mentioned their abilities to problem-solve unknown words as a strength, whereas Ximena expressed an overall improvement in herself as a reader.

Educators must be intentional in seeking to strengthen the reader self-efficacies of reluctant and struggling readers. I designed this embedded multiple case study to explore the potential influence of participating in literature circles on the reader self-efficacies of reluctant and struggling readers in Grades 4–6. Prior to conducting this study, I predicted that the reader self-efficacies of the seven reluctant and struggling readers who served as cases in this study would be positively influenced, or strengthened, following their participation in literature circles. Social cognitive theory both informed this prediction and framed this study. Vicarious experience, or observing others’ success in a given task, is one source that informs self-efficacy. Within the context of this study, I postulated that cases’ self-efficacies could potentially be strengthened as they observed their peers demonstrating success within literature circles. Participation in literature circles could potentially provide cases with the opportunity to garner mastery experiences with reading as well as solicit feedback from their literature circle members, both of which could likewise inform self-efficacy. This study is significant because, as mentioned previously, the reader self-efficacies of Grade 4–6 students often do not correlate with their reading abilities. Therefore, there is a need to strengthen the reader self-efficacies of reluctant and struggling readers to improve their affinities for reading and arguably their reading achievement.

Although some may suggest that the RSPS scores of the cases increased from pre- to posttest because of the students’ natural growth over the course of the school year, I argue against this notion. As mentioned in the review of related literature, there is a lack of calibration between the reading abilities and the reading self-efficacies of Grade 4–6 students (Corkett et al., Citation2011; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, Citation2003; Pajares, Citation2003; J. K. Smith et al., Citation2012). Thus, although the reading ability of cases may have improved over the duration of the school year and course of this study, prior research suggests that improved reading ability does not necessarily translate into improved reader self-efficacy. Furthermore, outside of literature circles, students read only short passages focused on improving their reading subskills in preparation for the annual state standardized exam. An interview with Mrs. Ian attested to this notion, as she stated, “So much of what we read in class and even on our STAAR [i.e., State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness] test is very quick, short reads” (personal communication, February 2017). Reading short passages designed to improve reading subskills and/or for test preparation is unlikely to contribute to long-term reading growth. As Cabral-Marquez (Citation2015) explained, “It is only through sustained, active engagement with text that students will encounter natural, genuine opportunities to integrate all the skills and strategies that comprise the reading process and lead to growth in reading” (p. 464). Thus, I contend that the authentic literature read for literature circles had more of an influence on the reader self-efficacies of cases than the more frequently utilized shorter, subskills-focused texts. Comments from the cases and their classroom teacher suggest the same. Finally, higher self-efficacy is unlikely to be sustained if students are unsuccessful in a given task (Schunk & Zimmerman, Citation2007). Therefore, the cases’ elevated reader self-efficacies were more likely due to their successful participation in literature circles, which was the only changed variable in the type of reading instruction they received from Mrs. Ian over the course of the school year. Furthermore, participating in literature circles did not have the same influence on the reader self-efficacies of the other study participants, whose reader self-efficacies were initially higher. The incongruence in RSPS posttest results for cases and other study participants further suggests that participating in literature circles can potentially strengthen the reader self-efficacies of reluctant and struggling readers. As mentioned previously, both cases and other study participants intermingled in literature circles as well as read and discussed the same novel. In addition, Mrs. Ian changed the membership of each literature circle from week to week. Because both cases (i.e., reluctant and struggling readers with initially lower reader self-efficacies) and other study participants (i.e., students with initially higher reader self-efficacies) were subjected to the same aforementioned conditions yet produced different results on their RSPS posttests, the plausibility that participation in the literature circles increased the reader self-efficacies of cases is merited.

Limitations

There are two primary limitations to this study. It is unknown whether reluctant and/or struggling readers were present in the pool of other study participants. However, I took steps to mitigate this issue by conferring with Mrs. Ian to identify potential cases for further study. Moreover, Mrs. Ian did not identify any of the other study participants—who demonstrated initially higher reader self-efficacies—as either reluctant or struggling readers. Prior research by Valdez (Citation2013) supports the validity of teachers’ judgements of their students’ literacy skills. Consequently, I trusted Mrs. Ian’s professional judgment, especially because she had taught some of the cases during the previous school year(s).

As an embedded multiple case study, this study was primarily qualitative in nature; therefore, I cannot speak to the generalizability of the results and findings. Moreover, as this was a case study, the cases and other study participants were bound to the unique context of Mrs. Ian’s Grade 4–6 classroom. Therefore, the results and findings that emerged from this study may not translate to other contexts. The quantitative data collected for this study served two purposes: (a) to help identify potential cases for further study and (b) to supplement the qualitative data. Thus, the sample size (i.e., n = 7 for cases, n = 10 for other study participants) is too small to warrant deeper analysis. Furthermore, I used criterion-based purposeful sampling to identify the seven cases. All students took part in literature circles; therefore, there was neither a treatment nor a control group.

Future research

Future research into literature circles or text-based discussion groups and reader self-efficacy is needed, particularly regarding the reader self-efficacies of students who tend to be more successful in more traditional literacy instructional contexts than reluctant or struggling readers. I suggest that quasi-experimental studies be conducted on the potential influence of literature circles or text-based discussion groups on reader self-efficacy. Conducting such quasi-experimental research in separate classrooms would allow for the creation of both a control group (i.e., students who do not participate in literature circles) and a treatment group (i.e., students who do participate in literature circles). Nevertheless, this study suggests that literature circles may influence the reader self-efficacies of reluctant and struggling readers.

Conclusion

The results and findings of this study suggest that participating in a literature circle can potentially strengthen the reader self-efficacies of reluctant and struggling readers. This study is significant because similar results were not found for the other study participants with initially higher reader self-efficacies. Thus, this study provides support for the utilization of literature circles—a balanced literacy instructional strategy that is engaging, student centered, and holistic—to potentially boost the reader self-efficacies of reluctant and struggling readers in Grades 4–6. As mentioned previously, Grade 4–6 students often fail to calibrate their self-efficacies and reading abilities (Corkett et al., Citation2011; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, Citation2003; Pajares, Citation2003; J. K. Smith et al., Citation2012). I argue that literature circles—an engaging, more student-centered, and holistic approach to reading instruction—merits inclusion in Grade 4–6 classrooms for its potential to strengthen the reader self-efficacies of reluctant and struggling readers.