The Students’ Written Response Improvements In Literature Circles Program (A case study of one public high school in Demak).

(1)

i

1. The Grouping in Literature Circles ... Error! Bookmark not defined. A. The small temporary groups are formed, based on book choice. And when a cycle of Literature Circles finished, new groups are formed based on new reading choice. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. Each Group reads different texts in a cycle. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. C. The group meetings are scheduled. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2. The discussions invite the students to share their reading experiences in open and natural conversations. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3. The class maintains the spirit of fun. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.2.2. Writing in Literature Circles. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3. Starting Literature Circles ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.1. Scheduling Literature Circles in a Classroom ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.2. Tools in Literature Circles ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.2.1. Role Sheets ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.2.2. Response Log / Reading Log ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.2.3. Mini Lessons ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4. Theory of Reader Response ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.4.1. Reader Stances ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.4.2. Types of Responses ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.5. Conclusion ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

3.2. Research Design ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.3. Setting ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.4. Participants ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.5. The Literature Circles Program ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.6. Data Collection Techniques ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.6.1. Class Observation ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.6.2. Interview... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.6.3. Document Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.7. Methods of data analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.7.1. Observation ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.1.1. Interview ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.7.3. Document Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.8. Conclusion ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER IV: THE LITERATURE CIRCLES PROGRAM: AN OVERVIEW ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

4.2. Starting the Literature Circles Program. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.3. The short story selections... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.4. The Literature Circles Program ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

(3)

iii

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION OF TEXT ANALYSIS ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT

DEFINED.

5.2. Discussion of the improvements gained by the students. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.2.1. Literature Circles Training (LCT) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.2.2. Literature Circles 1 (LC1) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.2.3. Literature Circles 2 (LC2) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.2.4. Literature Circles 3 (LC3) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.3. Types of Students’ Responses ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.3.1. Most Efferent ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3.2. Primarily Efferent ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3.3. Primarily Aesthetic ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3.4. Most Aesthetic Response ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.4. Conclusion ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION OF INTERVIEW DATA ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT

DEFINED.

6.2. Discussion of Data from the Preliminary Interview. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.3. Discussion of Data from the post-program implementation Interview ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.3.1. The students’ roles in Literature Circles. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1. Students choose the text to read. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2. The students use written or drawn notes to guide both their reading and discussion.... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3. The students prepare the discussion topics. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4. The students evaluate their own progresses. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 6.3.2. The teacher’s roles in Literature Circles. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1. The teacher serves as facilitator. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2. The teacher conducts evaluation by observation. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 6.3.3. The Literature Circles’ Procedures ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1. The grouping in Literature Circles ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

A. Small temporary groups are formed, based on book choice. And when a cycle of Literature Circles finished, new groups are formed based on new reading choice. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

B. Each group reads different texts in a cycle. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

C. The groups’ meetings are scheduled. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2. The discussions invite the students to share their reading experiences in open and natural conversations. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3. The class maintains the spirit of fun. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 6.4. The developments the students thought they had gained... Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.5. Students’ Suggestions of Literature Circles Implementation in high school. . Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.6. Conclusion ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES .... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT

DEFINED.

(4)

iv 7.3. Limitation of the study ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

7.4. Recommendations for Further Studies ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

NINLIOGRAPHY ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

APPENDICES ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

List of Tables

Table 1. Literature Circles schedule model for middle school (Daniels, 2002)... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 2. Major Stages of the Literature Circles Program ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 3. The ratings of the stories read by the students. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 4. The schedule and activities of the Literature Circles program ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 5. Result of Written Response Analysis LCT ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 6. Result of Written Response Analysis LC1. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 9. Result of Preliminary Interview ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 10. Result of Post-Program Interview ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

List of Figures

Figure 1. Literature Circles training key steps. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 2. Reader Stance Continuum ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 4. The students' written response improvements. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 5. Efferent - Aesthetic Stance Distribution. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

List of Appendices

Appendix 1. Role Sheets ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 2. Reader Response Prompt. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 3. Interview Condensed Data. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 4. Prompt Interview Questions. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 5. Interview Condensed data by topics. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 6. Classroom Observation Field Notes. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

(5)

v

Appendix 8. Samples of Students' Self Assessment Sheets. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 9. Story Rating Sheet. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 10. Story Rating Reports. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 11. Written Response Rubric. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 12. The Catalogue of The Short Stories. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 13. Samples of The Short Stories Chosen by The Students.Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 14. The Students' writing index data from Literature Circles Training to Literature Circles 3... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 15. Samples of Te Students' Written Responses Analysis. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 16. Samples of Students' written Responses. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 17. Samples of Mini Lessons. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 18. The Records' of Students' Roles Rotary. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

(6)

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1.Introduction

This study is concerned with the improvements of the students’ written

responses in Literature Circles program at a state high school of Demak. In this

section the background of the study is elaborated. It also clarifies the purposes of

the study. It is expected that the study will benefit to not only the teachers of

English but also the theory of Literature Circles.

1.2.Background of the Study

This study was a program evaluation of Literature Circles in improving

students’ written responses at one state high school in Demak. In addition, it tried

to figure out types of students’ written responses produced in the Literature

Circles program.

Literature circles provide rich and complex learning experiences to the

students (Daniels, 2002). By doing Literature Circles students are expected to love

reading and be critical readers. In addition, the activities in Literature Circles are

intended to develop students’ cognitive competences, affective competences and

social skills (Daniels, 2002). Those developments are possible since Literature

Circles incorporate student-centered learning, collaborative learning and reader

response theories. The notion of the theories can be seen from the principles of

(7)

2 Practically, Daniels (2002) has mentioned eleven principles of Literature

Circles implementation in a classroom. The principles can be categorized into

three main points: the students’ roles, the teachers’ roles and the program

procedures. Doing literature Circles the students independently choose a text,

read, prepare the discussion topics and assess their own progress. The teacher

serves as facilitator in the class. And the program procedures include the grouping

techniques and routines which make the Literature Circles work.

Besides promoting the students’ reading abilities, it is believed that the

circles are potential in developing the other language skills such as the students’

writing abilities (Daniels, 2002. See also Dowson & FitzGerald, 1999). Therefore,

this study focused on the investigation of the improvement in the students’ written

response. In fact, the studies of Literature Circles in relation to the students’

reading interests and abilities had been vastly conducted. Literature circles have

been proven to be an effective way to increase students’ interests in reading and

texts comprehensions (Daniels, 2002. See also Dowson & FitzGerald, 1999; Hill,

Noe & King, 2003; Hill, 2007; Kathrin & Nancy, 1999; King, 2001; Noe &

Johnson, 1999; Victor & Mark, 2007; Faye, 2005). While the studies of Literature

Circles in relation to the students’ writing abilities are still rare, the study was

expected to enrich and narrow the gap.

It is suggested that one of possible text forms, which can be used for the

written works in the Literature Circles (Daniels, 2002), is reader response,

proposed by Louise Rosenblatt (1995). Rosenblatt explores the idea that reading is

(8)

3 the words of the author, but it comes as a result of the interaction of the reader

with the text. The reader brings a set of previous experiences that influence

understanding of the text (Rosenblatt, 1995). In Literature Circles, the focus is not

on answering predetermined questions, but on the reader’s own questions and

thoughts about the texts. In this case, readers’ responses may refer to their

personal experiences or just bunches of their points of views analysis (Daniels,

2002). In relation to this, Daniels (2002) stated that Literature Circles integrate

the notion of Bloom taxonomy in that analysis is a higher level of thinking than

comprehension. Therefore Literature Circles’ activities, responding to literatures,

are aimed at developing the students’ critical thinking capacities (short stories,

novels or movies).

The study was conducted based on several underlying thoughts. Firstly, as

a result of observation, the students of high schools in Demak commonly have

difficulties in expressing their ideas. They also lack experiences in group process

learning so that they need dynamic experience of learning. This is in accordance

with Dawson & FitzGerald’s (1999: 5) statement that Literature Circles are

needed by the students with such problems.

Secondly, the teaching of English in high school includes the four major

language skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking (Tim, 2004). However,

not all the teachers are aware of the objectives so that those skills are not included

in their teaching. Whether or not the teachers purposively do so, it is assumed that

high school teachers in Demak tend to stand in front of the class for the purpose of

(9)

4 and inadequate believes towards of the students’ competences seem to be the

major consideration of their decision making. The condition shows that there is a

need to suggest teachers with new horizon of teaching models which integrate the

four language skills in a time. Therefore, the study offered practical guidance to

the teachers in conducting Literature Circles. In fact, it can be integrated with

English teaching in high school and prepared as reading activity before writing

(Daniels, 2002). In this case, the students wrote their responses towards literary

works.

Thirdly, the teaching of literature in English class gives holistic

advantages. Some of the advantages can be that the Literatures provide authentic

language uses of a foreign language. In addition, the content can motivate the

students to read more when the topics relate to the students’ concerns. Also,

Literatures may enrich and promote the students’ experiences as well as thinking

abilities by connecting the story with the students’ lives (Rosenblatt, 1995; Kroll,

2003). In order to know the feeling of sadness, the students do not need to

experience the sadness by themselves. Learning from others experience can be

done by reading literatures. The students’ thinking abilities may also develop

(Daniels, 2002; Rosenblatt, 1995) and it can be seen from their writings they

produced (Probst, 1994), e.g. thinking aloud. Thus, it is obvious that literatures

teaching give benefit to the students’ life skills.

Lastly, UNESCO has pledged the target not only in rising the percentage

of adult literacy up to 50%, but also in promoting learning and life skills for the

(10)

5 literacy development has been educating the illiterate people. That is training the

old generations to read. Further task can be educating the adult generation who are

already able to read and write in becoming critical members of the society.

Moreover, the current curriculum also mentions that life skills development is one

of the education objectives (Tim, 2004). Therefore schools and their programs are

expected to promote the students’ critical literacy and life skills. The study was

conducted to support the movement.

From the description above, it shows that there is a need to gain the

effectiveness of Literature circles, as well as exploration to what it contributes to

students writing. And it is believed as essential to conduct a program evaluation.

1.3.Purpose of the Study

The study is aimed at gaining insight on Literature Circles program. This

specifically is designed to:

1. Investigate the improvement of the students’ written responses in English

through Literature Circles.

2. Describe the types of written responses the students produced after doing

Literature Circles.

3. Evaluate the students’ perspectives towards Literature Circles program

implementation in their classroom.

1.4.Research Question

The study is designed to address the following research questions:

(11)

6 2) What types of written responses do the students produce after doing

Literature Circles?

3) What are the students’ opinions about the Literature Circles program in their

EFL classroom?

1.5.The Scope of the Study

This study was conducted at one state high School in Demak, from 28

April to 28 May of 2010. The participants of this study were a group of XI-grade

students. The exploration focused on Literature circles program implementation

and students’ writings, in this case, students’ written responses.

1.6.Significance of the Study

The study reported here has sought to address problems of teaching

English in a secondary context in Demak and to investigate the possibilities and

values of Literature Circles implementation in a classroom. It was conducted to

reveal the students’ perceptions of the Literature Circles program, as well as the

contributions of the Literature Circles program to the students’ written response

improvements.

The studies in relation to the students’ reading abilities and interests have

been vastly explored. However, there is still lack of research which seeks to

understand the students’ developments in their writing skills. This research

enriches the theory and the practices of Literature Circles in English teaching for

secondary contexts.

Lastly, the knowledge from the findings might provide the teachers with a

(12)

7 perceptions of the Literature Circles and their suggestions for appropriate conduct

of teaching it can benefit those who are willing to do Literature Circles in the

classroom.

1.7.Definition of Terms

To avoid possible misunderstanding and misinterpretation in order to

clarify variables involved in the study, the definition are put forwards:

Literature circles

Literature Circles are small, flexible discussion groups that support readers

in thinking critically about texts. The participants read and then come

together to talk about what they have read to extend and deepen each

participant’s understanding by sharing thoughts and ideas that might not

have otherwise been explored (Daniels, 2002).

Role Sheets

The tools, adapted from standard collaborative learning practice, give the

group member of Literature Circles temporarily jobs; Discussion Director /

Discussion Director, Summarizer, Literary Luminary, Connector and Word

Wizard, Illustrator, Scene Setter, Researcher (Daniels, 2002).

Reading / Response Logs

It is a space where students capture and save responses while they read

(13)

8 Reader Response Writing

In this study Reader Response writing is referred as written response. The

written response is students’ writing about the response of their personal

experience or just a bunch of their points of view analysis to the text

(Daniels, 2002).

Stance

The purpose or the focus of attention of the reader during the act of reading.

Aesthetic Stance

The focus of the reader is on “what is being created during the actual

reading (Rosenblatt: 1995)

Efferent Stance

The focus of attention of the reader is on what is being created away at the

end of the reading (Rosenblatt, 1995)

Transactional Theory

It is a reader response theory introduced by Louise Rosenblatt in which she

stresses the unique relationship between the reader and the text – meaning

(14)

9 A Program Evaluation

Program evaluation is the use of research procedures to systematically

investigate the effectiveness of a program.

1.8.Organization of the paper

This paper is divided into six chapters. The first chapter contains an

introduction of the study including the background of the study, research

objectives, research questions, the purpose followed by the significance of the

study and definition of term.

Chapter two consists of the review of related literature. It presents the

detailed information of Literature circles teaching in high school, and the relevant

theoretical foundation of reader response writing.

Chapter three, it deals with the methodology used in this study. It presents

the details of the research design that incorporate qualitative methods. The

participants selected methods, the inquiry methods, and data analysis methods are

described to allow for possible replication of the study.

Chapter four outlines the program implementation. It describes the

schedule and arrangement of the program in overall.

Chapter five presents the discussion of students’ text analysis. Chapter Six

gives a discussion on interview data. And Chapter seven proposes conclusion,

limitation of the study and recommendation for further research arising from

(15)

49

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1. Introduction

The chapter presents the methodology of this research. It reported the

information about the research design, the site and the participant of the study.

Finally, this chapter describes the data sources, collection, and analysis.

3.2. Research Design

The study comprised several research methods. Namely, the program

evaluation and the case study (Patton 1987; Lynch, 1996; Emilia, 2005). It was

regarded as a program evaluation since the study aimed to evaluate the Literature

Circles, a teaching program. The purpose of the evaluation was to learn the

program effectiveness in improving the students’ written responses, and its

appropriateness for a high school setting. The data resulting from the evaluation

was used to assist the researcher in deciding whether a cycle of Literature Circles

needed to be modified or altered in anyway so that the objectives was achieved

more effectively.

Moreover, the study could be considered as a case study because its

purpose was to deeply learn about what was happening in the program and the

particular outcomes, the students’ written responses. It involved multiple data

(16)

50 education that was the students’ written responses in Literature Circles program

(Travers, 2001; Nunan, 1991; Patton, 1987; Creswell, 1998 see also Emilia 2005).

3.3. Setting

The study took place in one state high school in Demak. The program was

run in five weeks, sequentially from 28 April to 28 May 2010. The determination

of particular place of investigation deals with several reasons. Firstly, the program

initiation was based on a thought that the students of high school in Demak need

dynamic experience in their learning. They lack experience in group process

learning and found it difficult to express their responses. As has been mentioned

by Dawson & FitzGerald (1999: 5) those common classroom problems Literature

Circles can work on. Secondly, the students in the school had enough experience

in reading for comprehension but had never done critical reading and writing for

assignment. Thirdly, the researcher has had the experience in teaching several

high schools in Demak. Therefore, the participants intentionally chosen were

representative of common high school students in the region. There was no special

artificial conditioning in preparing the students to join the program instead of the

program itself. Lastly, it maintained the feasibility and effectiveness of the time to

conduct the study in a certain period of time. As what Creswell (1998) say that the

data of case study is rich in context. Therefore, the study could be a true benefit

for future development in the particular region.

3.4. Participants

The participants of this study were a class of second grade students in a

(17)

51 several reasons. The first, the selection of the particular second grade class

underlies on the assumption that the students had been exposed with a reading

program conducted by the teacher. Because Literature Circles are considered as

complex classroom activities (Daniels, 2002), it was hoped that the condition

benefitted the research in gaining the expected data within a limited time. The

later was the consideration that the students had started in process of learning and

teaching English and have been unexplored.

Initially, the study involved 30 students. In average their ages ranged from

15 to 16 years old, with 19 females and 11 males. The students originally lived in

Demak. Since the class was doing its regular routine. Some students couldn’t fully

join the program. During the program implementation seven students were

assigned for a competition, two students couldn’t attend the class due to illness.

And during the week of the program implementation six students had left the class

for movies. It left 15 students, 12 females and three males as the data sources of

the study.

3.5. The Literature Circles Program

In this research the Literature Circles Program was conducted in five

weeks. The program covered 2 weeks of training session which included explicit

teachings followed by one cycle of Literature Circles Training. And the other 3

weeks covered 3 cycles of Literature Circles. The major stages of the program can

(18)

52 Table 1. Major Stages of the Literature Circles Program

Steps in starting the Literature

Week 3 Refine Reading the self-selected text. Literature Circles One (LC1) Week 4 Refine Reading the self-selected text.

Literature Circles Two (LC2) Week 5 Refine Reading the self-selected text.

Literature Circles Three (LC3)

In addition, students were asked to write their written responses after the

discussion finished, without the process of drafting and refining. It followed

Thomson (1987 in Amer, 2003) and Squire’s (1964) procedures in researching

students’ responses to Literature. And the students’ written responses were treated

as product (Hilgers, et. al., 2010; Frodesen & Holten, 2003: 144).

Every after a Literature Circles cycle finished the students were asked to

write the written responses (Daniels, 2002). In this study, the teacher prepared the

students with prompt questions. The questions might help the students with ideas

(19)

53 prompt questions). Moreover, the questions were intended to invite the

participants’ attentions to go through efferent and aesthetic stance continuum.

3.6. Data Collection Techniques

There were three data collection techniques that were used in this study.

The techniques applied were observation, interview and document analysis

(Patton, 1987; Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993; Denzin & Lincoln, 1993; Lynch, 1996;

Marshall & Rossan, 2006). Below is the elaboration.

3.6.1. Class Observation

Observations in this study were done ten times during the Literature

Circles implementation. (See Table.3 for day to day teaching activities). In this

study, observation was mainly used for obtaining descriptions of behavior and

events in the Literature Circles. The observation enabled the researcher to draw

inferences about the students’ behaviors and perspectives of doing Literature

Circles that could not be obtained by relying on the interview data (Maxwell,

1996).

In this study, the teacher acted as the participant observer (Richards, 2003:

119). The observation was conducted while the teacher moved around the

classroom. The teacher role as facilitator gave reasonable time to monitor and note

what happened in the program implementation. Maintaining the observation

validity an outside observer was invited (Allwright, 2003: 45 as well as Marshall

& Rosman, 2006: 98). The presence of the outside observer was to help the

researcher accurately capturing the events and the students’ behaviors while doing

(20)

54 immediately while and after each session (Van Lier, 1988 See also Emilia 2005)

(See Appendix 6 for the teachers’ field notes).

3.6.2. Interview

The interviews were conducted to clarify the students’ perceptions and

experiences during Literature Circles in the classroom. It was one of the most

common ways for the researcher to find out and understand what students think or

how they feel about the Literature Circles implementation (Dowson, 2009; Lynch,

1996; Marshal & Rossan, 2006; Frankle & Wallen, 1993; Denzin & Lincoln,

1993).

The in-depth semi structured interviews were conducted twice, before and

after the program. Initial interview involved 30 students. It tried to uncover the

students’ previous experiences in writing activities. While at the end of the

program the interview was conducted to evaluate the program implementation. As

much as 10 students were involved in the last interview. By doing the interview

the researcher was able to scrutinize the information given by the students so that

a deeper understanding of their statement about the Literature Circles

implementation could be explored. (See Appendix 3 for the interview condensed

data).

3.6.3. Document Analysis

The document analysis was done to obtain two purposes. The first was to

obtain the program implementation process (Dowson, 2009; Lynch, 1996;

Marshal & Rossan, 2006; Frankle & Wallen, 1993; Denzin & Lincoln, 1993). For

(21)

55 students written responses, book pass reviews, students’ self assessments (See

appendices for the samples of the documents). The documents represented the

main source of information to determine the students’ comprehension of texts and

processes of learning. (See Appendices for the samples of the documents)

The second purpose of document analysis was to gain the evidence of the

students’ written response improvements and the students’ types of responses. The

documents evaluated were taken from 15 students as indicated in section 3.4.. The

students’ written responses were collected from the Literature Circles Training

(LCT) to the Literature Circles 3 (LC3) (See Appendix 16 for the samples of the

students’ written responses).

3.7. Methods of data analysis

The data analysis of the study was carried out during the program and

after. The data analysis was crucial since it provided the material for answering

the research questions: (1) Can Literature Circles improve the students’ written

responses? (2) What types of written responses do the students produce after

doing Literature Circles? (3) What are the students’ opinions about the Literature

Circles program in their EFL classroom?.

3.7.1. Observation

The ongoing data were gained from the teacher’s notes of observation, role

sheets, reading logs, story ratings, students’ self assessments, and students’

written responses. The data analysis was conducted in three steps: managed,

analyzed, and interpreted (Silverman, 2005). First, the data were managed based

(22)

56 this study the sessions was divided into two, meeting I which is notes and logs,

and meeting II which was the discussion sessions. Secondly, the data was

analyzed to provide the researcher with the materials for evaluations and

refinements of the Literature Circle cycles (See Appendix 6 for the teachers’ field

notes). The events or the students’ behaviors were categorized according to the

principles of the Literature Circles. Finally the data were interpreted to answer the

research questions.

1.7.1. Interview

The interviews were conducted twice, before and after the program. Initial

interview was intended to uncover the students’ previous experiences in reading

and writing activities. The second interview was to evaluate the program as a

whole. The data of interview was analyzed in several steps (Kvale, 1996 see also

Emilia 2005). Initially, the students’ names were replaced with pseudonyms

during the transcription of the data. Then, the data were sorted out and interpreted

into three central themes. Firstly, it was about the students’ opinions towards

Literature Circles. Secondly, the students’ thoughts of what they had gained from

the Literature Circles program. And thirdly, it recorded students’ suggestions for

Literature Circles best suit for future implementation (See Appendix 5 for the

interview condensed data by topics and Chapter VI for the discussion of the

interview data reports).

3.7.3. Document Analysis

As has been indicatet in section 3.6.3. the document analysis was done for

(23)

57 Analyzing the students’ learning process, besides the teachers’ field notes, the

document analysis referred to some data collections: the teachers’ evaluation

sheets, the students’ role sheets, the students’ reading logs, the students’ self

assessments and the students’ written responses. (See Appendices for the samples

of the documents). By analyzing those evidences, the evaluation of Literature

Circles program implementation was done. This was because in general students’

portfolio works provided concrete instances of learners’ progress (Nunan, 1999;

Freebody, 2003; Emilia, 2004).

Secondly, in order to answer the first and the second research questions,

text critical analysis was applied. The main data analyzed was the students’

written responses. For the first question, the researcher had done careful

evaluation towards students’ written responses from the LCT to LC3 utilizing a

rubric (See Appendix 11. for the rubric). The rubric measured the students’

abilities in retelling the story, Personal reaction, Connection making, Comments

on Authors craft, and Personal reflection (See Appendix 14 for the students’

written responses index).

Specifically in the attempt of answering the second research question, the

students’ written responses were critically analyzed based on Rosenblatt’s

description of reader stance. In defining the continuum, the description of reader

stance by Cox and Many (1992) were applied. They were: Most efferent response,

Primarily efferent responses, Primarily aesthetic responses, and Most aesthetic

(24)

58 Moreover, to scrutinize the compiling items within the students’ written

responses, the response categories of Squire’s (1964; See also Sheila & Ray,

2005:74; Karolides, 1999; Benton, 2003: 91; Early and Odlan) and Thompson

(1978 in Amer, 2003). (See 2.4.2.for further explanation of types of responses)

were utilized. Based on the categories, the students’ written responses were piled

up to withdraw the response patterns. This kind of written response analysis had

been done by Angelotti (1972) in his research. (See Appendix 15 for the samples

of the students’ written responses analysis)

All the data gained were triangulated to stretch the findings of the research

questions. The findings were the improvements in the students’ written responses,

the students’ types of responses (See Chapter V for the discussion of text

analysis), and the students’ perceptions of the Literature Circles program

implementation (See Chapter VI for the discussion of the interview data).

3.8. Conclusion

This chapter has focused on a detailed methodology of the study. It

includes the setting, the participants, the data collection techniques and analysis

(25)

81

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION OF TEXT ANALYSIS

5.1. Introduction

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretations of the students’

written responses for two purposes. Firstly, samples of the students’ works are

discussed to show the evidence of improvements in the students’ written

responses. And secondly, it presents the types of responses in the students’ written

responses overall.

5.2. The Improvements of the students’ written responses in Literature

Circles.

In this study the students were asked to write the written responses when a

cycle of Literature Circles finished. This is in line with Daniels’ (2002) suggestion

that writing can be done as activity after reading. As a result, each student

produced four works of written responses from LCT to LC3. The students’ written

responses were considered as products (Hilgers, et. al., 2010; Frodesen & Holten,

2003: 144). Therefore the analysis referred to the writing by excluding the drafting

and rewriting process. The students were asked to write their responses

spontaneously. It followed Thomson (1987 in Amer, 2003) and Squire’s (1964)

procedures in researching the students’ responses to Literatures.

As indicated in section 3.7. The analyses of the students written responses

were done by using the rubric ranging from 1 to 5 (See Appendix 11. for the

(26)

reaction, connection m

n making, comments on Authors craft, and Per

sult of the text analysis.

ion the improvements of the written responses

) (Pseudonym) is presented in consideration

(27)

83 performed considerable evidences of the improvements. Below is the analysis of

the improvements in their written responses from LCT to LC3.

5.2.1. Literature Circles Training (LCT)

Anis

In Literature Circles Training Anis read the text The Oyster by Rumer

Godden she rated as very interesting with sensible difficulty. She joined the group

as Word Wizard. Her written responses included Narrational Reaction (NR / LU),

Self Involvement (SI / E), and Associational Response (AR / A). In the box below

is the written response wrote by Anis.

Text box 1. The written response by Anis, categorized as level – 3.

The written response was categorized as level - 3 since she wrote

understandable short narration of the story she read, yet it lack details. Firstly, she

mentioned the problem of the story as climax by writing ‘he was dislike with

Oyester. He was remember with his mother’s instruction. His mother ever

instructed he in order to didn’t a life food. Because in his belief we must eat not

life food.’ In this case, she didn’t use the words that indicated the part was the

climax of the story.

One day Gopal was goes to a restaurant with his friend. And in that’s restaurant his friend was orders raw (life) oyster, but he was dislike with Oyester. He was remember with his mother’s instruction. His mother ever instructed he in order to didn’t a life food. Because in his belief we must eat not life food.

I dislike with Gopal, cause he wasn’t obedient his belief. I think the story is very interest cause the story is telling about effort to study. I am very like with that story but I don’t like Gopal cause he wasn’t obedient with his belief.

(28)

84 Secondly, in the written response there was also personal reaction but Anis

didn’t expand the reasons and the word choices were average. She wrote ‘I dislike

with Gopal, cause he wasn’t obedient his belief. I think the story is very interest

cause the story is telling about effort to study. I am very like with that story but I

don’t like Gopal cause he wasn’t obedient with his belief’. The statement of dislike

was there and the reason was attempted to make. However, it needed more

explanations about which actions she referred to.

Thirdly, Anis made some relevant connections but it lack supporting

details. She wrote ‘I ever find that experience when I must eaten bandeng fish, I

am very dislike’. In her expression plain sentences were used and supports in great

details were still expected.

Fani

In her written response, Fani included Narrational Reaction or Literal

Understanding; and Self Involvement / Empathy. She rated The Oyster by Rumer

Godden as interesting with sensible difficulty. Below is her written response.

Text box 2. The written responses by Fani, categorized as level – 1

Fani expressed too short narration of the story. The response was weak in

content and difficult to follow. She wrote ‘Gopal is an Indian member class. He

studying in London, he to think about that London are a state that Delightful . He

(29)

85 food that food life. But fact saying that Gopal is peculiar’. The content was

jumping from the idea of Gopal’s feelings towards UK to the moment when Gopal

eat the oyster. The important plots of the story were not mentioned. In the class,

Fani was considered as students with less capability for English.

She spilled the emotion using some simple words. The sentences were not

easy to understand. She wrote ‘I feel about the charachters of the story is Gopal is

people that Peculiar, and he order in message’. The statement of emotion was

there, but no supporting ideas what had made Gopal was judged as peculiar.

Both Anis and Fani, as well as all students joining the cycle did the written

responses very carefully. The students grasped and measured their understanding

about how to write the written responses.

5.2.2. Literature Circles 1 (LC1)

Anis

In the second Literature Circles, Anis read Lucy by Jamaica Kincaid. She

sat in the group as Discussion Director. She rated the story as very interesting and

easy to understand. Her written response included Narrational Reaction or Literal

Understanding Self Involvement / Empathy, and Interpersonal Response/

(30)

86

Text box 3. The written response by Anis, categorized as level – 4

The written response included summary of the story. The content was

precise and easy to understand. The points of important events in the story were

mentioned such as Lucy left the family for a job, she worked for Lewis family,

and the complication Lucy’s met in the house. The emotion, that she revealed,

was judging what kind of personality Lucy was. And the reflection, that she

conveyed, was explained and supported. Anis happened to say that the discussion

director role was the easiest role because one might not need to read the text. In

her writing she managed to show her understanding of the story.

Fani

In this Literature Circles Cycle, generally the students showed their best

performances both in notes and logs, and the discussion sessions. The enthusiasm

could be seen plainly. Fani was the first students who included drawing in her

illustrator role sheet. In the notes and Logs session, the teacher presented her

works to the class and it fired up her motivation in doing Literature Circles. Other

than that, she was so attached to the story that she could write more details

compared to her previous work. Fani read Mother Dear and Daddy by Junius Lucy was decides to leave her family and her country to find her own place to live. And then she gets a job in the couple of Lewis and Mariah, she was a wealthy family. They have three childrens. The marriage of the couple was falling apart, but for the children’s sake they put up a good front.

From the story I think that Lucy is a strong women, cause she can live in a family was falling apart. Although finally they aren’t separate cause they remember with their children and Mariah was a strong woman too, though , her husband had betrayed her she was still love her.

(31)

87 Edward in the second cycle of Literature Circles. She acted as illustrator. The

story is very interesting yet difficult for Fani. In her written responses she

included Narrational Reaction or Literal Understanding, Self Involvement /

Empathy, and Associational Response Analogy. Below is her written response.

Text box 4. The written response by Fani, categorized as level - 2.

Fani wrote the summary which the content was weak yet with reasonable

length. Although she produced more words compared to her previous work, it lack

of details. She wrote ‘Son from Mother and Daddy that already die. Always to ask

with Aunt Mabel. Why his mother and daddy to be able to die? Only that and that.

And his Aunt Mabel always say ‘They did not come and they would not come. But

he not to belief talk his aunt Mabel. He beller that his mother and daddy will

back’. This was only an orientation of the story. She missed the problem or climax

of the story.

Stating the emotion towards the story, Fani wrote ‘I feeling pity with the

son from Mother and Daddy, because he does never see his mother and daddy

since childhood. He only to wish see his mother and daddy and I feeling the

mother and daddy story is very very best. I like the story mother dear and daddy

because the story very touch to touch my hearth’. The reaction was explained in Son from Mother and Daddy that already die. Always to ask with Aunt Mabel. Why his mother and daddy to be able to die? Only that and that. And his Aunt Mabel always say ‘They did not come and they would not come. But he not to belief talk his aunt Mabel. He beller that his mother and daddy will back.

I feeling pity with the son from Mother and Daddy, because he does never see his mother and daddy since childhood. He only to wish see his mother and daddy and I feeling the mother and daddy story is very very best. I like the story mother dear and daddy because the story very touch to touch my hearth.

(32)

88 considerable length and supported by example. Even more the word orders were

better understandable compared to her previous written response.

The analogy was made by relating the event in the story with her own life

experience. She wrote ‘The story remind I with personal experience when my

grandfather die. I feel very sad and I crying. Not all people mengalami matter this

and this’. Comparing the emotion, Fani understood how deep the sadness felt by

Jim , the main character in the story.

Anis

In the third Literature Circles, Anis read Mother Dear and Daddy by

Junius Edwards. She joined the group as Researcher. The story is very interesting

and within sensible difficulty to her. She included Narrational Reaction (NR/ LU),

Self Involvement (SI/E), and Associational Response (AR/A). Following is her

written response.

Text box 5. The written response by Anis, categorized as level - 4.

The story told we about Jim’s lived with her aunt Mabel. During 12 years old they live together, when auto mobile accident have been killed father and mother’s Jim. After that accident Jim lived with her aunt and 12 years lived together. Jim Feel that he never know who is her father and her mother. He always find and find and then he asked Aunt Mabel.Then Aunt Mabel Told with Jim if her parents was killed an automobile accident but Jim wasn’t believe with her Aunt.

One day Jim was saw a soul, the soul was father and mother’s soul. Jim was very confused because her aunt asked if their parent will never come back but in fact he saw thats soul was very real. Jim told her Aunt but her Aunt wasn’t believe with he.

The Story is very impressive and Interesting. There are event which enough make the reader feeling fright because in this stories told about her Jim saw soul of her parents, anything else any the reader feel sad beause during 12 years old Jim never saw her parents (cause her parents killed when Jim still young). I am enough like the story. Many something which can’t I to grasp with words.

(33)

89 The Summary was clear, precise and informative. It was strong in content.

A reader who had not read the text could get the glance of the story through Anis’

summary. Also, Anis included and explained reaction in great detail using clear

explanations and examples from the text. She wrote ‘The Story is very impressive

and interesting’. And provide reference to which part of the story her feelings is.

She wrote ‘There are event which enough make the reader feeling fright because

in this stories told about her Jim saw soul of her parents, anything else any the

reader feel sad because during 12 years old Jim never saw her parents (cause her

parents killed when Jim still young). I am enough like the story. Many something

which can’t I to grasp with words’.

She also tried to connect feelings and situation in the story with her life

experience. She wrote ‘When I read the stories, I remind about my family’s

memories. Ten years expired but that’s event still in my memories. In my

remembers my brother was killed at the same event. He is was killed at an

accident and that’s accident very make my family’s very sad’. Anis assured that

she could feel what Jim, the son in the story, felt about his parents. This is what

associational response expects.

Fani

In this cycle, Fani read Tell me that you love me, Joonie Moon by Marjorie

Kellog. She sat in the group as Discussion director. The story was very interesting

and equally difficult for Fani to read. In her response, she happened to write one

(34)

90 Text box 6. The written response by Fani, categorized as level - 4.

The improvements of Fani’s written response could be seen even though

she wrote one type of response only. She was able to write what she felt about the

text and supported with examples. The dislike feeling was stated. She wrote ‘I feel

is confusing, because the story hidden secret for understand, many vocabulary that

secret for translation. I dislike the story because, this titles menggambarkan about

a man that to love a girl that very beautiful, but the contents tell about three

people that have sickness’. The explanation of the affective statements was clear.

It showed which part of the story had made her confused or disliked the story.

Fani seemed frustrated with the text. Her position as Discussion Director

might make her think that she must understand more. In fact she could not grasp

the story in great detail. Not only Fani, the other students holding the role as

Discussion Director also thought that they were the leader of the group. This also

has been the concern of Daniels (2002) so that he replaces the tag Discussion

Director with Discussion Director.

Anis

Anis read Estelle by Darryl Ponicsan in the last cycle. She joined the

(35)

91 her. In her response she wrote three types of responses; Narrational Reaction

(NR/LU), Self Involvement (SI/E). Below is her written response.

Text box 7. The written response by Anis, categorized as level - 5.

Anis presented the summary with clear and precise expressions. The short

narration was informative and strong in content. She covered almost all important

plots in her paragraph. In addition the emotion is explained in great detail using

clear explanation and example from the text.

Fani

In the last round Fani read Estelle by Darryl Ponicson. She sat in the group

as scene setter. Fani rated the story as very interesting and not too difficult. Her

written response consisted of Narrational Reaction (NR/LU), Self Involvement

(SI/E) Empathy. Following is the written response.

Text box 8. The written response by Fani, categorized as level - 5.

Estelle Wowak graduated from Adhoshen High School, then she work in a department store as cashier. Estelle dreams want go to New York, and then, finally she arrives in New York.

I fell proud with Estelle, because she a girl that not easily give up. And I want like Estelle, not easily give up and diligent.

Estelle Wowak was a young girl who graduated from Andosen High School and she was very want to go to New York. But after she graduated she work in a department store as a counter girl. She can does his dream to go to New York before she work in a department store distance a year. Finally after she arrived in New York she was confused because she doesn’t have someone to visited. So, she only stood on the sidewalk at the station and she always clutch hinger. Estelle Wowak is a hero, after she gets a job she can leave her job only to go to New York. Yes, New York she was has a dreams to visited it since she still stand on Adhosen High School.

(36)

92 The Summary was short. However it covered the important plots of the

story. The personal reaction to the story was precisely stated. And it gave strong

reason which was related to the text. Fani was influenced by the wearied situation

since the semester examination was approaching. Although she happened to write

one type of response only, she performed it better than her previous work.

In the final cycles, Anis and Fani sat in the same group. Anis is kind of

introvert student. Anis was considered as clever student in the class. Meanwhile,

Fani was considered as the growing students in the class. Fani grew from not

confidence to good confidence in dealing with English. She surprised the teacher

that she could show such performance. In fact, the group had misunderstood the

story. In their thought Estelle had survived in New York. In fact, the story told that

Estelle went back home on the same day she arrived in the city. This can be

understood as Rosenblatt (1995) states that reader bring expectation to their

reading. And the students, who were adult readers, expected role model with

courage and spirit of having successful life. This expectation unconsciously

dragged the students’ attentions to such visualisation.

Conclusively, the students in Literature Circles appeared to become better

at expressing their ideas. This coincides with Spiegal’s (1998) finding that the

students were better at expressing ideas after joining the Literature Circles.

Further Handcock (1993) explains that Literature Circles are a method of

instruction based on reading and response. It seems that the complexity of

students’ written responses should improve dramatically with the integration in

(37)

93 students read better, they write better. This is because the reading and writing

process grow inline.

5.3. Types of Students’ Responses

This section presents the analysis of the response types. As noted by Beach

and Hynds (1991) that the types of responses provide information about global

ways that the readers interpret the texts. It delineated the stances that the students

took. (See section 2.1.2. for theory of reader stance).

In order to describe the types of the students’ written responses produced

after the Literature Circles program, the students’ responses were mingled,

categorized and regarded as chunks of writings. They were analyzed based on

Rosenblatt’s transactional theory of reader responses. For this, the categories

proposed by Cox and Many (1992) were utilized, namely most efferent, primarily

efferent, most esthetic, primarily aesthetic. For more specific, the response items

were then coded using Squaire’s (1964; See also Sheila & Ray, 2005:74;

Karolides, 1999; Benton, 2003: 91; Early and Odlan) and Thomson’s (1987 in

Amer, 2003) categories of responses. (See Section 2.4.2. Types of Responses). By

carefully looking at the definitions of Cox and Many’s (1992) types of responses,

the responses categories was assorted. Following are the categories.

ME: Mostly Efferent :

- Literary Judgement (LJ)/ Evaluation of Fiction (EF).

- Interpersonal response (IR)/ Recognition (R).

PE: Primarily Efferent

(38)

PA: Primarily

ts’ written responses types and Appendix 15 fo

igure 2. Efferent - Aesthetic Stance Distribution.

hows that from LCT to LC3, the students’

ed all points of the continuum. However, the

wo response types, namely: Primarily Effer

se and Primarily Aesthetic which was Prescrip

that by doing Literature Circles students were

(39)

95 Zimmerman’s (1997 in Daniels 2002: 39; see also Judith, 2002: 4; Villaum and

Brabham, 2001: 674) statement that responding to literatures is a thinking activity

which refers to how proficient a reader can actually think. The proficient adult

readers should make personal connection with the texts, ask questions, make

inferences and judgments, and they create sensory images and create ongoing

summaries and synthesis. While writing is thinking (Probst, 1994), Literature

Circles through their system had facilitated the thinking over efferent – aesthetic

continuum.

1.3.1. Most Efferent

Most Efferent type of response focused on text construction and what was

learnt or information gained from reading the text (Cox and Many, 1987). It

covered Literal Judgement and Interpersonal Response by Squires (1964). Literal

Judgement cued to responses focusing on direct judgments of the story related to

the structure of the work, genre, or elements such as plot, setting, mood, or

characters. While, Interpersonal Response was responses which focused on what

was learned or information gained from the reading or viewing. In it the reader

also attempts to discover the meaning of the stories.

As we can see from the Figure 5, the students produced the Literary

Judgement and Interpersonal Response in small amount. This could be caused by

the role sheets which did not explicitly assign the students to cultivate the text

construction of the story. Though, it was possible for the Discussion Director to

floor the kind of questions. Anis had given her attention to this stance by using the

(40)

96 her class. Here are the students’ written responses of Literal Judgement (LJ/ EF)

and Interpersonal Response (IR/ R).

Literary Judgement/ Evaluation of Fiction:

Responses of this kind focus on direct judgments on the story. The students

may comment on the structure of the work, genre, or elements such as plot,

setting, mood, or character. It also includes specific reactions to style, language. In

this Zulfa wrote:

The title doesn’t fit the content (Zulfa for Tell Me That You Love Me Joonie Moon by Marjorie Kellog)

Zulfa read Tell me that you love me Joonie Moon by Marjory Kellog. Alike

few other students, Zulfa thought the title didn’t fit the story. From the title, the

immediate impression was that the story told about romance. However, after

reading the story and searching for the romance part, the students found that in fact

the story was about three people who suffered from typical sickness. Though they

quarrel a lot and shout each other, the three unfortunate friends chose to live

together. The students felt disappointed since the story didn’t meet their

predictions. Nevertheless, it should be learnt that actually the charachters lived

together and bounded with love as family. While, the two men desperately waited

for Joonie Moon to say that she loved them instead of yelling at both of them

always.

Interpersonal Response / Recognition:

The making judgement continued to seeking meaning of the story. Students

(41)

97 experience. The students formulated thought and stated as life values. Moreover,

Carter and Long (1992) underlines that appreciating a works of literature can be

meant judging which works is good or bad. Below are the students’ written

responses.

It gives spirit to work and become rich. (Mila for Two Kinds by Amy Tan) The story is interesting. I Learnt to value my parents, because it is sad to live without parents. (Elsa for Mother Dear and Daddy by Junius Edward)

Two kinds by Amy Tan gave personal meaning to Mila. Knowing that the

mother in the story forced the son to do what the mother wanted, Mila formulated

a thought that one must pursue their own dream and purpose of life. Mila thought

no one even the mother was allowed to force the children to go any direction

without their interests.

While, after reading Mother Dear and Daddy by Junius Edward, Elsa

formulated a life value that life without having parents could be very sad. As Jim

was missing his parents, too much that he thought he saw his parents in the house.

In fact his parent had died in an air crushed. This feeling was described very well

in the story that most of the readers including Elsa ended up with the value.

Literature Circles had derived the students into these phases of thinking.

These types of responses could be cited as cognitive responses (Rosenblatt, 1995).

The responses might be aided by the Discussion Director. The Discussion Director

should ask good questions that made the group member think (Daniels and

Steineke, 2004). And ‘what do you think of / learn from the story’ is suggested to

(42)

98 1.3.2. Primarily Efferent

Primarily Efferent was the type of responses that focuses on retelling the

story line by recounting the narrative. It could be of two types: simply retelling

and retelling with preference or judgment statement. Squire (1964) mentions it as

Narrational Response or Literal Understanding by Thomson (1987 in Amer,

2003).

Narrational Response (NR) / Literal Understanding (LU)

It referred to responses which concentrated on retelling the story line, and

narrating what the story was about. Here, the students were actually answering

prompt questions ‘If you would tell your friend about the text after reading what

was it?’ Below are the samples of the students’ responses.

Gopal is an Indian student studying in London. On a trip to France, he goes to a restaurant and orders raw Oyster. London is delightful, he wrote to home, the college is delightful. Professor William Morgan is delightful and so is Mrs. Morgan. Gopal’s family lives in Bengal. They are Brahmini Hindus and his mother kept the house hold to orthodox ways in spite of all he and his elder brother could do. (Laila for The Oyster by Rumer Godden)

Gopal is a teenager from India. He starts schooling in London. In London Gopal is very amazed with London. Gopal always say delightful, delightful and delightful. Gopal always remembers his mother’s message not to eat life food. (Fidda for The Oyster by Rumer Godden)

Laila and Fida wrote the short narrations of the stories which included the

events attracting their attention. They wrote the main events of the story yet it lack

details. The story The Oyster by Rumer Godden told about the challenge of

different culture one must face when study abroad. Gopal was definitely proud to

be in UK for studying. Once, the family with whom he lived took him to a

The Students’ Written Response Improvements In Literature Circles Program (A case study of one public high school in Demak).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Appendices

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION OF TEXT ANALYSIS