Abstract The purpose of this quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design study is to determine if the integration of technology within literature circles

will improve reading comprehension. The sample included in this study involves 41 fourth graders from two language arts classrooms. The same teacher taught each group of students. During a six-week period, the control group met face-to-face during their reciprocal teaching literature circles while the intervention group used Google Docs and Edmodo to conduct reciprocal teaching literature circles online.

Technology-based Literature Discussions and Reading Comprehension While there is research to support that peer-led discussions improve comprehension strategies, there is very little research that shows the effects of technology based literature circles on reading comprehension (Berne & Clark, 2008). Research related to the usage of technology in literature discussions has shown that students learn a sense of community and how students were able to respond to prompts (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006; Larson, 2009). Also, when using various types of prompts, Larson (2009) found that the students replied less frequently to prompts related to cognitive skills. The participants chose to reply more to the prompts that were related to their feelings and experiences rather than prompts that required critical thinking. Also, the participants very rarely responded to prompts that focused on clarifying information. The purpose of this research project is to describe the impact of combining technology with literature circles that are based on reciprocal teaching. The literature review that follows will present information about the integration of technology as well as how technology has been integrated with literature discussions in several research studies. Literature Review Introduction During the 21st Century, technology has changed the way people live their lives. In particular, social networking has become the norm for this generation. Students may spend hours reading responses on social networking websites, yet it can be difficult to get them to read for ten minutes in class. Although the language used on social networking may be abbreviated or incorporate text messaging, the students have learned to comprehend the language. Educators want to see their students read, interact with others, and build reading comprehension. Since social networking has

already taught students some of the behaviors educators desire to see, such as reading text and responding to others, then it makes sense that social networking could be integrated in the educational setting. This literature review aims to explore the answer to the following research question: How does the integration of technology and Reciprocal Teaching literature circles impact fourth grade students reading comprehension? In particular, the focus will be on how the usage of electronic journals (ejournals) and threaded digital discussions will affect the students understanding of reading fiction text (Larson, 2009). Also, the literature review that follows gives evidence from research in support of technology usage in literature discussions.

Literature Review: Integration of Literature Circles with Technology Over the past decade, literature circles have become a way of teaching students how to read and take on roles as members of a group; however research has shown that using traditional literature circles does not always produce authentic discussions. According to Mills and Jennings (2011), literature circles can lose effectiveness and authenticity. Lloyd (2004) found that the literature discussions for her fifth graders had been stagnant and were driven more by the assignment versus an authentic discussion. Also, some teachers have found that the discussions were not productive once the teacher was no longer present with the group (Grisham & Wosley, 2006). One area of concern has been the role sheets. According to Daniels (2002), the role sheets did not work to the extent that he intended for them. The sheets were initially intended to get students engaged and to get the discussions started. Also, the purpose of the sheets was to help the students with reading comprehension. Daniels noted that instead of the role sheet helping the students, it could possibly hinder them. As Daniels traveled around to different schools, the teachers informed him that the students were

just reading from the sheets. In a survey of fifth graders, the majority of the students preferred the discussions without the role sheets (Daniels, 2002). Also, 90% of the students understood the importance of completing the role sheet after reading, but they did not want to use the sheet during the discussion. Daniels realized through this survey that the bottom line of the issue with literature circles was the role sheets. Despite the issues, Daniels (2006) believed that the role sheets should still be used. He advised that teachers should keep an eye out for when the discussions begin to just be driven by the sheets. A Shift: Integrating Technology in Language Arts Technology may be one of the solutions to the problems with literature circles; however educators need to keep in mind that computers should be used as instruments to solve problems and not just a device to use during instruction (Morrison & Lowther, 2010). Also, they have to consider that technology itself demands that students know how to read the new forms of literacy (Larson, 2009). Some examples of these new literacies are wikis, blogs, Google Docs, Chrome, Skype, and social networking websites (Leu et al, 2011). These new literacies require more than the traditional literacy strategies used to comprehend print. They involve students being able to solve problems (Leu et al., 2011; Mokhtaki, Kymes, & Edwards, 2008). As students try to solve problems, they engage in thought processes that are necessary for comprehending what they read online. Students should be able to do the following: recognize vital questions, search for information, use critical thinking when assessing information, combine information, and communicate information (Henry, Castek, O'Byrne, & Zawilinski, 2012; Leu et al., 2011; Mokhtaki et al, 2008). As a result, teachers are required to provide opportunities for students to extend their learning beyond the four walls of the classroom (Larson, 2009). Integrating technology into literature circles would be a way to extend the students learning as well as provide them

with opportunities to practice some of strategies needed to help the students understand new literacies. Integrating Face-to-Face with Online Discussions Since the literacy has changed, teachers must provide opportunities for students to collaborate and communicate using technology (Larson, 2009). Some researchers have integrated technology into the literature circle while continuing to have the students meet face-to-face. Research has shown that online discussions and face-to-face discussions complement each other as well as make the discussions more authentic (Grisham & Wosley, 2006; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). During a study with sixth graders, Day and Kroon (2010) questioned how technological innovations could enhance their teaching, so they incorporated online discussions with their literature circles and continued to have face-to face discussions in classrooms. They found that face-to-face discussions benefited students who were not well acquainted with technology (Day & Kroon, 2010). In a study of eighth graders, Grisham and Wosley (2006) found that the face-to-face discussions helped to facilitate online discussions. Therefore, research has shown that it is a valid practice to have both forms of discussions within the context of literature circles. The Structure of Literature Circles Integrated with Technology The structure of literature circles involving technology varies. In many studies, researchers use questioning (Day & Kroon, 2010; Larson, 2009; Lloyd, 2004; Scharber, 2009). Questioning requires students to analyze the text as well as make inferences (Lloyd, 2004). Some teachers provide the students with the questions at the beginning of the discussions. When the teachers pose the questions, the students respond to the question as well as the comments of others (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009; Scharber, 2009). On the other hand, several teachers conduct mini-lessons to teach the students

how to ask open-ended questions by using read-alouds to model (Larson, 2009; Lloyd, 2004). Then, the students become responsible for leading the discussions. Many researchers incorporate journals in their study of literature circles as well. Some researchers used paper and pencil journals for the students to write their thoughts and questions prior to the online discussions. Then, the students chose posts from their journals to use in the online discussions (Day & Kroon, 2010). Rizopoulos and McCarthy (2009) mentioned that students who have trouble writing may need to use paper and pencil before responding online. On other hand, some researchers allow their students to use electronic journals (Larson, 2009). In addition to questioning and journals, researchers allow the students to have literature discussions. Both asynchronous and synchronous forms of communication have been integrated into literature circles. The term synchronous refers to discussions taking place within a specific period of time (Morrison & Lowther, 2010, p. 107). Discussions conducted using synchronous software occur mostly using chats and instant messaging, and all participants must be present at the specified time in order to participate. When Scharber (2009) used this form of technology in her book clubs, she found that the chats were the favorite of the book club members. As the librarian and facilitator of the book club, she scheduled one session in the chat room each week. As she observed the sessions in the chat room, she noticed that the comments were mostly social and a place for the students to get know each other (Scharber, 2009). Asynchronous software is the opposite of synchronous software. When asynchronous software is used, the discussions can happen at any time (Morrison & Lowther, 2010). The asynchronous sources used most often are wikis and discussion boards (Edmondson, 2012; Grisham & Wolsey, 2006; Larson, 2009). When using wikis, the teacher may assign a wiki to the group and have a page for each role that the students will perform (Edmondson, 2012). Establishing the roles and responsibilities to

go along with the wiki has been found to create a sense of community. Another form of asynchronous software is the discussion board. When students are on the discussion board, they use threaded discussion to help them communicate. During the threaded discussions, students send messages, which leads to a list of posts connected to the message sent (Grisham & Wosley, 2006). Some researchers use social networking to conduct their literature discussions. Stewart (2009) studied a librarian who incorporated Facebook into her literature circles. The librarian posted comments on Facebook, and the students wrote questions on their wall. Also, the students used the chat component to voice their views, interests, and issues that focused on the novel they were reading. Positive Effects of Integrating Technology into Literature Discussions There have been positive results when technology was integrated into literature circles. One result has been the increase in student participation. Students who did not normally speak in class were willing to participate in the discussions (Day & Kroon, 2010). Also, the students were able to gain more confidence because they had more time to think about their responses prior to responding to their classmates (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). Another result has been the social growth of the students. Many of the students grew as a team and appreciated the responses of others (Edmondson, 2012). They became willing to share their thoughts and to consider the opinions of others (Larson, 2009). Also, using technology had an impact on the time needed for discussions. At times, the online discussions occurred faster than the face-to-face discussions (Day & Kroon, 2010). Although the time needed for talking is less, the students seemed to actually talk more. In addition, the integration of technology into the discussion has impacted the motivation in students. Edmondson (2012) noticed that the students were willing to take on their responsibilities and roles. Also, the students were motivated to read their assigned books as well as showed interest in reading the books that the other groups were reading (Day & Koon, 2010; Edmonson, 2012). Furthermore,

researchers have noted that the students tended to be engaged in deep thoughts and responses during their literature discussion (Grishaw & Wosley, 2006; Larson, 2009). Although there were advantages for both real-time (synchronous) and thread discussions (asynchronous), the threaded discussions helped struggling readers more than the chats. The fact that the students had 24-hour access to the discussion was a bonus for the asynchronous discussion board (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). In particular, the students had extra time to create and post their comments and questions (Grishaw &Wosley, 2006; Larson, 2009). Also, since the responses were posted on the thread, the group members were able to see when the struggling students were not responding that much. In some instances, the other students asked specific questions to a student with special needs to get that student more involved in the discussions (Day & Koon, 2010). Also, English Language Learners (ELL) benefit from the threaded discussions. Since ELL students need more time to think about language, the threaded discussion allows them extra time to complete their assignments. The additional time allows the more proficient readers to help clarify words during their posts to ELL students (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). Challenges with Integrating Technology into Literature Discussions There have been a few challenges with using technology during reading discussions. While English Language Learners benefit from extra time, they have struggled with the lack of personal contact during the online discussions. ELL students like to talk with others and read their nonverbal cues (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). The ELL students miss the opportunity to draw inferences based on the nonverbal cues when they are online. Also, issues have occurred with students getting off the topic (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009; Scharber, 2009). Some teachers have created rubrics to help deal with this issue. They graded the students based on the level of thinking in

their responses (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). Also, teachers have taught students different prompts that led to more in-depth responses (Larson, 2009). In addition, threaded discussions can be difficult for students who have problems writing. A proposed solution to this problem has been to allow the students to write their responses on paper first and then transfer their thoughts into the discussion board (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). Also, teachers have observed that the posts were sometimes two word statements that showed just the students agreement with others responses. This problem was addressed by having the students use bookmarks with prompts on them (Day & Kroon, 2010). As the students wrote questions, they referred back to the bookmarks for guidance. How do Students Feel about Online Discussions? The opinions of students should be considered. It is difficult to incorporate something new if the students do not approve. Day and Kroon (2010) would agree that students have positive attitudes toward the online discussions. The sixth graders felt that it was the best part of middle school, and they had hoped that their other teachers would incorporate this into their classrooms. When Scharber (2009) surveyed her participants, she found their favorite part of the book club was the chatting. While interviewing students, Larson (2009) found that the students enjoyed reading and responding to the threads. While there were positive responses, there were negative responses as well. During their study, Grisham and Wosley (2006) discovered that the problems were mostly computer-related, such as issues with passwords and technological skills. Also, Day and Kroon (2010) found that some of the students got irritated with their classmates when they were stuck on one topic constantly during the discussions. Conclusion

With the advancement of technology, there has to be an adjustment in the methods that teachers use to teach. While literature circles are examples of researchbased strategies that have transformed the way educators teach reading, there is still room for improvement. According to the research, integrating technology into the literature circles is a valid way to combine traditional reading instruction and new literacies in the 21st Century. Based on the studies conducted on this topic, the benefits and advantages of literature circles with technology exceed the disadvantages. As a result of the research contained in this literature review, the following research question will be investigated: How does the integration of technology and Reciprocal Teaching literature circles impact fourth grade students reading comprehension? Details concerning the methodology of this study will follow.

Methodology The quasi-experimental pretest-posttest research design was used to show the affects of the technology on reciprocal teaching literature circles. Within this research design, the data from both the control group and intervention group were used to determine the affects of integrating technology within the literature circles. Before this research study began, permission was granted by the Institutionl Review Board from East Carolina University to conduct this study. Also, a parent meeting was held to give parents information about the study. The parents were given a week to return the consent forms. After the consent forms were returned, the students were given the opportunity to assent. Prior to the intervention beginning, the students were given a reading comprehension pretest using Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM) from the easyCBM website and the Motivation to Read Profile (See Appendix A). Participants and Setting

This research study took place at a Title 1 school the Eastern North Carolina. This school serves 722 students for 3rd grade through 5th grade. Thirty-six percent of students receive free and reduced lunch. The participants in the study were students from two 4th grade classes. The 4th graders at this school attended one classroom for English Language Arts and Social Studies and another classroom for science and math. The research was conducted in the classroom of the researcher, their English Language Arts teacher, for both the intervention group and the control group. The researcher had 16 years of experience in the teaching profession. The first block was the intervention group. This class had a population of 24 students with 13 girls and 11 boys. The students ages ranged from nine to eleven years of age. The ethnicity of the class consisted of thirteen Caucasians, eight African Americans, two Hispanics, and one Asian. There were three students who were in the exceptional childrens program, but two of them did not participate in the study because they go out to the resource room for reading. Three students were in STRIDE, which stands for Striving Toward Responsible Intellectual Development in Education, and four students were in the Academically and Intellectual Gifted (AIG) program for Reading. One student had a 504 plan, a federal plan that provides modifications for students. Overall, 22 students participated in the intervention. The second block of students was the control group. There were 23 students in this class, which was comprised of 12 girls and 11 boys. The students ranged in ages from nine to eleven years old. The class was racially diverse with fourteen Caucasians, six African Americans, two Asians, and one multi-racial student. Three student were in the exceptional childrens program, but he will be in the resource room during reading instruction. There were five students in STRIDE, and three students were in the AIG Program for Reading Enrichment. Two of the students had a 504 plan. Only 17 students participated in the control group.

Variables The independent variable was reading instructional strategies. This independent variable had two levels. The first level was Reciprocal Teaching literature circles with face-to-face discussions and interactions. At the beginning of each session, the students met in their literature circles to assign jobs and to read their books. These sessions included reading the text in various ways; writing predictions, clarification of words, questions, and summaries in literature circles journal; and performing literature circle jobs while sharing responses from their journal. The second level was the Reciprocal Teaching literature circles with technology. After reading the text, the students in the intervention group recorded their predictions, summaries, and clarification in their reciprocal teaching notebooks and then they used recorded their responses in their electronic journals using Google Docs and typed their threaded discussions on Edmodo. Using Google Docs created some issues. Our network in our school did not allow some of the students to get directly on Google Docs from the link in their emails. Also, students were changing the format of the charts on Google Docs and some of them were erasing the responses of others. About midway through the study, the electronic journals were discontinued, and the students just recorded their responses in Edmodo. The dependent variable, reading comprehension, was operationally defined as a score on the Curriculum-Based Measurement from the easyCBM website. The students were all given the same online version of a 4th grade reading passage. The test had 20 multiple choice questions. Each question offered four answer choices. Also, the students given an abbreviated form of a reading survey created called Motivation to Read Profile. The original reading survey had the following two sections: Reading Survey and the Conversational Interview (Gambrell, Palmer, Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996, p. 519). For the purpose of this study, the students were be given the Reading

Survey portion, which consists of 20 multiple choice items. The survey was given in a whole class session and was read aloud to English Language Learners in a small group. At the end of the study, the students were given the same CBM comprehension test and the Motivation to Read Profile in order to see change over time. Threats to the Study In this study, there were some threats that could impact the validity and reliability of this intervention. The mortality threat was one threat. One of the students who began in the study began receiving services from the Exceptional Childrens department so he only participated in half of the study. A major threat to the validity of this study is the attitude of the subjects. While the students in the intervention group worked well together for most of the time, the control group experienced friction in the groups. Sometimes the personalities clashed during the lengthy period of time that they spent together. Another threat to validity was bias of the data collector (Fraenkel & Warren, 2009). This was particularly an issue because I administered the assessments to both classes. Procedures The intervention began the second week in January after the administration of the survey and the pretest. At the beginning of the intervention, the students worked cooperatively in their groups as they worked on categorizing the Revised Blooms Taxonomy questions into the four Question Answer Relationship categories. Also, the new discussion bookmark was introduced to both the intervention and control groups. For the first couple of days, I explained the process and used a screencast to show the students how to go to their Google Doc and how to go to Edmodo. Then, the students met in their groups to decide on the pages to read. The Discussion Director assigned the following Reciprocal Teaching jobs: Predictor, Clarifier, Summarizer, and Questioner. Then, the questioner assigned the QAR type for every member of the group so that the

group would have questions on various levels during their discussions. Although the students were not responsible for completing all of the reciprocal teaching jobs, they were required to code the text. As they read, they had to write a p for prediction, c for clarification, s for summarizing, and q for questioning on sticky notes. Along with the code, the students could write a few words on the sticky notes as well. The purpose of coding the text and making notes was so that the students would still be using the reciprocal teaching strategies while reading as well as be more prepared to respond to others during the literacy discussions. The intervention followed a pattern similar to the structure that Larson (2009) used in her study in which the students read their books and made responses in their electronic journals during a 30-minute period. After the reading, the students spent 15 to 20 minutes on the message board (Larson, 2009). One difference between Larsons study and this action research was that the students had to record their responses in their reciprocal teaching notebook prior to completing the electronic journal in this study. The students drew their four squares and only recorded information concerning his or her reciprocal teaching job and questions (See Appendix C for example of reciprocal teaching chart for the reciprocal teaching notebook.) The questions had to include the answer and page number to match. (This information was not included in Edmodo.) Due to the fact that we have 40-minute blocks in the library for computer usage, the students spent between 20 to 25 minutes in the classroom reading prior to going to the library. Just prior to the reading of the text, the discussion director decided how the group would read. The groups either read as a whole chorally, aloud page-by-page, aloud paragraph-by-paragraph, in pairs, or independently. (The groups mixed with lower level readers did not read independently so that these students could get support from their classmates.) Then, the students wrote in their reciprocal teaching notebook. After the students were finished, they went to the computers and logged into their Gmail

accounts. Next, the students located the email that included the link to their electronic journals in the Google Document for their group. Once they clicked on the link, the students typed in their information from the reciprocal teaching chart, except the questioner. (See Appendix D) The questioner posted his or her question in Edmodo while the rest of the group completed their entries in the electronic journal. The groups spent 20 to 25 minutes on the Google Doc electronic journal. After everyone typed his or her initial posts in the electronic journals, they replied to the posts of others. Once they responded, the students went to Edmodo and responded to the questioner as well as posted their questions. The Edmodo sessions were scheduled to last for at least 20 minutes. The sessions followed this schedule for two to three days a week. On the other days, the students were taught reading comprehension mini-lessons that could be applied to what they had read. After a reading objective was taught, the students continued to use the strategies as they completed their literature circles discussions. Table 1 Weekly Schedule of the Intervention Monday Tuesday Wednesday Reciprocal Comprehension Reciprocal teaching with Strategy teaching with technology technology

Thursday Friday Comprehension Reciprocal strategy teaching with technology

Data Sources and Data Collection This action research study followed the quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design. The data was collected from five sources to ensure triangulation of data. The initial data came from a reading survey and a reading comprehension pretest. During the intervention, data was collected from the students journals, both paper and pencil as well as electronic journals. Also, responses on Edmodo, a safe and private social networking website were analyzed (Harper, 2010). In addition, I used a researchers log through Google docs. Responses were recorded on the chart several days a week.

The students voiced their opinions on a reading survey created called Motivation to Read Profile (See Appendix A). For the purpose of this study, the students were only given the 20 multiple choice items in the Reading Survey portion. By administering the first portion of the survey, I was able to obtain information about how the participants saw themselves as readers and the value that the readers placed on reading. Furthermore, the purpose for administering this survey to the intervention group was to determine if the students attitude toward reading changes after they had the opportunity to engage in literacy discussions using Google Docs and Edmodo. The intentions behind allowing the control group to take the survey was to see if there was a change in the students motivation as they continue to perform the usual Reciprocal Teaching literature circles. The students responded to reading comprehension questions. The pretest was given the second week of January. The reading comprehension passage was Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM) from the easyCBM website. When Curriculum Based Measurements were first created, the purpose of this measurement was for teachers to be able to formatively assess their teaching (Deno, 2003). According to Fuchs, Fuchs, and Hamlett (2007), CBM is reliable and gives valid indication of the competency of students. The students were given the online version of a 4th grade reading passage titled Tims Donation to the Youth Club, which consisted of 20 multiple choice questions (See Appendix B). Originally, I had planned to give passages on a higher grade level if the students achieved a perfect score on the 4th grade reading comprehension test; however none of the students scored a 100 on the 4th grade reading passage. So, only the 4th grade passage was administered. More data sources were the researchers log, the students journal, and Edmodo. I used the researchers log to record observations, student responses, and teacher reflections during both the intervention and control groups. The intervention group

recorded their predictions, summaries, clarification, and questions in their reciprocal teaching notebook. Then, they posted their responses in their groups electronic journals on Google Docs. The control group continued to use their reciprocal teaching literature circles journal with paper and pencil. In addition, I used data from the Edmodo website. At times, I recorded notes from Edmodo in the researchers log. Data Analysis Once the intervention was completed and the posttest had been administered, the mean change scores of the intervention and control group were calculated using Dr. Del Siegles t-test (Siegle, 2002). A t-test was chosen because it is a parametric statistical test that compares the mean scores of two groups, which in this case are the intervention group and the control group, to see if there is a significant difference Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009, p. 229). The quantitative data was analyzed using a ratio scale. Also, the type of variance test was based on the probability level, or p-value. In addition, the t-test was a two-tailed p because the hypotheses were non-directional. To analyze the data of the change mean score for the pretest and posttest, an equal variance was used because the variance for the independent samples, meaning the intervention group and control group, were similar, and there was not a significant difference that would require an unequal variance. In addition the equal variance was use to analyze the pretest and posttest mean change scores because the p of F-Max was greater than 0.05. On the other hand, since the variances were different for the Motivation to Read Profile survey between the two groups and the same sizes were different, the unequal variance t-test was used. Also, the unequal variance was utilized because the p of F-Max was less than 0.05. Findings/Results Pretest and Posttest Scores

After the six weeks of intervention, posttests were administered to both the intervention and control groups in order to collect quantitative data. The Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM) was administered prior to the intervention and after six weeks of instruction with the intervention group (n=21) and the control group (n=16). According to the comprehension scores from a 4th grade passage in CBM, the intervention groups mean change score was 0.81 with a standard deviation score of 2.02. The effect size was 0.22 and the degree of freedom was 35. The mean change score for the control group was 0.13 with a standard deviation score of 3.10. Based on the equal variance, the total mean difference was 0.685 and the t-value was 0.814. The two-tailed p value was 0.421. Since the two-tailed p value was greater than 0.05 and the effect size was around 0.2, which is considered to be small, then there was no significant difference between the mean change scores of the intervention and control groups for the 4th grade passages used from CBM. The Motivation to Read Profile was administered to the students as a pretest and posttest to the intervention group (n=22) and the control group (n=16). According to the survey results from the 20 multiple-choice questions, the intervention groups mean change score was -3.24 with a standard deviation score of 6.11. The effect size was 0.39 and the degree of freedom was 15. The mean change score for the control group was 0.94 with a standard deviation score of 10.70. Based on the unequal variance, the total mean difference was -4.176 and the t-value was -1.40. The two-tailed p value was 0.174. Since the two-tailed p value was greater than 0.05 and the effect size was around 0.39, which is considered to be small, then there was no significant difference between the mean change scores of the intervention and control groups for the Motivation to Read Profile. Table 2 Independent Samples t-test for Quantitative Analysis

Measures Curriculum Based Measurements Motivation to Read Survey

Group Intervention Control

Mean Change 0.81 0.13

SD 2.02 3.06

t 0.814

df 35

p-val 0.421

ES 0.221

Intervention Control

-3.24 0.94

6.11 10.70

-1.40 15

0.174

0.390

Researchers Log A researchers log was used to keep a record of qualitative data. Data were recorded from before the intervention began until the day before the posttests were given. The researchers log to record observations, student responses, and teacher reflections during both the intervention and control groups. The log includes data about the implementation of the intervention as well as some comparisons and contrasts of the intervention group and the control group. Since this action research involved technology, notes were made concerning technology usage. The journal showed how the intervention group had forgotten about how to complete reciprocal teaching, so their Day One lesson lasted for two days. On the next day, the students were not able to complete the electronic journal because there were technological issues with Google Documents. Some of the electronic links from the student Gmail accounts were opening in Internet Explorer, which created issues everyday when we tried to get in the electronic journals. The media coordinator suggested that I should share the electronic journals versus just sending them the link.

Most of the students were able type in the electronic journal without any problems. A few of them were still having issues because when they clicked on the link because it continued to open up in Internet Explorer instead of Google Chrome.
In addition, the log includes information about the laptop carts. The server

would not allow some of the students in, and some of the computers were taking

way too long. Also, some of the students were unable to log in to the computers. So, I allowed those students to use the other computers in the classroom. After this incident, I noted that I would have the students log on earlier the next time that we use the carts.
As noted above, I had planned for the students to complete the section of the electronic journal that represented his or her reciprocal teaching job, except the Questioner would initiate the conversations on Edmodo by asking a question to begin a threaded discussion. Students made additional posts after the Questioner began the discussion. This format did not work very well because of the technological issues with Google Docs as well as the students altering the set-up of the journal and erasing others responses. After corresponding with Dr. Swaggerty, I resorted to just using Edmodo, which gave me more time to devote to analyzing the responses on Edmodo rather than spending so much time on technological issues. The students were required to post the predictions, clarification, and summarization prior to posting questions. Also, they had to respond to those three components of the reciprocal teaching before they were allowed to respond to the questions. When responding to all of the components of reciprocal teaching, the students used their discussion bookmarks. Their responses had to include evidence from the text. Another issue documented in the researchers log was the fact that during the intervention the discussion directors did not have anything to do until the other members posted their responses. This became an issue because some of the discussion directors started spending too much time telling the group members what they were doing incorrectly rather than use that time to have a discussion about the book. So close to the end of the study, I assign the discussion director to do a comprehension skill.

In addition, the researchers log included information about behavior during the implementation of the action research. One of my students has a condition that interferes with his learning. At first, Scott (pseudonym) would not participate with his

group at all, which was not uncommon. So, I allowed him to use the computer to type, since this had been a suggested way to get him to do his work. Once I allowed him to type, he put forth some effort to do the work. Eventually, he was allowed to receive services in the Exceptional Childrens department, so his data was not used in this study. During the action research, I had to make some changes. The log shows where the seating arrangements were changed to eliminate some of the talking at the computers. Also, I changed the way that the control group wrote in their reciprocal teaching notebooks so that it would be the same and not become another variable in the study.
Discussion/Conclusions The purpose of this action research study was to see if integrating Edmodo with reciprocal teaching literature circles would increase reading comprehension more than reciprocal teaching literature circles without technology. According to the equal variance on the Del Siegel t-test, there was a difference between the mean change score of the intervention group and the control group, but the difference was not significant. Also, the effect size showed that there was only a small effect. The students were given a survey as a pretest and as a posttest to determine if there was a difference in motivation for the intervention group by the end of the study and to compare the mean change scores o the intervention group to the control group. The quantitative data from the Motivation to Read Profile showed that the students, in the intervention group, were less motivated by the end of the intervention than they were

at the beginning. The unequal variance showed that the mean change scores were more negative than positive for the intervention group while the control group showed a positive mean change score. Limitations There were some limitations in this study. One of those limitations was in relation to the questioning. At the beginning of the study, both the intervention group and control group were given the opportunity to categorize the Revised Blooms Taxonomy question stems that they had used previously into the four categories for Question Answer Relationship (QAR). The purpose of doing this was to allow the students to be able to discuss the text using the four categories (Right There, Think and Search, Author and Me, and On My Own), especially since many of the groups had four people. According to Raphael and Au (2005), teaching QAR helps students to have a discussion and to answer questions. While the Edmodo conversations showed that the students engaged in answering the questions, it also showed that the students spent a lot of timing correcting their classmates because the QAR type and their questions did not match. The incorrect questions and the conversations about the mistakes limited the amount of time that the students could have been having an authentic conversation. Another limitation centered on the interactions between the students while online. Larson (2009) noted that the students thanked each other and complimented each other. There was very little of this on Edmodo. In fact, the dynamics in some of the groups were beginning to become an issue. Some of the Edmodo entries were showing some negative emotions. Some of the students seemed to be critical of others and began using capitalization to show their emotions. The amount of time of the study caused some limitations as well. This study was implemented over the course of six weeks. Almost four weeks into the study, the format of the intervention was changed. Since there were so many issues with the

electronic journal in Google Docs, the students began to just use Edmodo only. But, they were only able to do this for the last two weeks. So, for two weeks the students were finally able to have online discussion with very few technological issues. Implications for Educators Both the advantages and disadvantages should be taken into consideration before integrating technology into the reading block. According to the findings of this study, using technology in literature circles may not have a great impact on reading comprehension. Just incorporating technology into lessons does not guarantee results. Some students who have issues with writing may still struggle with posting online. Due to language issues, English as Second Language students may continue to struggle at times. Also, some students may get off the topic during the discussions (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). Despite these disadvantages, research supports that allowing students to have online discussions is an experience with many advantages as well (Day & Kroon, 2010; Grishaw & Wosley, 2006; Larson, 2009; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009; Scharber, 2009; Stewart, 2009). One of the great things about using social networking technology is that the students have access to the same technology at home. During the study, some of the students were accessing their Edmodo accounts at home even though this was not a part of the study. Even after the study, one of my students used Edmodo to communicate to me that she would be absent. These instances showed that what we did in the classroom was on the students minds even at home. This transfer of school to home is what we want to see. There are some steps to take in order to help smoothly integrate technology into the reading block. First, time must be taken to teach netiquette in order to avoid the pitfalls associated with social networking. Encourage them to speak positively and to consider the opinions of others (Larson, 2009, p. 645). At the beginning of the

implementation of online discussions, the teacher needs to post the prompts or questions first (Larson, 2009, p. 640; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009, p. 375). Also, instruction on how to have a literacy discussion should take place far in advance before adding threaded discussions. By the time online threaded discussions are introduced, the students should be very versed in how to have a productive book discussion. In addition, the students may need to have more freedom to decide on the length of their posts as well as the topics that they discuss (Larson, 2009, p. 645). Future Directions for Research Since the results of this action research did not show a significant improvement in reading comprehension, this study should be redesigned. One way to restructure this research would be to only integrate one form of technology into the study. Choose a technology that is kid-friendly. Although Google Docs is meant for collaboration, some age groups may not ready to use it properly. When using technology in a research study, there are a few things to still keep in mind. Plan the study for more than the typical six to eight weeks. This will allow for days to be missed due to technological difficulties. Also, consultations should be performed with the technical department to make sure that the technology being used is compatible with the network in the school. In addition, stay up-to-date with any technological issues that have occurred in the past and take these into consideration when planning a study that involves technology. Significance of Evidence-Based Research The intervention implemented in this action research study was based on research. No longer are students just completing role sheets in literature circles. In fact, role sheets were not intended to be long term (Daniels, 2002, p. 45). The sheets were to be a scaffolding strategy that would lead students toward the usage of metacognitive strategies on their own as readers. At times, the role sheets hindered the conversations

(Lloyd, 2004, p. 115). Using technology allows the students to gradually move towards authentic conversations and interact socially with their peers (Larson, 2009; Grishaw & Wosley, 2006). In order for students to have online reading comprehension, they must be able to communicate (Leu et al., 2011; Mokhtaki, Kymes, & Edwards, 2008). Online threaded discussions foster communication. Using online discussions causes students to consider the opinions of others (Grishaw & Wosley, 2006; Larson, 2009). Also, it helps them to build a sense of community within the educational setting (Edmondson, 2012; Grishaw & Wosley, 2006; Larson, 2009). In particular, threaded discussions allow students to have the time needed to respond to others that they would not normally have in face-to-face discussions (Larson, 2009; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009; Day & Kroon, 2010). On the other hand, research shows that students should still have some face-to face interactions (Day & Kroon, 2010; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009;). In fact, online discussions can have a positive impact on face-to-face discussions (Grishaw & Wosley, 2006). Reflection I think that teachers should engage in action research studies. Trying out various instructional strategies is something that we do on a weekly basis already. The only difference is that we do not always formally collect data and use statistical information to assess what we do to the extent of what is done in an action research study. Also, teachers are highly encouraged to use research-based strategies. Many times we are told what strategies to use, but no statistical data is given with the presentations at staff development to convince us that implementing such strategies will work in our classrooms. As a teacher, I must take on the role of being a researcher. It is more comforting to research and see where others have implemented the strategies in their classrooms. Then, I am able to get a bigger picture of the advantages and disadvantages of the strategies, which will help me to plan more effectively when we

begin implementation. Since I performed the research and implemented online threaded discussions in my classroom, I will have a better understanding of how to organize my lessons next year and gradually release the students by allowing them to eventually use technology with their discussions. Throughout my teaching career, I have been a reflective teacher. None of the past 16 years of teaching have looked the same because I realize that I cannot just offer my students a cookie cutter education. Completing this study has shown me how to analyze and examine what I do in the classroom even more closely. While implementing technology is great, I understand that it has its advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that I am able to monitor what my students are doing more carefully. I was able to give my students feedback quickly and help them improve their discussions for the intervention group, but I struggled with not knowing exactly what my control was doing while I was observing another group. Although I had been using literature discussions in my classroom for a few years, I had never felt the way I did during this study. I was no longer comfortable with not knowing exactly what was going on in the face-to-face literature discussions when I was not around. As a result of this study, I have changed the way that I conduct my reading block. Now, the students go through a rotation. At least once a week, the students are scheduled to get on Edmodo. On the rest of the days, they either meet for guided reading, or they have face-to-face literature discussions independently in their groups. Although the results of this study did not show a significant difference when technology was added, I still think that online discussions are worthwhile. I believe that as I continue to integrate technology into my lesson, I will see even more growth in my students. I think that

References Daniels, H. (2002). The literature circle: Rethinking role sheets. Voices in the Middle, 10(2), 44-45. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/journals/vm Daniels, H. (2006). Whats the next big thing with literature circles?. Voices in the Middle, 13(4), 10-15. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/journals/vm Day, D., & Kroon, S. (2010). "Online literature circles rock!" Organizing online literature circles in a middle school classroom. Middle School Journal, 42(2)18-28. Retrieved from http://www.amle.org/Publications/MiddleSchoolJournal/tabid/435/Default.aspx Deno, S. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education,37(3), 184-192. Retrieved from http://sed.sagepub.com/ Edmondson, E. (2012). Wiki literature circles: Creating learning communities.English Journal, 101(4)43-49. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/journals/ej Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. (7th ed., pp. 166-171). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. (2007). Using curriculum-based measurement to inform reading instruction. Reading and Writing, 20(6), 553-567. doi: 10.1007/s11145007-9051-4 Gambrell, L., Palmer, B., Codling, R., & Mazzoni, S. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518-533. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/General/Publications/Journals Grisham, D., & Wolsey,T. (2006). Recentering the middle school classroom as a vibrant learning community: Students, literacy, and technology intersect. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(8), 648-660. doi: 10.1098/JAAL.49.8.2 Harper, A. (2010). Social networking with edmodo: Let your digital footprints lead the way. Kentucky English Bulletin, 59(2)19-21. Henry, L., Castek, J., O'Byrne, W., & Zawilinski, L. (2012). Using peer collaboration to support online reading, writing, and communication: An empowerment model for struggling readers.Reading& Writing Quarterly, 28(3), 279-306. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2012.676431 Larson, L. (2009). Reader response meets new literacies: Empowering readers in online learning communities.The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 638-648. doi: 10.1598/RT.62.8.2 Leu, D., McVerry, J., O'Byrne, W., Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everette-Cacopardo, H., & Forzani, E. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 514. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.55.1.1 Lloyd, S. (2004). Using comprehension strategies as a springboard for student talk. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(2), 114-124. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.48.2.3

Mills, H., & Jennings, L. (2011). Talking about talk: Reclaiming the value and power of literature circles.The Reading Teacher, 64(8), 590-598. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.8.4
Mokhtaki, K., Kymes, A., & Edwards, P. (2008). Assessing new literacies of online reading

comprehension: An informal interview with w. iano'byrne, lisazawilinski, j. gregmcverry, and donald j. leu at the university of connecticut. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 354-357. doi: 10.1598/RT.62.4.9 Morrison, G., & Lowther, D. (2010). Integrating computer technology into the classroom: Skills for the 21st century. (4th ed., pp. 104-108). Boston: Pearson. Rizopoulos, L., & McCarthy, P. (2009). Using online threaded discussions: Best practices for the digital learner. J. Educational Technology Systems,37(4), 373-383. doi: 10.2190/ET.39.4.c Scharber, C. (2009). Online book clubs: Bridges between old and new literacies practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(5), 433-437. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.52.5.7 Stewart, P. (2009). Facebook and virtual literature circle partnership. Knowledge Quest, 37(4), 28-33. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ala.org/aasl/publications-journals

Appendix A Motivation to Read Profile Reading Survey Name: ___________________________________________________ Date: ______________________ Sample 1: I am in ____________. a. Second grade b. Third grade c. Fourth grade d. Fifth grade e. Sixth grade Sample 2: I am a ____________. a. Boy b. Girl 1. My friends think I am ____________. a. A very good reader b. A good reader c. An OK reader d. A poor reader 2. Reading a book is something I like to do. a. Never b. Not very often c. Sometimes d. Often 3. I read ____________. a. Not as well as my friends b. About the same as my friends c. A little better than my friends d. A lot better than my friends 4. My best friends think reading is ____________. a. Really fun b. Fun c. OK to do d. No fun at all

5. When I come to a word I dont know, I can ____________. a. Almost always figure it out b. Sometimes figure it out c. Almost never figure it out d. Never figure it out 6. I tell my friends about good books to read. a. I never do this. b. I almost never do this. c. I do this some of the time. d. I do this a lot. 7. When I am reading by myself, I understand ____________. a. Almost everything I read b. Some of what I read c. Almost none of what I read d. None of what I read 8. People who read a lot are ____________. a. Very interesting b. Interesting c. Not very interesting d. Boring 9. I am ____________. a. A poor reader b. An OK reader c. A good reader d. A very good reader 10. I think libraries are ____________. a. A great place to spend time b. An interesting place to spend time c. An OK place to spend time d. A boring place to spend time 11. I worry about what other kids think about my reading ____________. a. Every day b. Almost every day c. Once in a while d. Never 12. Knowing how to read well is ____________.

a. b. c. d.

Not very important Sort of important Important Very important

13. When my teacher asks me a question about what I have read, I ____________. a. Can never think of an answer b. Have trouble thinking of an answer c. Sometimes think of an answer d. Always think of an answer 14. I think reading is ____________. a. A boring way to spend time b. An OK way to spend time c. An interesting way to spend time d. A great way to spend time 15. Reading is ____________. a. Very easy for me b. Kind of easy for me c. Kind of hard for me d. Very hard for me 16. When I grow up I will spend ____________. a. None of my time reading b. Very little of my time reading c. Some of my time reading d. A lot of my time reading 17. When I am in a group talking about stories, I ____________. a. Almost never talk about my ideas b. Sometimes talk about my ideas c. Almost always talk about my ideas d. Always talk about my ideas 18. I would like for my teacher to read books out loud to the class ____________. a. Every day b. Almost every day c. Once in while d. Never

19. When I read out loud I am a ____________. a. Poor reader b. OK reader c. Good reader d. Very good reader 20. When someone gives me a book for a present, I feel ____________. a. Very happy b. Sort of happy c. Sort of unhappy d. Unhappy

Gambrell, L., Palmer, B., Codling, R. , & Mazzoni, S. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518-533. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/General/Publications/Journals

MRP Reading Survey Scoring Sheet Student name _________________________________________________________________________ Grade ______________________________ Teacher __________________________________________ Administration date ____________________________________________________________________ Recording scale Least positive response (1 point) Most positive response (4 point) Self-Concept as a Reader *recode 1. ____ 3. ____ *recode 5. ____ *recode 7. ____ 9. ____ *recode 11. ____ 13. ____ *recode 15. ____ 17. ____ 19. ____ SC survey raw score ____ Value of Reading 2. ____ *recode 4. ____ 6. ____ *recode 8. ____ *recode 10. ____ 12. ____ 14. ____ 16. ____ *recode 18. ____ *recode 20. ____ V raw score ____

Full survey raw score (Self-concept & Value) ____ Percentage scores Self-Concept ____ Value ____ Full Survey ____

Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

Gambrell, L., Palmer, B., Codling, R., & Mazzoni, S. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518-533. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/General/Publications/Journals

Appendix B Curriculum Based Measurements Reading Passage: Tims Donation to the Youth Club

Appendix C: Reciprocal Teaching Chart for the Journal

Title:

Date:

Prediction:
I predict that____________ because_______________ _____________________. I think that my prediction was correct or incorrect because ______________________ ______________________ ______________________

Question: _______________ _______________ Answer: ________ _______________ Page:____

Clarify: The word ____________ was difficult for me because -I did not know how to pronounce it -I did not know what it meant So I
_________________________ _________________________

Summary: Somebody: Wanted: But: So: Finally:

Therefore, I think the word ________________ means ______________________ ______________________

Appendix D: Electronic Journal Date: _ Name of the Questioner: _ Predictor: _ I predict that _because _ I think that my prediction was correct/incorrect because _ Clarifier: _ The word _ was difficult for me because _ So, I used the following strategy: _ Therefore, I think the word _ means _ Summarizer: _ Somebody: _ Wanted: _ But: _ So: _ Finally: _
Comments: Prediction: Clarification: Summarization:

Adapted from Macon, J., Bewell, D., & Vogt, M. (1991). Responses to literature. Newark: International Reading Association. Oczkus, L. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work: Strategies for improving reading comprehension. (1st ed.). Newark: International Reading Association.