How and in What Ways Does Homogeneous Small Group Instruction in Reading Influence 
Struggling Middle School Readers and Their Attitudes toward Reading 
 
by 
 
Silvia D. Scaife 
 
 
 
 
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the Degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
May 9, 2011 
 
 
 
 
Keywords: middle school, struggling readers, sustained silent reading 
 
Copyright 2011 by Silvia D. Scaife 
 
 
Approved by 
 
Theresa McCormick, Chair, Associate Professor of Curriculum and Teaching 
David M. Shannon, Humana-Germany-Sherman Professor of Educational Foundations, 
Leadership, and Technology 
L. Octavia Tripp, Associate Professor of Curriculum and Teaching 
 
ii 
Abstract 
 
 
 The study of how homogeneous small group instruction influences struggling middle 
school readers and their attitudes toward reading was a twelve-week mixed ANOVA study that 
examined the affects small group instruction for struggling middle school readers.  Participants 
in this study were seven sixth-grade students considered to be struggling readers.  
 The homogeneous small group instruction often correlated with the weekly skills outlined 
in the lesson plans of a regular classroom teacher with current reading materials including, but 
not limited to, short stories, novels, magazines, newspaper current events, recipes, response 
journals, and internet resources.  Activities included oral reading, vocabulary exploration, group 
activities, presentations, research, internet exploration, reader?s theatre, and creative writing.   
Results of this mixed ANOVA study indicated that the struggling readers involved in 
homogeneous instruction demonstrated slight gains in both motivation and reading ability.  A re-
examination of the study identified social acceptance from peers in regular classrooms, 
understanding and higher expectations from their teacher, and a smaller, more personable 
environment as being significant catalysts to recharging their motivation of becoming  engaged, 
active, and more independent readers.  
 
iii 
Acknowledgments 
 
 
 Would this massive accomplishment ever have been possible without the following:  my 
parents, James and Artancy Davis, who ushered me into and nurtured me through this world; my 
siblings, James, Sampson, Timothy, Jacqueline, Christopher, and Tyrone T., who made it 
possible for me to claim my place in a family of seven children, own it, and take responsibility 
for my actions; my husband, Desmond L. Scaife, Sr., who never ceases to encourage me and 
provide for me every tangible thing I needed to get to this point; my children, Teah, Desni, DJ, 
and Daleya for whom I was determined to be their foundational support in all that I do; my 
nephew Torri, through advising him, I was made aware of some life-long eye openers; my many 
friends like Melvin K. Smith who is like a big brother in all ways; and my many colleagues who 
constantly encouraged me to press forward; my committee chairperson, Dr. Theresa McCormick, 
who truly understood my every step in this process; my research committee member, Dr. David 
Shannon, an angel who knows how to work numbers like none other; my committee member, 
Dr. Octavia Tripp, who believed in me the first time she met me nearly six years ago; my 
multiple experiences, roles, and opportunities at Auburn University; and last, but not least my 
Creator, Sustainer, and Protector, God Almighty, in whom my ultimate faith is placed ?  and so I 
answer the question ?Would this massive accomplishment ever have been possible without these 
people?? Not at all. 
 
iv 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... iii 
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................v 
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii 
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix 
Chapter I. Introduction  ....................................................................................................................1 
 Rationale for Study ..............................................................................................................1 
 Purpose of the Study  ...........................................................................................................5 
 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................7 
 Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................7 
 Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................8 
Chapter II. Review Of Literature ...................................................................................................11 
 Introduction ........................................................................................................................11 
 Middle School Students .....................................................................................................11 
  Socialization of Middle School Students ...............................................................14 
  Middle School Students and Learning ...................................................................15 
  Teaching Middle School Students .........................................................................16 
  Grouping for Specific Purposes .............................................................................20 
 
v 
 Struggling Middle School Readers ....................................................................................23 
 Transient or Mobile Students .............................................................................................28 
 Motivation and Self-Efficacy of the Struggling Student ...................................................30 
  Motivate to Learn ...................................................................................................31 
  Intrinsic versus Extrinsic:  What Does it Look Like? ............................................31 
  Teachers? Role in Motivating the Middle Minds  ..................................................34 
Chapter III. Methods ......................................................................................................................38 
 Design of the Study ............................................................................................................38 
 Setting ................................................................................................................................40 
 Participants .........................................................................................................................41 
 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................43 
 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................47 
 Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................48 
 Chapter IV. Results .......................................................................................................................50 
 Section One: Quantitative Findings ...................................................................................52 
  THINKLINK..........................................................................................................52 
  SAT 10 ...................................................................................................................54 
  ARMT ....................................................................................................................55 
 Section Two:  Student Motivation .....................................................................................56 
 Section Three:  Qualitative Findings .................................................................................59 
  Analysis of Qualitative Data ..................................................................................59 
  Emergent Themes from Observations, Interviews, and Survey ............................60 
  Theme 1:  Having No Purpose for Reading ...............................................60 
vi 
  Theme 2:  Feeling Inadequate/Inferior to Peers .........................................64 
  Theme 3:  Autonomy among Participants .................................................65 
  Theme 4:  Lack of Expectation to Read Outside School Setting ...............66 
  Theme 5:  Reading in School is Boring .....................................................66 
  Theme 6:  How They See Themselves as Readers ....................................67 
 Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................68 
Chapter V. Discussion ...................................................................................................................69 
 Research Questions ............................................................................................................71 
 Summary of Findings .........................................................................................................71 
  Increase Reading Achievement ..............................................................................72 
  Reading Motivation ...............................................................................................75 
  Sustained Silent Reading .......................................................................................76 
 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................78 
 Implications........................................................................................................................79 
 Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................80 
 Recommendations ..............................................................................................................81 
 Summary  ...........................................................................................................................83 
References ......................................................................................................................................85 
Appendix 1 Auburn University Human Subjects Approval .......................................................113 
Appendix 2 Student Consent Form.............................................................................................115 
Appendix 3 Parental Consent Form ............................................................................................117 
Appendix 4 School Administrative Consent Form .....................................................................120 
Appendix 5  School Curriculum Coordinator Approval.............................................................122 
vii 
Appendix 6   Reading Interest Survey .........................................................................................124 
Appendix 7   Student Reading Survey .........................................................................................126 
 
 
 
viii 
List of Tables 
 
Table 1. Demographic Chart of Participants Group 1 ...............................................................42 
 
Table 2.   Demographic Chart of Comparison Group 2 ...............................................................43 
 
Table 3. Student Participant Demographics ...............................................................................51 
 
Table 4. Changes on Achievement Over Time (ThinkLink Scores)..........................................53 
 
Table 5. Changes on Achievement Over Time (SAT 10 Scores) ..............................................54 
 
Table 6. ARMT Levels ..............................................................................................................55 
 
Table 7. Student Reading Survey with Results ..........................................................................56 
 
Table 8. Scales ANOVA Table ? Reliability .............................................................................59 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ix 
List of Figures 
 
Figure 1 ThinkLink scores from August to December for each group ................................... 53 
Figure 2 SAT 10 Scores from 5th Grade and 6th Grade for each group ................................... 55 
1 
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 
 
Rationale for Study 
Middle school is an age of transition where students have emerged from an elementary 
school environment that is relatively child-centered to an environment that promotes content-
centered practices.  As a result of this transition, many changes such as new friends, more 
classes, new neighborhoods, being a transient student from another school or district, and riding 
the bus for the first time may occur.  Change, whether it is large or small, is easier for some 
students than others.  Associated with this change, academic, social, and even behavioral hurdles 
will become higher for a student that has difficulty staying organized, managing his/her time 
well, or retaining previously acquired knowledge.  The environment of middle schools often 
expects these students to learn complex content with little help in reading and comprehending 
difficult texts.  According to the U.S. Department of Education (2007), over a million of the 
students who enter ninth grade each fall (year) fail to graduate with their peers four years later, 
and in fact, about seven thousand students drop out every school day.  
Decades of research show that when students get off to a poor start in reading, they rarely 
catch up (McMaster & Van den Broek, 2008).  The National Adult Literacy Survey found that 
about 44 million adults lack sufficient literacy skills to function successfully in American society 
(Phi Kappa Phi, 2004).  Many of these adults have difficulty finding and keeping living-wage 
jobs, supporting their children?s education, and participating actively in civic life.  According to 
2 
McMaster and Van den Broek (2001) ?? once kids get beyond eighth grade, it becomes very 
unlikely that their reading will improve? (p. 2). 
The researcher asks, ?How can a reading intervention strategy that supports explicit and 
guided instruction for all readers, but with a clearer focal point on those with tendencies to 
struggle be implemented for struggling middle school readers??  The purpose of this study is to 
document and describe the impact and pedagogical practices of homogeneous small group 
instruction on struggling middle school readers during the implementation of Sustained Silent 
Reading (SSR).  Further exploration of this study seeks to describe the affects and influences of 
homogeneous small group instruction in reading among struggling middle school students and to 
gain greater understanding of the many axioms of how these struggling readers see themselves as 
readers and to quantitatively measure their successes and academic improvement. 
Available evidence clearly suggests that a substantial number of our middle and high 
school-age students do not read well (Bracey, 1997).  National and international assessment 
results confirm observations made by business and post-secondary institutions over the past 
several years that many high-school graduates cannot comprehend complex written information 
(Weinstein & Walberg, 1993). 
 Hopkins (2006) quoted an excerpt from President Bill Clinton?s 1997 State of the Union 
Address: 
It is essential that our students master the basics of reading English by the end of third 
grade.  At fourth grade, students are expected to read so they can learn science, history, 
literature, and mathematics.  If they can read by then, they can read to learn for a lifetime. 
Students who fail to read well by fourth grade often have a greater likelihood of dropping 
3 
out and a lifetime of diminished success. (http://www.educationworld.com/ 
admin/admin/admin012.shtml) 
Hopkins contends the essentialness that students master the basics of reading English by the end 
of third grade because at fourth grade they are expected to read so they can read to learn for a 
lifetime to.  Students who fail to read well by fourth grade often have a greater likelihood of 
dropping out and a lifetime of diminished success.  Over time, learning becomes more complex, 
with heightened demands on students to use reading skills to analyze or to solve problems.  Good 
reading skills are required to study geography, do math, use computers, and conduct 
experiments.  Even motivated, hard-working students are severely hampered in their schoolwork 
if they cannot read well by the end of third grade (U.S. Department of Education, 1999), and 
statistically speaking, Tilson (2006) stated that children who can?t read in 4th grade account for 
nearly all of the high school dropouts. 
As students move through the grades, the gap between good readers and poor readers 
widens even further.  According to Stanovich (1986) the ?Matthew Effect,? is a term used to 
describe a phenomenon that has been observed in research on how new readers acquire the skills 
to read: Early success in acquiring reading skills usually leads to later successes in reading as the 
learner grows, while failing to learn to read before the third or fourth year of schooling may be 
indicative of life-long problems in learning new skills.  In other words the ?Matthew Effect? 
helps good readers become better readers and poor readers become more frustrated and fall 
further behind.  Walberg and Tsai (1983) first coined the term the "Matthew Effect" to describe 
the fact that, without intervention, some students rapidly develop and build upon strong literacy 
foundations, and other students languish behind their more fortunate peers.  This pattern usually 
continues for many children who are considered struggling or at-risk readers.  Children are 
4 
expected to learn to read in the primary grades, when most reading instruction is given, then by 
fourth grade, they are expected to read to learn and gather information for life purposes, but fail 
to do so when their foundations have not been strengthened.  This downward spiraling is further 
evident when struggling readers reach middle school and reading instruction is upstaged by 
content area reading.    
Adolescents who struggle to read in subject area classrooms deserve instruction that is 
developmentally, culturally, and linguistically responsive to their needs (Alvermann, 2001).  
There must be some immediate connection and benefit to the student?s life.  In many cases the 
struggling reader is overwhelmed with the quantity of materials requiring attention.  Without a 
useful connection, he or she may reject the obligation, fall further behind academically, and 
eventually renounce education entirely.  Students decide to quit coming to school because they 
cease to feel connected to their school, their teachers, and their peers.  When the school 
environment invites them to participate, students want to remain a part of the community, 
thereby achieving academic and personal goals benefiting their present and future successes 
(Alvermann, 2001).  The general question then becomes ?How could time during SSR generate 
or provide an environment for small group instruction for struggling middle school readers?? 
By establishing a homogeneous small group environment for these struggling readers, a 
deeper, more focused examination of obstacles encountered by struggling middle school readers 
can take place, and the initiation of a complete intervention program can began.  According to 
researchers from Texas Education Agency (2002), the answer may lie in providing students with 
instruction that both teaches them comprehension strategies that work well for good readers and 
helps them to develop the necessary metacognitive awareness of how and when to use these 
strategies.  Struggling readers typically have difficulty mastering the basic skills established by 
5 
curriculum guides.  Content material presented to them is even more laborious because of a 
seemingly disconnected fashion, disconnected from their lives and to their prior knowledge.  For 
those who struggle, it is vital that a foundation of strong and well-formed skills of understanding, 
application, and reasoning is constructed, such as reading, comprehending, critical thinking, and 
evaluating (Stringer, 2002).  Students will be able to use these skills not only in classrooms, but 
also in daily situations outside the academic setting.  For example, using texts such as 
advertisements and billboards, instructions for games, letters, magazines, newspapers, recipes, 
job applications, television, video, and others items used for day-to-day operation. 
In meeting the literacy demands of subject-area learning, it is useful to emphasize the 
centrality of teaching students to comprehend and to think critically about different kinds of print 
and non-print texts, including those that are student generated, visual, oral, or digital in nature 
(Alverman, 2001).   
To better serve struggling readers, Richard Allington (2001) recommends redesigning 
reader support programs, and offers several solutions to the need for increased instructional time: 
add a second daily reading lesson, extend the school day, take advantage of summer school, and 
accelerate literacy development.  Allington also cautions that reading support should not focus 
purely on the early grades, because substantial gains can also be made in the upper grades, where 
students have access to intensive, expert instruction (Witherell, 2001). 
Purpose of the Study 
The purpose of this study was to use SSR as an unofficial intervention period for students 
who were characterized as struggling readers and was based on the implementation of Harvey 
Daniel and Marilyn Bizar?s Best Practice structures taken from Teaching the Best Practice Way:  
Methods That Matter and the possible academic impacts homogeneous small group instruction 
6 
might have on struggling middle school readers.  The affects and influences of homogeneous 
small group instruction in reading among struggling middle school students allowed further 
exploration of the success and academic improvement revealed how the student participants in 
this study viewed themselves as readers.  
The research participants included seven sixth-grade struggling readers from similar 
cultural/socioeconomic backgrounds and attended a prominent southeastern suburban school 
system.  Data from this study was collected over a 12-week period.  Students were indirectly 
introduced to Harvey Daniels and Marilyn Bizar?s (1998) best practice structures:  reading-as-
thinking, integrative units of study, classroom workshop, representing-to-learn, authentic 
experiences, and reflective assessment.  The findings from this research study indicated that 
many of the participants had very little interactions associated with reading and text at home.  
Primary sources of data were one-on-one student conferences, anecdotal notes from the reading 
sessions, and observations of students' behaviors about reading, students? written journal 
responses, small group rotations, and formative and summative assessments.  
 Research question one:  ?How does homogeneous small group instruction positively 
affect/increase reading achievement for struggling middle school readers??  Research question 
two: How will implementing instruction for a homogeneous small group of struggling middle 
school readers impact reading motivation of the participating students??  These questions will be 
addressed in chapter three of this study.  Chapter four of this study will present the results from 
the data collected and analyzed from the Student Reading Survey and standardized tests:  
ThinkLink, SAT 10, and ARMT.  Chapter five ties chapters three and four together and presents 
the conclusions of how the implementation of Sustained Silent Reading as an intervention 
7 
instrument to provide an environment for homogeneous small group instruction for struggling 
middle school readers.  
Limitations of the Study 
The study is limited in that it is reflective research from a small percentage of sixth grade 
middle school students from one school in one school system.  The participants represented less 
than 10% of the school?s population.  The surveys used in the study were developed and 
administered by the researcher and may not be appropriate for other similar studies. 
The researcher was also the Language Arts, Reading, and Writing teacher for these 
students.  It was assumed that the behaviors and attitudes of these students were not influenced 
by the multiple roles of the researcher especially since there were no grades assigned.    
Finally, a limited measurement of motivation for the student participants was provided. 
This study followed these student participants during the first three months of the 2008 school 
year.  This limited the scope of results and additional research is needed to determine long term 
effects of instruction of the homogeneous small group instruction and environment. 
Significance of the Study 
The significance of this study contained three components.  First, the study explores the 
academic and attitudinal effects of implementing homogeneous small group instruction on 
struggling middle school readers and exposes the critical need for effective reading intervention 
in middle school. 
Secondly, this study enabled struggling readers the opportunity to voice how they viewed 
themselves as readers and learners.  Three times a week, during Sustained Silent Reading, these 
students gathered in an environment they felt was academically non-threatening.  This setting 
allowed these students to learn reading strategies that would help them in other content area 
8 
classes.  The homogeneous small group also served as a support group for the students where 
they were able to feel confident and actually perform better in their regular classes. 
Finally, this study can be beneficial in that middle school teachers may gain a better 
understanding of how effective instruction can successfully be differentiated so that all students 
benefit.  This information can help teachers and school administrators research, develop, and 
implement effective intervention/enrichment environments beneficial to all reading students.  
Definition of Terms 
 
The following terms will be used consistently throughout this study.  It is my intention to 
clarify them with definitions that best fit the context of this study, but not limit other definitions 
that could be applicable to these same terms. 
 Aliterate ? able to read but choosing not to.  
Accommodations ? changes in the way tests are designed or administered to respond to 
the special needs of students with disabilities and English learners (Schoolwisepress, 2010). 
Adolescent ? Adolescence is the transitional stage of development between childhood 
and full adulthood, representing the period of time during which a person is biologically adult 
but emotionally not at full maturity.  The time is identified with dramatic changes in the body, 
along with developments in a person's psychology and academic career.  In the onset of 
adolescence, children usually complete elementary school and enter secondary education as 
middle school or high school (WordiQ.com, 2010). 
At-Risk Student ? students may be labeled at risk if they are not succeeding in school 
based on information gathered from test scores, attendance, or discipline problems 
(Schoolwisepress, 2010). 
9 
Criterion-Referenced Test ? a test that measures how well a student has learned a 
specific body of knowledge and skills.  The goal is typically to have every student attain a 
passing mark, not to compare students to each other (Schoolwisepress, 2010). 
Dropout ? a grade seven through twelve student who left school prior to completing the 
school year and had not returned by Information Day (a day in October when students 
throughout the state and are counted and enrollment is determined) (Schoolwisepress, 2010). 
Developmentally Appropriate ? This term is used frequently in discussions about 
middle school to refer to programs and practices that match the developmental needs of students. 
 These needs include physical, cognitive, social and emotional needs. 
Early Adolescence ? There is some controversy over when adolescence begins, and 
depending on the writer, early adolescents can be anywhere from nine to fifteen years old. 
 Scales (1996) ?uses ages ten to fifteen because those ages roughly mark the beginning and end 
of a set of physical, socioemotional, and cognitive changes? (p. 7). 
Homogeneous Grouping ? refers to the placement of students of similar abilities into 
one group, classroom, or environment.   
Middle School ? a school between elementary school and high school, usually having 
three or four grades, variously including grades 5 through 8. 
 Motivation ? is a theoretical construct used to explain the initiation, direction, intensity, 
persistence, and quality of behavior, especially goal-related behavior (Maehr & Meyer, 1997). 
Norm-referenced Test ? an assessment in which an individual student?s performance is 
compared to a norm or average of performances by other, similar students (Kurbiszyn & Borich, 
2003). 
10 
Struggling Readers ? struggling readers have traditionally been depicted as low 
achievers; lacking cognitive competencies which may include reading comprehension, study 
skills, word recognition, and reading fluency, and quite often, they pose a significant challenge 
for educators (Vacca & Vacca, 1999).  
Student Motivation ? student motivation refers to a student?s interest, desire, 
compulsion, and need to participate in and be successful in the learning process which is 
influenced by both internal and external factors that can start, sustain, intensify, or discourage 
behavior (Reeve, 1996). 
Transient Students ? any student who moves during or between academic years. 
Underachievers ? one who fails to achieve a performance appropriate to one?s age or 
talents (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/underachiever). 
 
 
11 
CHAPTER II.  REVIEW OF LITERATURE 
 
Introduction 
Literature for this review was obtained by accessing the Educational Research 
Information Clearinghouse (ERIC) and other research databases at the Ralph Brown Draughon 
Library located on the campus of Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.  Journal searches were 
completed at Auburn Public Library, Auburn, Alabama.  Reading, adolescent literacy, middle 
school, homogeneous groups, and struggling readers were successful descriptors.  All articles, 
books, and other publications were chosen based on the relevancy to this study.  Using 
references and related bibliographies in publication provided further studies of relevance to this 
topic. 
Review of this related research and literature includes studies from 1965 to the present.  
Specific studies regarding reading at the middle school level is from 1982 to 2001.  The most 
pertinent areas of focus determined in this study are: defining who middle school students are; 
identifying characteristics of struggling readers; understanding the pros and cons of 
homogeneous and ability groups; and recognizing motivation and self-efficacy among struggling 
readers. 
Middle School Students 
Who are middle school students, and what is known about them behaviorally, 
intellectually, and socially?  The onset of adolescence occurs between the ages of 10 and 11 and 
is a particularly difficult period of development.  Middle school students experience dramatic 
12 
changes in their physical development such as height, weight, and even their body chemistry, 
and the rates at which these rapid changes occur vary for individuals.  For example, some middle 
school students experience fluctuations in basal metabolism which can cause extreme 
restlessness at times and equally extreme listlessness at other moments (California Department of 
Education, p. 142).  The changes also include psychological changes such as erratic and 
inconsistency in their behavior; anxiety and fear are contrasted with shifting feelings of 
superiority and inferiority.  Chemical and hormonal imbalances can often trigger emotions that 
are frightening and poorly understood.  Middle school students may even regress to more 
childish behavior patterns and become easily offended, sensitive to criticisms of their personal 
shortcomings, and often feel self-conscious, alienated, and lack self-esteem.  
How beneficial is this information to this study?  Any typical middle school student could 
display a wide range of individual intellectually, socially, and behaviorally developmental 
characteristics as their minds transition from concrete-manipulatory stages to the capacity for 
abstract thought (Family and Relationship Center, 2010).  World renowned Erik Erikson (1968) 
noted in the eight stages of man, if one or more of the earlier psychosocial crises have not been 
resolved; man may view himself and his life with disgust and despair.  This holds true for any 
child or adolescent.  In other words, a child must successfully complete stages one through three 
or four - industry versus inferiority (as defined in the eight stages of man) by the time he or she 
reaches middle school.  During this stage, a child learns to master the more formal skills of life 
such as relating with peers according to rules, progressing from free play to play that may be 
elaborately structured by rules and may demand formal teamwork, and skills necessary in 
mastering subjects such as social studies, reading, and arithmetic.  The child who, because of his 
successive and successful resolutions of earlier psychosocial crisis, is trusting, autonomous, and 
13 
full of initiative will learn easily enough to be industrious.  However, the mistrusting child will 
doubt the future.  The shame and guilt-filled child will experience defeat and inferiority.  This is 
also a very social stage of development and if unresolved feelings of inadequacy and inferiority 
are experienced among ones peers, serious problems in terms of competence and self-esteem can 
evolve. 
Erikson?s stage four (industry versus inferiority) and possibly stage five (learning identity 
versus identity diffusion) could render possible explanations for middle school students? 
chemical and hormonal imbalances which often trigger emotions that are frightening and poorly 
understood.  It may also explain the social aspect of middle school students that encompasses a 
variety of behaviors such as becoming rebellious towards their parents and/or teachers and the 
regression to more childish behavior patterns (Family and Relationship Center, 2010).   
 Many middle school students want to make their own decisions and have conflicting 
views with authority.  They may even challenge authority figures and test limits of acceptable 
behavior.  Many have been known to exhibit unusual or drastic behaviors that can be aggressive, 
daring, boisterous, and even argumentative; but still they are strongly depending on guidance and 
values from those they feel genuinely care about them.  They need constant affirmation and can 
sense negativity from parents and teachers.  Middle school students realize the thin edge between 
tolerance and rejection and these feelings of adult rejection often drive the middle school student 
into the relatively secure social environment of a peer group.  They want to choose their own 
friends to whom they become fiercely loyal; sometimes being cruel and insensitive to those 
outside their peer group.  Adapting to new and large settings can often seem overwhelming, 
impersonal, frightening or confusing to most middle school students.   
14 
Socialization of Middle School Students 
Traditional elementary schools are typically organized into self-contained classrooms as 
opposed to middle schools that are largely departmentalized.  This difference in organization 
frequently results in obstacles to learning for students transitioning from elementary to middle 
school (Harris, 1996).  According to research information provided by the administration at 
Smedberg Middle School, Sacramento, California (Scholastic Administrator Partners), this 
transition ultimately makes possible the ability to project thought into the future, to anticipate, 
and to formulate future goals, as well as, providing middle school students the insight into 
sources of previously unquestioned attitudes, behaviors, and values.    
Transitioning from self-contained elementary school to the departmentalized classrooms 
of middle school involves a different type of transitioning.  Among the obstacles created by 
elementary to middle school transitioning, the most significant appear to be social in nature 
(Blum, 2005; Pope & Simon, 2005; Tomlinson & Doubet, 2005).  Pre-adolescents? 
psychological needs encompass a range of emotions, reflecting the most basic followed by 
higher level, increasingly complex needs.  Among them is the need to feel secure, accepted, safe, 
connected, and validated (Maslow, 1968).  These concerns are heightened for students 
transitioning from elementary to middle school (Scholastic Administrator Partners, 2004).  
Meeting social needs during the transition from an elementary to a middle level school is a major 
consideration, because most programs focus more on academics and regulations. 
In 1989, the California Department of Education published Caught in the Middle, a 
publication that depicted characteristics of middle grade students.  According to this publication, 
middle school students considered academic goals as a secondary level of priority.  Personal 
social concerns dominated their intellectual thought activities.  Their intense curiosity directed 
15 
them to active learning over passive learning experiences.  Middle school students greatly 
favored interaction with peers during learning sessions and activities.    
Students' perceptions of the quality of school life decline as they progress from 
elementary to secondary school, with the largest decline occurring during the transition to a 
middle level school (Diemert, 1992).  In Diemert?s survey of twenty-three fifth-graders in a 
middle level school, of the top eleven (out of twenty-three possible) needs identified by boys, six 
were social, two were academic, two were procedural, and one was academic and procedural.  Of 
the top ten needs identified by girls, five were social, two were academic, and three were 
procedural. 
Middle School Students and Learning 
Chan, Terry and Bessette (2004) note that educators need to acknowledge that pre-
adolescents are wired differently ? psychologically, physiologically, and, as a result, 
cognitively.  The socialization and enculturation process during transitioning from elementary to 
middle school takes on increased importance.  Pre-adolescent ?hardwiring? sets the stage for 
future learning to occur.  The environment of the school and its culture play a critical role in 
students? ability to connect to learning.  Above all, students at this age need to feel connected to 
their peers, to their teachers, and to their school.  A school environment that feels safe, supports 
students? autonomy, and includes them meaningfully has the potential to help pre-adolescents 
think critically, develop opinions, and engage more in their classes (Inlay, 2005). 
According to Johnson and Johnson (1991), there are three basic ways students can 
interact with each other as they learn.  They can compete to see who is ?best?; they can work 
individualistically toward a goal without paying attention to other students; or they can work 
16 
cooperatively with a vested interest in each other's learning as well as their own.  Of the three 
interaction patterns, competition is presently the most dominant.   
In 1965, Ashley Montagu stated,  
Without the cooperation of its members, society cannot survive, and the society of man has 
survived because the cooperativeness of its members made survival possible....  It was not 
an advantageous individual here and there who did so, but the group.  In human societies 
the individuals who are most likely to survive are those who are best enabled to do so by 
their group. (pg 109) 
Teaching Middle School Students 
Vygotsky (1978) claimed that learning is enhanced when interacting with a more 
knowledgeable other.  Interaction makes learning powerful.  Small group work, sometimes 
called cooperative learning, requires students to work together to exchange ideas, make plans 
and propose solutions.  Teachers must give careful thought to how to manage the classroom 
during small group activities to ensure success.  When students work in small groups, they think 
through an idea, present it to others so that they can understand, and often exchange alternative 
ideas and viewpoints.  This: 
 encourages positive attitudes toward diversity 
 increases students? self-confidence  
 promotes intellectual growth, and   
  enhances social and personal development 
Ability grouping is another term used where children in one classroom are placed into 
groups based on their ability.  The classroom may contain children with a wide range of ability.  
Children can move in and out of groups as needed.  For example, a child may be in the high 
17 
ability group in reading, but a middle level in math.  If the child improves in math, he could be 
moved up to the high ability in math.  In the same way, if the child begins to have problems in 
reading, he could be moved to a lower group.  This flexibility of grouping allows the needs of 
children to be better met.  Ability grouping is not the same as tracking, heterogeneous grouping, 
or cluster grouping.  
Ability grouping for reading instruction has been in place since the early 1900s in the 
United States.  It was first viewed simply as a way to break up large groups of students for 
instruction.  One major benefit was that the students were in like ability groups so they were all 
working at the same level and same pace at the same time (Slavin, 1988).  Thus, teachers were 
given the freedom to differentiate the lessons to suit the needs of each of the individual groups.  
There were two main types of ability grouping discussed.  The first one was between classes 
ability grouping in which students were grouped homogeneously for certain subjects during the 
day.  All the students in the class would be working at comparable ability/academic levels.  
Researchers argued that placing students in this type of ability grouping for reading was not a 
bad idea if the students were grouped heterogeneously for the remainder of the day.  Other 
researchers advocated homogeneous ability grouping across grade levels and ages for certain 
subjects. 
The second type of ability grouping is within-class ability grouping.  When using this 
method of ability grouping, the teacher would group the individual classroom students into 
ability groups for certain subjects.  This would allow the teachers to differentiate instruction for 
each ability group.  Once again, the negative aspects of this would be: decreased instructional 
time with each student, teacher bias, and student self-esteem.  Another part of within-class 
grouping is cooperative grouping in which the teacher groups the students into groups 
18 
heterogeneously for certain parts of the day.  The positive aspects of this include: students of 
mixed abilities would rely on each other for help and everyone would have a definite assignment 
in the completion of the task.  In cooperative groups, the higher ability students would help the 
lower ability students and each student would be responsible for making sure the tasks were 
completed.  The downfall of cooperative grouping is that often the higher ability students usurp 
most of the task in order to just get it completed and/or the higher ability students might feel 
pressured to bring the academic level of lower ability students up to his/her own level.  There is a 
great burden placed on children in the cooperative learning group.  The great burden is making 
them responsible for each other?s learning apart from themselves.  It is not only the smart 
students that suffer, ?One study showed that in groups of mixed ability, low-achieving students 
become passive and do not focus on the task? (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, pg. 12). 
According to ?Guidelines for Teaching Middle and High School How to Read Well,? 
Judith Langer states, ?offering separated and simulated activities to individuals, groups, or the 
entire class as needed and providing overt, targeted instruction and review as models for peer and 
self-evaluation are excellent strategies that require students to use their skills or knowledge to 
complete a task or project that has meaning for them? (pg. 4).  Researchers also suggested that 
teachers should actually spend more time with the poor readers? group to help maintain the 
equality of actual instruction time.  Teachers? views of their poor readers were often much more 
harsh than those of their good readers.  Teachers often viewed their poor readers as behavior 
problems (Allington, 1983).  Of major importance, it was found that WHEN and IF the teacher 
made some differentiation in the reading instruction, then the end result was reading achievement 
gains. 
19 
Constructing a homogeneous group for reading in middle school will probably be of 
greatest value to the 5?10% of kids at the bottom; the ones reading more than two years below 
grade level.  Schools definitely could, and often do, create an alternative reading class for such 
kids or in some cases, it is an additional class where the strugglers take both the regular language 
arts class and the special reading class. 
 Even when schools create such possibilities they often fail to provide the resources 
needed to make them work.  They should keep in mind these students are academically far 
behind their peers.  Adjusting the instructional level of the materials alone will probably not be 
sufficient to meet their needs.  According to Deshler (2007), struggling readers have to make 
gains that will help close the learning gap with their peers which mean they need more than a 
year of learning for a year of teaching.  Researchers Bondi, Fenwick, Lipsitz, Mergendollar, and 
Tye (cited in California Department of Education, 1987) also point out that middle school 
students exhibit a strong willingness to learn things they consider to be useful, and they enjoy 
using skills to solve real life problems. 
Homogeneous grouping is the placement of students of similar abilities into one 
classroom.  The practice of homogeneous grouping, which is quite widespread in the United 
States, uses a model that typically groups students together on ability or achievement as the 
deciding variable.  At the high school level, this practice is most prevalent in mathematics, where 
students are placed in vocational, general, or college-preparatory mathematics courses 
(McPartland, Coldiron, & Braddock, 1987; Oakes, 1985, 1990a, 1990b; Slavin, 1990).  It also 
occurs at the middle or junior high school level in those schools that offer algebra at the eighth 
grade (McPartland, Coldiron, & Braddock, 1987; Oakes, 1985, 1990a, 1990b; Slavin, 1990).  
According to the Second International Math Study (SIMS), ability grouping is more extensive in 
20 
the United States than any other country studied (Oakes, 1990a).  Students at the elementary 
school level may also be tracked or grouped, although at this level students are more often 
grouped by general measures of ability or achievement rather than ability or achievement in 
mathematics (Oakes, 1985, 1990a, 1990b; Slavin 1987a, 1987b). 
Homogeneous grouping often means that one teacher gets an overwhelming number of 
children with problems of one kind or another.  Even when children are tracked there can be a 
range of ability of two years between the highest and lowest achievers in that class.  Students 
who are tracked in this way can end up having several years of detrimental learning experiences 
(Bissur, 2009). 
 Grouping practices that are appropriate for one class may not meet the needs of another 
class (Sanacore, 1990; Wiesendanger & Bader, 1992).  Whatever the grouping plans, it should be 
remembered that grouping children for reading instruction is a means for facilitating learning?it 
is not an end in itself.   
Grouping for Specific Purposes  
Classification of children in groups should frequently be determined by specific 
purposes; for example, groups may be organized for the purpose of providing instruction in 
developmental reading, and individual children should be regrouped as their performance 
requires.  In other cases, a group may be devoted to the study of specific skills, regardless of the 
general proficiency of the members.  Research groups may be formed for pupils who wish to 
investigate a similar problem.  Other groups interested in the same theme?such as pets, 
airplanes, plants?may plan presentations to the whole class.  In some instances, groups may be 
formed in which the better readers help the slower ones.  Grouping within a single room has 
some limitations.  The three-group plan, or any other plan for homogeneous grouping, may make 
21 
the children and their parents conscious of differences in achievement.  Studies often show that 
the high groups receive the best instruction geared to critical thinking, while the lower groups 
receive instruction that is less stimulating.  Some researchers have noted that many teachers give 
nonverbal clues to their students that they enjoy teaching, the higher groups more than the lower 
ones, and that many teachers expect less from the lower groups in the way of progress.  This 
creates pressure on a child to measure up to the others in reading. 
Regardless of the members in a group, individual differences remain within that specific 
group.  If the teacher uses the same materials with all pupils, allowing only for a difference in the 
speed with which the groups are expected to read them, the problem of individual needs still 
remains unsolved.  However, when teachers use different materials for the groups, the amount of 
preparation of work is greatly increased.  Teachers must be willing to expend this extra energy to 
meet the needs of all the children in their classes.  Educators must make many choices every year 
about grouping arrangements.  Good teachers who provide supportive environments for their 
students and who are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of grouping will make the decisions 
that are right for themselves, for their classroom situation, and for their students. 
Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) is a period of uninterrupted silent reading.  Many 
practitioners and researchers suggest that the primary purpose of SSR is to encourage students to 
read more and to increase their enjoyment of reading rather than to have a direct effect on 
reading achievement (Gardiner, 2001; Yoon, 2002).  Gardiner, a teacher at Billings Senior High 
School in Montana, says his experience shows:  ?if students had time to read during class, they 
looked forward to reading? (p. 6).  Yoon?s meta-analytic study looked at the effect of SSR on 
attitudes toward reading.  He determined that of seven studies examined, the effect size (0.12) is 
small but does provide empirical support for SSR having an impact on attitudes toward reading. 
22 
The concept of SSR is based upon a single simple principle: Reading is a skill.  And like 
all skills, the more one uses the skill of reading it, the better one gets at it.  Conversely, the less 
one uses it, the more difficult reading is.  Like swimming, once you learn it, you never forget it.  
But in order to get better at either reading or swimming, you must jump into the book or the 
water and do it over and over.  How much do students read?  As reported in the excerpt from Jim 
Trelease?s book, The Read Aloud Handbook, ?students do not read very much?.  According to 
Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988), American students spend only an average of 18.4 
minutes per day reading printed materials out of school.  Unfortunately, there has been no 
significant increase in the amount of time American students spent reading either for pleasure or 
for learning (Campbell, Voelkl, & Donahue, 1997).  In one reported study, 90% of the students 
studied devoted only 1% of their free time to reading and 30% to watching television.  
Additionally, 50% of the students read for an average of four minutes or less per day, 30% read 
two minutes per day, and 10% read nothing at all.  In a comprehensive seven-year study 
conducted by John Goodlad, A Place Called School, it was reported that only 3% of class time is 
occupied by the act of reading in the middle school, and 2% percent in the high school.  Sedita 
(2008) noted: 
One way that motivation and engagement are instilled and maintained is to provide 
students with opportunities to select for themselves the materials they read and topics 
they research.  One of the easiest ways to build some choice into the students? school day 
is to incorporate independent reading time in which they can read whatever they choose.  
Yet this piece of the curriculum is often dropped after the primary grades. (p. 1) 
23 
Sedita also suggested that middle and high schools who have adopted SSR programs use the time 
that on-grade level readers are reading silently to also do some targeted, scaffold instruction with 
struggling readers. 
Struggling Middle School Readers 
According to Karen Grady (2002), in 1999 the International Reading Association issued a 
position statement on adolescent literacy which called for a renewed interest in and dedication to 
the rights and needs of adolescent readers: 
Adolescents entering the adult world in the 21st century will read and write more than at 
any other time in human history.  They will need advanced levels of literacy to perform 
their jobs, run their households, act as citizens, and conduct their personal lives.  They 
will need literacy to cope with the flood of information they will find everywhere they 
turn.  They will need literacy to feed their imaginations so they can create the world of 
the future.  In a complex and sometimes even dangerous world, their ability to read will 
be crucial.  Continual instruction beyond the early grades is needed (Moore, Bean, 
Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999, p. 99) 
The U. S. Department of Education (2008) reported that 32 million adults in the United 
States lack basic literacy skills.  Nationally, this amounts to one out of seven adults that lack 
basic literacy skills and one out of five adults who could not read, write, or do basic math.  
Where does the breakdown lie?  Has the nation exclusively and primarily focused on our nation's 
youngest readers and in some ways neglected the increasing need of their older brothers and 
sisters? 
Struggling readers at the middle level, grades 4?8, face complex challenges when 
compared to students in the primary grades, K?3.  However, less attention has been paid to this 
24 
group of students.  A number of reading researchers and theorists believe the reading process to 
be much more complex, including not only the cognitive dimension addressed by schema theory 
and many existing reading strategies, but including a social dimension as well (Bloome, 1986; 
Goodman, 1996; Greenleaf, et al., 2001; Harste, 1994).  Researchers have found that students 
who discuss reading frequently with peers have higher scores on standardized reading 
achievement tests.  Besides, collaborative social activities in meaningful literacy contexts also 
promote higher level thinking skills and the intrinsic desire to read and write, as well as helping 
to develop literacy skills.  During social interactions, researchers have found differences in 
amount of talk, initiation patterns, volume of talk, and the use of questions among students from 
different cultural backgrounds.  
For struggling adolescent readers, the key is to diagnose their difficulties, determine 
where their problems lie, and find techniques that solve those problems.  Heller and Greenleaf 
(2007) suggest assessing reading skills as soon as students enter a school to identify those who 
are below grade and determine their specific learning needs.  Curtis (2001) estimates that about 
10 percent of adolescent readers struggle with word identification because they have difficulty 
deciphering letter-sound relationships.  Students at this age make the problem worse, she adds, 
by guessing at words on the basis of context rather than trying to sound them out.  But for most 
struggling adolescent readers, the problem is that although they can read words accurately, they 
do not comprehend what they have read (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004).  Guthrie and Alvermann 
(1999) suggest that these comprehension problems may include having trouble figuring out the 
correct meaning of a word, being unable to make inferences from the text or link ideas in the text 
to their prior knowledge, and failing to ask themselves if they understand what they just read. 
25 
?The behaviors that are key to academic literacy include the abilities to provide 
sequenced explanations, logical arguments, grounded interpretations, and abstract analysis? 
(Jacobson, et al., 2001, p. 528).  However, for many students, learning to read does not occur 
easily.  As McCray (2001) confirmed: 
Reports at the national, state, and local levels indicated millions of youngsters at the 
intermediate and middle school levels read below a fourth-grade level and experience 
deficiencies in basic reading skills such as word recognition, decoding, reading fluency, 
and reading comprehension. (p. 298)  
These students have come to be known as ?struggling? readers.  Struggling readers have 
traditionally been depicted as low achievers; lacking cognitive competencies which may include 
reading comprehension, study skills, word recognition, and reading fluency; and quite often, they 
pose a significant challenge for educators.  Vacca and Vacca (1999) stated that these are indeed 
defining attributes of the struggling reader.  Moje, Young, Readence, and Moore (2000) believe 
that the notion of struggling readers must be expanded to recognize the individual who is 
disengaged from literacy.  
In earlier years, another title given to struggling readers was ?at-risk? readers.  An ?at-
risk? student is one who is in danger of failing to complete his or her education with an adequate 
level of skills (Slavin & Madden, 1989).  Low achievement, retention in grade(s), behavior 
problems, poor attendance, and low socioeconomic status are risk factors associated with these 
students.  Currently, the term struggling reader appears to be the preferred term among reading 
professionals for adolescents who, for whatever reason, are unable to keep up with the reading 
demands of the school curriculum? (Alvermann, 2001, p. 679).  For these students, the key is to 
diagnose their difficulties, determine where their problems lie, and find techniques that solve 
26 
those problems.  Heller and Greenleaf (2007) suggest assessing reading skills as soon as students 
enter a school to identify those who are below grade and determine their specific learning needs.  
For most struggling adolescent readers, the problem is that although they can read words 
accurately, they do not comprehend what they have read (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004).  Guthrie 
and Alvermann (1999) suggest that these comprehension problems may include having trouble 
figuring out the correct meaning of a word, being unable to make inferences from the text or link 
ideas in the text to their prior knowledge, thus missing the whole concept of meaning and 
comprehension. 
How then must one gain a greater understanding of the characteristics of struggling 
readers?  McDermott and Varenne (1995) argue that there are three categories in terms of their 
approach to explaining the struggle of unsuccessful readers: the deprivation approach, the 
difference approach, and the culture-as-disability approach.  These constructs are the creation of 
?School? which includes not only the school personnel, but also all of stakeholders involved in 
developing the overarching assumptions about academic mastery.  The deprivation approach is 
constructed on the foundational perspective that members of groups develop differently enough 
that they can be shown to be measurably different from other groups in terms of particular 
development milestones.  In other words, some people have developed the skills to perform 
particular tasks, other people have not, and the presence and extent of those skills can be reliably 
measured.  This is essentially the deficit model that explains the failure of minority children in 
school as a function of impoverished or impoverishing experiences at home.  The difference 
approach focuses on the perspective that members of particular groups develop knowledge and 
skills that are well tuned to the requirements of their cultures (McDermott & Varenne, 1995).  
The third approach is the culture-as-disability approach.  It suggests strugglers fail because they 
27 
are ?acquired? as failures by rigid educational systems that focus on a predetermined set of 
competencies that these students almost invariably do not have (McDermott & Varenne, 1995 p. 
324-348). 
Struggling students, especially at the middle school level, are attempting to create identity 
cultures, and they desire to belong to the group.  The process of adopting, transforming, and 
being transformed by those around them becomes the focal point and takes precedence over the 
individuality.  Struggling readers seek to find a safe place to blend to remain unnoticed in instead 
of standing out amongst peers.  The fear of not being accepted by a peer group is regarded higher 
than the risk of standing out in an adverse way. 
Middle school students need extensive time set aside for them to read and respond to 
texts that they choose to read (Ivey, 1999a, 1999b; Worthy, 2000).  This silent reading provides 
extended practice for students, practice that they themselves note as being an important part of 
their improvement as readers (Stewart, Paradiz, Ross & Lewis, 1996).  Struggling readers in 
Stewart et al.?s study indicate quite clearly that if teachers would like readers to develop 
proficiency and fluency, ?Give us time to read and let us pick other books? (p. 474).  
Middle school students can also benefit from content area strategy instruction.  Content 
area literacy skills are most effective when taught within the content area courses themselves, but 
can be taught effectively within a reading class.  Content area literacy is often negated because of 
the reluctance of content area teachers to include literacy instruction in their classes and the 
difficulty of content area textbooks, particularly for students who struggle with reading (O?Brien, 
Stewart, & Moje, 1995).  Many strategies such as reciprocal teaching are effective with both 
narrative and expository texts.  Between books in guided reading, perhaps in one-week blocks of 
time, whole class and small group instruction in comprehension strategies for the content areas 
28 
could be considered in the framework.  This instruction could use the content area textbooks of 
the students as well as their actual reading assignments and could provide students with 
strategies they can use in their reading in language arts as well as their other content areas.  
Connecting textual reading in science or social studies to the strategy instruction in reading and 
language arts serves as part of an integrated unit on a middle school team, or as part of guided 
reading groups, where multiple exposures to a variety of strategies can improve reading 
strategies and independent use (Garner, 1990).  An excellent description of possible procedures 
for strategy instruction is provided in Strategies That Work: Teaching Comprehension to 
Enhance Understanding (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000).  This published book also includes sample 
lessons for introducing comprehension strategies on varied grade levels.  Other sources for 
comprehension strategy instruction include I Read It, But I Don?t Get It: Comprehension 
Strategies for Adolescent Readers (Tovani, 2000), and Strategic Reading: Guiding Students to 
Lifelong Literacy (p. 6?12) (Wilhelm, Baker, & Dube, 2001).  Strategy instruction grounded in 
students? actual texts and assignments provides the best opportunities for students to use 
strategies to accomplish authentic tasks.  In fact, Roe (1992) argues that it is essential that 
instruction in comprehension strategies be taught using the actual materials with which students 
will be asked to use the strategies.  With opportunities to practice these strategies and apply them 
in actual classroom situations, students are more likely to internalize strategies and use them 
appropriately on their road to becoming expert readers (Dole, Brown & Trathen, 1996), Pearson 
et al., 1992). 
Transient or Mobile Students 
Public school systems are experiencing a high rate of student mobility because society 
has become increasingly mobile.  Each year students who change schools during that academic 
29 
year not only pose a great concern for teachers and administrators, but also a tremendous amount 
of pressure for themselves.  Existing research finds that students can suffer psychologically, 
socially, and academically from mobility.  Transient students face the psychological challenge of 
coping with a new school environment.  Transient students also face the social adjustment to new 
peers and social expectations.  They not only deal with the change of environment in their home 
lives, a change that can be similar to death and mourning for some (Neuman, 1988); they also 
encounter a change in schools, which is almost certain to create some disjuncture in their 
learning experience (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1994; Ingersoll, Scamman, & Eckerling, 
1989; Kerbow, 1995b).  Alexander, Entwisle and Dauber (1996) distinguished between students 
who move within a school system versus those who move out of the system.  The researchers 
sought to identify if significant differences existed.  They found that students who moved within 
the system often suffered more negative effects of mobility than students who moved out of the 
system. 
In 1996, Bruno and Isken claimed: 
Any disruption in the continuity of instructional programs can have a major impact on 
future academic attainment...what is not reported and lacking in the research data is the 
negative effect student transiency has on the nonmobile, or stable students, and the 
overall assessment of school growth. (p. 14) 
As students move to upper grades, the percentage of transient students decreases, but a negative 
effect upon academic achievement can still occur.  Carolyn Hofstetter (1999) found that mobile 
or transient high school students had significantly lower test scores after other classroom 
characteristics were controlled. 
30 
Motivation and Self-Efficacy of the Struggling Middle School Student 
Motivation to learn is paramount to student success.  Motivation can be defined as the 
internal drive directing behavior towards some end.  Student motivation naturally has to do with 
students' desire to participate in the learning process.  It also includes the reasons or goals that 
underlie a student?s involvement or noninvolvement in academic activities.  Although students 
may be equally motivated to perform a task, the sources of individual motivation may differ.  
According to researcher Barbara McCombs (1996), data has shown that for students to be 
optimally motivated to learn, they must: 
 See schooling and education as personally relevant to their interests and goals. 
 Believe that they possess the skills and competencies to successfully accomplish 
these learning goals. 
 See themselves as responsible agents in the definition and accomplishment of 
personal goals. 
 Understand the higher level thinking and self-regulation skills that lead to goal 
attainment. 
 Call into play processes for effectively and efficiently encoding, processing, and 
recalling information. 
 Control emotions and moods that can facilitate or interfere with learning and 
motivation. 
 Produce the performance outcomes that signal successful goal attainment. 
In middle level schools, it is important to emphasize mastery and improvement, rather 
than relative ability and social comparison.  Empirical evidence suggests that middle schools 
tend to stress relative ability and competition among students more, and effort and improvement 
31 
less, leading to a decline in task goals, ability goals, and academic efficacy.  Working in groups, 
focusing on effort and improvement, and being given choices all support a more positive task-
focused goal structure (Anderman & Midgley, 1997). 
Motivation to Learn 
The term ?motivation to learn? has a slightly different meaning.  It is defined by one 
author as "the meaningfulness, value, and benefits of academic tasks to the learner?regardless 
of whether or not they are intrinsically interesting" (Marshall, 1987, p. 135).  Motivation to learn 
has also been characterized by long-term, quality involvement in learning and commitment to the 
process of learning (Ames, 1990).  According to Jere Brophy (1987), motivation to learn is a 
competence acquired "through general experience but stimulated most directly through 
modeling, communication of expectations, and direct instruction or socialization? (p. 311). 
Intrinsic Motivation versus Extrinsic Motivation 
A student who is intrinsically motivated undertakes an activity "for its own sake, for the 
enjoyment it provides, the learning it permits, or the feelings of accomplishment it evokes".  An 
extrinsically motivated student performs ?in order to obtain some reward or avoid some 
punishment external to the activity itself,? such as grades, stickers, or teacher approval (Lepper, 
1988, p. 289).  Students bring with them a variety of motivations, and tapping into them will 
promote better learning.  As McCombs and Barton (1998) notes, ?Motivating learning is largely 
dependent on helping to bring out and develop students? natural motivations and tendencies to 
learn rather than ?fixing them? or giving them something they lack.?  Motivation is complex, and 
according to Jere Brophy (1986), its ?key is socialization.  It is central to child rearing, and it is 
essential to child management in school.? 
32 
At the middle school level, motivation is key for several reasons.  For example, even 
students who are strong readers may find the more difficult reading assignments, particularly 
those in content areas, too challenging.  Those students who already struggle with reading will 
have become more frustrated and could possibly try to avoid reading at all costs.   
Lyon et al. (2001) explains that students with reading difficulties get caught in a negative 
cycle.  Reading is not enjoyable to them and they don?t learn from it, so their frustration leads 
them to avoid reading, and their vocabulary growth and learning in other subjects suffers as a 
result.  This cycle typically erodes the self confidence of students and their motivation to learn.  
Students may be what Alvermann (2004) calls aliterate?able to read but choosing not to, often 
because they do not see a link between their everyday world and academic tasks.  Gaskins, 
Gensemer, and Six (2003) suggest that some struggling readers have a faulty belief system.  
They believe they are not smart and nothing can help them.  Perceived competence is a construct 
that has received much support in the empirical literature.  Perceptions of incompetence 
(Phillips, 1984) have been found to be associated with impaired problem solving, dysfunctional 
causal inferences about achievement outcomes, and lessened achievement goals. Phillips also 
compared children whose self-perceptions were commensurate with their abilities to those with 
low perceived competence.  Those who perceived themselves as low competence adopted lower 
standards and expectancies for success, perceived that teachers expected less from them 
(confirmed by the teachers), ranked unstable effort as a more important cause of high grades than 
ability, and were portrayed by teachers as lacking in persistence.  Self-efficacy is strongly related 
to motivation; that is, the more competent one feels to address a specific task, the more likely 
one will attempt to complete or engage with that task.  This applies to reading and writing just as 
it does to anything else (Alvermann, 2003; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997).  And, of course, the 
33 
opposite is also true.  Therefore, learning strategies that improve reading comprehension can be, 
in themselves, motivating and can lead to students wanting to engage more enthusiastically in 
reading and writing tasks that develop deeper content area understanding.  However, Kamil and 
others stress, ?Motivation and engagement are critical for adolescent readers.  If students are not 
motivated to read, research shows that they will simply not benefit from reading instruction? 
(Kamil, 2003, p.8).  In other words, adolescents will only take on the task of learning how to 
read or write better if they have a sufficiently compelling reason for doing so. 
For Brophy (1987), the goal of socialization is to instill in students? expectations, habits 
and routines that will enable them to control themselves.  ?Whether you are talking about 
classroom rules or whether you are talking about general pro-social behavior,? Brophy contends, 
?the idea is to try to help kids develop a set of values that must be taught through socialization? 
(p. 40?48).  The socialization process helps students learn what to do and what not to do, but 
more so it becomes part of their self-control.  They learn what to do and do it on their own.  The 
ideas and values relate to peer-relations, and fundamental notions of justice, fairness, respect, 
and politeness.  Under the right classroom conditions and at the right level for each student, 
motivation and energy can serve as positive essentials for a complete and productive academic 
school experience.  As students delve more deeply into their subjects, texts and assignments of 
middle school students become more complex, and the goal becomes reading to learn, rather than 
learning to read.  Laura Robb (2002) encourages teachers to rethink the way reading is taught to 
upper elementary students.  In an article written for Scholastic Instructor, she writes,  
For many years many elementary and middle school teachers have shaped their teaching 
practices around the deeply rooted myth of learning to read?reading to learn ?  the myth 
and its practices are not working.  What many researchers have shown is that learning to 
34 
read and read to learn must happen simultaneously and continuously from preschool 
through middle school?and perhaps beyond. (p. 23) 
 Students tend to internalize beliefs that teachers may have about their ability.  Generally, 
they ?rise or fall? to the level of expectation of their teachers.  When teachers believe in students, 
students believe in themselves.  When those you respect think you can, you think you can 
(Raffini, 1993). 
Teachers? Role in Motivating the Middle School Students   
The literacy research about young adolescents points to three basic principles about how 
teachers can support all types of readers in the middle grades.  First, teachers need to know 
students as readers.  This includes not only collecting assessment information about individual 
student strengths and areas that need development, but also exploring personal interests with 
students and their background knowledge about different topics.  Second, classroom and school 
resources should include a wide range of materials for independent and instructional reading, and 
reading instruction should include work with alternative text sources such as the Internet and 
informational pamphlets.  Third, time spent reading must be a priority in classroom instruction, 
and teachers need to play an active role in guiding and supporting individual readers during 
silent reading time.  Reading instruction should not only take into account content area goals, but 
also should include developmentally appropriate instruction in areas such as word knowledge 
and reading fluency (Broaddus & Ivey, 2002).  Students have a range of reading ability, even if 
the class is homogeneously grouped. 
Grouping for instruction by reading level is of the utmost importance.  Students must 
receive instruction at their level in order for learning to take place.  Small group instruction 
allows a teacher to know his/her students' strengths and weaknesses and address their individual 
35 
needs.  One of the most important ways a teacher can get started is to assess the student's needs.  
Early identification of reading and language difficulties can be accomplished through listening to 
children talk and read.  Individual conferencing centers on a shared piece of literature, running 
records, and guided reading groups can help you identify the students who are lagging as well as 
the specific areas of need.  Professor of Education, Catherine Snow, Harvard Graduate School of 
Education states, ?The presence of struggling readers in most U.S. classrooms leads to a simple 
proposition, teachers need to be teaching reading, not just in first through third grades but 
throughout all the grades, and not just in ?reading class? but in literature, science, math, and 
history classes as well? (Snow, 2007, p. 2).  Heller and Greenleaf remind teachers to remember 
what it was like to be a new student in a discipline and ?articulate and make concrete the skills, 
knowledge, and concepts they may take for granted but that many students need to be shown 
explicitly? (p. 14). 
The beliefs teachers have about teaching and learning and the nature of the expectations 
they hold for students also exert a powerful influence (Raffini, 1993).  As Deborah Stipek (1988) 
notes, ?To a very large degree, students expect to learn if their teachers expect them to learn? 
(p. 125) 
Teachers who are effective in socializing problem students employ principles that involve 
truly listening to the student, showing respect, trying to understand the child from the child?s 
point of view, showing empathy, and avoiding clashes of will.  According to Duffy (2002) 
teachers who produce the greatest gains in reading achievement adapt their instructional 
practices to meet individual student needs?a process known as differentiation.  These teachers 
recognize that students have different ways of learning and respond best to different types of 
instruction.  
36 
Effective teachers modify their instructional techniques according to the varying needs of 
the students.  However, before teachers can offer this flexible instruction and feedback, notes the 
Rand Reading Study Group (2002), they need lengthy and intensive preparation, and ongoing 
professional development.  The struggling readers in their classes should not be excluded from 
reading, writing, and talking about the academic content of the texts.  Instead, teachers need to 
find ways to engage these students in compelling issues and problems related to the particular 
academic discipline, rather than forcing them to do basic skills-focused reading exercises.  It may 
take some effort, the researchers say, but finding interesting and relevant reading materials 
written at the student?s level can help build comprehension and content knowledge.  Because so 
much knowledge is conveyed through reading in the middle and high school years, teachers may 
assume that struggling readers cannot handle challenging or even grade-level work.  But Heller 
and Greenleaf (2007) recommend that teachers look for the strengths students bring to school 
and find ways to build bridges between academic content and the everyday competencies 
students display.  For example, Kamil (2003) notes, to learn the instructions for many computer 
games, students may use complex reading skills that are not evident in the classroom.  Teachers 
should help students understand that reading with comprehension requires effort but can improve 
with practice (Snow, 2007).  Students may think reading is an inherent skill that should come 
naturally; teachers can empathize with students by showing that they have struggled at times and 
still struggle to comprehend texts on unfamiliar subjects (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007).  Another 
strategy implemented by teachers include choosing reading assignments or texts that are 
?moderately difficult? so students are challenged; tasks that are too easy?or too hard?decrease 
intrinsic motivation (Guthrie & Alvermann 1999). 
37 
Another effective strategy that teachers can practice is to explain the reason for a reading 
assignment and offer comprehension strategies matched to that assignment (Manzo 2005; Wade 
& Moje 2000).  Otherwise, students may see reading as ?busy work? or unimportant to learning.  
And finally, students enjoy a variety of tasks and activities that are linked to reading 
assignments, such as writing a song or jingle or illustrating key events from a text (Guthrie & 
Alvermann, 1999). 
 
 
 
38 
CHAPTER III.  METHOD 
 
Design of the Study 
The research design consisted of mixed methods, both qualitative and quantitative to 
examine how and in what ways has small group instruction influenced or affected struggling 
middle school readers and their attitudes toward reading.  The theoretical framework was based 
on the implementation of SSR as an intervention opportunity and the possible academic impact 
homogeneous small group instruction might have on struggling middle school readers.  Further 
exploration of this mixed method study obtained information that could describe the affects and 
influences of homogeneous small group instruction in reading among struggling middle school 
students.  The following questions were asked to guide my research: 
1. ?How does homogeneous small group instruction positively affect/increase 
reading achievement for struggling middle school readers?? explores the 
impact(s) homogeneous small group instruction has on the reading achievement 
of struggling middle school readers.   
2. How will implementing instruction for a homogeneous small group of struggling 
middle school readers impact reading motivation of the participating students??  
?How does homogeneous small group instruction positively affect/increase 
reading achievement for struggling middle school readers?? explores the 
impact(s) homogeneous small group instruction has on the reading achievement 
of struggling middle school readers.   
39 
The goal of this study was to gain greater understanding of the many axioms of how these 
struggling readers see themselves as readers and to qualitatively measure their successes and 
academic improvement.  
A mixed-method approach was used for this study.  A mixed-method study integrates 
both quantitative and qualitative research methods (Gay & Airasian, 2003).  Much debate has 
occurred since the 1960s on the usefulness of combining qualitative and quantitative research 
methodologies in the same study (Creswell, 2003; Taskakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Thomas, 2003).  
As Stewart and Shields (cited in Thomas, 2003) state, ?the debate was often viewed as a contest 
between innovative, socially responsible methods versus obstinately conservative and narrow-
minded methods [others viewed the debate as between] precise, sophisticated techniques versus 
mere ?common sense?? (p. 6). 
Curlette (2006) for instance, argues that ?beliefs from the qualitative aspect of a mixed 
methods research design can be combined with data from the quantitative side of the research to 
reach a belief statement about the existence of a finding from the qualitative study? (p. 345).  In 
other words, Curlette believes data collected using qualitative techniques can be used to support 
conclusions reached by performing tests on quantitative data and vice versa.  One benefit of 
using a mixed-method study according to Frechtling, Sharp, and Westat (1997) is that combining 
the two approaches sharpens our understanding of the research findings.  
According to Hanson, Creswell, Plano-Clark, Petska, and Creswell (2005), ?using both 
forms of data allows researchers to simultaneously generalize results from a sample to a 
population and to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomena of interest? (p. 224).  For 
instance, a researcher can make generalizations from the sample to a population which is 
normally something done by a quantitative researcher.  These generalizations can be further 
40 
supported and enhanced through thick descriptions of some aspects of the data, an approach 
normally taken by qualitative researchers.   
In 1994, Stake, Denzin, and Lincoln stated, ?how? and ?why? questions are best suitable 
for case studies because the approach draws attention to what can be specifically learned from a 
single case.  Merriam (1988) also added that a case study often builds upon tacit knowledge and 
provides a thick description of the case under investigation (p. 12).  According to Yin (1990), the 
most significant condition for differentiating among the various research strategies is to identify 
the type of research questions being asked.  Another reason the researcher prefers the case study 
for this study is because of the lack of control or manipulation of relevant behavioral events that 
may occur. 
Data from this study was collected over a 12-week period.  Students were indirectly 
introduced to Harvey Daniels Best Practice structures:  reading-as-thinking, integrative units of 
study, classroom workshop, representing-to-learn, authentic experiences, and reflective 
assessment.  The findings from this research study indicated that many of the participants had 
very little interactions associated with reading and text at home.  Primary sources of data were 
one-on-one student conferences, anecdotal notes from the reading sessions, and observations of 
students' behaviors about reading, students? written journal responses, small group rotations, and 
formal and informal assessments.  These students demonstrated some increase in their overall 
reading performances and demonstrated more positive attitudes about reading in general. 
Setting 
 The setting of this study was on the campus of a prominent middle school located in an 
affluent suburban school system that supports a strong partnership with a large southeastern state 
university.  It is the only middle school in the system serving only sixth and seventh grade 
41 
students.  During the 2008?2009 school year, the school population was nine hundred eighty-
nine.  The school has consecutively met adequate yearly progress (AYP) since the onset of the 
No Child Left Behind mandate, and all faculty members were considered highly qualified. 
Participants 
Appendix 1 provides evidence of approval granted by Human Subjects at Auburn 
University.  Because the subjects were under the age of eighteen, parental permission was 
obtained in order to survey the students.  Permission was granted from administration of the 
middle school and the curriculum coordinator from the central office of the local school district.  
The research participants in this study included seven sixth-grade struggling readers, both males 
and females, from similar cultural/ socioeconomic backgrounds.  
Table 1 shows the demographics of the participants in the study.  It reveals their age at 
the time the study was conducted and indicates if the student was a transient student to the school 
system.  Three-fourths of the student participants were transient students who had moved into the 
school district within the first two weeks of that academic year. 
 
42 
Table 1 
Demographic Chart of Participants Group 1 
Participant Gender Age Transient 
STUDENT A1 FEMALE 12 YES 
STUDENT A2 MALE 12 YES 
STUDENT A3 MALE 12 NO 
STUDENT A4 FEMALE 12 YES* 
STUDENT A5 FEMALE 12 NO 
STUDENT A6 MALE 12 NO 
STUDENT A7 MALE 13 NO 
 
 Table 2 shows the demographics of the remaining students who entered sixth grade with 
similar academic proficiency levels as the participants. 
 
43 
Table 2 
Demographic Chart of Comparison Group 2 
Participant Gender Age Transient 
STUDENT B1 FEMALE 12 NO 
STUDENT B2 FEMALE 11 NO 
STUDENT B3 FEMALE 11 NO 
STUDENT B4 FEMALE 11 NO 
STUDENT B5 MALE 11 NO 
STUDENT B6 FEMALE 12 Yes* 
STUDENT B7 FEMALE 11 NO 
STUDENT B8 MALE 12 NO 
STUDENT B9 MALE 11 NO 
STUDENT B10 FEMALE 11 NO 
STUDENT B11 MALE 12 NO 
STUDENT B12 MALE 12 NO 
STUDENT B13 FEMALE 12 NO 
* Attended more than one school system within an academic year 
 
Data Collection 
Researchers collect data in a mixed methods study to address the research questions or 
hypotheses. The data collection procedure needs to fit the type of mixed methods design in the 
study. This requires using procedures drawn from concurrent forms of data collection, in which 
both the quantitative and qualitative data are collected concurrently, or from the sequential forms 
44 
of data collection, in which one type of data is collected and analyzed prior to a second data 
collection (Creswell, 2005, p. 110).  
 Research data was collected in the natural classroom environment during SSR.  The 
primary sources of data for the study were students? surveys and researcher?s observations.  The 
Student Reading Survey was designed to make students more active participants in the research 
process.  Using a Likert Scale format, the students responded to 26 items focusing on their 
engagement of reading, autonomy support of reading, reading in content areas, and their interests 
in various texts. 
Yin (1994) describes six sources of data used in qualitative case study research: 
documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation, and 
physical artifacts.  As part of observation, Merriam (1988) suggests completing accurate field 
notes, which include actual occurrences as well as the observer?s comments or interpretations.  
Of the data collection sources mentioned, the following triangulation of data was gathered and 
used:   
 Criterion-Referenced Tests 
o THINKLINK Assessment   
o Alabama Reading and Math Test (5th grade reporting) 
 Norm-Referenced Tests 
o SAT 10 
 Student Surveys 
Observations of the participants in this study were conducted in a target classroom from 
August 2008 through December 2008.  Data collection consisted largely of observations, 
interview questionnaire, surveys, and field notes, all of which were directly influenced by the 
45 
researcher.  Being the primary instrument allowed the researcher a first-hand context within 
which the research phenomenon occurred.   
The researcher was asked by the principal and assistant principal to disaggregate reading 
data on all students who entered in 6th grade as partially proficient or non-proficient reader based 
on student 5th Grade scores: SAT 10 and ARMT.  Prior to analyzing any data from the students? 
national and state testing, a reading interest survey (Appendix 6) and the Student Reading Survey 
(Appendix 7) were given to all 110 students.  Special attention was given to twenty-two students 
who had similar targeted characteristics of a struggling reader.  After receiving the returned 
student reading surveys, the surveys completed by those students who had been identified as 
?watch? students were targeted.  These students? surveys were then divided into two categories: 
partially proficient and non-proficient students.  The surveys from the students who had been 
identified as all ?A? students were analyzed more closely to determine what were the similarities 
and differences in their attitudes about reading.  Field notes were gathered two mornings per 
week.  Each session included observing, interacting, and assisting a small group of sixth grade 
struggling readers for 30 minutes.  This allowed the researcher to become more familiar with the 
population of students and establish a routine of meeting with the student participants regularly.  
The following questions were used to further excavate data from the participants.  This set of 
questions allowed freedom to clarify and summarize each student participant while collecting 
data and formulating new ideas and lines of thought about each student participant: 
 What is their attitude toward SSR sessions?  
 Do they come prepared? 
 Do they read? 
 Do they give up easily?  
46 
 What are their socialization habits among each student participant during the 
sessions?  During regular classes? 
 Do they learn from lessons, personal discoveries, and mistakes?  
 How often do they stay on task? 
 Are they reflective thinkers?  
 What are major distractions for them? 
 Do they need constant assistance? 
 What do they read?  
 Can they understand what they read?  
 What do they do well?  
 Do they set goals?  
Data from the student participants? biographical questionnaires and anecdotal notes of 
weekly pull-out sessions (three days per week) were coded in order to determine recurring or 
similar themes.  Initial coding categories consisted of significant reading habits, reading 
backgrounds, perception of reading and motivation to read.  As more time was spent on the 
anecdotal notes about the students? lives and classroom performances, the coding categories 
were revised and labeled as student profiles.  This was largely an intuitive process, but also, as 
Merriam (1988) stresses, ?[this process] considered issues such as frequency of student reading, 
uniqueness as a reader, and previously unrecognized areas? (p. 283?285). 
After overarching categories of the data had been identified, each category was sorted 
and other ways to break the data down into manageable pieces which fit together was necessary.  
Although the selected students have been identified as struggling middle school readers, each 
individual student profile is unique and requires that each section of this study be devoted to 
47 
uniqueness of each student.  Stringer and Angelle (2003) noted that ?although completing an 
inventory on each student does require some time and organization in the beginning, it allows for 
a greater awareness of what each student?s present needs are.? 
Data Analysis 
Research is the process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data in order to 
understand a phenomenon (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001).  The research process is systematic in that 
defining the objective, managing the data, and communicating the findings occur within 
established frameworks and in accordance with existing guidelines. The mixed-method approach 
was used in an effort to capture both the practical and theoretical perspectives of this study.  The 
quantitative data was gathered from the student participants? 5th grade Thinklink, SAT 10, and 
ARMT scores were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and Statistical Programs for Social Sciences 
(SPSS) software.  The scores from these assessments were used as predictive tools to determine 
how the student participants may perform in reading related classes during the first trimester of 
their 6th grade year.  The scores were categorized according to proficiency levels and stanines 
then placed in an Excel spreadsheet that corresponded to the assessments from which they came.  
Data was imported into SPSS where the necessary calculations were given and descriptive 
analysis was provided.   
According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), the constant comparative method is implemented 
when the researcher searches for patterns, notes tentative categories, and compares new data to 
the previous data in order to refine meaning.  This process of constant comparing includes 
identifying, coding, and categorizing the patterns in the data.  The Student Reading Survey was 
the instrument used to determine the attitudes and influences of the student participants about 
reading.  The constant comparison process quickly caused me to abandon my initial notion about 
48 
instruction for struggling middle school readers and redirected it to the many complex challenges 
middle school students have to conquer in addition to maintaining a successful academic life. 
The Student Reading Survey (Appendix 7) consisted of twenty-six questions and was 
divided into the following four subscales categories:  engaged reading, autonomy support, 
content area, and interesting text.  Each question was assigned a numeric value.  The survey 
contained four sections. The first section had six items asking students to rate their engagement 
of reading: students? attitude regarding if they liked to read, topics they like to read about, 
appreciation for the ways authors write, and projects that involve many different reading 
materials.  The second section had six items asking students to rate their autonomy support.  
These items addressed students? perceptions about the support and encouragement provided by 
their teachers: expressing their own opinions, encouragements to learn new things, 
encouragement to read books that are hard for them to read, in science, being able to decide what 
topics to read and write about; in math, the importance of working on their own.  The third 
section contained eight items asking students to rate their reading instruction in other content 
areas.  These items focused on reading instruction that was integrated in content areas other than 
reading and language arts.  The fourth section contained six items asking students to rate their 
interests in various kinds of texts.  Two of the four scales were found to have acceptable 
reliability. 
Chapter Summary 
 In this chapter, focal points were the mixed-method approach used for this research 
design, the data collection, the participants and the setting in which the research took place.  The 
mixed-method approach was used in an effort to capture both the practical and theoretical 
perspectives of this study.  The participants were introduced to a more established routine for 
49 
SSR.  A distinctive set of questions was used for the researcher as a generic guide that offered 
additional insight on each student participant and his or her perceptions while participating in the 
small homogeneous group.   Finally, the process of data collection and the description of the 
procedures of the data analysis serve as segue to Chapter 4 where the results will be described.  
 
50 
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS  
 
This chapter presents the results from both quantitative and qualitative data collected in 
August 2008 from a total of 110 students.  This data includes, state criterion-referenced test 
results, national norm-referenced test results from the students? 5th and 6th grade reports, and 
survey instruments designed by the researcher.  Of the 110 profiles created, twenty-two had 
recurring or similar targeted characteristics of struggling readers.  Within those twenty-two 
students, seven students were chosen as the participants for this study.  Based on  a total of 
twenty students; seven in the participant group and thirteen in the comparison group, table 2 
displays the demographics of the seven student participants and reveals the gender, ethnicity, and 
transiency of both the participant group and the comparison group.  In the participant group, 
42.9% were female compared to 61.5% in the comparison group.  In the participant group 57.1% 
were male compared to 38.5% in the comparison group.  When comparing the students? 
transiency, 42.9% of the participant group had moved into the school system within the first two 
weeks of the academic school year.  Only 7.7% of the comparison group was considered 
transient. 
51 
Table 3  
Student Participant Demographics 
 Participant Group 
(n = 7) 
Comparison Group 
(n = 13) 
Gender   
Female 
Male 
3 (42.9%) 
4 (57.1%) 
8 (61.5%) 
5 (38.5%) 
Transient   
Yes 
No 
3 (42.9%) 
4 (57.1%) 
1 (7.7%) 
12 (92.3%) 
Ethnicity 
           Black 
           White 
 
7 (100%) 
0 (0%) 
 
2 (18%) 
11 (82%) 
Age Mean = 12.14 years Mean = 11.46 years 
 
 The purpose of this study was to examine attitudes and perceptions of the student 
participants in a homogeneous small group reading environment and how they perceived 
themselves as readers.  This study addressed an intervention idea that attempted to meet the 
needs of middle school struggling readers.  Consideration was given to time spent during 
Sustained Silent Reading periods as protected time for explicit instruction for the struggling 
readers.  Two primary research questions were addressed: 
1. How does homogeneous small group instruction positively affect/increase reading 
achievement for struggling middle school readers? 
52 
2.  How will implementing instruction for a homogeneous small group of struggling 
middle school readers impact reading motivation of the participating students? 
Throughout this chapter, both the quantitative and qualitative accounts of the seven 
participants are examined in an effort to honestly describe the academic progression and the 
personal perspective of each participant about reading.    
Section One:  Reading Achievement 
The first section in this chapter is devoted to research question number one and seeks to 
answer ?How does homogeneous small group instruction affect/increase reading achievement for 
struggling readers??  Using a mixed ANOVA, this question was when pre and post results from 
the THINKLINK, SAT 10, and ARMT were used to measure (change/affects/increases) over 
time.   
THINKLINK  
An administrative report provided overall academic performance results in reading, 
writing, and math for all middle school students.  This report was based on Scholastic 
THINKLINK, a state-wide assessment used to evaluate the students? fifth grade academic 
performances in Reading/Language Arts and Math.  The report coded the performance of each 
student within proficiency categories such as red if the student was not partially or non-
proficient, yellow if the student was proficient or green if the student demonstrated advanced 
proficiency. Table 3 summarizes the change in Think Link scores from August to December for 
each group.  Overall, all students significantly increased their scores over time (F = 46.87, p < 
.001).  This change, however, did not depend upon which instructional group in which the 
student participated (F =.498, p > .05).   
 
53 
Table 4 
Changes on Achievement over Time (ThinkLink)  
a - p < .001 
 
P ROFILE  P LOT for THINK LINK
G r ou p 2
G r ou p 2
G r ou p 1
G r ou p 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
T L  A u g . T L  De c.
T IM E
E
S
T
IMATED M
ARG
INAL
 ME
ANS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Gr ou p 2
Gr ou p 1
 
Figure 1. ThinkLink scores from August to December for each group. 
 ThinkLink ? 
August 
ThinkLink ? 
December 
    
 Mean  Mean  Change F (Group) F (Time) F (Interaction) 
Group 1  
(n = 7) 
37.57  50.43  + 12.86 
+   2.61 
.498 46.87 .790 
Group 2 
(n = 13) 
39.46  56.15  + 16.69 
-    1.52 
   
54 
SAT 10 
 Overall, SAT scores declined slightly from grade 5 to 6.  This change, however, was not 
statistically significant (F = 1.33, p >.05) and did not depend on the instructional group to which 
the students belonged (F = .905, p >.05).  Results from the 5th and 6th grade SAT 10 are 
summarized in Table 5. 
 
Table 5 
Changes on Achievement Over Time (SAT Scores) 
 SAT ? 
Grade 5 
SAT ? 
Grade 6 
Change 
F 
(Group) 
F 
(Time) 
F 
(Interaction)  Mean  Mean  
Group 1 (n=7) 29.14 19.43 -9.71 
(-18.61) 
2.59 1.33 .905 
Group 2 (n=13) 34.69  33.77  -0.92 
(8.68) 
   
 
PROFILE PLOT for SAT 10 
70 
55 
 
Figure 2. SAT 10 Scores from 5th Grade and 6th Grade for each group 
 
ARMT  
 Table 6 summarizes the results of both 5th and 6th grade ARMT scores. 
 
Table 6 
ARMT Levels 
 Decreased by 1 Level Stayed the Same Increased by 1 Level 
 N (%) N (%) N (%) 
Group 1 (n = 7) 1 (13.3%) 3 (42.9%) 3 (42.9%) 
Group 2 (n = 13) 1 (7.7%) 8 (61.5%) 4 (30.8%) 
 
PROFILE PLOT for SAT 10 
Group 1, 29.14 
Group 1, 19.43 
Group 2, 34.69 
Group 2, 33.77 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
70 
5TH GRADE 6TH GRADE TIME 
Group 2 
Group 1 
EST
IMA
TE
D M
AR
GI
NA
L ME
AN
S 
56 
 Most students in the comparison group (61.5%) remained at the same level. When 
comparing students from the two groups, a greater percentage of students in the participant group 
(Group 1) increased their ARMT level (42.9% vs. 30.8%).  Only one student from each group 
experienced a decline of 1 level. 
Section Two:  Student Motivation 
The second section of this chapter is devoted to research question number two ?How does 
implementing instruction for a homogeneous small group of struggling readers during SSR 
affect/increase reading motivation for the participating students??  To answer this question, four 
scales from the Student Reading Survey (engagement, autonomy, content area, and interesting 
text) were used.  Items were coded such that the higher the score (closer to 4), the greater the 
academic increase.  The Student Reading Survey was chosen for this study to facilitate 
hypotheses about the attitudes of students towards reading.  Statements were rated on a four-
point scale ranging from 1 = Never to 4 = A lot.  Table 7 summarizes mean scores and standard 
deviations for each of the four scales based on the student responses.  
Table 7 
Student Reading Survey with Results 
ENGAGED READING N Mean SD 
5.  My teacher helps me appreciate the different ways that 
authors write. 
7 3.71 .488 
6.  We do projects where I read many different materials. 7 3.00 1.00 
1.  I like to read. 7 2.43 .976 
2.  In Social Studies we discuss topics that I like to go home 
and read about. 
7 2.29 1.113 
4.  I enjoy spending time reading interesting things in math. 7 2.29 1.113 
3.  I think reading is boring. 7 1.71 .487 
(table continues) 
57 
Table 7 (continued) 
AUTONOMY SUPPORT N Mean SD 
12. In math my teacher thinks it?s important for me to work 
on my own. 
7 3.71 .488 
7. My teacher wants me to express my own opinions about 
what I read in Social Studies. 
7 3.14 .690 
8. My teacher encourages me to learn new things about 
science by reading books. 
7 3.14 .900 
10. My teacher lets me decide what science topics I should 
read and write about. 
7 2.57 .787 
11. In my science work, my teacher lets me read what I am 
interested in. 
7 2.57 .535 
9. My teacher encourages me to read books that are hard for 
me to understand. 
7 2.43 .976 
READING INSTRUCTION in CONTENT AREAS N Mean SD. 
14. My teacher wants me to ask myself questions when I 
read about social studies topics. 
7 3.29 .756 
16. My teacher expects me to use what I already know to 
understand what I read about science topics 
7 3.00 .577 
20. My teacher tells me to re-read when I don?t understand 
something in the math book. 
7 3.00 1.291 
17. In Science, my teacher helps me to find the main idea 
and supporting details in what I read. 
7 2.86 1.069 
13. My teacher encourages me to find the main idea when I 
read about social studies topics. 
7 2.71 1.13 
19. In math, my teacher asks questions that make me want to 
read and learn. 
7 2.43 1.134 
15. I am taught how to write good sentences in Social 
Studies and to punctuate them correctly. 
7 2.14 .900 
18. My teacher teaches me how to plan, organize my writing 
for science reports. 
7 2.14 .900 
(table continues) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
58 
Table 7 (continued) 
INTERESTING TEXTS N Mean SD 
21. My teacher teaches me how to write poems, letters, 
stories, and reports. 
7 3.71 .488 
24. My teacher asks me to read different kinds of material to 
do independent research about Social Studies topics. 
7 3.43 .787 
26. We do projects where I have to read many different 
materials. 
7 3.43 .787 
25. My teacher helps me to appreciate the different ways 
that and author writes. 
7 3.29 .756 
23. My teacher helps me to read poems, stories, and 
informational text from many different books. 
7 3.14 .690 
22. My teacher helps me to enjoy books, such as mysteries 
or adventures. 
7 2.71 .951 
 
 Table 8 summarizes the four measurement scales used to assess student motivation in this 
study.  For each scale, the mane and standard deviation are presented along with the scale 
reliability.  Furthermore, the results of the statistical comparison (oneway ANOVA) are 
summarized.  These comparisons revealed a statistically significant difference between the two 
groups on the Autonomy Scale.  Further comparisons between the two groups are summarized 
for each item on the four scales in Table 8 
 
59 
Table 8 
Scales ANOVA Table ? Reliability 
Scale # of 
Items 
Cronbach?s 
Alpha  
Reliability 
Group 1 (n = 7) Group 2 (n = 12) F 
X SD X SD 
Engage  6 .645 2.57 .76 2.54 (.38) .013 
Autonomy 6 .259 2.93 .27 2.51 (.39) 6.072* 
Content    8 .741 2.6964 .62 2.6146 (.58) .083 
Interesting Text  6 .460 3.2857 .41 3.0278 (.43) 1.650 
a - p < .001 
 
Section Three:  Qualitative Findings 
The third and final section of this study reports the qualitative view of how these student 
participants view themselves as readers and explores the influence of being in a homogeneous 
reading small group during SSR.  Themes revealed reading beliefs, habits, and practices of the 
student participants.   
Analysis of Qualitative Data 
A constant comparative method of analysis was conducted simultaneously with data 
collection (Merriam, 2002).  Data were collected as field notes during three thirty-minute 
observations per week from August 2008 to December 2008 and from informal interviews.  The 
interviews were semi-structured and focused on the following questions: 
(a) Do they come prepared for instruction? 
(b) Do they read? 
(c) What do they like to read? 
60 
(d) Do they give up easily? 
(e) What are their socialization habits among each other during the sessions?during 
regular classes? 
(f) Do they learn from lessons, personal discoveries, and mistakes? 
(g) How often do they stay on task? 
(h) Are they reflective thinkers? 
(i) What are major distractions for them? 
(j) Do they need constant assistance? 
(k) What do they read outside the school setting? 
(l) Can they understand what they read? 
(m) What do they do well? 
(n) Do they set goals? 
Emergent Themes from Observations, Interviews, and Survey 
Defined themes emerged among all of the participants.  For example, answers from and 
attitudes of the participants during this study indicated that much of their needs were similar. 
Having no real purpose for reading, feelings of inferiority/inadequacy to peers who read at or 
above grade level, lack of expectations to read outside of the school setting, and how they see 
themselves as readers were all evident.  These themes are detailed in the following paragraphs. 
Theme 1 ? Having no purpose to read.  Research states that people read for many 
different purposes.  Those purposes can be for entertainment, to get information, or to learn how 
to perform a task.  Initially, the student participants were not told why they would be attending 
these sessions, and they were very reluctant to participate in the homogeneous small group SSR 
sessions.  All of them revealed that there was no real purpose for reading in regular SSR and had 
61 
deduced that the sessions for this group would be no different.  The students were asked to write 
down a few reasons why they thought they were chosen to come to this SSR session.  The 
responses were varied. 
Student 1 ? ?I don?t know why I?m in here, but I know it?s gonna be boring.? 
Student 2 ? ?I like the teacher class, and I can be with my friends more.? 
Student 3 ? ?I guess it?s because I have a stuttering problem.? 
Student 4 ? ?I can read so I don?t know why I?m in here.? 
Student 5 ? ?I?m in here ?cause my momma signed me up to be in here.? 
Student 6 ? ?I?m in this stupid class because I already owe money for some library 
books.? 
Student 7 ? ?I know this teacher from last year, and she picked me.? 
Five of the seven student participants were withdrawn and did not interact with each other at all. 
The other two students were heavily engaged in conversation among themselves and constantly 
wondered what was the real reason they had been selected for this SSR group.  During this first 
session, there were no rules established about talking, no requirements to bring a book or other 
materials, nor were there expectations to keep behavior under control.  On the board were 
multiple copies of two books.  I pretended to busy myself with administrative tasks such as 
taking attendance, gathering pencils, stacking books, while the participants continued their 
written responses.  A few minutes before the session ended one of the student participants asked, 
?Is this all we gonna do??  This was my opportunity to share the responses of why they thought 
they had been chosen for this group.  Not a single student noticed the books against the board.  
The bell rang and the session ended.    
 Session two was a little different.  A variety of text and printed materials was placed 
throughout the classroom. From fairy tale picture books to Wall Street magazines, there was an 
62 
influx of printed material.  As soon as the students entered the classroom, all of them with the 
exception of Student 2 sat down.  Student 2 walked over to the table and began perusing the 
printed material.  As I took attendance, the other participants shouted and beckoned for Student 2 
to sit down.  The session promptly got underway when the question of ?What are you reading 
now in SSR and can you tell the rest of the group a little bit about your book?? was asked.  
Student 1 ? ?My friend gave me this book she got from Walmart.  It?s pretty good.  It?s 
about this group of friends and I can already tell which one of these girls is gonna get on 
my nerves...? 
Student 2 ? My teacher don?t care what I read as long as I am not bothering nobody so I 
read a lot of books...little picture books cause they don?t take no time to read. But they 
sometimes get boring because I already know what?s going to happen?I like reading 
Magic School Bus books.? 
Student 3 ? ?I know, man, don?t know nobody care ?bout that junk in that book.?  
Student 4 ? ?Some book on my teacher?s shelf.  She always be shouting get a novel and 
read so I just get the first thing I see ?cause I don?t want to hear her mouth every 
morning.? 
Student 5 ? (after the sessions) I read Junie B. Jones at home because I really like reading 
her books.  At school I get Harry Potter even though I don?t understand some of the 
things they talk about in the book. 
Student 6 ? ?I don?t know ?cause I keep getting a different book everyday.  I don?t even 
know what?s going on in any of the stories.? 
Student 7 ? ?I try to catch up on my homework.  Man, I be forgetting to do it at home.? 
 For the last session of the first week, the students were assigned a specific place to sit.  
This was done by placing their names on the bottom of chairs and they were given a few seconds 
to find the chair that had their name on it and be seated.  Although this strategy was implemented 
to eliminate chaos, it had an adverse affect.  The student participants were moving the chairs to 
be closer to certain participants.  It was if they had secretly met outside of the session to figure 
63 
out why they were chosen.  There was also a great deal of loud talking and demanding attention 
from each other before the session properly began.  I immediately began taking attendance.     
 As I clicked on the smart board, the noise ceased and to their surprise, the sentence ?you 
are here because I need you to be here? appeared in big bold letters.  These were two comments I 
immediately heard from the group:  ?What is that supposed to mean?? and ?What you need us 
for??  The next slide presented on the smart board revealed the sentence ?I need you to help me 
to remember something.?  The next few slides contained individual words that created the 
sentence:  ?you can read anything you want to.?  The process to establish a purpose for reading 
had begun.  In current literature on motivating struggling adolescent readers, Guthrie, Schafer, 
Von Secker, and Alban (2000) stated that given the right environment, with an attractive text and 
peer or teacher support, students who are otherwise considered struggling, can be seen reading 
attentively and skillfully.  Taking the advice of  Moje, Young, Readence, and Moore (2000)  who 
recommend that educators need to ?reshape secondary classrooms to offer literacies that connect 
to students? lives and reposition marginalized youth in classrooms and schools? (p. 405), I asked 
the student participants to share the kind of books they liked to read.   
Student 1 ? ?hair magazines?they have a lot of pictures to show you the latest styles.?  
Student 2 ? ?My uncle bought me this magazine about video games.  Me and my cousins 
read it all the time.? 
Student 3 ? ?I don?t like to read.  It makes me mad.? 
Student 4 ? ?I don?t have time to read.  It takes too long.? 
Student 5 ? ?My momma buys me a lot of different books, but I don?t really read that 
much.? 
Student 6 ? ?I don?t even have that many books at my house?besides, I always fall 
asleep when I read long boring books.? 
64 
Student 7 ? ?Shoot, I don?t know what I like to read.  Mostly stuff about somebody 
famous, I guess.? 
  As an outside assignment, I invited the students to bring in any reading material from 
home that was of interest to them. This was risky because there were no regulations or 
restrictions as to what they could bring.  It was important to know what types of reading 
materials were at their disposal and made readily available for them to read especially after 
seeing how disconnected they appeared to be from written print.  Several weeks passed and the 
student participants were asked to bring novels they had been issued during their regular 
language arts class.  Five of the seven students had biographies, one of seven had chosen a 
mystery, and the remaining student participant had chosen an autobiography.  It was interesting 
that so many had chosen non-fiction books. 
Theme 2 ? Feeling inadequate/inferior to peers.  Struggling readers are often 
compared with their peers?negatively?and are well aware of the differences in instruction and 
materials. This awareness often ignites feeling of inferiority and inadequacy.  According to 
Dunston and Gambrell (2009), ?In addition to changes in reading motivation ? some students 
begin to lose self-confidence, become anxious about school and engage in activities that inhibit 
rather than facilitate literacy learning.?  Notions of shame and shyness have a powerful impact 
on children?s willingness to participate in and even attend school.  Myers (1986) observed the 
Aboriginal people of the Central Desert of Australia deliberately and with determined effort to 
protect the autonomy practice of their culture by hiding it.  The children and the parents would 
go out of their way not to bring attention to themselves.  They would avoid embarrassment, 
particularly in interaction with people other than close kin.  Myers also revealed for many people 
in Aboriginal communities, school was not only an intellectual challenge, but a cultural one, too.  
In other words, lack of success in regular content area classes, especially those classes where 
65 
students are expected to read-to-learn, created emotional social and emotional problems.  For 
most of the student participants (five of seven) this was true.   
Student 2 admitted: 
?Everybody be calling me Dumbo when I read.  I can?t help it that the letters be looking 
crazy.? 
 
Student 1 confessed that she never wants anyone to ask her to read aloud in class. 
?I hardly speak even when somebody talks to me first.  If I do talk to them, I like to say 
everything at one time so they can leave me alone.  I want my teachers to think I am a 
good student and already know what she?s talking about ?cause they (teachers) don?t 
never call on the good students to read out loud.?  
Theme 3 ? Autonomy among the participants.  Autonomy is not something done to 
students, and should not be considered or confused as another teaching method.  Holec (1983) 
defines autonomy in terms of the learner?s willingness and capacity to control or oversee his or 
her own learning.  This can be thought of in terms of a departure from education as a social 
process, as well as in terms of redistribution of power attending the construction of knowledge 
and the roles of the participants in their own learning process.  In 1998, Teel, Debruin-Parecki, 
and Covington conducted research on struggling inner-city African American middle school 
students.  The data revealed the how the principle of autonomy support applies to all learners. 
The data showed significant increases in engagement in school learning when they were 
provided with responsibility and choice in their learning activities.  Qualitative studies of 
struggling middle school readers revealed that although students rarely choose school texts when 
they are given the option, they frequently read magazines or other texts to follow their personal 
interests out of school (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000).  Given the opportunity to read text they 
have selected, even struggling readers will show effort and persistence in using and learning the 
skills that will enable them to become more proficient.  According to the research of Bartz and 
66 
Levine (1978), Harkness and Super (1995), and Kelley, Sanchez-Hucles, and Walker (1993) 
which focuses on behavioral approaches to autonomy, data confirms that in high-risk contexts, 
strategies emphasizing conformity and obedience are more likely to be used rather than those 
that promote independence and autonomy.  Perhaps this further explains such prevalent deviation 
among the four scales on the reading survey of 6.072 in autonomy versus the mere scores of .013 
in engagement, .083 in content, and 1.650 in interesting text (see Table 7). 
Theme 4 ? Lack of expectations to read outside school setting.  Michigan Department 
of Education (2002) reported that school age children spend 70% of their waking hours 
(including weekends and holidays) outside the school setting.  I asked the student participants, 
?How many of you read with, to, or for your parents??  The responses were: 
 ?My momma works at night, and so I don?t see her until the morning.? 
 ?I don?t like the same kind of stuff my folks like to read.? 
 ?The only thing I see my momma reading is the bills.? 
When schools encourage children to practice reading at home with parents, the children can 
make significant gains in reading achievement compared to those who only practice at school. 
Theme 5 ? Reading in school is boring.  According to the National Reading Research 
Center (Baumann & Duffy 1997), children need to be motivated to read and use literacy to 
develop into fluent readers.  Researchers assert that students cannot be simply classified as 
motivated or unmotivated, but rather motivated differently (Baker & Wigfield 1999; Ivey 1999).   
In an excerpt from ?Just Plain Reading: A Survey of What Makes Students Want to Read 
in Middle School Classrooms?, students were used as primary informants about what motivates 
them to read in their middle school classrooms (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001).  The survey described 
how classroom environments motivated their reading through open-ended responses, short 
67 
answers, and checklist items.  The survey also emphasized quality and diversity of reading 
materials as motivation to read more.  The student participants were asked what motivated them 
to read.  They responded: 
?Books with a lot of pictures?the pictures really tell the story.?  
 
?If I think I know something about what we are gonna read about.? 
 
?I just like for somebody else to read out loud like they did in elementary school.  I read 
a lot of books that way.?   
 
?Stuff I like.? 
 In summary, the quantitative data revealed that being a part of a homogeneous small 
group had no immediate affect on academic achievement for struggling middle school readers.  
However, it did reveal that the student participants had very definite perspectives about how they 
viewed themselves as both motivated and engaged or unmotivated and disengaged readers.    
Theme 6 ? How they see themselves as readers.  Little is known about how struggling 
readers make decisions about classroom reading tasks.  Researchers have theorized that 
struggling readers? decisions are tied to low motivation, poor self-efficacy, or limited cognitive 
abilities.  For example, Brophy (1987, p. 64) states that when self-efficacy perceptions are high, 
people are likely to approach engagement situations with confidence, but if they doubt their 
capabilities for success, then they are likely to avoid the situation.  Such conceptualizations about 
struggling readers suggest that if they developed the appropriate cognitive skills and experienced 
an increase in motivation and self-efficacy, then they would make more positive decisions about 
reading and likely improve their abilities.  Interviews and observations suggested that the ways 
in which each student used text to complete assignments was influenced to some extent by their 
beliefs about themselves as readers.  Other researchers, however, have posited that the ways 
students identify themselves as readers, and the ways they want others to identify them, can 
68 
influence their decisions (Moje & Dillon, 2006; Tatum, 2006).  Classrooms require students to 
enact specific identities in order to be successful, and struggling readers may not believe they can 
or should take on those identities (Moje & Dillon).  If identity takes precedence in how students 
approach reading tasks, their decisions may focus on what they need to do in order to hide, 
maintain, or promote a specific identity amongst their peers, teachers, or family members.  
Therefore, the quality or amount of reading tasks and instruction they receive may have little 
influence on their actions unless it is responsive to issues of identity. 
Chapter Summary 
Chapter 4 provides an extensive data analysis of the performances and attitudes of the 
student participants and ended with notions of perceived identity that they or others created about 
them.   Chapter 5 will allow the voice of the researcher to reflectively narrate this study based on 
observations and practices not only of the student participants, but also of the teacher.   Chapter 5 
will also provide the conclusion for this study where implications and recommendations for 
future studies are presented. 
 
 
69 
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION 
 
For twelve years I taught in what was considered to be a moderately diverse elementary 
school.  The elementary school was located only two miles from one of Alabama's top 
universities, and often reaped several benefits from the collaborative partnerships with the 
university?s College of Education?s faculty and students.  Community and parental support was 
second to none.  On any given day, the halls of this elementary school could be filled with ladies 
from the Junior League nestled with tiny first graders and enthusiastically reading wonderful 
stories to them.  You could also witness college volunteers in the media center playing literacy 
games with some of the older students.  Almost monthly there was a reason to celebrate reading.  
A full ninety minutes of pure instructional time was allowed for just reading.  Small groups, 
whole groups, leveled groups, gender groups, all manner of combinations were implemented at 
the elementary level so that each student would have success not only in their reading class, but 
to also be successful in any other content area class.  Teachers would often carry chapter books 
around with them in case there was a spare moment to read a couple pages to the students.  
Student conferences between the students and the teachers occurred at least once a week.  It was 
another strategy implemented for getting to know the twenty-two individual students and their 
interests.  Classroom libraries would be color-coded, genre-coded, and even leveled so that no 
child would be left without an appropriate book for him or her to leisurely enjoy during D.E.A.R. 
(Drop Everything and Read).  The time set aside for reading was highly regarded and preciously 
protected. 
70 
It is June 2008, and I have accepted a position to teach Language Arts, Reading, and 
Writing at the only middle school in this system.  I was given a notebook containing the SAT 10 
and ARMT scores of the upcoming sixth graders.  They were indicative of all students.  There 
were high scores, average scores, and low scores.  According to the school?s administration, 
these scores were lower than the scores of previous upcoming sixth grade students.  What to do?  
What program or practice did this school already have in place to challenge those students who 
were above grade level; what was in place to extend those students who were on grade level; and 
what intervention or remedial plans were in place for the struggling students?  There was 
nothing.  The burden of this great feat fell solely on the language arts teachers.  During a class 
period of 62 minutes, or less, language arts teachers found themselves struggling to meet the 
demands of authentically mastering three subjects and keep up with pacing guides.  There was an 
overwhelming feeling of a lot of surface instruction and not a lot of depth in any of the three 
subjects expected to be taught.  What this feeder school (to six elementary schools) did have was 
an established SSR period.  This was protected time immediately after homeroom where students 
were expected to have a novel of their choice and enjoy the recreation of reading.  The first 10 
days of school was spent orienting these new sixth graders to their schedules; learning locker 
combinations; taking tours to make sure they get to their classes on time; and revisiting rules, 
regulations, and routines of the team.  Some students would bring their own books, but most did 
not.  Time that was supposed to be for recreational reading soon became time spent searching for 
a book, trying to catch up on homework, or simply doodling.   
Being reminded of the notebook full of test scores and hearing the words of my principal 
and assistant principal that these students, as a whole, possessed lower test scores than previous 
71 
upcoming sixth graders, prompted me to try an unofficial intervention /enrichment group within 
my team of 110 students.  
For this mixed-method study, both quantitative and qualitative designs were used to 
examine the affects/influences that a homogeneous small group instruction had on academic 
performance and attitudes of the student participants.  Data were collected thirty minutes per day, 
three times a week over a 12-week period.  The chapter will conclude with implications and 
recommendations for future research.   
Research Questions 
1. How will implementing instruction for a homogeneous small group of struggling 
middle school readers impact reading motivation of the participating students? 
2. How does homogeneous small group instruction positively affect/increase reading 
achievement for struggling middle school readers? 
Summary of Findings  
What was the purpose of this study and what motivated me to devote so much time and 
energy to this topic?  Ultimately, I asked myself how I would be able to answer the questions and 
would there be enough sufficient data to examine and describe the affects and influences of 
homogeneous small group instruction in reading among struggling middle school students.  Here 
I reflect on the origin of this journey.  Each day a bell would sound signaling that homeroom was 
over and SSR was beginning.  The students were dismissed and remained in their homerooms to 
read for what was supposed to be twenty-five to thirty minutes of uninterrupted time.  The 
notable problem was that the time was definitely interrupted.  There was the morning broadcast 
that provided a minimum of eight minutes of announcements.  Daily, students would constantly 
enter the classroom tardy due to late buses.  The assemblies, orientations, mandatory fire drills, 
72 
and meetings implemented during this protected time was an all too familiar scenario for 
teachers who were consumed with morning duties and not aware that actual reading was not 
completely going on for many of their middle school students especially those that struggled 
which led to very little, if any, time to read for pleasure.  ?What could be done?? or perhaps a 
better question was ?What must be done??  According to the administrator?s reports, there were 
at least twenty-two students whose profiles indicated that they should have been engaged in 
some form of daily guided reading instruction.  Did the results from the administrator support the 
data of their academic performances in my language arts and reading classes?  A grade-level 
pretest was administered to all sixth grade students.  This pretest assessed the basic 
comprehension knowledge of these students in reading and grammar, but not anything 
behavioral or social.  The results revealed that of the twenty-two students characterized as at-
risk, only twelve of them remained at-risk.  Five of the twelve students were students who 
received special education services. 
Increase Reading Achievement  
Research question one asked, ?How does homogeneous small group instruction 
positively affect/increase reading achievement for struggling middle school readers?? and 
explored the impact(s) homogeneous small group instruction has on the reading achievement of 
struggling middle school readers.  After analyzing all of the data collected for this study, there 
was evidence that the participants of this study demonstrated similar characteristics to struggling 
adolescent readers in other related studies about struggling readers.  Such characteristics were:  
they are almost always less fluent readers; they usually know the meanings of fewer words; they 
usually have less conceptual knowledge; they  are almost always less skilled in using strategies 
to enhance comprehension or repair it when it breaks down; and will typically not enjoy reading 
73 
or choose to read for pleasure (Torgesen, 2006).  I have spent much time reflecting about the 
participants and the processes of this study.  At the heart of it all, my belief is that many 
struggling middle school students, as well as all students are simply being miseducated.  
Miseducated, in this sense, is likened to a patient being misdiagnosed and subsequently, 
prescribed the wrong medicine.  There are so many factors that contribute to the academic 
success of students; many of which are yet to be discovered and many that are known, but are 
not treated.  For example, I was keenly aware of the deficiencies in reading each of these 
students possessed.  It was also apparent to me that (we) teachers were expecting these student 
participants to read independently and be able to actively participate in content classes without 
the adequately modeling instruction.  So the medicine prescribed, which was to read more, was 
non-effective.  As a matter of fact, without specific instructions how to read and for what 
purpose, it seemed to have had an adverse effect on these student participants.  Just as a medical 
doctor knows the symptoms of certain diseases, I, too, as an educator saw the warning signs of 
unmotivated struggling students.  They expressed a disdain for reading by offering, in many 
cases excuses that had been provided for them by their peers, their parents, and even their 
teachers.  Just like no two patients are exactly alike, no two students are alike; similarities, yes, 
but not identical. 
Statistics from many researchers validate the notion that the less a student reads, the 
poorer they become at reading (Beers, 1990).  After just three sessions with these student 
participants, it was evident that they had already  the spiraling effect of the poorer the reader, the 
harder reading is for them, which promoted and justified their negative attitudes for reading.  All 
of the participants reported that they rarely read required assignments, and almost never read 
recreationally.  In two surveys using self-report by subjects, McCoy et al. (1991) found a 
74 
decrease in recreational reading during middle school years.  In one study, one hundred students 
in college-level developmental (remedial) reading courses reported a marked decrease in 
recreational reading during middle school.  In a second survey, a majority of 159 seventh- and 
eighth-grade students reported reading independently up to seventh grade but practically ceasing 
to read anything not required or assigned after that.  Recreational reading ranked lowest among 
their preferences for independent activities.  However, light reading was prominent.  Feitelson 
and Goldstein (1986) found that light reading provided motivation for more reading.  Light 
reading became a stepping stone to further reading.  Increased reading proficiency and fluency 
made it possible for students to read more complex material.  They often chose light reading for 
independent reading because they enjoyed it, and they became more fluent readers in the process.  
The participants in this study demonstrated a similar behavior as they were very interested in 
series or sequel books written by the same author.  Gaining this more insightful knowledge about 
the student participants and how they felt about reading led to what I thought was a seemingly 
simple task of just getting them to read.  After all, many researchers support the ideology that the 
more a student reads, the better reader he or she becomes.  What would be the bait and hook 
(strategy) to reel them in? 
One effective strategy based on the needs of the student was through the implementation 
of an explicit vocabulary study.  It was not a typical assignment of giving the student participants 
ten words and having them define each one.  This strategy included breaking the meaningless 
words apart and looking at the origin of root words, adding and subtracting prefixes and suffixes, 
and determining the part of speech for a word.  I had not originally planned for this kind of 
instruction to jump start this small group intervention, but there was not a specific program in 
place, and it was important for these students to utilize their SSR time constructively.  What was 
75 
more important was the fact that the student participants recognized their own needs, to some 
degree.  Student participants revealed that reading in content area classes such as social studies 
and science was very difficult because they had no knowledge of how to pronounce most 
vocabulary terms, let alone make sense of the meanings. 
?I stop reading when I come to them big words.  Then I forget what I just read.  I copy 
the words and looked them up in the dictionary, but I still don?t know what they mean.   I 
always see the word over and over again after the teacher kept on talking about it.  It?s 
like when my momma bought a car.  I didn?t see nobody with a car like ours until she 
bought hers then I saw cars just like it everywhere.  Now I search for new words we 
learned, and they are easy.?   
Reading Motivation 
Research question two, ?How will implementing instruction for a homogeneous small 
group of struggling middle school readers impact reading motivation of the participating 
students??, focused on the attitudes and ideology each participant has toward reading.  
Ultimately, the goal of this study was to gain greater understanding of the many axioms of how 
struggling middle school students see themselves as readers and to measure their success and 
academic improvement.  More specifically, were the themes that emerged qualitatively and 
quantitatively from this study:  marginal improvements on standardized tests; having no purpose 
for reading, experiencing feelings of inadequacy or inferiority to their peers; high level of 
autonomy in their SSR group; lack of expectation to read outside the school setting from 
students, teachers, and parents; and the participants? personal views of themselves as readers.   
76 
Sustained Silent Reading 
SSR was an opportunity for me to create an unofficial intervention period for these 
struggling readers.  The implementation of SSR was established based on the premises designed 
in Are They Really Reading?:  Expanding the SSR in the Middle Grades by Jodi Crum Marshall.  
According to research, allowing students thirty minutes of uninterrupted time to read not only 
strengthens comprehension, increases vocabulary knowledge, but also fosters the natural love for 
reading.  In Jan Pilgreen?s The Handbook for SSR, there are eight factors for SSR success.  They 
are:  
1) Assess to Books ? do not require the students to bring anything from home, have 
tradebooks, magazines, comics, etc. assessable to the students  
2) Book Appeal ? offer books and materials that are interesting, self-selection is 
crucial, have a variety of books at different reading levels, and make sure the display 
of books is attractive  
3) Conducive Environment ? make sure there is homey furnishing, there is quietness, 
and seating is not cramped  
4) Encouragement to Read ? Adult modeling reading, all staff support to encourage 
students in free reading, teacher read a-loud with time to share and discuss, and parent 
involvement  
5) Staff Training ? present students with current literature, develop guidelines for SSR, 
and teach strategies for linking students with books  
6) Non-Accountability ? no evaluative tasks associated with the reading; student is 
allowed to stop reading the book if they find it uninteresting and choose another, and 
the emphasis is reading for pleasure  
77 
7) Follow-up Activities ? peer discussions, sharing ideas through peer read a-louds, 
selling book choices to others through art and technology  
8) Distributed Time to Read ? allow between 15?30 minutes of reading, allow a 
minimum of twice a week, and the habit of reading for pleasure will be formed. 
Two of the eight factors were consistently met at this school.  Those factors were 
Distributed Time to Read and Non-Accountability.  All the students were provided a determined 
time to read and there was no accountability.  SSR occurred each day from 7:50am until 8:10am.  
There was no evidence that journals, read a-louds, or peer sharing took place. The remaining six 
factors for SSR success were haphazardly met, if met at all.   
Although many of the SSR sessions were spent dealing with social and behavioral issues 
of adolescent middle schoolers, there was evidence that some progress was being made even 
though the student participants created reluctance at first.  There was no program implemented 
nor was there a prescribed pacing guide for which I had to follow.  It was years of experience as 
an elementary teacher coupled with the newly gained knowledge about adolescent literacy that 
ignited my desire to intervene.  I discovered that homogeneously grouping these student 
participants in a more instructional reading setting, during SSR, most encouraged their active 
oral and written participation.  The participants? social interactions, within such an acceptable 
environment, helped them disregard feelings of low self-worth and focus more on understanding 
and remembering some of the skills and strategies necessary in areas other than just the SSR 
classroom setting.  For the transient students, a since of belonging ensued and friendships 
formed.  More importantly, I witnessed collaboration among the student participants when they 
were in other content area classes.  They depended on each other for help and in some situations, 
held each other accountable.  These social interactions also affected the participants' experiences 
78 
with reading, more specifically, their views of reading: the frequency and breadth of their 
reading and their views of themselves as readers. 
Conclusions 
There are several factors that contribute to the propelling or postponing of the growth of 
an individual.  For example, children learn to read in a variety of ways.  Researchers and reading 
specialists agree that as children develop the skill of reading, they go through a variety of 
developmental stages (Adams, 1990; Chall, 1983; Cooper & Kiger, 2001; Juel, 1991; Rupley, 
Wilson, & Nichols, 1998).  As children progress from beginning reading to mature reading, there 
are many different strategies and skills that are learned and different tasks that are performed at 
each stage.  Reading skills of children do not develop at an equal rate.  Students? reading levels 
in an average middle school heterogeneous classroom span eight to ten years, with some students 
behind more than five reading levels.  Students who fail or struggle or are at risk by middle 
school have little motivation to read because of unsuccessful reading experiences in the past.  
Yet, reading is exactly what they need to do to increase their skills.   
Allington and Cunningham (1996) identified direct instruction of reading and time to 
read as important pedagogical issues for struggling readers.  Time to read in class was also 
supported by Irwin (2002).  In a research monograph on reading, Braunger and Lewis (1997) 
reported that ?students get better at reading by simply reading, and that actual reading time is a 
crucial factor in becoming a successful reader? (p. 54).  Lack of reading during the school day 
negatively affects reading development (Allington, 2001).  Goodlad (1984) reported that less 
than 2 percent of each school day is devoted to actual reading.  For example, the participants in 
this study rarely read at school.  They heavily relied on peers, partners, or their teachers to read 
79 
information for them.  They were then left with the task to interpret, in their own words, what 
had been read to them. 
 Implications 
Data from the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading 
report that 69 percent of 8th grade students fall below the proficient level in their ability to 
comprehend the meaning of text at their grade level.  Equally alarming, 26 percent of students 
read below the basic level, which means that they do not have sufficient reading ability to 
understand and learn from text at their grade level.  When these data are coupled with reports 
showing that even high school students with average reading ability are currently unprepared for 
the literacy demands of many workplace and postsecondary educational settings, the need for 
improved literacy instruction of adolescents is apparent. 
Several implications may be drawn from the findings of this study which may be helpful 
in the future planning, implementation, and management of an effective school climate and 
atmosphere for not only middle school struggling readers, but also for all readers.  The following 
implications could be considered significant: 
1. Assessing students early to determine their needs 
2. Provided  uninterrupted time where more explicit and intense instruction will be 
implemented 
3. Professional development that trains content area teachers with knowledge of 
teaching reading  
4. Middle school students? motivation to read should be varied for all students, 
including struggling readers 
80 
5. Socio-cultural awareness is instrumental in determining what is valued to an 
individual 
6. Holding both students and their parents accountable for the roles they play in 
being educated  
 Implications resulting from these findings could be instrumental in improving student 
engagement in other content area classrooms.  By knowing and understanding what motivates 
student to value their own learning, specifically in reading, educators can provide instruction 
interesting to the students, while simultaneously meeting and exceeding state-required curricular 
mandates. 
Limitations of the Study 
The study is limited in that it is reflective research from a small percentage of sixth grade 
middle school students in one school in one school system.  The participants represented less 
than 10% of the school?s population.   
The surveys used in the study were developed by Guthrie and Davis (2003) and 
administered by the researcher and may not be appropriate for other similar studies.  The 
researcher was also the Language Arts, Reading, and Writing teacher for these students.  It was 
assumed that the behaviors and attitudes of the students? were not influenced by these multiple 
roles especially since there were no grades assigned.  Finally, this study measured only a brief 
period in these students? academic school year.  This limited the scope of results and additional 
research is needed to determine long term effects of instruction of the homogeneous small group 
instruction and environment. 
81 
Recommendations 
 The findings acknowledge that small group instruction is a viable reading instructional 
approach that will meet many of the needs of specific subgroups within the population that has 
been identified as struggling middle school readers.  Assessment of students? skills, 
environmental, or socio-cultural risk factors at the earliest level and the establishment of a 
curriculum that accounts for instructional processes that is beneficial to all groups in the student 
population, increases the chances of student success. 
 The first recommendation is to encourage content-area teachers to teach the literacy skills 
distinctive to their field.  Teachers need to recognize that most of the content in their field will be 
imparted through the written word, be it in print or online.  The strategy of giving students 
explicit instruction in vocabulary helped them to recognize and learn the meanings of new 
words.  This also strengthened their independent skills of constructing the meaning from 
assigned text.   
Middle school struggling readers make up the majority of the nation?s public school 
classrooms (National Assessment of Education Progress, 2007).  Researchers have suggested 
that subject-matter teachers can improve students? reading abilities by providing: (a) skill and 
strategy instruction, and (b) opportunities to read and discuss texts in a variety of ways (Bakken, 
Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 1997; Guastello, Beasley, & Sinatra, 2000; Hall, 2005a; Spence, Yore, 
& Williams, 1999; Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003).   
Because most upper-grade teachers have not been trained to help students develop 
advanced literacy skills, professional development on effective comprehension strategies should 
be provided.  The school system should consider hiring reading specialists or literacy coaches. 
The National Reading Panel (2000) concluded, ?If teachers changed their teaching as a result of 
82 
professional development,? the panel found, ?the reading achievement of their students 
improved.?  Specialists and coaches can relieve content-area teachers by helping struggling 
students with basic skills of decoding, comprehension, and fluency. 
The second recommendation is to administer a diagnostic test to students as soon as they 
enter school to identify those who read below grade level, identify any difficulties or disabilities, 
and determine any specific learning needs they possess.  In other words, administer a diagnostic 
test. 
The third recommendation is for teachers to adjust their teaching styles.  According to 
research conducted by Duffy (2003), teachers who produce the greatest gains in reading 
achievement adapted their instructional practices to meet individual student needs?a process 
known as differentiation.  These teachers recognize that students have different ways of learning 
and respond best to different types of instruction.  Effective teachers modify their instructional 
techniques according to students? varying needs.  But before teachers can offer this flexible 
instruction and feedback, notes the Rand Reading Study Group (2002), they need lengthy and 
intensive preparation, and ongoing professional development.    
 The fourth recommendation is struggling readers should be engaged in compelling issues 
and problems relevant to the particular academic discipline, rather than simply assigned to do 
exercises focused on basic reading skills.  When the student participants in this study revealed 
their book choices of biography and autobiography, the instructional strategies were centered on 
their assignments for their language arts class which resulted in far more productive SSR 
sessions and increased academic success in their language class. 
The final recommendation is the need to encourage and actively promote reading outside 
of school.  In a national survey conducted by the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy 
83 
(2005), more than half of the secondary students said they spent one hour or less per week either 
reading/studying for class or reading for enjoyment.  Just over 90 percent reported spending six 
hours or fewer reading for class on a weekly basis.  The more students read, the more they gain 
in fluency, vocabulary, and knowledge.  Research has shown that sustained silent reading in 
class is not as effective as more interactive programs that include discussion and debate.   
Summary 
In the 2007 article, Rx for Struggling Readers, Catherine Snow, a Harvard School of 
Education professor, writes:  
Every day in U.S. classrooms teachers are confronted by students who make errors in 
reading.  They are described as ?struggling readers.?  They do not live up to the 
expectations as successful students in the middle and secondary grades ? that they can 
decode multisyllabic words accurately and figure out something about the meaning, that 
they pay enough attention to what they are reading to know if they have understood or 
not, that they can make inferences about characters, plot, and theme in literary texts, and 
acquire new knowledge and understandings from expository texts. (Snow, 2007, p. 24)  
In most U.S. classrooms, the presence of struggling readers has led to the simple notion 
that teachers need to be teaching reading, not just in primary grades, but throughout all grades, 
and not just in an isolated reading class but in all subject areas such as literature, science, math, 
and history classes as well.  Teachers must have access to knowledge about reading as it relates 
to their subjects, knowledge about how students learn to read and where they are likely to fail, 
knowledge for assessing students and pinpointing students? reading problems, and familiarity 
with effective instructional techniques (Snow, Griffin, Burns & the NAE Subcommittee, 2005).  
84 
The current trend in literacy is the notion and promotion of early intervention.  This is based on 
the assumption that once a child is behind, he or she will always be behind. 
According to Krachen (2008), there is no strong evidence there is a critical period for 
learning how to read and there is strong evidence that we can learn to read anytime.  Once a poor 
reader, always a poor reader should be replaced with once a good reader, always a good reader.  
Depending on the material and the situation, are we all not ever-learning how to read?   
Findings from this study aligned with researchers (Mishler, 1999; Ruddell & Unrau, 
1994; Santa Barbara Discourse Group, 1994; Sarup, 1996) who support the theory that students 
will construct their beliefs about themselves as readers based on their interactions with text, their 
peers, and their teachers.  Students whose interactions suggest that they comprehend text and do 
well on assignments may construct the belief that they are good readers and/or have few 
comprehension problems.  They may also believe that they are learning the information that they 
read about in texts.  Students who experience consistent problems in these areas may feel that 
they are poor readers and/or that they have been unable to learn from text.  Providing more or 
better reading instruction does not mean that students will utilize it.  Some researchers have 
suggested that both good and poor readers do not apply the reading skills they have been taught 
even when they understand how to do so and would like to learn information from texts (Dole, 
Brown, & Trathen, 1996; Hall, 2006; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983).  This study is left asking 
this question, at what level and to what degree are middle school students being instructed in 
reading? 
 
85 
REFERENCES 
 
About.com guide. (2009). Definition of Homogeneous Grouping Retrieved on August 12, 2009 
from http://giftedkids.about.com/od/glossary/g/homogeneous.htm 
Abramson, L. ( 2008). All Things Considered. Retrieved on November 15, 2006 from 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story.php?storyld=6493050    
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: 
The MIT Press. 
Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. H. (1985). The effect of students? academic discipline on their 
performance on ESP reading tests. Language Testing, 2(2), 192?204. 
Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Dauber, S. (1994). Children in motion: School transfers and 
elementary school performance. Paper presented at the American Sociological 
Association Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA. 
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1996).  Children in motion: School transfers 
and elementary school performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 3-12. 
Allington, R. L. (1983a). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. 
The Elementary School Journal, 83, 548?559. 
Allington, R. (1983b). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 37, 556?561. 
Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based 
reading programs. New York: Longman. 
86 
Allington, R. (2002). What I have learned about effective reading instruction: From a decade of 
studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 740?747. 
Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. (1996). Schools that work: Where all children can read and 
write. New York: HarperCollins. 
Alliance for Excellent Education, 1201 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 901 Washington, DC 
20036. Retrieved on November 15, 2008 from 
http://www.all4ed.org/about_the_crisis/Students/Literacy 
Alvermann, D. E., & Hagood, M. C. (2000). Fandom and critical media literacy. Journal of 
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 436?446. 
Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Reading adolescents? reading identities: Looking back to see ahead. 
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 676?690. 
Alvermann, D. (2003, November). Seeing themselves as capable and engaged readers: 
Adolescents and re/mediated instruction. Naperville, IL.  http://www2.learningpt.org/ 
Alvermann, D. E. (2003, November) Seeing themselves as capable and engaged readers: 
Adolescents and re/mediated instruction. Learning Point Associates. Accessed February 
23, 2007 at http://www.ncrel.org/litweb/readers/readers.pdf 
Alvermann, D. E. (2004). Adolescent aliteracy: Are schools causing it? Voices in Urban 
Education. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform (No. 3, pp. 22?35). 
Ames, C. A. (1990). Motivation: What teachers need to know. Teachers College Record 91, 3 
(Spring), 409?421. 
Anderman, L. H. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school belonging and social goals as 
predictors of students? positive and negative effects following the transition to middle 
school.  Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 89?103. 
87 
Anderman, E., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in personal achievement goals and the perceived 
classroom goal structures across the transition to middle level schools. Contemporary 
Educational Psychology, 22, 269-298. 
Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children 
spend their time outside school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 285?303. 
Anonymous Middle Schooler Poem retrieved on June10, 2008 from 
http://www.fromtheheartpostcards.com/poetrypages/MiddleSchooler.html 
Ash, G. E. (2002, March). Teaching readers who struggle: A pragmatic middle school 
framework. Reading Online, 5(7). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/ 
articles/art_index.asp?HREF=ash/index.html  
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning (2nd 
ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 
Bacon, E. H., & Carpenter, D. (1989). Learning disabled and non-disabled college students? use 
of  structure in recall of stories and text. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 108?118. 
Baker, L. Scher, K., Mackler, K., (1997, March). Home and family influences on motivations for 
reading. Educational Psychologist, 32(2), 69?82.  
Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children?s motivation for reading and their 
relationships to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 
34(4), 452?477. 
Bakken, J. P., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of 
expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of 
strategies. Journal of Special Education, 31, 300?324. 
88 
Bainbridge, C. (2009). Gifted Children Weekly Newsletter. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from 
http://giftedkids.about.com/od/glossary/...  
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. 
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.  
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (Eds.) Situated literacies. New York: Routledge. 
Bartz K. W., & Levine, E. S. (1978). Childrearing by Black parents: A description and 
comparison to Anglo and Chicano parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40, 709?
719.  
Baumann, J. F., & Duffy, A.M. (1997). Engaged Reading for Pleasure and Learning.  Athens, 
GA: National Reading Research.  
Beal, C. R. (1990). Development of knowledge about the role of inference in text 
comprehension. Hanover, NH 
Beers, K (1990). Choosing not to read an ethnographic study of seventh-grade aliterate students. 
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, Houston, TX.). 
Bernhardt, E. (2000). Second-language reading as a case study of reading scholarship in the 20th 
century. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of 
reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 793?811). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and 
high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). 
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from 
http://www.all4ed.org/publications/ReadingNext/ReadingNext.pdf 
Bissur, M. (2009). The pros and cons of heterogeneous grouping. Retrieved March, 2009 from 
New York. 
89 
Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. 
TESOL Quarterly, 26, 319?343.  
Bloome, D. (1986). Reading as a social process in a middle school classroom. In D. Bloome 
(Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 123?149). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [ED 307 582] 
Blum, R. W. (2005). A case for school connectedness. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 16?21. 
Boardman Moen, C. (2005). Literature circles revisited. Book Links, 14(5), 52?53. Retrieved 
Nov 19, 2008. 
Bondi, Fenwick, Lipsitz, Mergendollar, Tye (1987). As published in Caught in the Middle, 
California Department of Education. 
Bracey, G.W. (1997). Setting the record straight: Responses to misconceptions about public 
education in the United States. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and 
Curriculum Development. 
Brantmeier, C. (2004). Building a comprehensive theory of foreign language reading: A variety 
of variables and research methods. In C. Brantmeier (Special Guest Editor), Adult foreign 
language reading: Theory, Research, and Implications. The Southern Journal of 
Linguistics, 27(1).  
Braunger, J., & Lewis, J. (1997). Building a knowledge base in reading. Portland, OR: 
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory; Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers 
of English; and Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 
Broadus, K., & Ivey, G. (2002). Taking away the struggle to read in the middle grades. Middle 
School Journal, 34(2), 5?11 . 
Brophy, J. (1986). On motivating students. Occasional Paper No. 101. East Lansing, MI: 
Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. [ED 276 724] 
90 
Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (pp. 64?65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
Brophy, J. E. & Good, Thomas L. (1986). Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement. In M. C. 
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.; pp. 328?375). New York: 
Macmillan Publishing Co.  
Brophy, J. E. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. 
Educational Leadership, 45, 40?48; 310?325. 
Campbell, J. R., Voelkl, K. E., & Donahue, P. L. (1997). NAEP 1996 trends in academic 
progress (NCES Publication No. 97985r). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Education. Available: nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=97985r  
Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. (2005). Getting students ready for college: What 
student engagement data can tell us.  Bloomington, IN: Author. Retrieved on February 5, 
2008, from http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/pdf/college_prep_hssse05.pdf 
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
Chall, J., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall 
behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
Chan, T. C., & Jarman, D. (2004). Departmentalize elementary schools. Principal, 84(1), 70. 
Chan, T. C., & Terry, D. & Bessette, H. (2004). Fourth and fifth grade departmentalization: A 
transition to middle school. Journal for the Liberal Arts and Sciences 13(2), 5?11. 
Characteristics of Middle Grade Students, ?Caught in the Middle?. (1989).  Sacramento: 
California Department of Education, pages 144?148.  Available: 
http://pubs.cde.ca.gov/TCSII/documentlibrary/characteristicsmg.aspx 
Cheek, E., & Collins, M. (2000). Assessing and guiding reading instruction. New York: 
McGraw-Hill. 
91 
Collins, N.D. (1997). Motivating Low Performing Adolescent Readers. ERIC  Clearinghouse on 
Reading, English, and Communication Digest #112. 
http://www.uncg.edu/edu/ericcass/achieve/digests/ed396265.htm.  
Commander, N. E., & Stanwyck, D. J. (1997). Illusion of knowing in adult readers:  Effects of 
reading skill and passage length. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 39?52.  
Condry, J., & Chambers, J. (1978). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning. In M. R. 
Lepper and D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward (pp. 61?84). Hillsdale, NJ: 
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 
Cooper, J. D., & Kiger, N. D. (2001). Literacy assessment: Helping teachers plan instruction. 
Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches (2nd 
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative 
and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 
Curlette, W. (2006). A framework for research studies: Mixed methods through combining 
Bayesian statistics and qualitative research in individual psychology. The Journal of 
Individual Psychology, 62(3), 338?349. 
Curtis, M. E., & A. M. Longo. (1999). When adolescents can?t read: Methods and materials that 
work. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. 
Curtis, M. E. & Longo, A. M. (2001, November). Teaching vocabulary to adolescents to improve 
comprehension. Reading Online, [Online serial]. Available: 
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HPEF=curtis/index.html 
92 
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd 
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  
Daniels, H., & Bizar, M. (1998). Methods that matter: Six structures for best practice 
classrooms. York, ME: Stenhouse. 
Davidson, J., & Koppenhaver, D. (1991). Garland Reference Library of Social Science. Vol. 
828: Adolescent literacy: What works and why (2nd ed.). 
Department of Education. (2002, May). The post-high school outcomes of youths with 
disabilities up to 4 years after high school. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ 
ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/ff/af.pdf  
Deshler, D. (2005). Adolescents with learning disabilities: Unique challenges and reasons for 
hope. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 112.  
Deshler, D. D., Palincsar, A. S., Biancarosa, G., & Nair, M. (2007). Informed choices for 
struggling adolescent readers: A research-based guide to instructional programs and 
practices. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 
Diemert, A. E. (1992). A needs assessment of fifth grade students in a middle school. Virginia: 
Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. [ERIC Document No. BD 362 332] 
Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the 
comprehension performance of at-risk. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 62?88.  
Driscolll, M. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 
Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley 
(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 28?41). 
Washington, DC: Guilford Press. 
93 
Dunston, P., & Gambrell, L. (2009) Motivating adolescent learners to read. In K. D. Wood & W. 
E. Blanton (Eds.), Literacy instruction for adolescents: Research into practice (p. 269?
286). New York: Guilford. 
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York:  Norton. 
Erik Erikson and teen socialization. (n.d.). Retrieved January 23, 2010, from 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=erik+erikson+and+dteen+socialization&aq=f&
aql=&aqi=&oq= 
Family and Relationship Center, La Jolla, California. San Diego City Schools. 
http://fc.sudbury.k12.ma.us/~christopher_hardiman/?OpenItemURL=S00A958FB 
Family and Relationship Center. Guidance Counselor Ann-Noelle McCowan?s experience in the 
San Francisco School District and was distilled from the writings of Bondi, Fenwick, 
Lipsitz,  Mergendollar, Tye as published in Caught in the Middle, California Department 
of Education, 1987. Retrieved July 10, 2009 from   
http://fc.sudbury.k12.ma.us/~christopher_hardiman/ ?OpenItemURL=S00A958FB 
Feitelson, D., & Goldstein. 1986. Patterns of book ownership and reading to young children. The 
Reading Teacher 39(4): 924?930. 
Fink, L. (2002). Literature circles: Getting started. Revised November 2006.  
http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=19 
Fisher, D., & Ivey, G. (2006, November). Evaluating the interventions for struggling adolescent 
readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(3), 180?189. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.50.3.2  
Fleming, M., & Levie, W. H. (1993). Instructional message design, Principles from the 
behavioral and cognitive sciences. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood 
Cliffs, NJ. 
94 
Ford, M. P. (2005). Differentiation through flexible grouping: Successfully reaching all readers. 
Retrieved from http://www2.learningpt.org/ 
FoSE (Future of Sex Education). (2010) Retrieved  December 21, 2010 from 
http://www.futureofsexed.org/documents/glossary.PDF 
Frechtling, J., Sharp, L, and Westat, (1997) User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method 
Evaluations: Common Qualitative Methods. Part II, Chapter 3. 
Garc?a, G. E., Jimenez, R. T., & Pearson, P. D. (1998). Building reading proficiency at the 
secondary level: A guide to resources. Mahwah, NJ. 
Garner, R. (1990). When children and students do not use earning strategies: Toward a theory of 
settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517?529. 
Gaskins, I. W., Gensemer, E. W., & Six, L. M. (2003). Tailoring a middle school language arts 
class to meet the needs of struggling readers. In R. L. McCormack and J. R. Paratore 
(Eds), After early intervention, then what? Teaching struggling readers in grades 3 and 
beyond. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.  
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and 
application (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.  
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, J. R. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. 
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school:  Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill 
Book Co. 
Goodman, K. (1996). Ken Goodman on reading. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.  
95 
Grady, K. (2002).  Adolescent literacy and content area reading. Bloomington, IN: ERIC 
Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication.  
Greenleaf, C., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers 
to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79?129.  
Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M., & Sintatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science 
content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders.  Remedial and 
Special Education, 21, 356?365. 
Guthrie, J. T., & Alvermann, D. E. (1999). Engaged reading:  Processes, practices, and policy. 
New York: Teachers College Press. 
Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an 
engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 59?85. 
Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W. D., Von Secker, C., & Alban, T. (2000). Contributions of integrated 
reading instruction and text resources to achievement and engagement in a statewide 
school improvement program. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 211?226. 
Haenggi, D., & Perfetti, C. A. (1992). Individual differences in reprocessing of text. Journal of 
Educational Psychology, 84, 182?192. 
Halpern, H. (1986, May). Contemporary Canadian children's literature for the intermediate 
grades: A whole language approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 
Transmountain Regional Conference of the International Reading Association. [ED 281 
161]  
Hanson W., Creswell, J. D., Creswell, J. W., & Clark V. (2005).  Mixed methods research 
designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 224?235 
96 
Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (1995). Culture and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook 
of parenting: Biology and ecology of parenting (Vol. 2, pp. 211?234).  Mahwah, NJ: 
Erlbaum. 
Harris, M. B. (1996). The effect of departmentalization on the reading achievement of sixth-
grade students (Report No. CS012467). Washington, DC:  US Department of Education, 
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction 
Service No. ED395298). 
Harste, J. (1994). Literacy about curriculum conversations about knowledge, inquiry, and orality. 
In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of 
reading (4th ed., pp. 1220?1242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. [ED 
379 626]  
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance 
understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse. 
Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas:  Getting to the core 
of middle and high school improvement. Washington: Alliance for Excellent Education. 
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (2003, Spring). Reading comprehension requires knowledge?of words and the 
world: Scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and the nation?s stagnant 
comprehension scores. American Educator. Washington: American Federation of 
Teachers. Retrieved on February 5, 2009, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-
reports/american_educator/spring2003/AE_SPRNG.pdf 
Hofstetter, C. H.  (1999, April 19?23). Toward an equitable NAEP for English language 
learners: What contextual factors affect math performance. Paper presented at the annual 
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. Retrieved on 
97 
March 31, 2011 from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2461/Student-
Mobility.html 
Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: OUP. 
Hopkins, G. (2006). Education World? President Clinton, State of the Union Address, February 
4, 1997. Retrieved online February 8, 2009 from 
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin012.shtml  
Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A review of theory and 
practice. Review of Educational Research, 71, 575?611. 
Inlay, L. (2005). Safe schools for the roller coaster years. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 41?43. 
Ivey, G. (1999). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities among young adolescent 
readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2), 172?192. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.34.2.3  
Ivey, G. (1999b). A multicase study in the middle school. Complexities among young adolescent 
readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2), 172?192. 
Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). ?Just plain reading?: A survey of what makes students want to 
read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 350?377. 
Jacobson, J., Thrope, L., Fisher, D., Lapp, D., Frey, N., & Flood, J. (2001). Cross-age tutoring: A 
literacy improvement approach for struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Adolescent 
& Adult Literacy, 44, 528?536. 
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson H. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, 
and individualization (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 
Johnson, D.,Johnson, R (July 1999). What makes Cooperative Learning Work. ERIC Digest (ED 
437 841) Retrieved on April 14, 2002 from http://www.eric.ed.gov  
98 
Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson 
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 759?788). New York: Longman. 
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. 
Kagan, S.  (2004). What accounts for international differences in student performance? A re-
examination using PISA data. Professional School Counseling, 6(4), 228?236. Kagan 
Online Magazine, Winter 2003. 
Kamil, M. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington: Alliance 
for Education. Retrieved on February 5, 2008, from 
http://www.all4ed.org/publications/AdolescentsAndLiteracy.pdf 
Karabas, G., & Leinwein, R. (1985). Teaching literature grade 9: Integrating the communication 
arts. Experimental Drama. Brooklyn, NY: New York City Board of Education, Division 
of Curriculum and Instruction. [ED 290 154] 
Karweit, N., & Slavin, R. (1981). Measurement and modeling choices in studies of time and 
learning. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 157?171.  
Kelley, M. L., Sanchez-Hucles, J., & Walker, R. (1993). Correlates of disciplinary practices in 
working- to low-risk African American mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 252?264. 
Kerbow, D. (1995b). School mobility, neighborhood poverty, and student academic growth: The 
case of math achievement in the Chicago Public Schools. Paper presented at the 
Workshop on the Study of Urban Inequality, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 
Kogut, B. H. (2004). Why adult literacy matters. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, p. 26. Retrieved online 
April 3, 2009 from http//findarticles.com./particles/mi_qa4026/is_200404/ai_n9381425/ 
Krashen, S. (1996). The case for late intervention:  Once a good reader, always a good reader. 
Englewood, CO.  
99 
Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading. Heinemann Publishers and Libraries Unlimited. 
Krogness, M. M. (1995). Just teach me, Mrs. K.: Talking, reading, and writing with resistant 
adolescent learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.  
Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. (2003). Educational testing and measurement:  Classroom 
application and practice (7th ed., Chapter 4). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 
Kyrene Del Pueblo Middle School:  Developmental characteristics of middle school children.  
Retrieved March 27, 2011, from http://www.kyrene.org/staff/sseger/ 
PARENT%20HELPS/developmental_characteristics.html  
Lamme, L. L. (1976). Self-contained to departmentalized:  How reading habits change.  
Elementary School Journal, 76, 208?218. Retrieved on March 15, 2010 from 
www.thefreelibrary.com/Academic+achievement+and+between-
class+transition+time+for...-a084667407 
Langer, J. (2002). Effective literacy instruction: building successful reading and writing 
programs. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 
Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The nation?s report card:  Reading 2007. NCES 2007?
496. Washington: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education 
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved on February 5, 2008, from 
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2007496.pdf 
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.). Upper Saddle 
River, NJ:  Merrill Prentice Hall. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 
Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition and 
Instruction, 5(4), 289?309 
100 
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002) Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.  
McMaster, K. and van den Broek, P. (2008). Help for struggling readers: Uncovering the 
cognitive causes of reading difficulty. Retrieved online from the April 2008 edition of 
Research Works, a publication of the College of Education and Human Development. 
University of Minnesota. 
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide approach. 
Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 399?427. 
Manzo, A.V., Manzo, U.C. & Thomas, M.M. (2005). Content area literacy. Strategic teaching 
for strategic learning. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 
Marliave, R., Fisher, C., & Dishaw, M. (1978). Academic learning time and student achievement 
in the B-C period (Tech. Rep. No. 29). San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for 
Educational Research and Development. 
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1998). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Sage.  
Marshall, H. H. (1987). Motivational strategies of three fifth-grade teachers. The Elementary 
School Journal, 88(2), 135?150. [EJ 362 747] 
Marshall, J. C. (2002). Are they really reading?:  Expanding the SSR in the middle grades. 
Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. 
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: D. Van Nostrand. 
McCray, A. D. (2001). Middle school students with reading disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 
55, 298?300. 
101 
McCombs, B. L. (1996). Understanding the keys to motivation to learn. Retrieved from 
http://www.mcrel.org/products/noteworthy/barbaram.html. 
McCombs, B. L., & Barton, M. L. (1998). Motivating secondary school students to read their 
textbooks. NASSP Bulletin, 82(600), 24?33. 
McCoy, D. et al. 1991. Surveys of independent reading: Pinpointing the problems, seeking the 
solutions. ERIC, ED 238692 
McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as a disability. Anthropology & Education 
Quarterly, 26, 324?348. 
McGee, L. M. (1982). Awareness of text structure: Effects on children's recall of expository text. 
Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 581?590. 
McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company. 
McNaughton, S. (2001). Co-constructing expertise: The development of parents? and teachers? 
ideas about literacy practices and the transition to school. Journal of Early Childhood 
Literacy, 1, 40?58. 
McPartland, J. M., Coldiron, J. R., & Braddock, J. H. (1987). School structures and classroom 
practices in elementary, middle, and secondary schools. Report No. 14. Baltimore, MD: 
The Johns Hopkins University Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools. 
Merriam, E. (1988). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass Publishers. 
Merriam, S. B. (Ed.). (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and 
analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
102 
Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary. Retrieved April 4, 2011 from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/underachiever  
Meyer, B. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text:  Key for 
reading comprehension of ninth-grade students.  Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72?
103. 
Michigan Department of Education. (2002). What research says about parent involvement in 
children?s education:  In relation to academic achievement. Retrieved on July 20, 2010 
from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Final_Parent_Involvement_Fact_Sheet_ 
14732_7.pdf  
Midgley, C., & Urban, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students? use of self-handicapping 
strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 389?411. 
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new 
methods. p. 15 Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 
Mishler, E. G. (1999). Storylines: Craft artists? narratives of identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 
University Press. 
Moje, E. B., & Dillion, D.R. (2006). Adolescent identities as demanded by science classroom 
discourse communities. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. 
Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.). Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents? lives (2nd 
ed.; pp. 85?106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Moje, E. B., Young, J. P., Readence, J. E., & Moore, D. W. (2000). Reinventing adolescent 
literacy for new times:  Perennial and millennial issues. Journal of Adolescent & Adult 
Literacy, 43, 400?410. 
Montagu, A. (1965). The human revolution. New York: World Pub Co. 
103 
Moore, D. W., Alvermann, D. E., & Hinchman, K. A. (2000). Struggling adolescent readers: A 
collection of teaching strategies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 
Moore, D.W., Bean, T.W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J.A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position 
statement. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(1), 97?112. 
Myers, F. 1986. Pintupi Country, Pintupi Self: Sentiment, place, and politics among western 
desert aborigines. Washington/Canberra: Smithsonian Institute and Australian Institute 
Aboriginal Study, pp. 222?224. 
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2002.) Web site for NAEP data from 
2002. Available at (Retrieved October 1, 2003.) 
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/results2002/natscalescore.asp  
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2007). The nation?s report card. 
Retrieved May 5, 2009 from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007/ 
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2003). 2003 reading results. Retrieved 
October 1, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/ 
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the 
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. 
Available: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm  
Nell, V. (1988). Lost in a book: The psychology of reading for pleasure. New Haven, CT: Yale 
University Press. 
Nelson, C. (1994). Organizing for effective reading instruction. Bloomington IN: ERIC 
Clearinghouse on Reading English and Communication. [ED369034]  
Neuman, J. (1988). What should we do about the highly mobile student? A research brief. Mount 
Vernon, WA: Educational Service District 189. (ED 305 545) 
104 
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale 
University Press.  
Oakes, J. (1990a). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on 
opportunities to learn mathematics and sciences. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. 
(ED 329 615)  
Oakes, J. (1990b). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in 
science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16, 153?222.  
O?Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse 
into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. 
Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442?463. 
Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R. Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). Developing expertise in 
reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to 
say about reading instruction (2nd ed., pp. 147?199). Newark, DE: International Reading 
Association. 
Phillips, D. (1984). The illusion of incompetence among academically competent children. Child 
Development, 55, 2000?2016. 
Pilgreen, J. (2000). The SSR Handbook: How to organize and manage a sustained silent reading 
program. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Boynton/Cook Publishers. 
Pope, D. C., & Simon, R. (2005). Help for stressed students. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 33?
38. 
Pressley, M., Allington, R. L., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., & Morrow, L. M. (2001). 
Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first-grade classrooms. New York: Guilford. 
105 
Raffini, J. (1993). Winners without losers: Structures and strategies for increasing student 
motivation to learn. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 
RAND Reading Study Group, Catherine Snow, Chair. (2002). Reading for understanding:  
Toward an R & D program in reading.  Santa Monica, CA:  Rand. Retrieved on March 
19, 2009 from http://www.rand.org/multi/achievementforall/reading/readreport.html 
Reeve, J. M. (1996). Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Needham 
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 
Robb, L. (2002). Teaching reading in middle school. New York, NY: Scholastic. 
Roe, M. F. (1992). Reading strategy instruction: Complexities and possibilities in middle school. 
Journal of Reading, 36(3), 190?196. 
Ruddell, R., & Unrau, N. (1994). Reading as a meaning-construction process. In R. Ruddell, M. 
Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 996?
1056). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 
Rupley, W. H., Wilson, V. L., & Nichols, W. D. (1998). Exploration of the developmental 
components contributing to elementary school children?s reading comprehension. 
Scientific Studies in Reading, 2(2), 143?158. 
Sanacore, J. (1990). Intra-class grouping with a whole language thrust. [ED 320 114]  
Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. (1994). Constructing literacy in classrooms: Literate 
action as social accomplishment. In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), 
Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 124 ?154). Newark, DE: International 
Reading Association. 
Sarup, M. (1996). Identity, culture, and the postmodern world. Athens, GA: University of 
Georgia Press. 
106 
Scales, P. (1996).  Boxed in and bored: How middle schools continue to fail young adolescents ? 
and what good middle schools do right.  Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.  Retrieved 
on June 5, 2009 from http://www.rdpsd.ab.ca/~ted_hutchings/References  
Schunk D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Developing Self-Efficacious Readers and Writers: 
The Role of Social and Self-Regulatory Processes. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), 
Reading for engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 34?50). 
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.   
Scholastic Administrator Partners (2004). Transitioning from elementary school to middle school 
to high school. Retrieved on December 15, 2004, from 
http://www.scholastic.com/administrator/leadershi/transitions.htm 
Schoolwisepress. (2010). Retrieved on September 25, 2010 from 
http://www.schoolwisepress.com/smart/dict/dict6.html San Francisco, CA  
Sedita, J. (2008).  Sustained silent reading. Retrieved on April 4, 2009 from    
http://www.adlit.org/ask-the-experts/21135  
Singhal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 
readers. The Reading Matrix, 1(1), 8. 
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Making chapter I make a difference. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 110?119. 
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools.  Clearinghouse, 69, 
200?204. 
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1989). What works for students at risk: A research synthesis. 
Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4?13. 
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Ability grouping and student achievement in secondary schools: A best 
evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471?499.  
107 
Snow, C., Griffin, P., Burns, M. S., & the NAE Subcommittee on Teaching Reading. 
(2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a 
changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Snow, C., Porche, M. V., Tabors, P. O., & Harris, S. R. (2007). Is literacy enough? Pathways to 
academic success for adolescents. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co. 
Snow, C. (2007). Usable knowledge:  Rx for struggling readers. Retrieved from 
http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/learning/learning006.html 
Spence, D., Yore, L. D., & Williams, R. L. (1999). The effects of explicit science reading 
instruction on selected grade 7 students? metacognition and comprehension of specific 
science text. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 15?30. 
Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with 
informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 249?260. 
Spitzer, D. R. (1996). Motivation: The neglected factor in instructional design. Educational 
Technology, May-June. 
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of 
qualitative research (pp. 236?247). Thousand Oaks: CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual 
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360?406.  
Stanovich, K. E. (1993). Does reading make you smarter? Literacy and the development of 
verbal intelligence. In H. Reese (Ed), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 
24, pp. 133?180). San Diego: Academic Press.  
Steiner, L. (2007, May). Creating strong home-school connections: A school-based parent and 
teacher intervention to promote first-grade students? literacy achievement. Paper 
108 
presented at the annual conference of the International Reading Association, Toronto, 
Ontario. 
Stewart, R. A., Paradis, E. E., Ross, B. D., & Lewis, M. J. (1996). Student voices: What works in 
literature-based developmental reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(6), 
468?478. 
Stipek, D. (1988). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice 
Hall. 
Strickland, S. G., & Monroe, J. K. (2002). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for 
understanding and engagement. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.  
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and 
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  
Tatum, A. W. (2006). Adolescents? multiple identities and teacher professional development. In 
D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.). 
Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents? lives (2nd ed.; pp. 65?79). Mahwah, NJ: 
Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Taylor, B. M. (1980). Children?s memory for expository text after reading. Reading Research 
Quarterly, 15, 399?411. 
Teel, K. M., Debruin-Parecki, A., & Covington, M. V. (1998). Teaching strategies that honor 
and motivate inner-city African-American students: A school-university collaboration. 
Teaching & Teacher Education, 14, 479?495. 
Texas Education Agency. (2002). Comprehension instruction: Components of a research-based 
reading program. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from Texas Education Agency Web site:  
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/reading/products.html 
109 
 
Thomas, R. Murray. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses 
and dissertations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press 
Thorkildsen, T. A. (1993). Those who can, tutor: High ability students? conceptions of fair ways 
to organize learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 182?190. 
Tilson, W. (2006). A right denied:  The critical need for school reform.  Retrieved March 27, 
2011, from http://www.arightdenied.org/reform-in-action/ 
Tomlinson, C. A., & Doubet, K. (2005). Reach them to teach them. Educational Leadership, 
62(7), 8?15. 
Tovani, C. (2000). I read it, but I don?t get it: Comprehension strategies and adolescent readers. 
Portland, ME: Stenhouse. 
Trelease, J. (2001). The read-aloud handbook. New York: Penguin Publishers. 
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). The NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the nation. 
Retrieved online June 2, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/startearly/intro.html  
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Digest of 
Education Statistics 2006 (NCES 2007- 017). Washington, DC: U.S. Government 
Printing Office.  
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education (USED, OVAE). 
(2008, July). Bridges to opportunity federal adult education programs for the 21st 
century, Report to the President on Executive Order 13445. Washington, DC. Retrieved 
July 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/eo13445.pdf  
Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (1999). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students 
to learn. Educational Leadership, 40?48. [EJ 362 226] 
110 
Van den Broek, P., & McMaster, K. (2001). Help for struggling readers: uncovering the 
cognitive causes of reading difficulty.  Retrieved January 15, 2009 
http://cehd.umn.edu/pubs/researchworks/VandenBroek.html  
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development.  From Mind and Society 
(pp. 79?91). Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press. 
Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. 
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III 
(pp. 609?627). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. (1983). Matthew effects in education. American Educational  
 
Research Journal, 20, 359?373. 
 
Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Practical literacy of young adults: Educational 
antecedents and influences. Journal of Research in Reading, 16, 3?19. 
Whitehurst, G., & Lonigan, C. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child 
Development, 69, 848?872. 
Wiesendanger, Katherine D. & Bader, L. (1992). Cooperative grouping in literacy instruction. 
Reading Horizons, 32(5), 403?410. [EJ 445 692]  
Wilhelm, J. F. (1995). ?You Gotta BE the Book?: Teaching engaged and reflective reading with 
adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press.  
Wilhelm, J. D., Baker, T. N., & Dube, J. (2001). Strategic reading: Guiding students to lifelong 
literacy (pp. 6?12). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. 
Witherell, N. (2001, July/August). Book review: What Really Matters for Struggling Readers. 
Reading Online, 5(1). Retrieved online February 15, 2009 Available: 
111 
http://www.readingonline.org/artices/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/reviews/whatmatters/
index.html  
Wlodkowski, R. J. (1986). Enhancing adult motivation to learn. Milwaukee: Jossey-Bass 
Publishers. A related web site: 
http://library.clark.cc.oh.us/search/dMotivation+in+education%2E/-5,-1/ 
exact&d+motivation+in+education&13,15 12 
WordiQ.com Retrieved online October 19, 2010 from:   
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Adolescent 
Worthy, J. (1998). A matter of interest: Literature that hooks reluctant readers and keeps them 
reading. In R. L. Allington (Ed.), Teaching struggling readers: Articles from the Reading 
Teacher (pp. 122?133). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 
Worthy, J. (2000). Teachers? and students? suggestions for motivating middle-school students to 
read. In T. Shanahan and F. V. Brown (Eds.), The 49th Yearbook of the National Reading 
Conference (pp. 441?451). Chicago: National Reading Conference. 
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 
Publications. 
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crises: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 
58?65. 
Yoon, J. C. (2002). Three decades of sustained silent reading: A meta-analytic review of the 
effects of SSR on attitude toward reading. Reading Improvement, 39(4), 186?195. 
Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science 
literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science 
Education, 25, 689?725. 
112 
Zinar, S. (1990). Fifth-graders? recall of propositional content and causal relationships from 
expository prose. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22,181?199. 
113 
Appendix 1 
Auburn University Human Subjects Approval 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
114 
 
115 
  
  
  
  
 
Appendix 2 
Student Consent Form 
 
116 
 
117 
 
  
  
  
  
Appendix 3 
Parental Consent Form 
 
118 
 
119 
120 
 
  
  
  
Appendix 4 
School Administrative Consent Form 
 
121 
 
 
 
122 
 
  
  
  
Appendix 5 
School Curriculum Coordinator Approval 
 
123 
 
 
124 
  
  
  
  
 
Appendix 6 
Reading Interest Survey 
 
READING SURVEY 2008-2009 
1. How you would describe your view of reading? 
? Love reading - I enjoy reading for pleasure and for school 
? Really enjoy reading - I enjoy reading for pleasure when I have the time 
? Tolerate reading -  I will read for school, but not for pleasure 
? Hate reading -  I will read only if had to 
 
2. How would you rate your own reading skills? 
? Advanced - I like to read books meant for people in higher grade levels  
? Above Average - I read some at my grade level and some above it 
? Average - I am comfortable reading books for people at my grade level  
? Below Average - I can read books at my grade level, but sometimes have trouble  
? Poor - I have trouble reading most books at my grade level 
 
3. Outside of school, how many books did you read a month? 
[  ]zero [   ]  1-2 [   ] 3-5 [   ] 6-10 [    ] 11-15 [  ] 16-20 [   ] More than 20 
       
4. When do you read, what do you read most? PLEASE CHECK ONE 
[   ]books [   ]magazines [  ] comic books  [   ] newspapers [    ] web sites 
 
5. If you read books, what type of books? PLEASE CHECK ONE 
[   ]fiction / stories [   ]nonfiction / true stories [   ] graphic novels  
 
6. In fiction, what THREE types of books do you like best?    
[  ]Adventure [  ]Historical [  ]Fantasy [  ]Science Fiction [  ]Romance 
[  ]Urban [  ]Humor [  ]Mystery/Suspense [  ]Realistic [  ]Horror 
[  ]Other:   
                                        
7. In non-fiction, what THREE types of books do you like best?    
[  ]Biography [  ]History [  ]Health [  ]True crime [  ]Science 
[  ]Sports [  ]Humor [  ]Music/TV/movies [  ]Self-help [  ]Poetry 
[  ]Other:   
 
8. In magazines, what types of magazine do you like best?   Choose only ONE 
[  ]Music [  ]Sports [  ]Fashion [  ]Video game [  ] TV/ Movies 
[  ]Other:   
 
 
125 
9. If you said you tolerated or hated reading, why?  Check all that apply 
? I like reading, just not reading books 
? In books, I just can?t get into the stories or relate to the characters 
? Reading is boring compared to other things I could be doing with my time   
? Reading makes me tired/causes headaches  
? I?m not good at it  
? Books take too much time  
? Friends make fun of me  
? Other 
 
10. If you said you tolerated or hated reading now, when you were younger did you: 
[   ]love to read [   ]enjoy reading [  ] tolerated reading [   ] hate reading 
 
11. How old are you? [         ]   12. Are you?  [    ]Male or [     ] Female       
 
 
126 
 
  
  
  
Appendix 7 
Student Reading Survey 
 
STUDENT READING SURVEY 
ENGAGED READING A lot Sometimes Almost Never Never 
1.  I like to read.     
2.  In Social Studies we discuss topics that I 
like to go home and read about. 
    
3.  I think reading is boring.     
4.  I enjoy spending time reading interesting 
things in math. 
    
5.  My teacher helps me appreciate the 
different ways authors write. 
    
6.  We do projects where I have to read many 
different materials. 
    
AUTONOMY SUPPORT A lot Sometimes Almost Never Never 
7.  My teacher wants me to express my own 
opinions about what I read in Social Studies. 
    
8.  My teacher encourages me to learn new 
things about science by reading books. 
    
9.  My teacher encourages me to read books 
that are hard for me to understand 
    
10.  My teacher lets me decide what science 
topics I should read and write about. 
    
11.  In my science work, my teacher lets me 
read what I am interested in. 
    
12. In math my teacher thinks it?s important 
for me to work on my own. 
    
127 
READING INSTRUCTION in CONTENT 
AREAS 
A lot Sometimes Almost Never Never 
13. My teacher encourages me to find the 
main idea when I read about social studies 
topics. 
    
14. My teacher wants me to ask myself 
questions when I read about social studies 
topics 
    
15. I am taught how to write good sentences 
in social studies and to punctuate them 
correctly. 
    
16. My teacher expects me to use what I 
already know to understand what I read about 
science topics. 
    
17. In science, my teacher helps me to find 
the main idea and supporting details in what I 
read. 
    
18. My teacher teaches me how to plan, 
organize my writing for science reports. 
    
19. In math, my teacher asks questions that 
make me want to read and learn. 
    
20. My teacher tells me to re-read when I 
don?t understand something in the math book. 
    
INTERESTING TEXT A lot Sometimes Almost Never Never 
21. My teacher teaches me how to write 
poems, letters, stories, and reports. 
    
22. My teacher helps me to enjoy books, such 
as mysteries or adventures. 
    
23 My teacher helps me to read poems, 
stories, and informational text from many 
different books. 
    
24. My teacher asks me to read different 
kinds of material to do independent research 
about social studies topics. 
    
25. My teacher helps me to appreciate the 
different ways that authors write. 
    
26. We do projects where I have to read many 
different materials.