November 2025 – Volume 29, Number 3
https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29115a9
Andrew Gill
Kanda University of International Studies, Japan
<gill-a
kanda.kuis.ac.jp>
Abstract
Originally designed for first language classrooms, literature circles have been adapted for second language (L2) contexts to enhance reading proficiency and discourse skills. While traditional practice in L2 settings involves assigning roles to students for engaging with texts, critiques have highlighted potential constraints on participation and meaningful conversation. To address these concerns, a research endeavor in a Japanese university investigated an alternative approach using reading response logs instead of prescribed roles. The aim of this study was to develop a customized reading response log specifically designed for instructors of L2 learners, providing a blend between structured guidance and increased independence. The study examined factors influencing the design of the response log, its implementation across a semester, and its overall efficacy. Findings revealed the benefits of pre-discussion preview periods and the inclusion of an ‘Ask the Teacher’ section, allowing students to raise inquiries anonymously. Nonetheless, students encountered challenges in utilizing a variety of response formats, while the uptake of the ‘Ask the Teacher’ section did not meet initial expectations.
Keywords: Literature circles; reading response logs; student engagement
Literature circles, also known as reading circles, gained prominence in the United States during the early 1990s (Daniels, 2002). These circles involve the formation of small, transient discussion groups comprising readers of a shared text. Meetings are convened regularly, with readers assuming control over discussions. Cultivating both reading comprehension and experiential learning, literature circles can stimulate ideas and foster collaborative discourse (R. Peterson & Eeds, 2007). Role sheets assigned to students are a prevalent feature in literature circle classrooms, offering explicit tasks to direct participants’ preparation (Daniels, 2002). During each lesson, students assume various predetermined roles, including Discussion Leader, Connector, and Word Master, each imbuing them with distinct cognitive objectives for reading and unique interactive contributions to class discussions.
Nevertheless, criticisms have been levelled against such role sheets for their potential to stifle conversation. Daniels (2006) observes “the mechanical discussions that can stem from over-reliance on these roles ” (p. 11), advocating for the temporary use of assigned roles as a scaffolding measure only, while a number of action research studies found that students engage more naturally and meaningfully without strict role assignments (S. Peterson & Belizaire, 2006; Schlick Noe & Johnson, 1999). In light of these critiques, this study examined the efficacy of implementing tailored reading response logs as an alternative to an assigned role framework, aiming to empower students with increased autonomy and foster deeper textual engagement. The response logs were designed to provide students with a platform to document their thoughts, reflections, and reactions, offering greater flexibility compared to assigned roles yet still providing a foundational support structure to assist L2 students.
While literature circles are intended to foster student autonomy and peer-led discourse, research has emphasized the continued importance of teacher involvement, especially in L2 contexts where learners may struggle with textual comprehension or confidence in discussion settings. Teacher support serves not only as a scaffolding mechanism, but also as a means of sustaining engagement and ensuring that misunderstandings are addressed (Elhess & Egbert, 2015). Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) underscores the importance of guided support in helping learners move from assisted to independent performance. In the context of literature circles, teacher intervention can be conceptualized as responsive facilitation rather than directive instruction. Recognizing this, the current study incorporated an Ask the Teacher feature within the reading response logs to provide an optional channel for individualized support. This design aimed to uphold learner autonomy while allowing space for clarification and deeper inquiry, aligning with findings that teacher feedback can significantly enhance students’ interpretive skills and engagement with texts (Parsons et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2015).
Literature Review
Literature circles have long been acknowledged as an effective strategy in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms for improving students’ reading proficiency and facilitating meaningful discourse. According to Karatay (2017), literature circles enhance students’ reading comprehension by developing their text analysis skills, creating a collaborative learning environment, strengthening critical reading abilities and increasing motivation for independent reading, as well as promoting tolerance for cultural and socio-economic diversity. Elhess and Egbert (2015) highlight that literature circles boost student participation in a supportive setting, enhance responsibility and motivation, provide more scaffolding opportunities, and strengthen writing skills. Imamyartha et al. (2020) also suggest that literature circles cultivate greater open-mindedness and tolerance towards cultural differences, as well as improve students’ intercultural communicative competence.
Despite the many advantages associated with traditional literature circles, one widely recognized drawback, as noted by numerous scholars, lies in the restrictive nature of assigned roles. Daniels (2006) observes that students frequently become overly dependent on their role sheets, which can constrain meaningful discussion. Moreover, role sheets often emphasize surface-level comprehension rather than fostering deeper analytical engagement with the text (Leland et al., 2018). Results from a previous study (Gill, 2020) reinforced these concerns. An analysis of student talk time revealed a pronounced imbalance, with certain roles dominating the conversation while others contributed minimally. This highlighted how role-based structures may inadvertently limit equitable participation and inhibit organic, student-driven discussion.
In light of these findings, a potential alternative involves offering students a more open-ended, journal-style format to guide their reflections on texts: namely, reading response journals. Closely tied to reader-response theory, reading response journals emphasize the reader’s creative role in interpreting texts. Developed by Rosenblatt in the 1930s, this theory views reading as a “reciprocal, mutually defining relationship” (Rosenblatt, 1986, p. 122) between the reader and the text, where meaning emerges from the reader’s creative engagement. As Rosenblatt notes, a text remains merely “an object of paper and ink until some reader responds to the marks on the page” (1978, p. 23), and interpretations may vary not only between readers, but also for the same reader over time (Rosenblatt, 1995).
Reading response journals, used during the reading process, are designed to capture students’ personal reactions to a text. They encourage readers to focus on their reading experience rather than just understanding the words. Extensive research and classroom practices have demonstrated the benefits of implementing reading response journals for English language learners. For example, these journals support students in deriving meaning from texts (Roessing, 2009) and provide a platform for students to use writing as a tool to clarify and organize their thoughts when engaging with texts (Cohen, 2007; McIntosh, 2006). Additionally, reading response journals encourage critical thinking in an EFL context (Pasaribu & Iswandari, 2019).
Developing a reading response log akin to a reading response journal may be more effective than assigned roles in literature circles, as they promote a more comprehensive and individualized engagement with the text (Iskhak et al., 2017; Lee, 2012). Rather than restricting students to specific tasks, such as summarizing or selecting key vocabulary, response logs enable students to explore their personal reactions, interpretations, and connections to the literature. This method has the potential to foster deeper critical thinking and reflection, as students are not constrained by the limitations of the predefined roles in literature circles. Moreover, response logs potentially offer educators valuable insights into each student’s unique perspective and level of comprehension, allowing for more tailored and adaptive instruction. The implementation of response logs could also enhance students’ overall enjoyment and engagement with the reading material, thereby contributing to richer and more diverse discussions within literature circles.
With the above considerations in mind, along with the challenges that students could face in using response logs, the following research questions were formulated for this study:
- How do L2 students utilize different response formats within reading response logs, and what challenges do they encounter in doing so?
- To what extent does the inclusion of an ‘Ask the Teacher’ section enhance L2 students’ participation and comprehension in literature circles using reading response logs?
Method
Research Context
Implemented within my classes at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan, this study was carried out in an Advanced Reading course, a compulsory subject for all sophomore (Year 2) students belonging to the International Communication (IC) department. The IC student body is primarily composed of Japanese nationals, with a minority presence of international students. Within the sample of 45 participants in this investigation (two cohorts of 23 and 22 students respectively), 44 were of Japanese nationality, while one originated from Taiwan. Unlike in other departments at the university, IC students are not stratified into tiers based on their English proficiency. Consequently, each class comprises students with a wide range of language abilities.
The curriculum comprises biweekly sessions lasting 90 minutes each, conducted over the span of two 15-week semesters, thus totaling 60 instructional periods. The objective of the course encompasses two primary aims. Firstly, it endeavors to facilitate students in acquiring a comprehensive understanding of academic texts, derived from materials commonly utilized in institutions in L1 English countries, employing a variety of reading strategies and skills. Secondly, the course is designed to enhance students’ fluency in reading English and bolster their confidence in navigating English texts. Students engage with a wide range of English materials, including graded readers, short stories, and novels, with encouragement to read both for enjoyment and for a broad comprehension of texts.
To fulfill this secondary objective, literature circles were integrated into my curriculum. These literature circle sessions were conducted on eight occasions throughout the academic year, comprising four instances during the Spring semester (running from early April until late July), characterized by the implementation of an assigned role framework to offer temporary scaffolding, as recommended by Daniels (2006). Subsequently, an additional four sessions occurred during the Fall semester (running from mid-September to mid-January), wherein students transitioned to engaging in reading response logs. The investigation was conducted specifically within the confines of the Fall semester, encompassing two distinct Reading classes. Following approval from the university ethics board, all participants signed consent forms after reviewing a comprehensive description of the study provided in both English and Japanese. This consent encompassed their submission of response logs, engagement in in-class discussions, and completion of a post-study questionnaire. Students were informed that their responses might be used for publication purposes, and that participation in the intervention would not affect their grades.
During the study, participants were allocated two graded reader adaptations of renowned literary works for their engagement in the literature circle sessions: Oscar Wilde’s “The Picture of Dorian Gray” and Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” with each text partitioned into halves to correspond with the designated sessions. These reading materials were distributed to the students a fortnight prior to each literature circle session, accompanied by instructions to read the assigned segments of the graded readers and to complete their corresponding response logs. Access to electronic copies of each book in PDF format was facilitated through the university’s digital library platform, thereby affording students the convenience of highlighting and annotating the texts as they read.
Reason for the Innovation
Although literature circles in EFL classrooms are acknowledged for their positive impact on reading proficiency and discourse, criticism has been directed towards the traditional practice of assigning roles, which may constrain participation and hinder meaningful conversation (Daniels, 2006). Results from a previous study (Gill, 2020) into the efficacy of assigned roles in literature circles reinforced these concerns. A breakdown of the balance of talk from an audio recorded class taken from the study is shown below in Table 1. All timings were rounded to the nearest fifteen seconds.
Table 1. Minutes (min) Spent on each Assigned Role
| Assigned Role | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Average Time |
| Discussion Leader | 10 min | 14.5 min | 12 min | 8.75 min | 11.25 min |
| Summarizer | 2.25 min | 4 min | 2.75 min | N/A | 3 min |
| Connector | 8 min | 6 min | N/A | 8 min | 7.25 min |
| Word Master | 2.5 min | N/A | 3.75 min | 4.5 min | 3.5 min |
| Passage Person | 10.5 min | 6.75 min | N/A | 13.5 min | 10.25 min |
| Culture Collector | N/A | N/A | 2.5 min | N/A | 2.5 min |
As the Summarizer and Word Master roles focus on reporting information, as expected, they produced somewhat limited dialogue. However, while the four other roles aim to engender lengthy discussions, this often failed to transpire, especially with respect to the Connector and Culture Collector roles.
To address the challenges associated with assigned roles, an alternative approach could involve the use of reading response logs, which can provide students with increased autonomy and a broader platform for self-expression. Intended to capture students’ personal reactions to written works, reading response logs are completed concurrently with reading activities. Employing such logs aims to encourage learners to delve beyond surface comprehension and instead focus on their experiential engagement with the text.
Having completed four iterations of literature circles utilizing an assigned role framework in the Spring semester, I considered whether this constituted sufficient support for my students and whether they could benefit from the greater freedom, and stronger connection to the text, potentially offered by reading response logs. The challenge then became to provide sufficient scaffolding to help my L2 learners, while remaining mindful to avoid excessive input within the response log, as this could compromise the authenticity of the students’ responses (Fulps & Young, 1991). With these considerations in mind, I began crafting a reading response log for the students to utilize in the Fall semester.
Description of the Innovation
Prior to implementation, careful consideration was given to the anticipated volume and depth of student responses. Each student was requested to submit three responses per log, and groups were comprised of four to five members – consistent with the previous semester, and supported by research indicating that this group size fosters productive talk, co-construction of meaning, and peer support (Gillies & Boyle, 2010; Johnson & Johnson, 1999). This configuration was based on the pedagogical assumption that, within a forty-minute session, students could realistically discuss two to three responses each. To scaffold expectations and support the development of response quality, model log entries were provided for each assigned text. Additionally, to build on students’ prior experience with literature circles, key terminology was intentionally aligned with the role sheet vocabulary used earlier in the course, thereby promoting continuity and reducing cognitive load (Sweller, 1988).
Each reading response entry mandated students to incorporate a passage from the text, their corresponding reaction, a question, and their proposed answer. This methodology resonates with Probst’s (2004) guidance on incorporating literature response into English language arts education, with students given opportunities for “reading, responding, articulating questions, and contemplating potential answers” (p. 18).
The most significant variation from traditional response journals, such as those proposed by Benton (1992), entailed the inclusion of an ‘Ask the Teacher’ supplement. In prior research on literature circles (Gill, 2020), the ‘Word Master’ role was often characterized by brief and elementary discussions, or students struggling to explain new language clearly. In addition, attempting to answer questions about unclear episodes in the text had posed significant difficulties for the students. Given that students likely reviewed their chosen passages extensively before posing questions, expecting immediate answers from their peers appeared unrealistic. This issue is exemplified in a recorded excerpt from the 2020 study, where a student’s query on a passage from A Christmas Carol prompted extended silence from their group members (Gill, 2020):
Page 38, Line 2: The boy is crime. The girl is need. They will destroy man if nothing is done about them. My response is… Question, uh, I’m just wondering, what are the boy and girl, are they human beings or ghosts? Ah, gomen [sorry]. Where do they come from? What do humans need to do about them? That is what I can’t understand in this book.
Considering these challenges, it was deemed advantageous to segregate ‘Language’ and ‘Question’ sub-categories from the primary reading response log and assign them to a distinct, standalone subsection designated for the teacher’s review: the newly introduced ‘Ask the Teacher’ section. It was hoped that students could retain the opportunity to seek clarification on areas of uncertainty without unduly consuming valuable discussion time.
After establishing a new protocol for eliciting student questions and language issues, the subsequent challenge entailed devising strategies for managing those inquiries during lessons. Responses deemed either highly individualized or indicative of a misunderstanding of the task were addressed directly with the respective student through Google Classroom. Conversely, inquiries or remarks identified as potentially beneficial to the entire group would be disseminated to all students by the instructor after the Reading Circle discussion, who would facilitate engagement by noting key points on the whiteboard and prompting responses through guided questioning. However, research highlights the tendency of Japanese EFL learners to be reserved (Humphries et al., 2015), particularly in situations where they may attract attention (Anderson, 1993). Consequently, to mitigate potential embarrassment for contributors and encourage broader utilization of the ‘Ask the Teacher’ section among students, responses selected for group dissemination were anonymized. This measure aimed to foster broad utilization of the ‘Ask the Teacher’ section among students, by reassuring them that they could avoid individual scrutiny in class.
Minor adjustments were made to the response log for each literature circle session, primarily altering the log’s title, designated chapters for reading, and the teacher-provided example entry. Each two-page log was distributed to students through Google Classroom, facilitating easy navigation between log instructions and entries. The response log used in the first literature circle session of the semester is included in the appendices. For clarity, the materials have been divided into three components: the instructional guidelines (Appendix A), the sample completed entry (Appendix B), and the blank log provided for student completion (Appendix C).
Group composition would be decided by the content of the student logs, and therefore the submission deadline was set two days before the lesson itself. This afforded me the opportunity to review the logs beforehand and organize groupings based on both the caliber of submissions, ensuring a balance of preparedness across groups, and also the chosen topics. I also made a concerted effort to verify group compositions across consecutive lessons, to avoid students collaborating with the same peers repeatedly.
To evaluate students’ perceptions of the Reading Circles approach, a post-study questionnaire (see Appendix D) was developed to elicit reflective, qualitative feedback on key components of the intervention, particularly the use of reading response logs as an alternative to assigned discussion roles. The questionnaire consisted of five open-ended questions, each designed to prompt detailed responses regarding students’ experiences with the reading logs, the usefulness of preparatory activities, and the perceived effectiveness of the “Ask the Teacher” support feature. Items were constructed to align with the study’s pedagogical goals, focusing on student engagement, comprehension support, and collaborative discourse. The questions were worded in accessible, learner-friendly English to accommodate the participants’ L2 proficiency levels, and instructions emphasized honesty and detail to promote authentic, reflective responses. Content validity was supported through alignment with established concerns in literature circle research, including student autonomy, interaction quality, and task preference. Additionally, the questionnaire was reviewed by a colleague with extensive experience in curriculum design and classroom-based research to ensure clarity and relevance prior to administration. Students were given 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire, and submitted their answers digitally via the class LMS.
Findings
The response logs mostly showed effectiveness in encouraging fair participation in discussions. Groups typically had four students, and in most classes, students could discuss at least two reading responses during the forty-minute session. Notably, the Class One group aimed to cover all reading responses within the allotted time, discussing an average of eleven responses per group in each class. In contrast, the Class Two group spent more time on each response, leading to an average of eight responses discussed per group.
Throughout the duration of the semester, students demonstrated proficiency in employing a diverse array of response types; yet, as shown in Table 2, a notable dependency on the ‘Connect’ response was evident in both cohorts (a description of all the response types can be seen in Appendix A):
Table 2. Response Types Utilized by Class 1 and Class 2 Cohort Students during the Semester
Class 1
| Response type | RC 1 | RC 2 | RC 3 | RC 4 | Total number of responses |
| Evaluate | 4 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 19 |
| Connect | 23 | 25 | 25 | 17 | 90 |
| Important passage | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 11 |
| Advice | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| Prediction | 3 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 16 |
| Life lesson | 11 | 7 | 12 | 16 | 46 |
| Surprise | 10 | 9 | 5 | 5 | 29 |
| Relationships | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 6 |
| Feelings | 6 | 2 | 9 | 7 | 24 |
| Own idea | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 14 |
| TOTAL | 67 | 67 | 63 | 64 | 261 |
Class 2
| Response type | RC 1 | RC 2 | RC 3 | RC 4 | Total number of responses |
| Evaluate | 7 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 24 |
| Connect | 24 | 29 | 25 | 19 | 97 |
| Important passage | 7 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 22 |
| Advice | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
| Prediction | 3 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 19 |
| Life lesson | 7 | 3 | 10 | 6 | 26 |
| Surprise | 4 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 16 |
| Relationships | 9 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 26 |
| Feelings | 8 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 26 |
| Own idea | 0 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 11 |
| TOTAL | 70 | 66 | 70 | 67 | 273 |
Regarding the quality of the students’ responses, in the initial two classes, a strong relationship was observed between the word count of each student’s response log and the quality of their reflections. Although the response log template provided to students was 666 words in length, seven of the 45 study participants submitted logs that were under 1000 words for Reading Circle One, and six students for Reading Circle Two. These shorter logs were generally characterized by minimal responses, as seen in the following example from a student in Class One:
Log 1
| Entry: 1 | Page: 50 | Type of Response: Surprise |
| (response) He could smell opium and he smiled with pleasure. Now he could smoke some opium and forget everything. Dorian tried to use opium to escape the guilt of killing a person. Question: What is the way to relieve your stress? My answer: Eating what I like and sleep a lot. |
||
In this case, with the “response” section copied directly from the text, the student’s original input was under 30 words, whereas the instructor’s model entry contained over 120 words, excluding quoted text.
Conversely, other students submitted considerably more detailed responses, demonstrating a higher level of critical engagement, as exemplified below in Log 2:
Log 2
| Entry: 1 | Page: 38 | Type of Response: Connect |
| (response) Some people would not speak to him now. Some people would leave a room when he entered it. Some people told stories about the strange life of Dorian Gray.
In this scene, Dorian gets or buys anything that he wants because he has a lot of money. But many people don’t want to see him because they don’t like him. In real life, we see a number of people who are rich. I work at an expensive restaurant and many rich people come to eat there. Some of them have a bad attitude and it is like they don’t care about others. I feel like not all of them, but some rich people get anything they want, but they can’t get true friendship or bonds with someone easily. Question: Which future will you choose from “You can buy anything that you want, but friends hate you” or “You are really poor and hard to live, but all your friends like you”? My answer: I will choose a poor life. I want to buy anything that I want because it will be a wonderful thing to me. But for me, the most important thing is relationships with my friends, family and coworkers. I want to get the things which I can’t buy with money. |
||
This disparity in preparation was addressed in my feedback following the first two literature circle discussions, resulting in improved student responses. By the final two classes, only three of the 45 participants continued to submit logs under 1000 words in length.
A further noteworthy aspect was the variation in student responses to identical passages within the texts. For instance, one student expressed sympathy for Dorian Gray’s death at the novel’s conclusion, drawing a comparison to the original fairy tale of The Little Mermaid, where the mermaid sacrifices her life by dissolving into seafoam rather than taking the prince’s life. In contrast, many of her classmates reacted with relief, even satisfaction, at Dorian’s downfall. Similarly, the questions posed by students concerning the same passage differed significantly. For example, in response to a scene in which Dorian Gray seeks to escape his guilt through consuming opium, students asked questions ranging from “Have you ever done something pleasurable without considering the consequences?” to “How do you manage stress?”
Most students completed all sections of their journals. Common errors, such as missing page numbers or response types, primarily appeared in last-minute submissions, suggesting a lack of time for thorough review.
Meanwhile, ten students out of a total of 45 engaged with the ‘Ask the Teacher’ feature, some utilizing it repeatedly. Their inquiries covered a range of topics such as the application of question tags, discerning nuances between similar expressions, and the utilization of italics for emphasis. At the conclusion of each in-class literature circle discussion, I transcribed the students’ questions onto the whiteboard, offering relevant examples where necessary. Following the discussions, I facilitated a brief review session as a group, ensuring anonymity by refraining from naming each submitter.
The decision to pre-assign groups (based on the contents of their response logs) prior to literature circle sessions posed considerable challenges during the first two classes. Not only did this approach entail extensive time investment in reviewing individual student preparations before class, but it also presented difficulties in devising an effective system for the efficient comparison of students’ contributions. Moreover, instances of tardiness or absenteeism among students further exacerbated the situation, necessitating abrupt modifications to group compositions to ensure parity in group numbers. Consequently, for the final two Literature Circle classes, an alternative approach was adopted: students were assigned to groups randomly, and an in-class preview period was implemented. During this ten-minute period at the very start of the class, students were asked to circulate their response logs within their respective groups, clarify any points of confusion, and collaboratively strategize on how to address any overlaps in their responses.
Within the literature circle discussions, each group independently determined their discussion order. In the first two literature circle lessons, Class One primarily used random methods, such as rock-paper-scissors or page order, while three of Class Two’s groups opted for volunteering (the others followed page order). With the introduction of the preview time system from Reading Circle 3 onwards, Class One maintained random selection methods, but Class Two adjusted its approach: all groups selected 3–5 preferred responses to discuss first, then reverted to random selection or volunteering for the remaining entries.
Thematic analysis of the post-study questionnaire, conducted following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework, revealed five key themes regarding students’ perceptions of the reading response log format. Frequencies were calculated by tallying the number of responses in which each theme appeared. All five themes were evident in at least one-quarter of the student responses, with the most frequently occurring theme, perceptions of fairness, appearing in 41% of responses.
Autonomy and Engagement
Students reported increased motivation and enjoyment when using reading response logs. The ability to select the type of response was cited as a key factor in promoting personal engagement with both the texts and their peers. This sense of autonomy appeared to foster more meaningful discussions. One student explained, “The freedom to choose made it easier to express my opinion and enjoy the reading,” while another commented, “Thanks to there being no role, I could enjoy just reading the story. Because there were no roles, it was easy to make discussion questions and I think our discussions were more interesting than before.”
Perceptions of Fairness
Participants frequently described the response log format as more equitable than the assigned role sheets used in the previous semester. While role sheets distributed tasks unevenly, often leading to imbalanced workloads, response logs required the same level and type of preparation from all students. One student noted, “Role sheets unbalanced the amount of assignments, and I was stuck in my role while reading books.” Another student echoed this concern, suggesting that “The amount of tasks for preparing is different depending on the role. For example, I think discussion leader and word master are easier to finish than other roles, so some tasks should be added.” Such comments highlight a perceived lack of fairness in task distribution under the role-based system.
Despite these criticisms, some students still appreciated the structure that assigned roles provided. One participant remarked, “I use an assigned role because as I mentioned, my question tends to be similar so I want to have a role. And compared with group’s question, the question’s content is different and more interesting.” This suggests that, for certain learners, roles offered helpful guidance or encouraged them to consider different aspects of the text.
Overall, however, student feedback was largely in favor of the response log approach, with 37 out of 41 respondents indicating a preference for using reading response logs over assigned roles in future literature circle activities. This broad support reflects a general perception that the log format fosters a fairer and more balanced learning experience.
Improved Peer Interaction
Many students described class discussions as more dynamic and inclusive when using response logs. They valued the opportunity to respond to peers’ diverse perspectives, rather than following the structured prompts of predetermined roles. This flexibility encouraged richer, more engaging dialogue. One student commented, “My classmates made more fun questions than assigned roles,” suggesting an increase in creativity and spontaneity. Another noted, “I could talk with classmates more naturally, not just reporting, so it felt more like real discussion,” indicating a shift toward more authentic peer interaction.
Repetition and Shallow Responses
Despite the overall positive feedback, some students acknowledged a tendency to rely on the same response type, most commonly the “Connect” category, which limited opportunities for deeper textual engagement. One student reflected, “I used too much Connect. It’s better to have a specific genre to force me,” suggesting that a more structured approach might encourage more varied and analytical responses.
In addition to concerns about repetition, several participants noted issues related to insufficient preparation. Some students admitted that their peers completed response logs without fully reading the assigned text. As one student explained, “Some people said that they just randomly chose the sentences and wrote in preparation without reading whole stories. Therefore, they sometimes did not understand the situation in the story and that made the group difficult to keep the conversation going.” Another echoed this point, observing that “Many students can write entries without enough reading,” and proposed that “we should have a few story-related questions with the reading log” to ensure more thoughtful engagement.
These comments highlight a need for additional scaffolding or accountability measures to support deeper and more consistent reading practices while maintaining the flexibility of the response log format.
Mixed Reactions to Preview Time and “Ask the Teacher”
Student perceptions of the preview time and the optional “Ask the Teacher” section were mixed. Of the 41 respondents, 35 indicated that the preview time was beneficial, frequently citing its positive impact on comprehension and time management. One student noted, “Actually, there are three same responses today in our group, and sharing time makes time management easier because everyone knows who wrote what. Also, the time spent only reading makes it easy to deepen understanding for me.” Others appreciated how previewing responses made discussions more efficient and accessible: “Yes, it’s better than just listening to their long explanations. I can quickly understand what is on their mind and make reading circles go smoothly,” and “Preview time made me understand easily what my classmate wanted to say. And it gave me time to think about their questions.”
However, not all students viewed preview time positively. Some expressed concerns that it introduced spoilers and reduced the spontaneity of group discussion. As one student explained, “I prefer we don’t take that time because it’s kind of a spoiler.” Another echoed this sentiment, suggesting that removing preview time could actually benefit listening skills: “Preview time helps me to understand my classmates’ ideas but I think it is ok without it because it is good for our listening skills to talk about logs without preview time.”
These comments suggest that while the majority found preview time useful for clarity and pacing, a minority valued the unpredictability and listening challenges that come with unscripted, real-time conversation.
Feedback on the “Ask the Teacher” section was similarly mixed. Students who used the feature reported high satisfaction, particularly valuing the clarity and depth of the teacher’s explanations. One student wrote:
Yes, I used it twice and I was very satisfied with the answers. I was actually worried that the teacher would tell me not to ask such easy questions. But you did not say that, so I did not have to hesitate. Furthermore, you did not simply answer questions, but gave detailed explanations and used your own experiences to share how you used the vocabulary, which was very informative.
However, the majority of students (33 out of 41 respondents) indicated that they had not used the section. Common reasons included time constraints, its voluntary and ungraded nature, a preference for solving problems independently, and concerns about how their questions would be received in a group setting. As one student explained, “I don’t have time. I don’t know how you respond to my question. Will you respond in front of my class? I would like to respond by sending an e-mail.” Others expressed that they found alternate strategies sufficient: “If there are parts which I didn’t understand, I used translation. That solved the problem, so I didn’t use it. Also, it wasn’t mandatory, so I thought I didn’t have to use it.” Similarly, another student noted, “Honestly, I could search on the internet if I have a question. But teacher’s explanations were more interesting and clear.”
These responses suggest that while students who engaged with the “Ask the Teacher” section found it highly beneficial, a significant portion opted out due to practical or personal reasons, highlighting the importance of balancing accessibility with student autonomy in support features.
Discussion
Utilizing reading response logs during the semester appeared to improve the conversation balance. In each session, students discussed at least two of their responses extensively. Notably, one class attempted to address all responses, suggesting the need for more explicit teacher guidance regarding content coverage.
As for the scaffolding of the response log, it appeared to effectively stimulate a diverse range of responses from the students. However, the prevalence of the ‘Connect’ response significantly outweighed other categories. This dominance could potentially be attributed to the initial example entry provided for the first graded reader, which utilized this response. Moreover, the ease of application of the ‘Connect’ response, being more broadly applicable compared to other response categories, might have contributed to its increased usage, as students can often gravitate toward easier or more familiar comprehension strategies (Duke & Pearson, 2002). Conversely, there was a notable underutilization of the ‘Advice’ category.
As suggested by Leland et al. (2018), the response logs appeared to successfully facilitate deep, analytical engagement with the text among the students. The responses detailed in the previous section, such as comparisons between the original Little Mermaid fairy tale and The Picture of Dorian Gray, as well as observations on the behavior of the wealthy, likely would not have emerged if students had been confined to roles such as Word Master or Discussion Leader. Furthermore, the diversity of student interpretations illustrates Rosenblatt’s (1995) theory on the individual variability in reader responses to the same text, as reflected in the students’ differing reactions and inquiries regarding pivotal events, such as Dorian Gray’s death at the novel’s conclusion.
Concerning the ‘Ask the Teacher’ section, most questions posed by students were thoughtfully written, focusing on either the author’s use of language or an unclear episode in the text. However, some entries sought the teacher’s personal opinion, in which case I replied directly to the students through Google Classroom rather than focus the in-class discussion on me. Furthermore, the utilization rate of the section throughout the semester, comprising only ten students, was somewhat modest. In future courses, clearer instructions and examples for using the ‘Ask the Teacher’ section could minimize off-topic queries and promote a deeper comprehension of appropriate questions. Moreover, clarifying the process for teacher responses to queries (student anonymity in class, as well as potential for LMS communication) could alleviate student apprehension and bolster use.
The introduction of preview time midway through the semester significantly reduced the teacher’s preparation time, obviating the necessity of pre-determining groups. Despite occasional occurrences of students with similar responses being randomly grouped together, the students autonomously planned the handling of overlapping responses prior to the commencement of discussions. Moreover, this approach afforded the teacher heightened flexibility in managing student absences and tardiness compared to earlier in the semester, a benefit also noted in studies on cooperative learning, where preparatory structures have been shown to reduce teacher workload and enhance adaptability (Gillies & Boyle, 2010).
Finally, the student reflections analyzed thematically reinforce many of the above trends. Students appreciated the autonomy offered by the response log format and reported increased motivation and fairness compared to role-based systems. These outcomes align with research by Patall et al. (2008) regarding the impact of choice on student motivation, with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), and also with findings by Oakley et al. (2004) positing that balanced task structures support effective collaboration and fairness in group settings. While some students admitted to minimal preparation, this is a known risk in learner-driven models (Little, 1991), and it highlights the importance of instructor guidance in maintaining standards.
Overall, the transition to reading response logs appeared to engender richer discussion, increased student ownership, and raised perceived fairness. However, additional guidance, such as rotating required response types or explicitly modeling deeper analysis, may be necessary to ensure consistently high-quality engagement.
Conclusion
The first research question of this study was ‘How do L2 students utilize different response formats within reading response logs, and what challenges do they encounter in doing so?’ Based on the students’ class performance, as well as their questionnaire responses, the majority of students appeared to demonstrate positive engagement with the utilization of reading response logs. The diverse range of responses evident within the logs, coupled with the depth of discussion facilitated in class, suggests their potential value as an integral component of Literature Circle classes. Nonetheless, it is imperative to critically assess the support framework offered to students, including examples provided within the logs, as well as instructions regarding how to conduct discussions smoothly. Furthermore, while the efficacy of preview time was underscored in this particular study, future implementation should most likely be contingent upon students’ proficiency levels in English. While higher level students may thrive in spontaneous discourse, those at lower proficiency levels could benefit from the preparatory aid offered by preview time, enhancing their performance.
The second research question asked ‘To what extent does the inclusion of an ‘Ask the Teacher’ section enhance L2 students’ participation and comprehension in literature circles using reading response logs?’ Given the low student engagement with the section, it is difficult to assert that the learning experience in this study was significantly enhanced. Although a subset of students provided positive feedback via the questionnaire, the majority expressed either a lack of perceived value in completing it, particularly in the absence of a grading incentive, or uncertainty regarding the completion process. Moreover, the inclusion of an ‘Ask the Teacher’ segment warrants contextual consideration. In environments where students feel at ease seeking guidance openly, such a section may be deemed redundant. Conversely, in settings where student reticence inhibits direct interaction with the instructor, an ‘Ask the Teacher’ segment could prove invaluable.
There is no universal blueprint for the development of reading response logs. The design of the log in this investigation stemmed from a synthesis of factors including the participants’ prior engagements with literature circles, their levels of proficiency in English, and prevalent learning proclivities observed within the educational landscape of Japan. Consequently, reading response logs need to be tailored to the specific teaching context, allowing for adaptability and refinement as deemed requisite. This customization is crucial for achieving an equilibrium wherein the log functions as a scaffolding tool to facilitate student comprehension and engagement without impeding organic expression of students’ insights.
About the Author
Andrew Gill holds an MA in TESOL and is a senior lecturer in the English Language Institute at Kanda University of International Studies, Japan. He has taught in universities in Japan for 20 years, including a number of years in supervisory roles. His research interests include reflective practice, literature circles and teacher development. ORCID ID: 0009-0000-1366-0014
To Cite this Article
Gill, A. (2025). Adapting literature circles in L2 contexts: A study on student engagement through reading response logs. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 29(3). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29115a9
References
Anderson, F. (1993). The enigma of the college classroom: Nails that don’t stick up. In P. Wadden (Ed.), A handbook for teaching English at Japanese colleges and universities (pp. 101–110). Oxford University Press.
Benton, M. (1992). Secondary worlds: Literature teaching and the visual arts. Open University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cohen, J. (2007). A case study of a high school English-language learner and his reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.51.2.7
Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups (Second edition). Stenhouse.
Daniels, H. (2006). What’s the next big thing with literature circles? Voices from the Middle, 9(4), 7-14.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. What research has to say about reading instruction. 3, 205-242. https://doi.org/10.1598/0872071774.10
Elhess, M., & Egbert, J. (2015). Literature circles as support for language development. English Teaching Forum 53(3), 13-22. https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/03_etf_53-3_3_elhess_egbert.pdf
Fulps, J. S., & Young, T. A. (1991). The what, why, when and how of reading response journals. Reading Horizons, 32(2), 109-116. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1556&context=reading_horizons
Gill, A. (2020). Utilizing assigned roles in EFL literature circles. Literacies and Language Education: Research & Practice, 3, 36-48. https://kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp/eli/publications/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Gill_Autumn2020.pdf
Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034
Humphries, S., Burns, A., & Tanaka, T. (2015). ‘My head became blank and I couldn’t speak’: Classroom factors that influence English speaking. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 164–175. https://caes.hku.hk/ajal/index.php/ajal/article/view/230
Imamyartha, D., Andayani, R., A’Yunin, A., Puspa, A., Hudori, R. F. A., Fardhani, A. E., & Dafik. (2020). Engaging EFL readers in literature circles to escalate intercultural communicative competence. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 485(1), 0–11. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/485/1/012090
Iskhak, I., Saleh, M., Sofwan, A., & Hartono, R. (2017). Investigating the effects of reader response journals on the quality of teacher trainees’ responses to literary works. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(10), 831–840. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0710.02
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Karatay, H. (2017). The effect of literature circles on text analysis and reading desire. International Journal of Higher Education, 6 (5), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p65
Lee, H.-C. (2012). The reading response e-journal: An alternative way to engage low-achieving EFL students. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 111-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457539
Leland, C. H., Lewison, M., & Harste, J. C. (2018). Teaching children’s literature: It’s critical! (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Authentik.
McIntosh, J. E. (2006). Enhancing engagement in reading: Reader response journals in secondary English classrooms. Language and Literacy: A Canadian Educational E-journal, 8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.20360/G2FW27
Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning Student Groups into Effective Teams. Journal of Student-Centered Learning, 2, 9-34. https://engr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/drive/1ofGhdOciEwloA2zofffqkr7jG3SeKRq3/2004-Oakley-paper(JSCL).pdf
Parsons, S. A., Malloy, J. A., Parsons, A. W., & Burrowbridge, S. C. (2015). Students’ engagement in literacy tasks. The Reading Teacher, 69(2), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1378
Pasaribu, T., & Iswandari, Y. (2019). A reader response approach in collaborative reading projects to foster critical thinking skills. Language and Language Teaching Journal. 231-245. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v22i2.1960
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 270–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270
Peterson, R., & Eeds, M. (2007). Grand conversations: Literature groups in action (2nd ed.). Scholastic.
Peterson, S., & Belizaire, M. (2006). Another look at roles in literature circles. Middle School Journal, 37(4), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2006.11461544
Probst, R. (2004). Response and analysis: Teaching literature in secondary school (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
Roessing, L. J. (Ed.). (2009). The write to read: Response journals that increase comprehension. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader the text the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1986). The aesthetic transaction. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20(4), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/3332615
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). Literature as exploration. MLA.
Schlick Noe, K. L., & Johnson, N. J. (1999). Getting started with literature circles. Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Scott, D., Hargreaves, E., Reznitskaya, A., & Wilkinson, I. (2015). Professional development in dialogic teaching: Helping teachers promote argument literacy in their classrooms. In M. Lefstein & J. Snell (Eds.), Professional development in dialogic teaching: Helping teachers promote argument literacy in their classrooms (pp. 219-231). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473915213.n21
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Appendix A: Reading Response Log Instructions (Dorian Gray Part 1)
- Read Chapters 1-9. You do not have to read everything all at once.
- While reading, highlight any line, sentence or section that stands out to you. You can highlight the text using a different color, add a text box, underline it, etc.… Write a short note to help you remember what you were thinking. (If nothing stands out to you by the time you finish reading, go back and find something to respond to.)
- When you finish reading, use the passages you highlighted to help you write your Reading Responses on the second page of this document. You should include at least 3 responses. A Reading Response can:
- Evaluate: give your opinion on a part of the story.
- Connect: make a connection with something from real life or another book, movie, song, etc.… (e.g., How are you similar to a character in the book? Does the story remind you of something that happened to you or something from your culture?)
- Highlight an important passage: you realize that a certain section of the text has a big impact on the story. Why is it important? What does it mean?
- Give advice: you notice a character experiencing a problem in the story. What advice would you give them?
- Be a prediction: What do you think will happen next? What information in the story helped you to make your prediction?
- Be a life lesson: Did you learn anything from an event in the book that you could apply to your daily life?
- Talk about surprise: Did part of the story surprise you? Why?
- Be about relationships: Did you find any interesting or unusual relationships between characters in the book?
- Describe feelings: Did you have any strong feelings as you were reading the book? Why did you feel that way?
- Be your own idea: If you think of something else, not covered above, you can write about that too!
Please note down the page number that each Reading Response refers to, as well as the type of response. Make sure to include a question to ask your classmates, as well as your own answer. You can see an example at the top of the next page.
- Finally, you can use the ‘Ask the Teacher’ section at the bottom of the Reading Response Log if there is anything that you want me to help you with (this section is optional). An ‘Ask the Teacher’ response can:
- Be about language: you see an unfamiliar word/expression in the text that you want to know more about
- Be a question: Was there something you could not understand in the text?
Appendix B: Example Log Entry Provided to Students
| EXAMPLE ENTRY | Page: 25 | Type of Response: Connect |
| “The audience started to shout at the actors. Some people left the theatre… Harry picked up his coat and stood up. ‘She is very beautiful, Dorian,’ he said. ‘But she can’t act. Let’s go.’”
In this scene, many members of the audience, including Harry, want to leave the theatre because of Sibyl’s terrible performance. Question: Do you stop watching TV shows, movies, or plays if you think they are boring, or do you keep watching until the end? My answer: It depends. I’ve never left a cinema early because I paid money, so I feel I have to stay until the end! If I’m at home, then I will turn off a movie after around 30 minutes if it’s bad and watch something else. For a TV show, if it’s less than 30 minutes, I will watch until the end, but then never watch the rest of the series, and sometimes warn my friends not to watch it! |
||
Appendix C: Student Response Log
MY READING RESPONSES
(please complete at least 3)
| Entry: 1 | Page: | Type of Response: |
| (response) Question: My answer: |
||
| Entry: 2 | Page: | Type of Response: |
| (response) Question: My answer: |
||
| Entry: 3 | Page: | Type of Response: |
| (response) Question: My answer: |
||
(you may add more entries if you would like to)
| Ask the Teacher (optional) | Page(s): |
Appendix D: Participant Questionnaire
I would like to ask you to help me by answering the following questions regarding Reading Circles. This questionnaire is being conducted as part of a research project focusing on how Reading Circles lessons can be improved.
This questionnaire is not a test and I truly value your feedback. Please give your answers honestly to maximize the benefits of this study, and try to answer each question in detail. Thank you very much for your help.
| How did you feel about using reading response logs this semester?
e.g. Was it easier or more difficult than having an assigned role (Discussion Leader, Word Master, etc…)? Did it improve the conversations with your classmates, or make them worse? |
| Was today’s ‘preview time’ useful for you? Did it help you to understand your classmates’ responses and questions better, or was it no different? |
| Did you use the ‘Ask the Teacher’ section this semester (in any of the 4 classes)? If yes, were you satisfied with the teacher’s response? If not, why did you choose not to use it? |
| Was it easy to find entries for your reading response logs this semester? Why/Why not? |
| If you participated in Reading Circles again in the future, would you rather have an assigned role (Discussion Leader, Word Master, etc…) or use a reading response log? Why? |
| Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately. Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations. |