Much research, of the literature surrounding secondary literacy education and Bibliotherapy interventions, was reviewed and considered in the design of this programme, specifically that of Fisher & Ivey (2006), Deshler & Hock (2008), Graner, Fagella-Luby, & Fritschmann (2005), Fagella-Luby & Deshler (2008), Shechtman (1999, 2000, 2002), and Verden (2012). As a practitioner, I had a personal interest in developing a programme that met the needs of students in addition to one that would be easy to implement in daily classroom practice. This was also suggested in Fagella-Luby & Deshler (2008):
Given the extensive nature of the adolescent literacy problems in this country [the United States], it is important for the curriculum
developers and researchers to carefully consider issues surrounding the broad-scale adoption, diffusion, and implementation of the
curricula and/or instructional procedures during the development phase. Clear specification of the defining features of interventions that will lead to the highest likelihood of an intervention being embraced and integrated within on going practice should be understood and addressed…(p. 77).
Furthermore, as determined from the Literature Review in Chapter 2, the reading interventions that demonstrated the most significant changes included instruction of a variety of reading skills delivered as part of a multicomponent programme to increase comprehension. Empirical research involving isolated skills such as phonics or decoding was out dated and limited in comparison to the empirical research involving reading comprehension and/or multicomponent strategies.
With this in mind, I began firstly with the student elements of the intervention by determining the purpose and objectives of the reading instruction. From my
previous experience as a secondary English teacher, I had familiarity with Dr Janet Allen’s programme, Plugged Into Reading (2004); elements of this instructional model were considered and weighed against the National Curriculum standards and classroom practices of the UK and found to be helpful, but not necessarily viable for this particular project. This was due largely to the curriculum being aligned to US educational assessment standards. Secondly, Understanding by Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) was considered for use, but the complexity of this instruction would have taken all the focus in a ninety-minute class leaving no time to cover the Bibliotherapy objectives. UBD instructional practices base units on a thematic idea. From that idea, essential understanding, essential questions, key facts/knowledge or process components are used in addition to critical (and additional) vocabulary study. The students then have essential writing tasks, and a GRASP performance task (Goal/Role/Audience/Situation/Product).
I then consulted the literature of research and found that Rosenshine (1995) and Swanson (1999) had identified six core components shared in teaching
methodologies present in both direct and strategy instruction, which had emerged as “two priority pedagogical components for supporting adolescent reading” (Fagella-Deshler, 2008, p.73). These six core elements: daily reviews of
previously covered material, teacher statement of lesson objectives for instruction, teacher presentation of new material, teacher guided student practice, independent student practice, and formative evaluation of student progress (Swanson, 1999 as cited in Fagella-Deshler, 2008, p. 73). Although this was originally intended for LD reading comprehension intervention, I found it would be just as useful for a guide in designing the lessons for this programme, as it would allow for both reading and Bibliotherapy instruction/objectives. Using both explicit targeted and strategy instruction, each lesson included vocabulary and reading comprehension studies covering word meaning, drawing on prior knowledge, identifying narrative and expository text structures, cooperative learning, and exposure to authentic literary texts of multiple genres. Cognitive strategies such as self-monitoring, self-
questioning, and higher order thinking skills were implemented for both the reading objectives and Bibliotherapy objectives.
These stages of Bibliotherapy were represented as goals and objectives in each lesson and were administered through various activities within each. For example, in the lesson for Rejection, the Bibliotherapy objectives were:
• Define Rejection and identify various ways/situations in which Rejection can occur. [Identification]
• Discuss feelings/emotions associated with rejection. [Identification/Catharsis]
• Identify times when he/she experienced rejection and discuss reaction(s). [Identification/Catharsis/Insight]
• Associate how rejection can lead to aggression/aggressive behaviour. [Identification/Catharsis/Insight/Universalism]
• Make connections to literature in order to develop more accepted behaviour alternatives. [Identification/Catharsis/Insight/Universalism/Projection]
The Literacy objectives were:
• Analyse the impact of Point of View (POV) on literary texts.
• Define Direct (explicit)/Indirect (implicit) Characterization and identify within various literary texts.
• Compose a journal to make connections and support his/her ideas. • Use context clues to determine meaning of unfamiliar words and
technical terms (or use a general dictionary when necessary). As a basic overview, each of the lessons involved a combination of the six
suggested core elements by Rosenshine (1995) and Swanson (1999) for literacy and Pardeck (1995) for Bibliotherapy with the following steps as guidelines in this programme:
A review of previously covered material and displayed reading objectives for the lesson. This was an important element particularly as the students only met
once a week. It helped to focus the students on where they had come from, where they were currently at, and where they were going in their learning objectives.
An engaging, motivating introductory activity or ‘hook’ in order to spark interest. As an effective Starter, this was used to motivate students to continue
with the lessons and activities. This was also the essential time to gain knowledge of interests from the students, problems, issues, fears, goals, etc. necessary in matching stories for the group study.
Teacher presentation of new information, guided practice and
demonstration. This step was often a quick 15-minute presentation linked to the
hook. The teacher would present the theme of the story or lesson through various activities such as anticipation guides, inference challenges, discussions, pictures, or objects, before setting the students off to read. Often, this is where Identification was encouraged to begin and continue into the reading.
Reading time. Prior to or during the first session, the researcher had determined
the participants reading levels, abilities, and attitudes towards reading. For example, if in a regular English classroom setting the students were given 30 minutes for reading, then they were allowed, when possible, additional reading time by at least 25% or more. This was gauged according to individual student needs. Also, reading time was provided in an environment positive, safe, and welcoming for students to join—pillows, soft lighting, low music, etc. The researcher and third party reviewer helped establish a reading environment by actively participating in the reading and lesson activities. This is frequently where Identification and Catharsis occurred.
Time to process—independent student practice. Following the readings and
collaborative activities, time was given for each student to process what he or she had just read, how they felt about the readings/activities, or any other thoughts or concerns. Students were encouraged to draw pictures, journal their thoughts, write poems, etc. to keep them focused and help them with the follow up
activity/discussion. Identification and Catharsis continued here with Insight beginning to develop.
Follow-up discussion time/activity. As with all the sessions, the follow up
discussion and/or activity was created to be relevant and challenging, but in a manner that ensured the students’ respect for their thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Higher order thinking questions, synthesis, interpretive activities, and applications to real life were utilized here with an emphasis on student generated questions. Also, this portion reinforced the literacy skills such as comprehension, cause-effect, and inference, activating background knowledge, vocabulary as well as writing skills or activities like brainstorming, sequencing, organizing, KWL
charts, or RAFTs. This worked as a closure activity. Insight and Universalism often began here and continued to develop into the final step.
Evaluation/self-reflection/formative assessment. Evaluation in this step also
included self-evaluation—of both teacher and student; evaluation on the part of the teacher regarding the successes or failures of the book, the lessons, activities, and outcomes, but on a personal level as well. For the students, they were supported and encouraged to make that ‘universal’ connection here by demonstrating what happened in the book, what emotions or emotional reactions this revealed, what could have been done either the same or differently from the actions of the characters, or even identifying people in their own lives who were similar to the characters in the book. This stage helped to consolidate knowledge as well as aid students in Projection.
Because of the time constraints of only having access to the participants one day a week, it was important that these steps ALL occurred in one session. Although there was reading time allotted in each session, no reading occurred outside of school (i.e. homework or taking books home with them) which would have allowed for the students to have extra time and private space to experience the content of the book/stories. This is discussed more in the limitations within the Researcher Story 3 in Chapter 7. Detailed Unit plans for each Cohort can be found in the Appendices: Cohort 1, Appendix 11; Cohort 2, Appendix 12; and Cohort 3, Appendix 13. Individual lessons that were delivered each session along with the
supporting ancillary materials remain with the researcher. See Appendix 10 for a sample lesson plan from the unit.