Nancy Hulan, May 2008 What the Students will Say While the Teacher is Away: Encouraging Student-Led...

Nancy Hulan, May 2008

What the Students will Say While the Teacher is Away:

Encouraging Student-Led Discussions

Nancy F. HulanCollege of Education and Human Development

University of Louisville

Jefferson County Public SchoolsLouisville, Kentucky

[email protected]


Context of this Study Due to No Child Left Behind and Reading First

implementation, many schools and districts have adopted prescriptive literacy curricula to insure adherence to mandates.

Within scripted programs teacher-talk dominates; student discussion is rare to nonexistent.

Within guided reading groups interruptions may offer opportunities for student-led discussion.


Theoretical Frame Transactional theory (Rosenblatt,1969): the

meaning of a text derives from a transaction between the text and reader within a specific context

Sociocultural Theory: learning is a social and interactive process in which students appropriate abilities and understandings through guided participation in activities (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991).

Through discussion and opportunities to respond to text, students have opportunities to reflect upon their own lives, while expanding their knowledge and views (Langer, 1994; McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004; Rosenblatt, 1969; Sipe, 1999).


Teacher-led discussion Scaffolding from the more

experienced teacher

Guidance into themes (Durkin, 1990).

Bring conversation back to a text when a topic is not relevant (Ballenger, 1999).


Teacher-led discussions DANGERS:

Students may develop a view of the teacher as the “interpretive authority” (Almasi, 1995, p. 334).

Students can quickly become disengaged in a discussion if they don’t feel accepted.

IRE may put students in passive role (Cazden, 1988; Mehan, 1979)

To prevent this, teachers encourage a free exchange of ideas (Almasi, McKeown, Beck, 1996) within a democratic classroom culture of acceptance (McIntyre, Kyle, & Moore, 2006).


Student-led Discussion Can offer a sense of freedom (Vygotsky, 1978) to

shape viewpoints away from the judgment of the teacher (Almasi, McKeown, Beck, 1996; Leal, 1993).

Students lead the agenda (Almasi, 1995). More opportunities to talk (Knoeller, 1994). More exploratory talk (Leal, 1993; Mercer, 1995)

occurs leading to more cognitive conflicts. Such conflicts may lead to deeper understandings

of an issue and increased individual growth and development (Keefer, Zeitz, Resnick, 2000; Leal, 1993).


Student-led discussion Dangers:

Dominant students may remain in power. Teachers must teach HOW to talk equitably (Lewis, 1995).

If students are not explicitly taught to do this, they may get off topic, lose interest, or wind up having procedural conflicts.


Value in both practicesIn a study of 4th grade students, Almasi &

Gambrell (1994) found that:

students in peer-led discussions were better at identifying and resolving episodes of conflict within literature than those in teacher-led discussions.

students in teacher-led groups were better at identifying the person or character experiencing the conflict in a text.

Both student-led and teacher-led discussions are valuable pedagogical practices.


Research Questions What types of responses to literature

occur in reading groups in this 3rd grade classroom? How do students’ responses differ among

ability groups?

What types of responses to literature occur in reading groups in the absence of the teacher in this 3rd grade classroom? How do the reader responses of the different

groups and differ or compare?


Participants One 3rd grade classroom (n=25) in an elementary

school in Southeastern United States Population of the school is 400 students, with

84% of students receiving free and reduced lunch.

School chosen based on Rigby Literacy K-3 use and the researcher’s participation in Every1 Reads program in the school.

3 reading groups: Word Wizards read two years below 3rd grade level Book Blasters read one year below 3rd grade level Paperback Posse read on 3rd grade level.


Methodology Weekly 1.5 hour visits during guided reading

groups and center time for a total of 15 hours of observations.

Systematic Observations and Field Notes (etic)

Audio recording (etic)

Compilation of the two previous records to form a more complete picture (etic)

Student surveys (emic)

Casual conversations with the teacher (emic)


Data analysis Coded according to 1) dialogue patterns and later

according to 2)response strategies

Records of reading groups were coded according to teacher and student behaviors and later according to response patterns, using the constant comparative method (Patton,1990).

Interrater reliability 94% on coding.

One code was added: Word Work


Response strategies Report: statements that produced no extension

of the text; answers or statements came directly from the texts with no need for analysis or further thought.

Example:

Teacher: And what’s the wife say? Student: I have to do all of this stuff. [report]

(Field notes 3-14-07)


Connections The most basic of links between text and the self,

text and another text or artifact, or text and the world (Keene & Zimmerman, 1997).

Students can view new ideas in terms of set beliefs (Langer, 1994; Wilhelm, 1997).

Connections include comparisons and contrasts.

Connections often lead readers to (a) look at new ideas in terms of their already set beliefs or (b) use new ideas to reconsider those set beliefs (Langer, 1997).


Elaborations Can be based on connections or they can be ideas that the

student comes up with in order to fill gaps in a story (Wilhelm, 1997).

Allow a reader to furthers ideas from the text through knowledge and ideas, rethinking story elements into the grand scheme of the story or in terms of a real-life situation (Langer, 1994; Wilhelm, 1997).

Children can place themselves in the story through a desire to be a part of the plot (Wollman-Bonilla & Werchadlo, 1999).

An elaboration can involve the reader in a “What if…?”

journey, making up alternative endings or avenues for the characters of a story.


Evaluation Involve students in the act of making

judgments about what happens within a text.

Question the validity of ideas from the author, the reader, or from within the text itself (Wilhelm, 1997).

A reader appraises, argues, defends, or

supports an aspect of the reading experience.


Clarifications Readers think aloud, talk through, or express

themselves to better understand text. This may manifest in students’ own revisions of

interpretations (Wilhelm, 1997). Here, students made clarifications through (a)

discussion of ideas with others, (b) talking out personal dilemmas or experiences, and (c) questioning of others.

These were used to better understand self, characters, settings, situation, actions, or a book as a whole.

Clarifications were also used here to check or make predictions about stories.


Findings:Teacher-led vs. Student-led responses A total of 653 responses were coded. Of those, 561 occurred while the teacher was

present and 92 occurred in the absence of the teacher.

Within teacher-led discussions, 42% of student responses consisted of direct reporting of information straight from the book

In contrast, students exhibited responses of this type in only 17% of responses to text in student-led discussions.


Findings:Responses by ability groups Paperback Posse (on grade level) was the only

group that used all of these response types. Development of response patterns that coincides

with the development of the reader. This may signify that those students who read

below grade level use one response strategy the majority of the time, and need to be exposed to others.

The success of a reader (defined here as comprehending texts on or above grade level) may be a direct reflection of a student’s ability to respond to text in various ways.


Findings: Total responses by ability group When we look at responses by group of

total discussion (teacher and student led) we see:

All response types are used by each group. This may indicate that the lower ability

groups are being exposed to all response types in the presence of the teacher.

What does this mean concerning student development of response strategies?


Students involved in peer discussion:

Valued reading significantly more than their counterparts in control condition

Became more accepting and tolerant of other students (except for newcomers)

Discussions more focused on text Offered more linguistically complex responses

Used egalitarian patterns of discourse (leading to fewer social isolates or stars)

Kindergarten through third graders were able to participate.

Almasi, Palmer, Garas, Cho, Ma, Shanahan, & Augustino (2004).


So how do I begin?

Start with activities to engage students in the process and gradually lead to peer discussions. Think Pair Share (Turn to your neighbor) 4 Corners Jig Saw (Buckner & Kirk, 2007) Collaborative experiences and response

activities as a class (Maloch, 2002) Students share questions


Teach kids “how to” Listen Make eye contact Give others time to finish explaining

their ideas. Ask follow-up questions of peers. Make a transition between what the

previous speaker said and what you want to add.


How to… Use linguistic connectors (“I like how X

did Y”, “I agree that …”) to build on one another’s comments (Maloch, 2002)

Refer to literature response logs or response starters for topic ideas.

Acknowledge a peer’s contribution with a thank you or by restating their comment (Maloch, 2002).

Use evidence from the book


Reader Response Starters I wonder… I began to think of… I suppose… I don’t see… I like the idea… I understand… I know the feeling… I noticed… I was surprised… I can’t really

understand…

I love the way… I thought… I wish… I’ll bet… Why did… If I were… Maybe… The author… The character… This reminds me of… This makes me feel…


What else? Reaffirm student ownership

Provide follow-up questions

Encourage students to go PAST retelling

When stuck on same techniques, offer alternatives

Use and encourage open-ended questions

Model and explicitly teach such concepts as linking topics and managing the group process (Almasi, O’Flahavan, Arya, 2001).


Give students roles in discussions

Question Generator Word Wizard Connector Materials Master Elaborator Summarizer Illustrator Discussion Director Travel Tracer

Even when teachers don’t assign specific roles students sometimes assume roles spontaneously! (Evans, 1996)


Practice! Allow students to pick their group

sometimes and assign at other times. Watch out for saboteurs. Use conflicts within groups as teachable

moments. Foster a culture of acceptance in your

classroom! At times require exit tickets, collaborative

work, or presentations for sharing of discussions findings.


Name ____________________________________

Vocabulary IllustrationDirections: Choose a word for each square from the Vocabulary Box. Write the word in the box and draw a picture showing what the word means.

Nancy Hulan, 2007


Your ideas….. Spiderweb: start with concept in middle of spiderweb- draw

lines coming out from that and students contribute ideas to web that show the relationship between what’s in the middle and someone/something in the text

Pictionary with explanations of pictures and vocabulary meanings

Use high interest topics Students write questions that they have and pass them

around to be added to by other students Book clubs and literature circles Buzz groups after independent reading- students share

what they’ve been reading with one another Questions written on cards, balls, dice, etc. for students to

practice responding to text with a variety of questions Book advertisements


References Almasi, J.F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive

conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly,30(3), 314-351.Almasi & Gambrell, 1994

Almasi, J.F. & Gambrell, L.B. (Spring, 1994). Sociocognitive conflict in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature (Reading Research Report No. 12). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.

Almasi, J.F., McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L. (1996). The nature of engaged reading in classroom discussions of literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(1), 107-146.

Almasi, J.F., O’Flavan, J.F., Arya, P. (2001). A comparative analysis of student and teacher development in more and less proficient discussion of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 96-120.

Almasi, J., Palmer, B.M., Garas, K., Cho, H., Ma, W., Shanahan, L., & Augustino, A. (2004). A Longitudinal Investigation of the Influence of Peer Discussion of Text on Reading Development in grades K-3.

Ballenger, C. (1999). Teaching other people’s children: Literacy and learning in a bilingual classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.


References Buckner, B. & Kirk, B.(2007). Is it really discussion or are you just asking

questions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Durkin, D. (1990). Dolores Durkin speaks on instruction. The Reading Teacher, 43 (7), 472-476.

Evans,K.S. (1996). Creating spaces for equity? The role of positioning in peer-led literature discussions. Language Arts, 73 (3), 194-202.

Keefer, Zeitz, Resnick, (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53-81.

Keene, E.O. & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of Thought. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Knoeller, C.P. (1994). Negotiating interpretations of text: The role of student-led discussions in understanding literature. Journal of Reading, 37, 572-580.

Langer, J. (1994). A response-based approach to reading literature. Language Arts, 71, 3, 203-211.


References Langer, J. (1997). Literacy through literature. Journal of adolescent and

Adult Literacy, 40 (8), 606-615. Leal, D. (1993). The power of literary peer-group discussions: How

children collaboratively negotiate meaning. The Reading Teacher, 47(2), 114-120.

Lewis, C. (1995). Literature as a cultural practice in a fifth/sixth grade classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, San Diego, CA.

Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37 (1), 94-111.

McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. (2004, September). Critical Literacy as Comprehension: Expanding Reader Response. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(1), 52–62.

McIntyre, E., Kyle, D.W., & Moore, G. (2006). A Primary-Grade Teacher’s Guidance Toward Small-Group Dialogue. Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 36-66.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters.


References Raphael, T. & Goatley, V. (1992, April). “What are we supposed to talk

about?”: Student purposes during peer-led discussion groups across subject matter areas. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, san Francisco, CA.

Rosenblatt, L. (1969) Towards a transactional theory of reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1(1), 31-51. ;

Sipe, L. (1999). Children’s response to literature: Author, text, reader, context. Theory into Practice, 38 (3), 120-129.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilhelm, J. (1997). “You Gotta BE the Book”. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Wollman-Bonilla, J.E. & Werchadlo, B. (1999). Teacher and peer roles in scaffolding first graders’ responses to literature. The Reading Teacher, 52 (6), 598-608.

Nancy Hulan, May 2008 What the Students will Say While the Teacher is Away: Encouraging Student-Led...

Documents

Transcript of Nancy Hulan, May 2008 What the Students will Say While the Teacher is Away: Encouraging Student-Led...