3.
. . . g 3 due?“

1 :2. . .
.. . ‘ . . 5:11.... .J
A 11,. ...fl:..
«a 2..
an

ragga
.1: (‘1 y .s.

AB:
.

i:

5.x».

. _ 1. ..
mun? abs-4a.: nun...
. .. ,3. .“K.

in" z
:‘I x-
,, :9... . ~33? .
It! 5 . . .vx‘fS‘IA‘
. {{1..1..i.
...:..£7.a
”mu ~33
. e ::
. ..

. «K
!

 

.‘a. v
:25. c

 

. ....¥t...u..&
. I;.| . u.

a L . A, .a flaw is .
32 ‘ 50.»...quvu. \. In" 4 , . . a f . w :.\. 4. ‘ , L .. , .
, wfimxn,.rwmww $5 Mgmfigfi umfifipém» 35$...

l.
r

 

THESIS

5%)10”: “ 3

 

LIBRARY W
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE EVOLUTION OF A LITERATURE DISCUSSION GROUP:
HOW YOUNG CHILDREN IN SPECIAL EDUCATION AND
AT RISK CHILDREN DEVELOPED INTO LITERARY

DI SCUSSANTS
presented by

Joyce A. Urba

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. C.E.P.S.E
degreein

 

 

 

WSW) @9in

Major professor

Date 121/3 /02

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE | DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

JAN 1 2 2009 l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DatoDuo.p65-p.15

 

THE EVOLUTION OF A LITERATURE DISCUSSION GROUP:
HOW YOUNG CHILDREN IN SPECIAL EDUCATION AND
AT RISK CHILDREN DEVELOPED INTO LITERARY
DISCUSSANTS

BY

Joyce A. Urba

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology,
and Special Education

2002

ABSTRACT
THE EVOLUTION OF A LITERATURE DISCUSSION GROUP:

HOW YOUNG CHILDREN IN SPECIAL EDUCATION AND
AT RISK CHILDREN DEVELOPED INTO LITERARY DISCUSSANTS

BY
Joyce A. Urba

I conducted this study to explore if it was
possible for very young children in special education
and young at risk children to develop into literary
discussants. This study addresses the need for research
to enhance the literacy instructional practices for
children within Special Education. Many Special
Education students encounter difficulties in literacy
(Englert, 1992; WOng, WOng, & Blenkisop,1989). The
collaborative discourse with peers in discussion groups
could help develop deeper insights in these students
with poor comprehension. Also the focus on involving
students in self-monitoring and regulating comprehension
and response would benefit those with difficulties in
metacognition. The literature discussions could be an
avenue into the whole literacy experience for children
who are frequently non-readers.

Historically, literacy instruction in Special
Education has often been characterized by a
decontextualized focus on isolated specific skills

(Anderson, Hiebert, Scott & Wilkinson, 1985: Heshusius,

1991). However, Heshusius (1989;1991) and Poplin
(1998;1995) have criticized this skills-based and task—
analytical approach to instruction. They suggest
instead that learning occurs as a social engagement in
which multiple plausible responses exist to many
questions and problems.

Literature discussion groups may be a particularly
powerful means to involve special education students in
story discussion and response. These modes correspond to
the teaching goals often identified on Individual
Education Plans (IEPs) written for special education
students, including emphases on text-based goals
associated with the active construction and
transformation of ideas based on readers' experiences
and motivations (e.g., personal experiences, and self-
in-situation).

Data analysis of this study revealed that very
young children within Special Education were able to
develop into discussants of literature. Their
participation changed over time, developing from
neophytes without the language and processes to hold
discussions, into discussion members who had
appropriated discursive practices and social processes
of discussions unto themselves. As the children
appropriated the language and processes her role moved
into indirectly supporting the children within the

context of their language and conversation.

DEDICATION

To my prince of a husband
David J. Kinsella

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A publication such as this would not have been
possible without the help, love, and assistance of my
husband, Dave, my son, Matthew, my daughter, Carolyn,
and my daughter-in-law, Donna.

Their patient understanding while I went through
this process was invaluable. Also invaluable was the
help and care of my mentor, Carol Sue Englert, Ph.D.
Her empathy, selfless assistance and integrity were
evident throughout my years at Michigan State
University. I shall always admire her and am deeply

grateful to her.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES O O O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 0 ix

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Personalized and Thoughtful Response to Literature in
Discussion Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Facets Necessary for Effective Literature Discussions
callaborative Talk. 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I O 2

Acquisition of New Language Skills. . . . . . . . . 2

Benefits of Participation in Literature Discussions.
Grand Conversations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

4
Book Sharing Sessions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
BOOk C lub O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 O O O O O 5
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW 0 O I O O O O O O O C O O O I I O O 7
Historic View Of Literacy Instruction In Special
Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Vygotskian Social—cultural Theories. . . . . . . . . 8
Reading Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Literature Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Research on Literature Discussion
Upper Elementary Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Lower Elementary Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Special Education Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Apprenticeship in situated context of reading
ActiVitYo O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 43

Specific Role of Teacher in Book Discussion. . . . .45

Scaffolding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

vi

Interactive Teaching and Discourse. . . . . .
Transfer of Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Good Discussions of Literature. . .
Purpose and Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

School Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Teacher Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Student Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Materials 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0
Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
There's A Nightmare in My Closet
Teacher Participation in Literature Discussion
Groups 0 O O O I O O O O O I I O O O O O O O O O
Apprenticing Students in the Social Processes.
Apprenticing Students in Discursive Practices.
Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Justification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Character Motivation. . . . . . . . . . .
Student Participation in Literature Discussion
Groups 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0

Student Initiated Topics. . . . . . . . .

vii

46

.48

.49

.51

.53

54

56

59

.60

61

.62

.63

64

64

.64

.65

.66

66

.69

75

.76

StUdent-to-StUdent-Talk o o o o o o o o o o o o 7 9
Use of Book during Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . .82
Bigmama's
Teacher Participation in Literature Discussion
Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Apprenticing Students in Social Processes. . . 85

Apprenticing Students in Discursive Practices. 95

Student Participation in Literature Discussion
Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . .105

Student Initiated Topics. . . . . . . . . . . 105
Student-to-Student Talk. . . . . . . . . . . .111
Use of Book during Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . 123
The Birthday Thing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Teacher Participation in Literature Discussion
Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Apprenticing Students in Discursive Practices. . . 127

Student Participation in Literature Discussion
Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130

Student Initiated Topics. . . . . . . . . . . 130
Student-to-Student Talk. . . . . . . . . . . .133

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Implications for Literature Discussions and Primary
Grade Students in Special Education. . . . . . . . 143

Teacher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146

Questions for Further Research. . . . . . . . . . .146

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 — Characteristics of Student Participation

Table 2 — Small Book Discussion Chart

Table 3 — Revised Poster

ix

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

Personalized and thoughtful response to literature in
discussion groups

Indrisano and Paratore (1991) present a model of
literacy response to assist students with disabilities
in reading and interpreting narrative literature. In
their view, readers bring to the narrative text their
own prior knowledge and experiences, as well as
emotional and developmental differences, that represents
a foundation for responding to texts. Rosenblatt (1978)
also posited a need for a broader view of literary
response that encompassed readers' creative, reflective
and oral uses of language. She described an aesthetic
response to texts in which readers respond according to
their own unique lived-through experiences, attitudes,
emotions, perspectives and beliefs. This perspective on
literature response is grounded in the assumption that
learning is not simply a matter of comprehending or
acquiring new information from a book, but requires a
period of reconstructing ideas in light of a transaction
between the book and the reader, and the interactions
among the participants in the social context (see Beach,
1993). Based upon this perspective, teaching strategies
have been recommended that promote a more personalized,
thoughtful response to text by shifting emphasis from a

1

question-answer format to an emphasis on personal
experiences, shared response and mutual discussion
(Barnes, 1992; 1993).
Facets necessary for effective literature discussion
Collaborative talk: Explanations for why student-based
discussions are effective lies in socio-cultural theory.
Several theorists (Bakhtin,1986; Bruffee, 1986;
vygotsky, 1978; wertsch, 1991) have proposed that
meaning is constructed in the context of social
interactions and collaboration. Through collaborative
talk about books, children construct meanings and
develop facility in the higher mental activities that
are involved in literate thinking and reading (Chang-
Wells s wells, 1993). As children hear the voices of
other participants, they begin to appropriate the words,
interpretative lived experiences provide a basis for
interpretation that is enriched and extended by the
experiences of other respondents. Over time, it is
expected that the dialogue carried out in collaboration
with teachers and peers will be internalized and used
for personal purposes as a form of inner dialogue and
intellectual exchange with other authors and readers
(wells & Chang-wells, 1992).

Acquisition of new langgage skills Another
fundamental facet that is likely to be necessary for
effective literature discussion is that literary

2

response requires the acquisition of new language skills
(see Barnes, 1993); Englert, Tarrant, Mariage, & Oxer,
1994; Gee, 1990; Lemke, 1982. These skills include
knowledge of the interpretative strategies and stances
to texts used by readers, including those that are (1)
text-based (knowledge of genre or story grammar, as well
as responses that involve sequencing events,
summarizing, and understanding character motivation),
(2) reader-based (personal experience, feelings or
affect, putting self-in-situation), (3) author-based
(understanding author's craft, motive), and (4) context-
based (emphasis no turn—taking, social behavior, or
group process) (Beach, 1993; McGee, 1992). To become
successful, children must have access to these
interpretative strategies and the language related to
their use, and be motivated to participate in the
discourse forms valued by the community. Thus, teachers
must model the interpretative strategies associated with
literary response, create communities of practice where
response can be employed and shared, and apprentice
students in the use and regulation of the strategies by
scaffolding and supporting their performance in book
discussions.
Benefits of participation in literature discussion
Several studies have been conducted that have
examined the benefits of participation in literature

3

discussion on student performance.
Grand Conversations

Research by Eeds and wells (1989) indicates that
participation in collaborative discussions can affect
participants in unforeseen ways. Teachers admitted that
they had not thought of a particular interpretation
brought up by a student. Furthermore, with the support
from the reading group, children who struggled with
reading were able to learn and contribute as full
participating members through their social interactions
with teachers and peers. The students in the discussion
group were active and engaged readers, employing a host
of higher-order thinking and comprehension strategies,
such as recalling ideas from texts, predicting and
confirming predictions, verifying their comprehension,
supporting their inferences, evaluating texts, and
discussing the author's intent. The students shared
their own personal stories or experiences, which in
turn, prompted others to remember their own personal
histories and share them. The work of Eeds and Wells
supports the position (Beach, 1993) that talk in
discussion groups can help to confirm, extend or modify
an individual's interpretations, leading to a richer and

deeper understanding of the text.

Book Sharing Sessions

Roller and Beed (1994) conducted book sharing
sessions with primary-grade readers. They reported that
children were enthusiastic about talking about topics
that were important to them, and that child-directed
discussions provided a point of entry into the world of
literature. Children took unique stances and
perspectives on story characters and events that were
different from those that were emphasized and valued by
adults. Open-ended discussion formats, therefore,
offered a unique vantage point for interpretation
because there was the potential for meaning making that
might be ignored in teacher-directed discussions (see
Barnes, 1992,1993; Daiute, 1993; Villaume & werden,
1993; Villaume et al.,1994).
Book Club

Finally, a line of research that focused on
involving inner-city teachers and their diverse learners
in making a personalized and thoughtful response to
texts was Book Club (Goatley, Brock, & Raphael, 1995,
Raphael & Goatley, 1993; Raphael & MCMahon, 1994). In
Book Club, students used the "language of response“ to
respond to texts in written logs in preparation for
student-led group discussions. Book Club consisted of
four components: (1) Reading Instruction, involving

5

teacher directed lessons in vocabulary, comprehension
strategies, genres, their difficulties in metacognition
(Englert, Raphael, Fear 5 Anderson, 19898; Graham,
Schwartz & MacArthur,1993; weng, weng, & Blenkinsop,
1989). Nevertheless, with the increased emphasis on the
use of collaborative discussion groups as a means of
instructing and including diverse groups of students
(Pierce & Gilles, 1993; Rose & Martinez, 1995; Thousand,
Villa & Nevin,1994), it is essential to more closely
examine the character of literature discussions in which
students with mild disabilities are primary

participants.

CHAPTER TWO
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Historic View of literacy instruction in Special
Education

Historically, literacy instruction in Special
Education has been characterized by a focus on isolated
and decontextualized basic skills (Heshusis, 1995)
(Allington, 1989) This task-analytical approach
(Heshusis, 1991) (Heshusius, 1989) (Poplin, 1988) is
primarily teacher-directed with the teacher's voice and
the ideas contained in the textbook assuming the
authoritative or dominant expression of legitimated
meanings in the classroom. The students do not have
occasion to focus on inner experiences and bring in
personal experience and background knowledge.

(Cazden, 1988) described a type of classroom
interaction based upon this model, which she labeled the
IRE sequence. She researched classroom discourse and
found that teachers generally dominate classroom talk
through first, their own initiation (I) of an
interaction with a question, followed by a student
response (R), and concluding with the teacher's
evaluation (E) of the response. Typically, the IRE
sequence is focused on the expression or comprehension
of a set of facts from a book or text that are elicited

7

and evaluated by the teacher through questions. Yet,
current researchers suggest a reconceptualization of
instruction that recognizes a more active and
constructivist view of learners in the knowledge
construction process, and that acknowledges a
sociocultural perspective.
gyggtskian Socio-cultural Theory

The sociocultural perspective is based on
Vygotsky's (vygotsky, 1978) theory of learning in which
knowledge and understanding are created through dialogic
interactions between the members of a community.
vygotsky's theory has three important features or
principles that can guide instruction. First, Vygotsky
believed that human behavior was inherently socially and
culturally organized (Daniels, 1996). That is, higher—
ordering thinking and related cognitive processes, such
as attention, memory, comprehension, and rational,
volitional, goal-directed thought are acquired through
social interactions with others. As learners observe
the thought processes and hesitations of more skilled
problem solvers, they are apprenticed into the
particular ways of thinking and knowing valued by the
broader culture, as well as into the physical or mental
actions that guide and accompany one's cognitive
performance. Therefore to understand the mental
functions of students requires that

8

educational researchers study the social and cultural
practices which gave rise to the mental phenomena of
concern.

Second, vygotsky believed that higher mental
functions are mediated by signs, the most important of
which is language, (Daniels, 1996). Language provides
scaffolds and tools that mediate one's cognitive
performance. Mediational tools include systems for
counting, mnemonic techniques, diagrams, maps, and
mechanical drawings, to name but a few. These tools
alter the entire flow and structure of mental functions
by integrating the learners into a cognitive or social
process, and helping them to organize their intellectual
activity. To be accepted as a member of a group one
must own and operate the discourse, such as the academic
discourse of a disciplinary subject used in school, or
work-based discourse. Discourses are not mastered
through skill instruction but through apprenticeships;
with the students acquiring the discourse through
scaffolded and supported interactions with others who
have already mastered the discourse and related
practices. Think alouds, for example, are one teaching
technique that allows the students to have access to and
insight into the operation of the school

9

discourse in the situated context of it's use (Gee,
1992).

Third, Vygotsky described the social route to
acquisition by stating that function in the child's
cultural development appears twice. It appears first on
the social plane between people on an interpsychological
plane. At this stage, cognitive tasks are performed
jointly between the child and the more skilled member,
although the more skilled member provides the greater
part of the cognitive leadership in organizing the
collective cognitive enterprise. Then the activity
appears on the psychological plane within the child as
an intrapsychological category. At this point, the
child has appropriated many of the cognitive actions and
inner talk originally demonstrated by the more skilled
problem.solver, as the social talk that was once jointly
constructed by the two participants, is turned inward to
direct one's own individual mental and cognitive
actions. What was once intermentally and socially
constructed, emerges on the intramental plane through
the mastery and internalization of social processes.

Linking vygotsky's belief that the higher mental
functions have their roots in social interaction to
education is his concept of the zone of proximal
development (ZPD) which attempts to explain this social

10

origin and set of interactions that inform the
acquisition process related to the higher mental
functions. vygotsky defines the ZPD as the distance
between a child’s developmental level as determined by
independent problem solving and the higher level of
potential development as determined through problem
solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with
more capable peers. During the episodes of joint
participation and involvement in an activity, the child
and skilled problem solver’s successive actions are
orchestrated as in a dance. What the child is unable to
perform, the adult or more capable learner steps in to
perform. By closely observing the child, the adult is
able to provide the instruction that is matched to the
child's evolving states of knowledge. This acquisition
process leads to individually controlled performance,
important for the student to fully enter the discourse
of the school.

Burbules (1993) refers to the zone of proximal
development as a state of readiness in which a student
will be able to make certain kinds of conceptual
connections, but not others. Anything too simple for
the student will quickly become boring, but anything too
difficult will quickly become overwhelming and
demoralizing. An appropriate degree of challenge is an
essential aspect of the creation of an effective zone of

11

proximal development that furthers students' learning
because it opens up possibilities for the construction
of new knowledge, (Burbules, 1993).

Scaffolding has also been addressed by Burbules
(1993). He states that the teacher not only models a
process, but intervenes actively to provide just
sufficient structure and guidance to allow the student
to acquire the strategies effectively. The students are
allowed to build up levels of understanding appropriate
to their state of readiness. However the support is
gradually withdrawn over time (as with a scaffold that
is dismantled as a building structure can stand on its
own). The student is allowed to develop into an
independent and autonomous learner.

Au (1998) suggested that research on school
literacy learning conducted from a social constructivist
perspective, described above, assumes that students need
to engage in authentic literacy activities, not
activities contrived for isolated skill practice.
Therefore, as stated by Raphael et al.,1995, educators
must create classrooms in which students engage in
meaningful talk if they are to develop higher level
thinking important to success in and out of school.
Literature discussions are a means by which students of
all ability levels are able to engage in dialogue about
literature.

12

Reading Applications

To complement the reading experiences of students,
Au (1998) states that the reading of literature should
provide students with richer, more interesting and
motivating reading experiences. She sees genuine
literacy activities, of which literature discussions are
one, as central to classroom organization and reading
instruction.

Similarly, some have proposed that children who are
exposed to only one aspect of a cognitive process e.g.,
skills or facts, do not have the opportunity to observe
all strategies and practices in the entire process.
While continuing to work on basic reading skills these
children should also be exposed to the reading of
literature and then partake in discussions of the
literature that has been read to them. This approach may
also make it possible for the novice, including young
readers and students with reading or learning
disabilities to participate in more mature cognitive and
reading tasks from the very beginning, provided
adjustable and temporary support by the teacher so that
they can continue to develop advanced critical literacy
and reasoning abilities.

Literature Discussion
To be part of a literate community children need to

13

be involved in reading a variety of materials and
responding to those materials (Harste,1989). The power
of students to construct their own meaning and respond
to what they read is becoming the focal point of the use
of literature in classrooms (Jewell & Pratt,1999).
Literature discussions are a means to bring children
into the literate community, while apprenticing them
into the meaning-making and interpretive strategies that
underlie mature reading performance.

Literature discussion is an approach to reading
based on reader-response theory of Rosenblatt (1978)
Rosenblatt's ideas have been an important guide for
teachers and researchers as they have looked for new
avenues and purposes for discourse about literature
involving the students in dialogic interactions about
texts. She describes two stances of reading i.e.
efferent and aesthetic (Rosenblatt, 1978). In an
efferent reading of literature, the reader focuses on
remembering factual information that can be gleaned from
the text. (Eeds & wells, 1989) describes the efferent
stance in literature classes as the inquisition mode in
which the students' comprehension is evaluated by
teachers, on the basis of how closely their answers
match the textual content.

(Rosenblatt, 1978) contrasts this stance with an
aesthetic stance in which the reader draws upon

14

personal feelings and connections while reading.
Readers can connect to books through their feelings,
personal experiences, and literary experiences. An
aesthetic stance allows for the possibility of creating
multiple meanings due to the sharing of the varied
personal responses of the readers. Rather than one
correct answer, multiple interpretations are allowable
and even encouraged.

The use of authentic literature in classrooms is
pivotal in the development of students' aesthetic
responses to texts. An aesthetic response also promotes
students' ownership of literacy and the meaning making
process because students have the liberty to develop
divergent strategic responses to texts. Through this
ownership, interest and involvement in reading becomes
more likely. Thus, educators are encouraged to create
instructional contexts that allow students to makes
explicit connections between literacy activities and
students’ own lives and concerns (Au & Raphael, 2000).
Students may be guided to develop these connections
through their participation in literature discussions.

Research on Literature Discussions
gpper Elementary Studies

Researchers in literacy education have been looking
for ways to provide students with opportunities to
collaborate in making responses to literature in which

15

they are able to focus on their inner experiences
and draw upon their personal feelings, experiences and
connections. (Eeds & wells, 1989), for example,
investigated literature study groups with upper
elementary general education students in fifth and sixth
grade. The students met in small groups of five to
seven students with an adult group leader twice a week
to discuss the passages they had read from a novel of
their choice. Eeds and wells found that these
literature study groups afforded the students an
opportunity to collaborate, and that within this
collaborative setting, students were supported in their
efforts to gain a better understanding of the novel.
Their responses to the book included personal
connections, as well as a wide range of purposes such as
interpretations of meaning, inferencing and evaluating
text. These results were unlike results obtained when
the teacher dominated interactions and focused on the
recall of text facts.

Furthermore, Eeds and wells found that the fifth
and sixth grade students collaborated with each other
and the adult group leader in building meaning. Not only
did the students volunteer their ideas about meaning,
they listened to each other and sometimes changed their
ideas as a result. This format of responding to
literature afforded the students a way to bring in

16

personal experiences and encouraged them to be active
readers and contribute by predicting and making
hypotheses and justifications (Eeds, 1989) Based on the
description of Rosenblatt (1978) these students seemed
to be taking an aesthetic stance to reading. They were
able to focus on their own inner experiences, bringing
in their feelings and connecting the ideas to their
personal experiences.

Another line of research that looked at students
making thoughtful and personalized response to texts was
Book Club (Goatley, Brock, & Raphael,1995; Raphael &
Goatley, 1993; Raphael & McMahon, 1994; Raphael,
Goatley, MCMahon & WOodman, 1995). The Book Club
program was designed as an alternative approach to
literacy instruction. This research concentrated on
developing student-led discussion groups about
literature with upper elementary general education
students. Book Club consisted of four components--
reading, writing, community share, and instruction--all
of which supported the students in their student-led
discussions (Raphael, Goatley, McMahon & weedman, 1995).
Students in book club were active participants who
worked collaboratively in responding to literature. The
students brought their personal experiences into the
discussions as well as multiple purposes.

Book Club was based, in part, on vygotsky's ideas

17

that a student's use of signs and tools, particularly
language, as a basis for the development of higher-order
thinking. The participation of students in book
discussions required the acquisition of new language and
discourse tools related to interpretation, analysis, and
communication. Students were expected to become more
metacognitive about language in order to analyze books
for particular language forms, structures and devices
(e.g., ”imagery", foreshadowing, plot) that both
operated to convey meaning and to create emotional
responses among the readers. Likewise, students were
expected to acquire additional discourse skills to
communicate their opinions about books, and to respond
to the opinions of others in ways that provoked deeper
conversations about books. Book Club offered
apprenticeships into these language and discourse
processes by offering multiple instructional sites for
students to develop the discourse tools they needed to
effectively reason, interpret, communicate, and engage
in higher—order thinking (McMahon, Raphael, 1997).
Through the writing component, for example, the
students recorded their individual responses to the
literature in reading logs. They were encouraged to
include multiple responses within the logs including

18

affective responses to the literature such as personal
feelings. Students were offered a range of language
tools and strategies that they might employ in their
written logs to infonm their interpretations of books,
such as character mapping, putting self in situation,
cause effect, understanding multiple perspectives, and
author's purpose, to name but a few.

Using their written logs, students then
participated in student-led discussions. These "Book
Clubs" afforded the students an opportunity to
communicate their interpretative responses for the
benefit of other students, as well as to receive
feedback or questions from peers. In student-led
discussion, students were not constrained to searching
for correct answers but were able to draw upon their
inner experiences and personal feelings. Book Clubs
furthered students' participation in the discourse of
literature response through threaded conversations about
particular topics, with ongoing support and feedback
from their peers in the small groups. In addition, Book
Club incorporated several features of scaffolded
instruction within its instructional framework. A role
assumed by the teacher in Book Club was that of
instructional scaffolder (McMahon, 1997). Initially,
the teacher modeled and supported the students while
they learned what was expected of them as participants

19

in a discussion of literature, including the social,
comprehension, and literary elements that supported good
conversations about books. Modeling was a key feature
of the instructional component known as Community Share.
Based on vygotsky's idea that learning occurs first on
an external social plane between individuals, then is
later internalized (vygotsky, 1978), the Book Club
teachers modeled concepts in a whole-class social
context before the students were expected to internalize
them or employ them in the small group context. The
explicit modeling of the inner thoughts of readers and
writers were included as part of the teachers'
demonstration of new interpretative strategies. At the
same time, teachers remained alert to new interpretative
strategies that were employed or transformed by students
in their Book Club groups. These inventions and
transformations, in turn, were made public by teachers
in the Community Share phase to lead the cognitive
development of other students. Thus, Community Share
was an important instructional phase that was jointly
shaped by the interpretative responses and literacy
practices exercised by both teachers and students. It
served as the foundation for the apprenticeship of
students into the discourse, new interpretative
practices, and mental actions of the various
participants in the Book Club community (Gavelek &

20

Raphael, 1996).

As the literature discussions progressed throughout
the year, the scaffolding support provided by the
teachers changed. In some cases, literature responses
that were once modeled and guided by teachers was
appropriated by students as they grew to understand what
was needed to participate in a literature discussion and
how to do so. Collaborative dialogue about books that
was once mediated by teachers was turned inward by
students to mediate their own and others' conversations
about books. Students grew to understand elements and
characteristics of literature as they began to
incorporate these elements into their own discussions.
In turn, the teacher was able to withdraw support and
allow the students to lead their own discussions. At
other times, the teacher constructed more advanced or
complex responses to literature based on the emerging
intellectual and interpretative maturity of their
students. Consequently, the role of teachers entailed a
dynamic and recursive approach to assessment and
instruction as the teacher simultaneously dismantled
certain scaffolds, while building other intellectual
scaffolds to mediate students' performance based on a
day-by-day or lesson-by-lesson assessment of students'

21

developmental needs.

In several respects, vygotsky's work on learning
and development formed the basis of the core of the
design of the instructional elements of Book Club.
First, Book Club was designed to emphasize the language
and mental practices of readers engaged in
interpretation and response, with written and oral
language forming the communication tools and
instructional sites to lead students' literacy
development (McMahon, Raphael, 1997). Interpretative
responses represented sign and symbol systems that might
mediate students' literacy performance. To make these
symbol systems concretely visible and accessible,
teachers used Think Sheets as a form.of scaffolding to
help students frame their interpretations and responses
to books.

Second, Book Club offered several foams of
apprenticeship that provided students with developmental
opportunities to acquire and practice the language and
discourse tools related to response and reasoning, with
continuing feedback and support from others. At one
level, Book club researchers noted that the vygotskian
perspective on learning did not assume that children
would learn naturally on their own, but that a more
knowledgeable other needs to guide the learning process

22

(McMahon & Raphael, 1997). The teacher and sometimes
students would act as the more knowledgeable other,
introducing and guiding the learning of the group during
an instructional phase known as Community Share. In
addition, students directly interacted with each other
in applying the discourse and strategies that had been
introduced during Community Share in their book cubs
when they were encouraged to appropriate and transform
interpretative strategies through their participation in
the small interactive groups. Therefore, Book Club
offered several features of apprenticeship that provided
students with access and developmental opportunities to
acquire and practice language and discourse tools
related to response and reasoning, with continuing
feedback and support from others.

In studies of the effectiveness of Book Club,
researchers reported that talk in Book Club clarified
interpretations and expanded students' concepts about
literature. Over each year of a three year
study,(Goatley, 1997), Book Club participants showed
growth in their perspectives about literature, and
confidence in sharing their interpretations with others.
The students also demonstrated awareness of multiple
purposes for discussing text. Goatley (1997) further
noted that Book Club participants increased elaboration
in their writing logs which led to extended discussions

23

during book clubs.

Research in response to literature through
literature discussions was also carried on by (Gilles,
1990) Her study focused on special education students.
Gilles looked at a group of seventh grade students in
special education participating in "literature study
circles". She felt that participation in a language-
rich environment rather than in one that focused on
instruction in isolated skills might reflect students'
excitement about books and bring their multiple
interpretations to the discussion. Teachers were
generally present but the students did direct the
discussions. Students recorded their responses to what
they were reading in a journal that they then used to
guide these student directed literature discussions.
Gilles found that through their participation in these
literature study circles, seventh grade special
education students were able to make connections between
what they were reading and their own personal
experiences. These students brought their past
experiences into the discussions and referred to other
books and authors that they had read. Moreover, seventh
graders worked as a collaborative group creating meaning
together (Gilles, 1990), as they too, listened to each
other and made connections between their ideas, the

24

text, and the ideas of their peers.
Lower Elementary Studies

The lines of research studies described above speak
of the ability of upper elementary and junior high
school students to become engaged in discourse about
literature through discussion groups. (McGee,1992)
wondered if the results of studies with upper elementary
students may have been due to the relative
sophistication of students in the fifth and sixth
grades.

McGee focused her research on less sophisticated
first graders in general education. Her research
examined the responses of first grade students after
they participated in discussions about literature.
Discussion group size ranged from five to fourteen
students. The teacher read a story to the children and
then participated with them in a group discussion of the
story. Each discussion was split into two parts. In the
first part the teacher was present, although the teacher
followed the students' leads and student-initiated
topics. In the second half the teacher moderated the
discussion by initiating teacher topics (through an
interpretative question) as the teachers in the (Eeds &
wells,l989) study had done.

MbGee's results paralleled that found by Eeds &

25

wells (1989) in their study of students in the fifth and
sixth grades. McGee's first graders did construct some
simple meanings, shared personal experiences, and
connected events to other stories. The students also
evaluated characters and events and the story as a whole
(McGee, 1992). McGee found the results of her study to
be similar to the results of a study by Garrison and
Hynds (1991) in which they examined the responses to
literature of a group of college readers. Like the
college students studied by Garrison and Hynds (1991),
first grade students could reflect on the text based on
their own personal perspectives. Discussions apparently
benefited a wide range of readers across the spectrum of
developmental competence, including beginning readers in
the first grades. Thus, discussions could emerge from
young children.

Talking about literature can be undervalued in the
primary grade classroom when students are beginning to
learn to read conventionally. Yet this strength and
foundation in literature is often ignored in schools.
When they enter school their experiences in the
classroom often focus primarily on skills work and the
mechanical act of learning to read. Based on her
research, (McGee, 1995) reported that all students might
be capable of responding to literature beyond their
reading ability, and that discussions about literature

26

should be a priority in early literacy instruction. She
argued that as children talk about books they think more
deeply about the reading experiences, they listen to
each other and collaboratively construct meaning. She
believed that this was especially important for young
children, since young preschoolers enter school with a
great deal of prior experience in reading and responding
to literature through book conversations with their
parents. Thus, McGee concluded that it was critical for
primary grade students to continue to have experiences
in responding to literature in ways that expanded their
knowledge of stories and books. Literature discussion in
small groups could provide further opportunity for young
students to engage in talk about stories.

Another study involving literature discussions in
the primary grades was conducted by Jewell and Pratt,
(1999). These researchers decided to change the way they
used literature in their reading programs in younger
grades. They aimed to provide young students with
authentic opportunities to verbalize their thoughts and
feelings about what they had read, consistent with the
philosophy of Rosenblatt’s reader response theory,
through literature discussions.

Jewell and Pratt (1999) introduced literature
discussions into second and third grade classrooms.
These researchers found that the children learned to

27

talk about their respective points of view, but students
often directed all their responses to the teacher.
Through participation in literature discussions over
time, students became less concerned about pleasing the
teacher and expressed more genuine interest in
responding to their peers' ideas.

A second finding from the research was the success
of students in supporting their own and others' opinions
with evidence from the text, or personal experience.
Retellings are a crucial element of discussions (Jewell
and Pratt,1999). vygotsky (1978), in fact, suggested
that mental functions begin first on a social or
interpsychological plane, where cognitive tasks are
performed jointly by the students, then move on to an
inner or intrapsychological plane, in which the student
has appropriated many cognitive actions and inner talk.
Similarly, in their oral retellings, the students were
not just copying the external reality, (vygotsky,
(1978), but they had internalized it and transformed it
to reason with others and to accomplish their own
personal purposes. The research demonstrated that
almost every factual recounting was for the purpose of
substantiating a response, either someone else's or
their own. Thus, students were not content with mere
restatements of story facts when they responded in a
discussion. They were driven to prove to others in the

28

group that their ideas had validity. Furthermore, the
students were collaborating, inasmuch as they expressed
opinions without hesitation and listened and
incorporated others; points of view into their own
personal responses. There was interplay between
personal response and the shared responses in the group
(Jewell E Pratt, 1999). The students spoke amongst
themselves about their points of view and asked each
other for evidence, support for their opinions and
clarifications. Reasoning and communication skills
were practiced by students in these small discussion
groups in ways that were not employed in solitary or
private reading arrangements. This is work in the zone
of proximal development in which the students
collaborate with more capable peers or are under the
guidance of a teacher to perform what they are not able
to complete independently.

The researchers felt that one of the most important
findings to emerge in their analysis of the discussion
transcriptions was the prevalence of inferential
reasoning. The students made deductions drawn from
information not explicitly stated in the text but
provable. The young students also speculated, that is,
made inferences that were not exactly provable, but
demonstrated a high degree of plausibility in responding

29

to the story events.

Jewell and Pratt summarized that young children
were able to participate in quality student-generated
discussions. There was a greater degree of inferential
thinking as well as opinion statements. Students were
able to demonstrate higher-order thinking and
evidentiary reasoning. They made connections between
their ideas and interpretations of their peers.
Agreements and disagreements arose during the
discussions, showing their commitment to their points of
view, as well as through their use of supporting
evidence. These outcomes provided further support for
the important role of literature discussions in a
literacy program involving primary grade students.

Literature discussions can also play an important
role in supporting the types of dialogue noted by
Burbules. Burbules (1993) talks about four types of
discourse: discourse as conversation; discourse as
inquiry; discourse as debate; discourse as instruction.
Burbules notes that although idealized discourse is seen
as a relation between two participating people, it can
also be used to characterize some forms of group
discussions. Discourse as conversation is the most
widely used discourse in literature conversations as
well as in most of the school experience. Burbules

30

(1993) notes that this form of discourse is known as
including a cooperative, tolerant spirit as well as a
direction toward mutual understanding. Burbules further
states that people primarily engage in discourse as
conversation when interested in understanding the
outlook and experiences of a partner in dialogue.
Through the use of discourse as conversation, literature
discussions involve the participants in understanding
the literature and the ideas of others about the
literature as well as their own ideas. The use of
discourse as conversation also aids the student in
acquiring social characteristics of taking turns and
listening to others, as the partners work cooperatively
and interactively toward a shared understanding.
Dialogue as instruction (Burbules 1993) is
supported through literature discussions. It is a
directive form of teaching, but one that works through
indirect processes of instruction that require the
student to work actively to make conceptual connections
in response to teacher questions. Dialogue as
instruction is used in literature discussion in the
early stages of introducing discussions and
interpretative responses to a group of students.
Initially the teacher will model the discussion
activities and with repeated interaction with the
teacher modeling for them, the students become able to

31

perfonm the various functions of a discussion on their
own (Burbules, 1993) (Palincsar and Brown, 1984).
Another aspect of dialogue as instruction is that the
teacher initially scaffolds the students. The teacher
actively intervenes to provide just enough structure and
guidance to allow the student to participate. This
support is gradually withdrawn as the discussion
participants take on more and more of the responsibility
of the discussion.

Literature discussion can support discourse as
inquiry, a third type of discourse described by Burbules
(1993). A characteristic of discourse as inquiry is
that it aims toward answering a specific question and
provide an outcome agreeable to all Burbules (1993).
Discourse of inquiry also works towards the resolution 0
a specific problem or the resolution of a specific
debate. Although these characteristics are not primary
goals of literature discussions, the discussions can
support discourse as inquiry. Inquiry involves the
investigation of alternatives, the weighing and testing
of different potential answers within a dialogical
structure that encourages a range of perspectives and
approaches to the problem at hand. Literature
discussions provide the means of working collaboratively
and cooperatively with one another, while allowing the
perspectives of all to be heard and evaluated. Ideas

32

and insights or the participants can generate new
understandings through the process of building ideas
upon one another. These processes can aid the dialogue
of inquiry in which participants are trying to resolve a
specific problem or reconcile a specific dispute.
Literature discussions through the use of discourse
of conversation can give some support to dialogue as
debate. Through discourse as debate, participants are
pressed to articulate and defend positions as clearly
and thoroughly as they can, and in seeing the merits of
alternative views (Burbules, 1993). Discourse as debate
aids the participants in being able to clearly state
their ideas about the literature and clarify and justify
their meanings. Simultaneously, participants are asked
to listen to the views presented by other participants.
WOrk in literature discussions could therefore support
discourse as debate in other areas of the school day.
Literature discussions, then, although drawing most
heavily on the discourse of conversation, can also
support the other three discourses, all of which are
important life skills to be learned by students. The
infrequency of these types of discourses in school might
warrant attention to alternative instructional
frameworks that foster critical reasoning and discourse
skills beyond those typically exercised by students in
traditional reading groups. This might be especially

33

important to the instruction of students in special
education, who are often provided with instruction that
focuses on factual or rote recall rather than elaborated
thought and critical reasoning.
Special Education Studies

Much of the research literature on book
discussions have focused on general education students
in elementary and secondary settings. Literature
discussions could be of benefit to young special
education children because it would involve them more
deeply with the textual content and allow them to
explore their own personal relationship with characters,
setting, events, and themes (Smagorinsky & O'Donnell—
Allen, 1998). Giving these students access to
literature discussion groups would provide opportunities
for them to actively participate in an apprenticeship
experience in which they could appropriate social,
cognitive, and linguistic knowledge about themselves and
their world, (Gutierrez & Stone, 1997). Presumably the
children could interact with the teacher and their peers
in the discussions, involving them.in actively
constructing and inferencing meanings from the text. The
children would be able to draw upon their background
knowledge and bring in their personal experiences as
they interacted with others in the discussion.

working with special education and at risk young

34

children in literature discussion groups has been
addressed in a limited manner by only a handful of few
researchers. The preponderance of literacy
interventions for students with disabilities have
focused on component sub skills as the basis of their
literacy instruction.

Remedial literacy instruction has often focused on
addressing perceived deficits of the students with
learning disabilities, based on a bottomeup approach to
teaching deficient reading skills. The fundamental
assumption of this approach is that students must
acquire basic skills before they can grasp higher-order
reasoning and comprehension skills.

Likewise, learning activities in remedial contexts
are often distinct from the everyday practices of the
larger academic community and fragmented into well-
defined isolated skills (McDermott, 1993). This approach
often rests on the assumption that disabilities are
problems possessed by individuals, and that these
individuals require specialized educational approaches,
in which learning activities are fragmented into well-
defined skills, that separate learning from their
situational contexts in which the knowledge is to be
applied. This has two consequences. First, students
with disabilities are often faced with the acquisition
of basic skills (e.g., decoding skills) removed from the

35

authentic reading and writing texts that might give rise
to meaning and transfer. Second, students are often
isolated from participation in a diverse literacy
community that offers them social support to help them
compensate for disabilities. Compensatory practices
such as these have cognitive and social consequences
that are often unproductive for children (Gutierrez and
Stone, 1997).

However, cultural-historical theory suggests that
competence is related to children’s access to and
participation in varying forms of learning activities.
This understanding of competence as a socially mediated
construct has particular implications for students
identified with learning disabilities. Gutierrez and
Stone argue that apprenticeship activities accommodate
the varying levels of expertise and the changing roles
students must assume as they move toward reading
competence. The researchers spoke of apprenticeship
activities or experiences as those that did not track or
fragment and therefore differentiate learning activities
or practice for particular members of the group
(Gutierrez & Stone, 1997). They researchers further
spoke of apprenticeship practices as coparticipation by
all in the everyday interactional routines. Rather than
classrooms in which there is a preponderance of teacher-
centered activities in which knowledge is transmitted

36

from teacher to student with little opportunity of joint
production of knowledge, shared responsibility for
learning affords regular opportunities for students to
participate in a variety of roles, situations and
activities in which the needs of individuals are
recognized and scaffolded. The students move on to more
complex roles as they develop new skills (Gutierrez &
Stone, 1997). When multiple forms of assistance and
participation are readily available, a range of
educational opportunities is possible. This attention
to both individual and group needs is of particular
importance in heterogeneous classrooms attempting to
accommodate students with special learning needs.

Stone (1998) addressed the population of children
with learning disabilities and found that many of these
children experience significant limitations in language
comprehension, memory, attention, pragmatics, and /or
self—cognitive and communicational demands of scaffolded
instruction. He pointed to the concern of some
researchers that children with learning disabilities
might benefit from a more direct approach to
instruction. Due to studies regarding the effectiveness
of an interactive approach (803 and Anders, 1990),
Palincsar, Winn, David, Snyder, and Stevens, (1993) and
Englert et a1. (1994), Stone wrote that students
involved with instructional approaches designed

37

explicitly in terms of the scaffolding metaphor,
performed significantly better than their peers involved
in a different approach WhICh stressed the more
didactic, confirmatory, and factually oriented content.

Addressing the idea of improved student performance
through an interactive approach (Goatley, 1997)
conducted a study of book discussions with upper-
elementary students, including students with mild
disabilities. She found that students with mild
disabilities did not initially understand how
participation in a discussion might occur. Their
difficulties involved maintaining conversations,
encouraging other members to participate, and attempting
to understand the content of responses. Goatley also
found that the students with disabilities had particular
problems generating multiple interpretations of a text;
moving beyond literal interpretations to share personal
feelings and experiences; evaluating text; and drawing
on other sources.

Goatley's research revealed that students with
disabilities required instructional support to advance
their thinking, strategy use, and appreciation of and
response to literature. This instruction was essential,
particularly, for those students not accustomed to
engaging in an academic discourse with their peers.

38

Correspondingly literature instruction needed to focus
on aspects related to how to share and what to share
during book clubs, as well as offering emphases on
multiple literacy areas, such as comprehension,
understanding and identifying literary elements, and
writing (Raphael & Goatley, 1996).

Goatley believed the instruction provided in book
discussions provided a context that supported increased,
quality interactions among members of a community.
Goatley (1997) stated that language use facilitated
their literacy growth. The students grew in their
understanding of what and how to share during book
discussions. The holistic instruction of Book Club
provided the students with a context that supported
increased, quality interactions among members of the
community. Goatley (1997) found that over time the
special education students showed growth in their
perspectives about literature, their confidence in
sharing their interpretations with others, and their
awareness of multiple purposes for discussing ideas.
Goatley further stated that the students began to
include their personal experiences in their written and
oral responses. Their learning needs were quite similar
to the needs of all of the students and teachers played
an important role in supporting students in the areas
where they needed additional instruction or

39

reinforcement for their continued progress.

Gutierrez and Stone (1997) speak to educational
formats in conventional special education classrooms
unlike that in Goatley’s study. They point out that in
many of these traditional special education classrooms
the extent to which responsibility for teaching and
learning is distributed and shared among participants
varies, with many classrooms offering few opportunities
for work to be distributed or shared among students to
promote the development of intellectual leadership.
They further state that in special education classrooms
there is a preponderance of teacher-centered activities
in which knowledge is transmitted from teacher to
student and in which there is infrequent opportunity for
the joint production of knowledge.

Literate students are expected to make connections
to their own past and possible future experiences,
including intertextual connections to other texts they
have read; to draw inferences from what is written (or
not written, that might have been), including the
detection of biases of various kinds; and to evaluate
critically the significance of what they read, giving
justifications for their judgments (wells, 1997). The
traditional method of literacy teaching, with its
pedagogical emphasis on teacher-directed recitation and

40

students' mindless practice of decontextualized
“skills," has been found to be inadequate and as a
result there have been recent attempts to give students
a more active role in the literacy process.

Other researchers are proposing that alternate
literacy instruction be provided for special education
students as well, as did Addison Stone above. Rueda,
Gallego, and M011 (2000) speak to the idea of the
fundamental value of equity for students with
disabilities. The researchers found social mediation
and assisted performance to be key elements of learning
and development. A major goal was to provide responsive
assistance, or assistance that is within the learners’
zone of proximal developments. The authors found that
social relationships and mediation are defining features
of the experiences of children. They argue that the
individual differences of children interact with the
social organization of specific activity settings,
rather than a placement in a physical setting. Learning
is social, and research and interventions related to
learning and development require a focus on not only the
characteristics of the individual but also the student
in interaction within activity settings.

Thus, conception of learning disabilities has begun
to change in recent times. Reid (1998) concludes that

41

under the influence of vygotsky's theory in particular,
special education has begun to shift the emphasis from
the individual to the sociocultural context of
education. In small-group situations, when students
have control over their own language structures and the
ability to talk from personal experience (rather than
being limited to providing known information), their
language becomes rich and expressive and allows them to
display more highly developed cognitive and linguistic
skills than a more traditional model of learning such as
IRE.

If new instructional methods are to be designed for
special education contexts, then a reconceptualization
of the organization of a classroom.might be needed.
Elements included would be apprenticeship, scaffolding,
interactive teaching and discourse and transfer of
control to students. Apprenticeship in situated
contexts needs to be included. With the help of a more
knowledgeable other students are afforded the
opportunity to move on to more complex tasks as they
develop new skills. Scaffolding of students helps them
attain competency of a task that is just out of their
range at the beginning of their participation in the
task. Students need to be engaged in meaningful talk
which is able to be developed through interactive
teaching and discourse. Also, transferring control to

42

the students gives responsibility for learning to the
students.
Apprenticeship in situated context of reading activity

A pivotal study involving reading and problem
learners was that of Reciprocal Teaching by Palincsar
and Brown (1984). This research seemed to be
efficacious for students with learning disabilities
meriting further attention to the instructional
techniques that informed this approach. Reciprocal
teaching consisted of four strategies (prediction,
clarification, summarization, and questioning) that were
designed to help students take part in a comprehension
dialogue about expository texts, and that furthered
their participation as leaders in discussions about text
meaning. These four strategies provided an example of a
sign or language system that might scaffold and guide
students' participation in conversations about
expository texts.

In designing reciprocal teaching, Palincsar (1991)
adopted a model of instruction that provided for the
orderly transfer of control for the strategies from
teachers to students. At first, the four strategies
were explicitly taught to the students and practiced
within actual discussions participate in reading
discussions and these strategies were explicitly taught

43

to the students and practiced within actual discussions
of expository texts that were modeled and guided by
teachers. However, teachers increasingly relinquished
responsibility to students by asking students to act as
leaders and teachers for the group. That is, students
actually led the small group in asking a question about
the text, clarifying unclear concepts and terms,
summarizing the main ideas, and predicting what might
come next. Thus, reciprocal teaching was designed to
offer pivotal roles that ensured that students became
increasingly skilled in using the strategies to maintain
good comprehension, as well as to use the strategies as
part of a group discourse that furthered their own self-
regulation and autonomy as readers. Throughout the
reciprocal teaching procedure, teachers and peers were
expected to provide feedback to other participants,
stepping in to model reading strategies or offer
alternative responses when such support was needed, and
stepping back.when students effectively applied
strategies. In contrast to the findings by Goatley that
indicated the difficulty of special education students
in holding a discussion, reciprocal teaching showed that
these students could participate in discussions when
they were provided with the language tools as well as
protocols for holding and leading an effective
discussion.

44

In a subsequent study, Palincsar (1991) reported
the hallmarks of the instructional approach that seemed
to distinguish the more effective and less effective
teachers. Evaluation studies of reciprocal teaching
showed that students gained in comprehension performance
as a result of the intervention, and that the
improvements were maintained across a follow-up retest
after eight weeks. The reading strategies of
summarizing and predicting also resulted in significant
improvements as a result of the scaffolding
intervention.
gpg_§pecific Role of the Teacher in Book Discussions
These literatures on comprehension and literacy
instruction reveal several pedagogical features that
should be considered in a study of book discussion and
literature response. There were three key features and
instructional practices that lay at the core of this
dissertation research.

Scaffolding Stone (1998) explained the effectiveness

of the reciprocal teaching by highlighting its

effectiveness in the use of scaffolding. Teachers and

adults have an important role in scaffolding students'

performance. By scaffolding, I mean a student is

supported by a more knowledgeable other who actively
45

intervenes to provide just enough guidance to allow the
student to acquire the strategies effectively. Stone
(1998) spoke of scaffolding as providing temporary
assistance to children as they strive to accomplish a
task just out of their competency. The adults provide a
scaffold, much like that used by builders in erecting a
building. This support allows for the accomplishment of
some goal that would otherwise be unattainable for the
child to complete. Scaffolding of remedial reading
students has proven to be successful, (Stone, 1998).

Interactive Teaching and Discourse A second role
of teachers is to engage with students in interactive
teaching/discourse. Within these studies of literature
discussion the role of the teacher varied. In Book Club
the teacher is not present in the discussion group but
does interact with the whole class, modeling
conversation about text and providing instruction in all
four of the programfis components (Raphael, 1995 #38).
During the whole class sessions the teachers in Book
Club shared their personal responses and framed
discussions with the students to encourage similar
contributions (Gavelek & Raphael, 1996). The
researchers noted that teachers' talk within the whole-
class settings appeared to play a crucial role in
students' developing the language of talk about text,

46

whether the language was about literary elements,
authors' craft, response to literature, or understanding
and clarification (Gavelek & Raphael, 1996). Gavelek
and Raphael further noted that the teachers observed the
students carefully when they were in student led
discussions. In subsequent whole-class settings, the
students' ideas then formed the basis for whole-class
discussions which were orchestrated by the teachers to
extend the student-led discussions. Social settings,
such as Book Club, are the means by which students come
to acquire and construct new knowledge, new meanings,
and new interpretations of text through interactive use
of language. Students need leadership from their
teachers in making these situations educative and
meaningful, as well as multiple opportunities in which
to engage in discussions (Gavelek & Raphael, 1996).

In other cases, the teacher was present as a more
active participant in the discussion groups studies
described by Eeds & wells (1989) and McGee (1992). The
teacher was also present in the study of seventh grade
special education students by Gilles. (1990). Although
literature discussion groups focus on moving away from
teacher dominated interactions and strive toward
actively engaging the students in the discussions, the
role of the teacher in supporting discourse and the
implementation of interpretative strategies remains an

47

important one. Eeds & wells,l995), for example, found
that a teacher's presence in a discussion group
dignified the group and the students' contributions.
They did not find that the group was silenced by the
teachers' presence as some had worried. In fact, they
found that, especially with the young and less
experienced readers, the teacher participants in the
group were able to help the students move the talk
beyond the mere sharing of ideas to develop deeper
insights into stories, characters, and experiences. The
researchers believed that through dialogues with their
peers and with teachers students were able to become
involved in more complex forms of interpretation (Eeds &
wellsl,1995)
Transfer of Control

A third function of teachers is the ability to step
back and to divest their responsibility for leading the
intellectual work of the group to students. In their
studies of various forms of teacher guidance in
discussion groups

Reciprocal Teaching addressed transfer of control
from teacher to students. A central feature of
Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Palincsar,
1986, 1991) is a sequence in which the teacher and
students take turns being responsible for carrying out a

48

set of strategies for summarizing, questioning,
clarifying, and predicting successive segments of a text
as an aid to ongoing comprehension of the text. In the
early stages of the interactions between teacher and
students the teacher has the primary responsibility of
modeling the strategies and providing highly structured
feedback. Slowly though, the teacher shifts control to
the students as she encourages them to take more of the
responsibility unto themselves.

MCGee (1995) similarly describes the teacher's role
as one of stepping in and out of the discussion in
varying degrees. McGee posits that teachers may step
into the discussion and assume a more directive role
when they recognize a 'teachable moment' and they are
able to support the students and provide them with
deeper insights. She found that teachers might also
step in to model and encourage active listening. A
teacher's thoughtful question or comment may "nudge
children's thinking" (MCGee, 1995).

Summary of Good discussions about literature

Results from the studies of responding to
literature make it possible to describe good discussions
about literature. These discussions include a number of
facets applicable to primary grade readers as well as
more mature readers in the upper elementary grades and
beyond. (McGee, 1995) describes what a good discussion

49

or conversation about books includes. Good discussions
of books allow students to talk about what a story calls
to mind, and to bring in personal experiences (Corcoran,
1987) (McGee, 1995) The students related these personal
life experiences to the story situation (Martinez, 1995)
MCGee states that talk about personal experiences that
can be connected to the story can strengthen the
understanding of the student.

The work of Eeds & wells (1989) and Raphael's
research with Book Club described the range of purposes
that the students utilized in their discussions of
literature. Good discussions are recognizable in terms
of the opportunities for students to initiate and use
different purposes of discussion. These purposes
include; author's purpose and character motivation,
evaluating the text, placing themselves in the story
situation, and extending and relating the story to other
stories they have read.

Good discussions about literature also involve more
than students sharing their own unique responses. McGee
states that while collaborating with their peers the
students defend, negotiate meaning, and become aware of
and accept multiple interpretations of the story. The
students ask each other for clarification and
justification and understand

50

that their peers may interpret the story differently.

Students also talk directly with one another in a
good discussion and introduce topics themselves into the
discussion (McGee, 1995) The interactions are no
longer dominated by the teacher and structured with the
student responding to the teacher's questions within
topics controlled by the teacher. The students share
their ideas and feelings with the group and respond and
comment on the ideas of the others.

This involvement of children is important for
special education children. very often these children
are not put in the role of and expert, as they would be
in a literature discussion. Children in special
education should be allowed to develop metacognition in
full, not just as a novice with the teacher or other
children as the expert. Literature discussions would
allow special education children to take on roles not
often afforded them. Through literature discussions
special education children would be allowed to construct
their own meanings and to bring help to other children
participating in the discussions.

Purpose/Questions

Realizing the importance of engaging students in
discussion of literature and the importance of
particularly including primary grade students in this

51

experience the proposed study will extend the research
to primary grade students in special education.
Recently, researchers have begun to emphasize the need
to extend meaningful activities that use dialogic
interactions to students within special education
(Englert, 1992; Englert et al., 1994; Palincsar & Brown,
1984; Poplin, 1988; 1995). Although researchers have
studied literature response with upper elementary
students including special education students (Gilles,
1990; Goatley 1997) few researchers have examined
literature response with first grade special education
students who are nonreaders and nonwriters.

The purpose of this study is to examine the
evolution of literature discussions in a primary grade
special education classroom in which the teacher is
developing a concept of literature response. The
research questions this study address are twofold.

How do the students participate in literature
discussion groups and how does their participation
change as they acquire experience in literature
response? For example, are the discussions recognizable
as good discussions of literature by the characteristics
noted above for good discussions?

What role does the teacher assume in literature
discussion groups in supporting the students' developing
concepts of literature response?

52

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

This study is a qualitative study based on the
grounded theory procedures and techniques of Strauss &
Corbin (1990). I studied over the course of a semester a
classroom of primary grade students labeled as special
education students and at risk students who were in the
process of being test for special education. I observed
them as they participated in literature discussions with
their teacher, sitting with them at their reading table,
but not participating myself in the talk. I wanted to
see how this group of children would evolve into full
participants of a literature discussion, what their
participation would be and how it would change over time.
I was also interested in learning what role the teacher
would assume in the literature discussion groups and how
that role would evolve over time. I examined the
discourse that occurred in the discussions by all
participants throughout the semester and identified types
of participation among the teacher and students as they
evolved from discussion neophytes at the onset of the
discussion to full participating members when the
semester concluded. In this chapter I describe the
school context, teacher participants, student
participants, materials, procedures, data collection and

53

data analysis.
School context

The target school and classroom were located in an
urban area in the Midwest. It was a school where
approximately 95% of the students received free or
reduced lunch. The school's staff was not particularly
an innovative one. Although the principal was supportive
of the teacher involved in the study along with her co-
teacher, the school was not supportive of their proposed
innovative plan of an inclusive classroom, especially the
faculty in the lower elementary grades.

The teachers presented their proposal to the School
Improvement Team which did support their idea. The
teachers had proposed teaming together in an inclusive
classroom. Therese was a general education teacher and
Kristin, the teacher involved in the study, was a teacher
in Special Education. Both teachers would teach in one
classroom with Therese having the general education
students on her class list and Kristin carrying the
special education and at risk children on her class list.
All these children would comprise one inclusive classroom
in which it was not known who was in special education.
Theresa's students were first graders and Kristin's
students were special education students in Kindergarten,
first and second grades. The year prior to the

54

implementation of the inclusive classroom all students
that were brought to a Student Study Team (SST) due to
teachers' concerns and possible testing for Special
Education services were placed on Kristin's class list.
She and Therese sought to have the students from the very
beginning of the school year, to eliminate the disruption
that would occur if the students were qualified for
special education during the school and therefore
required to change classrooms during the school year.

The teachers were committed to as little disruption as
possible in the lives of these students and this way the
students would already be in the classroom where they
would receive the Special Education services.

The School Improvement team allowed Kristin and
Therese to implement this classroom in the school. The
teachers met with resistance though, from the general
education teachers in the lower elementary grades. This
resistance was evident before the program.was implemented
and again when the program.was started. Up until this
point the lower elementary classrooms were limited to 20
students per room. However, when students were
recommended by the SST for special education and tested
into the program they were then removed from the general
education classes and placed in the Special Education
classroom. Frequently then, the general education
classes would result in a student population of less than

55

20. With the implementation of Kristin and Therese‘s
proposal these classes would lose few if any students
during the year. Some of these teachers made it clear to
Kristin, Therese and the principal that they did not
support a plan that would have the special education
students as well as at risk students already in place in
the inclusive classroom before the school year began.
With the strong support of the principal and the support
of the School Improvement team though, the Inclusive
class did get put into place and remains in place to this
day.

Teacher Participants

The participants in this study included one Special
Education teacher, Kristin, one General Education
teacher, Therese, and 11 students. Kristin was a young
woman who had over five years teaching experience at the
time of this study, all of it in Special Education in a
Resource room in the lower elementary grades and all in
the same school district. She received a Bachelor's
degree in Special Education Mental Impairment and a
Master's degree in Learning Disabilities from a large,
local university in Michigan.

During her years of teaching Kristin became
increasingly aware of the fact that Reading was the area
in which her Special Education students struggled the
most. She also felt that Reading was the area of

56

JIM/vb-

instruction in which she herself also struggled the most.
Her own desire to continually improve her teaching and
her increasing awareness of the need to help her students
with Reading sparked an interest in searching for
alternate ways to teach Reading.

At this time Kristin was introduced to the Early
Literacy Program, ELP, through Carol Sue Englert, a
professor at Michigan State University who was presenting
the program to Special Education teachers. Kristin was
among a group of nine teachers in the experimental group
of the project who were given the opportunity to
participate with a group of researchers in designing and
carrying out a curriculum directed at helping primary
grade students with serious deficits in the fundamental
skills of reading and writing. ELP was attempting to
construct a unified approach to literacy instruction
across the curriculum that would accelerate the
development of these skills (Englert et a1. 1995). The
teachers joined the researchers to jointly develop the
curriculum and then enact it in their classrooms. They
implemented the ELP curriculum.for several hours a day in
their classrooms utilizing activities that were
integrated in thematic units (Englert et al. 1994). Each
unit was composed of a variety of activities involving
oral literacy and reading and writing activities

57

(Englert, Raphael et al., 1994). Kristin was also
implementing the phonics-based program.Project Read
(Green & Enfield, 1987) as part of her literacy program.

It was at this time, when Kristin became involved
in the ELP project implementing it in her Special
Education classroom, that she met me while I was working
in ELP in the classroom of another Special Education
teacher in the district. Kristin became aware of the
Literacy Discussion groups that I was introducing into
that other ELP classroom. Due to her commitment to
improving her teaching of Reading she spoke with me about
the Literacy Groups and volunteered to be a control group
for a study I was conducting at that time in the other
classroom. Following the period of her participation as
the control group for the study Kristin and I continued
to speak about the Literacy Discussion groups. She
subsequently volunteered to participate in the larger
scale study of Literature Discussion groups which
resulted in this study. This larger scale project
involved conducting Literacy Discussion Groups over a six
month period in her own ELP classroom.

Prior to her participation Kristin was teaching in a
self—contained Special Education Learning Disabilities
classroom. Through her involvement in ELP Kristin became
aware of another Special Education teacher who
incorporated some inclusion into her classroom in another

58

building in the district. She and Therese, a teaching
colleague also interested in improving her teaching, paid
a joint visit to this teacher's classroom. They were
excited at what they saw and soon began to seriously plan
how they could incorporate inclusion into their teaching,
based on what they saw in the other ELP classroom but
tailored to fit their own situation in their own
building. Prior to the joint visit Therese had noticed
what Kristin's students were able to academically achieve
and was impressed by it. As a result Kristin and Tracy
taught a unit together to all of the students in both
classrooms. They felt the joint unit was successful for
all the students and after the visit to the other school,
they actively pursued developing an inclusive room in
their building, the design of which they presented to the
principal and School Improvement team, and continue to
implement today.
Student Participants

The students involved in the study included three
girls and eight boys. These eleven students were chosen
to participate in the study because they were all Special
Education students or in the process of being tested for
Special Education. They were lower academically than the
other students in the inclusive classroom and all would
be in Kristin's Reading class. Four of the students were
African-American, two were Biracial, two were Hispanic

59

and three were white. Nine of the students were in First
grade and two were in Second grade. Five of the students
had been retained, four in Kindergarten and one in First
grade. All of the children were at the Pre-Primer
Reading level.

Due to the transiency typical at this school,
students entered and exited Kristin's class throughout
the year. Students were also pulled from the classroom
throughout the day for special services such as speech
and language, social work, and occupational therapy.
Pull-outs frequently occurred during the time that the
literature discussions took place. Kristin and I
discussed this situation and it was determined that the
discussions would continue as scheduled. One purpose was
to observe how literature discussions would operate in an
ordinary classroom under ordinary conditions.

Table of Student Participants
Materials

The literature books chosen for the discussions were
drawn from a variety of literature for children. Rich
book talk is described by Martinez and Roser (1995) as
"diverse talk that explores the story world, the messages
that emerge from that world, and the crafting of the
story." In order to ensure that the children respond to
literature in these diverse ways we attempted to use a
rich array of books for the literature discussions.

60

Literature was also chosen based on the anticipated
appeal to the particular group of participating students
and the likelihood of the story themes engendering
discussion (Nussbaum & Puckett, 1990; Martinez & Roser
1995; McGee,l995)
Procedures

The literature discussions generally occurred once
or twice a week. Kristin and Therese worked together
with all of the students throughout the school day. For
a portion of the morning though, Kristin would work with
about 20 of the students including the 11 students in the
study, in another classroom. There she concentrated on
literacy activities with the students through Reading
centers. There were generally four Reading centers in
the room with Literature discussions as one of the
centers. The student participants worked as a group at
the Literature discussion center while the other students
moved through the centers. The study participants
remained at the Literature discussion center for the
length of time needed for the discussion. Although this
time was not predetermined but open ended, the
discussions averaged 20 - 30 minutes duration.

Kristin began by reading a story to the

students while seated with them at the reading table.
The tape recorder was turned on when the discussion
began. Kristin talked with the students about the purpose

61

of the discussion. When Kristin determined the students
had nothing more to say she would ask them if they should
conclude the discussion. Most of the time the students
agreed but on occasion they would state that they needed
more time and it was provided. At the conclusion the
students were allowed to listen to about two minutes of
the tape. They were always delighted to hear themselves
responding to the story.

I conducted twice weekly classroom observations
during this period, seated at the table with Kristin and
students. Each discussion was audiotaped by me and 11 of
the discussions were transcribed, resulting in a large
set of data. I also took field notes documenting what
was discussed and the behavior and responses of the
students.

Data collection

Data were collected during the second semester of
the school year, from January through June of 1996. I
conducted twice weekly classroom observations during this
period, seated at the reading table with Kristin and
students. Each discussion was audiotaped by me and I
transcribed 11 of the discussions, resulting in a large
set of data. I also took field notes each time I was
present in the class documenting what was discussed and
the behavior and responses of the students. Several
times throughout the semester I also videotaped the

62

discussions. Additionally, the Slosson Oral Reading Test
(SORT) was individually administered by me to each of the
participating students at the start and conclusion of the
study. The Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT) (Slosson,
1963) is a test of sight word recognition used in
determining a student's reading grade level.
Data Analysis

The questions I raised for study concerned the
evolution of students and teacher as full participants in
literature discussions. My approach to data analysis was
based on that suggested by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and
Strauss and Corbin (1990) for the generation of grounded
theory. Through application of the constant comparative
method of qualitative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967,
pp. 101-116) I engaged in continuous coding and analysis
of my data. I coded the data according to a list of
literary responses, such as self-in-situation, personal
experiences, author's intention, character motivation,
etc. I also coded the data for procedures such as,

student-to-student talk and student-initiated topics.

63

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
There's a Nightmare in My Closet
Teacher Participation in Literature Discussion Group

The first focus of the study examined was the
nature of teacher's participation in the study groups.
There were two major areas considered within this topic:
apprenticing the students in the discussion and
discursive practices. The following sections describe
and illustrate the teacher's participation in the first
discussion through the use of dialogue drawn from the
discussion transcripts.

Overall, the analyses across the three discussions
show the teacher's participation to be one that can be
described as reacting to and anticipating growth in the
students as they appropriated the discussion processes
and discursive practices. Each of the discussions
portrayed a shift in her participation as she brought
new ideas and strategies into the teaching and learning
process. Her participation in the first discussion of
January 11 is addressed below.
apprenticingStudents in the Discussion Process

Kristin spoke briefly with the students about how
to proceed with a discussion. She told the students
they did not have to raise their hands and they should
look and talk to each other as well as listen to each

64

other. Her general approach seemed to be an
apprenticeship of the students in the social practices
associated with good discussions on a need-to-know
basis.

In the first discussion, the struggles of the
students to relate and sequence basic facts of the story
was painfully obvious. Consequently Kristin's attention
was almost entirely directed to supporting their use of
the dscursive practices. These discusrsive practices
encompassed sequencing the events of the story,
evaluating the story and characters, and as a result of
initial work in this area, justifying their opinions and
evaluation. Kristin's emphasis in the first discussion
was nearly entirely directed to addressing the need of
the group members to acquire a discourse for talking
about books rather than on the social processes.

Without these discursive practices, discussion could not
take place.
ApprenticingStudents in Discursive Practices

Throughout the months that led up to the first
discussion Kristin and I considered what made a good
discussion. Kristin therefore approached the
discussions believing that a good discussion was based
upon the use of discursive practices such as author's
intent, character motivation, relating personal

65

experiences, students talking directly with each other,
and students initiating and utilizing a range of
discussion categories.

Of all the discursive practices, personal
experience had the highest frequency of occurrences (44)
with 35 from the students and nine provided by Kristin.
In succeeding order of frequency there were 25 total
character motivation responses, with Kristin providing
15 moves related to character motivation and the
students 10. There were 14 responses involving
evaluation of the story and 11 responses involving
justification of evaluation. There were no instances of
any other discursive practices.

Evaluation and Justification In the first
discussion Kristin's intention was to concentrate on
having the students evaluate the story. Following the
reading of the story, Kristin launched into evaluation
through her first question: "What do you think about
the story?" Though this open-ended question called for
the thoughts and feelings of the participating students,
Kristin received brief and literal storybook responses
such as, "Um, it's a nightmare in my closet" by Tim.or
Alicia's response of, "When, um, that monster cried."

Justification Instead of evaluating the story,
students offered basic facts from the story as answers
to Kristin's question. In turn, she began to apprentice

66

the students in what it meant to justify or explain
their ideas. Tim was the first child to respond and 12
exchanges followed this remark, represented below.
Kristin: What do you think, Tim?
Tim: Um, it's a nightmare in my closet.

Kristin: Yeah, what about that story?
What do you think?

Tim: It was a good story.
Kristin: Why was it a good story?
Tim: Cuz, it was a nightmare in my closet.

Kristin: And.what made it good?
What did you like best about the story?
Tim: um, when two monsters, when the other
monster came out.
Kristin: Oh, at the end?

Tim: Yeah. And the, and the last one came
out.

Kristin: Why did you like that part?

Tim: Cuz it was a good story.

In this segment of discourse Kristin attempted to
guide Tim, in the expression and justification of his
thoughts. Four times Kristin tried to prompt him to
elaborate and justify his opinions ("What about the
story?" "Why was it a good story?" "What made it good?"
"Why do you like that part?") Tim was never able to
provide this justification. For example, when Kristin
first asked his opinion he replied with a basic fact of
the story. When further prompted by Kristin, "What
about the story?" he answered that it was a good story.
Again Kristin positioned Tim.to justify or explain his
ideas.("Why was it a good story?"), but Tim replied with
additional facts from the story.("When the other monster
came out.") Finally the segment ended with Tim

67

repeating that the story was good. This example
illustrated the difficulty that young students had in
expressing and explaining their views which is a basic
expectation for participants of discussion groups.

.Although Kristin had planned that the early
discussions should arise spontaneously among students,
she proceeded to ask each student to evaluate the story
in a round—robin fashion. Her exchanges with the next
three students following Tim.were of shorter duration,
but each time, she prompted the students to justify and
explain their views. Three of the five students stated
that they liked the story because it was funny. For
example, Alicia commented, "I don't know, um, cuz it was
funny", followed by Nathan and Tina who each answered,
"Cuz it was funny." This response proved to be a way
for several of the students to gain the floor throughout
the successive discussions. Roller and Beed (1994)
described this type of response as rote and lifeless but
serving a purpose for some students because it might
allow the quieter and more timid students to enter into
the discussions. Similarly, in the example described
above, Tina, a quiet six year old, heard Alicia and
Nathan respond with, "cuz it was funny", and then
utilized this response herself when called upon to
respond.

When Kristin reached the fifth and final child,

68

Roland, the discourse became uniquely different. The
previous three students produced short replies as to
what part they liked, such as mentioning when the
monster was shot or when he cried. Roland, instead,
extended the same idea of the monster crying which
provoked Kristin to ask for a justification of this
idea.

Kristin: What do you think, Roland?

Roland: He cried cuz he shot the thing and then

he broke his heart.
Kristin: Maybe he broke his heart!
Why do you think that?

Roland: Because he was sad.

Roland's extension of, "then he broke his heart",
was intriguing in it's individuality and brought forth a
revoicing of the phrase by Kristin. She then asked for
a justification of Roland's statement that he broke his
heart. Roland responded by saying that he was sad.

Character Motivation In the first discussion

Kristin also began to introduce and scaffold the
students to thinking about the motivation behind the
characters' actions. As Kristin focused on character
motivation she departed from her previous round-robin
style. Instead she presented her question to the
entire group rather than to individuals. However, once
again, it became apparent that the students struggled
with story meaning and events.
Kristin: When the little boy shot the nightmare, why

did he do that?
Tim: Cuz he was makin him mad and wakin him

up.
69

Kristin: Ah, and why, what else do you think he
was doing?

Tim: Crying.
Kristin: Remember at the beginning?
Alicia: Crying and waking up mom and dad.

Kristin: Yeah, he started crying.
Um, so the little boy, was he, did he
like the nightmare at the beginning of
the story?
Did the little boy like the nightmare at
the beginning of the story?

Alicia: Yeah. (inaudible) in bed.

Kristin: At the beginning of the story though?
Alicia: No.

Kristin: Why, so...

Tum: Cuz there's two monsters.

In this example, Kristin asked the students to
infer the character's motivation. The students readily
responded to her question. The first respondent, Tim,
provided a reason for the boy's behavior, "he
(nightmare) was makin him.mad and wakin him up."
However, as Kristin proceeded to explore character
motivation ("What else do you think he was doing?"),
the students resorted to telling facts from the story
rather than interpret motivation. Moreover as their
struggles with sequencing story events became apparent
Kristin attempted to anchor their comments to a point in
time by making four references to the beginning.

Alicia and Tim reversed the story events, offering
the following misrepresentations of who cried (nightmare
rather than the boy), and time (boy befriended the
nightmare at the end of the story rather than at the
beginning).

Tim: Crying.
70

Kristin: Remember at the beginning?
Alicia: Crying and waking up mom and dad.

Kristin: ...Did the little boy like the nightmare

at the beginning of the story?

Alicia: Yeah. (inaudible) in bed.

Kristin: At the beginning of the story though?

Alicia: No.

This example showed that young readers had great
difficulty with comprehension, even when stories were
read aloud to them. This first book discussion also
showed that Karen had more success when she tightly
scaffolded students' interpretations through the
retelling of cause-and—effect events from the story. In
the following example, she taught character motivation
as she modeled and guided the students, working to help
them link action to effect.

Nick:The cork went out.

Kristin: The cork goes out!

So what did that cork do when it came out
of the gun?

voices: It shot him!

Kristin: Yeah. So when he started crying, why do

you suppose he cried?

Alicia: Where did he put them at, in his butt?

Kristin: No, up here.

See up here by his head?

Tim: Ouch! That's hurt.

When the provision of character motivation did not
occur spontaneously, Kristin attempted to make
connections visible and explicit. "So what did that cork
do when it came out of the gun?" "So when he started
crying, why do you suppose he cried?" In response to
this persistent scaffolding on the part of Kristin,

71

several students jointly voiced that when the cork went
out, "It shot him!", with Tim finally providing that
motivation for the boy's crying with, "That's hurt."
Kristin also scaffolded their performance in other
concrete ways. For example, she utilized the book to
develop students' understanding. She pointed to the
picture that showed the cork aimed at the nightmare's
head. When asked for a clarification, she again, used
the illustration to point out that the boy aimed at the
nightmare's head. With the support of visual scaffolds
and illustrations, Tim provided character motivation,
explaining that the nightmare cried because it hurt.
The students, guided by Kristin, persisted in
discussing how a cork gun is used and that it could hurt
somebody through three pages of transcript. Kristin
then redirected the discussion back to character
motivation after the students agreed that the gun could
hurt people. The following example showed that Kristin
continued to do the lion's share of the work. She
attempted to make the connections and links between
cause and effect explicit for the students, building
bigger ideas and concepts from their mostly one-word
answers.
Kristin: So we know that if you have a pop gun or a
cork gun it could hurt somebody, right?
Vbices: Yeah!
Kristin: OK. Now, do you suppose this boy knows that?
voices: Yeah!

Kristin: Yeah, so when he shot this cork gun at this
72

nightmare was he trying to hurt it?

voices: No.

Kristin: Was he trying to hurt it?

voices: Yes.

Kristin: Probably!
Because did he want that nightmare in his
bedroom anymore?

Tina: No.

Kristin: No, so was he trying to hurt it?

Tina: Yeah.

Kristin: Yeah, what do you suppose he was thinking?
When he shot that nightmare.

This passage demonstrates Kristin's careful and
thoughtful guidance of the students in supporting their
ability to think about and discuss character motivation.
Kristin worked hard to scaffold their thinking until
they could produce a justification of the idea that the
boy was trying to hurt the monster. What ideas and
inferences they lacked, she provided or prompted. She
made explicit for them the link between having a cork
gun and the possibility of someone getting hurt.
Striving to connect the character's motivation (e.g. not
wanting the nightmare in his bedroom), and his actions
(shooting the nightmare), Kristin came out and directly
asked the group, "...did he want that nightmare in his
bedroom anymore?" Several students answered her
together, but seeing the need for additional work in
establishing cause and effect, Kristin then asked,
"...so, was he trying to hurt it?" Tina's response of,
"Yeah", finally represented the group's beginning

understanding of the boy's inner motivation for shooting

73

the nightmare.

Kristin persisted in her hard work in guiding
students to see a connection between actions and effects
later in the discussion as illustrated by the following
example.

Kristin: So when this boy shot the cork at this
nightmare what did he hope the nightmare
would do?

Alicia: Not play with him.

Kristin: Not play with him and maybe even...

Nick: Or he won't go back in his bedroom.

Kristin: Yay, OK!

So he thought if he shot this cork at the
voice: Monster

Kristin: ...nightmare maybe he wouldn't go back in
the closet and maybe he'd just go away.
Is that what happened though?

Perhaps this segment illustrates the emergence of
students' anticipation of a cause-effect relationship
that had been missing earlier in the discussion. When
Kristin asked students to predict the anticipated effect
from the stated action of the boy shooting the cork at
the nightmare, Alicia responded with the prediction
that the nightmare would, "not play with him."
Continuing in this work to make connections Kristin
revoiced Alicia's reply and began to add more with,
"...and maybe even..." when Nathan supplied a second
possible effect, "Or he won't go back in his bedroom."
At last these two students seemed able to see the

connections and provided some possible effects following

74

Kristin's careful, hard work, That Kristin was excited
by this development seems to be apparent through her
enthusiastic response, because she immediately said,
"Yay! OK!" Her excitement suggested an appreciation
for this literary breakthrough among her students.
Whether it is possible to attribute the beginnings of an
anticipatory cause-effect relationship of the students
to Kristin's instruction is difficult to tell. Yet
perhaps her work had borne some fruit. The students had
shown glimmers of character motivation in this last
example, whereas earlier in the discussion they
exhibited confusion and an inability to provide a cause-

effect relationship.

Student Participation in Literature Discussion
Groups

A second focus of this study was the participation
of the students in the literature discussion groups. I
studied students' participation to discover whether
their participation had changed overtime. The specific
areas of interest included the occurrence of student
initiated topics, and student to student talk. Sections
of discussion dialogue were examined and analyzed. The
results of this analysis for the first discussion are
found in the following sections.

75

Student Initiated Topics During the first discussion
the students mostly followed Kristin, responding to her
questions. However, their first attempts to self-
initiate topics concerned personal experience. Most of
their responses focused on the main character's, action
to shoot the nightmare with the consequence that the
nightmare cried. Tim, for example, mentioned that the
gun, which Kristin further clarified by stating that it
was a cork gun. At this point Alicia entered the
discussion providing the information that, "you can
shoot animals with it." For the remaining six and a
half of the eleven page transcript the talk centered on
the personal experiences of students concerning cork
guns.

Personal experience appeared to be an entry point
into the discussion for most of the students. After
Alicia's introduction of her own personal experience,
the other students brought forth examples and
information related to their own. Timfs remark that if
someone shot him with a real gun it would hurt, brought
the response from Tina that he would die. Nathan then
said that he had a pop gun. Roland added that he also
had a pop gun and that he also had a real gun.

Since this was the topic in which the discussion

76

was centering Kristin began to speak with the students
about guns, specifically pop or cork guns. The following
segment about guns represents Kristin's attempts to
intervene to highlight gun safety and the students
readily picked up on her question. They continued with

examples from their own experiences.

Tim: My aunt bought me a shot gun.
But I broke it cuz I didn't like shot
guns.

Roland: I had a shot gun.

I broke the back of it off and I should
of had it.
I had a...

Kristin: If you have, if you have a pop gun, or a
cork gun like this, um, what do you need
to do with it?

I mean, what's a safe way to play with
it?

Tina: Don't shoot it to the wall.

Kristin: Yeah, you wouldn't want to shoot anybody
would you?

Alicia: And don't point it at nobody!

Kristin: And don't point at anyone.

Tina: Yeah, and point it at the wall.

In this segment Kristin acknowledged and validated
the student-introduced topic involving their personal
experience. The topic happened to involve guns and she
remained on that topic although she confined her remarks
to cork guns, not following through at this point with
the topic of real guns mentioned by a few. Being
allowed to express their personal experiences and
knowledge seemed to have a somewhat liberating effect on
the students. They entered the discussion more freely,
and they began to volunteer answers that went beyond

77

simple phrases and one-word answers.

The discussion continued with further talk
regarding guns hurting people and specifically the cork
gun in the book hurting the nightmare. Alicia again

sought to introduce her personal experience.

Alicia: No, I mean you know what?
My brother has a real gun.
veice: (inaudible)

Kristin: And did it hurt?

Alicia: My brother had a real gun at my uncle's
cuz he shoots deers, and he put some sand
in it and he shot my sister with the
sand.

Kristin: Ooh.

And I suppose that hurt a lot?

Alicia: My mom yelled at him.

Kristin: All right.

I'm glad she did, that's real dangerous.

Permitted to bring personal experiences to the

table allowed for dramatic experiences to come forth as
exemplified in Alicia's recounting of her brother
shooting her sister with sand. Kristin used this moment
as one in which to "teach" the students. She expressed
her opinion that she was glad Alicia's mother yelled at
her brother, then justified it with the explanation of
his action being really dangerous. Throughout the rest
of the discussions Kristin continued this practice of
stepping in at a moment when she felt it necessary to
address a particular social issue.

Although the students were able with minimal success to

provide justifications and address character

78

motivation, it was through personal experiences that
they seemed to seize the initiative rather than simply
follow the teacher's lead. Only when students were
given the opportunity to share their experiences did
they become comfortable in initiating and sustaining
talk. They participated readily and frequently.
Finally, after sharing many personal experiences,
Kristin ended the discussion by telling them that their
discussion time had concluded.

Student to student talk Before the introduction of

 

literature discussion groups, Kristin discussed the
importance of fostering student-to-student
conversations. Kristin's commitment to this goal was a
driving force in her early efforts to apprentice her
students into the discussion practices. Yet the first
discussion was dominated by one-line utterances between
students and teacher. There was, however, a minimal
amount of student-to-student talk. Two examples of this
occurred: the first example consisted of seven responses
before an utterance by the teacher, and the second
consisted of five responses prior to the teacher's
utterance. I found it interesting that each of these
two examples of student-to-student talk occurred within
the context of talk about personal experiences.

The first episode of student talk was related to

79

the topic of guns. Tim had just offered his opinion
that being shot by a cork gun would hurt. Kristin
revoiced and broadcast this idea, which seemed to be the

prompt for other students to address this topic and each

other.
Tim: Ouch! That's hurt.
Kristin: It probably hurt, didn't it?
Tim: (inaudible) shot me with a real gun
that would really hurt.
Tina: You would die!
Nick: Yeah!

It would go through your, it would go
through your...

Alicia: Neck!

Kristin: It could.

It could.
Tim: It couldn't
Roland: Go through your neck cuz your neck is...
Nick: It could go through anything.

Thus the students began to sustain the conversation
when the topic was of personal relevance or
significance. This was the first time the students were
listening to, extending and responding to each other.
Another instance of student-to-student talk did arise
later in the discussion. Although this exchange seemed
prompted once again by Kristin's revoicing of a
student's idea, the student-to-student talk centered on
a clarifying question issued to Roland by Tim. Again,
the emergence of genuine response among students occurs
in the context of their personal interests and
experiences.

Alicia: They're gonna make a fake gun.
Kristin: Yeah, it is a fake gun isn't it.

80

Roland: No, it is not.

I had a...
Tim: A real one?
Roland: No, a little toy gun.

And it had a trick and it had sticky
things and I shot it up in the air and it
didn't come back down.

Roland made the counterclaim that it was not a fake
gun. When he began to introduce the idea that he had
something, Tim spoke directly to Roland asking him if it
was a real gun. Roland replied back directly to Tim and
told him that it was a toy gun, and then he explained
how it worked.

Kristin: It didn't come back down.

Tim: Yep, I know what he talking about.

One of things, the sticky thing like that
you that you shoot at your windows.
And it stick on there.

The literature discussion afforded Tim the
opportunity to clarify, explain and extend Roland's
statement. Rarely in the traditional curriculum do
students with disabilities have opportunities to do so.
Hence, discussions seemed to provide the forum for the
students to participate in these practices.

Despite her belief in the importance of
student-to-student talk in the discussion process, it
occurred just twice. Relinquishing control of the
discussion to the students is not always easy to enact

although the belief in its importance is in place.

81

Relinquishing control takes time and it was central to
Kristin's participation in all the successive
discussions throughout the rest of the semester.
Use of the book during_the discussion phase

Kristin did not have multiple copies or class sets
of books. Consequently there was only one book present
when the discussions were held. Kristin established
herself as a master of reading books upside down as she
would always lay the book on the table in front of the
students, so that they could see and read it. The
students were involved while she read aloud and were
enthralled with the illustrations, frequently pointing
to them and commenting about them. Tina enjoyed the
illustrations immensely and I frequently noticed that
she would light up when she saw many of the pictures and
would poke Alicia's arm. Both Tina and Alicia often sat
next to each other, and seemed to share their enjoyment
and reactions to the story.

When Kristin had concluded the reading of the
story she would leave it in front of the students on the
table during the ensuing discussion. During the
discussion of There's a Nightmare in My Closet there was
little overt use of the physical book during the
discussion, although it was present the entire time.
Kristin at one point did refer to the book when the

82

students were first talking about the boy shooting the
nightmare. She pointed to the cork gun on one of the
pages and asked the students if they knew what kind of
gun it was pictured. The diScussion continued on about
how to use the gun and the book was not used again.
Perhaps because of the heavy emphasis on personal
experience by all of the students during the first
discussion, referral to the book was not crucial. As
the weeks progressed, the use of the book gained in
importance and played a more significant role.
EESEEEELE

The second book discussion was Bigmama's (Donald
Crews, 1991). This discussion occurred on March 6,
1996, two months into the study. The percentage of
teacher responses to total responses was 45% which was
the exact percentage of teacher responses in the initial
discussion of There's a Nightmare in.my Closet.

One reason for examining this particular discussion
was Kristin's introduction of a "seed" on this day. The
seed was a metaphor selected by Kristin to scaffold her
students' talk. She was continually searching for new
ways to support or guide her students. For this lesson
she utilized an erasable white tablet board with magic
markers to make visible the idea of a seed. She brought
the board to the reading table and explained to the
students that when they introduced a seed, or an idea

83

that could be built upon, she would draw a seed on the
board. Each time a student elaborated upon the seed she
would draw a root, a part of a stem, a leaf and a
flower. As their talk about the seed grew, the drawing
would grow, hopefully into a complete plant with roots,
stem, leaves and a flower. One of Kristin's goals for
introducing the seed metaphor was to help students to
develop a focused discussion, with less jumping around
and less extraneous talk.

An important factor for including Bigmama's was the
arrival of Jose, a new student. Jose had been in a
general education second grade classroom up until this
date. The basic reason he was moved, as Kristin relayed
to me, was that his teacher could get him to do no work.
There had been a new student to join the group before
Jose. However, by the time Jose entered the group on
March 6th, it had met quite a few times. In fact,
Bigmama's was the 16th discussion. Meeting together to
discuss a book was an established routine and the
students had begun to appropriate the social discursive
practices as will be described below. For these reasons
Jose was the first newcomer to enter the group.

A last factor in the decision to examine Bigpapa;§
was that Alicia seemed to accept new leadership in the
group. She had always been an active participant and

84

continued to be for the remainder of the semester.
However, it was of note, to find that Alicia also came

forth as a leader and force in Bigmama's.

 

Teacher Participation in Literature Discussion Group
apprenticing Students in the Discussion Process

Two months had passed between the first discussion
and that of Bigmama's (Donald Crews, 1991). By this
time the students appeared to be in the process of
appropriating the discussion process and discursive
practices. This movement affected Kristin's
participation and her apprenticeship. Because the
students floundered in the very basics of being able to
give facts of the story, placing them in sequence, and
expressing their feelings and ideas, Kristin had little
opportunity prior to this time to focus on the social
practices of a good discussion. Social practices that
Kristin emphasized throughout the discussions were: one
person talking at a time, eyes on the person talking,
talk only about the book, and it is OK to disagree.
These practices embodied the "how to" of a discussion.
The social practices were differentiated in this study
from cognitive practices or strategies or the "what" or
content of a discussion.

Now, however, Kristin was able to devote time to
apprenticing the students in the "how" of having a

85

discussion. Two variants of her efforts appeared in
Bigmama's. First, she indirectly guided the students as
opportunities arose and told the students how to
participate. Her attempts to guide the students and fine
tune their appropriation of procedures was evident
throughout the discussion. One example appeared at the
beginning of the talk when Tina pointed to the page in
the book that she liked.

Kristin: OK, so all of you told about lots of

parts you like in the book.
Tina: I didn't.
Kristin: Oh, I'm.sorry.
Tina:(pointing to page)
This one.

Kristin: (speaking to group) What are you going to
ask?
You're not just going to tell us that you
like a part.

Alicia: Why did you like it?

Kristin: Yeah, why did you like it?

we want to know!

Tina: Because the uncle came.

When Tina indicated a part of the story she liked,
Kristin utilized that moment to gently prod the students
to prompt other student speakers to support and justify
opinions. She asked the group as a whole to think how
to respond when a.member had stated that she liked a
particular part, ("What are you going to ask?") Without
directly telling the students to ask a question, she
positioned them to receive and respond to other
students' ideas. Following this she stated simply that
one doesn't just mention what they like, (You are not
just going to tell us...") Thus, Kristin used the

86

situated context of the discussion to guide the students
rather than directly pre-teach these skills. That this
coaching strategy was successful seems indicated by the
fact that Alicia immediately asked Tina why she liked
that story part. The students began to appropriate this
request for justification within this and subsequent
discussions. Yet, when the students appeared to miss an
opportunity Kristin stepped in as a guide and model.
Kristin also directly taught the interactional
processes to her students, as seen in an extended
episode that appeared in the beginning of the
discussion. Jose, new to the class and literature
discussions, had been interrupting Kristin. She
responded to him, then directly instructed the whole
group in one of the conversational facets of holding a

discussion.

Kristin: Jose, you've got to let me talk too, OK?
I hear Alicia talking and Tina talking to
each other and actually looking at each
other when they are talking.

But you know what?

You're doing that when somebody else is
talking and you're talking so quietly
that I don't think Theo can hear it over
here.

I don't think Jeremy can hear right
beside me.

Can you hear what they're talking about?
You can't, can you, because they're doing
it so quietly.

So if you guys want to talk about
something in the book, that's fine. Just
make sure nobody else is talking and make

87

sure it is loud enough so that we can all
hear.

In this episode Kristin had overheard Alicia and
Tina talking to each other, rather than addressing the
group. Kristin wanted to emphasize the importance of
social cohesion and communication in the discourse
group. She recognized that her students needed to learn
how to access the speaking floor. Not only did she
address not talking when someone else is talking, but
also the importance of speaking loud enough so that all
members could hear. Then Kristin transformed the
exchange between Alicia and Tina into an example of good
discussion procedures. She spoke to Alicia asking her
to broadcast the small exchange with Tina to the larger
group.

Kristin: Alicia, could you say that again real
Iggdjust asked Tina a very, very nice
question, but I don't think everybody
heard.

Ask it again.

Alicia: Tina, what was your bestest picture?

Tina: When the man said, "Don't leave the
babies on the bus."

Kristin validated Alicia's question when she asked
her to repeat it to the group. In this way Kristin used
the moment-to-moment interactions to teach both the
social, linguistic, and cognitive processes underlying

book discussions. Kristin used Alicia's question to

88

teach and model for the entire group. In turn, Tina's

appropriate response also demonstrated that students

could ask and respond to questions posed by their peers,

another important aspect of holding a discussion.

Throughout the discussions, Kristin worked with the

students to model, guide and transform.the talk within

the context of the interactions. For example, when the

students were talking about Arthur's personal experience

with fishing poles, Alicia addressed Kristin who then

guided her to ask others.

Alicia:
Kristin:

Tim:
Kristin:
Arthur:
Tina:
Kristin:
Alicia:
Kristin:
Tina:
Alicia:

83.:
Alicia:

Teacher.

You know what, don't ask me.

Think of somebody else you might want to
ask something to.

Like.me!

OK. We're going to really try hard today
to look at other people when we're
talking.

Can we look at you too and look at
others?

What was your favorite part of the book?
Wait, wait, wait, it's already going on!
When they took off their socks.

Tina, can you ask Alicia again?

I don't think everybody heard, and you
had a really good question.

What was your favorite part? (looking at
Alicia)

When they took off their socks and shoes.
(laughter)

WHY! (altogether)

It was funny! (laughs)

It might have been stinky! (all laugh)

This episode showed that students were beginning to

understand the elements of participating in book

discussions. After Kristin's initial response to Alicia

not to direct a question to her, Tina took the floor and

89

asked Alicia for a favorite part of the story. Kristin
affirmed with enthusiasm in her voice that good
discussion procedures were already taking place. Asking
Tina to repeat what she said Kristin 'replayed' the
interaction so that others might observe and learn from
Tina's example. The students further proved they were
taking as their own the procedures of discussion when
they asked in unison "WhyI", thereby positioning Alicia
to justify why it was her favorite part. Students were
assuming the conversational roles that their teacher had
modeled.

Later when Theo asked a question that no one heard,
Kristin felt the need to directly instruct the students
in how to employ good listening practices. Again she
brought the group together and reviewed a variety of
procedures.

Kristin: Theo just asked Tim a really good
question, but I don't think everybody
heard.
we're not keeping our eyes on the person
talking.
we're really jiggling.

Let's all sit back down.

Come on.

Okay.

Get ready.

Theo, let's get everybody ready because
we're not listening.

Nathan, Nathan, hold on.

Are we all ready to listen?

83: Yes, yes.

90

Kristin: Okay.
Try it again Theo.

Kristin brought a variety of social processes to
the attention of the group. Extended student-to-student
talk seemed to be the immediate result. Shortly after,
the students opened the book and attempted to clarify
what items were illustrated in the book. The students
discussed the illustrations with no extraneous talk for
17 utterances. Given her continual efforts to nurture
the communicative environment for discussions, Kristin
reinforced the social processes she had observed, but
felt compelled to push for even greater levels of
successful discussions. The achievement of group
cohesion proved elusive for this group of struggling
readers. Students had begun to talk to each other but
they needed to talk to the group.

Kristin: You know what?

Stop!

Everybody stop.

I really really like the fact that you‘re
looking at each other.

But you know what's going on?

we've got a conversation here, we've got
a conversation here, we've got a
conversation here.

I don't like that.
Because we're supposed to have one big

conversation.

You don't have to talk to the person next
to you.

You can talk to anybody in our whole
group.

How many conversations do we have going
at one time?

91

88: One.
One.
One.

Thus, students in the discussion of Bigmama's were

 

talking to each other, a condition entirely absent from
the first discussion of There's a Nightmare in My
Closet. They spoke for an extended period,
demonstrating a beginning adroitness in how to talk and
respond, and extend each other's ideas. Kristin could
now address procedural points since she no longer had to
struggle with the expressive language problems so
evident in the first discussion. After the students
responded that one conversation should be going on at a
time Kristin continued with apprenticing the students
through direct teaching.

Kristin: One.

So if you're talking just to the person
beside you nobody else can hear you.

And you might have something really
important to tell us that we all want to
hear.

As students began to talk, Kristin immediately
responded when she noticed Theo speaking when others
held the floor.

Kristin: Oh, Theo, stop.

Do you see Nathan and Alicia already
talking to each other?

Then can you talk to them?

Okay.

Let's move on to something else.

92

These kids had lots of fun at Big Mama's
house.

While Kristin was talking, Jose, the newcomer,
tried to interrupt. This prompted Kristin to reteach
the procedure of not interrupting others, which was the
occasion to apprentice Joe in the social processes of
book discussions.

Kristin: Because you know what?

You know what, Jose?

I'm talking right now so you need to
listen

to me.

we're just interrupting each other and I
think we're being real disrespectful to
each other.

Arthur just said, boy our seed hasn't
grown much, has it?

Following this extended stretch of teacher talk the
students employed the procedures and behaviors that she
addressed. This discussion was twice the length of
There's a Nightmare in My Closet. The discussion of
Bigmama's contained 433 utterances, while that of
There's a Nightmare in My Closet had 207 utterances.
The above example occurred just over the halfway mark
and for the remaining half of the discussion Kristin did
not need to address forthrightly the rules and
procedures. She gently guided them as circumstances
arose as in the following examples.

Arthur: Had he ever been on a train before?
He started...

93

Kristin: Ask that question of somebody, Arthur,
that's a good question.

Arthur: Has he ever been on a train before?

Arthur repeated his question but not to a
particular member. Kristin guided again when Tina
questioned her.

Tina:(to Kristin) That's probably his family.

Kristin: Tell somebody else.

Tina: Alicia, that's probably his family.

This time Tina not only repeated her comment but
directed it away from Kristin and to Alicia. In this
manner, Kristin apprenticed her students in how to
initiate talk with other members of the group. She
tried to step back from the authoritative stance of the
teacher who receives the questions and comments of the
group. A little later on Kristin spoke to the fact that

Arthur was not paying attention doing so through this

brief exchange.

Kristin: (to Arthur) Did you hear anything Alicia

said?
Ted: Yes.
Arthur: Yeah.
Ted: She miss her grandma.

Kristin: Are you sure?
Because you were talking right when she
was talking.
Tina: One person talk at a time.
This was an exchange I particularly enjoyed because
not only did Kristin quietly and gently guide Arthur in

94

his discussion behavior but little Tina joined in with
Kristin in apprenticing the others in the procedure that
one person should talk at a time, ("One person talk at a
time.")

Kristin's apprenticeship in the discussion
procedures was beginning to result in an enhancement in
student participation in Bigmama's. The students came
to this discussion with a basic grasp of how to hold a
discussion. Although some coaching by Kristin remained
necessary, she apprenticed the students throughout the
overall discussion through questions, rebroadcasting
particular interactions, or making slight suggestions.
However, even this second approach was not frequently
employed. The students had taken control of some of the
social practices enabling them to focus on the
discursive practices.
apprenticing Students in Discursive Practices

Bigmama's by Donald Crews was uniquely different
from the other books discussed. It is autobiographical
in that Donald Crews, who grew up in Newark, New Jersey,
describes one of his childhood summer visits with his
family to Bigmama's in Florida. "Bigmamafi is what the
family called their grandmother. The entire book
pictures a little boy and his family engaged in summer
activities at Bigmama's house in the country. The book

95

ends with an illustration depicting an adult man is
depicted looking through a window at the night skyline
of a large city. On this final page, the main character
states that he sometimes thinks that he might wake up in
the morning and be at Bigmama's with the whole summer
ahead of him. It is not explicitly stated in the book
who this adult is and his connection to the story.

Kristin did substantial work in bringing the
students to this point, through careful guidance, but
rarely told the students. She utilized her metaphor of
a seed to scaffold their performance. The seed was
introduced on February 29th, six days prior to the
discussion of Bigmama's. She drew upon the metaphor for
the third time with this discussion. With each related
idea stated by the students that connected to a
preceding idea Kristin would draw roots to the seed,
then a stem, leaves and a flower. As discussion of a
particular topic was deepened and sustained by the
participants, the seed grew into a flower.

Early in the discussion of Bigmama's Kristin asked
the group to come up with a good seed. The students had
been listing parts of the book that they liked to that
point. The students managed a few attempts before Tim
eventually presented an idea that proved to be a good
seed.

96

Kristin:

Nathan:
Kristin:
Jose:
Kristin:

Nathan:
.Alicia:

Tim:

Kristin:

Tim:
Kristin:

Jose:
Kristin:

Nathan:

Producing a good seed was challenging.

expression of a part that he liked.

about how one participates in a book discussion.

Now who can come up with a good seed.
Okay, let's put this book back here for
just a minute.

Some of you have reminded me that I
haven't started making the roots grow out
of our seed yet.

Me, me, me.

What would be a good seed for our...

I like...

No, not something you like.

we already talked about things that you
like.

What would be a good seed for our story
that we could keep growing as we talk.
They went fishing.

So, Tina, what was your favorite picture
in this?

I know.

we went to Bigpapa's.

Oh, say it again, Tim.

Because, the girls were talking over
here.

I don't think they heard that.

we went to Bigpapa house.

They went to Bigmama's and Bigpapa's
house.

I think that's a great seed.
seed)

So let's put our seed in here, so now we
want to build on things on Tim's seed.
The uncle didn't want to pick them.up
with the haystack and the horses.

Yeah, he didn't want to pick them up with
the horses did he?

Yes!

(drawing

JOSE

responded to Kristin's request for a seed with a simple

Jose, being the new

student, revealed what might be salient to newcomers

For

many students, the nearly formulaic response of "I like"

provided a visible port of entry into the discussion.

97

Even newcomers could grasp the structure and meaning of
this move. It provided easy access to the
conversation. In addition, Roller & Beed, (1994) stated
that even adult evaluations of books often begin with "I
really liked..." Timfs response, however, was deemed a
more promising seed by Kristin. Although the
grandfather's name of Bigpapa was mentioned the book
title was BigmamaJs. Throughout the story the family
spoke of visiting Bigmama's. Yet Bigpapa was the term
employed by Tim in his attempt to express his idea.
Kristin revoiced his idea and extended it by inserting
Bigmama to the response. .A seed was drawn on the white
board but the students did not focus their talk around
it. They continued with what they liked, referring for
the third time to the part when the conductor called out
for the passengers not to leave the babies on the train.
Young students gravitate to humorous parts of a story.
The humor can be another hook into the story as appeared
to be the case in Bigmama's. The students referred to
the conductor's joke several times in the discussion.
Kristin acknowledged this was a favorite part, then
began to have the students think about the relationships
of the characters leading up to talk about the adult
pictured on the last page.

Tina: When the man said, "Don't leave the

babies on
the bus.

98

Tim: That was a joke.

Kristin: That was a joke wasn't it.
It was funny.
I saw a lot of you laugh when I read that
line.
Did you think that was funny, Jeremy?
(Jeremy nods)
That was good.
I'm confused about something maybe you
can help me out.
The whole story was about these kids and
their mom who wanted to visit.
And Bigmama was who?

Alicia: Their mom's mom.

Kristin: Which means she was what?

Alicia: The grandma.

Kristin: She was a grandma.

Alicia was able to employ retrospective thinking
and drew inferences from the connections and meaning of
the text. Realizing that this relationship with Bigmama
was understood. Kristin asked the students for help in
clarifying relationships and settings. Prior to
Bigpapa's, discussions were not based on
autobiographical material. The connection between
Donald Crews as a boy and as an adult on the last page
proved to be a difficult concept for the students to
grasp. Yet with Kristin's guidance, the students
eventually realized the connection and subsequently
engaged in a discussion of author's intent.

Kristin: well help me figure this out.

I don't understand how the whole thing
was about the fun things they do at
Bigmama's house and then at the end here

we have a man who lives I mean it looks
like he's living where?

99

Arthur: In the city!
In the city!
Kristin: In the city, it looks like he's living in

the city.
So he's not here at Bigmama's where she
lives.

Tim: Bigpapa.

Nathan: Bigdada.

Tim: Bigpapa.

Jose: That's the mom's wife.

Alicia: Wife! (laughs)

Kristin: well, listen to what it says here, listen
to what it says.
Right here on this page it says:
"The night was jet black except for the
millions of stars.
we could hardly sleep thinking about the
things to come."
So where are they right now?

It appeared that Arthur realized that the adult was
now living in the city, "In the city! In the city!"
However, the relationship of the adult to the earlier
characters in the book was implicit. The students'
abilities to engage in inferential reasoning was
undeveloped, so Kristin bridged the gap as she sought to
help them understand the retrospective technique of
flashback. She had to fill in the cognitive gaps to
build bridges between the events of the story. She then
refocused on the setting by reading from the end of the
book, then questioned them as to the setting. Following
initial confusion, the students concluded that the
family is in Bigmama's backyard.

Kristin: So where are they right now?

100

outside.

Tim: In the city.
Alicia: At home.
Nathan: At home.
Kristin: Where are they?
Tina: Outside.
Kristin: Where?
.Alicia: Outside in the backyard.
Kristin: Where?
Whose backyard?
Alicia: Bigmama's and Bigpapa's.
Kristin: So they are still at Bigmama's.

Tina understood and identified the setting as

addition of,

"Outside in the backyard."

Alicia built on that information with the

She became more

precise when questioned by Kristin, labeling the
backyard as Bigmama's and Bigpapa's. WOrking together,
the two students and Kristin constructed the setting of
the second to last page in the book. All the family is
out in Bigmama's backyard gazing at the night sky.
Alicia, who was the first to identify Bigmama as the
children's grandmother, DOW‘WOIKEO with others to
accurately describe the setting. She was also the first
to connect the boy in the story as the grown up on the
last page, taking 14 utterances to realize the

connection, as shown below.

Kristin: And are these grown up adults or are
these kids?

Alicia: Kids.

83: Grown ups.

Kristin: Kids.
So that I don't understand why this is,
that on this page...

Alicia: That's the dad.

Kristin: It's not.

That's not the dad.

101

Nathan: Aw, that's the kid.
Kristin: What did...

Tim: The kid.
Kristin: But he doesn't look like a kid.
Alicia: He's a dad, he's a dad now.

He grew up.

The difficulty of inferencing was evident by the
fact that Tim.and Nathan remained confused, in this
exchange referring to the adult as a kid. .Alicia,
however, realized that it was an adult, coming to full
realization with her last response that one of the
children had grown up.

When provided with the opportunity to draw connections,
and when guided by the teacher, special education
students were able to draw inferences.

Nevertheless, Kristin's efforts to prompt
understanding of the deeper meaning of story events did
not immediately prove successful. Subsequent talk
returned to basic facts from the story. Four pages of
transcript continued in this manner until Kristin grew
frustrated and felt the need to intervene again with her
metaphor of the seed.

Kristin: That's what our seed needs to grow and
we haven't been talking much about that
so our seed hasn't grown much.

All I keep hearing over and over is I
like this part and I like that part and
that's important and that's good to talk
about but we really have already talked
about that quite a bit.

The students were intrigued by the author's

102

position in the story as a boy and as an adult. What
the teacher desired was difficult for them to understand
or achieve. Alicia, Arthur, and Jose continued to
question and talk about the author, Donald Crews. Once
again, Kristin followed their lead and used their talk
about the author, to push them.to consider ideas outside
the immediate facts of the story.

Kristin: But I'm.wondering why Donald Crews, why

do you think he wrote this book?

Tim: It was a good book.

Arthur: I liked the book.

Kristin: I was thinking maybe even more.

Because sometimes when we write a book
you have a reason for writing it.

Like when you write in your journals you
have a reason fer writing what you wrote.

Alicia: Because it might happen to him.

Kristin: Oh my gosh, Alicia, say that again!

Jeremy he didn't hear I'm sure.

When Kristin asked for author's intention, the talk
began with the familiar and comfortable "I like"
responses. When students didn't understand the topic
question, they fell back upon the language that was
comfortable and that provided them.aome entry to the
discussion. Kristin then made an analogy to the
students' own journal writing. This connection to their
personal lives ("Like when you write in your journals,
you have...") seemed to then enable Alicia to provide a
reason for why Donald Crews wrote the book, "Because it
might happen to him." This breakthrough led the

103

students to build together the relationships of the

people pictured. Kristin allowed them to direct the

discussion, then interjected again the idea of the seed.

Kristin:

Tina:

Oh my gosh!

Now our plant is growing!

That was some good things that we're
talking about now!

we're really moving here.

So we talked through that Donald, or that
this man was remembering the grandma.
And now, Alicia, wow, she thinks that
maybe Donald Crews, the author, there's
his name Donald Crews is writing about...
Himself!

Besides developing students' abilities to infer

relationships and author's intention, Kristin introduced

talk about the illustrator. She began by speaking

directly to Tim but then included two other students.

Kristin:

Tina:
Kristin:
Jose:

Kristin:

Tim, this is something else that I have a
question for you.

I don't see anything on here usually on
the front cover is where the author's
name is,like Donald Crews and it's also
where the illustrator's name is, Jose.
Can you see that, Jeremy?

I'm sorry. (showing him the book)
There's the author's name.

I don't see an illustrator's name on
here.

Me either.

What do you suppose that means?

Maybe he's the author and the
illustrator.

Oh, Jose.

Say that again.

Kristin did not preteach the concept of

illustrator.

Instead she wove thinking about the

illustrator into the evolving conversation. She

mentioned that usually on the front cover one could find

104

the names of the author and illustrator. Earlier
Kristin had done the same thing when she told the group
that she was confused about who a character might be,
instead of directly asking them to define a
relationship. In this manner, she took the position of
a participant in the group, modeling her own questions
for the group to consider. Although Tim did not
respond, she later included Jose's name, the new
student. Jose eventually conjectured that the author and
illustrator might be one and the same. Kristin was
thrilled, ("0b, Jose!") and acknowledged the importance
of his inference by positioning Jose to broadcast his
theory to the group. She gave further reinforcement to
Jose when she continued to talk about his conjecture of
one person being both the author and illustrator.
Kristin: Jose thinks he may be the author and

illustrator.

If that's the case who drew all these

pictures?
Student Participation in Literature Discussion Groupg
Student Initiated Topics Analysis of There's a
Nightmare in My Closet and Bigmama's suggested that
students were more confident in their use of discussion
responses over time. Whereas in There's a Nightmare in
My Closet there was only one student-initiated topic,
personal experience, there were seven student-initiated
topics in Bigmama's. Without prompting from Kristin,

105

the students introduced topics and with one exception,
extended student talk arose from these student-initiated
topics.

Theo opened the discussion by introducing
evaluation when he said that he liked, "...that part um,
when they didn't get to ride on the tractor." Jose, the
new member, who had no initial instruction in

discussions followed Theo's lead and immediately stated

a part that he did not like.

Theo: I like the part, I like the part when
they um, I like that part um when they
didn't get to ride on the tractor.

Jose: I didn't like the part when they wanted
to go on the horses.

Alicia: Why?

Jose: With the haystack?

Alicia: Why?

Arthur: Why you didn't like it?

Theo: Yeah, why you didn't like that?

Tina: Why didn't you like it?

Jose: Why, because they always wanted to.

Nathan: When they catch the fish.

Theo: I like when they catch the fish.

Alicia: Why?

Why?

Tina: Why?

You didn't say nuthin yet.

Arthur: Why you all keep saying why for nothing?

Tim: Because I feel like it.

Nathan: You're supposed to.

The evaluations by Theo and Jose were not supported

or justified by the students.

The formulaic phrases "I

liked" and "I didn't like" were a way into the
discussions but were not developed across speakers.
Roller & Beed,(1994) suggest that formulaic "I likes" or

106

unsupported evaluations might be a way for readers with
disabilities who are often described as passive, to
enter a discussion and display enthusiasm.

What distinguished Bigmama's from the first
discussion was the students' assumption of responsive
roles that had been previously held by the teacher.
After he stated what he did not like, Jose seemed to be
caught unawares by the barrage of questions by three
members. Alicia was the first to question Jose and
request support for his opinion. Tina revoiced Alicia's
question, and this persistence finally brought Jose into
giving a justification ("because they always wanted
to"). Although it is uncertain what Jose meant with his
response, he did provide further explanation or
justification. It was noteworthy that Jose had been
guided to the point of providing this justification
solely by other students. Thus, the students who had
participated in the prior discussions had appropriated
discursive practices associated with justification.

They were pushing the thinking and talk of other group
members.

There were other examples in the second discussion
of the development of discussion practices by students.
Alicia, for example, began to demonstrate her ability to
step into the practices laid down by her teacher in
prior discussions. For example, in the breakout

107

conversation between Alicia and Tina that Kristin
rebroadcast to the group, Alicia takes up a "teacher"
position by saying, "Tina, what was your bestest
picture?" Tina's response to Alicia's question referred
to a part of the book beloved by the other students as
well as herself. It was a part they repeatedly referred
to throughout the discussion. Although Tina identified
the setting as a bus rather than the train she correctly
stated what the conductor had said, "Don't leave no
babies on the bus." Tim followed up with the statement
that it was a joke.
Another shift occurred in topic initiation related
to author's purpose or motivation. Although students
had difficulty inferring character motivation in the
first discussion, they were able to initiate talk about
the author's motivation in Bigmama's. When it had been
established that the adult pictured at the end of the
book they were reading was the author, Kristin asked
"What is he doing?" Several students presented
responses that indicated a lack of understanding, such
as, "He's going to Bigmama's." Alicia though, initiated
the beginning idea of author's intent, "He's might
thinking of his grandma."
Kristin: I don't think he's leaving.
Jeremy, what do you...

Tim: He's leaving Bigmama!

Kristin: He's not going to visit Bigmama.
He's an adult now so what probably

happened to Bigmama.
108

Alicia: She's dead.
Kristin: Yeah, she might be dead.
That happens when you get too old.
Jose: He might go back to town.
Alicia: He's might thinking of his grandma.
Kristin: Ooh!
Alicia, tell Jose that, I don't know if
he heard you.
Alicia: He's might thinking of his grandma.

Jose: Why?

Tim: Why?

Kristin: Why would he be thinking?
Alicia: Because his grandma's dead.

Kristin: Maybe because his grandma's dead.
Arthur: He probably miss his grandma.

Alicia demonstrated her comprehension when she
stated that Bigmama was dead at the time Donald Crews
was an adult. She then showed her incipient
understanding of author intent by introducing the idea
that Donald Crews as an adult might be thinking of his
grandma. Arthur built on Alicia's idea, providing
further insight into the author's state of mind when he
added that Donald Crews might be missing his grandma.
Thus, the group that could not infer the character's
motivation in the Nightmare in my Closet were beginning
to infer the author's and character's emotions and
motivations.

The final part of the discussion spread over
several pages of transcript, 34 utterances, and centered
around the last two pages cf the story book. One page
pictured a night sky filled with stars. This
illustration seemed to spur Tina into initiating talk

109

relating the book to one's own life and experiences.
She took the floor and mentioned the school activity the
class had participated in the previous day.

Alicia: Maybe he wants to put flowers on his

grandma's grave.
Kristin: Oh, I think those are good ideas.

Tina: we saw stars yesterday.
Kristin: Say that again.
Tell Theo.

I don't think he heard you.

She remembered something we did
yesterday.

Where did we go yesterday?

Nathan: The fair.

Kristin: To the planetarium.

Where we did what?
we looked at stars.

Tina initiated the response category of relating
the book to personal experience through an example of
the class trip to the planetarium. The stars pictured
in the night sky in the book reminded her of the stars
seen very recently in the planetarium. Kristin invited
her to repeat it, through the technique she employed
with some frequency, asking a student to say something

again because she did not think another student heard it

the first time. Again, personal experience was a way or
hook into books for the students. Thus, Kristin tried
to rebroadcast and revoice initiations related to
personal experience.

A second occurrence of student-initiated topics
presented itself while discussing activities in which

110

the children partook while at Bigmama's. Alicia
initiated the topic of personal experience. The
students had mentioned twice in the very beginning of
the discussion that one summer activity at Bigmama's was
fishing. Alicia now introduced a personal experience of
her own in which fishing was involved, proving that

again experience was a way to connect to books.

Arthur: He miss her!

Kristin: He misses her, yeah.

Jose; He loved her.

Alicia: Teacher, when we went camping it was my

first time that I caught a fish, but it
was too little and I had to throw it

back.
In the book Bigpapa's the page devoted to the

children fishing in the pond included Donald Crews
yelling, "A FISH! A FISH! I GOT ONE, I GOT ONE!"
Alicia responded to the experience in the book with a
similar personal experience of her own. Alicia's
experience led to a short discussion about personal
experiences about fishing.

Student-to-Student Talk Examination of the

transcripts found multiple examples of student-to-
student talk in the discussion of gigpapa;§ compared
with the minimal amount found in There's a Nightmare in
My Closet. Ten instances of student-to-student talk
occurred during Bigpapa's contrasted to just two in the
first discussion. The length of the student-to-student
passages also differed sharply, as well. Whereas the

111

first discussion had two examples of student-to-student
talk consisting of a chain of seven student responses,
and another chain of five student responses, the chains
in Bigmama's extended to 20 and 36 student responses in
Bigmama's. The average number of utterances for the two
exchanges in There's a Nightmare in My Closet was six,

while the average for Bigmama's was ten utterances.

 

Although Kristin's percentage of responses in each of
the two discussions was identical, (45%) the students'
participation had significantly changed. From barely
being able to relate basic story facts in There's a
Nightmare in My Closet, the students had moved to being
full participants in the discussion. They now
introduced topics themselves, employed discussion
procedures, and talked to each other for extended
periods.

The first example of student-to-student talk
occurred early when Nathan pointed to a page in the book
and said that he liked that part. A small exchange
among the students followed.

Nathan: (pointing to book) I like this part right

Alicia: 3:2: that boy stuck up his hand?

(looking at book where Nathan is
pointing)

Arthur: I liked the part when he said, "Don't

leave the babies on the train!"

Jose: I liked the part where they said, "That's
a fall..."

112

Nathan: Can I see it?
Jose: I'll show you.

Although there had been an earlier segment of
discourse where the students gave many responses without
Kristin intervening, much of it was not connected.
Several students stated what they liked about particular
facets of the book with no comments by other members
directed to what they had said. But in this segment,
follow up responses and connections did occur. After
Nathan said that he liked a specific part, Alicia asked
for clarification, "When that boy stuck up his hand?"
Although Arthur and Jose each offered their own examples
of what they liked, Nathan asked Jose if he could see
the part in the book that he liked. Jose responded that
he would show him the part. Jose's comment showed agency
and ownership of the book and his interpretations. This
exchanged ended when Kristin dealt with behavior as they

crowded around the book.

A longer example of student-to-student talk
appeared later when Alicia mentioned her personal
experience related to fishing. Arthur then introduced
his fishing experience with an 11 response chain
occurring.

Arthur: Me and my sister we used to have a
little, um, a little um, fish..(gesturing

113

with arms to show a fishing pole)
Nathan: Fish tank?
Arthur: No, fish pole, fishing poles, but I
(unintelligible) Snoopy.
My sister she had Miss Piggy.
I don't know where they at though.
They probably up in the attic.
we got a attic at our home.

Alicia: What, what's in the attic?

Arthur: Our fishing poles.

Or my uncle got em, my uncle, the one
that got em.for me.

Jose: Go check in the attic then.

Nathan, Alicia and Jose directed their comments and
questions directly to Arthur with each pertaining to
something he had mentioned. Nathan tried to scaffold
Arthur's talk by supplying the words "fish tank" when
Arthur couldn't think of the word fishing poles and was
gesturing. Arthur introduced the idea that his poles
might be up in the attic and Alicia asked him to clarify
what was in the attic. Jose gave evidence that he was
following the talk when he told Arthur to go up to the
attic and check for the poles. Student-to—student talk
that particularly interested me occurred when Kristin
gave the floor to Theo to ask a question. The length of
the chain was 18 responses, and the students worked
together to construct their understanding of what was
pictured in the book. One of the illustrations in
Bigmama's shows many fishing poles leaning against a

well and the boy Donald is using a rake to dig worms

114

 

from the pile of cane pulp. Theo asked for
clarification and several students constructed together
what was happening on that page.

Theo: Do you like that part when the, what's

the one when he got that?
(gesturing movement with arm.of raking

motion)

Tim: The worm?

Theo: No, the rake.

Alicia: The fishing pole? (Theo makes a face)

Theo: No, the rake, watch this. (looks through
book)

Alicia: He didn't get no rake!

Theo: Right here.

Alicia: Oh, that ain't no rake!

Theo: What is it?

Alicia: Is it?
Arthur: It's a haystack!
It's a haystack rake!
You go..(he makes raking motion with his
arm)
Jose: Why?
Why?
Arthur: He had to move the haystack to find the
worms.
Tim: Why?
Why, Theo?
Why?

Prompted by Theo's question ("Do you like the
part...?"), four of the students worked together
clarifying for Theo and themselves what was occurring on
the page in the book that Theo had brought to their
attention. They struggled to connect the rake, cane
pulp, and the character's intent to find worms for
fishing. However, Jose's "Why" question creates a
cognitive space for Arthur to explain, "He had to move
the haystack to find the wonms." These very young,
special education and at-risk students utilized

115

discussion procedures to develop their understanding.

Theo's tenacity was evident as he struggled to get
his idea and question across to the others. Although he
made a face of frustration at Alicia's response, ("The
fishing pole?"), he searched through the book to find
the picture or word that might help get his meaning
across. While be searched, Alicia offered a counterclaim
with some emphasis, "He didn't get no rake!"

Alicia's next response proved to be quite
interesting and telling. When Theo finally located the
picture and pointed to the rake, her immediate response
was, "Oh, that ain't no rake!" However, when Theo then
asked what it was, Alicia showed the ability to step
back and self-evaluate with her next response of, "Is
it?! She had listened to Theo, looked at the
illustration he had presented as evidence for his idea,
and then displayed the maturity to question her own
thinking. Arthur brought the ideas together and
Jose who was participating in his first discussion
seemed to have grasped from the others that one asks
others "why?" when an idea was proposed. Although he
only said the one word "Why?“, the timing of his remark
might have meant he was asking why the boy was using the
haystack rake. Arthur seemed to have understood the

116

question that way and completely finished his thought
with the explanation that the boy had to move the
haystack to find the worms.

This example indicates the dramatic growth the
students had made since the first discussion of There's
a Nightmare in My Closet. They were now able to
participate in an extended dialogue with the
participants jointly constructing understanding and
meaning together. Further, Tim gave evidence at the end
of this segment of taking on discussion practices before
fully understanding them. His repeated use of the word
"why" does not appear to indicate that he was looking
for clarification, as perhaps Jose had done.
Particularly since he used Theo's name when it had been
Arthur who offered the explanation Tim seemed to know
that a discussion member asked why of another member but
had not understood when, how or why that was done.

Thus, students stepped into practices to participate in
the conversation before they were fully proficient in
their meaning and use.

Although this exchange ended when Kristin took the
floor to speak about behavior, the students participated
in another extended student-to-student exchange a short
while later. Having determined that the adult on the
last page was the author Donald Crews, the students were
focused on the illustration of him. The illustration

117

appeared to prompt this exchange. After talking about

the seed, Kristin reiterated the conclusion they had

drawn.

Kristin: So we talked through that Donald, or that
this man was remembering the grandma.
And now, Alicia, wow, she thinks that
maybe Donald Crews, the author, there's
his
name Donald Crews, is writing about...

Tina: Himself!

Kristin: Himself!

Arthur: Is he black?
Is he black?

Kristin: I don't know, what do you think?

Tim: Black!

Arthur: Yeah.

Alicia: (pointing to picture in book)
They're black.

Theo: Maybe this may be him.

Arthur: Are we everyone, he went on the train
before?

Alicia: Too many people talking.

Arthur: Had he ever been on a train before?
He started.

Kristin: Ask that question of somebody, Arthur,
that's a good question.

Arthur: Has he ever been on a train before?

Nathan: we're getting off the track.

Tina: That's too much people.

Nathan: we're getting off track.

Arthur: Has he ever been on a train before?

Tina: No, yes, no.

Alicia: He was on it right here.

(looks for picture in book)

Although it differed in form from the previous

example this segment of student-to-student talk also
revealed interesting elements by the students. The
discourse began when Arthur, who is African-American
himself, asked if Donald Crews was black. At this
moment in the discussion I had thought that this

question would lead into more extensive talk on this

118

point than it did. After Tim and Alicia confirmed that
Donald Crews was black, Arthur seemed satisfied and
moved to a new idea, posing the question about Donald
Crews having been on a train before.

The student-to-student discourse continued
following this question but it now dealt with the
discussion procedures of not getting off the track and
only one person should talk at a time. Although Alicia
first mentioned the group's behavior, Nathan and Tina
took it up with Nathan repeating it a second time.
Nathan had not participated for awhile so the use of
this formulaic phrase of getting off track might
indicate that the use of this phrase was a way for him
to gain entry back into the discussion.

An additional lengthy episode of student talk
occurred over three pages of discourse toward the end of
the discussion. All of the students except Jeremy
participated in this episode, which was precipitated by
Alicia's excited exclamation that the illustrator of
Bigmama's was Donald Crews. Thirty six responses were
made by the students with a few utterances by Kristin.
Furthermore, when Kristin participated, her responses
did not appear to direct or influence the talk of the
students. Read as a whole, one can follow an extended
piece of student-to-student talk not directed or guided
by responses from Kristin.

119

Alicia:

Tina:
Arthur:
Tim:
Kristin:

Him!

Him!

Him}

Donald Crews!

That's not his family.

That's probably his real family
That is his family.

That's a great idea!

That might be.

Tina:(to Kristin)

Kristin:
Tina:
Nathan;
Alicia:
Tina:

Jose;

Alicia:
Arthur:
Tina:
Tim:

Kristin:
Nathan:

Arthur:

Kristin;
Jose:
Tina:
Jose:

Kristin:
Arthur:
Kristin:

Tina:
Jose:

Alicia:
Tina:
Jose:
Alicia:
Tina:
Jose:
Alicia:

That's probably his family.

Tell somebody else.

Alicia, that's probably his family.

I didn't hear.

That's probably his family.

He probably drew it because he missed
them.

He probably drew it because he loved
them.

Or he could be thinking of his mom.

He could be thinking of his WHOLE family.
He could be thinking of...

He might be worried.

He might be worried.

Wait a sec, Tina.

He may be thinking about his mama and
dad.

He might be thinking about his whole
family.

Not just his grandma, his WHOLE family.
I think you're right.

I think he loves his...

He's probably gonna visit his grandma.
...his mama or Bigmama because all that
fun stuff that they had.

Oh, I think that's a great idea.

we just said that!

I think I'd have to agree with you guys
with what you just said.

They probably live far away so he drew a
book about them.

Being he wanted to, why he wrote about
them, he might love her.

Why?

Yeah, why?

Because being...

That's not funny, Tina.

I'm not laughing.

It's because he might love her so much.
He might miss her a lot.

120

Kristin: I think you're right.

Alicia: Cuz that might have been his great great

great great grandma.

This segment provided further evidence that
students were beginning to regulate the group, as well
as their own performance. Nathan' statement of "I
didn't hear" was a breakthrough for him. He had
appropriated the social practices modeled by the teacher
and he communicated his expectation that, as a member of
the group, he should be able to hear everything said in
the discussion. Examples such as, "That's not funny,
Tina“, and "I'm not laughing" further speak to the
students' efforts to regulate their own participation as
well as that of other members.

Second, the students provided evidence of their
developing cognitive abilities. Instances of
inferencing occurred on the part of several of the
students. ("That's probably his real family", "He might
be worried", and "He may be thinking about his mama and
dad".) The students also demonstrated insight into the
their Author's Intention. ("He probably drew it because
he missed them." and "They probably live far away so he
drew a book about them")

Third, students employed the practice of asking
other members for justification of their ideas, asking
"why" when Jose stated a hypothesis about Author's

121

Intention. "Being he wanted to, why he wrote about

them, he might love her." Tina's response of, "Yeah
why?", might indicate that when she heard Alicia ask
why, it dawned on her too that Jose should explain why.
One last instance of student-to-student talk came
at the end of the discussion. It is a nice exchange of
seven responses in which the students once more worked
together to clarify and construct meaning. This episode
was prompted by Arthur posing a question about whether

there was a grandpa in the book.

Arthur: Was there a grandpa?
Tina: Big Daddy.
Nathan: Big Daddy.
Tina: Big Daddy.
Arthur: Bigpapa.
Kristin: Bigpapa, yes.
So that will be the grandpa.
Jeremy, is there anything you want to add
to our discussion?
Alicia: (looking at book) He's right there.
Nathan: No, that's big, fat...
(Arthur, Nathan and Alicia intently look
at a picture in the book)
Arthur: That's they, that's they uncle.
Alicia: Uh Uh.
Arthur: Yes, it is.
Alicia: Cuz the kids haven't moved there yet?
Tim: What state is it in?

Tina and Nathan immediately spoke to Arthur's

inquiry with a logical inference that there might be a
"Big Daddy", although it was not the term used in the
book. Their answers seemed to prompt Arthur who then
gave the term of Bigpapa which was used in the book.
After Alicia's referral to the book, "He's right there",
she and Nathan and Arthur used the book as a tool to

122

help them.with clarification. ‘

Use of the Book This last example and others cited
above showed the powerful influence of the illustrations
in young children's discussions. The text and pictures
of Bigmama's was used throughout the discussion. Barely
into the discussion Alicia pulled the book close to
herself to find the page where the conductor made his
joke. She wanted to show the group as well as tell them
her favorite part. Nathan and Arthur looked avidly at
the book to where Alicia was pointing as she spoke about
her favorite part. The book was passed continuously
among the children throughout the entire discussion as
they used it to aid them in backing up what they were
saying and to help them when they lacked the language as
Theo did in the discussion about the haystack rake. In
that extended segment of talk about the rake, all the
students involved, not only Theo, pointed to the
illustrations as they worked to clarify what the
implement was and what was occurring in the story.

The book was a beneficial tool used by students and
Kristin alike for clarification. It was an advantageous
aid in that it afforded discussion and clarification
opportunities. Alicia pointed to an illustration when
she asked Kristin who a particular person was, with
Kristin then pointing to the page as she attempted to

123

answer.

Alicia: Teacher.

What was that boy when he grew up?
What boy was he? (point to the little
boys in the illustration)

Kristin: I don't know that, I don't know that.

It didn't really tell us a name.
So it would have to be one of these two
probably. (pointing to illustration)

Arthur also used the book for clarification when
the students were working through the relationships of
the characters to Bigmama.

Kristin: Whose grandma might she be?

Alicia: The dad's.

Arthur: Him. (pointing to book)

Alicia also used the book to offer a clarification
when Arthur inquired if Donald Crews were black. She
pointed to an illustration of the characters in the
book. All of the extended family members in the story
were drawn as African-Americans, and using the
illustrations as her justification she stated, "They're
black."

Kristin also utilized the book in several ways in
her apprenticeship of the students. Twice she read
directly from it to the students in the midst of the
discussion. She wanted them.to realize who were the
people at the end of the story, as they were standing
looking up at the night sky. The characters were dark
shadows outlined in the night sky and not readily

identifiable as the characters pictured throughout the

124

book. She reread from the book.

Kristin:

well, listen to what it says here, listen
to what it says.

Right here on this page it says:

"The night was jet black except for the
millions of stars.

we could hardly sleep thinking about the
things to come."

So where are they right now?

Since there remained some confusion Kristin again

read from the last page where Donald Crews mentioned

that even now he thinks he might wake in the morning and

find himself at Bigmama's.

Since Donald Crews is both author and illustrator

Kristin used the book in discussion of these teams and

to help identify Donald Crews in both roles. She opened

the talk about these terms by holding up the front of

the book and thinking aloud.

Kristin:

Tim, this is something else I have a
question for you.

I don't see anything on here usually on
the front cover is where the author's
name is, like Donald Crews and it's also
where the illustrator's name is, Jose.

Feeling compelled to continuously reach out to

Jeremy and draw him in, Kristin addressed him.and turned

the book his way.

Kristin:

Can you see that, Jeremy?

I'm sorry. (showing him.the book)
There's the author's name.

I don't see an illustrator's name on
here.

Tina, who had also been looking at the book as

125

Kristin mentioned the two terms, replied with, "Me
either." The students took the book and looked at it
together. Jose suggested that maybe Donald Crews was
both the author and illustrator. At this point the
students were looking at the book together as the talk
continued. In this manner, the use of the book enabled
the students and Kristin to work together expressing
their ideas and jointly constructing understanding.

The Birthday Thing

The third book discussion examined was The Birthday

 

Thing (SuAnn and Kevin Kiser, 1989). This final
discussion of the study occurred on May 23, 1996. The
percentage of teacher responses was 38% compared with

45% for There's a Nightmare in My Closet and Bigmama's.

 

Kristin continually searched for new ways to
support or guide her students. Instead of using the
seed metaphor, Kristin now utilized a book discussion
poster. She had revised the poster begun in January and
had referred to it in each discussion since April 17th.
One of Kristin's goals for introducing the poster was
for the students to discuss an array of topics. The
poster was placed on the window sill next to the
discussion table so that it was continually available

for the students.

126

Teacher Participation in Literature Discussion Group
apprenticing Students in Discursive Practices

Early in the discussion of The Birthday Thing
Kristin directed the students to the poster to help them
think about what to say. Although the discussion began
with participation by Jose, Theo and Arthur, the early
talk did not produce a topic of conversation.

Kristin: Theo was going to say something.
Arthur: Right when Jose was talkin.

Theo: You took my question.
Arthur: Who?
Theo: You did.

Arthur: I didn't say anything.

Kristin: well if you can't think of anything to
talk about what can we look at that might
help you think of something?

Kristin used an indirect approach, "...what can we
look at..." to prompt the students to use the scaffold
of the poster to support their own talk and
participation. Later in the discussion Kristin employed
a more direct approach. After 14 utterances by the
students about what they had given their mothers for
Mether's Day, Kristin steered them toward the poster, to
identify other topics, in a forthright manner.

Kristin: OK. Here's what we need to do.

Look up at the poster, with all those

different things we can talk about.
Jose: I could probably my...

127

Kristin: And think something up and ask somebody
in the group.

Following Kristin's directive, "look up at the
poster", the students briefly discussed the category
fiction/non-fiction. However, Kristin directed the
students once again to the poster when the talk quickly
shut down. She asked the students what else they could
talk about, and when no other topic was offered, she
answered her own question by suggesting Self-in-
Situation which was listed on the poster as Relates to
Your Life.

Kristin: OK. So we talked about if it's a real

story,it's a non-fiction story.
But what else on that poster could we

talk about?
Jose: Uh, I don't know.
Kristin: What was this boy's name?
Timothy.

What about if you were Timothy?

The students responded to the suggestion of putting
themselves in Timothy's place by hypothesizing a variety
of situations, such as "Instead of making her a cookie
dough, I would start getting me a vase...", and, "Make
something, then buy a present and then get some
flowers." When this talk subsided, Kristin brought the
group back to the poster.

Kristin: He's trying to think of something.

Can that help you think of what you were
going to say, the poster?

Jose: Can we listen to it again?

Arthur: Can you say them?

Kristin: Title, illustrations, author, author's

128

purpose, characters, setting, problem-

solution...

Arthur: Is the setting where they are?

Kristin: Um, hm.

Arthur: They are in the kitchen.

Kristin's efforts to prompt talk related to another
topic succeeded when Arthur introduced the setting.
However, it is important to note that Jose and Arthur
indicated that they could not read what was written on
the poster. None of the students could read beyond a few
sight words and although they might have recognized the
importance of referring to the poster they could not
read it. Jose indicated this with his query, "Can we
listen to it again?" Before she read the day's story,
Kristin would read through the poster to the discussion
members. By asking to listen to it again, Jose
indicated his need to have Kristin read the list before
he could respond to her request. Arthur expressed the
same need quite directly with, "Can you say them?“ Once
they had been read aloud, Arthur was then able to
introduce the topic of setting, having first clarified
the meaning. For the remainder of the discussion
Kristin did not again guide the students to
the poster. The students talked about setting and
author's intention and a lengthy passage of student-to-
student talk in which they clarified for each other a
particular section of the book.

One of the difficulties faced by the non-readers

129

was evident was made evident by the questions of Jose
and Arthur. Yet, when the information was presented to
they orally as well as in written form they were able to
present new topics to the group for discussion. Thus,
scaffolds must be accessible to be effective.
Student Participation in Literature Discussion Groupp
Student Initiated Topics Analysis of The Birthdaquhing
suggested that the students continued to initiate topics
as they had in There's a Nightmare in My Closet.
However, several topic initiations followed promptings
by Kristin to refer to the topics listed on the poster.
Instances of initiating personal experiences had
occurred at the onset of the discussion. The students
described what they had given their mothers for
birthdays and Mother's Day such as, "I gave my mom a
vase with a balloon in it..." and, "Me and Alicia had a
good plan but we didn't go, we were going to take our
moms out to eat." After several of these examples
Kristin directed the students to the poster and they
began to introduce other topics including Author's
Intention and Fiction/Non-Fiction.

Jose: I think the author probably wrote it to

tell you to get your ma something like

that.
Kristin: Do you agree, Arthur?
Jose: .And it's real too.

130

Arthur introduced setting into the discussion at a
later point and a conversation eventually ensued around
that tapic.

Arthur: Is the setting where they are?

Kristin: Um, hm.

Arthur: They are in the kitchen.

Kristin: Why do you suppose the setting is in the
kitchen?

Arthur: Because at first he was in there with his
mom, then, then he was in the kitchen all
day, the whole book about him in the
kitchen.

And then he went back to the office.

Arthur used the book to find the picture of the
mother in the room he labeled an office. The mother is
pictured, in the beginning of the book, seated at a desk
in a den or family room of the house. The computers,
phone, books and papers pictured on the desk seemed to
lead Arthur to believe she was in an office.

After the students briefly talked about the picture
Arthur reintroduced Author's Intention. He built upon
Jose's description of a picture he liked.

Jose: I like when he, when he got the dough and
start hammering with his elbows.

Arthur: Maybe the, maybe that he did that in his
real life.

Maybe the author did.

Kristin: Did what?

Arthur: Both of the authors.

Kristin: Um, hm.

Arthur: Maybe they um, maybe they did the same
thing when, when, um, maybe that happened
to them.

When they was young.

Kristin: Jose, please.

Arthur: When they was making a cake, maybe it
happened
to them and it's about and this happened
to the two authors.

131

Kristin: I think that's a good, a real good point.
Did you hear that, Theo?

Theo: Um, huh.

Kristin: Cuz you didn't have your eyes on Arthur.

Arthur: And maybe their sister did come in and

then the brother and then the daddy.

In this segment, Arthur worked his way through a
logical hypothesis of the intent of the authors in
writing the book. With minimal input from Kristin,
Arthur demonstrated the ability to think outloud and
presented his speculation almost as a work in progress,
adding on to his thoughts as he worked them through in
his mind.

Although instances such as these did occur, there
was not an abundance of student-initiated topics in this
final discussion, seven in all, with three of them
comprised of Personal Experience and Evaluating the
Text. However, perhaps the book The Birthday Thing did
not lend itself to a variety of topics to be talked
about. One of the hooks into the book for the students
did appear to be their identification with Timothy who
made a gift for his mother's birthday. {A good portion
of the discussion, 25 of the conversation turns,
concerned what the students themselves had bought or
made for their own mothers. It took effort by Kristin
to redirect the students to the poster to get them to
move away from examples of personal experiences to delve

into other topics.

132

Student-to-Student Talk Examination of the transcript

of The Birthday Thing discussion revealed three examples

of student-to-student talk. .Although this number was

less than the ten that appeared in Bigmama's, these

three examples comprised sections of lengthy talk among

the students.

The following was one of the examples.

The talk revolved around gifts for their mothers.

Jose :

Theo:

Jose:

Theo:
Jose:

Theo:
Jose:

Theo:
Jose:
Theo:

Tina:

At school I used to uh, uh, at my old
school with only little kids, and so we

eat when we

got to go home in the morning too, in the
class we eat ice cream.and stuff
sometimes,

and we got our hands all painted and
stuff and both of them we had to stick
our(inaudible) in our toes.

An then I took it home and me and my mom
hanged it up cuz...

On Mother's Day I thought it was my mom's
birthday.

I thought it was my mom's birthday.
Mother's Day is when you give Mothers...
On Mother's Day you could give mother
present, yup, anything, flowers like I
did I gave my mom.

I gave my mom...

I gave my mom a vase with a balloon in
it, a heart balloon and a heart balloon
hanged up and it said I love you.

I gave my mom...

It said I love you and she hanged it up
and then it had a teddy bear that had a
heart pin that said I love you.

And my dad, he said...

The balloon said Happy Mother's Day.

And uh, and me and my dad and my brother
we bought my mom a necklace.

And my dad bought her a card.

I gave my mom a...

This passage extended student talk although it was

not interactive and Jose dominated throughout. Theo,

133

however, did mention that he thought Mother's Day was
his mom's birthday and described what he and his family
bought. ("And uh, and me and my dad and my brother we
bought...") Tina decided to enter at this point of the
dialogue, but Kristin entered and attempted to give the
floor to Sally. "Have you ever given your mom a
present, Sally?" Sally remained silent and Tina entered
with her experience, "Me and Alicia had a good plan but
we didn't go, we were going to take our moms out to
eat." This stretch of student talk ended when Kristin
directed the students to the poster.

Student-to-student talk with a decidedly marked
difference occurred later in the discussion. Rather
than the unconnected talk of multiple students listing
experiences, as in the first example, the students
interacted with each other to construct meaning. The
illustration of the birthday 'thing' intrigued the
students and together they constructed, through 26
conversational turns, the meaning of the 'thing'.
Related to this topic engaging illustrations appeared to
be a further hook into the discussion and meaning for
the students. Throughout the discussion they turned the
pages and pointed to the multiple parts of the thing.
The students' keen interest in the illustration prompted

134

 

v I

the following extended passage. The book was opened to
the page with the birthday thing sitting on the mother's

desk during the following student-to-student talk.

Tina: It looks like a pot.
Jose: That is a pot.
Arthur: It's a teapot.
Jose: He put the pot down and then he put the
lid on it.
Arthur: And then this was a tray.
This was a tray, this was a teapot.
Jose: That he made.
This was the cookie thing.
Arthur: This was the cookie thing.
Theo: I can't see nothing.
Tina: That was the girl's, that was the girl's
finger.
Theo: Can I see it?
Can I see it?
Tina: She was poking the dough back.
Arthur: It look like a face!
Jose: It kind of looks like an elephant.
Arthur: It looks like an, it looks like an
elephant.
Jose: Yeah, cuz you can tell by the trunk, it
looks like a trunk.
Arthur: And there goes the trash.
Theo: Then it turned in.
Arthur: Then cuz he was painting it.
Theo: Yeah, he was covering it.
Jose: He painted the, his...
Theo: Then they said, is it a tray?
Is it a...
See it was cool.
It look like a...
Kristin: OK, let's see what kind, tell me what

we've talked about.

This exchange ended only when Kristin announced

 

that it was time to stop the discussion and review what
topics they had addressed. Throughout this episode the
four students looked at the book together and pointed to
the parts of the 'thing' as they spoke about them. None
of the students interrupted each other and the talk was

135

connected, as each speaker built upon the meanings and
ideas of the other speakers. The talk moved from what
the thing was, a pot, a teapot, there was a tray etc.,
to what it looked like. "It kind of looks like an
elephant." "Yeah, cuz you can tell by the trunk, it
looks like a trunk." The picture of the completed
birthday thing could very well be construed as an
elephant. The students realistically described what
they saw.

Within this passage Theo provided evidence that he
understood some discussion processes when he stated, "I
can't see nothing." In order to continue to construct
meaning with the other discussion members Theo knew that
he needed to see the illustration being used as a tool
for understanding by the group. When he still could not
see the page, he persisted with, "Can I see it? Can I

see it?"

136

Chapter Five
Discussion

I conducted this study to learn if and how a group
of primary grade students in special education together
with primary grade at risk students would evolve from
neophytes into full participants in literature
discussions. I was particularly interested in how the
students' participation would change over time as they
acquired experience in literature response. Tied to the
change in student participation would be the role the
teacher would assume in the discussions in supporting
the students' developing concepts of literature
response. In this chapter I discuss what I learned
after observing the classroom discussions over an
extended period, and following the analysis of the
transcripts of those discussions.
Research Question 1: How do young special education/at
risk students participate in literature discussion
groups and how does their participation change over time
as they acquire experience in literature response?

Growth in participation of the students was evident
from the first to the second of the discussions
examined, as well as successive growth from the second
to the third analyzed discussion. Three phases of

development in student participation seemed to occur

137

 

during the semester of discussions. At the beginning of
the study, the first phase, the students struggled with
all facets of holding a discussion. During this initial
phase, they displayed a.willingness to participate but
demonstrated definite confusion in what to say and how
to say it. A distinct characteristic of this first
phase of discussions was the overwhelming need of the
students to acquire a discourse for talking about books.
Due to the lack of these discursive practices it was
nearly impossible for a discussion to take place.

A second feature of this initial phase was the
students' struggle with the social processes of holding
a discussion. Generally, they followed Kristin's lead,
trying to respond to her questions, but they initiated
no topics of their own except for the expression of
personal experience. Their talk was characterized by
one-line utterances that moved between student and
teacher, and they were not successful in using
communication devices, such as looking at, listening and
responding to each other. Extended student-to-student
talk proved too difficult a challenge at this early
phase of participation.

The second phase was markedly different. By this
time, after experience with literature response for two
months, the students demonstrated definite appropriation
of some of the discursive practices and social processes

138

of the first discussion. They proved able to employ
retrospective thinking and to draw inferences built upon
the connections among the meanings of the text. They
also showed facility with Author's Intention, providing
plausible hypotheses as to why the author may have
written the book.

In addition, Students became more capable in the
various facets related to holding a discussion that
proved so formidable in their initial encounter. With
no prompts from Kristin, they introduced response
categories into the discussion that were of interest to
them. After introduction of a topic, the students were
able to extend their talk with each other as well as
with their teacher. Even if a topic was introduced by
Kristin, such as Author's Intentions, the students often
'jumped in' and carried through with appropriate talk on
that topic. They no longer had the severe problems with
expressive language, so evident in phase one.

Growth also occurred in their mastery of the social
and communicative processes. Students now directed
questions and comments away from Kristin and to each
other. They built upon information provided by other
members, adding their thoughts and producing chains of
student-to-student talk. During extended segments of
student talk, they showed signs of appropriating
'teacher' roles that began to emerge. Students asked

139

each other for evaluation and justification
and demonstrated comprehension of how to hold a
discussion by speaking one at a time without
interrupting each other or engaging in multiple side
conversations at once.

By the third phase, the 'hows' and whats' of

holding a discussion were solidly in place. Students ;

 

did not rely as heavily on prompts from others but
provided justifications of their own as soon as they
provided evaluations of the story. Instances of deep
understanding of the social processes appeared as the
students asked for the book to be held in an alternate
position because they could not see it as it was, or as
they asked other discussion members to repeat themselves
or to speak louder because they could not hear. These
student comments appeared for the first time in this
third phase, whereas Kristin had provided support for
students by asking other discussion members to speak up
or to repeat so that all members could hear, or she
would ask a child to pass the book so that another could
see it.

The students no longer relied on the formulaic
phrases of "I liked" and "Why". They had internalized
some of the processes and therefore focused on

140

constructing conversation together. They were no longer
so tethered to following Kristin or relying so heavily
on prompts from her and each other.
Research Question 2: What role does the teacher assume
in literature discussion groups in supporting the
students' developing concepts of literature response?
Kristin's role also evolved through the three
phases as had that of the students. Since she supported
and scaffolded the students as they progressed in the
appropriation of the discussion practices and processes,
her participation was one of continuous change. In the
first phase, her role needed to be one of intense
support for the students. Grappling with the challenges
presented by the low abilities of the students in
organizing their thoughts and presenting basic facts,
coupled with their difficulties in understanding how to
hold a discussion, Kristin needed to work intensely
every moment of the discussion. She attempted to
position her students to justify their evaluations and
to anchor their comments about story events to a story
timeline. As she engaged in teaching discursive
practices she also modeled and led the students in order
to make visible and explicit the connections necessary
for comprehension. Thoughtfully she directed and guided

the students as they slowly proceeded through their

141

initial experience with literary response.

Kristin's role was significantly different in the
second phase. The students no longer floundered so
dramatically in the social processes, and had taken as
their own some of the discursive practices. Therefore
Kristin focused her support and scaffolding on a larger
array of the 'hows' and 'whats' of a discussion. She
positioned the students to receive and respond to the
ideas of other students to develop their
independence in holding discussions.

The third phase, The Birthday Thing found Kristin
again assuming a very different role. There was almost
no need at this point for any scaffolding or support in
the social processes. The students apprenticed one
another, spoke directly to each other and generally
looked at the person speaking without interrupting.
There was little need even for her guidance in these
processes. Realizing these processes were in place
Kristin worked with the cognitive literary responses.

The front end of the final discussion was filled
with personal experiences of the students. They
provided multiple examples and spoke in some length
about their experiences. This response proved to be a
good entry for the students into the discussion. Yet,
now, Kristin seemed to feel that it was time to broaden
their use of responses. Using the poster of responses

142

she worked at securing a larger scope of topics from the
students. There was some success in her endeavor,
although the book did not avail itself to a wide array
of topics for discussion.

Ipplications for Literature Discussions and Primary
Grade Students in Special Education and those who are At
Risk This study suggests that literature discussions
can be an avenue into literacy for the special
education/at risk population of young children. There
are several possible aspects to the discussions in this
study that attributed to the development of the students
into discussants. These aspects may be unique to this
study but careful study might infomm the development of
other groups of students into full participants in
literature discussions. Several implications can be
drawn from this study. One set of implications relate
to certain characteristics of the teacher. These can be
beneficial to the development of the students into
discussants. Although each teacher is unique, these
characteristics could be transformed through their own
individuality.

A second set of implications relate to the
students. This study indicated that students in
.special education were able to participate after time,
quite fully in discussions of literature. This might

143

encourage teachers considering new methods of helping
their students to introduce discussions into their
classes.

Teacher Kristin brought several characteristics to the
study that enabled the students to progress as they did.
First, she was totally committed to transforming her
reading instruction, and literature discussions were to
be a major part of that transformation. Her commitment
was sorely tested throughout the semester yet she
persisted until the end of the school year. Although it
was her initiative to introduce the discussions, after
the first discussion she was afraid they would never
succeed. Yet, she was so committed to the project that
she did continue, although she periodically despaired
throughout the duration of the study and wondered if
anything at all was being achieved. Reflecting on the
progress that was attained and her contributing role,
Kristin stated that she believed that a teacher
embarking on implementation of discussions should have
someone to support her. At the end of the study Kristin
told me that my presence and support along with my
continual encouragement kept her involved in the
project. Further reflection on her part during the
intervening years, brought forth more insights as to

what kept her going in the face of what appeared to be

144

so little growth. Kristin stated that because each
discussion was audiotaped or videotaped she persevered,
knowing her work was captured on the tape.

A second important characteristic of Kristin's was
her flexibility and responsiveness to students. Much
of her support was embedded within the topics and
conversations initiated and sustained by the students.
Therefore, she worked with the students in their level
of development, and through the discourse they provided.
She allowed the students ample opportunities to talk
about and enjoy the humor that appealed to them. Humor
can be a 'hook' into the story for many young children.
By allowing the students to engage in and enjoy the
humor in a book, Kristin helped her students attain and
retain interest in the story. This interest could then
lead to reflections on other aspects of the story.

Personal experience can be another 'hook' into the
story for young children. Kristin appreciated her
students' enthusiasm in talking about their experiences
related in a story. Although Kristin wanted at times to
move the students to other response categories she did
allow them sufficient time to fully explore their own
experiences and interests. By doing so, she again
fostered a way for the students to get 'hooked' into a
particular story. Once completely engaged with the

145

 

\

O .-

story she then guided the students into other directions
as well.
Students

A second set of implications relate to students.
When provided with repeated opportunities in which to
express their thoughts and feelings, such as literature
discussion, young children in special education were
able to rise to the occasion. Many children in special
education receive little chance to do so throughout
their school day. But with opportunity and support they
proved able as well as eager to express their opinions,
experiences and feelings. They were able to discuss
literature in the same manner as more traditional
readers, yet they did so while being able to read only a
handful of sight words. vygotsky (1978) suggested that
language is fundamental to thinking. If our classrooms
encouraged all students to partake in substantial talk
they could develop higher levels of thinking, even if
they were not traditional readers.
Questions for Further Research

This study examined a small group of children
working with a deeply committed young teacher. How
would discussions proceed with other groups of children
and other unique and individual teachers?

At the conclusion of this study, Kristin referred

146

to the student participants as experts who led the other
children in the class. They were sometimes the first to
participate in whole class discussions. Kristin
recently indicated that in subsequent years, the
participants who remained in her class continued their
growth as discussants. Kristin recognized that exposure
to literature discussions made visible abilities and
knowledge otherwise not recognized in special education
and at risk students.

Upon reflection, Kristin stated that she had
changed as far as her perception of herself in the
discussions. She had become relaxed with the
discussions now and participated in them to a lesser
degree. How would the role that the teacher assumed
while implementing literature discussions change as she
worked with them over another semester or two?

It is interesting to note that by the end of the
study Kristin no longer depended upon the researcher to
implement the project. She became committed to the idea
and importance of literature discussions. She now felt
able to sustain the discussions in her classroom on her
own. In fact, four years after this study Kristin
continued to implement discussion groups. A question for
further research would examine what it was that enabled
her to sustain the practice and research of literature

147

discussion groups.

One area worthwhile of future research would be
that of integrating literature discussion groups in
teacher preparation.

Also I would propose that future research address
the establishment of literature discussion groups, as in

this study, but involving more teachers.

148

REFERENCES

149

 

Reference

Allington,R.L.(199l). The legacy of “Slow it down
and make it more concrete". In J.z. & S.
McCormick(Eds.),Learning factor? Teacher factors:Issues
in literacy research and instruction. (40th Yearbook
of the National Reading Conference) (pp.19-29). Chicago,
Illinois:National Reading Conference.

Au,K.H.(1998). Social constructivism.and the school
literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds.
JOurnal of Literacy Research. 30(2)297-319.

Au,K.H.,& Raphael,T.E.(2000). Equity and literacy
in the next millennium. Reading Research
Quarterly,35(1),170—l88.

Bakhtin,M.M.(1986). Speech genres and other late
essays. Austin,Tx: University of Texas Press.

Barnes,D.(1992). From communication to curriculum.
Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.

Barnes,D.(1993). Supporting exploratory talk for
learning. In K.M.& G.Pierce C.J.(Eds.),Cycles of
meaning: Exploring the potential of talk in learning

communities (pp.17-34).Portsmouth, NY:Heinemann.

150

Beach,R.,& Hynds,s.(1991). Research on response to
literature. In R. Barr,M.L. Kamil,P.B.Mosenthal,&
P.D.Pearson(Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume
II (pp.453-489). New York:Longman.

Beach,R.(1993). A teacher's introduction to reader-
response theories. Urbana,IL:National Council of
Teachers of English. Beck,I.L.,& McKeown,M.G.(l981).
Developing questions that promote comprehension:The
story map. Language Arts, 58(8),913-917.

Bloome (1991). Anthropology and research on
teaching in the English language arts. In Handbook of
Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (pp.46-
56). New York:MacMillan.

Bos,C.S.,& Anders,PlL.(1990). Effects of
interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary
learning and reading comprehension of junior-high
learning disabled students. Learning Disability
Quarterly,13(1),31-42.

Brown,A.L.,& Palincsar,A.M.(l989).Guided,
cooperative learning and individual knowledge
acquisition. In L.B.Resnick(Eds.) Knowing,learning, and
instruction; Essays in Henor of Robert Glaser.(pp.393-

451).Hillsdale,N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum.

151

 

Bruffee,K.A.(1984). Collaborative learning and the
"Conversation of Mankind". college English,46(7),635-
652.

Burbules,N.C.(1993). Dialogue in Teaching:Theory
and Pracitce. NY: Teachers College Press.

Cazden,C.B.(1986).Classroom discourse. In
M.C.Wittrock(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching
(pp.432-463). NY:MacMillan Pub.

Chang-wells,G.L.,& wells,G(1993). Dynamics of
discourse: Literacyand the construction of knowledge. In
E.A.Forman,Minick,N.,& Stone,A (Eds.), contexts fer
learning: Socioculturaldynamics in children's
development (pp.58-80). NY: Oxford University Press.

Cianciolo,P.J. (1991) Picture books for children.
(3rd ed.). Chicago:American Library Association.

Cullinan,B.E.(1987). Children's Literature in the
ReadingProgram. Newark,DE: International Reading
Association.

Daiute,C.(l993). Youth genres and literacy:Links
between sociocultural and developmental theories.
Language Arts,70(5),402-441.

Daniels,H.(Ed.).(1996) An introduction to vygotsky.

NY:Routledge.

152

Durkin,D.(1978-79). What classroom observations
reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly, 15,481-533.

Eeds,M.,& wells,D.(l989). Grand conversations:An
exploration of meaning construction in literature study
groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1),4-29.

Englert,C.S.(l992). Writing instruction from a
sociocultural perspective:The holistic,dialogic,and
social enterprise of writing. Jburnal of Learning
Disabilities,25(3),153-172.

Englert,C.S.,Raphael,T.E.,Fear,K.L.,&
Anderson,L.M.(1988). Students' metacognitive knowledge
about how to write informational texts. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 11,18-46.

Englert,C.S.,Tarrant,K.L.,Mariage,T.v.& Oxer,T.
(1994). Lesson talk as the work of reading groups: The
effectiveness of two interventions. JOurnal of Learning
Disabilities, 27,165-185.

Galda,L.(l982). Assuming the spectator stancezAn
examination of the responses of three young readers.

Research in the Teaching of English, 16(1),1-20.

153

Garrison,B.M., & Hynds,S.(1991).Evocation and
reflection in the reading transaction:A.comparison of
proficient and less proficient readers. Journal of
Reading Behavior,23,259-280.

Gavelek,J.R., & Raphael,T.E.(l996). Changing talk
about text:New roles for teachers and students. Language
Arts,73,l82-192.

Gee,J.P.(Ed.).(1992).The social mind: Language,
ideology and social practice. NY:Hergin & Garvey.

Gee,J.(1990). Social linguistics and literacy.
Philadelphia:Taylor & Francis.

Gilles,C.(1990). Collaborative literacy strategies:
"we don't need a circle to have a group.". In K.G.Short
& K.M.Pierce (Eds.),Talking about books:Creating
literature communities, Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.

Glaser,B.G. & Strauss,A.1967). The discovery of
grounded theory: Strategies fer qualitative research
Chicago,IL: Aldine Publishing Co.

Goatley,v.J.(1997).Talk about text among special
education students. In S.I.McMahon & T.E.Raphael
(Eds.),The book club connection:literacy learning and

classroom talk.

154

 

Goatley,V.J.(1991,December) Non-traditional
learners written and Dialogic responses to literature. A
paper presented at the National Reading Conference,Palm
Springs,CA.

Goatley,v.J.,Brock,C.H.,Raphael,T.E.(1995).Diverse
learners participating in regular education "Book
Clubs". Reading Research Quarterly. 30(3),353-380.

Goatley,V.J.,& Raphael,T.E.(Ed.). (1992). Non-
traditional learners written and dialogic response to
literature. In C.K. Kinzer & D.J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy
research, theory, and practice:Views from.many
‘perspectives. Forty-first Yearbook of the
National Reading conference (pp.313-323). Chicago,IL:
National Reading Conference.

Graham,S.,Schwartz,& MacArthur,C.A.(1993).
Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude
toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and
without learning disabilities. JOurnal of Learning
Disabilities,26(4),237-249.

Green,J.L.(1990). Reading is a social process. In
J.Howell & A.McNamara (Eds.), Social context of
literacy, (pp.104-122).

Canberra, Australia:ACT Department of Education.

155

 

Gutierrez,K.D.,& Stone,L.D.(1997). A Cultural-
Historical View of Learning and learning disabilities:
participating in a community of learners. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice,12(2),123—131.

Harste,J.C. (1989).New policy guidelines for
reading:Connecting research and practice. Urbana,
IL:National Council of Teachers of English.

Henson, J.M.(1993). The ties that bind:The role of
talk in defining community. In K.M.Pierce &
Gilles,C.J.(Eds.),Cycles of.meaning:Exploring the
potential of talk in learning communities (pp.37-57).
Portsmouth,NY:Heinemann.

Heshusis,L.(1991). Reading meaning into
texts.Exceptional Children,58(5),472-275.

Heshusius,L.(1989). The Newtonian mechanistic
paradigm,special education,and contours of
alternatives:An overview. Journal of Learning
Disabilities,22(7),403-415.

Huck,C.S.(l990). The power of children's literature
in the classroom. In K.G.Short & K.M.Pierce(Eds.),
Talking about books:Creating Literate communities (pp.3-

15). Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.

156

Indrisano,R.& P.,J.R(Ed.)Children's Literature in
the Reading Program (Second Edition).
Newark,DE:International Reading Association.

Iser,w.(l978). The act of reading:A theory of
aesthetic response.Baltimore,MD:John Hopkins University
Press.

Johnson,D.D.,Pittelman,S.D.,& Heimlich,J.E.(l986).
Semantic mapping. The Reading Teacher, 39(8),?78-783.

Jewell,T.A., & Pratt,D.(1999). Literature
discussions in the primary grades: children's thoughtful
discourse about books and what teachers can do to make
it happen. The Reading Teacher, 52(8).

Kaestle,C.F.(l985). The history of literacy and the
history of readers. Review of Research in Education,
12,11-53.

Kiefer,B.(1983). The response of children in a
combination first/second grade classroom to picture
books in a variety of artistic styles. JOurnal of
Research and Development in Education,16,l4-20.

Lemke,J.L.(1982). Talking physics. Physics
Education. 17,263-267.

Mariage,T.(1991). Breaking the tradition:A case of
analysis of the transformation of an early literacy
context in special education. In a paper presented at
the National Reading
Conference,Paim Springs,CA.

157

 

McDermott,L.C.,(1993)."How we teach and how
students learn: A.mismatch?," American Journal of
Physics,vo1.6l,295-298.

MCGee,L.M.,& Loftus,F. (1991,December). An
Exploration of meaning construction in first graders'
grand conversations. A paper presented at the National
Reading Conference, Palm.Springs,CA.

McGee,L.M.,& Tompkins,G.E.(1995). Literature-based
reading instruction: What's guiding the instruction?
Language Arts, 72,405-414.

McGee,L.M.(Ed.).(1992). An exploration of meaning
construction in first graders' grand conversations. In
C.K.Kinzer & D.J.Leu(Eds.), Literacy research,theory,and
practice: Views from many ‘perspectives. Forty-first
Yearbook of the National Reading conference. Chicago,IL:
National Reading Conference.

MCMahon,S.I.(199la).Book club discussions:Case
studies of three 5th grade students' construction of the
meaning of literacy texts. In a paper presented at the

National Reading Conference,Palm Springs,CA.

158

McMahon,S.I.(1991b).The development of one
student's written and oral texts in different
instructional contexts. (Series No.46). Center for the
Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects,Institute
for Research on Teaching. Michigan State
University:East Lansing.

McMahon,S.I.,Raphaael,T.E.,Goatley,v.J.,&
Pardo,L.S.(Eds.). (1997). The book club connection;
literacy learning and classroom talk.New York and
London:Teachers College Press.

Meyer,D.K.(Ed.).(1993). What is scaffolded
instruction? Definitions, distinguishing features, and
misnomers. In D.J.Leu & C.K.Kinzer(Eds.), Examining
Central Issues in Literacy.

Nussbaum,N.,& Puckett,L.(l990). Literacy through
interaction. In K.G.Short & K.M. Pierce (Eds),Talking
about books:Creating literate communities(pp.83-102).

O'Flahavan,J.F.,Stein,C.,Wiencek,J.,& Marks,T.
(1992,December).Interpretive development in peer
discussion about literature:An exploration of the
teacher's role. Paper presented at the National Reading
Conference. San Antonio,Tx.

Palincsar,A.S.(l986). The role of dialogue in
providing scaffolded instruction. Educational

Psychologist,21(l&2),73-98.

159

Palinscar,A.S. & Brown,A.L.(1984). Reciprocal
teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-
monitoring activities. Cbgnition and Instruction.
1(2),117-175.

Palincsar,A.S.,Brown,A.L.,& Campione,J.C.(1993).
First-grade dialogues for knowledge acquisition and use.
In E.A.Forman,Minick,N.,& Stone,A.(Eds.),Cbntexts for
learning:Sociocultural dynamics in children's
development(pp.43-57). NY:Oxford University Press.

Palincsar,A.S. & Brown,A.L.(1989). Classroom
dialogues to promote self—regulated comprehension. In
J.Brophy (Eds.),Advances in research on teaching
(pp.35-72). Greenwich,CT:JAI Press.

Palincsar,A.S.,David,Y.M.,Winn,J.A.,&
Stevens,D.D.(1991). Examining the context of strategy
instruction. Remedial & Special Education,12(3),43-53.

Palincsar(1991). Palincsar,A.S.,Klenk,L.J.
"Dialogues Promoting Reading Comprehension." In
B.Meaans, C.Che1emer, and M.S.Knapp (Eds.), Teaching
advanced skills to at-risk students. San Francisco:

Jossey 3035,1991.

160

Paris,S.G.(in press). Self-regulated learning
through narrative constructions. In C.E. & M. weinstein
B.L.(Eds.),Strategic Learning:Skill,will,and self-
regulation HIllsdale,NJ:Erlbaumm

Pierce,K.M.,& Gilles,C.J.(Ed.).(l993). Cycles of
Meaning:Exploring the potential of talk in learning
communities. Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.

Poplin,M.S.(1988a). The reductionist fallacy in
learning disabilities:Replicating the past by reducing
the present. Journal of Learning Disabilities,21(7),401-
416.

Raphael,T.(1991,December). Affective and cognitive
purposes of response groups: A qualitative analysis of
elementary readers' response. A paper presented at the
National Reading Conference, Palm.Springs, CA.

Raphael,T.E.,& Englert,C.S.(l990). Reading and
writing:Partners in constructing meaning. The Reading
Teacher, 43(6),388-400.

Raphael,T.E. ,Goatley,V.J. ,McMahon,S.I. , &
WOodman,D.A.(in press).Teaching literacy through student
book clubs:A first year
teacher's experience. In B.E.Cullinan(Eds.),Literature
across the curriculum: Making it happen.

Newark,DE:International Reading Association.

161

new ‘- W. V

Raphael,T.E.,& Brock,C.H.(1993). MEI:Learning the
literacy culture in an urban elementary school. In D.J.
Leu, & C.K. Kinzer(Eds.),Examining central issues in
literacy research, theory, and practice. Forty-second
Yearbook of the National Reading Cbnference (pp.179-
188). Chicago,IL:National Reading Conference.

Raphael,T.E.,& Goatley,V.J.(1994). The teacher as
"More knowledgeable other": Changing roles for teachers
in alternative reading instruction programs. In D.J.Leu
& C.K. Kinzer(Eds.),Mu1tidimensional aspects of literary
research,theory and practice. Forty-third Yearbook of
the National Reading conference (pp.179-196).
Chicago,IL:National Reading Conference.

Raphael,T.E.,& McMahon,S.I.(1994). Book c1ub:An
alternative framework for reading instruction. The
Reading Teacher,48(2),102-116.

Reid,D.K.(1998). Scaffolding:a broader view.
JOurnal of Learning Disabilities,31(4),386-397.

Roller,C.M.,& Beed,P.L.(1994). Sometimes the
conversations were grand, and sometimes...Language Arts,
71(7),509-523.

Rosenblatt,L.M.(1978). The reader, the text,and the
poem:The transactional theory of the literary work.
Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois University

Press.

162

Rosenblatt,L.M.(1991). Literature-8.0.8.! Language
Arts 68(6),444-448.

Roser,N.L.,& Martinez,M.G.(Ed.).(1995). Book Talk
and Beyond:Children and Teachers Respond to Literature.
Newark,DE:International Reading Association.

Rueda,R.,Gallego,M.A.,&Mbll,L.C.(2000).The least
restrictive environment:A place or a context2Remedial
and Special Education,21(2),70-78.

Short,K.G.,& Pierce,K.M.(1990).Talking about
books:Creating literate communities, Portsmouth,NH:
Heinemann.

Slosson,R.L.(1963).Slosson Oral Reading Test. In
East Aurora,NY:Slossen Educational Publication.

Smagorinsky,P.,& O'Donnell-Allen,C.(1998). Reading
as mediated and mediating action:Composing meaning for
literature through multimedia interpretive texts.
Reading Research Quarterly,33,198-226.

Smith, M.W.,& Marsha11,J.D.(1991,April). Toward an
understanding of the culture of practice in the
discussion of literature:An analysis of adult reading
groups.A paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Stone,C.A.(1998). The metaphor of scaffolding:Its
utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal

of Learning Disabilities,31(4),344-364.

163

 

 

Strauss,A. & Corbin,J.(1994) Grounded theory
Methodology-An overviewIn Handbook of Qualitative
Research, N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp.273-285

Straw,S.B.(1990). Reading and response to
literature: Transactionalizing instruction. In S.Hynds &
D.L.Rubin(Eds.),Perspectives on Talk & Learning.(pp.129-
148) Urbana,IL:National Council of Teachers of English.

Villaume,S.K.,& WOrden,T.(1993). Developing
literate voices: The challenge of whole language.
Language Arts, 70(6),462-468.

Villaume,S.K.,& WOrden,T.,Williame,S.,Hopkins,L.,&
Rosenblatt,C.(1994). Five teachers in search of a
discussion. The Reading Teacher, 47(6),480-499.

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

wells,G.(1997).Commentary:Learning to be
literate:reconciling conventions and invention.In
S.I.McMahon,T.E.Raphael,V.J.Goatley, & L.S.Pardo
(Eds.),Ihe book club connection:literacy learning and
classroom talk(pp.107-118).New York and London:Teachers
College Press.

wells,G.,& Chang-wells,G.L.(1992). Cbnstructing
knowledge together: Classrooms as centers of inquiry and
literacy.Portsmouth,NY: Heinemann.

164

 

Wertsch,J.V.(1991). voices of the mind: A
sociocultlural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge,Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.

Wiencek,J.,& O'Flahavan,J.F.(1994). From teacher-
led to peer discussions about literature: Suggestions
for making the shift. Language Arts,71(7),488-498.

WOng,B.Y.L.(1979). Increasing retention of main
ideas through questioning strategies. Learning
Disability'Quarterly.2,42-47.

WOng,B.Y.L., & Jones,w.(1982). Increasing
metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally
achieving students through self-questioning training.
Learning Disability Quarterly 5,228-239.

WOng,B.Y.L.,& Wilson,M(1984). Investigating
awareness of and teaching passage organization in
learning disabled children. Journal of Learning
Disabilities 17,447-482.

WOng,B.Y.L.,WOng,R.,& Blenkinsop,J.(1989).
Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of learning disabled
adolescents' composing problems. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 12(4),300-322.

165

 

 

W1!MIWW‘HHM*IIHIIHI1‘*‘IIm.

 

29 302466 52