Social skills and leadership abilities among children in small-group literature discussions.

Social skills and leadership abilities among children in small-group literature discussions. Many childhood educators are attempting to shift from the dominant"recitation" format of discussions found in today'sclassrooms. This study draws on reader response, and sociocognitive andsociocultural theories to investigate children's perceptions ofsocial skills and leadership moves after participating in small-groupdiscussions of literature for the first time. The researcher intervieweda stratified random sample of 24 elementary-age students afterparticipating in such discussion groups for 4 months. Findings includedthat children perceived incidents of peers who helped, took turns, gotalong, and kept the discussion going. Results suggest that participationin small-group, peer-led literature discussions, with the support ofteacher scaffolding, may support children's social and leadershipskills. Keywords: literature discussion, social skills, elementary school ********** Many educators are attempting to shift from the dominant"recitation" format of discussions found in today'sclassrooms (Almasi, 1995). Such recitations are manifested as an I-R-Ediscourse structure--an all-too-familiar sequence whereby the teacher"initiates" a question, students "respond" to thequestion, and then the teacher "evaluates" the response(Cazden, 1988). The goal is to replace this pattern of recitation (oftenfocused on discrete facts and skills) with a pattern of collaborativemeaning-making through a model that promotes analysis, reflection, andcritical thinking. Small-group literature discussions should be part ofa balanced approach to reading instruction in elementary schools, evenin classrooms with the very youngest readers and writers (McGee &Richgels, 2004; Pressley, 2006). Researchers have termed literature discussions as"instructional conversation" (Goldenberg, 1993),"dialogic inquiry" (Wells, 1999), or "dialoguing tolearn" (Barnes, 1993). Multiple classroom strategies exist forimplementing text-based discussion in the elementary classroom (e.g.,Gambrell & Almasi, 1996). Some examples of specific pedagogicalmodels of text-based discussion have included book club (e.g., Raphael,Pardo, & Highfield, 2002), literature circles (Daniels, 1994, 2002,2006), or grand conversations (Eeds & Wells, 1989) (for acomprehensive list and description of numerous text-based discussionapproaches, see Martin, 2010). As with most pedagogical models, thereare similarities and differences between small-group literaturediscussion approaches. For example, book club and literature circles areintended to be peer-led discussions, and both approaches often havestudents write before, during, and/or after reading to fuel discussion(in a journal or reading log, for example). In both approaches, theteacher or the students might select the books (if it is the students,they might select from a set of books). In book club, typically, one ormore books are situated within a larger, integrated unit of study. Thedefining feature of literature circles is the recommended initial use ofteacher-assigned discussion "roles" or "jobs" (suchas "vocabulary finder," "discussion director," and"travel tracer") as scaffolds for turn-taking and forstimulating discussion. Studies have demonstrated that some studentsoften (and should) abandon these assigned roles, or talk outside of theassigned roles, once they have internalized the discourse of talkingabout text (e.g., Latendresse, 2004; Long & Gove, 2003; Wilfong,2009). As Almasi, O'Flahavan, and Arya (2001) pointed out, however,the ultimate implementation of a model can unintentionally be morecooperative, rather than collaborative. For example, the use of assignedroles to each group member (a collaborative model) prompts individualsof a small group to contribute a response. Some students and teacherswould be adrift at sea without such scaffolds. However, the risk ofusing these assigned roles is that teachers may become comfortable withtheir use and not drop them once students have internalized the workingsof a good discussion. The goal is for small-group literature discussionsto be collaborative, whereby individual group members work together tocreate meaning through a lively conversation, rather than a scriptedexercise. In understanding which approaches are being used in theclassroom, one must read articles (or study classrooms) quite carefullyto see which approach is actually used. These terms are often usedsynonymously, but it also may be the case that many teachers use variouselements from different approaches, then attach some name to theapproach to motivate their students. For the current study, students' social skills and leadershipabilities were examined as a result of participating in small-group,peer-led discussions composed of four to five students, heterogeneouslygrouped, and based on the same selection of literature (see Daniels,1994, 2002; Raphael et al., 1992; Raphael et al., 2002). A keyingredient within this small-group framework was student-to-studenttalk. In the larger study, the time for talk fostered reflective readingand writing (Certo, Moxley, Reffitt, & Miller, 2010), but I also wasinterested in how the new classroom structure might addressstudents' social skills and leadership abilities. After all,children participating in this framework must learn appropriateturn-taking behaviors, ask for and offer comments or opinions, respondappropriately by offering reasons for comments or support for opinions,clarify, illustrate, or expand upon a response when asked to do so, andkeep the discussion going. This investigation draws primarily on reader response, and onsociocognitive and sociocultural theories. To begin, it could be arguedthat a precursor to effective small-group discussions lies with areader-response perspective (Rosenblatt, 1978, 1938/1995) regarding howindividuals construct literary meaning. For example, the specific eventof reading a text, situated in a particular time or environment,involves transactions drawing on the reader's past and presentexperiences, as well as on the interests and concerns of the reader(Rosenblatt, 1978, 1938/1995). When individual readers come to a groupsetting, reader-response theory transforms the reader's identityfrom one that is more passive, relying on either their own or theteacher's interpretation of a text, to a more active role in whichthe individual has the opportunity and responsibility to constructmeanings, make judgments, and interact with peers to broadenperspectives. Because theorists and researchers acknowledge thatmeanings created in social interactions can provide a foundation oflearning (Dewey, 1916; Rogers, 1969; Vygotsky, 1978), it may be thatdeveloping interpretations within a group may be just as powerful, ifnot more so. Individual readers, however, in drawing on their owncognitive resources, need to be able to organize and plan for groupdiscussions, not only to verbalize their own thoughts about the text (topotentially see that their interpretation may differ from theinterpretations of their peers), but also to be able to participate as afull member of the social structure of the literature discussion group. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE As mentioned previously, literature discussion groups support thereader-response perspective and emphasize the importance of peerinteraction. From a conceptual standpoint, one might argue that socialinteraction and leadership might only occur within the unique context ofa peer group. Small-group discussions of literature can be viewed associal participation structures (Erickson, 1982), in which roles andrelationships are established and developed, including determining thelength of time members talk and listen, setting up turn-taking, anddeciding who asks and answers questions. A study of literature circlesin a 2nd-grade classroom showed how the teacher "scaffolded"or guided her students to particular realizations about the literaturewhile intentionally enabling students to be in charge of theconversation (Frank, Dixon, & Brandts, 1998). Students did not needto raise their hands to speak, and the teacher was not in charge ofturns. Similar conversations continued without the teacher. Also, shemodeled how students could question and respond to each other toemphasize group knowledge. Students realized that literature circles"required different roles and relationships, norms andexpectations, and rights and obligations than other classroomactivities" (Frank et al., 1998, p. 112). Almasi et al. (2001) found, in their comparative analysis ofelementary student and teacher development in more and less"proficient" discussions of literature, that proficient peerdiscussion groups could sustain topics of conversation by visiting oldtopics, making linkages between topics, and embedding topics within oneanother. The researchers noted that these factors increased over timeand that teacher overtalk and interruption caused disjuncture andlimited the group's ability to keep the conversation going. Almasi (1995) investigated 97 fourth-graders' sociocognitiveconflicts (Bloome, 1985) of peer-led and teacher-led discussions ofnarrative text. Her sociolinguistic analyses revealed that studentdiscussions in peer-led groups were significantly different than studentdiscussions in teacher-led ones. Students in peer-led groups expressedthemselves more freely and explored topics of interest to them. Theirlanguage was more elaborate and complex, and students asked morequestions in peer-led groups. Students' sociocognitive conflictswere frequently resolved by sharing ideas and background knowledge withgroup members to form new interpretations. On the other hand, instancesof conflicts in teacher-led groups primarily consisted of conflicts withthe text that were dominated by the teacher's questions andassessments of student responses. Indeed, in light of the twostudies' findings above, if the teacher is overintruding, it isless likely that students will learn social and communication skills andgroup discourse processes, let alone have students emerge as leaders orengage in shared leadership. Anderson and his colleagues (2001) investigated the socialinfluences on 4th-graders' reasoning and rhetorical strategiesduring 48 small-group discussions. The researchers assumed thatarguments could be broken down into argument stratagems, defined asbeing "comprised of information about (a) the purpose or functionof the stratagem, (b) the conditions in which the stratagem is used, (c)the form the stratagem takes, (d) consequences of using the stratagem,and (e) the possible objections" (p. 2). Among the 104 students,findings revealed that the use of argument stratagems snowballs.Snowballing was defined as the phenomenon of how, when a child used astratagem, it "spread" to peers and occurred with increasingfrequency. Like Almasi (1995), the researchers noted that the"snowball phenomenon" was more pronounced during discussionswith open participation, rather than during discussion withteacher-controlled participation. In another study, Goatley, Brock, and Raphael (1995) examined fivediverse 5th-grade students as they read and responded to the final novelof their reading program. To describe social participation andnegotiation, researchers analyzed interview data, questionnaires,videotapes, and classroom artifacts and examined how studentsassimilated their own knowledge and the diverse knowledge of their peersin the social construction of meaning. Findings suggested a range ofmodes of participation and reflected the strengths, interests, andskills of the individual participants. Students took on leadershiproles, such as focusing the group, initiating a new topic, or changingthe topic. Other students seemed to orchestrate or facilitate themeetings, intervening when disagreements developed. Yet othersfunctioned as responders extending, agreeing, clarifying, suggestingalternatives, or bidding for the floor. McMahon and Goatley's (1995) study of the talk of five diverse5th-graders in student-led literature discussions found students whoacted as "knowledgeable others" in book club for peers whoseprior experiences discussing literature had been teacher led and basalapproach-centered (McMahon & Goatley). Their findings indicated thatstudents adopted leadership roles, participated in various discussionpatterns, and helped one another conduct their discussions. McMahon andGoatley found that one of the 5th-graders, Crystal, her group's"more knowledgeable other" (Vygotsky, 1978), initially assumeda teacher-like role and the I-R-E discourse pattern, one that wasfamiliar to her. However, consistent teacher support (through directinstruction, modeling, and scaffolding), coupled with peer support,enabled students to make the transition from the I-R-E discourse patternto one of shared leadership to maintain conversations. Small-group literature discussions appear to yield social benefitsfor all students, especially for academically at-risk students. InSportsman, Certo, Bolt, and Miller (in press), a sample of 121 studentsfrom 10 classrooms within one urban elementary school participated inliterature circles for four months. Analyses of pre- and posttestBehavior Assessment System for Children, second edition, (BASC-2)(Reynolds, 2004) social and leadership data were collected fromclassroom teachers to monitor students' social and leadershipskills across their participation in literature circles. Data analysisrevealed large and significant growth in social and leadership skillsamong academically at-risk students. Average-achieving andhigh-achieving student subgroups also demonstrated growth in social andleadership skills. Because of the dearth of investigations of social and leadershipdevelopment in literature discussion groups, it is difficult to makeconclusions by grade level. Developmentally, however, some assumptionsmay be made. The notion of group coherence, for example, is key toconversational competence (see, e.g., Hobbs, 1990; Reichman, 1990;Schegloff, 1990). Adult conversations may occur more readily, becauseparticipants share common experiences with regard to knowing and usingsimilar language (Reichman, 1990). Similar to Gee's (1992)"Discourses," Reichman (1990) noted that members of similardiscourse communities have similar routines and procedures as theircoparticipants and come to discussions with a set of expectations.Developmentally, children do not necessarily come to school knowing howto use different interaction techniques. Children also differ fromadults in their ability to maintain topics and coherence. For example,adults can maintain a greater percentage of topics and have moreutterances per topic than children can (Brinton & Fujiki, 1984).Additionally, the interruption of speaker tends to decrease with age(Sirois & Doval, 1988). In short, developmental differences might beexpected across the elementary grades with regard to participation insmall-group literature discussions. It also seems reasonable that gender could play a role in howstudents negotiate discussions of text. Some investigations havesuggested that gender may be an important consideration in literacyclassrooms and discussions of literature (Evans, Alvermann, &Anders, 1998; Gilbert, 1992; Orellana, 1995). Li and colleagues (2007)examined emergent leadership by coding "leadership moves" of12 discussion groups in 4th-grade classrooms. Comparison of the numberand kind of leadership moves showed that one leader emerged out of 6 ofthe 12 groups; in the other half, leadership was shared. Findings showedthat leadership moves increased with the progression of discussions.Interestingly, girls who were frequently nominated by peers as havinggood ideas and seldom nominated as being too quiet exhibited moreleadership than other children. Evans (2002), too, discovered in herinterviews that the make-up of the groups mattered. Students preferredsame-gender groups; students, especially girls, acted in negative wayswhen placed in mixed-gender groups. Further, students perceived othermembers who demonstrated leadership type skills as "bossy."Sometimes, it was beneficial to have friends in the same group, at othertimes not. When 5th-graders were asked about their experiences inliterature groups, they reported that it was helpful to have a structureor task assignment given to them before coming to the group to keepdiscussions moving (Evans). More broadly than gender, students'general social status with peers may affect students' experiencesin group discussions (Cazden, 2001; Christoph & Nystrand, 2001;Evans). Some students may simply be rejected in their discussion bypeers because they lack the social skills to participate in discussions(Matthews & Kesner, 2003). Most of the studies investigating small-group literature discussionin the elementary grades, more generally, have been conducted withinsingle classrooms (Allen, Moller, & Stroup, 2003; Burns, 1998;Evans, 2002; Goatley et al., 1995; Hadjioannou, 2007; Hauschildt &McMahon, 1996; Kong & Fitch, 2002-2003; Raphael, Gavelek, &Daniels, 1998) and at single grade levels (Allen et al., 2003; Almasi,1995; Almasi et al., 2001; Burns, 1998; Evans, 2002; Goatley et al.,1995; Hadjioannou, 2007; Hauschildt & McMahon, 1996; Kong &Fitch, 2002-2003; McMahon & Goatley, 1995; Raphael et al., 1998).Few cross-grade comparative studies of small-group literaturediscussions can be found. Moreover, in classroom small-group literaturediscussion studies, upper elementary students are the most frequentlystudied population, with less focus placed on early readers'participation (Berry & Englert, 2005; Frank et al., 1998; McIntyre,2007). There are only a few studies where elementary-age students wereindividually interviewed about the social experience of participating insmall-group literature discussions (e.g., Goatley et al., 1995;Hadjioannou, 2007; McMahon & Goatley, 1995). With the exception of the small body of research mentioned in thisreview and a few studies focused directly on social skills andleadership (Anderson et al., 2001; Li et al., 2007), the field stillknows little about children's social and leadership development insmall-group discussions across elementary grades (Harvey Daniels [2006]recently pointed out the importance of social skills instruction asstudents are prepared to participate in literature discussion groups).Given the widespread use of literature discussion groups, it seemsespecially important to investigate students' social skills andleadership abilities further. This research is from a larger study focusing on a 2-yearimplementation of small-group literature discussions at the elementarylevel. Research questions were: 1. Do small-group literature discussions improve students'social skills and leadership abilities? 2. What are elementary students' perceptions of their own andtheir peers' behavior in literature circles? CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND Findings from this article are from a larger study focused onstudent learning, as well as from social and leadership outcomes as aresult of participating in small-group literature discussions. The studytook place at Otto Elementary School, an urban K-5 elementary school inthe eastern part of the United States. Thirty-five percent of studentsreceived free/reduced-price meals. The student demographics were 54%white, 33% black, 9% Asian, and 1% Hispanic. Additionally, 8% of thestudent populations were English language learners and 12% receivedspecial education services. Reading First (U.S. Department of Education,Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2002) initiatives anddistrict-mandated literacy activities served to define the politicalcontext of this school. Prior to implementation of literature circles,teachers almost exclusively used a commercial basal program to teachreading. Additionally, 1st-grade teachers used authentic literatureacross all genres to supplement the commercial basal program; however,again, the emphasis was not on small-group, student-to-student talk (seeAppendix A for texts used by teachers). The author was a university faculty member serving as a liaison tothis urban elementary school in a teacher professional developmentmodel. Prior to this project, she spent a year at the school supervising16 university students on a weekly basis, whether they were interns,student teachers, or in a course field placement. She provided aninitial workshop on literature circles for teachers who volunteered tobe in the project. Additionally, she offered four more professionaldevelopment (PD) sessions each year, with weekly follow-up consultationand in-class support. Professional development sessions were framed byproviding summaries and syntheses of several research-based practices onliterature group discussions, many of which are cited in this article. Because teachers at the school primarily used a commercial basal toteach reading, and because the classroom environments were characterizedby an I-R-E discourse pattern, teachers were unsure about teaching howto run a discussion, and they were uncomfortable beginning with severalgroups discussing several different texts. Therefore, the authorencouraged teachers to spend the first 6 weeks teaching how to run adiscussion. Teachers also were encouraged to get students talking by"starting simple"--bringing a quote, Post-it note, twoquestions, or jots in a discussion log to the group. The author spentthe first workshop using picture books, such as Honey, I Love(Greenfield, 2003) or All About Sharks (Arnosky, 2003) to modelopen-ended prompts, such as, "I notice ... I wonder ... I felt ...because ... I think ... I wish ... and I was surprised by" One PDsession focused specifically on incorporating writing into literaturecircles and teaching students how to ask open-ended questions. Thesessions also showed how to assign "roles" or "jobs"for students to complete before students met in literature circles fordiscussion. By roles, I do not refer to the spontaneous roles thatmembers of a discussion group often take on organically (e.g., leader),but the teacher-assigned roles and jobs, as suggested by Daniels (1994,2002) for scaffolding small-group, text-based discussions (such as thediscussion director [the connector who connects text to people'slives]; the vocabulary enricher; the travel tracer [who keeps track ofsetting and plot]; etc.). If teachers decided to use roles, they werecautioned to eliminate any scaffold when students internalized them andno longer required their support, as the goal was a spirited peer-ledconversation, not a scripted exercise. Because contexts and student needs varied in the classrooms andteachers were experimenting with the approach for the first time, therewas appropriate variation in implementation. I purposefully chose not topresent a single model to teachers, but rather to help them see thepossibilities and affordances of allowing students to talk in smallgroups about a common book. Ultimately, some teachers assigned readingand related writing at home, whereas others asked students to read andprepare in school. As some of the 1st-graders were not yet readingconventionally, literature circle groups were set up in which partnerswould read aloud the texts before coming to the group for discussion.Some teachers had students choose from several texts, whereas others hadstudents reading the same text (but in small groups). Some teachers hadstudents bring their own questions, comments, and jottings to the group,whereas some assigned students' roles or jobs. Some teachers did acombination of both. One teacher administered an Interest Inventory toher students, which helped her present several books to her students aspossibilities. Although the 4th- and 5th-grade teachers used onlynarratives (realistic or historical fiction), the 1st- and 3rd-gradeteachers also used informational or poetic texts. Teachers wereencouraged to work together and work with the first author to set upsmall-group literature discussions in a way that not only met thestudents' needs but also negotiated their own comfort level.Ultimately, all teachers had students meeting in groups of four or five,consistent with other researcher recommendations (Brabham &Villaume, 2000; Burns, 1998). Every teacher implemented small-groupliterature discussions once or twice weekly for 30 to 60 minutesdepending on grade level, and the 4th- and 5th-grade teachers had theirstudents meet twice weekly for 45 minutes. Because of district mandates,teachers implemented literature circles from January to May of theschool year, because they felt pressured to get through the requiredcommercial basal readings and materials. METHOD Participants Ten teachers from an urban Pennsylvania school used literaturecircles from January to early June during the 2005-2006 year. Consistentwith demographic trends at the elementary level, all of the teacherswere white females. Years of teaching experience ranged from 3 years to30 years (see Table 1). Classrooms were heterogeneously grouped, withthe exception of the teacher of special needs students, who directed apull-out program for 4th- and 5th-graders in a "Reading ResourceRoom." Of the 121 students participating in the study, a stratified,random sample of 24 students across ability levels was interviewed inMay 2006 (see Table 2). These students were stratified by grade andability level, with the latter determined in three ways: (1) statestandardized test score levels in reading, (2) teacher verification, and(3) special education services received. Research Randomizer (Urbaniak& Plous, 1997), a web-based tool, was used for accomplishingrandomization within the three groups. Consent was sought for thosestudents; when consent was declined, the process was repeated to selectanother student. This resulted in 10 students who were above grade level(six of whom were identified in the school's gifted program), 8 ongrade level, and 6 below grade level (all of whom received specialservices) (see Table 2). Data Collection Procedures and Instrumentation Piaget's (1979) clinical method of interviewing children wasused to supplement data from the rating scales (see Appendix B forInterview Protocol) (interviewed N = 24). Examples of questions includedthe following: 1. Tell me about what it was like to go to literature circles. 2. Can you tell me what you did in literature circles? What kindsof things would you say to the group? 3. Tell me about the kids in your literature circles. What wereother kids doing in literature circles? 4. Did anyone do anything strange or interesting in literaturecircles? Tell me about that. 5. Do you like to talk with other kids about books, or does it notmatter? Tell me why. Two researchers conducted 30- to 60-minute-long interviews.Strategies to enhance credibility/dependability of the study included(1) prolonged field work, (2) an audit trail, (3) audiotape-recording,and (4) data cross-examination. The constant comparative method (Strauss& Corbin, 1998) allowed for comparison across students and grades.The specific data analysis processes occurred in a qualitative softwareprogram known as Hyperresearch (Hesse-Biber, Kinder, Dupuis, Dupuis,& Tornabene, 2007), in which transcripts were highlighted and codedline by line, independently, by the author and two literacy scholarsfamiliar with the study. Hyperresearch is an advantageous tool forconstant comparison as well as interrater reliability work, as it housestranscripts and a code list, and allows users to calculate codefrequencies, create code maps, and save multiple iterations of coding.The audit trail housed in the software program included all codedinterview transcripts, a code list (48 codes), final edited list (35codes), source material report, and a chart mapping codes intocategories. The analysts met to compare the initial code list(interrater reliability was established at 94.6%) and to edit the codelist. RESULTS Social Skills Interview data revealed that children described social behavior interms of the degree to which they and their peers in the group helpedeach other, took turns talking, and got along. Their reports signal thatthe social structure broke down when they or their peers were notprepared for literature circles or did not pay attention or listen topeers. Holping. By far the most recurring finding was that peers helpedeach other or received help from others in their literature groups. Of23 students interviewed, 17 reported helping or receiving help frompeers. This was true for students across all grade levels and abilitylevels. Almost one-half (48%) of the students across all grades andabilities reported cases of helping within the mode of three, four, orfive instances. The number of helping comments, however, varied across grade level.First-grade students reported the most helping, with 33 references tohelping, 48% overall, used by these young children. One of the six1st-graders reported 13 instances of helping and accounted for 18% ofthe reports overall. However, even if this student's outlier datawas not included in the results, 1st-graders would represent 30% of thereported instances of helping overall. Clearly, 1st-graders reported themost instances of helping across all grades. In addition to the numberof helping comments, the nature of "helping" comments differedby grade level. Fourth- and 5th-graders focused on word meaning andcomprehension. Fourth-grader Ava reported, "Well, she [Ellen]didn't exactly understand the plot of the story, so I had to sortof help her understand a little bit so she could write her summary. Wejust retraced from where she got lost in the story." Fourth- and5th-graders' reports focused on times they clarified text for peersor when they assisted peers with writing tasks. Sam, an advanced5th-grader, reported, Well, there's this kid, Michael, in my literature circle group, and like he doesn't write a lot in his journals and stuff, and so I helped him write more stuff in his journal and explain better to him, like what happens in the book more. We read like 3 chapters every week, and then he didn't understand the one chapter because he kept on skipping a lot, like the construction site [setting in the book Hoot] and then Roy's [character in Hoot] life, so I helped him understand it. This was also true for 3rd-graders. Teachers were encouraged in theproject to use writing logs and other tools for writing to preparestudents for discussion. For example, Post-it notes were used so thatstudents could write down an interesting part of the book, somethingthat confused them, or a favorite part. By report of the students, peersexplained procedures to each other that might not otherwise be madeclear by teachers. Michael, a struggling reader in 3rd grade, reported, He [student in the group] helped me with the writing because I needed help with the writing and the teacher was busy doing something with the other students. Then my friend, Andre, he helped me. He was like helping me with what I could write on the Post-It notes, and I didn't know what to say, and he helped me figure it out that it's just a question I have or something I want to say to the group. Overwhelmingly, 1st-graders helped each other with wordrecognition, pronunciation of words, spelling, and vocabulary: Yeah, my friend Stefano, he was reading and he couldn't figureout a word and me and Julian were helping him get the word out. He wasthinking it was "Jose [long e]," but we said it was Josebecause the Pirates [baseball team] have a player, and his first name isJose, and that's how he spells it. (Charlie, 1st-grader, belowgrade level) Another 1st-grader commented, I was scared to read [in LC] because some of the people said in thebeginning I didn't know all the words in Never Kiss an Alligatorand they said, "Do you need help?"... Now, they help me, butin the beginning of the year, I didn't know they were going to bemy friend or help me. (Tammy, 1st-grader, advanced reader) Turn-taking and getting along with others. Skeptics may concludethat within balanced literacy student-to-student talk is unimportant,because children have opportunities to converse outside the classroom,such as at lunch time or on the playground. The problem with thatviewpoint is that the talk is typically not about school-basedliteracies and texts, nor is it fashioned according to the norms ofacademic discourse (Cazden, 1988). When teachers focus on turn-takingprocedures and rules for listening and getting along, students'discourse patterns can be expanded. Seventy-five percent of the studentsreported that the majority of peers praised and encouraged others in thegroup and supported each other, as evidenced by exemplars, such as,"They treat each other nice, and they respect each other. They say,'You did a good job, Russell' or 'Good point' or'I agree"' (Russell, 1st-grader, on grade level) and"I think everyone treated each other just fine. I mean, no one issaying 'That's wrong!' definitely. They're justdisagreeing politely" (Ike, 5th-grader, above grade level).However, in addition to simply being nice, again, students also reportedclarified text for their peers. Specifically, five students in thesample shared when they clarified text for a peer, and every studentreported generally understanding the book better with more help fromtheir peers in literature circles. Laura, a 4th-grade advanced reader,explained: Well, while we were reading Shiloh, this kid in my group.., didn't really understand why the man would really look for his dog, and she didn't understand why the man didn't think the dog was dead. And I explained because he knew that he was alive because he [the dog] ran away a lot and he always, like, went over to this kid's house, so that's why the man was always looking at the kid's house. Sometimes, being in a group setting simply illuminated thecomplexities of storylines and narrative threads. As one gifted5th-grader reported, "In Hoot, it's hard to keep on trackwhere all the events are happening, because it will change, and then itwill change back real fast. I had to keep re-reading it, and try tofigure out where scenes stopped. When I read alone, I speed read, and Ifound out from my group that I was missing a lot of stuff." In 5thgrade, several students made meaning together by discussing text andchallenging each others' interpretations. For example, a 5th-gradestudent recounted how literature circles groups argued about the meaningof the chapter title "Scarlet Deluge" ... [in the historicalnovel Johnny Tremaine, about the Revolutionary War]--how it couldrepresent bloodshed, not color of the uniforms worn by the advancingBritish soldiers. Reports of getting along well and reports about studentschallenging and helping each other suggest that children were learninghow to talk in a group about a book. Six comments across four werenegative in nature, however. These students reported that a peer orpeers would not wait their turn or did not get along. Most of thecomplaints about turn-taking were at the 1st-grade level. For example,Russell, a 1st-grader, commented, "They [other group members] werejust skipping other people and taking all the turns to read!" Tammyreported, "Anthony [did something strange in literature circles],because he talked in the middle when somebody was reading. It's badbecause when he's reading, we don't talk, and when we read hetalks" In 1st grade, students often read aloud together before andduring literature discussions. Yet another 1st-grader elaborated: When like when someone is talking and someone is reading, it'snot nice to read when they're talking. I mean, it's not niceto talk when they're reading. It was kind of a little bit hard,because Anastasia kept asking me what the word was, and there wassomeone reading. So, it's just that I didn't listen to her,but I told the teacher that Anastasia needs help with the word andAnthony was reading so I just told the teacher. We have like rules inour group. When someone is reading, you be quiet. When a person istalking when someone is reading, they get in trouble. (Nancy,1st-grader, on grade level) There were also reports of students who generally did not getalong. There were no differences by grade level, but there were morereported challenges with students with special needs in the ResourceRoom initially getting along. Yasmine recounted, "Just like threeboys, they sit next to each other, they talk and they laugh at otherpeople and try to throw them off the story." Fortunately, studentsreported that students got along better with repeated experiences inliterature discussion groups. As Yasmine reported later in the sameinterview, "Now they treat them better, but in the beginning theydidn't. They know now that this is hard and that we can get mixedup and stuff when the group is interrupted." Leadership There were reports of students who were leaders in the group, whogot and kept the discussion going. This was especially true at the 3rd-and 5th-grade levels. McMahon and Goatley (1995), in their observationalstudy of book club, found that 5th-graders adopted leadership roles andhelped one another conduct discussions. They argued that "themeaning of 'student roles' must be expanded to include theirtaking responsibility for maintaining the conversation and forencouraging participation among all members." (p. 32). Consider thefollowing 5th-grade reports: Well, Donita Smith, she usually keeps the discussion going with good questions, and when she is the discussion director, we always have more things to talk about. And Denise Scarpo, she always, she's like Donita, but doesn't talk as much and also expands on and on and on from what they say. In our group, since we have Donita, me and Denise and James, we always keep the discussion going, we keep talking and talking, and when Mrs. O'Brien says, "Time to wrap it up!" we ask for more time every single time. She's like, "Okay, 10 more minutes and then you're done." My friend Ned kept saying interesting questions, and we were prettyamazed about the questions he kept asking. That he can make upchallenging questions that some of us don't even know, like, hewould ask us, like when we did Stone Fox, he was in my group, and like,he would ask us a question like a new question every single time wewould do it, and we would be like, we didn't know that, and wewould keep saying that, and it would be kind of cool because he makesreally, really good questions. It would make us try to ask betterquestions than him. So it would be kind of funny. (Yolanda, 4th-grader,below grade level) Our findings might be compared to those of Anderson and hiscolleagues (2001), who found that the use of argument"stratagems" snowballs with 4th-grader discussions. In theirstudy, once a child used a stratagem, it spread to peers and occurredwith increasing frequency. In our work, children across grade levelsreported that they learned how to ask better questions from leaders intheir group. In short, peers, as leaders, acted as models for eachother. The reader can wonder whether Ned's "art of asking goodquestions" above influenced his group's ability to ask betterquestions. Of the interviewed students, no students reported having everparticipated in a small-group discussion of literature. Only one studentreported being in a literature group with someone who was a"knowledgeable other" (McMahon & Goatley, 1995). As Nancy,a 1st-grader reading on grade level, reported, "Well, we actually,like, had to talk about it and Koran, he was the read leader because hedoes this at the Gifted Center. So like if someone needs help or messesup or can't understand the word, Koran helps us out." Some teachers used assigned jobs or roles to scaffold thediscussion of students, and, by their admission, the job that studentsmost enjoyed was that of "the discussion director." Althoughsuch a job could potentially create a bossy group member, interestingly,students in our study appreciated peers who emerged as leaders becausethe discussion would continue and be more interesting. Teachers werealso trying to initially scaffold shared leadership by having studentspiggyback off each other's ideas and take turns being the leader. You get more into it because you get to ask other people questionsinstead of them asking you questions, and then you can see how theyanswer instead of you answering it. (Sam, 5th-grader, above grade level) Well, Miss O'Brien calls it "piggybacking offsomebody's ideas," so when somebody says something, I usuallyadd on to it to keep it going and things. The biggest thing I probablylearned was to, like, describe a lot so that we can talk more about it,and keep the conversation going and going. So it gets more interesting.(Sam, 5th-grader, above grade level) It's fun, you got to, I mean, you really know about the book.You get to learn more about it doing that, because you definitely haveto know which chapter you're at, or else you couldn't be thediscussion director, because it's telling people when it'stheir turn to go. (Lynn, 3rd-grader, on grade level) Research has shown that children not used to workingcollaboratively may lack the skills and self-confidence to engage indiscussion (McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1990; Raphael et al., 1992).In our study, 5th-grader Allen, who attended a center for giftededucation, surprisingly had never participated in a book group of anykind. He reported, "I learned how to talk in a group. I neverreally talked in a group about a book. I usually just think about itmyself, and now I realize how to talk with a group of people, and howthey can help me with the book and stuff like that." Similar toSamway et al. (1991), I found that students who engaged in groupdiscussion over time became comfortable taking the risk to share anidea. For example, this was the case for Nicholas: I liked being the Discussion Director, because, like, you get tothink of questions to ask your group members, and you, like, get to hearthem think of their answers, like you get to hear their answers, andstuff, and like it's really fun. Last year, I was afraid of it, butnow, like once we got on, I wasn't really afraid anymore, so nowI'm not afraid at all. (Nicholas, 5th-grader, on grade level) Limitations A limitation of the current study was that students wereinterviewed at the end of their experiences in literature circles,rather than being interviewed immediately after participating in aliterature circle session at different intervals in the year.Additionally, interviewing students with special needs and 1st-graders,although interesting, proved difficult. Because of students'struggles with oral language, some students gave one-word answers andrequired probing. ! did not include students' comments in instanceswhen researchers felt they were leading students to a response. At the1st-grade level, children have a high reading self-concept (Chapman& Tunmer, 1995); thus, they may have been more likely to report withconfidence that they did well with all aspects of small-groupdiscussions, even though that may not have been the case. I also did notinvestigate contexts, other than within the small-group literaturediscussion setting, to compare students' social skills or status orleadership roles. I acknowledge that leadership and social skills canvary depending on context and activity. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Student talk throughout the day is typically not about schooltexts, nor is it fashioned according to the norms of academic discourse(Cazden, 1988). Literature conversations do not occur automatically,even in classrooms where teachers value children's discussions ofhigh-quality literature. Research has shown that children not used toworking collaboratively may lack the skills and self-confidence toengage in discussion (McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1990; Raphael etal., 1992). The current study seemed to specifically showcase leadership growththrough literature circles, particularly for 3rd- and 5th-graders.Related leadership abilities, such as leading a discussion, having goodquestions, piggybacking off peers' ideas, and being a good rolemodel for reading, also came to the fore. Although students in thecurrent study did not refer to students as bossy, it would be importantfor teachers to watch interaction patterns unfolding to see ifleadership becomes eventually shared, as opposed to one studentdominating the discussion (Evans, 2002). Similarly a recommendation forteachers (who are tied to jobs or roles to initially jump startdiscussions) is to eliminate the scaffold of "the discussiondirector" so that leadership could be shared. Although theinterview data showed no differences related to gender, teachersobviously should still model the skills required for successfulparticipation by all in discussion, and especiallybe cognizant of the subtle ways that students might maintain any kindof privileged status in peer-led discussions, and to consider thereasons that students might engage or disengage from discussions. Social and leadership development are not the only goals forsmall-group literature discussions. Students in our larger studyoverwhelmingly enjoyed their literary experiences in small-groupliterature discussions. They described literature circles as the mostenjoyable part of language arts, perceived that they used (and observedothers using) responses to literature and comprehension strategies, andbelieved that discussion was enhanced by writing before, during, andafter small-group discussions (Certo et al., 2010). Findings in the current study do not overromanticize small-groupdiscussions of literature but rather support what might reasonably beexpected when initially implementing small-group literature discussionin Grades 1 through 5 classroom environments previously characterized byan I-R-E discourse structure (Cazden, 2001). For example, because theinterruption of speaker tends to decrease with age (Sirois & Doval,1988), teachers might expect 1st-graders to have more difficulty withturn-taking. Similarly, students who might have difficulty preparing forliterature circles or paying attention may be less likely, at first, toengage in productive peer interactions. Schools are under pressure to achieve academic success, sometimesleading to the neglect of other important aspects, such as social andleadership development. Students' perceptions of peers helping eachother, taking turns, and getting along suggest that small-groupliterature discussions can improve students' social skills andleadership abilities. This study was consistent with other work (Burns,1998; McMahon & Goatley, 1995) in which incidents of student helpingwere reported; in the current study, however, there were reports acrossall grade and ability levels. It is likely that greater proficiency andmore experiences in reading and writing tasks, as well as practice withworking in small-group literature discussions, contributed to the lowernumber of helping comments among the higher grades, especially 4th- and5th-graders (who had participated in small-group literature discussionsthe previous year); five students offered no comments about helping.Fourth- and 5th-graders talked more confidently about the processes andstrategies involved in carrying out more complex reading and writingtasks, such as clarifying misconceptions, summarizing, or askingquestions. In contrast, "helping" for the 1st-graders was moreconcrete; these students had less familiarity working in literaturecircle groups and generally less experience as readers and writers. Theorists such as Dewey (1916), Rogers (1969), and Piaget (1947)suggest that learning takes place best when children take leadershiproles and assume ownership, and when opportunities for socialinteraction abound. Yet some teachers admit to avoiding small-groupdiscussions of literature, concluding that their students do not havethe social skills to participate in small peer groups. The current studyfurther fuels the argument for including small-group book discussions ina balanced literacy curriculum. Indeed, although group literaturediscussions are, first and foremost, a context for critical thoughtprocesses and learning about and enjoying literature, they also can be acontext for students to learn social and communication skills anddiscourse processes. DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2011.533117APPENDIX ABooks Teachers Used in Small-Group Literature Discussions GenreGradeLevel Title Narrative Poetry Exposition1 Hello Ocean X Honey, I Love X Amelia Bedelia X Flat Stanley X Henry and Mudge and the X Forever Sea William and the Good Old X Days A Sound Like Someone X Trying Not to Make a Sound The Black Snowman X The Other Side X The Empty Pot X Henry and Mudge X Willie's Not the Hugging X Kind Stanley, Flat Again! X Stanley in Space X Invisible Stanley X Magic Tree House Boxed X Set (Vol. 1-4) Magic Tree House Boxed X Set (Vol. 5-8) Never Kiss an Alligator X3 All About Sharks X Cam Jansen & the Mystery X of the Dinosaur Bone The Enormous Crocodile X Roberto Clemente: Pride X of the Pittsburgh Pirates Ruby the Copycat X Sideways Stories from X Wayside School Thunder Cake X Bunnicula X The Chocolate Touch X Helen Keller: Courage in X the Dark Freckle Juice X Holes X X Tonight on the Titanic X (Magic Tree House #17)4 Tales of a Fourth Grade X Nothing There's a Boy in the X Girl's Bathroom Stone Fox X Shiloh X Thunder at Gettysburg X X George's Marvelous X Medicine5 Hoot X Tuck Everlasting X Johnny Tremaine X4/5 Freckle Juice XSpec. Tales of a Fourth Grade XEd. NothingResource Aldo Applesauce XRoom Smoky Night XGradeLevel Title Author1 Hello Ocean Pam Munoz Ryan Honey, I Love Eloise Greenfield Amelia Bedelia Peggy Parish Flat Stanley Jeff Brown Henry and Mudge and the Cynthia Rylant Forever Sea William and the Good Old Eloise Greenfield Days A Sound Like Someone John Irving Trying Not to Make a Sound The Black Snowman Phil Mendez The Other Side Jacqueline Woodson The Empty Pot Demi Henry and Mudge Cynthia Rylant Willie's Not the Hugging Joyce Durham Kind Barrett Stanley, Flat Again! Jeff Brown Stanley in Space Jeff Brown Invisible Stanley Jeff Brown Magic Tree House Boxed Mary Pope Osborne Set (Vol. 1-4) Magic Tree House Boxed Mary Pope Osborne Set (Vol. 5-8) Never Kiss an Alligator Colleen Stanley Bare3 All About Sharks Jim Arnosky Cam Jansen & the Mystery David A. Adler of the Dinosaur Bone The Enormous Crocodile Roald Dahl Roberto Clemente: Pride Jonah Winter of the Pittsburgh Pirates Ruby the Copycat Margaret Rathmann Sideways Stories from Louis Sachar Wayside School Thunder Cake Patricia Polaceo Bunnicula Deborah & James Howe The Chocolate Touch Patrick Skene Catling Helen Keller: Courage in Johanna Hurwitz the Dark Freckle Juice Judy Blume Holes Louis Sachar Tonight on the Titanic Mary Pope Osborne (Magic Tree House #17)4 Tales of a Fourth Grade Judy Blume Nothing There's a Boy in the Louis Sachar Girl's Bathroom Stone Fox Gardiner & Hargreaves Shiloh Naylor & Moser Thunder at Gettysburg Patricia Lee Gauch George's Marvelous Roald Dahl Medicine5 Hoot Carl Hiassen Tuck Everlasting Natalie Babbitt Johnny Tremaine Esther Forbes4/5 Freckle Juice Judy BlumeSpec. Tales of a Fourth Grade Judy BlumeEd. NothingResource Aldo Applesauce Johanna HurwitzRoom Smoky Night Eve Bunting APPENDIX B Student Individual Interview Protocol SAY TO STUDENT IN CHILD-FRIENDLY TONE: Hello. I would like to askyou some questions about when you get in literature circles with otherkids with your books. Can you talk to me about what you do in literaturecircles and what you might like or not like about them? This is not atest, and should be something fun, because you can really tell me whatyou feel. Would that be okay? NOTE: Throughout interview, let child's answers providedirection to the questioning. Not all probes will be appropriate orneeded in this sequence. Do not rush. Be prepared for occasional periodsof silence from students. Rephrase questions again as needed. Do notoverreact to students' responses. 1. Can you tell me what YOU did in literature circles/book club?What kinds of things would you say to the group? Did you write onanything (journals, Post-its, etc.) and bring it to the group? If so,what? Did that help you to discuss the book? Why or why not? Tounderstand the book? Tell me about a time that you helped your group orsomeone in your group. 2. How did you feel coming to the literature group? Did you feellike you were prepared? What made that easy or hard for you? Was it easyor hard to pay attention in LC? Why or why not? 3. Tell me about the kids in your group. --What were other kids doing? Did you notice anyone in your classwho was doing something interesting or strange? --How did kids treat each other? Ask for examples. Did kids treateach other that way before? Tell me about that. 4. What was the teacher doing while everyone was discussing? Whatwas an example of a time that she helped you or your group betterunderstand the book? 5. If a new student came to your class, what advice would you givehim or her about how to do well in literature circles/book club? 6. Do you like to talk with other kids about books, or does it notmatter? Tell me why. 7. What was the hardest part about talking about a book for you? 8. Please tell me anything else you would like to say about this. REFERENCES Allen, J., Moller, K. J., & Stroup, D. (2003). "Is thissome kind of soap opera?" A tale of two readers across fourliterature discussion contexts. Reading and Writing Quarterly:Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19(3), 225-251. Almasi, J. (1995). The nature of fourth graders'sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions ofliterature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 314-351. Almasi, J. F., O'Flahavan, J. F., & Arya, P. (2001). Acomparative analysis of student and teacher development in more and lessproficient discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2),96-120. Anderson, R., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A.,Kim., S., Reznitskaya, A., ... Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowballphenomenon: Spread ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups ofchildren. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1-46. Arnosky, J. (2003). All about sharks. New York: Scholastic. Barnes, D. (1993). Supporting exploratory talk for learning. In K.M. Pierce & C. J. Gilles (Eds.), Cycles of meaning: Exploring thepotential of talk in learning communities (pp. 17-36). Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann. Berry, R. A. W., & Englert, C. S. (2005). Designingconversation: Book discussions in a primary inclusion classroom.Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(1), 35-58. Bloome, D. (1985). Reading as a social process. Language Arts,62(2), 134-142. Brabham, E. G., & Villaume, S. K. (2000). Questions andanswers: Continuing conversations about literature circles. ReadingTeacher, 54(3), 278-280. Brinton, B., & Fujiki, M. (1984). Development of topicmanipulation skills in discourse. Journal of Speech and HearingResearch, 27, 350-358. Burns, B. (1998). Changing the classroom climate with literaturecircles. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42(2), 124-129. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teachingand learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teachingand learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Certo, J. L., Moxley, K., Reffitt, K., & Miller, J. A. (2010)."I learned how to talk about a book": Children'sperceptions of literature circles across grade and ability levels.Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(3), 243-263. Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of youngchildren's reading self-concept: An examination of emergingsubcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement. Journalof Educational Psychology, 87, 154-167. Christoph, J. N., & Nystrand, M. (2001). Taking risks,negotiating relationships: One teacher's transition toward adialogic classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 249-286. Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in onestudent-centered classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in bookclubs and reading groups (2nd ed.). Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Daniels, H. (2006). What's the next big thing with literaturecircles? Voices From the Middle, 13(4), 10-15. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.Eeds, M., & Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration ofmeaning construction in literature study groups. Research in theTeaching of English, 23(1), 4-29. Erickson, E (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation:Relationships between academic task structure and social participationin lessons. In L. S. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom(pp. 153-182). New York: Academic. Evans, K. S. (2002). Fifth-grade students' perceptions of howthey experience literature discussion groups. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 37(1), 46-49. Evans, K. S., Alvermann, D., & Anders, P. (1998). Literaturediscussion groups: An examination of gender roles. Reading Research andInstruction, 37(2), 107-122. Frank, C. R., Dixon, C. N., & Brandts, L. R. (1998). "Dearbook club": A sociolinguistic and ethnographic analysis ofliterature discussion groups in second grade. National ReadingConference Yearbook, 47, 103-115. Gambrell, L., & Almasi, J. (1996). Lively discussions!Fostering engaged reading. Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation. Gee, J. (1992). Sociocultural approaches to literacy (literacies).In W. A. Grabe (Ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics (Vol. 12, pp.31-48). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gilbert, E (1992). The story so far: Gender, literacy and socialregulation. Gender and Education, 4, 185-199. Goatley, V. J., Brock, C. H., & Raphael, T. E. (1995). Diverselearners participating in regular education "book clubs."Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 352-380. Goldenberg, C. (1993). Instructional conversations: Promotingconversations through discussion. Reading Teacher, 46, 316-326. Greenfield, E. (2003). Honey, I love. New York: HarperCollins. Hadjioannou, X. (2007). Bringing the background to the foreground:What do classroom environments that support authentic discussions looklike? American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 370-399. Hauschildt, P., & McMahon, S. I. (1996). Reconceptualizing"resistant" learners and rethinking instruction: Risking atrip to the swamp. Language Arts, 73(8), 576-586. Hesse-Biber, S., Kinder, T., Dupuis, F., Dupuis, A., &Tornabene, E. (2007). Hyperresearch: Qualitative analysis tool [Computersoftware]. Randolph, MA: ResearchWare. Hobbs, J. R. (1990). Topic drift. In B. Dorval (Ed.),Conversational organization and its development (Vol. 38, pp. 3- 22).Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Kong, A., & Fitch, E. (2002-2003). Using book club to engageculturally and linguistically diverse learners in reading, writing, andtalking about books. Reading Teacher, 56(4), 352-362. Latendresse, C. (2004). Literature circles: Meeting readingstandards, making personal connections, and appreciating otherinterpretations. Middle School Journal, 35(3), 13-20. Li, Y., Anderson, R., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Dong, T., Archodidou, A.,Kim, I., ... Miller, B. (2007). Emergent leadership in children'sdiscussion groups. Cognition and Instruction, 25(1), 75-111. Long, T. W., & Gove, M. K. (2003). How engagement strategiesand literature circles promote critical response in a fourth-grade,urban classroom. Reading Teacher, 57(4), 350-361. Martin, N. (2010). Bridging research and practice: Planning ,forand implementing text discussion in elementary classrooms. Matthews, M. W., & Kesner, J. (2003). Children learning withpeers: The confluence of peer status and literacy competence withinsmall-group literacy events. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(2), 208-234. McGee, L., & Richgels, D. (2004). Literacy's beginnings:Supporting young readers and writers'. Boston: Pearson. McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1990). Comprehensionand coherence: Neglected elements of literacy instruction in remedialand resource room services. Journal of Reading, Writing and LearningDisabilities, 6, 149-180. McIntyre, E. (2007). Story discussion in the primary grades:Balancing authenticity and explicit teaching. Reading Teacher, 60(7),610-620. McMahon, S. I., & Goatley, V. J. (1995). Fifth graders helpingpeers discuss texts in student-led groups. Journal of EducationalResearch, 89(1), 23-34. Orellana, M. (1995). Literacy as a gendered social practice: Tasks,texts, talk, and takeup. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 674-709. Piaget, J. (1947). The psychology of intelligence. Patterson, N J:Littlefield, Adams & Co. Piaget, J. (1979). The child's conception of the world.Totowa, N J: Littlefield, Adams and Co. Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case forbalanced teaching. New York: Guilford Press. Raphael, T. E., Gavelek, J. R., & Daniels, V. (1998).Developing students' talk about text: Analyses in a fifth-gradeclassroom. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 47, 116-128. Raphael, T., McMahon, S. I., Goatley, J., Boyd, F., Pardo, L.,& Woodman, D. (1992). Research directions: Literature and discussionin the reading program. Language Arts, 69(1), 54-61. Raphael, T., Pardo, L., & Highfield, K. (2002). Book club: Aliterature-based curriculum (2nd ed.). Lawrence, MA: Small PlanetCommunications. Reichman, R. (1990). Communication and mutual engagement. In B.Dorval (Ed.), Conversational organization and its development (Vol. 38,pp. 23-48). Norwood, N J: Ablex. Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). BASC-2 behaviorassessment system for children, second edition. Circle Pines, MN: AGSPublishing. Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: Thetransactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: SouthernIllinois University Press. Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration (4th ed.). NewYork: Modern Language Association. (Original work published 1938) Samway, K., Whang, G., Cade, C., Gamil, M. K., Lubandina, M., &Phommachanh, K. (1991). Reading the skeleton, the heart, and the brainof a book: Students' perspectives on literature study circles.Reading Teacher, 45, 196-205. Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as asource of "coherence" in talk-in-action. In B. Dorval (Ed.),Conversational organization and its" development (Vol. 38, pp.51-77). Norwood, N J: Ablex. Sirois, P., & Doval, B. (1988). The role of returns to a priortopic in the negotiation of topic change: A developmental investigation.Journal of Sociolinguistic Research, 17, 185-216. Sportsman, E. L., Certo, J. L., Bolt, S. E., & Miller, J. A.(in press). Literature circles: Social and leadership development amongat-risk students. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitativeresearch (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Urbaniak, G., & Pious, S. (1997). Research randomizer: Freeonline tool. Social Psychology Network. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and SecondaryEducation. (2002). Guidance for the Reading First Program. Washington,DC. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higherpsychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practiceand theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wilfong, L. G. (2009, October). Textmasters: Bringing literaturecircles to textbook reading across the curriculum. Journal of Adolescent& Adult Literacy, 53(2), 164-171. Submitted November 30, 2009; accepted August 12, 2010. Address correspondence to Janine L. Certo, Department of TeacherEducation, College of Education, 309 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI48824. E-mail: certo@msu.edu Janine L. Certo Michigan State University, East Lansing, MichiganTABLE 1Demographic Summary of Teachers (N = 10)Grade/ Number of Years of Teaching Highest DegreeAssignment Faculty Experience Earned1 2 1,525 BA, MA3 3 61,517 MA, BA, BA4 1 3 MA in progress5 2 612 BA, MA4-5 1 30 MAReading Support Librarians 1 20 MATABLE 2Demographic Summary of Student Interview Participants (N = 24) AfricanGrade Level Total Male Female American White1 6 4 2 133 7 5 2 134 5 1 4 235 6 5 1 15 Other (Biracial, Students English Students Indian, Asian, with Learning Language IdentifiedGrade Level Turkish) Disabilities Learners as Gifted1 2 1 2 03 3 2 2 24 0 1 0 25 0 2 0 2