Analysis and conclusions of written response changes to teacher facilitated and student-led discussion formats for focus group

    Results of this study indicate that a group of third grade students, with diverse levels of interpretative ability, generated written responses to open response questions more favorably when teacher facilitated or student-led discussion formats were employed than with no discussion.

    All of the students in the focus group showed improvement in referencing the story in their written responses with explicit and implicit references to the text after both discussion formats.

    Results of this study indicate that the student-led discussion format was as good or better than teacher facilitated discussion format for these third grade students in helping them generate written responses with explicit and implicit references to text.

     The results of the investigation do not indicate that either teacher facilitated or student-led discussion is superior in eliciting more detailed writing responses for all four students followed in this investigation . Rather, the results indicate that for two of the students student-led discussion was more effective, and for the other two there was no difference in effectiveness between the two discussion formats.

    Two of the students, Carly (rank 3 interpretative ability) and Chase (rank 1 interpretive ability and a special needs student) scored their highest mean score in student-led discussion responses. The two others, David (rank 2 interpretive ability) and Brandi (rank 1 interpretive ability), scored the same mean score in both discussion format responses.

Comparisons of Mean Scores for Written Responses

Analysis of self-reflective survey and verbal flow charts for

   single subject focus group

            Analysis of the student self-reflective survey in the single subject research group revealed that students felt the discussion formats helped them to understand the story, and write better responses to questions in their journals. None of the students reported changing their point of view in the focus groups because of discussion. In the comparison of student-led to teacher facilitated discussion formats, neither student-led not teacher facilitated was perceived by the students within the group as being more engaging in conversation.  Two of the students felt that they spoke more in student led discussion and two felt they spoke the same amount in both formats. Two preferred student-led discussion and two preferred teacher facilitated discussion. However, when the actual number of participations was charted for the focus group during , the verbal flow charts presented data that  indicated slightly more student engagement in oral conversation about the text when student-led discussion groups are implemented for three out of the four students.

    The single subject verbal flow chats indicate greater engagement for three of the students in student led discussion formats.

Analysis of student self reflective survey for the third grade

   classroom 

The results of the student self reflective survey conducted with the whole class indicates that student discussion formats are the preferred format of discussion prior to the written response task in this classroom.

    The results strongly suggest that discussion helps with understanding of the story within this classroom, and students believed they could write better responses after discussion. Almost half the class changed their point of view or opinion based on discussion of the story.

 Verbal flow chart data totaled for two sessions of teacher facilitated and student-led discussion groups

The verbal flow charts presented data strongly indicate more student engagement in oral conversation about the text when student-led discussion groups are implemented.

See sample of verbal flow charts

     Discussion and Delimitations

    Overall, the investigation provides support and evidence for the use of teacher facilitated and student-led discussion formats in the literacy program as they aid in the acquisition of literacy skills for varied learners. The students generated written responses that increased in the number of implicit and explicit references to the text, in support of their answers, when discussion formats used. For two of the students, student-led discussion proved to be superior in supporting written responses, and for the other two both discussion formats were equal in results.

  The use of student-led discussion encourages more engagement, and supports comprehension by allowing for a shared meaning to be arrived at in a social learning event. Teacher facilitated discussion with the use of student-generated comments and questions also encouraged engagement but did not allow for the amount of verbal exchange that occurred in a smaller group.

      Some of the limitations of this investigation involved the use of trade book selections, which although rated for level or readability, are not always consistent in their difficulty from chapter to chapter. Also, some selections may relate more closely to one child's prior knowledge or schema than another. These variables are difficult if not impossible to control yet must be considered in the perspective of this research.

    The result of the study is limited by the performance of the students at this time and place. The sample size is small, and the school population lacks multicultural diversity. The students were who were involved in the research were all from the same classroom.

 Reflection

Teacher: "Does discussion help you understand a story?"

Student:  " I like student-led discussion because you get ideas and give ideas. Sometimes they help me and sometimes I give help."

Teacher: "Does discussion help you write a better  response in your journal?"

Student: "Yes, talking can give you ideas, so you put all of our ideas together".
 

Teacher: "Which discussion format do you prefer, student-led or teacher facilitated and why?"
 

Student: "I like student-led [as opposed to teacher facilitated] because adults have lived longer, they went to more upper grades before us, so kids should ask more questions [than teachers] and talk more about things they don't know."
 

     These student's comments and the results of the research that was conducted in this classroom support the theories, and research that discussion supports, facilitates and enhances the reciprocal acquisition of literacy skills. The findings support the socio-psycholinguistic perspective that literacy is best learned through social transactions that build on the many varied uses of language, which are largely reciprocal in nature, and support each other's development (Halliday, 2000).

    The social nature of discussion supports the Vygotsky perspective that social interaction aides in the acquisition of cognitive skills and growth (Forman & Cazden,1994). Oral language engagement builds shared meaning, schema, enhances comprehension and vocabulary acquisition (Harste,1994). The discussion process allows for transactions to occur that benefit social development and make collaborative literacy a medium that engages readers, and allows them to make connections between literature and life's lessons.

     Personal connections to the text made by the students during discussion formats was one of the benefits. These connections were evident in the student conversations, sticky note comments, and  in the student's writing. As discussion ensued, the thoughts that students shared were the kind that showed a deep engagement that utilized prior experience, knowledge, and schema sharing between students. Conversation helped propel students beyond the literal types of questions often generated in IRE (initiate, respond, evaluate) recitation models. The following vignette shows support for discussion generating these types of connections.

    These were the questions and comments that were present during a discussion about the characters of Gus and Buster from Andrew Bronin's book Gus and Buster Work Things Out.

" Why do Gus and Buster always disagree so much"?

 "Because they are like me and my brother, this happened to me, he takes my stuff all the time."

"They should just figure out a way to share the toys equally."

"I wonder where their parents are? They could help decide."

"Because it not real, it's fiction and so they don't have parents there and have to settle things themselves. The author decided that."

"How did the author think of the ideas for the stories? The stories are all alike with Gus and Buster disagreeing."

"Maybe the author has kids and got his ideas from them."

"Maybe he remembers what it was like when he was a kid."

    Comments such as these were common during discussions about the text. The investigation of discussion formats showed many examples of students relating personal experiences that they shared in regards to the text. They often tried to place themselves in the situation of the characters and think of the things they would do to solve dilemmas faced by the characters. They frequently empathized with the character's situations and problems.

    The shared reflections and ideas that arise in group discussions draw on prior knowledge from diverse learners in the group who develop a broader schema with which to make connections to new knowledge (Anderson, 1994; Ruddell, M. 1994). 

    The students in this study provided the data and evidence that discussion is a powerful connector to the quality of written response. The chance to discuss the story provided more detailed responses with stronger connections to the text for all of the four students monitored for change.

    The use of student-generated questions for teacher-facilitated discussion was a conscious decision to avoid the IRE (initiate, respond, evaluate) format that is used in many classrooms. The IRE format is not an exemplary discussion practice since the responses are too often literal with only one person evaluating the response, that being the teacher, as correct thereby limiting the talk and input of many other voices (Chin, Anderson & Waggoner, 2001). One might infer that the results of the teacher facilitated model were comparably favorable to the student-led model because the questions were student generated in both formats, and the teacher acted more as a facilitator and participant . One student indicated she enjoyed teacher facilitated discussion because "the teacher got to talk too" as one of the reasons she preferred the teacher model.

Engagement and motivation

 "What are we doing today Mrs. Dubin, teacher facilitated or student-led?"

" I love discussion, it's so cool".

    Each day as I entered the room to conduct a session of the investigation I was greeted with comments such as these. The motivation that discussion supplied to students was both visible from these comments and the audible sounds of anticipation as I arrived to conduct a session. Clearly, the children were motivated and derived great enjoyment from the discussion process and, as the surveys reveal, a better understanding of the story when the option of discussion was present.

     The few children that indicated some reservations about student discussion format related episodes of "arguing" or not agreeing on the aspect of fairness and taking turns in speaking as the reason. This is an issue that is definitely part of the process. Research reveals that although student discussion is effective, it can be a challenging process to put in place (Wollman-Bonilla,1994). Discussion, meaningful productive discussion, is a skill. It requires the teaching, and modeling of strategies, along with a guided learning experience that allows for a gradual release toward independence.

    This research was conducted over a ten-week period. During that time the students were brought into the process of two  discussion formats with some preparation time spent introducing the models of discussion. However, it is during the actual practice when the opportunities arise for the most authentic teaching and learning of how to manage the issues that arise during discussion groups. The research that suggests keeping students together so that they learn to work as a group for at least five sessions  makes sense, since the skills of discussion within a group are cumulative (Almasi, O'Flahavan, & Poorman, 2001).

 Implication for Future Instruction

    Clearly, theory and research support the value of good discussion taking place in the classroom. It does however; require the support of the teacher to provide explicit guidance for students on how to engage in informal talk. Teachers need to consider the text selection carefully as the outcome is closely related to the quality of the text and the connection children feel to the story. The improvement in written response for both formats of discussion in this study seem to imply that good teacher-facilitated discussion with student generated questions is a good place to start. The teacher facilitated format allowed for the modeling, guidance, and practice with the whole class observing  and participating in the process.  Yet the fact that students in the study showed slightly better results with the student-led format would indicate it is a format worth working towards. The results also imply that student-led discussion is a favorable format for diverse learners of varying ability. The written responses of students indicate the value of creating social, collaborative discussion  as they positively impact student writing.

 Top of page