Verbal interaction, such as dialogue and discussion, in a social context, are an integral component of literacy learning events (Applebee, 2000; Anderson, 1994; Forman & Cazden, 1994; Halliday, 2000; Harste, 1994; Johnson, 2000; McCarhty, 1994; Ruddell, 1994). The research reveals that the benefits of discussion for developing literacy skills are deeper understanding, higher level thinking and improved communication skills (Gambrell, 1996) This research relates to my investigation of discussion formats that is based largely on the reader response theory, and how it influences the acquisition of literacy skills (Squire, 1994; Rosenblatt, 1994), the Vygotskian perspective that social interaction aides in the acquisition of cognitive skills and growth (Forman & Cazden, 2000) and rich and ample experiences with language enhance vocabulary growth, which is then reflected in written language (Johnson, 2000).
Students in grade three often need extensive work in citing examples from their text to support interpretation in open response questions. Since this is also an area that has been given consideration with the MCAS testing, it is an important focus area for research.
The question for this research is multifaceted in regards to the influence of discussion formats on the written response. Can discussion formats be used to improve the quality of the reader's written response to open ended questions of students in grade three? Which of two formats of discussion, small group student-led or whole class teacher facilitated discussion, is the most engaging and effective in improving students' written response to open response questions at the grade three level?
A third grade class of students from the small residential town of West Bridgewater, Massachusetts was used for the context of this study. West Bridgewater is a middle-income suburban community. The school system is small with about 1000 students in grades K-12. The class that was involved in the investigation contained 14 boys and 15 girls. The classroom teacher is a highly qualified veteran teacher with over twenty-five years of teaching experience. A student teacher was present and often assisted the teacher and teacher researcher.
Four students with diverse reading
interpretative abilities were selected as the
focus for this single subject research investigation.
These students were monitored for
changes in response to the discussion interventions. The students selected for
data collection vary in interpretative ability and include a special needs
student.
The four students chosen as a focus group of the investigation were selected based on prior reading test scores, teacher input, and consideration of prior school records of performance. They were monitored to determine the effect of two discussion interventions, teacher facilitated or student-led, on written responses to open response questions relating to a reading selection. The third grade student focus group represented the diverse levels that exist within the classroom. The students participated in heterogeneous groups within the class.
The four students represent the levels that exist
within the heterogeneous classroom in
interpretative ability. Names have been changed to pseudonyms.
Student 1 Carly
Carly's teachers have consistently described her as a high achiever. She is a fluent reader and displays strong skills on all traditional school measures of the reading and writing program. Her written journal responses indicate strong comprehension and interpretative ability for the third grade level. Interpretatively she was ranked a 3; a student who comprehends text independently, using prior knowledge and textual clues to create meaning, and is able to justify the meanings he or she has created.
Student 2 David
David is a boy who in spite of strong reading skills, often seems unmotivated to write his responses to literature with any detail. He entered first grade as a reader but his performance on traditional measures of the reading and writing program has left each teacher feeling he is an underachiever; a student with much ability who doesn't fulfill his potential. His written responses to literature are often short and simply answer the question at a basic literal level of interpretation. Interpretatively he was ranked a 2; a student who usually is able to comprehend most text independently and can share his understanding with peers.
Student 3 Brandi
Brandi, is a low average student based on the traditional assessment measures of the reading and writing programs. She receives supportive remedial reading and participates in the regular reading instruction program in her classroom. She was ranked as a 1 for interpretative skills; a student who has considerable difficulty comprehending text independently and is unable to share the basic story with peers.
Student 4 Chase
Chase is a special needs student who receives reading instruction that is highly phonetic in nature through the special needs department. She receives reading instruction outside the classroom with the special needs teacher. Chase was ranked as a 1; a student who has considerable difficulty comprehending text independently and is unable to share the basic story with peers.
Based on current performance levels of interpretative ability on reading assessments from the reading program, classroom teacher observations of daily reading responses to literature, and data collected during a baseline phase, the teacher researcher selected four students who would be the focus group to be monitored for the changes in response to the interventions. The teacher and teacher researcher also rated the interpretive skills of each student on the following criteria (Wieneck, 1996) described below. The four selected students represented the diverse range of interpretive ability found in the classroom.
Interpretive Criteria
Rank 1=`Student has considerable difficulty comprehending text independently and is unable to share the basic story with peers.
Rank 2=Student usually is able to comprehend most text independently and shares understanding with peers.
Rank 3=Student comprehends text independently, using
prior knowledge and textual clues to create meaning, and is able to justify the
meanings he or she has created.
The method of research that was used in this single subject investigation was the Alternating-Treatments Design with an initial baseline phase. Five sessions of reading a chapter of text and then responding to an open response question without benefit of discussion established a base line. After the baseline phase there were five sessions of teacher facilitated and student-led discussion conducted in an alternating counterbalanced fashion for a total of fifteen sessions in all.
Independent variables:
 | Whole class teacher facilitated discussion groups |
| Small groups student-led discussion groups |
Dependent variable:
| The number of times textual evidence is given as support or evidence for a position or response in a written response to an open-ended question about a passage. |
Procedure / Interventions
| A baseline was attained of students' written response to open-ended questions without benefit of discussion after they read passages over 5 sessions. The number of explicit and implicit references to the text used to support their response were counted and assigned a point value with the use of a rubric. |
| Before the discussion intervention began the teacher researcher conducted a whole class lesson on the basics and principles of good class discussion (Wiencek, 2000). |
| Students read a passage, were then involved in whole class teacher facilitated discussion about the passage using student generated questions, and then responded to open-ended questions in journals. Again, the number of references to textual support was counted and graphed. |
| The teacher researcher conducted a whole class lesson of the roles of summarizer and questioner prior to initiating the student led discussion groups. |
| Students read a passage, and then were involved in small groups of 5-6 students in a student-led discussion group, they respond to an open-ended question in their journals. Again, the number of references to textual support was counted and graphed. |
| Each of the two discussion methods was alternated in a counterbalanced manner until one or neither proved to be superior in improving the quality of a written response. |
Detail of Specific Interventions
Baseline Phase of Investigation Preparation
Prior to the initiation of the baseline phase I spoke with the class about writing responses and providing evidence from the text to support their response. The term evidence was explained, and discussed, and examples and models were given.
The text that was selected was at the independent reading level for the students. This was done so that all the students could decode the material independently. Based on her knowledge of the students whom she had worked with for half the school year, and their current levels of performance on skills and theme test that are included in the basal reading program, the classroom teacher verified that the material was within the independent reading level of all the students. As a precaution that all the students would have exposure to the content of the text, the researcher read each passage aloud to the class after they had read it silently. No discussion of the reading passage occurred during the baseline phase.
Baseline phase of reading and journal response format without discussion.
| The students were given a different passage over each of the five sessions during the baseline phase. |
| During these sessions the children were instructed, after being given a writing prompt/question, to write a response with as much evidence as possible from the text to support their response. |
| The responses were entered in their journals in which they wrote for 15-20 minutes. |
| Written responses were scored with the use of a rubric. |
Intervention 1: Teacher facilitated discussion group using student generated questions and comments
Preparation for intervention 1
The teacher facilitated intervention was introduced by spending time the day before to describe the characteristics of good discussion practices (Wiencek, 1996). Together a shared meaning of the terms interaction, (pay attention, look at the person who is talking, don't interrupt, give every person a chance to talk), and interpretation, (characters, setting, illustrations, relate to personal experience, point of view, author's craft, compare to movie or different version) were arrived at and embellished with examples. The children were told they would be receiving sticky notes to apply to the points in the story that they felt raised questions, thoughts, comments or feelings they wished to share (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000). They were instructed to write notes and page numbers on the sticky notes to help them remember the thoughts or questions they wanted to share with the class. As each student referenced the point that they were to speak on, other students could then find that point in their text and follow more closely (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000).
Intervention 1 outline of Teacher-facilitated discussion
| Teacher previews the text that will be read. |
| Students read passage silently, mark areas and write questions they want to discuss or share in class on sticky notes. |
| Teacher reads passage aloud. |
| Students generate remarks on sticky notes. |
| Teacher facilitates a whole class discussion using student's questions, comments, and personal connections, to generate discussion. |
| Students are asked to write a response to an open response question in their journal that relates to the story. |
| Journal entries to open response question are scored using the rubric. |
Intervention 2: Student-led discussion
Preparation for intervention 2
The day prior to the first session of student-led discussion format, the students were introduced to the role of summarizer and questioner (Daniels, 2002). The discussion of roles was conducted with the intent that it would allow for a quick review the next day as I assigned the roles and cut down on the time required for this new intervention. Unexpectedly, it also generated an excitement for the format that had the children requesting the roles they thought they would enjoy having.
The summarizer would be responsible for briefly describing the highlights of the story. I provided a story map for the summarizer to help guide them in their description.
The questioner would be responsible for generating a few questions that they were curious about or they felt would make for stimulating conversations. I explained that good questions might begin with words or phrases like "I wonder why", "What do you think”, or " Why did..." and, that they should avoid literal questions that involved only one right answer. Vocabulary word meaning could also be presented in a question.
Role descriptors for questioner and summarizer
The students were broken into balanced discussion groups of 6 to 7 students that were based on three areas; social skills, interpretative skills and reading ability as suggested by Wiencek(1996). The classroom teacher, along with the help of a student teacher and researcher, arranged these groups. They considered the prior experience and knowledge of these students from other collaborative situations in the classroom. The groups were consistently the same (barring absenteeism) throughout this intervention allowing students time to work together and establish a sense of comfort and familiarity in student led groups.
Intervention 2 outline of student-led discussion
| Teacher previews the text that will be read. |
| Students are assigned roles of questioner or summarizer. |
| Students read passage silently, mark areas and write questions they want to discuss or share in class (See samples of students sticky notes). |
| Teacher reads passage aloud. |
| Students break into small groups and participate in student-led discussion groups using their sticky notes as a reference for discussion. |
| Students are asked to respond to an open response question in their journal. |
| Journal entries to open response question are scored using the rubric. |
Original Materials
Narrative and/or Expository passages were selected from varied sources for reading and written response. They were taken from the following books and sites.
References of Children's Books
Adler, D. A Picture Book of Benjamin Franklin. MCAS Reading Selection 2002 Grade 3 English Language Arts Reading. www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/student/2002/readingselection.asp?id=44&grade=3&subjec
Bronin, A. (1990). Gus and Buster Work Things Out. New York N.Y: Dell Publishing.
Cleary, B., Dahl, R., Danziger, P., Martin, A., McKissack, P., Sachar, L. (1997). It's Great to Be Eight. New York, N.Y: Scholastic Inc.
DeSpain, P. (2001). Tales of Nonsense & Tomfoolery. Little Rock, AK:August House Publishers Inc.
Haviland, V.(1994). Favorite Fairy Tales told in Germany. New York, N.Y: Little, Brown and Co.
Teacher Made Materials
Scoring rubric for written response
Student Self Reflective Survey
Verbal Flow Charts, Whole class teacher facilitated and Student-led (samples)
Detail of Assessment of Student Progress (triangulation)
|
Rubric |
Student written responses |
|
Student reflective survey |
verbal flow chart |
Several types of data were gathered in order to assure greater validity of the results.
|
A rubric for scoring of student responses to open response questions was created and used in the evaluation of the written responses that students wrote in each treatment phase. The rubric was constructed to assign a point value based on the number of implicit and explicit references to the text that were used to support the response. (Link to Rubric) |
|
Both the classroom teacher and the teacher researcher scored the written student responses separately to insure a greater validity in the final score assigned to the written response. |
|
A self-reflective student survey was conducted in regards to the perceived effectiveness and engagement of the two discussion treatments interventions. (Link to Survey Sample) |
|
Verbal flow charts were taken during two sessions of student-led discussions and two teacher-led discussions to help determine the level of student engagement that evolved during each phase. (Link to Sample of Flow Charts) |
The assessments are a valid measure since triangulation of the student performance is verified by the means described above. The written responses were scored by the classroom teacher and teacher-researcher for the number of implicit and explicit supporting references to the text that support the response. Student responses to a self-reflective survey will also shed light on the format that students deemed most supportive. Verbal flow charts will compare engagement levels of two discussion formats, which can be compared to the data gleaned from the written responses on the student surveys.
Outline of Multiple Assessments
Scoring of Written Response
|
Student responds to a question posed that relates to the story after each session. |
|
Two teachers read and score the written response with rubric. |
|
Point values are assigned with the use of a rubric based on the number of explicit and implicit references to the story to support the answer. |
|
Point values are graphed |
Self-reflective Student Survey
|
All students are surveyed in the classroom |
|
The survey is analyzed for response percentages class wide |
|
The surveys of the four
single subject research students are analyzed for findings |
Verbal Flow
|
During two sessions of whole class teacher facilitated discussion a teacher noted each time a student either spoke, or raised their hand to speak with a check mark. |
|
During two sessions of small group student led discussion, a teacher will stand just outside the group and note each time a student speaks. |
|
The marks will be totaled after each session and compared to determine which format encouraged allowed for greater student engagement. |
The research design included reflection of book leveling and readability levels of reading selections that might be accessible to the varied learners in the single subject group. Both recommended levels by publisher were considered along with use of the Fry readability formula in assessing the level of text selections. Since these are not always reliable, a decision to read the selections aloud in addition to silent student reading was made to assure access to the story by each student.
The preparation of students for discussion formats regarding good etiquette during discussions, optimal heterogeneous grouping practices (Wiencek, 1996), and the use of student posed questions in teacher facilitated discussions (Commeyras, 1996) was considered due to the research that supports these practices.
The decision to not use the IRE (teacher Initiation, student Response, teacher Evaluation ) recitation format in teacher led discussion was made since research has already shown that to be a method of generating "gentle inquisitions" rather than "Grand Conversations" about literature (Eeds&Wells, 1989).
Detail of Planned Outcome for Students and Researcher-Teacher
Through the implementation of two formats of group discussion, student-led small group and whole class teacher facilitated , the students should demonstrate an improved ability to support their responses to open response questions by including explicit and implicit examples from the text. The data provided from these written responses may indicate which discussion format is most effective with the third grade students involved in this investigation. The teacher and researcher may be able to use the quantitative and qualitative data to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the two discussion formats as it relates to the quality of written responses. The level of engagement and motivation might be attained by examining the responses to student self reflective surveys and verbal flow charts.