Defining discussion/dialogue and the theory that supports its use in the classroom

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; McCarthy, 1994; Ruddell, 1994). Gambrell describes discussion as “essentially dialogic: it is not completely controlled by a single participant; rather it occurs as natural conversation in which individuals engage in a free and open exchange of ideas” (Gambrell, 1996, p. 26).   Almasi tells us that, “the new view of discussion that is emerging in the professional literature and classrooms across the United States refers to interactive events in which individuals collaboratively construct meaning or consider alternative interpretations of text in order to arrive at new understandings ”(Gambrell & Almasi, 1996,p.2). Within this new view of discussion student and teacher roles change. “In a discussion, students tend to assume a multitude of roles that are traditionally reserved for the teacher, such as inquisitor, facilitator, and evaluator as well as the more familiar role of respondent” (Gambrell & Almasi, 1996, p.7). The use of dialogue and discussion has gained recognition as an essential tool for learning in literature based instruction and literacy acquisition (Barrentine, 1996, Roser & Martinez, 1995).

 Expressive language is an important tool which aides in the acquisition of reading and writing (Applebee, 2000). Applebee (2000) refers to British linguist Jimmy Britton's argument that expressive language is the genre in which the learner explores and assimilates new ideas and experiences whether working alone or with peers.  Bernice E. Cullinan in her forward to Book Talk and Beyond Children and Teachers Respond to Literature (Roser & Martinez, 1995) quotes Britton as saying that “reading and writing float on a sea of talk” (p. ix).

            Just as spoken language is the first entry into the construction of shared meaning of events, (Halliday, 2000) it is important to remember the interrelatedness and connections of all language processes in the role of making meaning. The importance of using the expressive language base and the child's prior knowledge to expand new literacy skills of reading and writing clearly defines the need for dialogue and discussion in the classroom (Harste, 1994). All aspects of linguistic and social experience work together and provide the connections children use to attach meaning to text. Discussions are an opportunity to participate in the shared construction of meaning, comprehension and expansion of ideas in print (Ruddell & Ruddell, 1994). The social nature of discussion supports the Vygotskian perspective that social interaction aides in the acquisition of cognitive skills and growth (Forman & Cazden, 2000). Roy Corden (1998), in his article ‘Talking into literacy', states that literacy events involve a great deal of talk and that  “spoken language is not used simply to express thoughts, it is used in the creation of them” (p. 27). The research reveals that the benefits of discussion for developing literacy skills are deeper understanding, higher level thinking and improved communication skills (Gambrell, 1996). Safe risk free environments where children can confidently share responses to what they have read build feelings of self worth and confidence. Upon realizing that what they say matters, students take on ownership for understanding and motivation, and their attitudes about reading improve (Gambrell, 2001; Routman, 1991; Wells, 1995).  The shared reflections and thoughts provided by group discussion drawn on the prior knowledge, social, and cultural experiences of diverse learners, develop a broader schema with which participants can make connections to new knowledge (Anderson, 1994; Ruddell, M. 1994). Rich and ample experiences with language enhance vocabulary growth, which is then reflected in written language (Johnson, 2000).

            Reader response theory has positive implications for the use of dialogue and discussion in the teaching of literature (Squire, 1994).  Louise Rosenblatt's (1994) transactional view of reader response reinforces the need for shared collaboration since meaning may be similar yet never identical, for individual readers. The discussion process allows children to become acclimated to ways of talking about books in a social context, (Galda, Ash & Cullinan, 2000) and share the varied transactions to the benefit of all. The results of discussion on literacy processes include expanded vocabularies, better comprehension, and improvement on student's analytical essays (Johnson, 2000; Lyons, 1996). Social development can be enhanced for children who engage in collaborative literacy, which engages readers in discussions of literature that become the medium through which they make connections with life's important lessons (Wood, Roser, Martinez 2001). Different discussion methods have been created to assist students in achieving different types of instructional objectives (Gall & Gall, 1993). Cooperative learning methods are used for discussion that promotes shared meaning. Subject Mastery Discussion Method is directed at mastering course content material.  And Issues Oriented Discussion is used to increase students' awareness of their opinion and the opinions of others (Gall & Gall, 1993).

Research selection

The studies selected for this review provide information on many important areas of inquiry as they relate to dialogue and discussion.  Which frames of discussion are most productive for learners in terms of literacy skills acquisition such as comprehension, and critical thinking skills?   What value does participation in discussion groups have for diverse learners and struggling readers?   What are student's perceptions of how they experience text based discussions? What is the role of the teacher in facilitating discussion? What are the current practices that include dialogue and discussion in literacy teaching?
 

Frames of Discussion and Their Impact on Comprehension and Critical Thinking

Discussion groups can encourage students to naturally construct meaning of text that assists comprehension and critical thinking  (Almasi, 1995; Almasi, O'Flahavan & Pooman, 2001; Carico, 2001; Chin, Anderson & Waggoner, 2001;Eeds & Wells, 1989; Goatley, Brock & Raphael, 1995; Lyons, 1996; Villaume & Hopkins, 1995; Van den Branden, 2000; Wollman-Bonilla, 1994).  Eeds and Wells (1989) revealed that students working in small heterogeneous groups are capable of engaging themselves in literacy practices during discussions of literature. Students in this study carried out what are traditionally called comprehension skills even when the teacher did not pose traditional questions. Discussions validated and transformed individual interpretations and promoted negotiation and greater understanding of the text. The comprehension of text occurred naturally as a part of the conversation and related to what each participant had personally experienced. Each group's success varied in relation to its facilitators' ability to seize and utilize teachable moments as they arose in discussion to develop literacy skills.

Group discussion promotes the productive engagement of students in actively attaining meaning from text.  Chin, Anderson & Waggoner (2001) study two different approaches to literature discussion: Recitations and Collaborative Reasoning. The fourth grade students involved in the Collaborative Reasoning discussions generated patterns of discourse that indicated greater student engagement and greater intellectual productivity, with more elaboration, prediction and use of textual support and prior knowledge than those students involved in   Recitation discussions. Students can use shared schema and prior knowledge to increase engagement in and mastery of literacy tasks.   Mizerka (1999), compared student-led and teacher-led literature circles in a study to focus on the advantages or disadvantages in reading comprehension between the two groups. While she found no difference between the groups on the California Achievement Test for reading comprehension, she noted that student portfolios, which were worked on independently in student-led groups were scored just as high as those that were teacher directed, suggesting that students had learned to work with greater independent understanding in the student-led groups. Transcripts from this study also indicated greater student engagement in student-led groups.

Students in peer-led discussion groups seem to attain greater meaning of text as they negotiate meaning of sociocognitive conflicts that arise from the text through discussion (Almasi, 1995; Villaume & Hopkins, 1995).  Almasi's (1995) study compared the nature of sociocognitive conflicts in fourth grade students during peer-led and teacher-led discussions. They found that students in peer-led discussions were significantly better able to recognize and resolve sociocognitive conflicts that arose during literature-based discussion about text. Sociolinguistic analysis of peer-led discussions showed that students express themselves and explore issues more fully than in teacher-led discussion groups, and allowed for the internalization of the cognitive processes of engaged reading.   The Villaume and Hopkins (1995) study provides evidence that social dialogue impacted the personal response of students in ways that created multiple connections between text, personal experience, and imagined experiences, and that in-depth and critical thinking is developed through interactions with other people.

Diverse learners, such as special needs, and ESL students, who participate in heterogeneous discussion groups, have been shown to profit in the area of comprehension when meaning is constructed collaboratively (Brabham & Villaume, 2000; Goatley, Brock & Raphael, 1995; Van den Branden, 2000; Morrow& Gambrell, 2000).

A study by Van den Branden (2000) addresses comprehension as it relates to the negotiation of meaning in multilingual primary school classes. The condition which Van den Branden labeled ‘Collective Negotiation', where students read a text and were then encouraged to negotiate the meaning of unfamiliar words and phrases with the rest of the class, proved most successful in helping students attain meaning. The results also indicated that students who worked with a peer of a different level of language proficiency did better than those who negotiated with students of similar proficiency.

Goatley and her colleagues (Goatley, Brock & Raphael, 1995) found that diverse learners, who were traditionally given reading instruction in pull out programs, benefited from participation in discussion groups using the Book Club format of student discussion. An ESL student, a special education resource room student with academic problems, and a child who received chapter one services for problems with comprehension were all included in a small discussion group of five students to discuss a novel. Students in the group drew on each other's knowledge to scaffold meaning construction. They challenged each other's interpretation and used personal experience and prior knowledge to clarify events from stories.  Morrow and Gambrell (2000) report that research on literature based instruction with special needs populations is limited, but it seems to show promise in the areas of promoting positive attitudes about reading and improving reading proficiency. Accommodations should be made for struggling readers, such as books on tape or listening to a more proficient reader, to allow these students to participate in conversation on a higher level (Brabham & Villaume, 2000).
 

Student-led discussion

            Student-led heterogeneous discussion groups appear to have more desirable outcomes in regards to comprehension than teacher-led discussion groups (Almasi, O'Flahavan & Pooman, 2001; Alverman, Young, Weaver, Hinchman, Moore, Phelps, Thrash, & Zaleski, 1996; Maloch, 2002). While teachers sometimes have difficulty relinquishing control in discussion situations (Eeds & Wells 1989), research reveals that the student-led groups allowed for greater engagement and more talk time with conversation centered on the topics until a greater agreement of meaning was achieved (Almasi, O'Flahavan, & Poonam, 2001; Lyons, 1996). Students recognize the value of peer-discussion groups and can identify and describe the necessary conditions for successful discourse groups ( Alverman et al., 1996; Evans,  2002;  Wollman-Bonilla , 1994). Fifth grade students in Evans (2002) study identified five basic conditions for effective discussions; (1) basic requirements (the need to read the book, write in response journals, participate in discussion),(2) respect issues (listening, not interrupting, being treated fairly), (3) people you can work with (it helped to have people you could get along with not necessarily friends),(4) task structure assigned by the teacher (a specific structure or task assignment), and (5) a text with literary merit( a good book conducive to discussion). Alverman et al. (1996) found that students at the middle and high school levels were cognizant of the conditions that were conducive to good discussion as well as how discussion benefits their understanding of the text. Alverman et al. (1996) also found that students valued listening to each other as they expressed their opinion of what they read.

While student-led discussion groups have many ways of effectively promoting literacy skills, a study by Wollman-Bonilla (1994) revealed that students in homogeneous ability groups of less skilled readers were not as successful as students of homogeneous higher ability student led groups in collaborative discussions. The less able groups created more teacher dominated discussions and resisted engaging in informal discussion despite the urging of their teacher. The Wollman- Bonilla (1994) study also suggests that grouping methods and text selection can influence the outcome of literature discussions. Students respond better to books that they can relate to on a personal level.

The role of the teacher in discussion

 The development of discussion can be greatly influenced by the involvement of the teacher (Almasi, O'Flahvan, & Poonam, 2001; Eeds & Wells, 1989). A teacher's dialogue should provide effective scaffolding and not encourage students to rely solely on the teacher to solve interaction problems (Almasi, O'Flahavan, & Pooman, 2001; Eeds & Wells, 1989).  Teacher involvement should focus on establishing the rules for listening and turn taking, as well as modeling and scaffolding of conversation techniques that are metalinguistic in nature (Barton. 1995; Eeds, Peterson, 1991; Gall & Gall 1993; Maloch, 2002; McMahon, & Goatley 1995; Villaume & Hopkins, 1995; Wollman-Bonilla, 1994).  The students in a study conducted by Maloch (2002) showed that the need for metalinguistic interventions by the teacher decreased over time as students internalized these strategies that were explicitly taught to them. Teachers could help students through skilled questioning, seizing upon the most teachable moments as they arose in discussion groups to develop literacy skills. Eeds and Wells (1989) state that teachers should not conduct “gentle inquisitions”, which focus on the literal comprehension, but rather “grand conversations”, which support reader response theories and promote literacy. Wells (1995) refers to “conversation maintenance” as the teachers' role, forwarding specific strategies of encouragement, synthesis and inquiry that invite students to engage in critical discussion and keep conversation going. When making the decision as to the degree of teacher control in discussion groups age and grade level of students is a consideration( Wiencek, 1996). Younger children in the first and second grades may need more teacher involvement as compared to older elementary students. 
 

 Integration of dialogue and discussion in practices of literacy development

Numerous classroom practices and strategies effectively integrate dialogue and discussion to enable and enhance the acquisition of literacy skills (Barton, 1995; Barrentine, 1996; Brabham & Villaume, 2000; Brown, Palinscar & Armbruster, 1994; Commeyras, 1993; Dyer, Lovedahl, Conley, 2000; Gall & Gall, 1993;Gambrell, 2001; Gutherie & McCann, 1996; Lyons, 1996; Morrow, 1996; Raphael, Pardo, Highfield & McMahon, 1997; Wells, 1995; Wiencek, 1996).

During an interactive read aloud activity, children instinctively try to negotiate meaning and make personal connections with the text (Barrentine, 1996). It is apparent that meaningful connection is a powerful motivating force in the desire for children to obtain literacy skills (Dyer, Lovedahl & Conley, 2000). Shelby Barrentine (1996) tells us that interactive read-alouds help children to construct meaning that goes beyond what they could achieve alone or without interaction.  Teachers are insightful to the fact that obtaining meaning, ideas, thoughts, fantasy, and facts in text are the prime motivation for a child to work through the phonetic and technical aspects of unlocking the sound/symbol relationships that will allow them independent entrance into this world of words (Dyer, Lovedahl & Conley 2000; Gambell, 2001).

 Research has shown that when dialogue is part of the teaching strategy, as in Reciprocal Teaching, students become more proficient at paraphrasing, summarizing and developing questions related to the text (Brown, Palinscar, & Armbruster 1994).

The Dialogical-Thinking Reading Lesson (D-TRL), (Commeyras, 1993) is another instructional approach that involves dialogue to promote critical thinking in students who struggle to read and engage with text. D-TRL calls on the social cognition theory and asks students to consider and discuss a central question and two hypothesized conclusions related to a story they have read.

When retelling is combined with interactive discussion there is significant improvement in comprehension and recall of discourse (Morrow, 1996). “Children and adults interact to discuss, construct, and interpret text ( Morrow, 1996, p. 269).

 Idea Circles (Gutherie & McCann, 1996) involve students in discussion to learn a specific concept. Multiple texts can be utilized to explore a topic that the children then reconstruct in discussion by converging on a shared conceptual understanding.

Conversational Discussion Groups (CDG) is a framework that allows teachers to facilitate the building of social interaction and interpretive discussion skills (Wiencek, 1996). CDG includes a phase for the instruction of interaction and interpretive strategies, a phase for discussion with the teacher tries to limit her talk to observer or scaffolder, and  lastly a debriefing phase where the teacher assumes a leadership role to review the strategies that were used during discussion.

Book Club (Raphael, Pardo, Highfield & McMahon, 1997) is an approach to literature-based instruction that has a component of shared whole group discussion, ‘community share', as well as small group discussions that takes place after reading and journal response. Reader response is one of the foundations of this program which recognizes the importance of what the reader brings to the text as well as what is drawn from the text. Many book club formats share this discussion component. “Regardless of the variations in the names book discussion groups assume (literature study groups, literature study circles, book clubs, or story floor), they share the overarching goal of enhancing students' talk about text. They also have in common some additional critical features: (1) high-quality literature in the form of trade books; (2) opportunities for all students to participate trough interaction with their peers; (3) acceptance and valuing of personal responses as highly as traditional displays of comprehension; and (4) a natural approach to how students structure conversation about text and determine discussion topics” (Raphael, Goatley, McMahon & Woodman, 1995, p. 68).

Conclusion

 Overall, the literature examined in this review indicates a positive outcome for and value in developing quality student led heterogeneous discussion groups as a means of imparting literacy skills of comprehension, and critical thinking (Almasi, 1995; Almasi, Oflahavan & Pooman, 2001; Alverman, Young, Weaver et. al., 1996; Chin, et. al. 2001; Gambrell, 1996). The educational theories and research examined support the role of social interaction in peer group discussions as a motivating and engaging format for the development of higher-level critical thinking skills.  Teachers may find it challenging to implement discussion groups (Almasi, et al., 2001; Wollman-Bonilla, 1994;Eeds & Wells, 1989) but with proper scaffolding and instruction of discussion skills peer-led discussion can be used with positive effects.  The benefits are reflected in improved comprehension and critical thinking skills, which, after being carried out in a social context, are internalized by the individual student. As student roles in discussion formats change to those of engaged thinker and responder, so must the teachers role change to that of facilitator and modeler of strategies allowing for instruction and maintenance of conversation skills which students will need to acquire. Student–led discussion groups are not easily instituted, but the research supports them as a worthwhile, and potentially curriculum-defining pursuit. Further research of peer-led discussion is suggested in lower elementary school and with special needs populations (Lyons, 1996; Murrow & Gambrell, 2000).

References for Literature Review Summary