Johnson 1
Katie Johnson
Reading Education 5040
Dr. Gary Moorman
December 3, 2009
Introduction
The role of a teacher is to work with students’inherent sense of curiosity for learning and challenge them to instinctively achieve their learning goals. In today’s classrooms, the role of the teacher has become one of dictatorship. [m1] In essence, the teacher assumes a leadership role, setting the focus of the discussion and determining both specific questions and probes (Maloch, 2002). The teacher is focused on lessons driven by data gained through procedural assessments. The data is collected and calculated, which determines the lesson taught to the student. The teacher proceeds to lead the lesson and discussion in the classroom, using specific questions and probes created by the program implemented (reading a script from a program). When learning is procedural and programmatic, the inherent sense of curiosity for learning and challenge to instinctively achieve individual’s goals are eliminated. How is an educator able to build upon students’ inherent sense of curiosity for learning and challenge all students to instinctively achieve their learning goals in today’s classroom? Is a teacher able to achieve these goals by implementing literature circles in a classroom?
I believe the frustration with my current role as a teacher stems from my struggle of the implementation of RTI[m2]. Over the past two years, my school has worked to become a Response to Intervention (RTI) school. The purpose of Response to Intervention is to “integrate assessment and intervention within a multi-level prevention system to maximize student achievement and to reduce behavior problems”. Utilizing RTI initiatives, schools identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities or other disabilities” (National Center on Response to Intervention). My frustration is summarized from the thoughts of a graduate professor, “RTI- we should switch the “I” and the “R” around, because instead of improving students’ reading, we are constantly assessing”. In the past three days, I have spent at least one-half of my day assessing students. I question my role as a teacher because I feel that I have become an assessor of student reading. While I am assessing, there is little time to truly work and interact with my students.
Literacy instruction in my classroom [m3]includes a ninety-minute block of literacy, and a total [m4]of at least forty-five minutes of Self Selected Reading. Within the literacy block, students gain practice in reading both whole group and guided reading. The literacy block is also set up to include whole group instruction in spelling, phonics, and writing. In addition to our literacy block, our school has also implemented three programs: Wordly Wise, PALS (Peer Assisted Learning Strategies), and the Braidy Doll. I would describe this time as a programmatic literacy block.
During my master’s program, I have become more conscience of the literacy instruction in my classroom. I have realized that quality literature was missing in my literacy program. In conjunction with RTI, I have been asked to use leveled readers for assessment, initiated programs, and guided reading. Quality literature is replaced by leveled readers. Becoming frustrated by this realization, I have searched for how I could implement award-winning literature in my classroom in order to pursue student achievement in literature. I am concerned that my students, beginning, emergent, and advanced readers alike, will become exhausted and unmotivated by reading “boring” leveled readers that lack a cultivating story plot. I want my students to become passionate about reading at an early age. I find it evident that students will effectively and efficiently learn material in which motivates them.
Through the implementation of Book Talks (literature circles), students be became excited and motivated, developing an inherent natural sense of interest in literature. Students were exposed to quality literature in small groups, and had the opportunity to work together to accomplish tasks and discuss the text. These circles lead to the ultimate goal of allowing students the opportunity to explore quality children’s literature on their own, building upon their own instinctive learning desires. Positive reading success was observed and programmatic literature lessons were not avoided, but were not the core of my literacy block. The objective of instilling students’ inherent sense of curiosity for learning through literature circles led to my research question: What happens when literature circles are implemented in a second grade classroom? [m5]
Theoretical Perspective
Literature circles have been implemented in classrooms throughout the educational timeline. They are portrayed as constant, consistent, and positive implementations that have been researched for decades. Literature circles were implemented in the classroom in order to elude programmatic literature lessons (teacher-led lessons), while working to create reading success through the use of quality literature, student interaction, and improving student motivation in reading.
Literature circles allow students to select and read quality literature offered by the teacher. Through the use of quality literature, students can build their orthographic skills from book language. Carmen Marinez-Rolden [m6], a teacher researcher, believes that “working with quality literature will prevent a common view studied, of reading based mainly in word and sound recognition, implies that children will not usually have the opportunity to read quality children’s books unless they learn to decode and read first.” Because they are “too young” they will also not be invited to engage in meaningful conversations about books or in critical dialogue about what they read or have read to them (Maritinez-Roldan and Lopez-Robertson, 2000). It is unfortunate that this view is bestowed upon young readers. I believe this theory prevents teachers from exposing young students to quality literature. Quality literature is a major influence in determining students’ success in reading.
The opportunity for students to have a role in their learning is often diluted from programmatic lessons. The teacher often takes control of the literature read, using comprehension questions to guide the response to the literature, otherwise known as question-answering sessions. Within these literature lessons, students do not have the opportunity to engage in extended and connected interactions with others (Maloch, 2002). According to a theory read in research conducted by Maloch, itIt is suggested that discussion that is less teacher centered may encourage students to engage in more problem-solving talk and lead to a more in-depth understanding of the literature (Almasi (,1995);and Eeds and Wells, (1989, as cited in Maloch, 2002). I agree with the thoughts of Martinez-Roldan and Lopez-Robertson, in their belief that all children have the potential to learn and engage in meaningful discussions and critical dialogue if teachers provide a conducive learning context (Martinez-Rolden and Lopez-Robertson, 2000). It is vital that literature lessons are less teacher-centered. Teachers must provide the opportunity for students to interact.
Researchers[m7] often refer to Vygotsky’s theory of social interaction, and the positive affects on learning. Lylod expresses the importance of Vygotsky’s theory, in that students will exchange dialogue whether conflicting or agreeing which further promotes engagement in the literature (Lloyd, 2006).
Student motivation is a constant battle for teachers in today’s classrooms. Students will learn from which they are motivated. I find truth in Lloyd’s belief that, it is the responsibility of educators to find texts and practices that can motivate and cultivate the skill of all of our students (Lloyd, 2006). Literature circles allow the opportunities for student choice, further motivating them to read texts that they have chosen themselves. It is to be expected that students will make connections to the texts that they chose to read, furthering the motivation to interact and be engaged in a literature circle. [m8]
Review Of Literature
Blum, Lipsett and Yocum (date)Timothy Blum, Laura Lipsett, and Dorothy Yocum., executed a research study where literature circles were used in an inclusion classroom, with the goal to promote student reading abilities in discussing literature selections as well as be self-determined in selecting their own literature and talking about their ideas in a small group. Quality literature played a key role in the success of the students. All students, including students whom had learning disabilities were surveyed on their thoughts about their own reading abilities before and after working with literature circles. I found it intriguing and inspiring to discover that students with disabilities showed extraordinary gain when researchers compared their survey results with the rest of the class. In this study these students were given the opportunity to explore and discover literature using literature circles in the general classroom environment.
Bonnie Burns also stresses the importance of using literature circles in the classroom through her research. The literature circles have changed the classroom climate. The author concluded that literature circles made her students better readers because they became excited and motivated about their experiences with literature, primarily through thoughtful, open-ended discussion. Five themes were highlighted in particular as key advantages of literature circles that had a positive affect on the classroom climate. Allowing students choice, assigning roles, social interaction, time for reading, and the teacher’s role are essential for the teacher to note before implementing literature circles.
Carmen Martinez-Rolden and Julia Lopez-Robertson were two researchers that found immense possibilities and success of implementing literature circles in a bilingual classroom. Concerned with research previously reviewed, the researchers believed that literature circles could positively impact the learning of bilingual students, in spite of the language barrier. The researchers implemented the literature circles in a first-grade classroom. The groups were formed using guided reading groups, because the researchers felt that the students would be more comfortable working with students that they had already been working with (Spanish speaking students were in a group, and two small groups of English speaking students were formed). This idea is interesting and contrasting to previous ideas of literature circles. Previous research read explained that groups should not be formed according to reading levels and that the groups should be diverse. The researchers started the circles by giving the students books that they had chosen; the texts were in Spanish and English.
The discoveries found by the researchers were significant. Students at such a young age were able to make significant connections to the text, exploring social and cultural issues that are prominent around them. Another discovery was that the Spanish students were able to make more connections to the text than the English speaking students. The researchers were caught off guard to find how the discussion of one story caused strong feelings and issues about students’ own experiences as immigrants. The research inspired me to further literature circles with future classes that are diverse.
Rachel Malchow worked to implement literature circles in a high school classroom, with the understanding that literature circles provide the opportunity to engage students through a democratic discussion-oriented approach. Perplexed by how gender affects society, the researcher worked to find out if gender issues that are relevant in society, will also be relevant in literature circles as students work to discuss texts. Research gathered from the study concludes that gender, and even race, impacts adolescents as they work to discover and discuss literary texts. The researcher also concludes the importance of book selections, as well as group formations play a vital role in the discussion process due to her findings from the study. The research study influenced my decision of group formation and book selections. [m9]
Methodology
Subjects
The subjects of this study were ten second grade students. The students who were involved in the beginning stages of literature circles were students whom were at or above the second grade reading level. Literature circles were used during a thirty-minute block each day. During this time struggling readers were pulled by interventionists (tutors)tutors for intervention. It is important to note the classroom setting is in an open school environment (little to no walls separating classroom areas). Planning to motivate my students to participate in the book talks, a special and unique blanket was used for sitting on. Overall, the socioeconomic status (SES) make-up of my students is middle class Caucasian, concluding that as students entered my classroom, there were prepared socially, and educationally for this study. However, there are a handful of students who are raised in single-family or extended-family homes.
Procedures
There are an abundance of programs, lessons, and rules on how one should use literature circles in the classroom; it is overwhelming. When preparing to implement literature circles in my classroom, I decided to be creative when planning the instruction, allowing room for modifications and changes as the needs arise.
Literature circles were introduced to students as “book talks”. Modeling book talks and discussion of how it worked was important when introduced. Students were accustomed to small group reading in which they read a story and then the teacher asked guided comprehension questions. During Book Talks, students were asked to follow two basic rules: 1. talk (discuss the book to the best of your ability) and 2. you do not have to raise your hand during book talks ( but be considerate and respectful when someone esle was talking). Students were intrigued by the rules to follow because the rules were unique. In a typical classroom setting, students are reprimanded for talking out of turn, and not raising their hands to speak. Talking sticks (two popsicle sticks) were used to establish talking and discussion; students were to get rid of both sticks during the talk. When the student commented, or asked a question during the book talk, they put one of their sticks in the middle of the circle. Talking sticks were just one trial and error idea used during the study[m10]. I was anxious to explore and implement teacher-research articles read and my own ideas used throughout three different courses of book talks.
The first course of book talks was focused on modeling. My objective of the first course was to get my students excited, and accustomed to the procedures, discussing the rules and goals to follow during each book talk. Books were chosen by the teacher for the first course to help get the students started. The story, Flossie and the Fox, by Patricia McKissak was used as a model. The story is a unique piece of quality literature about a little girl outsmarting a sly fox. I initiated discussion when reading the story aloud. I stopped as the plot climaxed, to encourage student discussion and interests in the text. After reading the text, students were asked to write a question that they could ask during the book talk, and to complete job assignments. Job assignments were completed by students working in small groups. There were three to four students in each group. Students explored the events of the story as well as became vocabulary masters (studied specific words that helped their comprehension of the text). My goal in working in small groups was to get students familiarized and comfortable with one another and to discuss the story in a small group setting.
The second course of book talks was focused on working with students’ questioning skills. The creative story, The Rainbow Fish, by Marcus Pfister was read aloud. I chose to use this story in order to work with questioning skills because students had prior knowledge of the popular story read in previous grades. After hearing the story, I asked students to think of one question to ask during a book talk. Students’ questions were comprehension questions. For example, one student wrote, “who was the main character?”. I facilitated a lesson about questions. The group talked about the difference between fat questions and skinny questions. Fat questions are questions that connect to the reader, and may not be found in the story. They are big with lots of room to discuss. Therefore the reader may have to infer, or make connections. Skinny questions are questions that can be answered from the text, and may have only one answer. Students were instructed to sort questions that had been previously written on cards. Students derived the difference between the two types of questions. We concluded the second course by rewriting and asking only fat questions for The Rainbow Fish.
By the third course of book talks, I wanted to begin moving from the role of the classroom teacher to the facilitator. The process of becoming the facilitator was slow. The goal of the third course of book talks was to immerse students in quality literature that were connected to other works of literature, authors or themes currently being read in the classroom.