IV. Examining My Inquiry Question in Small-Group Discussions
On the first day back after winter break, I facilitated a small group jigsaw-like activity to discuss sections from Night by Elie Wiesel that my 9th grade students were required to read over the break. Originally, I thought that we could review the material as a full-class but then I decided to try small-group work, which I tend to stay away from for fear that students will be unproductive and off-task. Prior to this activity, I focused primarily, and perhaps too narrowly, upon engagement in large-group discussions rather than small-group discussions. My focus shifted, though, when I came across Fay, Garrods, and Carletta’s (2000) research that “in small…groups, the communication is like dialogue and members are influenced most by those with whom they interact in the discussion. However, in large…groups, the communication is like monologue and members are influenced most by the dominant speaker” (p. 481). This concept seems obvious, yet when supported by the research, I realized that my class discussions played out a similar dynamic; most of the full-class discussions were swayed by the few dominant verbal participants rather than a collaborative discourse in which all voices were of equal impact in the discussion.
Trying then to promote student-to-student interactions in general as well as more equitable student voices in conversations, I assigned small-group work that I hoped would generate discussion or at the very least interaction among students; I also mixed up the groups so that students were working with others they generally did not get a chance to speak with in class (Artifact 2). Assigned a passage from the text, each group was responsible for collaboratively writing a summary and listing examples of internal conflict, foreshadowing, figurative language, and any questions that they had about the section. Next, students had to present their findings to the class; each member of the group was required to speak at least once. While I forced each student to participate verbally, it was nevertheless exciting to get each student’s voice in the air.
Yet, beyond that small victory, I remained dissatisfied with the activity. Most groups did not have dialogic discussions but instead rushed through the activity, only speaking when necessary. I wanted the activity to generate student-led inquiries; however, the requirements for the assignment were too narrow for that to take off. Instead, my groups were limited by the topic that I assigned. The “work done in small groups [provided] the class with information for the rest” rather than “[simulating] further thinking, further inquiry, further creativity” (Kendrick, 2010, p. 8). They were assigned specific items that they needed to extract from specific passages that I prescribed for each group. While the activity was successful in generating more student-to-student interactions, I remained doubtful that the type of engagement that I was seeking to generate was happening. While “student-talk, an overt and measureable indicator of student involvement, is likely to be directly related to the effectiveness and efficiency of student learning,” the fact that students’ work and points of entry with the text were driven entirely by the teacher felt as though I was not actually enabling students to engage in authentic conversations with one another about the text (Cross & Nagle, 1969, p. 1362).
Remaining interested in this idea of small groups as a way to promote student engagement in dialogic discussions in which the primary mode of conversation included student-to-student interactions, I decided to try to implement literature circles for the unit on The Great Gatsby with my 11th grade class. I became interested in trying out this model of discussion since I learned about it in my fall methods and elective courses; after discussing this model with my classroom mentor and a fellow colleague at my placement who teaches the same class, we decided to give it a shot. Literature circles locate students in small groups in which they are each assigned a role (discussion director, researcher, passage picker, and recorder/connector) that they will perform for the specific day that they meet in small groups (Artifact 3). Because Gatsby is nine chapters, we decided that we would have three rounds of literature circles, each focused on a third of the novel. Students would switch roles for each literature circle.
I was excited that literature circles would in theory allow students “to pursue their own questions, discover meaning for themselves, and construct new knowledge and new understandings independent of my agenda” (Kendrick, 2010, p. 88). Like Kendrick (2010), my goal “was to engage small groups in real conversations about literature and then forge a connection between the conversations within the groups and the conversations of the class” (p. 88). Through this model, which is open-ended and driven by student findings, students would be able to engage in authentic conversations about the text and to focus upon what interested and excited them about the novel.
On the first day of literature circles, though, I was disappointed by the quality of written work that was turned into me at the end of the first session as well as the conversations that I observed. A few students had taken the assignment and the discussion time seriously; however, the majority neither produced the quality of work nor engaged with the discussion at a level of which I felt they were capable (Artifact 4). Many students came underprepared or not prepared at all. Many students were on their cell phones. Most groups struggled to maintain a discussion. One group was even sitting in silence until I verbally checked in with them to see what was going on. They responded that they had already gone over their nine discussion questions in less than five minutes; one student of the group requested that I stay with them to help generate discussion. Overall, I was discouraged with how the first round of literature circles went and reflected on what I had done as the teacher to set students up for these student-centered discussions.
Prior to this activity, most classwork with my 11th graders had been full-class discussions, focused upon questions that I had generated to which students would respond (basic IRE model). The idea of the literature circles was enticing because it was a big jump away from a teacher-centered discussion model; however, after the first day, it was clear that I had pushed students to a new model without enough proper scaffolding. From a tightly controlled teacher-led discussion to free-range, student-led small-group discussions, it is no wonder that students were off task or ill-equipped to lead their own conversations because I never gave any modeling of what a literature circle conversation would actually look like beyond verbal and written directions. While literature circles in theory can achieve the goals of Accountable Talk--“all students must have access to the learning conversation and the content of the talk must consistently further academic learning”--students need instructions on how to get there, especially when they are so used to simply following the directions and commands of teachers rather than taking ownership of their own learning (Hanak, 2005, p. 33).
Trying then to promote student-to-student interactions in general as well as more equitable student voices in conversations, I assigned small-group work that I hoped would generate discussion or at the very least interaction among students; I also mixed up the groups so that students were working with others they generally did not get a chance to speak with in class (Artifact 2). Assigned a passage from the text, each group was responsible for collaboratively writing a summary and listing examples of internal conflict, foreshadowing, figurative language, and any questions that they had about the section. Next, students had to present their findings to the class; each member of the group was required to speak at least once. While I forced each student to participate verbally, it was nevertheless exciting to get each student’s voice in the air.
Yet, beyond that small victory, I remained dissatisfied with the activity. Most groups did not have dialogic discussions but instead rushed through the activity, only speaking when necessary. I wanted the activity to generate student-led inquiries; however, the requirements for the assignment were too narrow for that to take off. Instead, my groups were limited by the topic that I assigned. The “work done in small groups [provided] the class with information for the rest” rather than “[simulating] further thinking, further inquiry, further creativity” (Kendrick, 2010, p. 8). They were assigned specific items that they needed to extract from specific passages that I prescribed for each group. While the activity was successful in generating more student-to-student interactions, I remained doubtful that the type of engagement that I was seeking to generate was happening. While “student-talk, an overt and measureable indicator of student involvement, is likely to be directly related to the effectiveness and efficiency of student learning,” the fact that students’ work and points of entry with the text were driven entirely by the teacher felt as though I was not actually enabling students to engage in authentic conversations with one another about the text (Cross & Nagle, 1969, p. 1362).
Remaining interested in this idea of small groups as a way to promote student engagement in dialogic discussions in which the primary mode of conversation included student-to-student interactions, I decided to try to implement literature circles for the unit on The Great Gatsby with my 11th grade class. I became interested in trying out this model of discussion since I learned about it in my fall methods and elective courses; after discussing this model with my classroom mentor and a fellow colleague at my placement who teaches the same class, we decided to give it a shot. Literature circles locate students in small groups in which they are each assigned a role (discussion director, researcher, passage picker, and recorder/connector) that they will perform for the specific day that they meet in small groups (Artifact 3). Because Gatsby is nine chapters, we decided that we would have three rounds of literature circles, each focused on a third of the novel. Students would switch roles for each literature circle.
I was excited that literature circles would in theory allow students “to pursue their own questions, discover meaning for themselves, and construct new knowledge and new understandings independent of my agenda” (Kendrick, 2010, p. 88). Like Kendrick (2010), my goal “was to engage small groups in real conversations about literature and then forge a connection between the conversations within the groups and the conversations of the class” (p. 88). Through this model, which is open-ended and driven by student findings, students would be able to engage in authentic conversations about the text and to focus upon what interested and excited them about the novel.
On the first day of literature circles, though, I was disappointed by the quality of written work that was turned into me at the end of the first session as well as the conversations that I observed. A few students had taken the assignment and the discussion time seriously; however, the majority neither produced the quality of work nor engaged with the discussion at a level of which I felt they were capable (Artifact 4). Many students came underprepared or not prepared at all. Many students were on their cell phones. Most groups struggled to maintain a discussion. One group was even sitting in silence until I verbally checked in with them to see what was going on. They responded that they had already gone over their nine discussion questions in less than five minutes; one student of the group requested that I stay with them to help generate discussion. Overall, I was discouraged with how the first round of literature circles went and reflected on what I had done as the teacher to set students up for these student-centered discussions.
Prior to this activity, most classwork with my 11th graders had been full-class discussions, focused upon questions that I had generated to which students would respond (basic IRE model). The idea of the literature circles was enticing because it was a big jump away from a teacher-centered discussion model; however, after the first day, it was clear that I had pushed students to a new model without enough proper scaffolding. From a tightly controlled teacher-led discussion to free-range, student-led small-group discussions, it is no wonder that students were off task or ill-equipped to lead their own conversations because I never gave any modeling of what a literature circle conversation would actually look like beyond verbal and written directions. While literature circles in theory can achieve the goals of Accountable Talk--“all students must have access to the learning conversation and the content of the talk must consistently further academic learning”--students need instructions on how to get there, especially when they are so used to simply following the directions and commands of teachers rather than taking ownership of their own learning (Hanak, 2005, p. 33).