creating a sense of wonder by engaging all readers in high-level discussions about text

Creating a Sense of

Wonder by Engaging

all Readers

in High-Level

Discussions about

TextJanice F. Almasi, Ph.D.University of [email protected]

Goals

• What does high-level talk look like in discussions? (How does peer discussion differ from teacher-led discussion?)

• How do we create a culture for high-level talk in discussion?

• How do we assess and evaluate discussion?

Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky


National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards English language arts. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy

What We Know

• Type of discussion can determine children’s responses and focus their interpretations in particular ways (Many & Wiseman, 1992)

Many, J. E., & Wiseman, D. L. (1992). The effect of teaching approach on third-grade students' response to literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(3), 265-287.


What is Peer Discussion?

How do you define peer discussion?

As you watch try to notice:

How did the participants interact?

How was language used to make sense of the text?

What scaffolding was done?

By what social rules

did the group

function? What topics were discussed?

What questions were asked?

What did the teacher

do to the environment

to foster comprehension?

How did participants

interact?

How was Language Used to

Make Sense of Text?

How were participants scaffolded?

Teacher-led Discussion

Peer Discussion

Teacher: They were at camp and what were they going to do there at this camp? Yes?

Student: They were going to have a contest. They have a map and a compass and they have to find stuff.

Teacher: Does anyone know the name of the camp? Yes?

Teacher: Alright, um, who is Bobbi?

Student: Bobbi was the girl.

Teacher: The girl, the character in our story. What other characters were in our story? Yes?

Student: Jamie

Teacher: Alright. Where were these characters? Yes?

Student: They were at camp.

Initiate

Respond

Evaluate

Initiate

Respond

Evaluate

Example: Teacher-led

DiscussionIRE Participant Structure

(Cazden, 1988; Mehan, 1979

Defining Peer Discussion

• Dialogic classroom event in which students are cognitively, socially, and affectively engaged in collaboratively constructing meaning or considering alternate interpretations of texts to arrive at new understandings (Almasi, 2002)

• Students gather to talk about, critique, and understand texts with minimal teacher assistance.


Peer Discussion: A Different Type of Post-reading Discussion

• Peer Discussion─ Decentralized Context

• Teacher facilitates group as a momentary scaffold─ Student Goals include:

• Interacting with others in a manner that fosters meaningful interpretation

• Using strategies for interpreting literature and constructing meaning

• Setting agendas and group norms for discussing literature independently

─ Conversational Discussion Group format (O’Flahavan, 1989)

O'Flahavan, J. F. (1989). An exploration of the effects of participant structure upon literacy development in reading group discussion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois-Champaign.

Participant Structure in a

Discussion

Decentralized• All participants take

equal responsibility for:• Deciding who may talk• Deciding what to talk

about• Deciding how the

conversation proceeds• Determining the nature

of future conversations

Centralized• An authority takes

responsibility for:• Deciding who may talk• Deciding what to talk

about• Deciding how the

conversation proceeds• Determining the nature

of future conversations


A Discussion Continuum


CentralizedMore Teacher Scaffolding

(Microgenetic)60-75% Teacher Talk

DecentralizedMinimal Teacher Scaffolding

(Ontogenetic)0-10% Teacher Talk

Peer Discussion Teacher-led DiscussionInstructional Conversations

Questioning the Author

Creating a Culture that Fosters High-

Level Talk

Discussion

Text Selection/Arrangemen

t

Context/Environme

nt

Type of Scaffolding


Creating Groups(adapted from Wiencek & O’Flahavan,

1992)Student Social Ability Comprehension/

Interpretive Ability

Reading/Decoding

Ability

1 = Quiet student2 = Willingly shares ideas 3 = Willingly shares ideas in discussion and leads

1 = Difficulty comprehending text and unable to share basic ideas of text with peers2 = Able to comprehend most text and share with peers3 = Able to comprehend text independently and justify meanings created using text

1 = Unable to read/decode text independently2 = Able to read/decode most texts independently3 = Able to read/decode a variety of texts independently

Ashley

RoseWiencek, J., & O’Flahavan, J. F. (1994). From teacher-led to peer discussions

about literature: Suggestions for making the shift. Language Arts, 71(7), 488-498.

Decentralized Structure:

Introducing Conversation• Establish Social and

Cultural Norms• What is the goal?

• What is peer discussion like?

• What do you do in it?

• How do you act/participate?

• What do you say?


First Grade

Discussion Reminders1. You don’t have to raise your hands to speak.

2. Call each other by your names.

3. Take turns speaking.

4. Don’t interrupt each other.

5. Use you’re inside voice, but talk loud enough so everyone in the group can hear you.

6. Don’t use bad words or talk mean.

7. If someone is doing something they shouldn’t be doing ask them to stop.



Model Questioning Behaviors

Learning to think and talk while reading

• Book Buddies• During teacher read aloud• Teacher stops at various

points in the text• Poses thoughtful, open-

ended questions• What might happen next?• What are you wondering?• What do you think the

author meant?

• Turn and talk to your buddy



Model Questioning Behaviors

Learning to think while reading leads to interesting

topics for discussion


I wonder . . .

I wish . . .

I worry . . .

I don’t understand . . .

Decentralized Structure: Learning

to Talk with One Another

Respectfully

If you start with Book Buddies . . .

Have two pairs of students turn and talk to each other


Decentralized Structure: Learning

to Talk to One Another

Respectfully

If you start with small groups


• Prior to the next peer discussion have students watch a videotape of their previous discussion and look for ways they could improve their own participation

• Fishbowl by watching another group live or on video and critiquing

Group A Fishbowl

Group B Observers


Peer Discussion FormatIntroduction

(5 minutes)

Peer Discussion (20 minutes)

Debriefing (5 minutes)

Peer Discussion:5 Minute Introduction


• Teacher functions as facilitator to remind students of group norms for interaction and to foster substantive interpretation

Scaffolding


How do we Assess and Evaluate

Discussion?

20 Minute Peer Discussion


• Students collaboratively construct understandings of text.

• Teacher takes anecdotal notes to inform instructional next steps that can be addressed in the debriefing or in a mini-lesson at a later time.

• Teacher functions as momentary scaffold intervening only to refocus the group.

• Goal is to help students learn how to recognize and resolve problems on their own.

Discussion

Peer Discussion


The Teacher’s Role:• Trust students’

questions• Sit back and permit

students to discuss• Scaffold for

interaction and interpretation when needed

• Observe group and record successes and areas for improvement

5 Minute Debriefing


Scaffolding

• Teacher returns to help the group evaluate their discussion and set new goals for the next discussion.– Interpretive Goals

• What can we do to help each other make sense of the text better?

– Interaction Goals• What can we do to make

the discussion run more smoothly?

Student Self-Assessment

I listened carefully to what others said. A lot like me Somewhat

like me A little like me

Not at all like me

I did not interrupt others when they spoke.

A lot like me Somewhat like me

A little like me

Not at all like me

I added onto what others’ said. A lot like me Somewhat

like me A little like me

Not at all like me

I asked questions to help me understand the text better.

A lot like me Somewhat like me

A little like me

Not at all like me

I think I did ______ really well in the discussion.

Next time we have a discussion I would like to improve ______.

My goal next time is _____.Garas-York, K., Shanahan, L. E., & Almasi, J. F. (in press). Comprehension: High-level talk and about texts. To appear in B. M. Taylor & N. Duke (Eds.), Effective literacy instruction: Handbook of research and practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

(from Garas-York, Shanahan, & Almasi, in press)

Teacher Eval/Long-term

Planning

Long-Term Goal (from CCSS)

Date Observation

Progress Toward

Goal

Next Steps

1. Listen to others with care

2. Speak one at a time about topics and texts under discussion

3. Build on others’ talk by responding to one another’s comments through multiple exchanges

4. Ask questions to clear up any confusion about topics and texts under discussion

(from Garas-York, Shanahan, & Almasi, in press)

A Discussion Continuum


CentralizedMore Teacher Scaffolding

(Microgenetic)60-75% Teacher Talk

DecentralizedMinimal Teacher Scaffolding

(Ontogenetic)0-10% Teacher Talk

Peer Discussion Teacher-led DiscussionInstructional Conversations

Questioning the Author


For Further Information:


[email protected]

References

Almasi, J. F. (2002). Peer discussion. In B. Guzzetti (Ed.), Literacy in America: An encyclopedia (Vol. 2, pp. 420-424). New York: ABC.

Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders' sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 314-351.

Almasi, J. F., Cho, H., Garas, K., Shanahan, L., Ma, W., Yoon, B., & Augustino, A. (2003, December). The Genesis of Dialogic Inquiry: Phases of Language Development during Peer Discussion. In B. Palmer (Chair), Peer Discussion Ecosystems: The Impact of Identity, Power, Authority, and Scaffolding on the Development of Dialogic Inquiry. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.

Almasi, J. F., Garas, K., Cho, H., Ma, W., Shanahan, L., & Augustino, A. (2004). The Impact of Peer Discussion on Social, Cognitive, and Affective Growth in Literacy. Paper to be presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.

References

Almasi, J. F., Garas, K., Cho, H., Ma, W., Shanahan, L., Augustino, A., & Palmer, B. M. (2005, November). A Longitudinal Study of Development: Comprehension, Interpretive Strategy Use, and Language Use Among Children in Grades K-3. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.

Almasi, J. F. & Garas-York, K. (2009). Comprehension and discussion of text. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension (pp. 470-493). Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.

Almasi, J. F., O'Flahavan, J. F., & Arya, P. (2001). A comparative analysis of student and teacher development in more proficient and less proficient peer discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 96-120.

References

Almasi, J. F., Palmer, B. M., Garas, K., Cho, H., Ma, W., Shanahan, L., & Augustino, A. (2004). A longitudinal investigation of peer discussion of text on reading development in grades K-3. Final Report submitted to the Institute of Education Sciences.

Almasi, J. F., & Russell, W. (1998, December). Scaffold to nowhere? Appropriated voice, metatalk, and personal narrative in third graders’ peer discussions of information text. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.

Almasi, J. F., & Russell, W. (1999, December). An ecology of communication: Peer discussions as semiotic systems. In L. Galda (Chair), Classroom talk about literature: The social dimensions of a solitary act. Symposium conducted at the 49th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.

ReferencesCazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of

teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Garas-York, K., Shanahan, L. E., & Almasi, J. F. (in press). Comprehension: High-level talk and about texts. To appear in B. M. Taylor & N. Duke (Eds.), Effective literacy instruction: Handbook of research and practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

Many, J. E., & Wiseman, D. L. (1992). The effect of teaching approach on third-grade students' response to literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(3), 265-287.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

References


O'Flahavan, J. F. (1989). An exploration of the effects of participant structure upon literacy development in reading group discussion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois-Champaign.

O’Flahavan, J. F. (1995). Teacher role options in peer discussions about literature. Reading Teacher, 48(4), 354-356.

Wiencek, J., & O’Flahavan, J. F. (1994). From teacher-led to peer discussions about literature: Suggestions for making the shift. Language Arts, 71(7), 488-498.


creating a sense of wonder by engaging all readers in high-level discussions about text

Documents

best practices

jamie teacher

knowtype of discussion

university of kentuckyjanice

university of kentuckyas

minimal teacher assistance

new understandings almasi

highlevel discussions