The article begins with a comparison and contrast of two classrooms, each discussing the character of Queen Gertrude in Hamlet.  The two classrooms exhibit different “interpretive norms–patterns of interaction that occur when students and teachers discuss texts”.  The author references Townsend and Pace’s article and their questions for interpretive norms:

Whose interpretations matter most – teacher’s or students’?

Whose questions matter most?

Should textual events and characters be considered ‘real’?

How do students interpretations get validated?

What are students’ roles in a discussion – just listen?  Think?  Offer opinions?

Respond to one another’s questions?

What are teachers’ roles – partner in dialogue?  Interrogater?  Validator?

VanDeWeghe states that classroom one, a community college writing-about-literature course, is monologic.  The teacher takes center stage, controls the discussion, and interprets the literature.  He does not show interest in what the students are thinking.

Classroom two, an eleventh-grade college prep literature class, is diologic.  Participants must think, teachers value students’ ideas, and characters are viewed as real and complicated.  The seats are arranged in a semicircle, the teacher is one source of knowledge, and the discussion is real.

The author provides a practical section on implications for teachers:

• Change the physical arrangement of the room, using circles, semicircles, and paired or small-group discussion configurations.Frame discussion topics ‘in ways that invite multiple perspectives – in ways that make issues problematic.’
• Have students establish norms for conducting discussions.
• Implement practice in ‘considering alternative viewpoints’ through such means as writing before and after discussion or using dialogue journals for shared written conversation.
• Allow time before class for students to generate discussion questions and time at the end to write down continuing puzzlements that could be used for later discussions.
• Pay attention to classroom discourse, especially to the ways we talk about our interpretations as well as our students (e.g. expressing uncertainty, valuing conundrums, praising intellectual risk taking).
• Model the habits of mind we wish to inculcate in students – for example, tentative exploration of an idea, perseverance in the face of self-doubt, and willingness to listen to other points of view that may challenge our own”.

The author concludes,

“literary discussions may be about more than how to interpret literature.  They may also be about how to talk about life – in all its mystery and messiness.  Some would call this lifelong learning”.

This uplifting and inspiring article leaves me wondering which classroom is most similar to mine.

VanDeWeghe, R. (May 2006).  Interpretive norms in literature discussions.  English Journal.  95, 84-87.  Retrieved July 6, 2008 from ProQuest database.

Related posts:

1. Building fires: raising achievement through class discussion. Kahn, E.
2. Key words in instruction: literature circles.
3. Socratic seminars: engaging students in intellectual discourse

People need to talk because we’re highly social organisms! Students should not be expected to sit silently and do their work.

The author states,

“discussion has many advantages, not the least of which is that simply opening the mouth to speak sends oxygen to the brain and facilitates dendratic growth”.

The author uses statistics from research to prove the value of discussion:

• “students learn 90% of what they say or discuss,”
• “better quality questions result in more challenge to the thought processes of the brain,”
• “students who discuss how they and others think become better learners,”
• “small-group discussion reinforces classroom learning, assists the brain in recalling the information, and allows students to solve problems collaboratively,” and
• “it is unrealistic for teachers to formulate questions for students” because it’s not that way in real life.

The article also includes sample classroom activities.  Finally, it includes stems for questioning according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. These should be shared with students so they can form their own questions.

Tate, M. (2003).  Brainstorming and discussion.  Worksheets don’t grow dendrites.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Related posts:

1. Strategies for initiating authentic discussion. Johannessen, L.
2. Getting the discussion started.
3. Whose interpretations matter most – teacher’s or students?

The author begins with a quote on brain research and education by Robert Sylwester, schools need to,

“. . .focus more on metacognitive activities that encourage students to talk about their emotions, listen to their classmates’ feelings, and think about the motivations of people who enter their curricular world.  For example, the simple use of why in a question turns the discussion from bare facts and toward motivations and emotions” (26).

Tredway continues to say Socratic seminars offer “a form of structured discourse about ideas and moral dilemmas” (26).

A brief example of a seminar in a middle school English classroom makes the article relevant for my purposes.  Tredway believes that Socratic seminars engage students in active learning:

“. . . the assumption is that when students actively and cooperatively develop knowledge, understanding, and ethical attitudes and behaviors, they are more apt to retain these attributes than if they had received them passively” (26).

Seminars build self-esteem due to a feeling of competence.  The teacher, according to Tredway, is the seminar leader whose,

“. . .role is to guide students to

1. a deeper and clarified consideration of the ideas of the text,
2. a respect for varying points of view, and
3. adherence to and respect for the seminar process” (28).

Finally, Tredway points to the different type of instruction involved in Socratic seminar and the students use of higher order thinking and reasoning skills.  That’s precisely what we want for our students!

Tredway, L.  (September 1995).  Socratic seminars: engaging students in intellectual discourse.  Educational Leadership.  Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.  26-29.

Related posts:

1. Ball, W. H. & Brewer, P. F. Socratic seminars. In Teaching in the block: strategies for engaging active learners
2. Engaging underachieving middle school students. Muir, M.
3. Whose interpretations matter most – teacher’s or students?

According to this author, through the use of literature circles, students

“become information literate by reading authentic literature, thinking about the messages and intent of the author, listening to peers discuss their own interpretations, cooperatively participating in discussions with others, and reflectively drawing their own personal and relevant connections” (39).

My goodness!  I can only ask why we aren’t all using literature circles!

The author continues with proof for how lit. circles meet information literacy standards, independent learning standards, social responsibility standards, and opportunities for collaboration.  The remainder of the article discusses the potential roles for the library media specialist in this process.

Sanders-Brunner, M.  (Mar 2004).  Key words in instruction: literature circles.  School Library Media Activities Monthly.  20, 39-43.  Retrieved  June 16, 2008 from ProQuest database.

Related posts:

1. Literature circles build excitement for books! Brown, M.
2. Literature circles: voice and choice in the student-centered classroom. Daniels, H.
3. Perspective-taking as transformative practice in teaching multicultural literature to white students. Haertling Thein, A., Beach, R., & Parks, D.

An Annotation by Laurie Walsh

I read an article on the constructivist approach to teaching literature, which involves a classroom where “students must construct their own knowledge and teachers must orient their instructional practices toward teaching for understanding” in order for meaningful learning to occur (25).  The article acknowledges the practical difficulties with organizing this type of classroom environment.  Next, the article explains the approach called “Questioning the Author.”  In this approach, teachers ask students questions such as “What is the author trying to say?” and “What do you think the author means by that?” (25).  Through the use of this type of questioning, the teacher-dominated discussion becomes “shared between students and teachers, questions and answers become centered on meaning and ideas, teacher responses extend conversations and develop ideas, and students begin initiating their own questions and responding directly to their peers’ contributions” (25).  The article continues with an explanation of the need for teachers to realize how much they do the talking in their classrooms.  It essentially equates talking with thinking; therefore, we want the students to talk more.  Their answers may not be polished and fluent, but we should expect that because they are exploring their ideas verbally.  There are three techniques discussed for handling student responses: marking, which “spotlights a student’s response and uses it to set a useful direction for further discussion,” turning back, which “reflects thinking back to the students,” and revoicing, which is paraphrasing the students’ response while she “transforms the language, perhaps making it more general or more sophisticated so that it is richer grist for the discussion mill” (27).  The teacher’s work in a constructivist classroom is different from other teaching styles, but it is equally as rigorous.

Related posts:

1. Building fires: raising achievement through class discussion. Kahn, E.
2. The dreaded discussion: ten ways to start. Frederick, P.
3. Questioning formats. In open-ended questioning: a handbook for educators. Freedman, R.L.H.

An Annotation by Laurie Walsh

The author, a high school English teacher, cites several researchers to prove that discussion enhances student achievement in reading.  She differentiates between discussion and extended recitation.  Discussion must involve an “open, dialogic exchange of ideas among students and authentic questions – open-ended rather than known-answer testlike questions” (1).

One method to engage students is to introduce a conflict or controversy.  These can be teacher created or stem from conflicting literary interpretations.  This teacher uses blogs for some discussions.  She does have ground rules, and she initially has to model how to directly address others’ comments on the blog.

Related posts:

1. Strategies for initiating authentic discussion. Johannessen, L.
2. Getting the discussion started.
3. The dreaded discussion: ten ways to start. Frederick, P.

An Annotation by Laurie Walsh

The author defines authentic discussion as a conversation with genuine inquiry into a problem or question that has no predetermined answer.  He provides two examples of activities that have built-in controversy related to the literature students will read.  He also identifies and explains seven strategies for initiating authentic discussion: “create controversy,” “ use small group collaboration,” “pose questions or problems that do not have easy answers or solutions,” “connect the questions or problems to students’ lives,” “connect students’ knowledge to the literature they study,” “strive to make sure that the questions asked or problems posed require critical thinking,” “give students adequate time to respond to complex questions.”  This is an excellent article.  I may even use one of the problems before my AP students view Apocalypse Now.

Related posts:

1. Building fires: raising achievement through class discussion. Kahn, E.
2. Getting the discussion started.
3. The dreaded discussion: ten ways to start. Frederick, P.

An Annotation by Laurie Walsh

The author reviews six questioning formats that call for higher-order thinking processes: analysis, comparison, description, evaluation, fiction, and problem solving- and provides a list of the thinking strategies used and specific examples for each.  The article includes a wonderful chart connecting the thinking skills and Bloom’s Taxonomy.  This is a meaningful overview of questioning.

Related posts:

1. Worksheets don’t grow dendrites
2. An Open Letter to Educators
3. Inspiring active learning: a handbook for teachers. Harmin, M.

An Annotation by Laurie Walsh

Another practical book – yahoo!  The author explains the use of literature circles in classrooms ranging from elementary school to college.  He connects the idea to the work of Rosenblatt, the Johnsons, Dewey, Rogers, Moffett and Postman to show that this is steeped in history.  The remainder of the book is directly applicable in the classroom: training students on the process, scheduling and managing groups, the teacher’s role, grading and evaluation, and troubleshooting.  This, I imagine, is the end all, be all of literature circle books.  In fact, other articles I’ve read usually refer to the works of Daniels.

Related posts:

1. Literature circles build excitement for books! Brown, M.
2. Key words in instruction: literature circles.
3. “Choice theory” and student success. Glasser, W.

An Annotation by Laurie Walsh

Brown reviews the beliefs of Harvey Daniels, author of Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in the Student-Centered Classroom, Katherine L. Schlick Noe, Ph.D., an associate professor at the School of Education at Seattle University, and Pam Chandler, a sixth-grade English teacher in California.  All three agree that literature circles are a fantastic discussion strategy.  The article discusses the discussion roles for lit. circles.  Noe states that “roles have the potential of undermining students’ natural conversations,” so the roles should be discontinued once the class is comfortable with the discussion format.  Chandler feels the teacher should eventually drop out of the lit. circle, but Noe believes that observing the groups is a valuable assessment tool.  Daniels and Noe believe groups should not be based on reading ability; Chandler disagrees because of student comfort level.  Brown finishes the article with all experts agreeing that lit. circles are effective for at-risk students, and lit. circles must provide students with choices.

Related posts:

1. Literature circles: voice and choice in the student-centered classroom. Daniels, H.
2. Key words in instruction: literature circles.
3. Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. Bonwell, C.C. & Eison, J.A.