METACOGNITIVE MINDS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ROLES

Literature Review: Metacognitive Minds and Responsibility without Roles in 3rd and 4th Grade Literature Circles

Allison Oeding

Western State Colorado University

METACOGNITIVE MINDS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ROLES Introduction Literature circles have been a focus of many research studies since their induction into classrooms. This review of the related research specifically discovers trends in supporting the

development of comprehension through literature circles. According to the authors of Pathways to the Common Core, the new Common Core State Standards document places a much stronger emphasis on higher-level comprehension skills (Calkins, Ehrenworth, & Lehman, 2012, p. 9). In order to develop higher-level comprehension skills, Calkins et al. (2012) advocate providing students with the opportunity to engage in conversations about what they are reading. Literature circles provide an avenue for these conversations. Through this type of peer-led discussion, students often gain deeper understanding of the text (Barone, 2013) and with the right support students will have these conversations independently. Therefore, to organize the research of comprehensions role in literature circles, one must first discover the research on the importance of literature circles in todays classrooms. The survey of literature that follows will then consider the implications of assigning roles to students in literature circles. Lastly, this review will uncover research on comprehension with the goal of higher-level comprehension for todays students in mind. These findings were primarily discovered through searches on Western States online library database of journal articles along with the researchers own collection of books on the topic. Rationale for Literature Circles One of the goals of a reading teacher is to develop a love for reading in their students. Literature circles help teachers reach that goal by providing an engaging, student-centered approach to reading (Clarke & Holwadel, 2007). The lively conversations that occur in literature circles across the globe lead to the discovery of new perspectives on the text and a more

METACOGNITIVE MINDS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ROLES complete understanding of the reading by individual students (Pearson, 2010). The peer-led discussions also give the students a sense of ownership and allow them to build their collaboration skills. Daniels (2006) positively asserts literature circles as an avenue to grow more self-sustaining lifelong readers (p. 10). Furthermore, as Daniels and Steineke (2004) pronounced in Mini-Lessons for Literature Circles, today millions of American students are doing what real readers do, joining small, peer-led book discussion groups (p. 3). The benefits of literature circles were clearly evident throughout the research findings. The Challenge of Implementation Literature circles help teachers diverge from asking students basic comprehension questions to a model that allows for collaborative meaning-making that promotes analysis,

reflection, and critical thinking (Certo, Moxley, Reffitt, & Miller, 2010, p. 244). However, it is difficult for some teachers to find time to implement literature circles with district constraints on the instructional programs used and the required time to implement those programs with fidelity. Lloyd (2004) even suggests teachers and administrators may not see the value of peer-led discussions with the pressure of state testing each year. While all the benefits of literature circles would also help students achieve higher scores, Lloyd (2004) believes that many educators perceive that the implementation of them is the long way around (p. 116) to those all-important higher scores. On the contrary, as Calkins et al. (2012) declares about state tests that do not measure higher-order thinking, Schools that teach only low-level literacy skills can appear to be doing an acceptable job (p. 187). Therefore, literature circles are more significant now more than ever with the new demands of the Common Core. Another limitation to implementing literature circles may derive from a concern in managing behaviors during this time. A trend that appeared within this category in the research

METACOGNITIVE MINDS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ROLES revealed a problem with the type of language used by students during this peer-led activity. In these cases, positive social interaction (Clarke & Holwadel, 2007, p. 21) became a teaching point and the foundation for improvement. Misuse of the language can be tricky to expose as Clarke (2007) found in one study, which led this researcher to carefully analyze the student-led discussions and discover methods to create stronger literature circles. Careful attention to the instruction is essential before and after literature circle discussions in order to provide effective

lessons and thoughtful feedback to the students. For example, when Clarke and Holwadel (2007) noticed the language use of groups deteriorating, they formulated a plan to improve instruction and feedback by providing powerful mini-lessons, watching ourselves on videotape, choosing good books, and coaching students (p. 28). This combination influenced a positive change in the literature circles and hopefully provided tools for students to use outside of the classroom in social situations as well. Pearson (2010) also explored the type of language use in a group of primary students. In this study, the researcher was not alarmed by negative discourse by the students. Instead, Pearson (2010) was concerned if the use of performing voices (p. 8), where students act as if they were the character, was distracting and if there was an absence of critical talk occurring. However, it was realized that through the use of performing voices, the students were able to lift them out of the printed text and into life (Pearson, 2010, p. 9). This action actually allowed the students to gain a deeper understanding of the characters. The researcher also concluded in regards to the need for more critical talk, that this problem would need to be more thoroughly modelled and taught over a longer period of time (Pearson, 2010, p. 9). Therefore, while managing behaviors may be a challenge, they are controlled easily through thoughtful strategies of implementation.

METACOGNITIVE MINDS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ROLES Can Struggling Readers Benefit from Literature Circles Too? When Day (2008) initiated the idea of implementing literature circles in Glennas sixth-

grade language arts classroom, Glenna wasnt exactly enthusiastic. Glenna had been informed at a previous school that literature circles werent focused, intentional teaching (p. 157); therefore, they should not be implemented with struggling readers. This perception is likely a common misconception among teachers and administrators. While it is important for struggling readers to receive explicit, systematic reading instruction, they still can benefit from a literature circle model in the reading program. This is what Day (2008) set out to prove in her research study with Glennas sixth graders, over half of them English language learners (ELL) and struggling readers. Through this three-month study, Day (2008) carefully applied scaffolds for the ELL students to feel comfortable talking with their peers and reading the same books as them. In the end, Day (2008) provided evidence that the struggling readers in this class could hold a discussion on a book that exhibited a natural flow and critical-thinking elements. Also, the collaboration helped these students develop their language skills and these students felt safe taking risks with their evolving language (Day, 2008, p. 164). The students became engaged and excited in this type of learning and Glenna became an advocate. Most importantly, Day (2008) helped Glenna see how literature circles could be incorporated even with the constraints of teaching a required curriculum (p. 172). As Day (2008) adeptly remarks, All children deserve to be challenged, to have opportunities to participate in fun and dynamic reading experiences, and to have chances to critically think in literature circles (p. 172). Considering the Use of Roles in Literature Circles One concept that has persisted in the implementation of literature circles in classrooms is the assignment of roles to students. Daniels (1994) suggested the idea of initiating roles in the

METACOGNITIVE MINDS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ROLES

book, Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in the Student-Centered Classroom. These roles are assigned as jobs for students to complete in-between literature circle meetings. They are often designated as a means to hold students accountable and provide organization to the time devoted to literature circles. As Daniels later recalls, I recommended these sheets as a way of showing kids how smart readers think, as well as to help students capture their reading responses in writing and to supply small-group discussions with plenty of material to talk about (Daniels, 2006, p. 11). It should also be noted that Daniels never meant for roles to get in the way of genuine discussions, those in which students converse naturally and grow each others ideas. Upon examination, it is discovered that the use of role sheets is suggested as only a temporary scaffold by Daniels (1994) in Voice and Choice and again with more emphasis in the second edition (2002) of this book. More Real Talk Harvey and Daniels (2009) mention the problem of the overuse of role sheets in some classrooms in the book, Comprehension & Collaboration: Inquiry Circles in Action. The authors mention that the use of role sheets often become mechanical, hindering rather than empowering lively, spontaneous book talk (Harvey & Daniels, 2009, p. 200). If the goal is to inspire students to hold conversations that are more natural and lead to the development of higher-level comprehension through conversation, then role sheets may not be the answer. Instead of centering the conversations on a teacher-directed activity, perhaps it is best to provide students with the tools and confidence to hold a more student-driven conversation (Lloyd, 2004, p. 115). Lloyd (2004) discovered that by shifting from using role sheets to a focus on the comprehension strategy of questioning, the students were using the strategy to direct the

METACOGNITIVE MINDS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ROLES conversations in a genuine way with rich ideas and students were joining in more enthusiastically. Comparing Two Case Studies In one case study, the teacher realized the roles given to the students were not allowing for a deeper level of understanding and at times the students were able to complete the role assignment without even doing the reading (Ferguson & Kern, 2012). The teacher in this classroom appreciated the many benefits of literature circles and decided to change the titles of the assigned roles to align more specifically to comprehension strategies in order for them to be more effective. Another teacher claimed that the roles assigned actually distanced the student

from the text and resulted in a flat, oral recitation (Lloyd, 2004, p. 115). While the first teacher mentioned chose to adapt the roles themselves, this teacher chose to take out the roles from the literature circles completely and noticed that the discussion became genuine when the students departed from the roles (Lloyd, 2004, p. 120). In both cases, students benefited from more careful attention to comprehension strategy instruction. Comprehension through Metacognition Teaching comprehension through individual stories is not the same as teaching comprehension strategies for understanding all text. Reading instruction that relies on questions generated by the teacher or a curriculum to assess understanding of a text is focused on recalling details (Eilers & Pinkley, 2006, p. 13) not reading for a deeper meaning. In literature circles a similar problem occurs with groups creating final projects on the book they read. Keene and Zimmerman (2007) noted in Mosaic of Thought: The Power of Comprehension Strategy Instruction that these projects allowed teachers to assess what children remembered from their reading, but the activities did little to actually improve childrens comprehension while they were

METACOGNITIVE MINDS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ROLES

reading (p. 19). Applegate and Applegate (2010) also discussed that students who know how to recall but not think (p. 233) may be doing well on tests but may not be engaged in the reading process and may also see no use for reading in their lives (p. 233). The authors of Mosaic of Thought believe that more instruction that directed students to acknowledge and enhance their thinking while reading (metacognition) was necessary to understand the text at a deeper level (Keene & Zimmerman, 2007). Explicit instruction in using metacognitive strategies teaches young readers how to do that type of work. Moving comprehension beyond the literal and into the critical thinking level teaches students to be more thoughtful. In a recent study on metacognitive instruction, Boulware-Gooden, Carreker, Thornhill, and Joshi (2007) compared classrooms applying metacognitive strategy work as a way to comprehend text to classrooms that were not. The authors of this study found that the metacognitive reading comprehension instruction significantly improved the academic achievement of third-grade students (Boulware-Gooden, Carreker, Thornhill, & Joshi, 2007, p. 77) compared to the classrooms that did not provide this type of instruction. In another study addressing the instruction of metacognitive strategies, Eilers and Pinkley (2006) explored these implications with a group of first graders and determined that explicit instruction of reading comprehension strategies should begin at an earlier stage in students reading development (p. 27). Consequently, the importance of comprehension strategy instruction to enhance students metacognition skills is prevalent and should be applied in reading instruction when possible. Conclusion and Future Implications It is evident that students today need a new set of skills to be 21st century workforce ready. Among those, students need opportunities to think critically and to collaborate to develop the skills demanded by todays society to be successful citizens. The authors of Pathways to the

METACOGNITIVE MINDS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ROLES Common Core state, By the end of elementary school, the grade level standards suggest that students can keep a small-group conversation going without needing nudging from the teacher

(Calkins et. al, 2012, p. 164). This focus on independence and responsibility while talking about books connects anchor standards from the Common Core Reading Standards and the Speaking and Listening Standards. Literature circles are a way to guide students to practice those skills in the classroom and also equip them for applying those skills outside the classroom walls. This analysis of available literature shows the importance of allowing students to develop their initial understanding of the text and construct a deeper meaning through peer-led discussions. As stated in the findings of Barones (2013) research, student comments led other students to reread for clarity or to pursue additional information (p. 22). When literature circles are implemented thoughtfully, with the goal of developing higher-level comprehension and positive communication, students will achieve skills that will last a lifetime. While this literature review shows the depth of the research that has already transpired on literature circles and the importance of comprehension strategy instruction, it also validates some areas in need for further research. There was evidence from Lloyds (2004) research that combining comprehension strategy instruction and literature circles successfully increased students abilities to talk about texts independently and thoughtfully. However, this study focused solely on the questioning strategy. According to Keene and Zimmerman (2007), seven strategies constitute reading comprehension including; monitoring for meaning, making connections, asking questions, determining importance, inferring, visualizing, and synthesizing. Lloyd (2004) does mention though the need to begin to incorporate all of the comprehension strategies and eventually have students practice integrating them in their book conversations. There is a need to examine this integration in more detail. It will also be necessary to uncover

METACOGNITIVE MINDS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ROLES the results of not implementing roles in literature circles for the upper-elementary age group since the case studies found were primarily studying students at the middle-school level. The action research project Metacognitive Minds and Responsibility without Roles in Third and Fourth Grade Literature Circles will attempt to show the importance of organizing peer-led discussion in classrooms today with an emphasis on comprehension strategy instruction and student independence in the conversation at the upper elementary level.

10

METACOGNITIVE MINDS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ROLES References

11

Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2010). A study of thoughtful literacy and the motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 64(4), 226-234. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.4.1 Barone, D. (2013). Making meaning: Individual and group response within a book club structure. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 13(1), 3-25. doi: 10.1177/1468798411430092 Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70-77. doi: 10.1598/RT.61.1.7 Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the common core: Accelerating Achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Certo, J., Moxley, K., Kelly, R., & Miller, J. A. (2010). I learned how to talk about a book: Childrens perception of literature circles across grade and ability levels. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 243-263. doi: 10.1080/19388070902947352 Clarke, L. W. (2007). Discussing Shiloh: A conversation beyond the book. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(2), 112-122. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.51.2.3 Clarke, L. W., & Holwadel, J. (2007). Help! What is wrong with these literature circles and how can we fix them? The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 20-29. doi: 10.1598/RT.61.1.3 Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in the student-centered classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups (2nd edition). Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Daniels, H. (2006). Whats the next big thing with literature circles? Voices from the Middle, 13(4), 10-15. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com

METACOGNITIVE MINDS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ROLES Daniels, H., & Steineke, N. (2004). Mini-lessons for literature circles. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Day, D., & Ainley, G. (2008). From skeptic to believer: One teachers journey implementing literature circles. Reading Horizons, 48(3), 157-176. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com via WSCU Savage Library Databases Eilers, L. H., & Pinkley, C. (2006). Metacognitive strategies help students to comprehend all text. Reading Improvement, 43(1), 13-29. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com via WSCU Savage Library Databases Ferguson, L., & Kern, D. (2012). Re-visioning literature circles: Incorporating comprehension

12

strategy instruction in student-led discussions. New England Reading Association Journal 47(2), 23-30. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com via WSCU Savage Library Databases Harvey, S., & Daniels, H. (2009). Comprehension & Collaboration: Inquiry Circles in Action. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Keene, E.O., & Zimmermann, S. (2007). Mosaic of Thought: The Power of Comprehension Instruction (2nd edition). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Lloyd, S. L. (2004). Using comprehension strategies as a springboard for student talk. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(2), 114-124. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.48.2.3 Pearson, C. (2010). Acting up or acting out? Unlocking childrens talk in literature circles. Literacy, 44(1), 3-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-4369.2010.00543.x