Guided Reading with 4th- and 5th-Grade Students
Using Instructional Literature Circles
Beth Frye & Woodrow
Trathen
Why we came to use literature circles
Guided reading lessons in upper elementary school classrooms work best when several fundamental characteristics are evident in the reading instruction. Students learn to read by reading (Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988; Chall, 1990; Fielding, Wilson, & Anderson, 1986; Fountas, & Pinnell, 2001; Pressley, 2000; Smith, 1978), so an over abundance of skill activities and worksheets should give way to reading extended discourse as frequently as possible. Materials that students read should be appropriate for their ages and reading levels (Chall, 1990; Crumbaugh, Frye, Schlagal, Schram, & Trathen, 2001; Fountas, & Pinnell, 1996, 2001; Graves, & Graves, 1994; Klenk, & Kibby, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Tharp, & Gallimore, 1988). Teachers need to model for students the kind of strategic thinking and problem solving that leads to good comprehension of text (Dole, Brown, & Trathen, 1996; Palincsar & Brown, 1984, 1986; Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991; Pressley, 2000; Wade & Trathen, 1989; Wade, Trathen, & Schraw, 1990). Students need to attend to critical text features (Alexander, & Jetton, 2000; Galda, Ash, Cullinan, 2000; Goldman, & Rakestraw, 2000) and vocabulary (Anderson, & Nagy, 1991; Beck, & McKeown, 1991; Blachowicz, & Fisher, 1996; Dole, Sloan, & Trathen, 1995; Herman, & Dole, 1988; Nagy, & Herman, 1987), and they need opportunities to write about and discuss what they read (Fountas, & Pinnell, 2001; Gavelek, Raphael, Biondo, & Wang, 2000; Wade, & Moje, 2000). Small group interactions can facilitate the opportunities for students to engage in meaningful discussions with peers and teachers about the books they read (Cohen, 1994; Fountas, & Pinnell, 2001; Slavin, 1980).
Guided reading using a literature circle model (instructional literature circles) provides a flexible structure that allows us to incorporate those characteristics we find most important. Students work in small reading groups based on their instructional reading level. In these groups, students read an abundance of quality literature, and they complete “jobs,” which are designed to help them develop vocabulary and comprehension strategies while engaging them in thinking about literature. Students have opportunities to engage in meaningful discussions about the books they read. The underlying goal of instructional literature circles is to create successful, strategic, and independent readers, readers who can write about text and lead sophisticated discussions about what they have read. Dole, Duffy, Roehler, and Pearson (1991) state that “instruction can be characterized as a process in which teachers attempt to make learning sensible and students attempt to make sense of their learning” (p. 255). They further argue that the kind of instruction or “academic work” in which teachers engage students affects how students view what reading is, how it works, and how they make sense out of the reading they will encounter in the future. Thus, the kind of instruction students receive in reading influences their perceptions of how reading works outside of school. A second instructional goal, therefore, is to create for these students educative experiences (Dewey, 1938, 1966) from which they come to believe they are better readers and writers and are motivated to read and succeed.
Two
years ago we initiated a professional development project, in which teachers
were introduced to instructional literature circles and then across the year
participated in faculty development seminars. This year we have continued the
faculty development sessions with our initial group of teachers, and we have
initiated a new project with a new group of teachers. As part of these efforts
we have begun to collect data on the implementation and impact of this training
on these teachers and their students (Crumbaugh et
al., 2001). For this case study, we analyze the impact of literature circle
instruction on students’ perceptions and attitudes about reading instruction
(Trathen, & Frye, 2002). This analysis focuses on fourth- and fifth-grade
students from four teachers’ classrooms. One teacher has been engaged in
literature circle instruction for two years, and two teachers have begun to
utilize literature circle instruction this year. In addition, one teacher had
not yet begun to implement instructional literature circles, and students from
this classroom will be referred to as those who were not participating
in literature circles. We interviewed the children in these classrooms to form
an understanding of students’ perceptions about reading instruction.
We found that the students’ perceptions of reading
in school varied between those participating in literature circles and those
not participating in literature circles. We organized these perceptions
into four categories: discussion, reading instruction, learning, and group
formation. (See the summary chart of findings
for an overview of the results.)
There were interesting differences in students’ perceptions about reading
instruction between the two groups, as can be seen from the summary of students’ comments.
Students not participating in literature circles described reading
instruction as everyone in the class, reading the same book, and then responding
to teacher made tests. However, the students engaged in instructional literature
circles spoke about reading instruction in completely different language.
Specifically, the literature circle students described being engaged in small
group reading, where students were reading different books that were based
on students’ instructional reading levels and were organized around an author
study, genre, and theme. For example, one student spoke about all students
in the class reading historical fiction and that her group was reading a book
that focused on the theme of “interdependence.” Students participating in
literature circles spoke more articulately and expressly about literary analysis.
Literature circle participants referenced reading, preparing written jobs,
and then discussing their books through their jobs. These students described
being actively engaged in reading.
Students’ perceptions of learning
were expressed differently depending upon their participation in instructional
literature circles. Those students not participating in literature
circles viewed what they were learning in terms of content or information.
The language of these students focused on the people and places in their books.
They were able to pick out and talk about specific facts from the books they
had read. Their perceptions of what they were learning from reading were content/information
oriented. Literature circle students also commented on
the information they were learning from specific books; however, their language
when describing what they were learning, was quite different. These students
mentioned that they “learned more because of their literature circle jobs.”
For example, students spoke about “learning new words.” They referred to “going
back into the book” and “picturing stuff” and “visualizing” in their minds.
Quite often students spoke in terms of literary analysis and reading strategies,
which they were applying to the reading. Students also perceived themselves
as better writers because of literature circles.
Last year, in our ARF Problems Court paper (Crumbaugh,
et al., 2001), we explored issues associated with
instructional grouping. Many at our session asked if grouping was a “good
thing” for students. So, we asked the students, and you may be surprised at
the responses they gave us. Students not participating in literature
circles read in whole class groups. Many of these students described being
“bored” with this instruction because they had to listen to students of lower
abilities read aloud. And, other students described being uncomfortable reading
in the whole group setting because often they would struggle with sounding
out words. Both able and less able readers expressed displeasure with whole
class reading instruction. The antithesis of this whole group situation would
be those students participating in instructional literature circles. When
the instructional literature circle students were asked how their small groups were formed,
they spoke openly about different instructional reading levels. By reading
material on their instructional levels, students responded that they were
learning to read better. Lower-level readers spoke about “not struggling”
in the material and “not being embarrassed” because they were reading books
on their instructional reading levels successfully. They shared that their
teachers cared about them and did not want them to struggle. Higher-level
readers verbalized about reading at “their pace” and being able to “move on.”
In the case of those students participating in literature circles, instructional
grouping did not seem to harm these students’ self-esteem.
Alexander,
P. A., & Jetton, T. J. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional
and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook
of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 285-310).
Allington, R. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing
reading abilities. Elementary School Journal, 83, 548-559.
Anderson,
R. C., & Nagy, W. (1991). Word meanings.
In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal,
& P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp.
690-724).
Anderson,
R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. C. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of
school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23,
285-303.
Beck,
Blachowicz, C., &
Fisher, P. (1996). Teaching vocabulary in all
classrooms.
Chall, J. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children
fall behind.
Cohen, E.
G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions
for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64,
1-35.
Crumbaugh, C., Frye,
E., Schlagal, R., Schram,
P., & Trathen, W. (2001). Instructional grouping: Examples
and issues. In
G. Moorman & W. Trathen (Eds.), Multiple perspectives
in the millennium: Yearbook of the American Reading Forum, (Vol. 21, pp
83-98).
Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice
and choice in the student-centered classroom.
Daniels, H.
(2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups.
Dewey, J.
(1916, 1966). Democracy and Education.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education.
Dole, J.
A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of prereading strategy
instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly,
31, 62-88.
Dole, J., Duffy, G., Roehler, L., &
Pearson, P.D. (1991). Moving from
the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review
of Educational Research, 61, 239-264.
Dole, J.
A., Sloan, C., & Trathen, W. (1995). Teaching
vocabulary within the context of literature. Journal of
Fielding,
L. P., Wilson, P. T. & Anderson, R. C. (1986). A new focus on free reading. The role of
trade books in reading instruction. In T. Raphael, & R. E. Reynolds
(Eds.), The context of school-based literacy
(pp. 149-160).
Fountas,
Fountas,
Galda, L., Ash,
G. E, & Cullinan, B. E. (2000). Children’s literature. In M. L. Kamil,
P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 361-379).
Gavelek, J. R.,
Raphael, T. E., Biondo, S. M., & Wang, D. (2000). Integrated literacy instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III,
pp. 587-607).
Goldman, S.
R., & Rakestraw, J. A., Jr. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M.
L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal,
P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol.
III, pp. 311-335).
Hansen, D.
(2001). Exploring the moral heart of teaching: Toward a teacher’s creed.
Herman, P.
A., & Dole, J. A. (1988). Theory and practice in vocabulary
learning and instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 41-52.
Klenk, L., &
Kibby, M. W. (2000).
Re-mediating reading difficulties: Appraising the past, reconciling the
present, constructing the future. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III,
pp. 667-690).
Nagy, W.
E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Depth and breadth of vocabulary
knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The
nature of vocabulary acquisition.
Paley, V.
(1997). The girl with the brown crayon.
Palincsar, A. S.,
& Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal
teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.
Cognition & Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Palincsar, A. S.,
& Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive
teaching to promote independent learning from text. The
Paris, S.
G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 609-640)
Pressley,
M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of?
In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal,
P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol.
III, pp. 545-561).
Slavin, R. (1980). Cooperative learning.
Review of Educational Research, 50, 315-342.
Smith, F.
(1978). Reading without nonsense.
Snow, C.
E., Burns, M. S., &
Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. (1998). Off
Track: When poor readers become “learning disabled.”
Tharp, R.
C., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing
minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context.
Trathen,
W., & Frye, B. (2002). Changes in
attitudes and perceptions about literacy instruction. RCOE Partnership Grant, Appalachian
Wade, S.
E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III,
pp. 609-627).
Wade, S.
E., & Trathen, W. (1989). Effect of
self-selected study methods on learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 40-47.
Wade, S.
E., Trathen, W., & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 147-166.
Select the appropriate topic for more information about the instructional
details, to return to the main findings of the Frye & Trathen report, or to
return the Literature Circles Across Student Groups,
Contexts, and Texts summary chart for this paper:
|
Frye & Trathen: Guided Reading with 4th- and 5th-Grade
Students Using Instructional Literature Circles |
Literature Circles Across
Student Groups, Contexts, and Texts: Summary of Findings |
|
Frye & Trathen: Formation of Instructional Literature Circles |
Frye & Trathen: Reading During Instructional Literature
Circles |
|
Frye & Trathen: Completing Written Jobs |
Frye & Trathen: Discussion of the Reading |