36. GA.; MD. (Fn), - ERICED 384 011 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION SPONS AGENCY PUB DATE CONTRACT NOTE PUB...

ED 384 011

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATECONTRACTNOTEPUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

CS 012 175

Alvermann, Donna E.; And OthersMiddle- and nigh-School Students' Perceptions of How

They Experience Text-Based Discussions: A Multicase

Study. Reading Research Report No. 36.

National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;

National Reading Research Center, College Park,

MD.Office of Educat;',nal Research and Improvement (Fn),

Washington, DC.95117A2000749p.Reports Research/Technical (143)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.Adolescents; Case Studies; *Classroom Communication;Communication Research; *Content Area Reading;*Discussion (Teaching Technique); Reading Research;Secondary Education; *Student Attitudes

Social Constructivism

In a multicase study, adolescents at five culturally

diverse sites across the United States engaged in face-to-face

interactions as they reflected and reported on their perceptions of

their own and other students' experiences in discussing regularly

assigned content area texts. A social constructionist perspective

provided the framework for the research. Data sources included three

rounds of videotaped class discussions followed by three focal group

interviews, field notes, theoretical memoranda, and student

artifacts. Data collections and analysis were ongoing over the course

of one school year. A procedure for involving the researchers at all

five sites in analyzing common sets of data generated findings that

suggest students are: (1) aware of the conditions they believe to be

conducive to good discussions; (2) knowledgeable about the different

tasks and topics that influence their participation; and (3)

cognizant of how classroom discussion helps them understand what they

read. By focusing on students' insights into their own actions,

thoughts, and motives related to classroom talk about texts, it was

possible to make visible their negotiation of different roles and

relations, rights and responsibilities, and norms and expectations in

peer-led and whole discussions. (Contains 45 references, 3

figures, and 2 tables of data. An appendix presents a narrative

vignette.) (Author/RS)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.**********************************************************************

Middle- and High-School Students'Perceptions of How They ExperienceText-Based Discussions: A Multicase Study

Donna E. AlvermannJosephine Peyton YoungUniversity of Georgia

Dera WeaverAthens Academy, Athens, Georgia

Kathleen A. HinchmanSyracuse University

David W. MooreArizona State University West

Stephen F. PhelpsState University College at Buffalo

Esther C. ThrashAtlanta Public Schools, Atlanta, Georgia

Patricia ZalewskiLiverpool Central Schools, Liverpool, New York

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONcut cr., ra.ir FIOSe11, rid

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC!

M7This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or °riga:Illationoriginating a

0 Minor changes have boon made toimprove reproduction quality

0 Points of view o opinions staled in thisdocument do rot necessarily repiesent

OERI position or policy

NRRCNationalReading ResearchCenter

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 36

Spring 1995

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

Middle- and High-School Students' Perceptions of How TheyExperience Text-Based Discussions: A Multicase Study

Donna E. AlvermannJosephine Peyton Young

University of Georgia







READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 36

Spring 1995

The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Project of the University of Georgiaand University of Maryland. It was supported under the Educational Research andDevelopment Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administered by the Officeof Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings andopinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the NationalReading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.Department of Education.

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

James F. Baumann, Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Nancy B. Mizelle, Acting Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Jamie Lynn Metsala, Interim Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

John F. O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

James V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

Cynthia R. HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Betty ShockleyClarke County School District, Athens, Georgia

Linda DeGroffUniversity of Georgia

Publications Editors

Research Reports and PerspectivesLinda DeGroff, EditorUniversity of Georgia

James V. Hoffman, Associate EditorUniversity of Texas at Austin

Mariam Jean Dreher, Associate EditorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Instructional ResourcesLee Galda, University of GeorgiaResearch HighlightsWilliam G. HolidayUniversity of Maryland College Park

Policy Briefslames V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

VideosShawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office ManagerKathy B. Davis. Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative AssistantValerie Tyra, AccountantUniversity of Maryland College Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, New York

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, Albany

Ronald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment

Marsha T. DeLainDelaware Department of Public Instruction

Carl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin- Madison

Walter KintschUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Robert L. LinnUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchool District No. 5Kalispell, Montana

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers University

Production EditorKatherine P. HutchisonUniversity of Georgia

Dissemination CoordinatorJordana E. RichUniversity of Georgia

Text FormatterAnn Marie VanstoneUnivers:I of Georgia

NRRC - Universi:y of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602-7125(706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: NRRCfJuga.cc.uga.edu

NRRC - University of Maryland College Park3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: NRRCQumail.umd.edu

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) isfunded by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education toconduct research on reading and reading instruction.The NRRC is operated by a consortium of the Universi-ty of Georgia and the University of Maryland CollegePark in collaboration with researchers at several institu-tions nationwide.

The NRRC's mission is to discover and documentthose conditions in homes, schools, and communitiesthat encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic,lifelong readers. NRRC researchers are committed toadvancing the development of instructional programssensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, and motiva-tional factors that affect children's success in reading.NRRC researchers from a variety of disciplines conductstudies with teachers and students from widely diversecultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kinder,garten through grade 12 classrooms. Research projectsdeal with the influence of family and family-schoolinteractions on the development of literacy; the interac-tion of sociocultural factors and motivation to read; theimpact of literature-based reading programs on readingachievement; the effects of reading strategies instructionon comprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovative groupparticipation structures on motivation and learning; thepotential of computer technology to enhance literacy;and the developm of methods and standards foralternative literacy assessments.

The NRRC is further committed to the participationof teachers as full partners in its research. A betterunderstanding of how teachers view the development ofliteracy, how they use knowledge from research, andhow they approach change in the classroom is crucial toimproving instruction. To further this understanding,the NRRC conducts school-based research in whichteachers explore their own philosophical and pedagogi-cal orientations and trace their professional growth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRC activi-ties. Information on NRRC research appears in severalformats. Research Reports communicate the results oforiginal research or synthesize the findings of severallines of inquiry. They are written primarily for re-searchers studying various areas of reading and readinginstruction. The Perspective Series presents a widerange of publications, from calls for research andcommentary on research and practice to first-personaccounts of experiences in schools. InstructionalResources include cuk.iculum materials, instructionalguides, and materials for professional growth, designedprimarily for teachers.

For more information about the NRRC's researchprojects and other activities, or to have your nameadded to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alvermann, Co- DirectorNational Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742(301) 405-8035

,)

NRRC Editorial Review Board

Patricia AdkinsUniversity of Georgia

Peter AfflerbachUniversity of Maryland College Park

JoBeth AllenUniversity of Georgia

Patty AndersUniversity of Arizona

Tom AndersonUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Harriette ArringtonUniversity of Kentucky

Irene BlumPine Springs Elementary SchoolFalls Church, Virginia

John BorkowskiNotre Dame University

Cynthia BowenBaltimore County Public SchoolsTowson, Maryland

Martha CarrUniversity of Georgia

Suzanne ClewellMontgomery County Public SchoolsRockville, Maryland

Joan ColeyWestern Maryland College

Michelle CommeyrasUniversity of Georgia

Linda CooperShaker Heights City SchoolsShaker Heights, Ohio

Karen CostelloConnecticut Department of EducationHartford, Connecticut

Karin DahlOhio State University

Lynne Diaz-RicoCalifornia State University-San

Bernardino

Pamela DunstonClemson University

Jim FloodSan Diego State University

Dana FoxUniversity of Arizona

Linda GambrelUniversity of Maryland College Park

Valerie GarfieldChattahoochee Elementary SchoolCumming, Georgia

Sherrie Gibney-ShermanAthens-Clarke County SchoolsAthens, Georgia

Rachel GrantUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara GuzzettiArizona State University

Jane HaughCenter for Developing Learning

PotentialsSilver Spring, Maryland

Beth Ann HerrmannNorthern Arizona University

Kathleen HeubachUniversity of Georgia

Susan HillUniversity of Maryland College Park

Sally Hudson-RossUniversity of Georgia

Cynthia HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert JimenezUniversity of Oregon

Karen JohnsonPennsylvania State University

James KingUniversity of South Florida

Sandra KimbrellWest Hall Middle SchoolOakwood, Georgia

Kate KirbyGwinnett County Public SchoolsLawrenceville, Georgia

Sophie KowzunPrince George's County SchoolsLandover, Maryland

Linda LabboUniversity of Georgia

Rosary Lain(Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Michael LawUniversity of Georgia

Sarah McCartheyUniversity of Texas at Austin

Veda McClainUniversity of Georgia

Lisa McFallsUniversity of Georgia

Mike McKennaGeorgia Southern University

Donna MealeyLouisiana State University

L

Barbara MichaloveFowler Drive Elementary SchoolAthens, Georgia

Akintunde MorakinyoUniversity of Maryland College Park

Lesley MorrowRutgers University

Bruce MurrayUniversity of Georgia

Susan NeumanTemple University

Caroline NoyesUniversity of Georgia

John O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

Joan Pagnuc...oUniversity of Georgia

Barbara PalmerMount Saint Mary's College

Mike PickleGeorgia Southern University

Jessie PollackMaryland Department of EducationBaltimore, Maryland

Sally PorterBlair High SchoolSilver Spring, Maryland

Michael PressleyState University of New York

at Albany

Tom ReevesUniversity of Georgia

Lenore RinglerNew York University

Mary RoeUniversity of Delaware

Nadeen T. RuizCalifornia State University-Sacramento

Rebecca SammonsUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Betty Shockleyrowler Drive Elementary SchoolAthens, Georgia

Susan SonnenscheinUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Steve StahlUniversity of Georgia

Anne SweetOffice of Educational Research

and Improvement

Liqing TaoUniversity of Georgia

Ruby ThompsonClark Atlanta University

Louise TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Sandy TumarkinStrawberry Knolls Elementary SchoolGaithersburg. Maryland

Sheila ValenciaUniversity of Washington

Bruce VanSledrightUniversity of Maryland College Park

Chris WaltonNorthern Territory UniversityAustralia

Janet WatkinsUniversity of Georgia

Louise WaynantPrince George's County SchoolsUpper Marlboro, Maryland

Priscilla WaynantRolling Terrace Elementary SchoolTakoma Park, Maryland

Dera WeaverAthens AcademyAthens, Georgia,

Jane WestAgnes Scott

Steve WhiteUniversity of Georgia

Allen WigfieldUniversity of Maryland College Park

Shelley WongUniversity of Maryland College Park

About the Authors

Donna E. Alvermann is Research Professor ofReading Education at the University of Georgiaand Co-Director of the National Reading ResearchCenter.

Josephine Peyton Young is a doctoral student inReading Education at the University of Georgiaand a Graduate Research Assistant at the NationalReading Research Center.

Dera Weaver teaches in the English Departmentof Athens Academy in Athens, Georgia.

Kathleen A. Hinchman is an Assistant Professorof Reading Education at Syracuse University andDirector of the Interdisciplinary Institute onLiteracy.

David W. Moore is Professor of Education andCoordinator of the Secondary Teacher EducationProgram at Arizona State University West.

Stephen F. Phelps is a Professor in ElementaryEducation and Reading at the State UniversityCollege of Buffalo.

Esther C. Thrash teaches eighth grade LanguageArts in the Atlanta Public School System, Atlanta,Georgia.

Patricia Zalewski is a high school Social Studiesteacher and department chair in Central New Yorkand is a co-author of Participation in government:Making a difference.

Note. This report can be used with a videotape entitled Reader's Social, Cognitive, and Motiva-tional Development in Varied Group Discussion Structures, which shows students in Dera Weav-er's classroom discussing regularly assigned materials in groups of their own choosing. To obtaina copy of this videotape, please write: Donna Alvermann, National Reading Research Center,University of Georgia, 318 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602-7125.

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and MarylandReading Research Report No. 36Spring 1995

Middle- and High-School Students' Perceptions ofHow They Experience Text-Based Discussions:

A Multicase Study

Donna E. AlvermannJosephine Peyton YoungThe University of Georgia







Abstract. In this =Ukase study, adolescents atfive culturally diverse sites across the United Statesengaged in face-to-face interactions as they reflectedand reported on their perceptions of their own andother students' experiences in discussing regularlyassigned content area texts. A social constructionistpPrspective provided the framework for the research.

1

Data sources included three rounds of videotapedclass discussions followed by three focal groupinterviews, field notes, theoretical memoranda, andstudent artifacts. Data collections and analysis wereongoing over the course of one school year. Aprocedure for involving the researchers at all fivesites in analyzing common sets of data generated

9

2 Alvermann et al.

findings that suggest students are (a) aware of theconditions they believe to be conducive to gooddiscussions, (b) knowledgeable about the differenttasks and topics that influence their participation,and (c) cognizant of how classroom discussion helpsthem understand what they read. By focusing onstudents' insights into their own actions, thoughts,and motives related to classroom talk about texts, itwas possible to make visible their negotiation ofdifferent roles and relations, rights and responsibili-ties, and norms and expectations in peer-led andwhole-class discussions.

Although, as literacy teachers and research-ers, each of the authors has been involved withclassroom discussions of text over the pastseveral years, we have rarely considered in anysystematic way how students might be experi-encing such discussions. Granted, there havebeen a number of studies focusing on class-room discourse (Barnes, Britton, & Rosen,1971; Bellack, Kliebard, Hyman, & Smith,1966; Cazden, 1986) and more specifically onwhat teachers do and say in interacting withstudents to :motivate them to engage in literateactions with their peers (Alvermann, O'Brien,& Dillon, 1990; Dillon, 1989; Santa BarbaraClassroom Discourse Group, 1992). Thesestudies, coupled with the rapidly growing bodyof research on peer-led, literaturebased discus-sions at the elementary and intermediate level(Almasi & Gambrell, 1994; McMahon, 1991;O'Flahavan & Almasi, 1991; Raphael & Goat-ley, 1992), have contributed greatly to ourawareness of how classroom talk about textscan be viewed as a window on students' think-ing and social interactions. In fact, it is largelythrough reading this literature that we came toappreciate how the social, cognitive, and

motivational aspects of classroom talk areintertwined and often analytically inseparable.

At the same time, we have become acutelyaware of how much more there is to learnabout students' subjective views about theirown actions, thoughts, and motives that ariseduring classroom talk about assigned readings.Although a review of the literature on students'perceptions of classroom practices (Frager,1984; Taylor, 1962) and schooling in general(Phelan, Davidson, & Cao, 1952) suggests thatresearchers have studied these phenomena fora number of years, there is little evidence thatthey have placed students' experiences at thecenter of their research (see McLaughlin &Talbert, 1990, and Turley, 1994, for excep-tions). According to Erickson and Shultz(1992),

If the student is visible at all in a researchstudy, he is usually viewed from the per-spective of . . . educators' interests andways of seeing . . . . Rarely is the perspec-tive of the student herself explored. Class-room research typically does not ask whatthe student is up to, nor does it . . . ques-tion whether "failing" or "mastering" orbeing "unmotivated" . . . adequately cap-tures what the student might be about indaily classroom encounters with curriculum.(pp. 467-468)

In the research literature on adolescentliteracy, we are aware of at least one longitu-dinal study (Oldfather & McLaughlin, 1993)that focused on middle and high school stu-dents' perceptions of their own reasons forbeing (or not being) motivated as literacylearners. Two other studies involving adoles-

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 36

10

Student Perception of Text-Based Discussions 3

cents and literacy (Hinchman, 1992; Rogers,1991) described the subjective nature of stu-dents' knowing and how such knowledgealtered students' attitudes about learning fromtext. Although each of these studies addressedadolescents' literate ways of knowing in con-tent-area classes, none focused specifically onhow students' subjectively experienced discus-sions of assigned readings in those classes.

The purpose of the present study, therefore,was to learn from middle- and high-schoolstudents' perspectives how they experienceclassroom talk about texts in their content-areaclasses. Classroom talk is our descriptor for thevarious forms of student-to-student verbalinteraction that we observed; however, studentsuniformly referred to all kinds of classroomtalk about texts as discussions. A multicasestudy involving five sites across the UnitedStates allowed us to look at such discussions inculturally diverse settings, not for the purposeof making evaluative judgments across sites,but rather for understanding in greater depththe range of students' experiences. The signifi-cance of the study lies in its potential to affecthow teachers use what students value aboutdiscussions in planning their instruction.

Conceptual Framework

Over a half century ago, Dewey (1938/1963) argued that the proper interpretation ofstudents' educational experiences rests on one'sability to understand their thoughts, actions,and motives as they interact with others insocial situations. Although he acknowledgedthe role of the teacher and the curriculum inshaping students' experiences, Dewey wrote,

"[it is] the total social set-up of the situations inwhich a person is engaged" (p. 45) that is mostimportant in interpreting his or her experienc-es.

Building on the ideas of Dewey, Kuhn(1970), and others, Rorty (1979) has giveneven more credence to the importance of "thesocial" in interpreting one's experiences. Rorty(1979) deconstructs the metaphor of the humanmind consisting of two mechanisms: one, theso-called mirror of nature that reflects externalreality, and the other, an inner eye that com-prehends the reflection. He does so on thegrounds that this metaphor, which has influ-enced Western philosophy since the time ofDescartes, leads to circular thinking aboutknowledge and to some unresolvable problemsin accurately representing the nature and au-thority of knowledge. In place of the mirrorand inner eye metaphor, Rorty would have usconsider what can be learned from viewingknowledge as a social construct. His thesis isthat all knowledge is socially constructed, suchthat the ways in which we come to describe orotherwise account for the world (includingourselves and our experiences) are derivedfrom historically situated linguistic and sym-bolic interactions with others.

Thus, one of the assumptions underlying so-cial constructionist& is that linguistic "entities

'Although constructionism ana constructivism are some-times used interchangeably, we prefer the former term toavoid possible confusions. According to Gergen (1985),constructivism is also used in reference to Piagetiantheory, to a form of perceptual theory, and to a signifi-cant movement in 20th century art" (p. 266).


4 Alvermatin et al.

we normally call reality, knowledge, thought,facts, texts, selves, and so one are constructsgenerated by communities of like-mindedpeers" (Bruffee, 1986, p. 774) over time.Based on this view of knowledge as sociallyjustified belief, which constitutes and is consti-tuted by a community's language system, socialconstructionists like Rorty (1979) and Geertz(1983a) have reasoned that knowledge andlanguage are inseparable. The inseparability ofthe two was a particularly useful construct forus in our quest to understand how students saythey experience classroom discussions ofassigned readings. As a construct, it providedthe rationale for asking students to reflect andreport on their subjective experiences as partic-ipants in small and large group discussions. Weassumed students' knowledge of such exj:eri-ence- (constructed as it was through the socialinteraction of group members) and the lan-guage they used to reflect that knowledge wereinseparable. This assumption addresses in partthe limitations typically ascribed to self-reportdata'. At the same time, we recognize "thatwhat we call our data are really our own con-structions" (Geertz, 1983b, p. 42).

We chose a social constructionist perspec-tive to guide our research because we wereinterested in exploring how verbal and nonver-bal patterned ways of interacting shape and are

'Here, we would include class discussions as well.

'As noted by Goetz and LeCompte (1984), "self-reportsare useful for assessing how individuals make judgmentsabout people and events, and they do register what peoplethink they do or what they think is socially acceptable todo" (p. 122).

shaped by (Fairclough, 1993) social practicesinherent in classroom talk about texts (e.g.,ways of negotiating and being together, waysof positioning and being positioned, and waysof participating and not participating in discus-sions). A social constructionist approach alsoprovided a rationale for methodologicallygrounding our observations in the talk andactions of the students. This approach to under-standing adolescents' experiences, while differ-ent from the approach taken by many motiva-tion theorists (e.g., Anderman & Maehr, 1994;Eccles & Midgley, 1989), is in keeping withthe recent work of McCombs (in press), who isattempting to integrate what students say abouttheir learning experiences with the more tradi-tional research on motivation.

As students socially interact to constructmeaning during discussions of their assignedreadings, they make visible what is available tobe known (Bloome & Bailey, 1992) as well asa host of literate actions for how they come toknow (Santa Barbara Classroom DiscourseGroup, 1992). One distinguishing feature ofthese actions and interactions is how studentsnegotiate different roles and relations, rightsand responsibilities, and norms and expecta-tions as they engage with texts (Floriani, 1994;Heras, 1994). In the present study, we useJ thenegotiation process as a heuristic for examiningstudents' perspectives on how they expel ienceclass discussions of assigned readings. Specifi-cally, we drew on the work of Green andHarker (1982), Heras (1994), and Heap (1991)to formulate general types of questions thatguided and were refined with our research.Initially, these questions included: What rolesand relationships influence how students per-



ceive their participation in classroom talk abouttexts? For what do they hold each other ac-countable? What expectations do they hold forsuch discussions? As we gained insights intothe students' perspectives, we refined ourquestions in an inductive manner. This processsensitized us to the nuances present in students'responses to our current questions and enabledus to ask increasingly more focused questionsabout nlgotiated roles and relationships, expec-tations, and accountability.

Method

This section begins with our rationale forchoosing a multicase study approach, followedby a brief overview of the researchers' back-grounds and roles. Next is a description of theclasses at each of the five sites, and then alisting of the primary and secondary datasources. The section concludes with an accountof the procedures used in analyzing the data.

Multicase Study Approach

Capturing with some degree of specificitythe nature of stude experiences of a partic-ular phenomenon, such as classroom talk abouttexts, is labor intensive and frequently limitedto a single case at one site. We chose to studymultiple cases at different sites because wewere interested in obtaining as broad a view aspossible of students' perceptions of how theyexperience text-based discussions. We recog-nize that in taking this broad view, we limitedour ability to attend to the richness of individu-al sites.

According to Bogdan and Biklen (1992),the degree to which a multicase study can beused to demonstrate the typicality or diversityof the phenomenon under study rests ultimatelyon the kinds of decisions made in choosing thevarious sites. In selecting the sites for thepresent study, we followed Stake's (1994) ruleof thumb that the opportunity to learn from asite should take priority over a concern for itstypicality or representativeness. Consequently,we chose sites that provided an opportunity tostudy students' experiences of text-based dis-cussions under a variety of conditions (e.g.,peer-led, small-group discussions and teacher-led, large-group discussions) across culturallydiverse settings. It is important to note that wesampled only a limited number of classrooms.Each of the classrooms used different kinds ofapproaches to small- and large-group discus-sion. Across all sites, students told us that theywere allowed to participate in discussion foronly a limited amount of time each dayoftenonly in the classroom where the case studytook place.

Researchers' Backgrounds and Roles

All eight coauthors were experienced edu-cators at the middle- and/or high-school levels.Five of us (DA, KH, DM, SP, Jr) were univer-sity-based researchers and three (ET, DW, PZ)

° With the exception of the study's coauthors, all otherindividuals and schools throughout the manuscript arereferred to by their pseudonums. The research team,which consisted of the eight coauthors, included oneAfrican American woman, five European Americanwomen, and two European American men.


6 Alvermann et al.

were school-based researchers. Althoughcommon experiences as teachers contributed toour working well as a team, each of us broughtslightly different stances to the research pro-ject. For example, Donna Alvermann viewedstudents as the insiders and experts on howthey experienced classroom talk about texts.This view, coupled with her belief that allknowledge is socially constructed, led to Don-na's stance on valuing the role of students inreflecting and reporting on their own experi-ences as discussants. Josephine Young's beliefthat students are a valuable source of informa-tion was heavily influenced by her previousexperiences teaching literacy at an alternativehigh school, where she came to appreciate howknowledgeable students are about their ownlearning experiences.

Kathleen Hinchinan brought a stance in-formed by her experiences as a middle-schoolreading specialist. As a researcher trained insymbolic interaction, Kathleen was. concernedwith understanding meaning from the students'perspective, but she also respected the teacher(Patricia Zalewski) as the primary orchestratorof classroom events. Patricia's concern as asocial studies teacher was focused on herstudents' ability to comprehend the content-heavy global studies curriculum, which wasmandated by the state. Educated also as areading specialist, Patricia found herself in anever-ending conflict between loyalty to con-tent and to students' understanding.

Having taught junior and senior high schoolstudents, David Moore had vivid personalmemories of discussions that resulted in someof the highest highs and lowest lows of histeaching. His experiences with discussions ledto his stance that they were an extremely pow-

erful, yet unpredictable, means of instruction.Stephen Phelps was conducting a yearlongprofessional development program at ThomasJefferson High School during the time he wasinvolved in the multicase study. This led to hisstance on the importance of learning as muchas possible about the interpersonal relationsamong students, faculty, and administrators athis site.

Twenty-nine years of teaching elementaryand middle school language arts in a largeurban area of the southeastern United States ledEsther Thrash to her stance. She believeddiscussions and small group work helped herstudents to understand the assigned readingsand to think critically. Also a teacher of middleschool language arts, Dera Weaver had longnoted students' preference for discussion overmost other modes of response to literature. Herstance was influenced by a belief in the poten-tial of peer-led discussions for eliciting en-gaged reading and authentic response and by acuriosity concerning the teacher's role in suchdiscussions.

Our research roles differed to some extentat the various sites. For example, a collabora-tive arrangement existed between school-basedresearchers and university-based researchers atthree of the five sites. Dera, Donna, and Jose-phine shared responsibilities for collecting andanalyzing data during the six-month collabora-tion in Dera's classroom. Dera maintainedresponsibility for planning and facilitating classdiscussions, while Doni.a and Josephine did allof the taping and interviewing and were re-sponsible for distributing the tapes and tran-scripts to the other sites. A similar collabora-tion existed in Esther's class, except that Don-na and Josephine were involved for only four



months due to an unforeseen delay in gainingschool district approval for the case study. The8-month collaboration between Patricia andKathleen closely paralleled the one in Dera'sclassroom. Initially, Patricia kept a teachingjournal that included her reactions to students'discussions, whereas Dera met with Donna andJosephine during the class period immediatelyfollowing each observed discussion. At theother two sites, less involved relationshipsdeveloped between teachers and university-based researchers during the eight-month longcase studies. For example, Alan Williams didnot become a formal member of the researchteam, but he did read Stephen's transcriptionsof the videotaped discussions and focal groupinterviews. Like Alan, Paula Freeman did notparticipate as a teacher researcher, althoughshe conferred regularly with David, the univer-sity-based researcher.

A strength of this multicase study was the.opportunity for all of us, from our variousbackgrounds and stances toward research, totalk together about what we heard studentssaying about their perceptions. The chance toview videotapes of text-based discussions fromwithin and across sites and to read transcriptsof students talking about their perceptions ofthose discussions added to the richness of thedata. In fact, it was this layering of data thatled to some of the more interesting researchteam meetings.

Participants and Sites

This section includes descriptions of theparticipating classes (arranged alphabetically byteachers' last names) and the locations of the

five sites. It also provides information on howthe focal students were selected.

Paul Freeman's class. Paula taught atwelfth-grade advanced placement English classof 13 seniors and served as head of the EnglishDepartment at Camak High School (CHS) inthe greater Phoenix area. The 4 males and 9females in her class were from Hispanic,Asian, African American, and European Amer-ican backgrounds. The student population atCHS was 60% Hispanic, with Spanish spokenfrequently in the hallways and lunchroom.Gang activity from the community was dis-couraged in school; however, the gangs madetheir presence known by the graffiti on theoutside walls. When Paula's class was askedhow to designate the focal students, one sug-gestion was made, and it was not challenged.The suggestion was to include the whole class.This plan was accepted because the class wassmall and quite verbal according to Paula. Thestudents, whose attendance was sporadic, wereespecially lively at the beginnings and endingsof class; they were serious and compliantduring class.

EstherThrash's class. Esther's eighth-gradeheterogeneous language arts class was made upof 23 female and 5 male African Americanstudents from the west side of Atlanta, Geor-gia. The class was representative of the ethnicheritage of the approximately 1,000 studentsattending Greenwood Middle School, 99% ofwhom were from African American back-grounds and 1% from European Americandescent. Discipline was not viewed as a majorproblem in this working-class neighborhoodschool that has won district-wide oratoricalcontests. Esther's students worked in peer-ledgroups on the average of three times a week.


15

8 Alvermann et al.

The six focal students (1 male and 5 females)who served as team elptains for their groupswere chosen by Esther because of their potentialleadership ability and their ability to keep order,command attention, and manage the group.

Dera Weaver's class. Dera taught at Hal-ford Middle School, one of three middleschools in a southern university town. Thereare approximately 850 students enrolled atHa 113rd, 55% of whom are of European Amer..ican descent. Although the other 45% of thestudent body is comprised mostly of AfricanAmerican students, there is a small percentageof students from Asian and Hispanic back-grounds. Dera's class was part of the state'sprogram for gifted students, in which eachschool is expected to provide some time duringthe school day for these students to receive anaccelerated, differentiated curriculum. AtHalford, students identified as gifted wereserved through their language arts classes, andDera chose to use a reading/writing workshopapproach with her students. The majority of the14 students in her class were European Ameri-can, with 2 African American students, 1

Chinese student, 1 Canadian student, and 1 stu-dent from Guyana. Although all had been iden-tified as gifted students, all were not fluent oreager readers and writers. All 14 class membersserved as focal students because Dera did notwant anyone to feel left out or privileged.

Alan Williams' class. Alan's eleventh-gradeU.S. History class consisted of 18 studentsranging in age from 17 to 22 years. The 11males and 7 females were from Latino, AfricanAmerican, Arabic, Vietnamese, EuropeanAmerican, and Ukrainian backgrounds. Theclass was representative of the larger cultural

mix of Thomas Jefferson High School (TJHS),which is located in Buffalo, New York. TJHSserves most of the city's newly arrived highschool-age immigrants. The student body isroughly 40-50% Hispanic and 15-20% AfricanAmerican. Students come from as many as 32different countries, representing at least 13different languages; 43 % of the students do notspeak English as their primary language. Al-though the students in Alan's class were en-couraged to work together (and on occasionthey attempted peer-led discussions), the domi-nant mode of instruction was teacher-led dis-cussion/recitation. Students were required todo no homework and very little reading. Alangave quizzes every 2 to 3 weeks after firstgoing over the questions in class and tellingstudents the answers. Focal students (3 malesand 1 female) were selected from those in theclass who were 18 years of age or older andwere willing to participate.

Patricia Zalewski's class. Patricia taughttenth-grade global studies in a suburban north-eastern school district that serves about 10,000students, with roughly 2,800 of them enrolledin Middlesex High School. Of the 22 studentsin Patricia's class (10 males and 12 females), 2were of African American heritage and the restof European American descent. The curricu-lum and final examination were dictated bystate-wide requirements and designed foracademically oriented students who werepreparing to enter college. Peer-led discussionswere used two to three times a week by mid-year to enhance students' understandings of theconcepts Patricia introduced through lecturesand assigned readings. Six focal students (3males and 3 females) were selected for their



potential to inform the study and because theyshared a common free period; however, due tochanges in schedules, absenteeism, and schoolattrition, most of the focal group interview datacame from 4 students.

Data Sources

Like Erickson and Shultz (1992), we be-lieved that "on the topic of student experience,students themselves are the ultimate insidersand experts" (p. 480). Consequently, we enlist-ed their help in reflecting and reporting ontheir own and other students' experiences asdiscussants. Three rounds of videotaped classdiscussions, followed by three focal groupinterviews, served as the primary data sources.Field notes (supplemented by transcriptions ofaudiotaped class discussions), theoretical mem-oranda, site descriptions, and student artifactswere treated as secondary data sources.

Primary data sources. At each site, theresearchers videotaped (and later transcribed)three discussions, one at the beginning, middle,and end of their case. Structured focal groupinterviews followed each of these tapings. Inthe focal groups, students viewed segments ofthe discussions in which they had taken part,and then they responded orally to the research-er's interview questions (see Figure 1).

Questions for an interview protocol werenegotiated by the research team from a varietyof information sources, including our initialresearch questions, insights gained from earlyparticipant observation field notes, and ourexperiences in eliciting talk from students. Theinterview protocol served as a guide to whatwas often a wide ranging conversation, with

interviewer and focal students invited to elabo-rate and probe as needed to clarify understand-ings. All focal group interviews were audio-taped and later transcribed. Prior to the thirdfocal group interview, representative segmentsfrom each site's videotaped discussions wereshared across sites so that students could ob-serve and comment on discussions from sitesother than their own (see Interview #3 inFigure 1).

Secondary data sources. So that we couldgain insight into each others' backgrounds andpoints of view, teachers and researchers wrotebeginning theoretical memoranda in response,but not limited to, this common set of prompts:What are your views of reading (includingpurposes for reading, how reading develops,and the teacher's role in content reading in-struction)? What does a good text-based discus-sion entail? What are the students' and teach-ers' roles a good discussion, and how doesreading fit?

To provide a rich base in which to groundunderstanding of our classroom sites, research-ers took field notes as they observed weeklydiscussions at each site. In addition, discus-sions in Dera's class were audiotaped andtranscribed in order to amass a set of data thatwould provide a rich context for confirmingand qualifying cross-site interview and obser-vation data. Artifacts, such as student work,texts, and discussion guides were collected ordescribed for all classrooms when these helpedto explain class discussions or contexts for thediscussions. Field notes, transcripts, and arti-fact descriptions were circulated among re-searchers at each site as our data collection andanalysis proceeded.


i '1

10 Alvermann et al.

Focal Group Interview #1

I. What do you think about the discussion you just viewed?2. How did the discussion help you to understand the topic?

(If it did not help, what could have been done to make it helpful?)3. What is it about you that made you participate the way you did during the discussion?4. Describe how the discussion motivated you to think about the topic.

(If it did not, how could it have encouraged you?)5. Describe how the discussion encouraged you to read about the subject.

(If it did not, how could it have encouraged you?)6. What is it about (supply the names of other focal students) that made them participate the way they

did?7. Suppose I (or a new student) wanted you to join your group discussion. What should I (he or she)

do or how should I (he or she) act in order to fit in?


Questions 1-7 (see above) plus:

8. How has our presence in the room affected the way you participate in discussions?9. Why do you think your teacher encourages you to discuss?10. How do you feel about being observed?


Questions 1-10 (see above) plus:

11. How is the discussion you just viewed of your own group similar to that of the discussion inMr./Mrs. 's room?

12. How is the discussion you just viewed of your own group different from that of the discussion inMr./Mrs. 's room?

13. Do you think that you'd have to act differently to participate successfully in the discussion you justviewed? How so?

14. Based on all you've seen and know, what is your definition of a discussion?

Figure 1. Three Sets of Focal Group Interview Questions

Analysis Procedures

Establishing the beginning and endingboundaries of the phenomenon under study wasone of the first priorities for the research team.We used the procedure outlined in Zaharlickand Green (1991) to establish boundaries for

what came to be called a discussion event.Because we were interested in how studentsexperienced classroom talk about texts and thesccial settings for that talk, we defined theboundaries of a discussion event in a way thatoptimized the amount of time we could observestudents interacting with other students. A


18

z 0 tn 8 O

Pha

ses

Dat

esC

omm

unic

atio

nIn

divi

dual

and

Tea

m T

asks

Out

com

es/P

rodu

cts

I.In

trod

uctio

nsan

d pr

elim

i-na

ry d

esig

n

June

-Aug

ust,

1993

Mem

oran

daT

wo

21/2

-ho

ur-lo

ng te

amco

nfer

ence

cal

ls

Bec

ome

acqu

aint

ed a

s a

team

Def

ine

indi

vidu

al In

tere

sts

and

how

they

rel

ate

to p

roje

ctob

ject

ives

Writ

ten

syno

pses

of e

ach

conf

eren

ce c

all

Writ

ten

syno

pses

of e

ach

team

mem

ber's

prog

ress

bet

wee

n co

nfer

ence

cal

ls

issu

esIn

divi

dual

follo

w-u

p ph

one

calls

Exp

lore

gro

unds

for

a co

mm

n m

etho

dolo

gyE

stab

lish

tent

ativ

e tim

elin

e fo

r pr

ojec

t

Writ

ten

feed

back

on

draf

ts o

f int

ervi

ewan

d su

rvey

inst

rum

ents

Fax

esE

xcha

nge

prof

essi

onal

art

icle

s on

res

earc

h to

pic

Writ

ten

refle

ctio

ns o

n un

reso

lved

met

h-

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

lD

esig

n fir

st d

raft

of in

terv

iew

and

sur

vey

ques

tions

odot

ogic

al is

sues

Beg

in n

egot

iatin

g co

llabo

ratio

ns w

ith te

ache

rsB

egin

obt

aini

ng p

erm

issi

on to

ent

er s

choo

l site

s

Writ

ten

outli

ne o

f dat

a co

llect

ion

proc

e-do

tes

II. D

ata

culle

c-Li

on a

nd

Sep

tem

ber,

1993

-

Fou

r 21

- ho

ur -

long

team

conf

eren

ce c

alls

Res

pond

to te

ache

r an

d re

sear

cher

sur

vey

Est

ablis

h in

divi

dual

cas

e tim

elin

es

Indi

vidu

al c

ase

timel

ines

Com

plet

ed in

terv

iew

and

sur

vey

inst

ru-

anal

yses

June

, 199

4F

ollo

w-u

p m

emor

anda

Sel

ect f

ocal

stu

dent

s us

ing

teac

hers

' inp

utm

ents

Loca

l tea

m a

naly

sis

sess

ion

(4 1

/2 h

ours

), J

an, 1

994,

DW

/JY

/DA

Rev

ise

earli

er d

rafts

of i

nter

view

and

sur

vey

ostr

umen

tsD

efin

e di

scus

sion

"ev

ents

"M

ake

wee

kly

obse

rvat

ions

of c

lass

dis

cuss

ions

(di

ffere

nt

Fie

ld n

otes

, vid

eota

pes,

aud

iota

pe tr

an-

scrip

tions

The

oret

ical

mem

os

Tw

o fa

ce-t

o-fa

ce te

amsi

tes

to fo

llow

thei

r ow

n tim

elin

es)

Trif

olds

mee

tings

for

anal

yzin

g da

taat

Nat

iona

l Rea

ding

Con

-

Vid

eota

pe th

ree

clas

s di

scus

sion

s at

eac

h si

te (

begi

nnin

g,m

iddl

e, a

nd e

nd o

f eac

h ca

se)

Nar

rativ

e vi

gnet

tes

Key

link

age

char

tsfe

renc

e (D

ec.,

1993

) an

dIn

tern

atio

nal R

eadi

ng A

sso-

elat

ion

(May

, 199

4)

Con

duct

follo

w-u

p fo

cal g

roup

inte

rvie

ws

Exc

hang

e tr

ifold

s an

d th

eore

tical

mem

os a

cros

s si

tes

for

tria

ngul

atio

n of

dat

a

Pre

ll.ni

nary

syn

thes

is p

rese

nted

at R

ead-

ing

Res

earc

h '9

4 in

Tor

onto

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

lW

rite

narr

ativ

e vi

gnet

tes

Indi

vidu

al p

hone

cal

lsF

axes

Exc

hang

e vi

deot

apes

, tra

nscr

iptio

ns o

f aud

iota

ped

foca

lgr

oup

inte

rvie

ws,

and

fiel

d no

tes

acro

ss s

itcs

Sur

face

mai

l pac

kets

Con

stru

ct k

ey li

nkag

esC

ontin

ue e

xcha

nge

of p

rofe

ssio

nal a

rtic

les

Ill.

Syn

thes

is

of fi

ndin

gsJu

ly-A

ugus

t,19

94

Ele

ctro

nic

mai

lIn

divi

dual

pho

ne c

alls

Rer

ead

all f

ive

case

s an

d hi

ghlig

ht k

ey li

nkag

es (

DA

and

IY)

Firs

t dra

ft of

find

ings

Dat

a di

strib

utio

n ta

bles

Loca

l tea

m a

naly

sis

sess

ion

Iden

tify

asse

rtio

ns

(8 d

ays)

, Aug

., 19

94,

DA

BY

/DW

Writ

e fir

st d

raft

and

inco

rpor

ate

info

rmat

ion

from

sla

m-

rive

vign

ette

sC

ompi

le d

ata

dist

ribut

ion

tabl

es

IV. D

rafti

ng o

fS

epte

mbe

r-S

urfa

ce m

ail p

acke

tsA

ll te

am m

embe

rs r

erea

d th

eir

own

case

s an

d co

mpi

leD

rafts

#1,

#2,

#3,

#4

final

rep

ort

Oct

ober

, 199

4E

lect

roni

c m

ail

data

dis

trib

utio

n ta

bles

for

thre

e as

sert

ions

Dat

a di

ctrib

utio

n ta

bles

Indi

vidu

al p

hone

cal

lsR

eact

to fo

ur d

rafts

of f

inal

rep

ort

Fin

al r

epor

tT

eam

con

fere

nce

calf

Sub

mit

final

rep

ort f

or p

ublic

atio

n

Figu

re 2

. Pha

ses

of D

ata

Col

lect

ion

and

Ana

lysi

s

19

12 Alvermann et al.

discussion event was said to begin with theteacher giving directions on how students wereto ire.eract with each other, and it ended eitherwith the students reporting back to the wholeclass (following peer-led small group discus-sion) or with the teacher calling a halt to stu-dent-to-student interaction (following teacher-led whole group discussion).

We developed a procedure for recording,triangulating, analyzing, and sharing all teammembers' observations related to the questionsthat guided the study. This procedure, whichwas on-going during phase two of this studyand occurred simultaneously with new datacollection (see Figure 2), involved reading andrereading all field notes and transcriptions ofvideotaped discussions and focal group inter-views. Prior to participating in face-to-faceteam meetings and telephone conference callsduring phase two, we identified general andsubsidiary key linkages of the data within andacross cases. This inductive analytic approachto discovering and testing patterns of data ledto the generation of several assertions. Ac-cording to Erickson (1986),

An appropriate metaphor for this kind ofpattern discovery and testing is to think ofthe entire data set . . . as a large cardboardbox, filled with pieces of paper on whichappear items of data. The key linkage is ananalytic construct that ties strings to thesevarious items of data. Up and down a hier-archy of general and subsidiary linkages,some of the strings attach to other strings.The task of pattern analysis is to discoverand test those linkages that make the largestpossible number of connections to items ofdata in the corpus. When one pulls the top

string, one wants as many subsidiary stringsas possible to be attached to data. The stron-gest assertions are those that have the moststrings attached to them, across the widestpo :sible range of sources and kinds of data.(p. 148)

To check the trustworthiness of the asser-tions we generated, we sought disconfirming aswell as confirming evidence. If the instances ofdiscrepant cases caused us to doubt an emerg-ing assertion, or if key linkages came primarilyfrom one data source or one site, then wereworded the assertion to qualify the languageso that it applied to all settings within thestudy. In several instances, and especially earlyin the analysis, we ended up abandoning someassertions in favor of others that had betterlinkages across a variety of data sources.

We wrote narrative vignettes in an effort toexplain and support the assertions that wegenerated. Composing these vignettes was auseful part of the analysis process because itpushed each of us to come to terms in a morepublic way with our beliefs about the value ofparticular assertions. The vignettes (see exam-ple in Appendix) contained excerpts that welifted verbatim from primary and secondarydata sources and then embedded within ourown interpretive commentary. Portions ofthese narrative vignettes were used in writingup the findings that follow.

Results

Several understandings are important forthe proper interpretation of the three assertionsthat follow. First, it is important to recognizethat in generating each assertion we were



attempting to build abstractions across the fivesites in our multicase study. This is in keepingwith Yin (1984), who noted that one attempts"to build a general explanation that fits each ofthe individual cases, even though the cases willvary in their details" (p. 108). Second, it wasthis variation in details that prompted us towrite each assertion in a way that focusedprimarily on Dera's class. Because the firstthree authors audiotaped and subsequentlytranscribed nearly all of the discussions in herclass, they amassed a rich set of data thatserved well as a base for confirmation andqualification of the data from the other foursites. Third, because we saw numerous in-stances in support of each of the assertions ateach of the different sites, we compiled distri-bution tables to show the frequency of thesupporting data across time and across a vari-ety of primary and secondary sources.

We were able to generate three assertions tocharacterize what students know about text:based classroom discussion. The first assertionwas that students were aware of the conditionsthat are conducive to discussion. Students'words supported this assertion, generally, andimplied that they knew about working in smallgroups, about knowing and liking group mem-bers, about contributing to group talk, andabout staying focused on a topic. The secondassertion was that students believe the tasksteachers present and the topics or subjectmatter they assign for reading influence partic-ipation in discussion. Students' views about thisassertion were supported with talk about specif-ic tasks and topics. The third assertion was thatstudents saw discussion as helpful in under-standing what they read. This assertion was

supported with student talk about the impor-tance of listening to each other, voicing opin-ions/arguing, and attending to vocabulary.

Assertion #1: Students are aware of the condi-tions they believe to be conducive to discus-sion.

Secondary school students in the UnitedStates typically participate in few classroomdiscussions, and the students in this study wereno exception. To illustrate, early in October weasked the students in Dera's class what theythought of this research project. Brad said, "Ilike it because talking is one of the things thatwe are pretty deprived of at school. It is like,if we have a hat day, everybody will like thehat day; and if we have a whole class devotedto talking, then, I mean, people are going tolike it. Which we did." John added, "We do[talk], but you aren't allowed to . . ." withDesuna finishing for him, "without getting intotrouble" (FGWY/10/12/93). These words, andothers like them, have woven themselves intothe fabric of our investigation: a thread toofragile, certainly, to define a pattern or bind aborder, but still a part of the whole, a subtlecontribution to an intricate pattern. For ifstudents are indeed "talk-deprived" in theirclasses, if they view talking in school as anoften surreptitious activity, what perceptions ofdiscussionif anyhave they developed?

Our first assertion, students are aware ofthe conditions they believe to be conducive todiscussion, is an important, even necessary,foundation of this study because realizing thatour students had clear ideas and beliefs aboutdiscussions is as important as knowing the


14 Alvermann et al.

Table 1. Data Distribution for Assertion #1: Students are aware of the conditions they believe to beconducive to discussion.

Distribution of Episodes Across General and Susbidiary Linkages

Linkages(General andSubsidiary)

Episodes (By Source, Researcher, and Date)

Working insmall group

(FGI/DA/2 /1/94) (FGI/DA/3/15/94) (FGUKH/11/4/93) (FM/ICH/12/9/93)...(FGUKH/2/3/94) (FGUKI-1/3/10/94) (FGUKH/4/28/94) (FN/KH/5126/94)(FN/DM/3 /3/94) (FGI/DM /5 /10/94) (SA/ET/3/15/94) (FN/SP/11/12/93)(FN/SP/12120/93) (VT/SP/1/12/94) (FM/SP/4/18/94) (FGI/SP/1 /13 /94) (AT/DW/1 /5 /94)(FGI/JY/10/12 /93) (NFGI/J V10/12/93) (FGUJY/12/14/93) (FGUJ Y/2 /1 /94)

Knowing andliking groupmembers

(FM/DA/1/29/94) (FGUDA/2/1/94) (NFGUDA/3/3/94) (FGI/DA/3/15/94)(FGUKH/11/4/93) (FGUKH/12/6/93) (FGUKH/12/9/93) (FGUKH/2/3/94)(FGUKH/3/10/94) (FGUKH/4/28/94) (FM/DM/3/3/94) (FGUSP/4/18/94)(FGUSP/10/29/93) (AT/DW/1/11/94) (SA/DW/9/17/93) (FGUJY/2/1/94)

Contributing togroup talk

(FM/DA/1/20/94) (FGI/DA /3/15/94) (FGI/DA /3/15/94) (VT/KH/10/26/93)(FGVKI-1/11/4/93) (VT/KB/12/9/94) (FGI/KH/12/9/93) (FM/KR/2/3/94)(FM/KH/3/10/94) (FGUKH/4/28/94) (AT/DM/2/24/94) (FM/DM/3/3/94)(FGUDM/5/10/95) (FGUSP/10/29/93) (FGUSP/1/I3/94) (FGUSP/4/18/94)(SA/DW/10/13/93) (SA/DW/10/12/93) (AT/DW/1 /11 /94)(NFGI/J Y/10/13/93) (FGI/JY/12/14 /93) (FGUJY/1 /20/94) (FGI/J Y/2/1/94)

Staying focusedon the topic

(FGUDA/3/1/94) (FGUDA/3/15/94) (FGUKI-1/2/3/94) (FGUKH/3/10/94)(FGUDM/3/3/94) (FGI/SP/10/29/93) (FN/ET/11/2/93) (SW/DW/1 /11 /94)(AT/DW/1 /11/94) (FGI/JY/10/12/93) (FGUJ Y/12/14/93) (FGUJ Y/2/1 /94)

Note: A key to the abbreviations of data sources: FN (field notes); FGI (focal group interview); AT (audiotape); SA(student artifact); TS (teacher survey); VT (videotape)

content of those ideas and beliefs. As notedearlier, the frequency of the data supportingthis assertion is presented in the tables. In theremainder of this section, we portray the fourspecific conditions that students believed wereconducive to good discussion: working in smallgroups, knowing and liking group members,contributing to group talk, and staying focusedon the topic.

Working in small groups. Early in the year,before peer-led discussion in small groups hadbecome the norm in Dera's class, studentsindicated an overall preference for small-groupdiscussions over whole-class discussions. AsJohn put it, "I kind of like those [small groups]because you don't have to fight over, you don'thave to wait and wait and wait before you havea chance to talk. You only have like five peo-



ple in the group and everybody is close enoughto hear you, so you just kind of say your thingwhen you feel like it." Alice added, "The smallgroup is kind of nicer because it is more per-sonal and people kind of listen to you more andget interested in it" (FGI/JY/10/12/93). Inanother interview, Jonathan referred to a previ-ous whole class discussion when he said, "Ionly had one thing I would like to say, and Itried to say it, but someone cut in front of me."Christy offered, "It seems like it takes foreverfor [the teacher] to call on me, and by that timewe have gone on to another subject, by thetime I get to say anything." Small groups wereespecially attractive to Melanie, who wasdescribed by her classmates as quiet-natured:"It gets me nervous to talk in front of a wholelot of people about, like, opinions and stuff.But then, small group, it's like me and myfriends, so it is easier" (FGI/JY/10/12/93).

Across three of the other four sites, studentsvoiced similar perceptions about group size.With few exceptions, they preferred small-group discussions, which were peer-led, toteacher-directed whole-class discussions. Forexample, after one group of students in Paula'ssenior English class watched a video of them-selves discussing Sylvia Plath's poem, Daddy,Alex commented that they were asking ques-tions and talking a lot among themselves. Othermembers of his group agreed and elaborated onAlex's statement. Brian said, "I think thesmaller group was better because there are lesspeople to hassle you. You can go ahead andsay something that you're not real sure about.Try out ideas." June agreed, adding that shethought the small group made it possible for

students to explore what they thought about thepoem in more depth (FGI/DM/3/3/94).

In Patricia's sophomore global studies class,teacher-directed whole-class disc..ussions weremore prevalent than peer-led small-groupdiscussions, at least for the first semester.Nonetheless, except for Jennifer and Kate, whopreferred to "talk to the teacher because sheknows the answer" (FN/KH/5/26/94), theother focal students expressed a preference forpeer-led groups. For example, Mike likedtalking to a small group of his peers because"You can say the wrong answer . . . withoutthe whole class laughing" (FGI/ICH/4/28/94),while Tammy liked small groups because theyhelped her pay attention:

Tammy: I think we should work in small groupseveryday. It helps me.

Kiesha: When we're in a big class [interrupted]

Tammy: Everyone gets off task. Justin sits the' cand makes noises . . . . I don't payattention at all. He got his book out andmade it fly, and we were all laughing.(FGITICH /10/94)

In Esther's eighth-grade language arts class,small-group work was the norm. Whole-classdiscussion was infrequent and reserved mostlyfor days when students shared a project theyhad worked on in their small groups. Studentswere assigned to more or less permanentgroups of four or five individuals, with a teamcaptain acting as the spokesperson for thegroup. When asked to describe how she andher peers felt about small group discussion,Janice, a popular and outspoken team captain,


16 Alvermann et al.

was positive in her response. She liked gettingtogether and talking about a topic with herteam (SA/ET/3/15/94).

The students at one site countered thegeneral favor for discussions in small groups.The students in Alan's eleventh-grade U.S.History class were encouraged to discuss theirassignments in small groups, but they rarelydid, opting instead to work alone (FN/SP/11/-12/93; FN/SP/12/20/93) or in pairs (VT /SP /-1/12/94). When asked why he thought hispeers did not choose to engage in small-groupdiscussions, Rico attributed it to ethnic andracial biases, saying, "See, some people, youknow it's like they don't want to talk to some-one who's different. And you know, a lot ofpeople felt that way about me. But I'm halfPuerto Rican, you know, so . . . the majorityof this school is Puerto Rican, so they talk tome . . . because I have the same ethnic race asthem" (FGI/SP/1/13/94).

In general, mostbut not allstudentsreported preferring discussion in small groupsrather than in a large group. Small-groupdiscussions seemed to promote students' classinvolvement by increasing the number of timesthey could talk and by decreasing the risks theytook when expressing personal or tentativethoughts.

Knowing and liking group members. Earlyin the year, Dera conducted a confidentialsurvey to learn student preferences for themakeup of small-group discussions. The stu-dents had strong feelings at that time aboutpeers with whom they felt they could or couldnot talk successfully, and they expressed thesepreferences clearly. Friendship played a part,but the students also gave consideration to their

perceptions of the ways in which other studentsmight approach a discussion. At the time of thesurvey, most students listed at least one or twoof their peers under the heading "people I can'tdiscuss with". At the beginning of the year,the makeup of a group seemed to be a highlyinfluential condition for good discussion.

In the beginning, Dera tried various waysof grouping the students for discussion (some-times based on the confidential survey, but notalways). Before long, she began to turn thechoice of forming discussion groups over tothe students themselves. They suggested avariety of groupings, such as placing studentswho talked a lot in one group and those whowere better listeners in another group. Givingstudents some choices in how they formed thei:groups seemed a logical step in exploring peer-led discussion. However, for some students,these choices presented problems; for instance,Desuna worried that if her -rs put the groupstogether, friends would choose friends andsome people would be left out (SA/DW/9/17/-93). In the early stages of discussion withstudent-selected groups, there were someuncomfortable moments that required Dera'sintervention, but over the course of the year,the students' attitudes toward forming discus-sion groups began to change. In March, Sandrareported, "I think that we-I guess as we start-ed, we have become more comfortable withtalking with almost everyone in the class, andwe are just, like, we will go to whoever. Itdoesn't really matter anymore. It is not like,well, I don't like you, I don't want to go withyou, I don't want to be in a group with you, Iwant to be in a group with my best friend oranything like that. It just-we are all just corn-



fortable talking with each other now" (FGI/-DA/3/3/94).

Unwilling to discount totally the importanceof friendship, Mark reviewed the followinghistory: "Some people are saying, well, no, itdoesn't have anything to do with friendship,but it does. Because, urn, my group [today]was me, Brad, Sandra, Omar, and Duncan.And, urn, we are all friends. And then me andSandra and Brad have been together during thegroup ever since she [Dera] has been telling us,well, 'just find a group'. That was the firsttime that we got in a group, and then Melanieand April were in there, too, and then theywent to another one and me and Brad andSandra still stayed together. And, urn, then, soI think it does have a lot to do with friendship"(FGI/DA/3/3/94).

The idea of forming "talk-alike" discussiongroups appealed to the students in PF's class-room as well. They saw an advantage to put-ting outspoken people together after viewing avideotape from Dera's classroom. For exam-ple, Heather felt it would be less intimidatingfor the more quiet students if the outspokenones were in a group by themselves. Alexagreed, saying, "Like, like me-me and Heath-er-we'll talk no matter if someone's talking ornot" (FGI/DM/5/10/94). Friendship was afactor identified as being important to themakeup of a group in Paula's class as well. Infact, after viewing a videotape of Esther'sclass, Alex wondered if the noticeably smallamount of student -to- student talk could beattributed to "they weren't good friends-likeus" (FGI/DM/5/10/94).

The focal students in Patricia's class saidthat they usually preferred to be in groups with

their friends, or with others whom they knewwell. Overall, they transmitted a sense ofknowing which students worked productively,and although they were quick to say theywanted to work with friends, in the end, get-ting the job done was more important. A few,like Jennifer, thought the teacher should let thestudents pick their own group members: "Likeour teacher, she just puts us in these groups. . . I think if she would let us pick our owngroups, we would pick the people that we',mow can work together . . . . I mean like then[we'd know] we had to get the project done, andwe could all say since we were friends, come onwe have to do this" (FM/ICH/11/4/93). Kieshaagreed that being with people you know wellcan motivate you to participate (FM/ICH/3/10/-94), as did Mike, Tammy, and Jennifer onseveral other occasions (FGI/KH/11/4/93;FGUICH/12/9/93).

Knowing a lot about other group members,including their expectations, was seen bystudents in Esther's room as being a conditionthat is conducive to good discussion. Marthasaid she expected people in her group to dotheir work and make discussion "a little fun"(FGI/DAJ2/1/94). Martha also noted, afterviewing videotapes of discussions in Alan'sand Dera's rooms, that it would take muchmaneuvering and getting to know Alan's andDera's students before she would feel comfort-able participating in any of their discussiongroups: "First I would have to have somenerve. Then I would have to get to know thepeople, you know, all kinds of things they doin that group. And then I know if I be in thatgroup-then I would just act like they act" (FM/-DA/3/15/94).


ts;4. I-)

18 Alvermann et al.

Like Denise, Tyrone, who was a focalstudent in Alan's class, believed it was impor-tant for nv:.. .iers in a group to get to knowthe group before venturing to say anything. 1ngiving advice about how a new student fromthe Middle East might "fit in" one of the exist-ing groups, Tyrone described what he himselfwould do in such a situation: "I would just stayquiet for a while to see what's going on" (FGI-/SP/4/18/94). Tyrone believed that "if [stu-dents] pick their own group," they get alongbetter. However, both Tyrone and Nick, anoth-er focal student in Alan's room, thought it wasthe teacher's responsibility to help quiet or shystudents feel more comfortable. Nick's belief inthe advantage of grouping students with similarpersonality traits was indicated by his sugges-tion to, "Put them together, you know. Shypeople talk to each other, to other shy people"(FGI/SP/10/29/93).

Several aspects of knowing and liking areevident in our students' remarks about thiscondition of good discussions. Knowing andliking someone before working together in agroup might be important, but some studentsalso realized that friendships developed as aresult of group work. Along with the notion offriendship, students indicated that compatibilitycould come when others shared personalitytraits, worked together productively, and werefun. Students who somehow fit in with eachother created good discussions.

Contributing to group talk. Across all fivesites, students believed that doing one's fairshare of the talking was everyone's responsi-bility. In fact, most students in Dera's clascdescribed the responsibilities of group mem-bership in terms of an obligation to participate

in the talk: "Say what you have to say," sugges-ted Duncan, and Jason added, "contribute some-thing when you feel like it" (SA/DW/10/13/93).Some students noted differences in the qualityof talk. In describing Jason, Jonathan said, "Hedoesn't say stupid stuff, yeah, what he says isimportant . . . lots of people who talk all thetime, like, they come out with stuff that hasnothing to do with anything, but when Jasontalks he says something that has meaning"(FGI/JY/10/13/93). And John described hisown role in this way: "Well, like, if I don'thave much to say, there is really no point inparticipating, because you just waste otherpeople's time by saying something that shouldbe ignored . . . . I just participate when I thinkI have a good point" (FGI/JY/1/20/94). Brad,however, had no such reservations. In a small-group discussion when Mark commented thatMelanie chose to talk less for fear of soundingstupid, Brad responded, "That is how I was,like, in first grade, but then I grew out of it. Ijust say the stupid stuff . . . nobody cares. Andit adds to discussion" (AT/1/11/94).

To Alex, in Paula's room, contributing togroup talk meant exhibiting "a certain degreeof seriousness," and to his classmates, Heatherand June, it meant "trying to involve every-body" and "asking questions of other people .

. . not just taking it all upon yourself' (FGI/-DM/5/10/94). When asked what students newto their class would be expected to do to dem-onstrate that they were contributing to grouptalk, the focal students in Paula's class re-sponded: "Say what you feel" (Alex), "Don'tbe afraid to share your feelings" (Ruby), and"Don't put people down" (Heather) (FGI/-DM/3/3/94).



The focal students in Patricia's room be-lieved that peer-led discussions wcrked whenall individuals in the group felt obligated to dotheir part rather than rely on one or two peopleto carry the load. Interestingly, "doing one'spart" seemed to relate directly to whether ornot students talked. Simply doing the assignedwork individually and writing down individualanswers did not count. For example, afterviewing a taped discussion on the day hergroup began working on a Middle East report(VT/IGI/10/26/93), Jennifer announced, "I

think my group doesn't work together verywell because they don't say anything, and I feellike I do all the work" (FM/ICH/11/4/93).And, on another day as students viewed avideotaped discussion involving their group(VT/KH /12/9/93), Jennifer complained thatElaine didn't say anything: "See, look. Shewrites stuff down, but she doesn't say any-thing" (FGUICH/12/9/93). When asked what anewcomer would have to do to join one of theirsmall groups, Joseph replied, "Do your part."Other students chimed in and agreed withJoseph, while Justin added, "Put some effortin, instead of just sitting there saying, 'What isyour answer?' or 'What did you get?" (FGI/-KH/11/4/93).

Students in Esther's class were equallyclear about the need for their team mates tocontribute to group talk about an assignment.Team captains had little patience for membersof their group who didn't read their assign-ments and weren't prepared for discussion(FGI/JY/12/14/93). For example, after view-ing a videotape of her group, Janice said in anirritated voice, "There are some people in thegroup that don't read the story, and then when

we are trying to do a resource page, theywant to know what happened. They don'twant to read, but they always want the an-swers" (FGI/DA/3/15/94).

Different motivations for contributing togroup talk existed for students in Alan's room.Two of the focal students felt it was theirresponsibility to initiate the group's discussion.Nick said, "I only participate to get it going.You just sit there"at which point Tyroneinterrupted him to say, "You just sit there, itgets boring" (FGI/SP/10/29/93). But Rico didnot agree that it was the students' responsibilityto initiate discussion, believing instead that itwould take some intervention on the teacher'span because some students adopted a pose ofindifference or hostility: "A lot of these stu-dents, you know, they got that `gangsta' typething to them, so it's like they come in thereand it's like 'What's up?' you know, andthey're hard guys. But you know, a lot of themyou can see right through it, you know" (FGI/-SP/1/13/94).

In brief, the students we talked with indi-cated several responsibilities that group mem-bers should fulfill to contribute to group talk.The students disdained those who took fromthe group without offering anything in return.They noted group members' responsibilitiestoward each other such as initiating talk, get-ting others involved through questioning, andkeeping order. Demonstrating responsibilityfor their own behavior included actions such asoffering pertinent points about a topic, sharingpersonal beliefs, and working to fulfill theacademic task. One responsibility, stayingfocused on the topic, received enough attentionto warrant a separate category in this study.


20 Alvermann et al.

Staying focused on the topic. From the firstfocal group interview, students in Dera's classwere aware that they got off the topic of dis-cussion easily and thought that this was detri-mental to a good discussion. John believed thatstraying from the topic hindered his ability tounderstand it. Alice added, "I forgot what thetopic was after the discussion was over, be-cause, I mean, we really wefe not at all on thetopic. We spent hardly five minutes on it"(FGI/JY/10/12/93). In noting a possible reasonfor straying from a topic, Brad said, "There area lot of t h i n g s in o u r m i n d s that we aren't t h i nk -

i n g of, a n d words c a n t r i g g e r those, and . . .

when you have the whole classroom talking andsomeone says something it can trigger those offand it keeps on going" (FGWY/10/12/93). Thisstatement was reflected later in the year withJohn's description of his own discussion style:"If the subject goes off, I help it go further . . .

because it is something that I am interested in,usually" (FGWY/3/1/94).

In Paula's and Alan's classes, students wereequally adamant about their expectations forgroups to stay focused on the topic of discus-sion, especially peer-led discussion groups. Forexample, Alex in Paula's class remarked afterviewing a videotape of his group's discussionof Sylvia Plath's poem, Daddy: "Sticking onthe subject . . . would have made the smallgroups work even more if people would havestayed on the topic. Sometimes the topic floats.I even do that. I'll say, 'What about the Suns?'(laughter), and then we get off the subject"(FGI/DM/3/3/94). Brian agreed with Alex thatpeer-led discussions should "keep focused,"while Heather thought that "breaking [thepoem] down to the themes" might have helped

the group stay focused (FGI/DM/3/3/94). InAlan's class, Nick believed that small-groupdiscussions encouraged off -task behaviorunless the teacher was there to keep an eye onthe students who strayed from the topic. InNick's words: "When they get in groups likethat, they just talk about their own things . . .

. If you keep them together, you can watchthem, they do their work" (FGI/SP/10/29/93).

Students at two of the other research sitesreported that when a group got off topic, oneor more students would remind everyone of theneed to stay focused. F07 example, the focalstudents in Patricia's class counted on Peggy orKate to assume that role: "I mean she's [Peg-gy] fun and everything, but when we get offthe subject and she knows we have to be done,that's when she'll say something," Kiesha said(FGUICH/3/10/94). Or, as Mike noted, "Wewere talking about something today, and thenKate said, 'Come on, let's get this done.' Shestarted getting annoyed, too" (FGI/KH/2/3/-94). In Esther's room, the team captains said itwas their responsibility to keep their groupsfocused on the topic. Janice reported that thereason the teacher had picked her to be acaptain was because "I know how to keeporder" (FGI/JY/12/14/94).

As these comments suggest, students ex-pressed the belief that staying focused is acharacteristic of good discussions. They notedthat individuals and groups often pursuedthoughts with obscure relationships to theoriginal topic. They distinguished amongdiscussions that focused on a specific aspect ofa topic, that explored topics in different ways,and that pursued unrelated topics.



Table 2. Data Distribution for Assertion #2: Students say the tasks teachers present and the topics or subjectmatter they assign for reading influence participation in discussion.

Distribution of Episodes Across General and Subsidiary Linkages



Tasks (FGUDA/2/1/94) (NFGI/DA/3/3/94) (FGI/DA/3/15/94) (WS/DA/4/5/94)(VT/ICH/10/26/93) (FGI/KH/11 /4/93) (VT/KH/12/6/93) (FGUICH/12/9/93)(FN/ICH/3/10/94) (FGUDM/3/3/94) (FN/DM/3/10/94) (FN/DM/3/24/94)(FN/SP/11/12/93) (FN/SP/12/1/93) (FGUSP/1/13/94) (VT/SP/1/12/94)(FN/SP/2/1/94) (FN/SP/3/9/94) (SA/DW/10/26/93) (TS/DW/11/1/93)(AT/DW/10/25/93) (AT/DW/11/16/93) (AT/DW/1 /11 /94) (AT/DW/2/15/94)(FN/DW/2/16/94) (FGWY/10/12/93) (FGUJY/12/9/93)(FGUJY/12/14/93) (FN/JY/12/14/93) (FGUJY/2/1 /94) (FN/JY/2/16/94)

Topics (FGUDA/1/20/94) (FGUDA/2 /1 /94) (FN/DA/2 /22 /94) (FGifDA/3/3 /94)(NFGUDA/3/3/94) (FGUDAJ3/15/94) (FGUKH/11 /4/93) (FGYICH/3/10/94)(FN/DM/11 /5/93) (FGUDM/2/10/94) (FGUDM/3/3 /94) (FN/I1M/3/24/94)(FGUDM/5/10/94) (FGI/SP/10/29/93) (FN/SP/12/20/93) (FN/SP/3/9/94)(FN/SP/6/10 /94) (SA/DW /10/12/93) (AT/DW/ i 0/18/93) (AT/DW/1 /5/94)(AT/DW/1/11/94) (NFGUJY/10/13/93) (FN/JY/10/25/93) (FM/TY/12/14193)(FGUJY/2/1/94)


Assertion #2: Students say the tasks teacherspresent and the topics or subject matter theyassign for reading influence participation indiscussion

This assertion reflects students' perceptionsthat their participation in text-based discussionsvaried with the task and topic their teachersassigned. Our students' comments about thesetask and topic influences revealed rather so-phisticated understandings. Perhaps this levelof sophistication should be expected afterconsidering the numerous experiences second-

ary-school students have with academic work.In this section, we specify the commonalitiesacross sites of students' statements about dis-cussion tasks and topics.

Tasks. The discussion tasks Dera assignedstudents grew from her own goals for discus-sion. In her words, "I want something toemerge from discussion that wasn't there inindividual readings: a new way of seeing; anuncomfortable sense that the world may not bequite as one had always assumed; a flash ofinsight into personal attitudes and beliefs; orjust a sense of having worked well together.


0 4

22 Alvermann et al.

Whatever form it takes, something more thanthe simple sum of each reader's separate expe-rience" (TS/DW/11/1/93). The tasks Derapresented for discussion encouraged students tointerpret (e.g., "Everyone says teachers onlyask questions they already know the answersto. Well, I don't understand the last pal agraphof this story . . . help me out" (SA/10/26/93);compare (e.g., "These poems have somerelationship, and I want to know rr v theyrelate and how you would present them to theclass" AT/2/22/94); and introspect (e.g., "Asyou read a poem, are there things outside thepoem that someone could tell you that mightenrich your experience and enjoyment of it?"AT/2/15/94).

Although Dera's questions influenced thebeginning of a discussion, students felt littleobligation to follow them when the questionsthey raised in their small groups proved moreinteresting. When Dera asked, "Did you dis-cuss my questions? The questions that I askedyou at the beginning," Laura, with a somewhatembarrassed laugh, answered for her group:"No. We didn't get to it" (AT/2/15/94). Infact, Laura's group had read and discussed theassignment, but not with Dera's questions inmind. On another occasion when DW asked thestudents to tell her how they went about doingwhat she asked them to do in their discussiongroups, Jason said, "We usually read first; thenwe talk about whatever you hinted at." Jona-than elaborated: "We pretty much do this everytime. I usually like to come up with somestrategy for doing the assignment. Yesterday,I tried to bring them [other students in hisgroup] back to your instructions, but I didn'tget any response." Melanie added, "We just

sort of forgot about it and worked," to whichLaura responded, "Maybe we didn't quite hearit-it was important for us as a lead-in, but wedidn't have time to get to your discussion"(FN/DW/2/16/94 ; FN/JY/2/16/94).

Like Dera, Paula also assigned tasks thatwere in line with her goals for discussion. Shedeveloped specific tasks involving comprehen-sion, analysis, and evaluation to encouragestudents to synthesize material by relating it toother literature they had read or to currentevents (TS/DM/4/5/94). When Paula's as-signed tasks met her students' expectations,animated small group discussions occurred.For example, when she prepared students toread Crime and Punishment by dividing theminto two groups, one to discuss crime aryl itsconsequences, and the other to talk about theeffects of punishment, a lively discussionensued. Both groups brought current eventsinto their discussions, including the notoriousLorena Bobbitt, Dr. Kervorkian, and CharlesManson (FN/DM,"3/10/94). Tasks that metwith less enthusiasm sometimes prompted acritical note from students, as in the case ofHeather who thought a boring task had limitedher participation in discussion. Reflecting onthis task in a small group that included Paula,Heather stated: "It could have been done likein a more . . . imaginative way to analyze thepoem instead of just breaking it down to thethemes and what was actually in the poet'spoem. Just make it more imaginative." (FGI/-DM/3/3/94)

Patricia's discussion tasks often reflectedthe influence of the state-mandated curriculum.Many times the tasks she assigned studentsinvolved reviewing details from previous

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH C' BITER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 36


reading assignments based on that curriculum.Although students were expected to discusstheir answers in small groups, they found waysto expedite the activity. For example, theywould divide a set of questions among theirpeers and make each student responsible foranswering a smaller number of questions. Thispractice resulted, not surprisingly, in studentsworking independently with minimal discussionand calling out their answers to other membersin their group (VT/ICH/10/26/93; FGUICH/-11/4/93). But when Patricia's tasks requiredstudents to link their knowledge of socialstudies concepts (e.g., the relation betweengeography and power) to specYic locations(e.g., ancient Greece) to make predictions or toconfirm hypotheses, lively discussions were thenorm. Patricia's students were well aware ofhow these differences in tasks affected theirparticipation level. For example, after viewingsegments of a videotaped discussion in whichthey were actively engaged in writing a groupstory based on a Russian history unit (VT/ICH/-12/6/93), several of the focal students com-mented that it was better than most previousdiscussion tasks in eliciting their participation(FGVICH/12 /9/93) .

Students in Alan's class also felt the influ-ence of a state-mandated curriculum. However,unlike the students in Patricia's class whoenjoyed the occasional open-ended discussionsthat sparked heated debates, students in Alan'sU.S. History class did not get much practiceparticipating in peer-led small-group discus-sions. When the opportunity for such iiscus-sions did arise, students in Alan's class made itclear that in order for them to participatesuccessrUlly. the task had to be clearly defined.

When this expectation was not met, they com-municated their sense of frustr' ;ion and confu-sion. For example, in one videotaped discus-sion (VT/SP/1/12/94), students voiced theiruncertainty over Alan's instructions to discussMartin Luther King's six principles of nonvio-lence with their peers. After viewing segmentsof that tape during a focal group interview,Rico (laughing) said, "What the hell was [he]talking about? That is exactly what I wasthinking . . . , I figured it out but . . . it wasjust real confusing the way he was doing it . .

. . If he, like, put more detail in what he wasexplaining about, what he wanted us to actuallydo, I think it would have been a lot better"(FGI/SP/1/13/94).

Esther's discussion tasks consisted primari-ly of the questions and projects in the studentresource book that accompanied the class'sliterature anthology. In many ways, these taskswere similar to the ones that Patricia assignedin her class, and not surprisingly, they elicitedsome of the same types of responses fromstudents. For example, although Esther'sstudents understood that they were expected todiscuss an assigned resource page amongthemselves before completing and turning it into the teacher, they rarely complied. Whenasked why, they explained that it was onlynecessary to talk to one another when someonedidn't know the answer (FGI/DA/3/15/94).Thus, in instances where the task was notdemanding (and therefore did not requirediscussing), they worked alone even thoughthey agreed they would prefer to work togetheron tasks (FGI /JY/12/9/93).

In general, students perceived discussion-worthy tasks to be interesting and demanding


24 Alvermann et al.

yet clearly defined and capable of drawing ontheir abilities to reason and to evaluate ideas.Indeed, some students substituted their owntasks for the teacher's assigned ones if theseconditions were not met. Our students alsoindicated an expertise at adjusting their workhabits to the demands of discussion tasks. Theirdegrees of collaboration and their individual re-sponses relied substantially on the assignmentthey were comp'eting.

Topics. Some students in Dera's classassociated the topic of a particular readingselection with how much they talked about it.April, for example, said, "I discuss if I enjoythe story. Like, if I like the story, I like to talkabout it. But if I don't like the story, I justwant to sit there and be mean" (AT/I/11/94).And, when Alice was asked to comment onwhy she thought Desuna seldom participated indiscussions, Alice said, "If she doesn't likesomething, she decides that she just won't doit." Desuna herself seemed to apply the stan-dard of "liking the story" to her own assess-ments of other students' participation level. Forexample, when asked why she thought Andyhad not participated in a discussion, Desunasaid, "He didn't like the story, I don't think."And Jason? "He participated the most, so Ithink he enjoyed the story," replied Desuna(FGI/DE/1/20/94).

Nearly 211 the students in Dera's class ex-presse.! definite preferences for certain subjectmatter ttxt,..,. ?or example, they preferred todiscuss literary texts as opposed to socialstudies texts. After watching a videotapedsegment of a discussion in Patricia's globalstudies class, Mark said, "[The] history of

Russia sounds boring, but discussing a poem. . . sounds more creative and interesting."Melanie agreed saying, "Their group maynot be boring, but . . . I had rather be inour group because I like discussing poetrybetter (FGI/DA/3/3/94).

Patricia's class was also aware of the differ-ent expectations students and teachers held fordiscussions of literary versus social studiestexts. After viewing a videotape of Dera'sstudents discussing a short story from the JuniorGreat Books program, Patricia's global studiesstudents attributed the differences they observedin the two classes' discussions to the topics orsubject matter of their assigned readings. Tammysaid (and Kiesha agreed): "Everything's so hardthat we do . . . . They [Dera's students] can sayanything they want and there is really no wrongor right answer" (FGI/KH/3/10/94).

Like Patricia's students, those in Esth-er's room believed that their level of partici-pation in a discussion depended heavily onthe topic of the selections they were assign-ed to read. Martha summed up the topic'sinfluence this way: "Now my group, yougive us a good topic, we can make a discus-sion. I guess the discussion depends on thetopic; if the topic is boring, you ain't goingto hear nothing" (FGI/JY/2/1/94). Or, asJanice put it, after viewing a videotape ofher group's rather listless response to ascience fiction story, "It is the kind of storysomebody with no friends would read." Whenasked to explain what she meant, Janice an-swered, "If you like that kind of story, evi-dently you ain't got no friends. It just made nosense. It is boring" (FGI /JY /12 '14/93).



Paula's students were also convinced thatthe topic of a selection influenced their interestin discussing it. After viewing a videotape ofher group's discussion of a James Thurbershort story, June attributed the students' lack ofparticipation to the fact that "We didn't have agood enough topic to discuss," and Heatheragreed (FGI/DM/2/10/94). Like the students inDera's and Patricia's classes, Heather ex-pressed definite views on the important rolesubject matter plays in the nature of discus-sions. On one occasion, she explained, "To methe subject makes a big deal because you canbecome more outspoken for one certain sub-ject" (FGI/DM/3/3/94), and still later, Heathersaid, "In English you debate a lot more aboutthe question because we all see it from differentpoints of view" (FGI/DM/5/10/94). Briandisagreed about the need to debate a question.He maintained that he spoke up more in discus-sions during calculus class where there wasonly one right answer to a question and lieknew how to get it: "I show them [members ofhis group in calculus] how to do it, and then itmakes me feel good, so then, I'll show more"(FGI/DM/5/10/94).

As for how they viewed the relation be-tween choice of topic and level of participationin discussion, Alan's students assessed thesituation this way: If the topic is not interest-ing, Tyrone and Nick noted, then it is theteacher's responsibility to "make it soundexciting." In Tyrone's words, "Stress it more,you know. I mean . . . you gotta project it tothe students more. Make them want to under-stand it" (FGI/SP/10/29/93).

To summarize, students expressed prefer-ences for topics that they experienced as like-

able, interesting, and debatable. Most studentsvalued topics that were naturally interesting;some held the teacher responsible for arousinginterest in dull topics. Students typically fa-vored subject matter topics found in literarytexts over those found in social studies texts.

Assertion #3: Students see discussion as helpfulin understanding what they read.

Like our first assertion, this one has twodimensions. Realizing that students see discus-sions as helpful is one dimension, and under-standing how students think discussions renderthis help is another. Knowing that studentsvalue the impact of discussions justifies know-ing how discussions affect their understandingsof what they read. In this section, we specifythe following three ways that students acrossall five sites said discussions helped themunderstand what they read: listening to eachother, voicing their opinions/arguing, andattending to vocabulary.

Listening to each other. The students inDera's class viewed listening as an importantpart of discussion, even while recognizing thattheir own listening skills were not alwaysadequate. Reflecting on ways she could im-prove her participation in discussion, Alicesaid, "I think maybe I have to listen to otherpeople more. Because I don't think I listen,urn, I think I talk more than I listen. Andlistening, listening is a good skill to have"(FGI/JY/1/20/94). On another occasion, Lauraand Sandra shared reasons for thinking thatthey had improved their understanding of anassigned reading by listening to others in theirgroup. In Laura's words, "We thought we


26 Alvermann et al.

Table 3. Data Distribution for Assertion #3: Students see discussion as helpful in understanding what theyread.

Distribution of Episodes Across General and Subsidiary Linkages



Listening (FGUDA/3/1/94) (FGI/DA/3/15/94) (FGUKH/2/3/94) (FGI/KH/3/10/94)(FN/KH/5/26/94) (FGI/DM/2/10/94) (FN/DM/5/10/94) (FGUSP/4/18/94)(SA/ET/3/I5/94) (SA/DW/10/12/93) (AT/DW/1/4/94) (AT/DW/1/11/94)(FN/DW/2/16/94) (FGUJY/I/20/94) (FGUJY/2/1/94)(FN/JY/2/16/94) (TS/PZ/9/20/93)

Voicing opin-ions/arguing

(FGUDAJ1/20/94) (FGUDA/1/20/94) (FGUDAJ1/25/94) (FGUDA/2/1/94)(FGUDE/3/15/94) (FGUKH/2/3/94) (FM/ICH/3/10/94) (AT/DM/4/18/94)(FN/DM/12/13/93) (FGUDM/2/10/94) (FN/DM/3/24/94) (FGUDM/5/10/94)(FGI/SP/1/13/94) (SA/ET/3/15/94) (SA/DW/10/12/94) (AT/DW/1/5/94)(AT/DW/1/11 /94) (AT/DW/1/15/94) (NFGUJY/10/13/93) (FGUJY/1/20/94)(FGUJY/2/1 /94)

Attending toquestions ofvocabulary

(FGUDA/1/25/94) (FGUDA/3/3/94) (FM/ICH/12/9/93) (FGI/2/3/94)(FN/DM/12/13/93) (FN/DM/2/3/94) (FGI/SP/10/29/93) (VT/SP/1/12/94)(FM/SP/1/14/94) (AT/DW/10/26/93) (VT/DW/1 /11/94) (AT/DW/1 /11 /94)(FN/DW/2/16/94) (AT/DW/2/16/94) (FGUJY/1/20/94)


were a good discussion group because, I mean,we tried to listen to what everybody had to say,really, instead of just trying to talk over peo-ple." To which Sandra added, "And instead ofjust trying to get across what you are trying tosay, I mean, now, that is important, but youshould also give others a chance to get acrosswhat they want to say" (AT/1/11/94).

According to several students in Dera'sclass, learning to give others a chance to saywhat they want to say was a factor in April'sgrowth as a discussant over the course of the

year. John, Jonathan, and Laura thought Aprillistened more and was more open-minded,while Brad v as more blunt in his assessment ofher progress: "You can get her to shut upeasier . . . . It is the truth. She kept goingblah, blah, blah, and she would keep on talk-ing, and you would go, 'April, please keepquiet,' and she will stop now. Because shewants other people to-she is eager to hearnow, not eager to talk" (FGI/DA/3/1/94).

Students in Paula's room were similarlyappreciative of what they could learn by listen-


35


ing to others express their ideas. In describinghow his group's discussion motivated him tothink more deeply about what he had read,Alex said, "Well, sometimes people get ideas,that--`Yeah, I never thought of that!'" Or, asHeather put it: "If we had just read the story,people would have been interested to just letthe story drop. To just think about how theyinterpreted it, and then that was it. But . . . aswe discussed it, we saw a lot more depth in thestory" (FGI/DM/2/10/94).

One of Patricia's stated goals for discussionwas that it would expand students' understand-ings of a concept (TS/PZ/9/20/93), and it didappear to do that. Students typically listenedand reacted to each other's ideas until they hadreached some kind of group consensus aboutwhat they had read. Maryanne thought shelearned better in peer-led discussions becauseshe understood what other students were saying(FN/KH/5/26/94). Justin agreed: "Because youget ideas from other students and not from theteacher. You understand better from someoneyour own age that has the same background"(FGI/2/3/94). Esther's and Alan's students alsofelt they had a better understanding of whatthey read when they listened to their peersdiscuss a selection. When asked why shethought her teacher liked students to discusswhat they had read, Janice said that Esthermust realize students understand their peersbetter than they understand her (FGI/JY/-2/1/94). Tyrone believed that "The best thingto do [in Alan's class] is just like, listen . . .

and then take it from there after you hear itout, and then ask a question." When Stephenasked, "So, if I'm hearing you right, you thinkthat some of discussion has to do with listen-

ing?" Tyrone responded emphatically, "Mostof discussion has to do with listening, 'causeyou and me couldn't discuss anything wetalking about if I wasn't listening" (FGI/SP/-4/18/94) .

As can be seen, students respected the roleof listening during discussions. They indicatedthat they gained different ideas about a passageespecially by listening to their peers' com-ments.

Voicing opinions/arguing. In the peer-leddiscussions in Dera's room, rudimentarylistening skills often gave way in the face ofwidely differing and strongly held opinions.Offering opinions on a topic was frequentlymentioned by students as helping themunderstand what they read, but knowingwhen to withhold such opinions was not asimple matter (SA/10/14/93, FGI/DA/1/20/94).Nor was it a simple matter to distinguishbetween expressing one's opinions andarguing, as seen in Laura's and Alice'sexperiences of their own talk. According toLaura, "[Alice] tries to get her point acrossand just say 'Well, did you understand this,because I understood it this way . . . . Andshe kind of says she's right and if we didn'tunderstand it that way then how could wenot understand it that way or whatever."Alice, on the other hand, offered her ownversion of her discussion style (without,incidentally, having heard Laura's): "Well,I have noticed that sometimes when I amtalking to someone I usually . . . keep onexplaining to them until they understandwhat I am saying. And so maybe I like toargue. We certainly did do a lot of that inmy group" (FGI/JY/1/20/94).


("1

tJ Vi

28 Alvennann et al.

Argument was an acknowledged fact of lifeduring discussions in Dera's classroom, and thestudents talked freely about this feature of theirtalk and how it helped them to understand whatthey read. It was a feature of talk students inPatricia's room could also identify with. Forexample, Justin noted, after viewing an argu-ment between Laura and Alice on videotape,"I'm always arguing. I'm trying to get mypoint across." When asked why others in hisgroup were reminded of Kate (a girl in Patri-cia's class) when they watched the argumentinvolving Laura and Alice, Justin replied,"Because she [Kate] talks and talks. She tries toget her point across. That's good though"(FGI/KH/3/10/94). And for Rico, in Alan'sclass, arguing or stating one's opinion was justa way of standing out and defining one's self:"You got to say what you want. People are notmind readers, you know, and if you want to benoticed, you have to open up and say some-thing, you know" (FGI/SP/1/13/94).

Students at the other two research sitesgenerally saw themselves as being less opin-ionated and argumentative than Dera's stu-dents, however. After viewing a videotapeddiscussion involving students in Dera's room,Heather (a twelfth grader in Paula's class)stated: "They were really opinionated [laugh-ter]. I was surprised . . . . I remember what Iwas like in seventh and eighth grade. I don'tthink I was that opinionated" (FGI/DM/5/-10/94). But Heather, Alex, and Brian allagreed that other people's opinions were valu-able to their understanding of what they read,especially when those opinions helped them to"look at somethirg from a different point ofview" (FGI/DM/2/10/94).

While students in Esther's class attributedarguing among their own group memberssimply to the fact that they all had "their differ-ent opinions," they were reluctant to attributethe same reasoning to Dera's class. Commentsfrom Esther's students, after viewing Lauraand Alice's interaction, ranged from "Theycouldn't get along" to "They could have quitfussing and arguing and listen to each otherand then express their opinions" to "Morehumor; you need that to have a good time"(FGI/DA/3/15/94).

As the students noted above, expressingoneself gave people something to think about.The focus of these comments was on whatdiscussions did for listeners; only a few com-ments were about what discussions did forspeakers. Additionally, many students in thisstudy seemed to view the speaking componentof discussions primarily as an opportunity topersuade others. Only a few comments wereabout discussions as opportunities to search forconsensus or to explore alternative interpreta-tions.

Attending to vocabulary. Some students inDera's room were convinced that attending tothe meaning of vocabulary was a priority. Itwas, as Alice said, "like they wanted to knowwhat the words meant so they would get whatthe story was trying to tell them" (FGI/JY/-1/20/94). In referring to her own group'sdiscussion of a story, Desuna said, "Some orit, it was like old language, and it had a lot ofhard words . . . . They had, like, a wholelist of hard words, like down one page, andyou were going back and forth to the dictio-nary, trying to find out and if you didn't,then you wouldn't understand the story"



(FGI/DA/1/25/94). Yet, when Dera asked thestudents if they would prefer that she preteachthe vocabulary that would likely present sometrouble, they said "no". Laura exiklined,"When you tell me, I don't want to know. If Icome across it on my own, I have a reason tofind it." Jason and Mark agreed, while Jona-than noted, "If you tell us, it might focus moreattention on the word than it really deserves."Laura nodded in agreement, adding, "Yeah,it's like you make the word in boldface" (AT/-DW/2/16194).

After viewing a videotape of a discussion inPatricia's class, Dera's students drew a distinc-tion between their own use of the dictionary tolook up vocabulary and that of the students inPatricia's class. Jason noted: "The groups inthe videothey seem like really stiff. Becauseall of the groups seem to be following a pat-tern. They all start reading and they are doingall of this stuff, and we don't do that. We, like,look up a word if we want to, and then we starttalking about things. They didn't seem into it."Sandra added: "It just seemed like they werelooking at one person to look up the word andread what it meant. And then they would allwrite it down" (FGI /DA/3/3/94). However, atleast some of Patricia's students did see groupdiscussions as helpful to their understanding ofthe vocabulary in their social studies text. Forexample, Mike commented that the students inhis group put the text in "easier terms" (FGI/-KH/12/9/93), and Jennifer thought her grouplearned a great deal from each other when theydiscussed a long list of vocabulary on Russianhistory that they used in creating a group story(VT/KII/ 12/9/93) .

In Paula's class, one pattern of talkingabout vocabulary that contributed to students'understanding of what they read consisted ofstudents spontaneously inserting themselvesinto classroom talk by questioning Paula or apeer about unfamiliar terms. "What is a con-cept?" (FN/DM/11/19/93), "What is a chophouse?" (FN/DM/2/3/94), and "What's ener-vated mean?" (FN/DM/3/24/94) illustrate thetypes of questions students inserted. After suchquestions were asked, students typlcally reactedto the response, as in the following exchange:

Alex: What does craven mean?

June: Cowardly.

Alex: Really?

Heather: Yeah, she's right. (FN/DM/3/24/94)

Students in Alan's class also spent consid-erable time talking about the meanings ofwords. Often times confusion reigned becausestudents did not have the appropriate back-ground knowledge, or they associated wordsthat sounded alike but had widely divergentmeanings. One example occurred in the contextof a whole-class recitation, where the goal wasto converge on a single correct answer to theteacher's question, "What's the Spanish Arma-da?" Tyrone's response, "It's a country : smg,"was ignored initially. It was only later in face-to-face discussion that the actual reasoningbehind the response came out and Tyrone'sconfusion was given a full airing:

Tyrone: "I thought that was a song. That's thearma-mada, right?"


30 Alvermann et al.

SP: .1 don't know.

Tyrone: I mean, I know that a country has a song,like "Oh, say can you see" and all that.

That's the national anthem.

Tyrone: It's called the arena -nzada.

SP: Arma-mada. I'll have to check that out.Oh, I know what! I've got it. Alma Mater.

Nick: I heard something like that, too.

SP: Alma Mater. It's a song, like for theschool. (FGI/SP/10/29/93)

Students reported attending to vocabularyduring text-based discussions because thewords often interfered with their understand-ings of the passages. This attention to vocabu-lary seemed to be most highly regarded whenthe students identified and resolved troublesomewords while interacting with each other in theirattempts to comprehend assigned texts. Discus-sions about terms allowed students to confirmappropriate meanings and clarify misconceptions.

Discussion

In this multicase study, adolescents at fiveresearch sites engaged in face-to-face interac-tions to talk about how they experienced dis-cussions of assigned readings in their contentarea classes. The themes that emerged fromthese interactions suggest that students are (a)aware of the conditions they believe to beconducive to good discussions, (b) knowledge-able about the different tasks and topics thatinfluence their participation, and (c) cognizant

of how classroom discussion helps them under-stand what they read.

By focusing c n adolescents' views abouttheir own actions, thoughts, and motives relat-ed to classroom talk about texts, we attemptedto place students' perspectives on their experi-ences as discussants at the center of the re-search. In this way we hoped to make visiblehow students say they negotiate different rolesand relations, rights and responsibilities, andnorms and expectations in their discussions ofcontent area texts. We hoped such visibilitywould enhance instructional and researchdecision making. Social constructionist think-ing provided the framework for studying howstudents made sense of their experiences asdiscussants through talking those experiencesinto being (see Davies, 1993; Green & Dixon,1994).

Conclusions

As demonstrated in their talk about theirexperiences in text-based classroom discus-sions, students focused more on their relationswith each other and their commitment to un-derstanding what they read than on their teach-ers' actions per se. The conditions studentsbelieved to be conducive to discussions cen-tered more on mutually exploring ideas than onfollowing teachers' guidelines. Although theadolescents we studied were aware that thetasks teachers presented and the topics theyassigned for reading had the potential to influ-ence students' participation in discussions, itwas clear that possessing such an awarenessdid not necessarily bring about compliance.For example, students in Dera's class oftenignored her discussion question when their


j 9


own proved more engaging, or they wouldresist joining in a discussion if it was on a topicthey did not like. However, it is important tobear in mind that peer-led small-group discus-sion was the norm in Dera's room, and thus, itmay have been easier for her students to ignore

the tasks and topics she assigned. Studentswere less free to follow their own leads inclassrooms where small group discussion wasnot the norm or where the pace of the curricu-lum allowed less room for deviation. Even so,students voiced their opinions about unpopulartasks and topics through their words (e.g.,offering alternatives to a boring task in Paula'sclass or recommending that Alan assume re-sponsibility for making dull topics exciting)and through their actions (e.g., maintainingsilence when Alan's directions for a task wereunclear).

Learning from middle and high school stu-dents about their perspectives on conditionsconducive to good discussions car provideteachers with crucial information to use inshared decision making. Similar 'earnings haveoccurred in recent studies on curriculum deci-sion making in high school English classrooms(Applebee, Burroughs, & Stevens, 1994) andon students' perceptions of effective teachingpractices (Turley, 1994). And, while many ofthe implicit and/or explicit recommendationsmade by students in the present study were alsoemphasized in Applebee et al. (e.g., the impor-tance of contributing to group talk) and Turley(e.g., the notion of assigning teachers theresponsibility for generating student interest inan activity), some were not. For example, inthe present study, students generally preferredpeer-led small-group discussions to those thatwere teacher directed and involved the whole

class. In Turley's (1994) study of eight highschool seniors, the students preferred whole-class settings or individual learning activities tosmall-group discussions. The potential forbeing placed in an unproductive group whereone student was responsible for all the workmade small-group discussions the least favoredarrangement in Turley's study. Interestingly,the fear of becoming part of an unproductivegroup was among the reasons students in thepresent study gave for believing in the impor-tance of knowing and liking the members ofone's group.

The commonalities in students' experiencesacross the five research sites were greater thanthe differences. Regardless of variations intheir grade level, academic placement, geo-graphical location, and sociocultural setting,the adolescents who were the focus of the fivecases in this study demonstrated considerableagreement about what it is they hold each otheraccountable for and the expectations they havefor discussion. Our analysis showed that thesestudents constructed common expectations fortext-based discussions and that they valuedlistening to each other as they expressed theiropinions and argued about the meaning of whatthey read. Furthermore, they demonstrated anaptness for negotiating roles and responsibili-tiesone that suggests the power of languagein both shaping and being shaped by theseadolescents' individual social histories.

Research Implications

Several directions for further study aresuggested by the findings reported here. Interms of the implications for future research,

we see the following as potentially useful

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTEK, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 36

32 Alvermann et al.

directions. First, the three assertions of thepresent study need fleshing out. As we workedto gain a sense of the assertions that could bemade about students' perceptions of theirexperiences in text-based discussions acrossmultiple sites, we also attempted to gain asense of the nuances in each assertion. Morework needs to be done in exploring specificvoices, perhaps by gathering more contextual-ized data on some of the focal students (e.g.,tracing their steps through their days inside andoutside of school). Although collectively thestudents helped us to understand better the roleof peer relations during text-based discussions,we would like to have greater insight intoindividual students' perspectives. Second, theneed exists for research that explores howstudents' perceptions of their experiences asdiscussants vary across the disciplines. Al-though the cases in this study fall within thehumanities, or more specifically, the English/-language arts and the social studies, there issome evidence to suggest that discussion playsout differently in mathematics classes (e.g., seeMike's comment on calculus class under thesecond assertion), and perhaps in other disci-plines as well. Third, an interesting questionfor further research might be how text-baseddiscussions differ from more general discus-sions. Perhaps students are more likely to"argue" with a book than with their teachers orpeers because there is less chance for reprisalsor hurt feelings. Fourth, more indepth researchis needed to explore students' generalizationsabout classroom talk (e.g., Nick's statementthat shy people talk to other shy people, orRico's observation that racial and ethnic biasesdiscourage students from participating in small

group discussions). Similarly, comments fromstudents that describe outcomes without ex-plaining how they came to be (e.g., Sarah'sstatement, "We are all just comfortable talkingwith each other now") need to be explored. Afifth direction for further study involves ex-ploring students' perceptions of the effect ofdiscussion on independent reading strategies.Our students reported positive feelings aboutthe influence of discussion on their ability tounderstand what teachers directed them toread, but they did not mention how such dis-cussion might affect their free or self-directedreading. We wonder, too, how different read-ing demands documented in the historicalliterature on content area reading instruction(Moore, Readence, & Rickelman, 1983) mightinfluence students' perceptions of class discus-sion.

Classroom Implications

Students' perceptions in this study supportsome long-held beliefs about the benefits ofdiscussion. Our findings indicate that discus-sion allows students to become engaged withideas, to construct meaning, to take responsi-bility for their own learning, and to negotiatecomplex cognitive and social relationships.When discussion is a regular part of classroomlife, students learn how to work with others,how to "fit in," how to stay focused on a topic,and the importance of listening and contribut-ing to a group effort. However, it is also ap-parent that what students say and do duringdiscussion is not always congruent with whatteachers intend, or with what is reported inresearch that does not include the student


41


perspective. If we were to draw one practicalimplication from our findings, it would be thatteachers who use small-group discussion intheir classrooms should expect the unexpected.Students have different viewpoints from teach-ers (and other adult observers) of specific tasksand topics, of their own role in discussions,and the role of others. Students may pursuetheir own agendas during discussion, differentfrom the teacher's intentions but neverthelessrelevant to the content at hand and productivein terms of what they learn.

Looking at discussion in this way may pre-sent a fundamental challenge to teachers whoare focused on maintaining control over curric-ulum, class routines, and specific studentoutcomes. But for teachers who value studentindependence and self-directed learning, thisstudy offers the following suggestions forfacilitating productive small-group discussions:

Provide students with frequent opportunitiesto discuss what they read. In short, don't letthem be "talk-deprived," as one boy in thepresent study put it. If this seems to runcounter to current curricular goals thatargue against deviating from a fast-paceddelivery of content, consider contacting thecurriculum director or someone else whoexercises authority in curriculum decisions.It may be useful to reconsider present cur-ricula in light of what students see as thebenefits of discussion in helping them toconstruct knowledge as a social group.

Develop a sense of community in the class-room. Students say they like discussionmore when they feel comfortable with

group members and when they feel theyhave something in common with others.Teachers can foster a sense of communityby setting a good example of courtesy andrespect, acknowledging the diverse contri-butions of class members, emphasizingcommon goals, and pointing out the bene-fits of cooperation.

Attend to group dynamics. From the pres-ent study, it appears that students are likelyto try out new ideas when group dynamicsfoster mutual 1-espect and understandingamong members. Because the productivityof group members seems to outweigh theimportance of personal friendships, beexplicit about the importance of contribut-ing to the discussion, listening to others,being tolerant, and staying on the topic.

Build on students' keen sense of the condi-tions that foster good discussion from theirperspectives. Use class time occasionally tolet students evaluate their discussions.

Moderate, don't dominate. Students canand will direct their own productive discus-sions. Teachers can facilitate this by settingup the conditions for a discussion, but thenthey should step back and let students workwith minimal interference.

Search for topics that engage students.Their opinions about suitable discussiontopics suggest the need for students to havea voice in selecting and defining them. Stu-dents' perceptions of their experiences withdiscussion tasks seem to suggest that topic


0

34 Alvermann et al.

is more important than task when it comesto eliciting their participation in discus-sions.

Limitations

The study was designed to learn from stu-dents' perspectives how they experience text-based discussions in their content area classes.Taking into account Erickson and Shultz's(1992) claim that it is the student's voice thathas been most conspicuously absent in theresearch on student experience, we focused onwhat students had to say. In doing so, certainqualifications in interpreting the data must beacknowledged. First, we assume that students'knowledge of their past and present experi-ences as discussants was inseparable from thelanguage they used to reflect that knowledge.To the extent that this assumption was support-ed, students appear to have sophisticated andwell-articulated understandings of the nature ofclassroom talk about texts.

Second, we assume that the presence ofoutsiders changed what happened in our class-room research sites, although we think we werepresent frequently enough to eliminate some ofthis influence. Nonetheless, we recognize thatby asking questions of students, we influencedthe way they "saw" their classrooms and theiractions within those classrooms. This changedway of "seeing" is, in turn, apt to have affectedat least some of their actions.

Third, although a multicase study designenabled us to examine a range of students'experiences across diverse settings, the factremains that one of the cases (Esther's class)was not studied as intensively or as long as the

other four cases. In addition, two of the class-rooms did not engage in peer-led discussions tothe extent that the other three did.

Fourth, the decision to enlist several focalstudents at each of the five sites to ensure arich and varied set of perspectives limited thedegree to which we could explore in depth howany one individual went about constructing hisor her encounters with the discussion process.No doubt this limitation seriously reduced wiiatwe might have learned about the subjectivitiesof a single student at each of the sites.

Fifth, although we made considerable effortto understand students' points of view, we stillwere limited to our own ways of interpretingtheir words. We think our collaboration hasstrengthened our ability to see and to under-standespecially since some of us are frominside the classroom and some of us fromoutsidebut we know that there may be otherways of hearing and interpreting students'words.

Summary

Our multicase study supports the impor-tance of listening to students. Their wordssuggest much about their social lives andhistories in and out of school, their insightsinto classroom talk about texts, and their un-derstanding of their own roles as participants insmall- and large-group discussions. They knoweach others' roles, too, and hold each otheraccountable for fairness in their participation.Students expect to learn from discussions andare quite disappointed when a discussion isdesigned in a way that seems less than produc-tive to them. As we listened to their words, we

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER. READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 36


realized how helpful their comments were toour own perceptions of text-based discussions,and, in a larger sense, to our understandings ofnegotiation, position, and ways of participat-ing. We realized too that we wanted to hearmore, and we plan more studies to do so.

References

Almasi, J. & Gambrell, L. B. (1994). Sociocogni-tive conflict in peer-led and teacher-led discus-sions of literature (Reading Research Report No.12). Athens, GA: NRRC, Universities of Georgiaand Maryland College Park.

Alvermann, D. E., O'Brien, D. G., & Dillon, D.R. (1990). What teachers do when they saythey're having discussions of content readingassignments: A qualitative analysis. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 25, 296-321.

Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Moti-vation and schooling in the middle grades. Reviewof Educational Research, 64, 287-309.

Applebee, A. N., Burroughs, R., & Stevens, A. S.(1994). Shaping conversations: A study of conti-nuity and coherence in high school literaturecurricula (Report Series 1.11). Albany, NY: Na-tional Research Center on Literature Teachingand Learning, University at Albany, State Uni-versity of New York.

Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Rosen, H. (1971). Lan-guage, the learner and the school (rev. ed.).Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Bellack, A. A., Kliebard, H. M., Hyman, R. T., &Smith, E. L., Jr. (1966). The language of theclassroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bloome, D. & Bailey, F. (1992). Studying languageand literacy through events, particularity, andintertexuality. In R. Beach, J. L. Green, M. L.Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary

perspectives on literacy research (pp. 181-210).Urbana, IL: NCRE and NCTE.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitativeresearch for education: An introduction to theoryand methods (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn andBacon.

Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, lan-guage, and the authority of knowledge: A biblio-graphical essay. College English, 48,773-790.

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research onteaching (3rd ed., pp. 432-463). New York:Macmillan.

Davies, B. (1993). Shards of glass. Cresskill, NJ:Hampton Press.

Dewey, J. (1938/1963). Experience and education.London: Collier.

Dillon, D. R. (1989). Showing them that I wantthem to learn and that I care about who they are:A microethnography of the social organization ofa secondary low-track English-reading classroom.American Educational Research Journal, 26,227-259.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/envi-ronment fit: Developmentally appropriate class-rooms for early adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C.Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in educa-tion (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). New York: Aca-demic.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in re-search on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp.119-161). New York: Macmillan.

Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1992). Students' expe-rience of the curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.),Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 465-485). New York: Macmillan.

Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysisand the marketization of public discourse: Theuniversities. Discourse & Society, 4, 133-168.


36 Alvennann et al.

Floriani, A. (1994). Negotiating what counts: Rolesand relationships, texts and contexts, content andmeaning. Linguistics and Education, 5,241-274.

Frager, A. M. (1984). Student perceptions ofschool work and their effect on learning. CollegeStudent Journal, 18, 267-272.

Geertz, C. (1983a). Local knowledge. New York:Basic.

Geertz, C. (1983b). Thick description: Toward aninterpretive theory of culture. In R. M. Emerson(F4.), Contemporary field research: A collectionof readings (pp. 37-59). Prospect Heights, IL:Waveland Press.

Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionistmovement in modem psychology. AmericanPsychologist, 40, 266-275.

Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethno-graphy and qualitative design in educationalresearch. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Green, J. L., & Dixon, C. N. (1994). Talkingknowledge into being: Discursive and socialpractices in classrooms. Linguistics and Educa-tion, 5,231-239.

Green, J. L. & Harker, J. 0. (1982). Gainingaccess to learning: Conversational, social, andcognitive demands of group participation. In L.C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the class-room (pp. 183-221). New York: Academic.

Heap, J. L. (1991). A situated perspective on whatcounts as reading. In C. Baker & A. Luke (Eds.),Toward a critical sociology of reading pedagogy(pp. 103-130). Philadelphia, PA: John Benja-mins.

Heras, A. I. (1994). The construction of under-standing in a sixth-grade bilingual classroom.Linguistics and Education, 5,275-299.

Hinchman, K. A. (1992). How teachers use thetextbook: Lessons from three secondary schoolclassrooms. In E. K. Dishner, T. W. Bean, J. E.Readence, & D. W. Moore (Eds.), Reading inthe content areas: Improving classroom instruc-

tion (3rd ed., pp. 282-293). Dubuque, IA: Ken-dall/Hunt.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientificrevolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

McCombs, B. L. (in press). Alternative perspec-tives for motivation. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach,& D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engagedreaders in school and home communities. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1990). Thecontexts in question: The secondary school work-place. In M. W. McLaughlin, J. E. Talbert, &N. Bascia (Eds.), The contexts of teaching insecondary schools: Teachers' realities (pp.1-14). New York: Teachers College Press.

McMahon, S. (1991, December). Book club dis-cussions: A case of five students constructingthemes from literary texts. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the National Reading Confer-ence, Palm Springs, CA.

Moore, D. W., Readence, J. E., & Rickelman, R.J. (1983). An h; orical exploration of contentarea reading instruction. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 18, 419-438.

O'Flahavan, J., & Almasi, J. (1991, December). Acomparative study of the interpretive roles andiruertextual foci found in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gradepeer discussions about literature. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the National ReadingConference, Palm Springs, CA.

Oldfather, P., & McLaughlin, J. (1993). Gainingand losing voice: A longitudinal study of stu-dents' continuing impulse to learn across elemen-tary and middle level contexts. Research inMiddle Level Education, 17, 1-25.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Cao, H. T. (1992).Speaking up: Students' perspectives on school.Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 695-704.

Raphael, T., & Goatley, V. (1992, April). "Whatare we s 'posed to talk about?": Student purposes



during peer-led discussion groups across subjectmatter areas. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, CA.

Rogers, T. (1991). Students as literary critics: Theinterpretive experiences, beliefs, and processes ofninth-grade students. Journal of Reading Behav-ior, 23, 391-423.

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror ofnature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. (1992).Constructing literacy in classrooms: Literateaction as social accomplishment. In H. H. Mar-shall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots ofeducational change (pp. 119-150). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitativeresearch (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Taylor, P. H. (1962). Children's evaluations of thecharacteristics of the good teacher. British Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 32, 258-266.

Turley, S. (1994, April). "The way teachers teachis, like, totally whacked": The student voice onclassroom practice. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, LA.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design andmethods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Zaharlick, A., &Green, J. L. (1991). Ethnographicresearch. In. J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, &J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research onteaching the English language arts (pp. 205-225). New York: Macmillan.


38 Alvernzann et al.

APPENDIX

Narrative Vignette(Written after the first two months of the study)

Across cycles of events, the focal students in Patricia's room believe that peer-led small-groupdiscussions work when all individuals in the group do their part, rather than rely on one or twopeople to carry the load. Interestingly, "doing your part" seems to relate directly to whether or notyou talk. Simply doing the work individually and writing down individual answers does not count.For example, after viewing a videotaped discussion (VT/10/26/93) on the day Patricia's studentsbegan working on group reports related to their study of the Middle East, Jennifer announced, "Ithink my group doesn't work together very well because they don't say anything, and I feel likeI do all the work" (FGI/1CH/11/4/93, p. 1). And. on another day, as students viewed a videotapeddiscussion (VT/1CH/12/9/23) involving a review of vocabulary (they had to use the words to makea story about Russia's history through the early 1900s), Jennifer complained that Elaine didn't sayanything:

See, look. She writes stuff down, but she doesn't say anything. 'Cause every time I wouldwrite down a word, she would cross it out, but she wouldn't say anything. Then, Mrs. Z.[Patricia] would come over and say let someone else say something, and she still wouldn'tsay anything. (FGUICH/12/9/93, p. 11)

When Kathleen asked the focal students what she would have to do if she were in the tenthgrade at MHS and was put in their group, Joseph replied, "Do your part." The other studentschimed in with "Uh, huh," and Justin added, "Put some effort in, instead of just sitting theresaying, 'What is your answer?' or 'What did you get?" (FGVICH/11/4/93, p.9).

During the first two months of the study, focal students appear divided in their beliefs aboutthe importance of having the right to select their own group members. Although some felt theywould feel responsible for each other and would share ideas better if they had a choice about groupmembership, others seemed content to work in the groups the teacher formed for them. Forexample, Jennifer noted that one reason why members of her group who worked on the MiddleEast project did not talk to one another and did not try to help each other was that they were notcompatible. In her words: "I think if we can pick who we would like to work with, it would bebetter. I don't like the people I work with" (FGI/KH/11/4/93, p. 2). At a later point in theinterview, Jennifer returned to the issue of how discussion groups were formed:



Like our teacher, she just puts us in these groups, like because she didn't want the mainpeople she knows that were, to work together, and I think if she would let us pick our owngroups, we would pick the people that we know can work together. I know, even if it werepeople that were outsiders, like we picked each other, you know, I mean like then we knewwe had to get the project done, and we could all say since we were friends, come on wehave to do this. (FGI, KH/11/4/93, pp. 7-8)

Tammy, however, did not feel that group participation depended on being with one's friends.In her words: "I think that we motivated each other because like with [. . . we used like come

on guys we have to get this done, you know, and everything" (FGI/KH/11/4/93, p. 7).


4S

NRRCNational

Reading ResearchCenter318 Aderhold. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-71253216]. M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

36. GA.; MD. (Fn), - ERICED 384 011 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION SPONS AGENCY PUB DATE CONTRACT NOTE PUB...

Documents

Transcript of 36. GA.; MD. (Fn), - ERICED 384 011 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION SPONS AGENCY PUB DATE CONTRACT NOTE PUB...