UTILIZING ASSIGNED ROLES IN EFL LITERATURE
CIRCLESAndrew Gill
Kanda University of International Studies
ABSTRACT
Originally developed for the L1 classroom, literature circles have since been
adapted to the EFL context, with the dual purpose of helping students improvereading skills and discourse. In EFL settings particularly, it is common forteachers to scaffold literature circles by assigning roles to students todemonstrate the various strategies that can be used to connect with a text. This
article describes the first stage of an action research study, in which a class ofJapanese sophomore university students utilized an assigned roles framework tocollaboratively discuss a piece of graded fiction. Class procedures, analysis ofindividual roles, and issues that emerged are discussed. The study found that for
assigned roles to succeed in an L2 context, pre-lesson teacher coaching and peer
support were of paramount importance and it is recommended that students beafforded preview time to enhance comprehension of individual discussion points.
INTRODUCTION
Literature circles (or reading circles) first came to prominence in the early 1990s in the USA
and entail small, temporary discussion groups of students who have read the same text
(Daniels, 2002). Meetings are scheduled regularly with students controlling discussions.
Designed to promote both reading and experiential learning, literature circles serve as avehicle to inspire ideas, raise questions, and facilitate discussion.
Strengths of literature circles include facilitation of collaborative inquiry through studentinitiated inquiry and choice, and fostering of mutual interdependence, whereby language
outcomes exceed the sum of the individual readers’ parts (Furr, 2007). Furthermore,
literature circles enable readers to approach a text from multiple angles, and promoteindependent learning as students generate discussion questions themselves, increasing bothstudents’ comprehension and investment (Nelson, 1984).
Literature circles have become increasingly common in classrooms around the world,
including those focused on English as a foreign language (EFL). The student autonomy
afforded by literature circles, as well as the authentic L1 exposure they provide, are among
the many benefits that can be derived from their use in the L2 classroom.
Benefits of Literature Circles in an EFL Context
Perhaps the greatest strength of EFL literature circles is that “discussion content, pace,direction, and lexical complexity are at the students’ own level rather than that of the
instructor” (Williams, 2011, p. 220). Furthermore, Larson (2008) detailed the safe
environment literature circles can provide for EFL learners, building their confidence andenabling risk-taking. Graham-Marr (2015) praised literature circles for introducing
36

participants to “words, phrases and idioms that are more associated with lifestyle and culture
than they might otherwise encounter” (p. 86). Additionally, L2 learners can use their differing
funds of knowledge to offer alternative insights into a text (Brock, 1997), and can often
collectively make sense of a text that they would not have been able to understand
individually (Maher, 2013). However, incorporating literature circles within an EFL context
requires certain adjustments to traditional models.
Considerations Regarding Literature Circles in an EFL Context
Daniels (2002) listed eleven crucial ingredients for the successful implementation ofliterature circles. Seen by many as the central axis around which literature circles revolve,
authors such as Furr (2007) have suggested some alterations to Daniels’ list to adapt
literature circles to the EFL environment. Furr proposed that teachers themselves choose
reading materials to match students’ language levels, and that groups should be formed
based on student choice or at the teacher’s discretion. In addition, he suggested thatdifferent groups read the same text, and that post-discussion activities should beincorporated into literature circle lessons to clarify certain aspects of the text and facilitate
further discussion.
Text choice is clearly fundamental to the success of literature circles, as students not only
need to be able to read and engage with the material, but also have the vocabulary to discuss
related issues. Graded versions of texts are often utilized by EFL teachers, as they introduce
students to various aspects of culture and lifestyle in a more digestible form. Furthermore,by employing graded material, the necessity for extensive lexical study is reduced, and thecomprehensible input (Krashen, 1983) provided can foster not only deeper insights, but alsoengender critical thinking. In addition, students reading the same text ensures consistency
in student workload and teacher instructions.
The Teacher’s Role
In addition to managing basic control of the class, Daniels (2006) described the need for“constant coaching and training by a very active teacher who uses mini-lessons anddebriefings to help kids hone skills like active listening, asking follow-up questions,disagreeing agreeably, dealing with ‘slackers,’ and more” (p. 13). During the main discussions,
Shelton-Strong (2012) described how “the teacher’s role reverts to one of quiet but attentive
observation” (p. 217), with Maher (2013) suggesting teachers monitor for difficult idioms,
concepts or cultural differences that students may have difficulty understanding alone. Mark(2007) proposed listening carefully and identifying what further scaffolding is required toenhance student understanding.
Use of Role Sheets
A common feature of literature circles is the use of role sheets. Designed to provide clearly
defined tasks to guide students’ preparation, examples of roles that can be rotated amongst
students are Summarizer, Connector and Discussion Leader (see Appendix A). Providing
students with set roles helps to ensure that each student has a different cognitive purpose
for reading, and a different interactive purpose for the discussion, each time they participate
in literature circles. Performing a variety of roles also raises students’ consciousness ofreading for different reasons (Shelton-Strong, 2012).

37

However, it would be remiss not to broach criticism of role sheets in literature circles,
specifically their tendency to stifle. Daniels (2006) complained of “the mechanicaldiscussions that can stem from over-dependence on these roles,” (p. 11) and argued thatassigned roles should be utilized as a temporary support measure only.
It was with this consideration in mind that this study was designed, seeking to investigate
the efficacy of assigned roles as a guiding framework for those new to literature circles. The
following research question was generated:
Research Question
How can assigned roles be optimized for EFL learners as they are introduced to literaturecircles?
METHODS
Participants
The study participants were International Communication majors in my academic readingclass. There were nineteen sophomore students in the class (fifteen females and four males),and we met for ninety minutes, twice a week, during each fifteen-week semester. Literaturecircles took place four times during the Fall semester, and this study was conducted during
the third occurrence. The students were therefore already familiar with assigned roles,
having utilized them twice previously to discuss a graded reader version of Billy Elliot. Before
the study began, all participants signed consent forms having read a detailed breakdown of
the study in both English and Japanese.
Materials
Regarding book choice, Monson (1995) cited three key ingredients: the text arouses learners’
emotions, is well-written, and is meaningful. I decided upon a graded reader version ofCharles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, not only with Monson’s recommendations in mind, butalso because it was timely (the lessons were held close to Christmas) and the main
protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge, neatly tied in with the current class unit: ethics. In addition,
the book was graded to CEFR B1, an appropriate level for the majority of the students in theclass. Books were distributed to the students a fortnight before the first discussion, and I
gave a short presentation to whet the students’ appetite for reading the book, including abrief synopsis, a summary of the themes covered, and a description of the book’s influenceon Christmas celebrations worldwide.
Groupings and Timing
The students were tasked with reading the first half of the book, as well as completing theirrole sheets. Each group had four or five members, and had remained together throughout
the semester, changing roles each time (see Table 1.1) to expose the students to a variety oftext approaches. Groups had been allocated by the teacher to avoid cliques, and to ensure
ability levels were mixed in all groups. Literature circles were held approximately once every
two weeks, giving the students time to read the assigned chapters and complete their role
sheets outside of class. Students were explicitly told that, in the case of absence, it was their
responsibility to send their completed preparation to their group.
Student Roles
38

Utilizing a combination of role titles and descriptions suggested by Daniels (2002), Furr
(2011) and Maher (2015), and making small adjustments to suit my own teaching context, I
offered the students the following six role choices:
Table 1.1: Role descriptions
Role title

Role description

Role work required
advance of discussioninDiscussion Leader(see Appendix A)

Starts the discussion with
one or two questions.
Guides the discussion,
ensuring each member
presents their information.

At least five thoughtprovoking questions related
to the text.

Summarizer

Provides a summary
focusing on the text’s key
points.

A written summary.

Connector

Describes connections
between the text and theworld outside. Elicits
connections from peers.

At least two possible
connections to the text.

Word MasterDefines five words from the A table detailing the fivetext. Describes why they are words chosen, their text
important.
location, definitions, andimportance.

Passage Person

Describes importantpassages from the text.
Asks related questions topeers.

Notes on three passages
important to the plot,
explaining the characters, or
containing interesting or
powerful language.

Culture Collector

Shares cultural similarities
and differences between
the text and their own
culture. Asks related
questions to peers.

Notes on two or threepassages from the text thatshow cultural similarities ordifferences to their own
culture.

The Lesson Itself
Of the nineteen students registered in the class, seventeen attended the lesson. Bothabsentees informed me in advance that they would miss the class due to influenza, but had
already completed their role sheets and shared them with their groups.
The lesson began with a short warm-up activity in which the students discussed enjoyableaspects and challenges regarding both reading the text and completing their role sheets. The
main discussion then followed and ran for approximately thirty-five minutes. I monitored the39

conversations quietly, while taking notes. At the end of the main discussion, I provided
feedback and some error correction, mainly focusing on vocabulary and pronunciation,
before moving on to the review discussion. I chose to focus on two review themes: comparing
how Christmas was celebrated in the book versus students’ personal experiences andstudents’ knowledge and experiences of ghosts.
Data Collection
The main discussions were audio recorded using pocket-sized digital recorders, seen as thebest method of capturing data whilst minimizing distraction to the students. As Liddicoat(2007) stated, audio recorders are less intrusive than video recorders, and require lessmanpower to set up and monitor. Furthermore, the students remained in fixed positions,which made it possible to place the recorders in the center of each table, capturing thestudents’ voices clearly. All four groups’ conversations were transcribed post-lesson, withstudent names redacted to ensure confidentiality.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The findings and discussion section begins with a brief summary of each individual group’s
performance, before moving on to discuss salient issues that arose.
Group Summaries
Group One, the only group containing five students, completed their discussion in theallotted time, although the order of roles was unusual. Despite my explicit instructions tobegin with the Discussion Leader, Group One began with the Summarizer and finished with
the Discussion Leader. The conversation was lively throughout with many connections made,including comparisons between Scrooge and their school teachers, as well as between
Scrooge and kuribocchi, a Japanese expression describing people who spend Christmas (kuri)
by themselves (bocchi).
Group Two also continued their conversation for the entirety of the discussion time.
Extended conversations ensued from the Discussion Leader’s thought-provoking questions,
including asking what message her peers would send to the childhood version of themselves,and how they would cope with a Scrooge-like supervisor at their workplace (see Appendix B).
Despite this strong start, Group Two had difficulties in clarifying not only ideas from the text,
but also their own interpretations, when executing the Connector and Passage Person roles.
Group Three experienced many difficulties, especially in regard to elaborating on ideas andproducing extended conversations. Although the Discussion Leader role went relatively
smoothly, subsequent discussions floundered due to issues such as closed questions, andlanguage errors that caused confusion. Although I intervened on several occasions to getthem back on track, the last fifteen minutes of Group Three’s conversation was mainly spent
discussing unrelated topics.
While able to complete their discussion, Group Four had perhaps the largest discrepancy interms of L2 ability. This led to lengthy clarifying episodes, but also provided an excellent
example of peer learning, whereby three of the students were introduced to connections
between the text and real world (namely unscrupulous business practices, and childdisplacement) that they would otherwise have been unlikely to extract. Although the40

conversation was sometimes dominated by the strongest student, the other members of thegroup were comfortable asking for clarification and, once able to understand the concepts
raised, could contribute their own ideas.
Peer Support and L1 Usage
One highly significant feature across all groups was how supportive the students were.
Regardless of their L2 abilities and individual personality traits, all the students showed
enthusiasm towards their classmates’ ideas and questions. In particular, students patiently
negotiated meaning in all four groups, and there were no instances of students capitulatingwhen communication breakdowns occurred and moving on to the next topic. Furthermore,
L1 usage was low, mainly limited to thinking time expressions or quick confirmation ofadvanced vocabulary. In their second semester together as a class, the rapport and mutual
trust built up may well have been a contributing factor to these positive behaviors, andperhaps points to ensuring that students build a relationship together as a class before
literature circles are introduced.
Balance of Talk between Roles: The Importance of Asking Questions
A breakdown of the balance of talk is shown below in Table 1.2. The left-hand column
displays the order in which the roles appeared on the template distributed to students, while
ordinal numbers in brackets represent the order in which each group decided to completethem. All timings were rounded to the nearest fifteen seconds.
Table 1.2: Role length in minutes (m)Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Averagetime

Discussion
Leader

(5th)
10m

(1st)
14m30

(1st)
12m

(1st)
8m45

11m15

Summarizer

(1st)
2m15

(2nd)
4m

(2nd)
2m45

Connector

(3rd)
8m

(3rd)
6m

Word Master

(2nd)
2m30

Passage
Person

(4th)
10m30

CultureCollector

(3rd)
3m45
(4th)
6m45
(4th)
2m30

3m

(2nd)
8m

7m15

(3rd)
4m30

3m30

(4th)
13m30

10m15

2m30

41

One aspect common across all the groups was the significance of asking questions. As theSummarizer and Word Master roles focus on reporting information, as expected, they
produced somewhat limited dialogue (less than five minutes of interaction in all cases, as
displayed in Table 1.2). However, while the four other roles aim to engender lengthy
discussions, this often failed to transpire, especially with respect to the Connector andCulture Collector roles.
Examination of the transcripts revealed that none of the Connectors asked a question. In
Group One, the Connector gave an entertaining description of a personal experience atschool which sparked a conversation based on her classmates’ similar experiences, but her
remaining two connections were simply acknowledged and the conversation moved on.
Similarly, in Group Two, the Connector made insightful connections with Scrooge, from her
own experiences of dining alone to the burden of carrying negative experiences with you
through life. However, group interaction was often limited to clarification, as her peers
attempted to collectively make sense of her message, such as in the exchange below:
Discussion Leader: Became what?
Connector: Became chain. Chain.
Discussion Leader: Ah, chain. Chain!
Connector: Became chains. So, so we must live with this chain forever. A lot ofexperience bad things, good things.
Summarizer: Ah, metaphor? You think that chain is metaphor?
This highlights a major difficulty with L2 literature circles: while teachers may be able toselect a text that matches the students’ abilities, skills such as elaborating and explaining canbe problematic in students’ L2.
However, the most pronounced difficulties were evident in Group Three’s Culture Collector
dialogue. Having struggled through the previous section due to careless preparation by theirWord Master (mistakes included ‘a milkman’ being someone who buys milk, and ‘fog’ being
misspelled as ‘frog’), the problems continued with the Culture Collector. Although she had
identified cultural links and prepared three questions as instructed, none of her questions
prompted meaningful exchanges. For example:
Page 8 from line 22 to 23. Suddenly, to his great surprise, he saw that the knocker was
not a knocker any more, but had become the face of Jacob Marley. I think this isculture difference between Japan and England, so I chose this situation. And mycultural question is, is your home has an intercom or door knocker? (Culture Collector,
Group Three)Somewhat predictably, all students answered “Intercom,” and although the Culture
Collector asked, “Have you ever used a door knocker?” one student answered “Maybe I have,”and the conversation moved on. The remaining interaction followed a similar pattern with
“Have you ever seen a ghost on Christmas?” and “Have you ever participate in a dance party
on Christmas Eve?” Both questions were met with a simple “No,” and Group Three’s
literature circle discussion effectively ended there, as they digressed to unrelated topics inspite of repeated teacher interventions.
42

Open Questions Based on Personal Experiences
Despite these issues, there were numerous examples of questions that sparked lengthy
discussions and contributions from multiple group members. These questions tended tohave two common traits: they were open questions, and they focused on students’ personal
experiences and feelings, rather than the characters’. A comparison between the firstpassage-based conversations of Groups One and Two provides evidence of thisphenomenon:
Little by little, the spirits and their voices disappeared into the fog and the darkness,and the night was silent again. The reason for choosing this passage is the word silent.
I see silent many times. It implies Scrooge's mind. The question is, do you like thesilent place or noisy place and why? (Passage Person, Group One)
Christmas is humbug! I choose this sentence because the main character Scrooge said
Christmas is humbug is many times so I thought it was very important words tounderstand this book, this story. And question about this passage is, what do you
think, why Scrooge doesn’t like Christmas Day? (Passage Person, Group Two)
Both excerpts concerned language, yet Group One discussed their experience-basedquestion for three minutes with four different students contributing answers, whereas Group
Two answered their character-based question in less than a minute with only one student
responding.
This pattern continued with passages two and three. Group One’s Passage Person asked hergroup if they would find another companion if they lost someone like Scrooge had, followed
by whether they would cut ties with a family member who exhibited similar behavior to
Scrooge. Both questions were answered in detail by multiple group members. Meanwhile,
Group Two were tasked with discussing Jacob Marley’s intention when telling Scrooge, “Youstill have a chance to save yourself from what has happened to me,” as well as analyzing
Scrooge’s feelings in a passage where he was reminded of his childhood. Responses tended
to consist of one-sentence answers with long pauses, and students muttering “Difficult” intheir L1.
Both Passage Person students had selected passages carefully and analyzed them critically,
yet Group One’s experience-based conversation went much more smoothly than Group
Two’s text-based discussion. The same phenomenon could also be witnessed among theDiscussion Leaders. While the Group One, Two and Three Discussion Leaders all asked
questions related to personal experiences and feelings, Group Four’s leader asked questions
about Scrooge and Marley’s personalities (in essence, why they both got married despite
being unscrupulous people), as well as asking for predictions regarding the remaining
chapters. As shown in Table 1.2, Group Four’s Discussion Leader section was significantly
shorter than that of other groups, and the question types chosen appear to have been amajor contributory factor.
Although character-driven questions may have caused an issue, it would be impulsive toabandon them completely. Perhaps the students found it difficult to empathize with thecharacters in this particular text or the story simply did not resonate with them. However,43ensuring that students are aware of different question types and encouraging them toprepare a variety of questions may well overcome the problems that arose in this lesson.
Students Providing Model Answers
One final standout feature of the literature circle involved the Passage Person role in Group
Four. The second longest section across all groups at over thirteen minutes (see Table 1.2), it
appeared to be successful for three reasons. Firstly, the Passage Person’s questions focusedon personal experiences. Secondly, the student elaborated on each passage, explaining theemotions he felt when reading it. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he provided his own
model answer when his group members were slow to respond. For example:
Passage Person: Page 25, Line 1. The noise became twice as loud, as the children
received their presents with delight… The author explain their voice. Children more
happy to receive their present. Author explained ‘twice as loud’, so it’s easy tounderstand. It’s well-written passage. What is your happy memory happened
recently?
Connector: Happy memory? Oh...
Discussion Leader: Happy memory?
Passage Person: I gave money from my parents.
All: Oh! Really?!
The Passage Person continued on to explain that whenever his parents receive a bonus fromtheir companies, they give him some extra spending money as a present, and he had recently
received such a gift. The other students could then provide their own examples, resulting insmooth interaction with contributions from all group members.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONSWith the exception of Group Three, the literature circle groups maintained focus on the text
throughout the thirty-five-minute discussion. The majority of students had preparedthoroughly, and the main issue appeared to be explaining their connections, elaborations,and evaluations in their L2, as opposed to actually making them.
For this reason, I would strongly recommend incorporating preview time into EFL literaturecircles. By giving students the opportunity to carefully read and comprehend their peers’
ideas in written form before the actual discussion, as well as ask clarification questions,
literature circles are likely to run more smoothly. Moreover, setting a role work submission
deadline a day or two in advance of the literature circle discussion would also give the teacher
time to evaluate students’ preparation, and identify potential issues that might arise.
Teachers could offer suggestions to students on how to clarify their ideas for easierconsumption by their peers, or help them to structure questions more accurately. However,the focus must be on comprehensibility: literature circles should be student-centered andstudent-led, and therefore instructors must avoid revising the students’ actual ideas.
This study also reinforced that teachers must commit to several cycles of literature circles to
produce a positive outcome (Furr, 2011). While the Summarizer and Word Master roles offer
students a unique form of textual analysis, they rarely involve leading a discussion or drawing

44

out opinions from peers. Role rotation exposes students to not only different ways ofapproaching a text, but also to an array of in-class experiences.
Finally, the importance of regular teacher coaching (Daniels, 2006) was strongly underlined.
The travails experienced by Group Three highlighted that the students perhaps lacked thenecessary skill set to perform the task as required, and more training was needed, particularly
regarding open questions and asking for more information. Considering these difficulties,
this perhaps adds further weight to the argument for earlier submission of role work: not only
could I have potentially identified Group Three as the most likely to struggle, but I could haveprovided them with a selection of their classmates’ best ideas to discuss once they had
exhausted their own discussion material.
Successful implementation of literature circles in an EFL context requires thoughtfulconsideration of a variety of issues. This study has highlighted both the value, and some
pitfalls, of an assigned role framework, yet a more complete picture could be provided byfurther research. Longitudinal studies measuring the progress of groups of students overtime, or focus group interviews reflecting on students’ experiences, could shed further lighton how to enhance literature circles. Nonetheless, conducting this project reinforced themerits of assigned role frameworks, and provided me with a number of avenues to explore
to further empower and engage my students through literature circles.

REFERENCES
Brock, C. H. (1997). Exploring the use of book club with second-language learners inmainstream classrooms. In S.I. McMahon & T. E. Raphael (Eds.), The book club connection:
Literacy learning and classroom talk (pp. 141-158). Teachers College Press.
Daniels, H. (2002). Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in Book Clubs and Reading Groups(Second edition). Stenhouse.
Daniels, H. (2006). What’s the next big thing with literature circles? Voices from the Middle,
9(4), 7-14. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.530.2247&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Furr, M. (2007). Reading circles: Moving great stories from the periphery of the language
classroom to its centre. The Language Teacher, 31(5), 15-18. https://jaltpublications.org/sites/default/files/pdf/the_language_teacher/05_2007tlt.pdf
Furr, M. (2011). Bookworm Club: Reading circle’s teacher’s handbook (Third edition). Oxford
University Press.
Graham-Marr, A. (2015). Enhancing student schematic knowledge of culture throughliterature circles in a foreign language classroom. Journal of Language and Cultural
Education, 3(1), 85-92. https://doi.org/10.1515/jolace-2015-0008
Krashen, S. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Alemany
Press.
45

Larson, L. C. (2008). Electronic reading workshop: Beyond books with new literacies andinstructional technologies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 121-131.
https://doi.org/10.1598/jaal.52.2.3
Liddicoat, A.J. (2007). An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. Continuum.
Maher, K. (2013). Literature circles: Acquiring language through collaboration. In S. Miles &M. Brierley (Eds.), Extensive Reading World Congress Proceedings (pp. 36-45). Extensive
Reading Foundation. https://erfoundation.org/ERWC2-Proceedings.pdf
Maher, K. M. (2015). EFL Literature Circles: Collaboratively acquiring language andmeaning. The Language Teacher, 39(4), 9-12. https://doi.org/10.37546/jalttlt39.4-2
Mark, P. L. (2007). Building community of EFL readers: Setting up literature circles in a
Japanese university. In K. Bradford-Watts (Ed.), JALT 2006 Conference Proceedings (pp. 9981012). JALT. https://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2006/E038.pdf
Monson, D. (1995). Choosing Books for Literature Circles. In B. C. Hill, N. J. Johnson, & K. L.
Schlick Noe (Eds.), Literature circles and response (pp. 113-127). Christopher-Gordon
Publishers.
Nelson, G. (1984). Reading: A student-centered approach. English Teaching Forum, 22(4), 25.
Shelton-Strong, S. J. (2012). Literature Circles in ELT. ELT Journal, 66(2), 213-223.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr049
Williams, D. (2011). Student Reactions to literature circles in content-based instruction. In
M. Pinto & D. Shaffer (Eds.), Proceedings of PAC 2010 (pp. 219-228). KOTESOL.
https://koreatesol.org/sites/default/files/pdf_publications/KOTESOL-Proceeds2010web.pdf

46

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Discussion Leader Role Sheet(Adapted from Oxford Bookworms Club Reading Circle Teacher’s Handbook. This is not an
official adaptation, nor has this been endorsed in any way by Oxford University Press.)

ROLE 1: Discussion Leader
Story: ________________________________
Name: ________________________________The Discussion Leader’s job is to:
•
•
•
•
•

read the story twice, and prepare at least five general questions about it.
ask one or two questions to start the Reading Circle discussion.
make sure that everyone has a chance to speak and joins in the discussion.
call on each member to present their prepared role information.
guide the discussion and keep it going.

Usually the best discussion questions come from your own thoughts, feelings, andquestions as you read. (What surprised you, made you smile, made you feel sad?) Write
down your questions as soon as you have finished reading. It is best to use your own
questions, but you can also use some of the ideas at the bottom of this page.
My questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Possible ideas for questions:••••

Questions about the characters (like/not like them, true to life/not true to life . . .?)Questions about the theme (friendship, romance, parents/children, ghosts . . .?)Questions about the ending (surprising, expected, liked it/did not like it . . .?)Questions about what will happen next. (These can also be used for a longer story.)

47

Appendix B: Group Two Discussion Leader Section Excerpt
Discussion Leader: Okay, second question. If you could see child you, what do you want totell you?
All: Ehhhhh?!
Passage Person: As myself?
Connector: Keep doing!
Discussion Leader: Why? Which age do you want to see?
Summarizer: Elementary school.
Passage Person: Junior High.
Discussion Leader: Me too, Junior High.
Passage Person: No, High actually.
Connector: Eh? Me too, High. High or Elementary.
Discussion Leader: Eh? Why? What do you want to tell you?
Connector: Keep going. Take it easy. Maybe, before me, same as now me, always smiling.
Happy person, so...
Discussion Leader: Yeah, I think so too.
Connector: Keep doing!
Summarizer: I want to say you should more study and more reading.
Passage Person: You have to study hard? Same, same!
Discussion Leader: When I was high school student, I didn't study. I just play basketball.
Passage Person: You should have studied more! Eh, I wanna say to me, be honest and notregret. I wanna say.
Discussion Leader: Hai [Yes], number three question. If your supervisor is mean like Scrooge,
do you quit your job? Why or why not?
Connector: Maybe I will quit job.
Discussion Leader: Quit? How about not part-time job?
Connector: Real job?
Discussion Leader: Real job. Seshain [Permanent] job.
Connector: Ohhhh!
Passage Person: Maybe I didn't quit. But maybe I try to… I try to look for some different job.
Discussion Leader: If you could find new job, you will quit?
Passage Person: Yeah.
All: Good idea.
Connector: But maybe I will quit job, because I have very weak mental.
Passage Person: Weak mental?
Connector: In Japanese, tofu [weak] mental. Yes, easy to break mental. So, simply my nan te
iu no [how do you say], thought, thinking, don’t like person is don’t like, hate, so shut out.
Passage Person: Your thinking will not change?
Connector: Yes. Bye bye.
Passage Person: Even if I don’t like this person, but I behave more good. Good behavior.
Summarizer: I will not quit. Keep the job. If I take care my family and myself, I have tocontinue the job if the job was awful. Me too, I, you said you would look for jobs. I want to try
to look for job too.

48