Analyzing EFL
Literature
CircleDiscourse:
Scaffolding
with Five Story
Elements
Paul Sevigny
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific
University

Maiko Berger
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific
University

Reference Data:
Sevigny, P., & Berger, M. (2014). Analyzing EFL literature circle discourse: Scaffolding with five story elements. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2013 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.

In this paper, the authors describe a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of scaffolding as evidenced by discourse produced in EFL Literature Circles. Pre-intermediate and advanced learners in a
Japanese university English program, who were surveyed and recruited, exhibited similar motivational
profiles. These learners read and discussed different stories at appropriate levels. Discussion guidelines
included analyzing 5 story elements. Transcripts of these discussions were coded according to Hillocks
and Ludlow’s (1984) taxonomy of skills for interpreting fiction. Based on patterns in the resulting discourse, recommended objectives and scaffolding techniques for teaching literature discussion to preintermediate learners include using topical routines, encouraging shared leadership, and helping learners
summarize series of key details and describe stated relationships. Advanced participants demonstrated
an ability to discuss all 5 elements of story. Recommended objectives for advanced learners include selecting texts with more complex elements and using scaffolds that necessitate more elaborate inferential
learner analysis.
本研究においては、EFLでのリテラチャー・サークルでの発話に見られる効果的補助の精査方法を開発した。ある日本の大学の英語科目で準中級および上級クラスに属する学習者が本研究に参加し、似たような動機プロフィールを示した。各レベルの学習者は異なる、各レベルに合った小説を読み、ディスカッションを行った。ディスカッションのガイドラインには物語の五要
素分析が含まれていた。ディスカッションの写しは Hillocks and Ludlow（1984）の小説解釈方法に準じてコード化された。得
られた談話分析のパターンに基づき、準中級レベルの学習者に対しては、目標設定やリーダーシップの共有、学習者間で物語の要点や人間関係の説明ができることを提示する。上級レベル学生は物語の五要素全てを議論することが可能であった。上級レベル学生に対しては、より複雑な要素の作品を選ぶことや、より巧緻な推論を可能にするような学習者補助を提案する。

In this study, we developed a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of scaffolding

as evidenced by the quality of verbal discourse produced in Literature Circles (LCs). We
outline our approach to LCs and then explain how and why we decided to examine thediscourse produced by learners in LCs before concluding with practical recommendations for
LCs made on the basis of our research findings.

In April 2012, a four-member reading research team (the authors included) at Ritsumeikan
Asia Pacific University implemented the first phase of an extensive reading program. The initial semester used short paper quizzes to evaluate our large reading classes. The second semester we introduced Moodle Reader (www.moodlereader.org). After two semesters, however, we
felt something was lacking. We discussed the possibility of creating alternative activities forresponding to graded readers and brought this idea to the reading research team. The authors

JALT2013 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSONLINE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

317

SEVIGNY & BERGER • ANALYZING EFL LITERATURE CIRCLE DISCOURSE: SCAFFOLDING WITH FIVE STORY ELEMENTS

created a packet of alternatives that included both discussion
and an introduction to the five elements of story: setting, character, plot, conflict, and theme (Sevigny & Berger, 2013). Action
research by the authors led to the combining of both discussion
and the five elements in a trial for the fall semester of 2013,
which is reported here. A third member of the reading researchteam, Steven Pattison, taught the advanced course and the fiveelements module for advanced students.

Literature Circles: Literary Analysis, Scaffolding,and Reading Skills
To understand learners’ discourse about literature, we developed a shared understanding of approaches to literary analysis, concepts of scaffolding, and taxonomies of reading skills forinterpreting fiction. Teachers generally select from a variety of
approaches to literary analysis, such as New Criticism, Stylistics, and Structuralism (Van, 2009). Teachers also choose andcreate numerous types of scaffolding. Moreover, learners choose
what they share in an LC, and those contributions evidence
levels and types of reading skills. These three research areas
ground this study.
As a research team, we first wondered when and how
language learners could become ready to analyze and discuss
particular elements of story. We decided to use audio recordingsof learner discussion as windows into our learners’ comprehension of fiction texts and to determine what elements of literature
our learners can articulate. We were attracted to this approach
because it promised to illuminate the different processes andstructures involved in negotiating meaning in LCs. Ironically,
this is exactly why Van (2009) discounted Structuralism as an
approach to teaching literature in EFL settings. Van claimed that
Structuralism denies the role of personal responses in analyzing literature. To the contrary, we theorized that concrete topics

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

encourage low proficiency learners to share their personal
responses and develop trust in their ability to both questionand comment about a text, but we needed to learn more about
how to support our learners in this endeavor. The five elementsof story used for this study came from the Flocabulary hip hop
video “Five Things” (Douthit, n.d.), which aligns with U.S.
Common Core standards for grades 2 through 7. The five elements of story derive from a Structuralist approach to literary
analysis.

The second area of research essential to this study is scaffolding. Scaffolding can be broken into five types relevant to LCs:
graded readers, relationships, roles, routines, and responses.
This concept originates from Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory
and Bruner’s (1978) coining of scaffold in reference to a framework provided by a mentor. First, this study assumes graded
readers intrinsically contain some forms of scaffolding forlearners. Second, Vygotsky (1934/1978) theorized that a teacher
or classmate in a zone of proximal development is relationallysituated to help a learner from an adjacent zone of development. In LCs, this relational scaffolding happens when learners share their questions and find answers together, movingfrom confusion to clarity. Third, in published articles on LCs,
the dominant scaffold presented is the role sheet. SheltonStrong (2012) reviewed the benefits of role sheets for the leader,summarizer, word master, passage person, connector, culturalcollector, and artistic adventurer, but he pointed out that overdependence could lead to discussions becoming inauthentic (p.
216). Learning each of these roles includes learning-associatedconversational exponents, which requires repeated LC practiceand rotation of roles. Fourth, the elements of story in this study
provide a topical routine, which simplifies the roles. The lastof the five tools we used were response scaffolds. In this study,
learners completed projects such as comic strip summaries andbackground knowledge PowerPoints, in addition to the five elements worksheet (Appendix A). They also wrote questions and PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

318

SEVIGNY & BERGER • ANALYZING EFL LITERATURE CIRCLE DISCOURSE: SCAFFOLDING WITH FIVE STORY ELEMENTS

The last area of essential research we adopted was Hillocks
and Ludlow’s (1984) taxonomy of reading skills related tointerpreting literature. Hillocks and Ludlow classified questions about fiction into two major levels: literal questions andinferential questions. They used Rasch modeling to show thatthe categories in their scale were both taxonomically related andhierarchical—from easiest to hardest (Table 1).

Table 1. Hillocks and Ludlow’s (1984) Taxonomy of
SkillsLevel Skill category

Basic stated information (BSI)

LiteralKey detail (KD)Stated relationship (SR)Level Skill category

SIR questions differ from SR in that causes
and relationships must be inferred.

Author’s generalization (AG)Every fictional work reflects certain abstract
generalizations about the human condition.
AG questions contrast with those of CIR as
they deal with ideas implied about the world
outside the text.

Structural generalization (SG)Explanation

BSI questions refer to information that iscentral, stated explicitly many times andimplied as well.

Key details happen at important points andhave some causal relationship to what happens later. They may appear more than once,but not as frequently as BSI.

The reader must locate the relationship thatis said to exist between at least two pieces of
information: two characters, two events, or acharacter and an event. This is usually stateddirectly, but usually only once.

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

Explanation

Simple implied
relationship(SIR)
Complex implied relationship (CIR)

Inferentialcomments about the story to share. According to Hatch (1978),learning a conversational routine leads to developing syntactic
prototypes through attempts to converse, which in turn leads
to language acquisition. To assist this process we made a sheetwith helpful gambits for in-the-moment reference (Appendix B).
These techniques for scaffolding provided learners with necessary support for LC discussion.

CIR questions require inferences based on
many pieces of information. Their complexity arises from the fact that they involve large
numbers of details that must be dealt with
together. Questions about causes of characterchange, for example, involve relating detailsof personality before and after change.

SG questions require the reader to explain
how parts of the work operate together toachieve certain effects. These questions firstrequire the reader to generalize about the arrangement of the work, for example, asking
about two or more uses of a scene in a story.

BackgroundThe context for the current study included the pre-intermediate
and advanced English levels of a large EFL program at a Japanese university. This research was situated in the reading andthe vocabulary courses. Both courses included an extensive
reading component (10 books per term) and introduced the fiveelements of story, applying these elements as a scaffold for LCs.
In the pre-intermediate class, one week prior to the LC, eachlearner chose a book of interest and then made a group withother learners who had chosen the same book. After choosing
these books, students had about 15 minutes of sustained silent

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

319

SEVIGNY & BERGER • ANALYZING EFL LITERATURE CIRCLE DISCOURSE: SCAFFOLDING WITH FIVE STORY ELEMENTS

reading time to get into the story. Each student had to finish hisor her book and prepare a mini-presentation on the story or its
background as homework. The advanced English course introduced the five elements as a basic discussion framework. Dueto the faster pace of the course, they had already discussed four
short stories by the time the pre-intermediate class was readyfor its first discussion.

Research Issues
Our goal was to explore the quality of verbal discussion exhibited by learners as measured by Hillocks and Ludlow’s (1984)
hierarchy of comprehension skills, and more generally as patterns evident in transcripts from LC discussion. We investigated
the following research questions:
1.
2.

What proportion of Hillocks and Ludlow’s (1984) taxonomy types are displayed by pre-intermediate and advanced
learners?

What other differences, related to the five elements of story,
are evident in the transcripts?

A third question was also posed to control for overall reading motivation. An adapted form of Guthrie, Coddington,
and Wigfield’s (2009) motivation profile survey was used todetermine the overall reading motivation profiles of the classes
invited to participate. Although description and discussionof this research question goes beyond the scope of this article,
the pre-intermediate and advanced classes displayed almost
identical motivational profiles, with 55% of learners being avid
or ambivalent readers and 45% being apathetic or averse towardreading storybooks.

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

MethodParticipants were self-selected from one pre-intermediate classof 48 learners and one advanced class of 23 learners. Fifteen
pre-intermediate and four advanced learners agreed to allow
the recording of their group’s LC discussion. Advanced learners
were taught the five elements and asked to discuss them, butwere not assigned any specific roles. In order to ensure that preintermediate learners remained confident about their English,
they were given more structured scaffolding, limited roles, andshorter, graded story texts to discuss. The four roles given wereleader, commentator, discussion mapper, and tech person. The
books these students selected were from 12 class sets of Penguin
Level Two graded readers.

Participants
The participants in this research were 15 university learners of
pre-intermediate English (TOEFL ITP avg. 443) and four advanced learners of English (TOEFL ITP avg. 508). These learners
were Japanese native speakers, except for one Korean student,
who was an advanced learner of Japanese in the pre-intermediate English course.

ProcedureIn the pre-intermediate class, after completing background presentations for their books, participating students were briefed
on how to map the discussion (Sevigny, 2012) that would takeplace the next day. These maps were used both in order to raise
students’ awareness of turn taking and to facilitate transcription.
Lines between speakers represent direct invitations or changesof turn. A line to the center of the map represents an open
invitation. Maps were used for meta-discussion related to turntaking as a closing group reflection. The mapper for the group

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN320

SEVIGNY & BERGER • ANALYZING EFL LITERATURE CIRCLE DISCOURSE: SCAFFOLDING WITH FIVE STORY ELEMENTS

that read Heidi (Spyri, 2002) drew the example in Figure 1. The
participants’ names have been replaced with role labels.

Results
Correlation Between Class Level andComprehension/Interpretative Skills
To address our first research question, we analyzed the transcripts
of students’ conversations by counting the questions and statements of each type. Table 2 shows the instances of each category.

Table 2. Comprehension Skill Taxonomy
Hillocks & Ludlow literaryinterpretation
Skill typeFigure 1. Conversation Map for Heidi.
In the advanced English course all members of the groupwere responsible for discussion of all five elements of story. For
this reason, the advanced learners are identified as speakers A,
B, C, and D in the transcripts. With no prior in-class preparation
time, the group members met in an empty classroom where a
researcher helped to record and map the discussion.
After the recordings were transcribed, dominant membersof the groups helped to identify interlocutors and clarified thetranscript. Completed transcripts were coded using Hillocks
and Ludlow’s (1984) coding categories. The average frequency
for the four groups of pre-intermediate learners was calculated
for each of the seven categories.

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

BSI: Basic stated info
KD: Key detail
SR: Stated relationship
SIR: Simple implied relationship
CIR: Complex implied relationship
AG: Authorial generalization
SG: Structural generalization

Pre-interme- Advanced
diate n = 15n=4All titles
“The
Doll”
(average)
5.25
17.5
1.25
2.25
2.5
0.0
0.25

6
44
7
4
4
3
0

The most salient next steps for these pre-intermediate learners
relate to key details (KDs) and stated relationships (SRs)—bothliteral interpretation skills. Although pre-intermediate learners
struggled with these skills, the advanced learners demonstrated
fluent discussion of both KDs and SRs. (See Excerpt 1.)
Excerpt 1
B:

D:

He tried to steal the Prada clothes in the Prada shop, but
he was um

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN321

SEVIGNY & BERGER • ANALYZING EFL LITERATURE CIRCLE DISCOURSE: SCAFFOLDING WITH FIVE STORY ELEMENTS

C:

arrested

D:

Yeah.

A:
B:

C:

and all five elements of story (Table 3). They also provided a
detailed summary as a preamble to discussing more complex
thematic elements.

Kind of arrested. He was about to get arrested.
But he a:: claims that his relative’s father is Yonezawa, his

Furthermore, the advanced learners scaffolded each otherfluently. On the other hand, the advanced learners did not makeany structural generalizations (SGs) although the pre-intermediates did. One group of pre-intermediate learners, those reading
Lost in New York (Escott, 2008) in Excerpt 2, demonstrated SG by
discussing the main character’s transformation from the beginning to the end of the book.

Commentator: What do you think about Nicky?
Leader:Tech Person:

Storyelement
Plot

Character

Black
Beauty(Sewell,2008)

Pre-intermediate

Heidi(Spyri,
2002)

Lost in NY(Escott,
2008)

Prince &Pauper(Twain,2008)

Nicky? About Nicky? Yeah. I read this the firsttime I think he is really kind of a weak, or yeah,
he felt really nervous about the first he didn’tknow, but the story goes through, he will be the,he will, he became the kind of, he became theman.
Yeah, I think so. In one place, the picture of
Nicky. He doesn’t look so pleasant. But pleaselook page 23. He is so happy. He is like a man.
Yeah.

Qualitative Differences in Transcripts
In addition to the differences analyzed above, the advanced
group’s discussion demonstrated shared leadership, mutual
scaffolding, higher overall fluency, cooperative task completion,

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

Advanced“The Doll”(Dasgupta, 2005)

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

Settingü

Theme

Conflict

Excerpt 2

All:

Table 3. Story Elements Attempted

father-in-law.

üüPre-intermediate learners exhibited greater variability in fluency and more limited interpretive skills. They tended to avoid
discussing conflict, themes, and settings and encountered more
frequent need for conversational repair. However, they also
produced insightful questions and comments.

Discussion
Comprehension Skill Taxonomy
As explained above, we used Hillocks and Ludlow’s (1984) categories to investigate the kind of scaffolding that would simultaneously support students’ speaking and literary interpretation
skills. It is revealing that the pre-intermediate learners referred
to basic stated information (BSI) as often as the advanced learners, considering that advanced learners produced twice theinstances of each skill on most other measures. In relative terms,
the greater focus of pre-intermediate learners on BSI shows that

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

322

SEVIGNY & BERGER • ANALYZING EFL LITERATURE CIRCLE DISCOURSE: SCAFFOLDING WITH FIVE STORY ELEMENTS

even with Penguin Level 2 readers, these learners need to articulate very literal, basic facts of the story, for example, in Excerpt
3, Black Beauty’s sex. Although his sex is explicitly stated on the
cover and in the first few pages, the fact that the story is writtenfrom Beauty’s point of view obscures this basic information, so
the question posed by the leader is seen as reasonable by thegroup. For this book and these learners, narrative point of viewmight be a better target for analysis. This finding highlights theimportance of taking a flexible approach that allows learners to
discuss what emerges for them.
Excerpt 3
Leader:Um, he or she? [referring to Black Beauty’s sex] I think
Black Beauty is . . .

This same example also illustrates the pre-intermediate struggle to identify and keep track of SRs. Actually, the discussion
leader mistakenly identified John as saying, “Beauty, go on.”
The advanced learners made 5.6 times more references to SRs;
they did so accurately, and when a relationship was unclear,these learners quickly clarified the point.
In the Lost in New York group, the pre-intermediate learners
struggled to remember that Lou was Nicky’s aunt’s coworker(Excerpt 5). In fact, acquaintance relationships appear commonly in graded readers, but pre-intermediate students havedifficulty articulating these: They are not familiar with enoughsynonyms for terms like coworker, peer, and colleague and tend
not to string possessives like Nicky’s aunt’s coworker.

Mapper: He.

Excerpt 5

The advanced learners started with a detailed summary of thestory and produced 2.5 times as many KDs as the pre-intermediate learners. The pre-intermediate learners struggled to produce
sequential summaries of the story, jumping to specific points ofinterest instead. For example, in the Black Beauty transcript theleader refers to a KD (see Excerpt 4). This difference suggeststhat teachers need to tailor guidance to the level of the students,
particularly for summarizing, as even the leaders of the preintermediates had difficulty with this.

Mapper:Excerpt 4
Leader:Leader:We going to cross the bridge, but bridge broke andBlack Beauty realized that and John said, “Beauty, goon,” but Beauty didn’t move.

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINESo how about Lou? Who is he?

I think he is Nicky’s uncle? He is Nicky’sCommentator: uncle’s friend.
Leader:Mapper:He is uncle’s friend. Where he working?
Restaurant.

Despite difficulties at the literal level, the pre-intermediategroups made inferences competently. In Excerpt 6, the group
discussing Heidi produced an excellent example of the simple
implied relationship (SIR). The tech person even included thepage reference from a passage in Heidi (Spyri, 2002): “Peter
hated the girl from Frankfurt. Heidi was always with her and
not with him! . . . Suddenly he was very angry. He pushed thewheelchair down the mountain!” (p. 34). This instance could
arguably be classified as simply SR, as it appears just once inthe text, and the words hated and angry explicitly state Peter’s
feeling. However, inferring a feeling of jealousy requires extra

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

323

SEVIGNY & BERGER • ANALYZING EFL LITERATURE CIRCLE DISCOURSE: SCAFFOLDING WITH FIVE STORY ELEMENTS

the arrangement of the story impacts another story element.
These learners discussed the main character’s transformationfrom the beginning to the end of the story, starting with thecommentator’s question (see Excerpt 2). In this case, the watercolor illustrations of the main character may also have helped
learners reach this conclusion. However, the learners produced
Excerpt 6
a lengthy thread on this topic, attempting to determine Nicky’s
Tech: Why Peter, wheelchair, push the wheelchair down theage, grade in school, and their own bravery level at his age. The
mountain—page 34?
expression, “please look page 23,” is remarkably similar to thephrase given on the conversation help sheet (Appendix B) andsuggests that the teacher’s encouragement to give page referPre-intermediate learners are capable of making deep insights
into literature, usually through posing simple questions. Complex ences and the help sheet may have led to this interpretation.
Encouraging engagement with the structure of text, in this case,
implied relationships (CIRs) were generated in the Black Beauty
has not demotivated students, as Van (2009) claimed, but has
discussion with the question, “Was Black Beauty happy?” (Seeelicited advanced comprehension skills.
Excerpt 7.) This is a simple question to ask, but not to answer.
The pre-intermediate learners did not refer to background
Learners had to recall Beauty’s various hardships and fortunate
encounters. This is a good example of readers needing to consider information about the text nor infer the purposes of the author(author generalization). The four titles these learners chose are
numerous KDs and relationships throughout the story.
graded reader versions of stories set outside Japan. The factthat many graded readers are set outside of Japan and not in
Excerpt 7
a current time period complicates this analysis. For example,
Tech:Black Beauty has a lot of events, encounters, xxx acin 1877, Sewell wrote to raise awareness of animal welfare at acident.
time when horses were the main vehicles of conveyance. Thisknowledge was available in the introduction to Black Beauty
Leader: He has a lot of accidents in that story.
(Sewell, 2008), so in this case it is arguable that teachers couldTech:
I think Black Beauty was happy so a there was theset pre-intermediate students to task analyzing the link between
hard time in various way. Do you think BB wassocial context and story.
happy, L?
vocabulary and greater powers of memory and concentrationfrom the learners because the act of pushing the wheelchair is
described 10 sentences after the original statement that included
the word hated.

Leader:Interesting because he had a lot of good owner andgood, groom. And yeah, he made good friends ofcourse. Sometimes he had bad accident, but yah, he isvery positive and good horse.

As stated in the results section, the pre-intermediate learnersof the Lost in New York group demonstrated SG, noticing how

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINEIn contrast, in Excerpt 8, the advanced students discussing“The Doll” in Tokyo Cancelled (Dasgupta, 2005) surmised theauthor’s intent. The learners made inferences based on theirknowledge of Japanese culture. In fact, two of the advanced
learners lived in the neighborhood of Tokyo where the story
was set. Choosing texts that draw from learners’ own regions
and time period could prime learners’ practice of making such PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

324

SEVIGNY & BERGER • ANALYZING EFL LITERATURE CIRCLE DISCOURSE: SCAFFOLDING WITH FIVE STORY ELEMENTS

inferences. Awareness of this issue presents an opportunity
for publishers, writers, and teachers on several levels. First, publishers should recognize the need for niche market graded readers. Second, writers from specific regions could write stories set
in more familiar contexts. Third, teachers could choose graded
readers based upon the familiarity of the setting to the learners.
Excerpt 8
A:
B:

A:

Some of our classmates say this is the model of the Japanese man who are too busy to think about love, orI think the theme of this story is Japanese work too much . . .
That’s why this story was madeWeaknesses and Avenues for Future ResearchThis study draws upon data from the discussion of just four
graded readers and one ungraded short story. The literature
chosen for extensive reading and discussion generates many
variables. Although these complexities are not lost on teachers,
institutional policy makers regularly impose the use of ungraded texts from the top down. Thus, one useful avenue to consider
in future research might be the effect of increasing text complexity on the quality of nonnative speakers’ discussion. Employing
the methodology used in this study longitudinally with a given
group of learners as they experience ungraded texts could yieldvaluable data.
With regard to learner variables, it would be helpful to knoweach participant’s motivation profile and how each motivation
type correlates to discussion behavior. In this study, learners
anonymously responded to a survey, which allowed for ageneral class profile, but not for individual profiles. Young(2010) used structured interviews to allow for individual
motivation assessment. Young also demonstrated control of

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINEother individual factors such as reading ability, extroversion,and conscientiousness.

Rating the literary comprehension skill levels exhibited ineach transcript is very time-consuming. For future research,having multiple groups of learners discuss the same text could
expedite coding.

A final factor to consider is the Hawthorne effect. The pre-intermediate learners recorded their own discussions. In contrast,
one of the researchers was present and recorded the advanced
learners’ discussion. The presence of this researcher, who had
not read the story, may have reified the need to summarize thestory. The procedure needs to be consistent.

Recommendations for Scaffolding LCs at Different
LevelsFor lower level students, this study supports the use of conversation mapping to promote shared leadership. The relational
scaffolding inherent in cooperative learning groups functioned
for both the pre-intermediate and advanced learners. The contrast between pre-intermediate and advanced learners concerning role behavior suggests that role scaffolds can be dispensed
with at higher levels.
The results of this study support the use of conversationalroutines for scaffolding LCs over a range of proficiency levels.
The agenda for the five elements might include the following:
1.

Self-introductions

3.

Description of setting

2.
4.
5.
6.

Introduction of title and author
Team summary of plot

Comments/questions regarding characters

Comments/questions regarding themes/conflicts

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN325

SEVIGNY & BERGER • ANALYZING EFL LITERATURE CIRCLE DISCOURSE: SCAFFOLDING WITH FIVE STORY ELEMENTS

literature—even in the first book discussion of the semester. The
findings contradict Van’s (2009) claim that EFL teachers andInstead of a leader introducing the members, members should
introduce themselves. Similarly, rather than assigning one person learners do not possess adequate skills and knowledge to objectively discuss literary elements, at least for highly motivated
the role of summarizer (Shelton-Strong, 2012), the results of thislearners. The ease with which advanced learners demonstrated
study support the use of a jigsaw approach to summarizing,
competent, shared leadership in applying all five elements ofwith spontaneously shared turn taking being the ultimate goal.
story suggests that an EFL literature course with regular LCs
A similar approach might work for introducing characters andtheir relationships to each other. Language for describing relation- could facilitate learners’ confidence in internalizing multiple
literary concepts and the skills to articulate them in English.
ships, however, needs to be primed in prediscussion activities at
Scaffolding for explaining literal level comprehension, like plot
the pre-intermediate level. Separating these literal level activities
summary and describing character relationships, should be
into steps might ensure that learners’ genuine, inferential level
priority objectives for pre-intermediate learners. The discussions
questions are allocated adequate time in the LC. For higher level
learners, it might be possible to introduce Hillocks and Ludlow’s of setting, conflict, and theme need more scaffolding by teachers and require gradual introduction. These literary elements(1984) literary interpretation skills more directly.
constitute a form of scaffolding not reflected in the standard
Response scaffolding can be categorized into four phases:
publisher grading system (head-words). How to optimize scafreading, prediscussion, discussion, and postdiscussion. Specificfolding for discussion of these (and other) story elements merits
tasks can be designed for each phase. During the reading phase,further investigation, perhaps in longitudinal studies withlearners could write post-it notes, for example. These notes
regularly recorded LCs at various proficiency levels. Due to the
could be summary sentences, comments, or questions. Moregreat number of variables involved with LCs, researchers needspecifically, students could be directed, “Write post-it notes forto carefully control conditions in order to design scaffolding thateach chapter that summarize the actions of the main characters
meets learners’ desire for both efficient and enjoyable languagein past tense.” For the prediscussion phase, an activity sheet
learning and institutional demands for solid academic skills. Us(Appendix A) could be used. During the discussion, the post-it
ing multiple methods that include motivational profiles can help
notes could become bookmarks, helping learners develop skimto achieve these goals. Finally, creating a shared, topical routine,
ming and scanning skills as they answer each other’s questions
rather than narrowly defined roles, can encourage shared leadin the midst of discussion. The postdiscussion phase could
ership, inclusion, and highly motivating literary analysis, even
include written responses to the thoughts shared by classmatesat the pre-intermediate level.
and metadiscussion of the process.
7.

Comments/questions about author’s purpose

Bio Data

Conclusion
The results demonstrate that pre-intermediate learners caneffectively ask a range of good discussion questions and makesome surprisingly complex interpretations of level-appropriate

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINEPaul Sevigny is a Lecturer at the Center for Language Education, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in Japan, and holds an
MA in Second Language Studies from the University of Hawai‘i.
He has coordinated large pre-intermediate level courses in Ja-

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

326

SEVIGNY & BERGER • ANALYZING EFL LITERATURE CIRCLE DISCOURSE: SCAFFOLDING WITH FIVE STORY ELEMENTS

pan and managed ESL programs in the US. His areas of researchinterest are extensive reading, motivation, and vocabularyacquisition.
Maiko Berger is Associate Professor of English at the Center
for Language Education at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
in Japan. She coordinates elementary to pre-intermediate level
English courses at her university. She holds an MEd (TESOL)
and a BA (TESOL), and she is an EdD TESOL candidate fromthe University of Exeter. Her research fields include study
abroad research, extensive reading, language teacher education,and pre-enrollment education.

References
Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A.
Sinclair, R. J. Jarvelle, & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The child’s concept oflanguage. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Dasgupta, R. (2005). Tokyo cancelled. New York: Black Cat.

Douthit, P. (Producer). (n.d.). Flocabulary. “Five things” [Video file].
Retrieved from http://www.flocabulary.com/fivethings/

Sevigny, P., & Berger, M. (2013). APU pre-intermediate reading portfolio.
Retrieved from http://ercentral-website-staticdata.s3.amazonaws.
com/wp-content/uploads/PIEB_Reading-Portfolio_08Apr2013.pdf
Sewell, A. (2008). Black Beauty. Edinburgh Gate, UK: Pearson.

Shelton-Strong, S. J. (2012). Literature circles in ELT. ELT Journal, 66, 214223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr049
Spyri, J. (2002). Heidi. Edinburgh Gate, UK: Penguin Books.

Twain, M. (2008). The prince and the pauper. Edinburgh Gate, UK: Pearson.

Van, T. (2009). The relevance of literary analysis to teaching literature in
the EFL classroom. English Teaching Forum, 47(3), 2-9.
Vygotsky, L. (1934/1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Mind and Society (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Young, C. J. (2010). Exploring predictors of quality engagement in literature circle discussions. Retrieved from http://www.thebestclass.org/
Exploring_Predictors_of_Quality_Engagement_in_Literature_Circle_
Discussions.pdf

Escott, J. (2008). Lost in New York. Edinburgh Gate, UK: Pearson.

Guthrie, J., Coddington, C., & Wigfield, A. (2009). Profiles of motivation for reading among African American and Caucasian
students. Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 317-353. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/10862960903129196

Hatch, E. M. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition.
In E. M. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hillocks, G., & Ludlow, L. (1984). A taxonomy of skills in reading andinterpreting fiction. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 7-24.

Sevigny, P. (2012). Extreme discussion circles: Preparing ESL students for
the Harkness Method. Polyglossia, 23, 181-191.

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

327

SEVIGNY & BERGER • ANALYZING EFL LITERATURE CIRCLE DISCOURSE: SCAFFOLDING WITH FIVE STORY ELEMENTS

Character versus nature—when the main character is fighting
something from nature.

Appendix A
Five Elements of Story Portfolio Activity
Reading Response Activity #2: The Five Elements of Story
FictionTitle: ____________________________________________

Plot—The series of events in the story is called the plot. The
actions of the story usually start slow and get more and more
exciting. The climax of the story is the most exciting part.

Character versus self—when the main character is fighting
something inside him or herself.
1.

Describe the conflict in your story:

2.

Can you explain the conflict in more detail?

___________________ vs. ____________________

1.

___________________________________________________

3.

___________________________________________________

Theme—This is the topic of the story. There may be more thanone. The theme of the story is often a big word (an abstractidea). In the film Titanic, for example, the story is about romantic
love. It is also about love between rich and poor characters. It isalso about survival.

___________________________________________________

2.

What were the main events in the story?
2.
4.
5.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Characters—These are the people, animals, or even cars, or toys
. . . They are the actors in the story. Describe one character of thestory below:
1.

Character name: _____________________________________

3.

What does he/she/it look like? ________________________

2.
4.
5.
6.

Gender? Male or Female

1.

What is one of the main themes in your story? ___________
Explain how this is a theme in your story:

Setting—This is where and when your story takes place. Titanic
takes place on a ship in the Atlantic Ocean in 1912.
1.
2.

Where does your story take place? _____________________
When does your story take place? _____________________

What is his/her/its personality? _______________________How old is the character? _____________________________

What does this character want? ________________________

Conflict—The conflict follows a few general patterns:

Character versus character—when two characters of the story
are against each other.

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

328

SEVIGNY & BERGER • ANALYZING EFL LITERATURE CIRCLE DISCOURSE: SCAFFOLDING WITH FIVE STORY ELEMENTS

Appendix B
Roles, Instructions, and Help for Recorded Discussion
Roles
1. Leader
2. Commentator
3. Tech Person
4. Mapper

5. AllRole instruction

Prediscussion instructions

Keep the topic going and be ready 1.
to change the topic when necessary.
Help everyone participate.
2.
Ask interesting questions related totext. Give your opinions.
3.
Make sure the mike is turned on,
is working, and is turned off at the 4.
end.
Diagram on paper, who takes
5.
each turn, and when questions
are asked, whether they are to thetable, or to a specific person.
a. Choose which of the fiveelements of story are mostinteresting and important to6.
talk about.

Please use your notes andyour book.

b.

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS

Note two interesting pages
and two questions to share in
the discussion.

ONLINE

7.

Conversation help sheet(During discussion)___, what do you think about ___?

Start the digital recorder (Tech Adding to what ___ said, . . .
Person)Introduce the group members
and book title (Leader)

I agree with ___, and . . .

Introduce the first topic of five I understand what ___ is saying,
but . . .
elements of story (Leader)
Ask for who has questions orcomments, and say the nameof the next speaker (Leader)
Example: What do you all
think about this book? T.,
please share.

Next person shares (Group
Member)Example: “I think . . . E., what
do you think?”

I disagree. . .
Excuse me, ___ , where in the bookis it that makes you think that?
I have a question about somethingon page ___.

When the discussion stops,
Look at page ___ and paragraphask for new questions, suggest ___. On the [2nd/3rd/4th] line of
new topic, or thank everyone the paragraph it says . . .
for discussing the book today(Leader) PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

329