Predictors of Quality Verbal Engagement in Third-Grade Literature Discussions.

AbstractThis study investigates how reading ability and personality traits predict the quality of verbal discussions in peer-led literature circles. Third grade literature discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded. The coded statements and questions were quantified into a quality of engagement score. Through multiple linear regression, the researcher sought to determine the best predictors of verbal engagement in literature circle discussions. Results indicated that higher reading ability and extroversion along with lack of conscientiousness were significant predictors of quality verbal engagement in literature circle discussions. The researcher suggests that understanding literature circles through a lens of complexity may serve to promote more productive discussions. Finally, implications for instructional design are discussed.Keywords: Literature Circles, Book Discussions, PersonalityIntroductionLiterature circles are generally understood as peer-led, student groups reading the same text with an opportunity to discuss content (Daniels, 1994). The goal of literature circles is to enhance the comprehension of text in a motivating and authentic manner (Almasi, 1996). Although there are many forms of literature circles (Almasi, O'Flahavan, & Arya, 2001; Bond, 2001; Brabham & Villaume, 2000; Burns, 1998; Clark, 2009; Daniels, 2002), most versions share some common features. In many cases, the groups are formed based on individual reading preferences. This initial choice of text is a key feature of literature circles that presumably promotes reader engagement (Daniels, 2002; Flowerday, Schraw, & Stevens, 2004; Peralta- Nash & Dutch, 2000). The opportunity to discuss the text is another integral element when implementing literature circles. The discussions provide an avenue for learning through social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). Beyond these key features of choice and discussion, the forms of literature circles bifurcate and manifest themselves in many different forms.Daniels (1994) introduced a version of literature circles that possessed the key features described above, as well as structural roles for discussion. Roles, such as discussion director, word wizard, connector, summarizer, or illustrator were given to students in preparation for the literature discussion. In fact, many interpretations of literature circles, or book clubs, assigned roles to participants (Pearson, 2010; Sandmann & Gruhler, 2007; Tompkins & Tompkins, 2001). In support of this perspective, research indicated that students prefer some sort of preparatory work prior to discussion (Evans, 2002). However, preparatory methods varied in implementation. The structures ranged from rigid roles (Miller, 2002; Tompkins & Tompkins, 2001) to completely open discussion (Li et al., 2007). The differing structures might be attributed to varying teacher philosophies, grade level, student population, goals for literature circles, or a teacher's past experience with literature circles.Pearson (2010) argued that designating students to roles in literature circles inhibited the discussions. Assigned roles limited the free-flowing aspect of the discussion. Pearson's class of 28 students served as the subjects in a study that used roles for discussion. The teacher implemented literature circles with mini-lessons and assigned roles including discussion director, summarizer, connector, and word wizard. Pearson hoped to see more exploratory talk (Mercer & Wegerif, 1999), but the found the roles to be too restrictive. The goal was to have children elaborate reasoning, use personal anecdotes, and back up their claims with text evidence. However, discourse analysis revealed that students only exhibited these desired behaviors when conversation switched from school discourse to an informal discourse. In other words, when students abided by the structured roles, the discussions were less likely to go beyond the minimum expectation. …