Things That Interfere with a Quality Literature Discussion
With the best of intentions, many ideas concerning literacy instruction seem to work against their intended outcomes. One distinct example of this phenomenon, is the effect of particular procedures, grouping practices and instructional approaches to literature study. I have suggested elsewhere the challenges and pitfalls of trying to support young readers engagement and discussions with quality literature (Serafini, 2000, 2001, 2002).
I have explained that in order to conduct "Grand Conversations" we need to read quality literature, provide support for understanding the elements and structures of literature, help readers learn to discuss and share ideas effectively, and become invested in the books they choose to discuss.
In this position statement, I will address the various approaches, procedures and practices that I believe disable readers from successfully discussing literature. These practices often shift readers attention away fropm the actual literature being read and focuses on the roles, procedures or expectations that are enacted in the literature study discussions.
Quality Discussions Defined
Although there are many ways to evaluate the quality of a literature study discussion, there are some fundamental aspects that separate an informal chat from a quality, in-depth discussion. In a quality literature study discussion, readers are deeply engaged in the book they read and are eager to generate, share and negotiate meanings with the other members of their group. This sense of Òinvestment' in the reading and the discussion is an important factor in determining the quality of the experience. Quality literature study discussions are exciting to participate in as a teacher. These discussions are filled with a variety of perspectives and opinions about the book being read, where readers are interested in the meanings they construct and those meanings that are offered by other readers.
It is the diversity of the ideas presented, rather than the groupÕs ability to reach consensus and agreement that is paramount for quality discussions. The subjugation of group members to a single, correct main idea is not part of these proceedings. Reader response (Rosenblatt, 1978) and socio-cultural literary theories (Gee, 1996; McKormick, 1994) provide the foundation for these transactions.
Quality literature study discussions are often heated exchanges, where emotionally engaged readers passionately share and negotiate their understandings and impressions about a piece of literature. Interpretations are put forth and are made open for discussion and revision. Each member of the group comes away with a greater understanding of themselves and the book after these discussions. It is a synergistic event that leaves every reader with greater appreciation of what has been read and the experience of discussing their most profound revelations.
Impediments to Quality Literature Discussions
The focus of this article is the various impediments that arise, or are constructed that interfere with achieving the types of interactions described above. Many of these impediments have been imposed by classroom teachers, while some are just a part of the institution of public education. The impediments that I will discuss are as follows:
1. the search for the main idea in a text
2. establishing roles for group participation
3. limited experiences with literature
4. overemphasis on assessment
5. using literature study groups for the wrong reasons
6. classroom organization and management
If literature study discussions are reduced to a procedure for discovering the single correct meaning that resides hidden in the bowels of the text, we are operating from a modernist perspective, based on an objectivist ontology (Serafini, 2003). This literary perspective assumes that texts are objects that can be scientifically analyzed to determine the one stable meaning that the author imbued into the text. The ensuing literature discussions are focused on building a correspondence to an authorities interpretations (commonly referred to as Cliff Notes) and agreeing on the one main idea that can be discovered. This is what Scholes refers to as a Òcentripetal' force, driving interpretations to the center and agreement (Scholes, 2001).
As teachers develop a more nuanced and sophisticated literary perspective, (ie. making a shift towards a transactional or socio-cultural perspective) the reader is given more voice and power in the process of constructing meaning in transaction with literature. Commonly referred to as reader-response theory, the perspective is based on the reader as an active constructor of meaning in transaction with a text in a socio-cultural context. The only meanings available to the reader are those that are constructed based on their background knowledge, cultural experiences and literary knowledge.
As teachers move towards a transactional perspective, they begin to accept multiple interpretations, rather than reduce discussions to a "guess what the teacher thinks' literary contest." In order to effectively weave literature into quality discussions, the concept of main idea must be rejected to allow for multiple perspectives and interpretations.
In my opinion, one of the most contentious approaches to getting children to learn how to talk about books is by assigning them a role and teaching them how they are required to talk and act in a group of readers. Readers certainly need support in learning how to talk about literature, but that support should come in helping them understand the elements and structures of literature, or what Cai and Traw referred to as "literary literacy"(Cai & Traw, 1997). However, do we need to impose roles on readers to be able to direct their focus to what we have predetermined they should be attending to in a text? I hope not.
When roles are imposed on literature study groups, the message quickly becomes adopting into your role is more important than talking about the book. The focus shifts from making connections and interpretations to searching for vocabulary, asking questions, keeping the group on task and summarizing, not talking about literature. In defense of the roles, I would agree that some of the roles, for example asking questions, can be an important part of a literature study group, however, shouldn't everyone be able to ask questions? It would be like going to a cocktail party and being told by your spouse what you can say and not say. It may get you through the night, but it doesn't make for an enjoyable evening.
The role of literature in these assigned role groups is co-opted into the teaching of reading skills and strategies, again another honorable goal, but one that can be taught elsewhere freeing up readers to talk about what matters to them about a piece of literature. Literature should be used as a window into the lives of others and as a mirror into our own lives and identities (Cullinan, 1989). Literature illuminates life, not reading skills (Peterson & Eeds, 1990). Literature should create a theoretical space for readers to generate, share, and negotiate meaning in transaction with a particular text. Nothing can substitute for learning about literature and how to talk to other people. Roles cannot serve as an instructional shortcut to the time and support needed to help readers become effective members of a quality literature study group.
If children cannot read a text, how can they discuss it? This question is often voiced in response to my ideas about literature studies. Of course, I agree with this. That is why literature study is simply one component in a comprehensive reading framework. Reading aloud, whole group discussions, reading strategy instruction, decoding instruction during guided reading groups, responding to literature through art and writing, and independent reading time should also be included in the reading workshop. Indirectly, readers will learn how to read by participating in literature study discussions, but that is not the primary focus of these groups.
Nothing can substitute for time spent reading and discussing literature. From the time children are able to sit up and take nourishment, we should be reading literature to them. Fiction, picture books, poetry, non-fiction, brochures, riddles, comic books, and fairy tales. The more the better. Once a reader has been exposed to a wealth of literature, they can begin to explore the elements and structures of what they are reading, but not before. Readers need to be able to respond to literature aesthetically before they are required to evaluate the piece based on a particular literary criteria. This requires extensive exposure to literature as a foundation for analysis.
Contrary to all popular beliefs, not every experience deserves, nor requires, an assessment. One of the most frequently asked questions about literature study is invariably, ÒHow do I assess students in lit study groups?' The question shouldn't be "How do I assess them?", it should be "Why should I assess them?" Do you assess your experience at the movies? After reading books at home? How do we know you understood The Da Vinci Code? What should you have gotten from this novel? Can we predetermine the meanings you should come away with from a novel? If we can, then why read the novel, why not just get the notes about what you are suppose to learn and save your time for watching reruns of Saved By Bell on the WB network!
I want my students to do well on standardized tests, if for no other reason than to keep administrators at bay. I also want to be able to articulate students" progress as readers to their parents and other interested stakeholders. However, assessing the meanings generated and negotiated in a literature study discussion may require more than a multiple choice test. Reading response logs, retellings, observational notes taken during discussions, self-evaluations and reading portfolios may help us build an acceptable pile of evidence for others, but this demands time and a change in theoretical orientation.
As I alluded to earlier, the primary reason for conducting literature study groups is not to teach children HOW to read but to help them experience literature in a more intensive and affective manner. Reducing literature studies to a "literary elements scavenger hunt" or a way to better manage the children's time is just wrongheaded. Literature study groups should focus on the literature being read, the lived through experience of reading, and the responses readers generate and share during and after the reading. Too often, literature study groups are reduced to exercises for reinforcing or introducing reading skills. When reading literature is reduced to a technical act, usually focusing on the efferent stance (Rosenblatt, 1978), readers are forced to be more concerned about what they are suppose to learn or take away from the text, rather than pay attention to their responses, understandings and experience of reading.
One of the most frequently mentioned concerns about conducting literature study groups is how to manage the groups and make sure every child is on task, or as Cambourne has stated, "what do I do with the rest of the class when I am working in small groups?" Though certainly a legitimate concern, I think it is an indication of the domination of direct instruction in a classroom. If a teacher has not helped children understand how to work independently, always waiting for the teacher to tell them what they are doing next, and working on the same thing at the same time, then I suppose this would be a legitimate challenge. The problem is that teachers spend too much time in front of students and don"t help them learn how to make decisions for themselves and know what to do when they are finished with a particular project. The Reading Workshop (Serafini, 2001) is all about student responsibility and independence. I spend the better part of August, September and October helping students learn the procedures and expectations of the workshop framework. Once I have successfully removed myself from the front of the room, or moved the big desk out of the way, students can begin to take ownership of their learning.
In The Reading Workshop (Serafini, 2001), I dedicated a chapter to the procedures for implementing literature study circles. I explained how I organized my groups so that I didn"t have to fly around on a turbo chair to try and take part in five discussions at once. I think that teachers need to be part of the literature study discussions to facilitate the interactions, help students notice more while reading, and take the discussions to a more sophisticated level. I have coined the term "literary docent" to represent the stance I feel teachers need to assume. They are tour guides in the world of literature, and can"t guide very well when they haven't read the book or participate in the discussion. Read my chapter in The Reading Workshop to learn more about my organizational scheme.
Concluding Remarks
Literature study groups are an important component to a comprehensive reading program, but only one component. They are not the answer to every concern about reading instruction. Their primary focus should be on the enjoyment and involvement in a quality piece of literature, and the generation, sharing, and negotiation of meaning with other engaged readers. When literature study groups are used as the entire reading program, they become technical events, where reading skills dominate the literature being read, and literature is reduced to a vehicle for teaching comprehension skills. It is not that these skills are not important, quite to the contrary, it is just that there are better times and places for these to be taught. Respect the piece of literature and have faith in your students to try and make sense of the quality literature you have selected together to read.
POSTNOTE: I highly recommend reading an article I wrote entitled Before the Conversations Turn Grand, the book Grand Conversations by Ralph Peterson and MaryAnn Eeds, and their article Revisiting Literature Study Groups in the New Advocate for further study in this area.
References
Cai, M., & Traw, R. (1997). Literary literacy. Journal of Children's Literature, 23(2), 20-33.
Cullinan, B. E. (1989). Latching onto literature: Reading initiatives take hold. School Library Journal, 35, 27-31.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor & Francis.
McKormick, K. (1994). The culture of reading and the teaching of English. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Peterson, R., & Eeds, M. (1990). Grand conversations: Literature groups in action. New York: Scholastic.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Scholes, R. (2001). The crafty reader. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Serafini, F. (2000). Before the conversations become "grand". The California Reader, 33(3), 19-24.
Serafini, F. (2001). The Reading workshop: Creating space for readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Serafini, F. (2002). A journey with the wild things: A reader response perspective in practice. Journal of Children's Literature, 28(1), 73-78.
Serafini, F. (2003). Informing our practice: Modernist, transactional, and critical perspectives on childrenÕs literature and reading instruction. Reading Online, 6(6), Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=serafini/index.html.