Abstract of

Fifth-Grade Students' Perceptions of How They Experience Literature Discussion Groups

Karen S. Evans

The purpose of the present study was to investigate fifth-grade students' perceptions of their experiences participating in peer-led literature discussion groups. The rationale for the study stems from the lack of research that has looked at literature discussion groups from the perspective of the students who are participating in them. Rather than address student perspectives, the existing research has largely focused on how teachers and researchers interpret student language, behavior, understanding, and experiences in literature discussions. A social constructivist framework was used to guide the study and provided further support for exploring students' own perspectives as a core belief of constructivism is the need to understand the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it (Schwandt, 1994). Data were collected over the course of an entire school year and involved observing peer-led literature discussions and leading students in reflective debriefing of their discussion group experience. Primary data sources included transcribed literature discussions and transcriptions of each group's reflection on their discussion. Secondary data sources were fieldnotes, student work, and an end-of-the-year sociometric measure. Data analysis was conducted both simultaneously with data collection and after data collection was completed. Three major themes emerged from the data analysis: (a) students have a clear notion of the conditions that are conducive to effective discussions; (b) students perceived the gender make-up of their group to influence how they participated in and experienced their discussions; and (c) students found the presence of a bossy group member to influence their participation in their discussions.

Abstract from Evans, K.S. (2002). Fifth-Grade Students' Perceptions of How They Experience Literature Discussion Groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 46–69. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.37.1.2