424601
ittakerIntervention in School and Clinic 47(4)
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012
ISC47410.1177/1053451211424601Wh
Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Feature Article
Intervention in School and Clinic 47(4) 214­–223
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012
Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1053451211424601
http://isc.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com
Integrating Literature Circles
Into a Cotaught Inclusive Classroom
Catharine R. Whittaker1
Abstract
Literature circles or book clubs are small, heterogeneous groups of students who have chosen to read and discuss the
same book together. The research on literature circles suggests that they hold great promise for increasing students’
enjoyment of reading and honing their literacy skills. When evidence-based strategies are embedded into a literature circles
framework and coteachers use multiple coteaching arrangements to teach and monitor literacy strategies, all students in an
inclusive classroom can benefit. Through description and vignettes, this article explains how to introduce literature circles,
manage the schedule and coteacher involvement, and provide students with guidance in the literature circles process.
In addition, there are suggestions for supporting all levels of learners within a variety of coteaching configurations and
evaluating student progress.
Keywords
pedagogy, inclusion, coteaching, collaboration, literacy, learning strategies, mild disabilities
Ms. Briggs, a middle school general education teacher, and
Ms. Coulter, a special education teacher, met to plan for their
language arts class for the upcoming school year. Last year
they cotaught in their inclusive classroom and worked out
many of the initial philosophical, pedagogical, and classroom
management issues. Both are comfortable with coteaching
arrangements that utilize large group instruction. Now, they
want to enhance their students’ academic and social progress
by implementing more intensive small group instruction. Both
teachers attended a professional development workshop on
literature circles and heard colleagues talk about their
students’ enthusiastic responses to them, so they decided to
implement this instructional approach in their classroom
(see Note 1).
1
SUNY New Paltz, New Paltz, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Catharine R. Whittaker, SUNY New Paltz, Department of Educational
Studies, Old Main Building, 1 Hawk Drive, New Paltz, NY 12561
(e-mail: [email protected]).
Whittaker
Understanding Literature Circles
Literature circles, also known as book clubs, are small,
heterogeneous, peer-led discussion groups in which members have chosen to read the same texts (Daniels, 2002).
Used widely in general education classrooms and popular
with many classroom teachers, this instructional approach
is effective in improving reading comprehension and social
skills for a broad range of students, including students with
disabilities (Anderson & Corbett, 2008; Blum, Lipsett, &
Yocum, 2002; Certo, Moxley, Reffitt, & Miller, 2010).
However, teachers must address certain instructional challenges for all students to benefit. Research with students with
learning disabilities has demonstrated that three instructional
components produce a strong impact on student learning:
control of task difficulty, small group instruction, and procedures that help students to “think aloud” about text (Swanson,
Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999). Students with learning disabilities
struggle with reading comprehension because they do not
read strategically or monitor their understanding of text.
Therefore, teachers must provide deliberate instruction in
evidenced-based strategies (e.g., comprehension monitoring, questioning, elaboration, summarization) and provide
repeated opportunities for practice and feedback (Jitendra,
Burgess, & Gajria, 2011; Roberts, Torgesen, Boardman, &
Scammacca, 2008; Sencibaugh, 2007; Vaughn, Gersten, &
Chard, 2000).
The most effective instructional approaches for struggling
readers (a) use peer and teacher feedback, (b) elicit ongoing
interaction, and (c) encourage task completion (Vaughn et al.,
2000). Coteachers can easily incorporate these elements into
a literature circles approach. It is important that these literature circle enhancements for students with disabilities result
in the same or higher positive effects for all students (Raphael,
Florio-Ruane, & George, 2004; Vaughn et al., 2000).
Furthermore, when highly qualified coteachers implement
a range of coteaching arrangements within a literature circles approach, the opportunity for specialized instruction is
greatly increased.
Using Multiple Coteaching
Arrangements
In response to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (2004) requirement for increased emphasis
on educating students in the least restrictive environment,
state and district implementation of coteaching has intensified (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger,
2010). To date, the research on the effectiveness of coteaching is inconclusive. Although teachers and students are
generally positive about having two teachers in the general
education classroom, research on student achievement outcomes is mixed (Friend et al., 2010; McDuffie, Mastropieri, &
215
Scruggs, 2009; Moin, Magiera, & Zigmond, 2009). Possible
explanations for this finding include inadequate professional
development for both teachers implementing the model,
insufficient administrative support, classes with an overrepresentation of struggling students, and replication of instructional approaches used in a classroom taught by one teacher
(Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Nichols, Dowdy, & Nichols,
2010; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). Rather than
increasing the teacher–student interaction and student time
on task by implementing small group coteaching configurations, most coteachers rely on large group approaches (Moin
et al., 2009; Scruggs et al., 2007). In short, many coteachers
are not taking full advantage of the opportunities available for specialized instruction and increasing engaged time
on task, an established correlate of achievement (McDuffie
et al., 2009).
There is considerable agreement that administrative
support and teacher collaboration are critical to successful
coteaching (Keefe, Moore, & Duff, 2004; Murawski, &
Dieker, 2004). Administrators must schedule reasonable
planning time for coteachers and ensure that classes are heterogeneous, and teachers must use planning time and collaborative tools effectively. When these prerequisites exist,
small group coteaching arrangements promote specialized
instruction within collaborative learning approaches such as
literature circles.
Given the increase in coteaching implementation and the
need for specialized instruction for students with disabilities,
examples of how to use small group coteaching arrangements
within commonly established general education approaches
are critical. This article outlines important considerations for
implementing literature circles based on a considerable history of teacher narrative and practice (Daniels, 2002; Daniels
& Steineke, 2004). Suggestions for introducing, managing,
guiding, and evaluating the literature circles are provided
through the lens of Ms. Briggs and Ms. Coulter’s decisionmaking process.
Ms. Briggs and Ms. Coulter listed the major decisions
needed to implement literature circles. They would have a
class of about 25 students, at least 6 of whom were placed in
their inclusive classroom based on the individualized education program (IEP) team’s recommendation. These 6 students
were all reading 2 or 3 years below grade level, so the class
reading level ranged from fourth to ninth grade. Ms. Briggs
and Ms. Coulter made a list of the questions to discuss before
school started:
1. When and how shall we introduce literature
circles?
2. How should we manage the literature circles
process?
3. How can we guide students when they start reading and discussing their texts?
216
4.How can we support all learners to develop
appropriate skills in literacy using a variety of
coteaching arrangements?
5. How will we regularly evaluate student progress?
Introducing Literature Circles
Coteachers should introduce literature circles after reviewing information about their students’ academic and social
skills. This process allows them to select authentic texts,
share text choices with the class, and form heterogeneous
groups.
Reviewing Student Assessment Information
At the beginning of the school year, coteachers need sufficient
time to become familiar with all students’ abilities before
attempting literature circles. In addition to reviewing standardized test scores, student records, and IEPs, both teachers can use curriculum-based assessments, informal reading
inventories, cloze or maze tests, and observational checklists to enhance their ability to design specialized reading
instruction (King-Sears & Bowman-Kruhm, 2010; Salend,
2009). Once teachers have an initial understanding of their
students’ abilities, they can create heterogeneous circles
based on student choice and use formative assessment for
planning and instruction.
Selecting Appropriate Texts
Teachers should choose trade books that approximate the
range of reading levels present in the class. To familiarize
students with the literature circles format, coteachers may
decide to start with relatively short texts such as short stories,
chapter books, poetry, or nonfiction articles. All texts usually
have a theme, topic, or author in common that will engage
the students’ interests and are appropriate for their developmental level.
Presenting Text Choices
Coteachers should introduce the class to each text by describing the characters, opening event, or topic in an appealing
manner. Then texts are displayed in the classroom so students can peruse them individually before they submit their
choices. Individual students may need guidance in choosing
texts appropriate for their reading level. Frequently there are
opportunities for students to access text that is somewhat
above their reading level by using technology (Salend,
2009). Students can use portable text readers that have textto-speech, highlighting, note taking, and online dictionary
capabilities. Reading pens enable them to pronounce and
learn unfamiliar words. In addition, students can access books
Intervention in School and Clinic 47(4)
through Bookshare, a federally funded program that provides
digital text and software applications to people with print
disabilities (IRIS Center, n.d.).
Determining Group Composition
The number of texts selected will influence group size. Initial
groups should range from two to six students. Coteachers
need to place students in heterogeneous groups that reflect
student characteristics, literacy abilities, and classroom context. Students have critical input by making a prioritized list
of text preferences, but they must understand that they may
not always get their first choice. Once groups are determined,
they remain together until they complete the text.
Ms. Briggs and Ms. Coulter introduced literature circles
after they spent most of the first month of school getting to
know their students’ strengths and challenges and establishing basic expectations and routines. They started with five
short books on the theme of “Becoming Independent” and
saved longer books for later in the year. They took turns
giving “advertisements” for each story, tantalizing the
class with enough of the story to hook their interest, and
encouraged students to scan them before submitting their
first three choices. Considering students’ choices, they formed
five groups with five students in each. In addition to mixing
students by gender, race, and first language, they put some
students who might not know each other well in the same
group to enhance socialization. They placed two students
with disabilities in each of three groups to provide them with
structured support more easily. The teachers told students
who did not get their first choice that they would honor their
first requests the next time they had literature circles.
Managing the Literature
Circles Process
Once coteachers form literature circles, they should establish
an instructional schedule. It should be flexible enough to
allow for a varying amount of teacher involvement with
groups and individuals over time.
Establishing a Schedule
Coteachers should create an instructional cycle that determines how much time is dedicated on a daily and weekly
basis to literature circles (see Table 1). The literature circles
cycle can be uninterrupted or interspersed with other activities on specified days. Ms. Briggs and Ms. Coulter established a short session before the circles to give directions or
teach a strategy to the whole class or selected individuals.
Then during circle time, both teachers would scaffold initial
discussions by interacting with students to support their language development and later diminish that support as students
217
Whittaker
Table 1. Literature Circles Schedule on a 3-Day Cycle
Day, circles, and teachers involved
Time allotted
15 min
20 min
10 min
Activity
1
2
3
Independent work or focus group lessons
All
Circle 1a
Ms. Coulter
Circle 2a
Ms. Briggs
Circles 3, 4a, 5, 6
All
Circle 3
Ms. Briggs
Circle 4a
Ms. Coulter
Circles 1a, 2a, 5, 6
Evaluation and check-in
All
All
All
Circle 5
Ms. Briggs
Circles 1a, 2a, 3, 4a
Ms. Coulter
All
Large group
Literature circles
a. These circles include two students with disabilities.
take responsibility for discussing their own questions
(Blum et al., 2002). They allowed time after circles met to
monitor group or individual progress. They planned three
opportunities for literature circles during the school year,
knowing that they also needed to work with students on
leveled texts to improve reading comprehension outside the
literature circles experience.
Varying Teacher Involvement
As it becomes apparent which circles can function independently and which need more intensive instruction, teachers
can meet with the latter groups to deliver evidence-based
literacy instruction that describes and models the skill, provides guided practice with corrective feedback, and monitors
progress. This support should be faded over time to meet
the goal of literature circles: student-led discussion (Allen,
Möller, & Stroup, 2003; Clarke & Holwadel, 2007; PaxtonBuursma & Walker, 2008). If only a few students need
assistance on specific skills, a teacher can direct regularly
scheduled circles to proceed on their own while a teacher
meets with a small group or individual to provide a focus
lesson on a particular strategy.
The school schedule allowed 45 minutes each day for
Ms. Briggs and Ms. Coulter’s English language arts
class. Each period began with directions to the whole class
on how to participate in literature circles (see Guiding the
Literature Circles Process below). They decided that they
wanted circles to last 20 minutes at the beginning of the
year, with the goal of extending them to 35 minutes by June.
To give students sufficient time to read, they set up a schedule based on a 3-day cycle. Initially one teacher met with
each group to determine the extent to which they understood the literature circles process and to predict the need
for future support. In addition, Ms. Coulter was available
on Day 3 to work with students who might need help with
literacy skills.
Guiding the Literature
Circles Process
A central tenet of literature circles is that students have
ownership of their thinking and discourse, which requires
them to learn to function as mature readers (Daniels, 2002).
Therefore, readers control the discussion topics. However,
coteachers can guide students to become independent
learners by carefully structuring the process.
One way to scaffold the discussion process is to assign a
different role to each member of the group. Daniels (2002)
has suggested basic roles (i.e., connector, questioner, vocabulary enricher, literary luminary, and summarizer) and
designed role sheets to guide students’ thinking and prompt
written response. Optional roles (e.g., researcher, illustrator,
and travel tracer) may be added as appropriate (see Table 2).
Initial role assignments should be made based on corresponding goals in students’ IEPs or other assessment data. If
students are unfamiliar with the roles, it is important to introduce, model, and practice each role as a group. Typically,
students rotate roles each time they meet; however, some
circles or students may need continued practice with a
particular role. Table 2 suggests literacy skills needed for
each role with examples of student responses from Tuck
Everlasting by Natalie Babbitt (1975).
Since most students were new to literature circles,
Ms. Briggs and Ms. Coulter introduced and explained
the five basic roles to the class. First they decided to demonstrate the questioner’s role. Ms. Briggs read the text aloud
and Ms. Coulter stopped her when she had a question
about the characters’ interactions, the setting, or plot.
Mrs. Coulter asked open-ended questions that usually
started with “how” or “why.” They exchanged ideas by
citing the text and their own experience. Then Ms. Coulter
read aloud and asked students to ask questions to which
other students were encouraged to respond. The teachers
talked about what made a good question and highlighted
218
Intervention in School and Clinic 47(4)
Table 2. Literature Circle Roles, Definitions, Literacy Strategies, and Examples
Role
Connector
Questioner
Vocabulary
enricher
Literary
luminary
Summarizer
Researcher
Illustrator
Travel
tracer
Definition
Literacy strategies required
Makes associations
between the text
and personal
experience, events,
or other texts
Asks a question,
seeks clarification,
offers a critique
Analyzing, interpreting, inferring,
relating
The description of the highest seat in the Ferris wheel in
August reminds me of going on the Ferris wheel last
summer and getting stuck for a half hour. I was scared!
Asking when you do not
understand, forming higherorder questions, making or
challenging a prediction
Learning unfamiliar words,
understanding figurative
language
Recognizing text structures and
genres, understanding literary
elements
Finding the main idea and
important details
Why do you think the author says that it would have been
a huge disaster if people found the spring in the woods?
Why do you think Winnie will go in the woods?
Record and
define new and
important words
Rereads memorable
or important
parts of the text
Gives the gist of the
reading
Examples from Tuck Everlasting
“The weeks that come before are only a climb from
balmy spring.” Definition of “balmy”—soothing, calm, or
pleasant
“These are strange and breathless days, the dog days, when
people are led to do things they are sure to be sorry for
after.” This sentence made me want to keep reading.
This story takes place in Treegap in the mid-August. The
Foster family owns a house and nearby woods. Few
people, not even their daughter Winnie, ever go into the
woods. Mae Tuck goes to the woods to meet her two
sons every 10 years.
There is no place in the United States called Treegap, so
there is a good chance this story is made up.
Finds background
information
related to the text
Creates a graphic of
the text
Gaining important information
Visualizing a situation or
concept
A picture of the Foster’s cottage with a four-foot iron
fence
Draws the
important plot
movements
Sequencing
A map tracing Winnie’s trip from her cottage to the Tucks’
home
the specific wording of students’ questions that involved
critical thinking.
Next, they divided the class into their circles and asked
all students to write open-ended questions in their response
journals as they read. Then each student asked one of their
questions while others in their circle answered based on the
text and their own prior knowledge. The teachers listened in
and commented on good questioning skills. At the end of the
period, they reconvened the entire class to summarize what
makes a good question. Students wrote prompts for accomplishing the questioner’s role in their response journals.
Supporting All Learners
Students should be encouraged to read and write based on
their readiness and learning preference. Some will read independently, some with a peer, and some with the support of
technology. Students who struggle may need to learn strategies for comprehending text and formulating appropriate role
sheet responses. For example, students who need to develop
their vocabulary can be the vocabulary enricher. A traditional
role sheet might require students to list the page number of
unfamiliar vocabulary words accompanied by the definition.
However, some students may benefit from more explicit
teacher guidance while completing a role sheet that includes
a graphic organizer such as a vocabulary map for each new
word (Hairrell et al., 2011). A vocabulary map can include a
variety of elements that support meaning: the new word, the
sentence using the word in the text, a student-generated definition based on context, a dictionary definition, an illustration,
a synonym, or an antonym. During a focus group, a teacher can
discuss and model aloud the use of each part of the vocabulary map for a particular word, guide the students’ attempt to
use the map, and finally assess their independent use.
Many students who struggle with comprehension should
learn the summarizer role. However, they will need more
than a role sheet that simply asks them to summarize what
they have read. One solution is to provide explicit instruction in story mapping, a strategy for identifying critical elements of the story to aid recall (Stone, Boon, Fore, Bender,
& Spencer, 2009). The teacher introduces the meaning of
these elements (i.e., characters, setting, events, problems,
solutions) with a graphic organizer and then models her or
his thought process while identifying each element using a
219
Whittaker
familiar story and writing a summary sentence. Next, teachers
and students practice “thinking aloud” together on another
accessible text with the teacher providing prompts if necessary (e.g., Who are the important characters? What problem
did they encounter? How can I say that in a sentence?). If,
after independent practice, there are students who still
struggle with the process, the teacher can provide practice
with story cards that provide a graphic and written prompt
for each element (Whalon & Hanline, 2008). Alternatively,
coteachers can ask more specific questions about the text
(e.g., What problem is Winnie having with her parents?) or
think aloud about how to incorporate story elements into a
summarizing sentence.
Once students are more experienced in using the various
thinking processes that role sheets reinforce, alternative formats can be substituted (see Evaluating Student Progress
below; Daniels & Steineke, 2004; Long & Gove, 2003–2004;
Schlick Noe & Johnson, 1999). Teachers can use blogs and
related online resources (e.g., Moodle, ThinkQuest, Blogger)
to create virtual literature circles (Collins, 2010; Day & Kroon,
2010; Kitsis, 2010). Initially, teachers report a variety of
ways to structure a virtual discussion such as approving and
posting the students’ discussion prompts and requiring one
comment with a word limit and then adjusting requirements
as students become familiar with the online environment.
Most students are very enthusiastic about virtual discussions,
participate more often, feel more comfortable admitting their
confusions about text, and formulate their responses more
thoughtfully (Day & Kroon, 2010; Kitsis, 2010). Teachers
usually combine online with face-to-face circles, reporting
that online discussions allow them to “listen in” without
having their presence change the dynamic. As is true with
face-to-face circles, students need strategies and prompts
for conducting meaningful discussions.
Varying Coteaching Arrangements
To differentiate literature circles for all learners in a general
education classroom, coteachers can be involved with literature circles in a variety of ways (Schlick Noe & Johnson,
1999). Formats for teacher involvement range from most to
least intensive and include teacher as leader, group member, outside observer of one group, and roaming observer of
multiple groups. Since the goal is student-led discussion,
the level of teacher involvement is diminished over time
based on each group’s previous experience, literacy skills,
interpersonal skills, and quality of response.
Coteaching enhances the differentiation process because
both teachers are available to facilitate the literature circles
process and then lead focus groups in response to specific
group or individual needs (Sileo & vanGarderen, 2010).
Friend and Cook (2010) identified six essential models for
coteaching (i.e., one teach, one drift; one teach, one observe;
parallel teaching; alternative teaching; station teaching; and
team teaching). Ms. Coulter and Ms. Briggs exemplified
team teaching when they introduced literature circle roles.
They used station teaching on Days 1 and 2 when they each
met with a different circle and the other students were reading and completing role sheets. On Day 3, they implemented
a type of alternative teaching since Ms. Briggs met with a
circle and Ms. Coulter was able to meet with selected students to provide specialized instruction (see Table 1).
Ms. Briggs and Ms. Coulter met during their biweekly
planning period to discuss the students’ progress by reviewing the students’ role sheets, journals, and the anecdotal
records they had taken while leading the groups. Using a
planning guide to structure Cycle 2, they decided that during
the large group time all students needed to develop the discussion strategy of “piggybacking.” Piggybacking is the
ability to expand on, question, or clarify other circle members’ contributions (Paxton-Buursma & Walker, 2008).
During the first cycle of literature circles, many students
started their literature circles by simply reporting on what they
had written on their role sheets without responding to their
peers. The teachers agreed that Circles 1, 2, and 4 still
needed the teacher to lead the discussion to prompt piggybacking whereas the others could meet with the teacher as a
member to give positive and corrective feedback. In addition,
they noticed that the questioners in Circles 1–4 could benefit
from strategy instruction on higher order questioning. In fact,
Renee, who had a learning disability, had recorded only one
detail question on her role sheet for Circle 4.
Ms. Coulter and Ms. Briggs used a planning sheet to design
and organize their instruction (see Table 3). During the large
group time, they would teach the students how to “piggyback.”
In addition, Ms. Coulter would provide specialized instruction
to Rene on Day 1 by reviewing, modeling, and practicing
good questioning using cue cards with “how” and “why”
questions as prompts.
During the literature circles time they would employ station teaching, either leading or being a member of the group
to practice piggybacking and take anecdotal records. On
Day 3, Ms. Coulter would practice good questioning with
Rene and the other students who had the questioner role.
During check-in, both teachers would give feedback to
the students on their progress with piggybacking. Students
would self-evaluate, writing a goal for improvement in the
next cycle. During Cycle 3 the teachers hoped to become
observers of all circles, rather than leaders, and use some
of the evaluation tools described below to monitor individual progress.
Evaluating Student Progress
Literature circles provide multiple opportunities for assessment of students’ reading comprehension, oral language, written
220
Intervention in School and Clinic 47(4)
Table 3. Literature Circles Planning Guide for Cycle 2
Coteaching arrangement and instruction
Activity
Teacher
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Alternate teaching
Team teaching
Parallel teaching
Large group
Ms. Briggs
Introduce piggybacking and
sentence prompts
Ms. Coulter
Meet with Rene to model and
practice questioning strategies
Literature
circles
Station teaching
Ms. Briggs
Ms. Coulter
Independent
work
a
Lead Circle 2 ; assess
piggybacking
Lead Circle 1a; assess
piggybacking
Circles 3, 4a, 5, 6; read books
and complete role sheets
Parallel teaching
a
Review steps of
piggybacking; model
target skills with
Ms. Coulter
Model target skills with
Ms. Briggs
Station teaching
Member of Circle 3;
assess piggybacking
Lead Circle 4a; assess
piggybacking
Circles 1a, 2a, 5; read
books and complete
role sheets
Parallel teaching
Practice piggybacking with
Circles 2a, 3, 5
Practice piggybacking with
Circles 1a and 4a
Alternative teaching
Member of Circle 5; assess
piggybacking
Practice questioning strategy
with Circles 1a, 2a, 3, 4a
None
Alternative teaching
Evaluation and
check-in
Ms. Briggs
Give Circle 2 ; feedback on
piggybacking; students set
goals
Give Circle 3 feedback
on piggybacking;
students set goals
Give Circle 5 feedback on
piggybacking; students set
goals
Ms. Coulter
Give Circle 1a feedback on
piggybacking; students set
goals
Give Circle 4a feedback
on piggybacking;
students set goals
Give Rene feedback on
questioning; Rene sets goal
a. These circles include two students with disabilities.
expression, group discussion, and independent work skills.
Therefore, coteachers should agree on which skills they
want to evaluate based on previous assessment, IEP goals,
and ongoing teacher monitoring. Evaluation can be accomplished using a variety of formats designed to provide either
teacher or student reflection (Salend, 2009; Schlick Noe &
Johnson, 1999).
Whether coteachers are facilitating or observing a literature circle, they should utilize simple formats for instructional decision making. For example, a list of group discussion
skills can prompt teachers to check off observed behaviors,
record the date, rate proficiency, or record examples or
comments (see Figure 1). If more in-depth data are desired,
teachers can audiotape or videotape circles or examine online
discussions. Alternatively, a coteacher can record a student’s
name and an example of a desired skill on sticky notes and
then organize them into student folders or portfolios.
Furthermore, students can reflect on their own reading, discussion, or independent work skills using rating scales or
respond to prompts in their response journals and set a goal
for improvement.
Coteachers can assess many reading comprehension and
written expression skills by reviewing the students’ role
sheets, response logs, or online posts to determine skill
proficiency (see Table 2). Once students have internalized
the skills needed to complete role sheets, they may switch to
other response modes such as open-ended prompts in journals
or blogs, bookmarks, comments on sticky notes, drawings
with captions, face-to-face conferences, and written conversations (Daniels, 2002, 2006; Schlick Noe & Johnson,
1999). Teachers can compile these options in a portfolio to
give a comprehensive view of learning and share them with
families. Some coteachers feel that an individual or group
book project provides an excellent culminating experience
for literature circles (e.g., talk shows, tableaux, song parodies, glogs). Students enjoy using PowerPoint, TuxPaint,
and Glogster for their book projects. These projects are most
helpful when they encourage students to reread and deepen
their understanding, allow for a variety of learning preferences, and require real audiences.
With two teachers available, evaluation can occur throughout the literacy period. One coteacher can assess a student’s
reading comprehension, fluency, or vocabulary knowledge
while the other teacher leads the large group time (Espin,
Shin, & Busch, 2005; Garcia, 2007). During circles, a coteacher can observe all or particular students’ ability to ask
higher-order questions or piggyback and later meet with
small groups needing remediation or enrichment. The final
221
Whittaker
Discussion Strategies
Students in Literature
Circle
S1
S2
S3
S4
Examples/Comments
S5
Initiates a discussion
Elaborates on or extends another
student’s comment
Asks for clarification
Supports a point with textual
evidence
Listens courteously and effectively
Encourages others to speak
Recognizes other’s contributions
Shares discussion time
Uses appropriate body language
Disagrees respectfully
Mediates a conflict
Rating – 1=Proficient; 2=Partially Proficient; 3=Proficient; 4=Advanced
Figure 1. Literature circles discussion strategies rubric
Source: Adapted from Blum, Lipsett, and Yocum (2002) and used by permission.
evaluation and check-in time provides an opportunity for
teachers to review role sheets or other data collected. The
rubric in Figure 1 could be simplified for students to use
for self-reflection and goal setting.
Ms. Briggs and Ms. Coulter met again after Cycle 2 to
review the data collected and plan the next cycle of literature
circles. They agreed that most students were conversing with
each other by using piggybacking strategies. They used their
anecdotal records to determine which students still needed
practice during Cycle 3. Consulting their list of discussion
strategies, they decided to teach the skill of asking for clarification to the whole class next. During the final 10 minutes,
they would give feedback and ask students to set an individual discussion skill goal for the next circle.
The coteachers understood that their students would need
to learn many literacy skills before they could all function
independently within a literature circles approach. Their
long-term plan was to use literature circles two more times
during the school year, establish a schedule that allowed for
intensive literacy instruction based on progress monitoring
within and between literature circles, and incorporate virtual
discussion. They knew it would take time for both the students
and themselves to become comfortable with new coteaching
arrangements, but they were excited about the opportunity to
see their students develop academically and socially and to
grow as professionals in an inclusive environment.
Summary
Literature circles hold great promise for increasing students’
enjoyment of reading of different genres and honing
their literacy skills in the inclusive classroom. Students
who are avid or struggling readers can participate enthusiastically when they choose their own texts and receive
deliberate instruction in the literature circles process.
Literature circle discussions are not a substitute for the
small group instruction needed by students with learning
disabilities, but by connecting data from discussions with
systematic focus lessons, coteachers can differentiate for
individual student needs. Furthermore, having two teachers in the classroom who are skilled at a variety of coteaching arrangements and share the monitoring of student
progress maximizes the differentiation of instruction and
quality of response.
222
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Financial Disclosure/Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
1. The vignettes in this article are a fictionalized account that is
drawn from more than one authentic situation and sketched
together as an aggregated scenario. All names are pseudonyms.
References
Allen, J., Möller, K. J., & Stroup, D. (2003). “Is this some kind
of soap opera?” A tale of two readers across four literature
discussion contexts. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 225–251.
Anderson, P. L., & Corbett, L. (2008). Literature circles for students
with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44,
25–33.
Babbitt, N. (1975). Tuck everlasting. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Blum, H. T., Lipsett, L. R., & Yocum, D. J. (2002). Literature circles.
Remedial and Special Education, 23, 99–108.
Certo, J., Moxley, K., Reffitt, K., & Miller, J. A. (2010). I learned
how to talk about a book: Children’s perceptions of literature
circles across grade and ability levels. Literacy Research &
Instruction, 49, 243–263. doi:10.1080/19388070902947352
Clarke, L. W., & Holwadel, J. (2007). “Help! What is wrong with
these literature circles and how can we fix them?” Reading
Teacher, 61, 20–29.
Collins, J. (2010). Transform global literature circles with Web
2.0. Library Media Connection, 29(2), 24–25.
Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book
clubs and reading groups (2nd ed.). Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Daniels, H. (2006). What’s the next big thing with literature circles.
Voices from the Middle, 13(4), 10–13.
Daniels, H., & Steineke, N. (2004). Mini-lessons for literature
circles. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Day, D., & Kroon, S. (2010). “Online literature circles rock!”
Organizing online literature circles in a middle school classroom. Middle School Journal, 42(2), 18–28.
Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions
for success. High School Journal, 86(4), 1–13.
Espin, C. A., Shin, J., & Busch, T. W. (2005). Curriculum-based
measurement in the content areas: Vocabulary matching as
an indicator of progress in social studies learning. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 38, 353–363.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills
for school professional (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C.
(2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of
Intervention in School and Clinic 47(4)
collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational
& Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9–27. doi:10.1080/
10474410903535380
Garcia, T. (2007). Facilitating the reading process: A combination
approach. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 12–17.
Hairrell, A., Simmons, D., Swanson, E., Edmonds, M., Vaughn, S.,
& Rupley, W. H. (2011). Translating vocabulary research to
social studies instruction: Before, during, and after text-reading
strategies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 204–210.
doi:10.1177/1053451210389606
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L.
No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
IRIS Center. (n.d.). Bookshare: Providing accessible materials
for students with print disabilities. Retrieved from http://iris
.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/bs/chalcycle.htm
Jitendra, A., Burgess, C., & Gajria, M. (2011). Cognitive strategy
instruction for improving expository text comprehension of
students with learning disabilities: The quality of evidence.
Exceptional Children, 77, 135–159.
Keefe, E. B., Moore, V., & Duff, F. (2004). The four “knows” of
collaborative teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5),
36–42.
King-Sears, M. E., & Bowman-Kruhm, M. (2010). Attending to
specialized reading instruction for adolescents with mild disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(4), 30–40.
Kitsis, S. (2010). The virtual circle. Educational Leadership, 68(1),
50–56.
Long, T. W., & Gove, M. K. (2003–2004). How engagement
strategies and literature circles promote critical response
in a fourth-grade urban classroom. Reading Teacher, 57,
350–361.
McDuffie, K. A., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2009). Differential effects of peer tutoring in co-taught and non-co-taught
classes: Results for content learning and student- teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75, 493–510.
Moin, L. J., Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2009). Instructional activities and group work in the US inclusive high school co-taught
science class. International Journal of Science & Mathematics
Education, 7, 677–697. doi:10.1007/s10763-008-9133
Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies
for co-teaching at the secondary level. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 36(5), 52–58.
Nichols, J., Dowdy, A., & Nichols, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An
educational promise for children with disabilities of a quick
fix to meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind? Education,
130, 647–651.
Paxton-Buursma, D., & Walker, M. (2008). Piggybacking: A
strategy to increase participation in classroom discussion by
students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 28–34.
Raphael, T. E., Florio-Ruane, S., & George, M. (2004). Book club
plus: Organising your literacy curriculum to bring students to
high levels of literacy. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 27(3), 198–216.
223
Whittaker
Roberts, G., Torgesen, J., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N.
(2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of
older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 23(2), 63–69. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826
.2008.00264.x
Salend, S. J. (2009). Classroom testing and assessment for all
students: Beyond standardization. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Schlick Noe, K. L., & Johnson, N. J. (1999). Getting started with
literature circles. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007).
Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.
Sencibaugh, J. (2007). Meta-analysis of reading comprehension
interventions for students with learning disabilities: Strategies and implications. Reading Improvement, 44(1), 6–22.
Sileo, J., & vanGarderen, D. (2010). Creating optimal opportunities to learn mathematics: Blending co-teaching structures
with research-based practices. Teaching Exceptional Children,
42(3), 14–21.
Stone, R. H., Boon, R. T., Fore, C., Bender, W. N., & Spencer, V. G.
(2009). Use of text maps to improve the reading comprehension skills among students in high school with emotional and
behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 33(2), 87–98.
Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for
students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: Guilford.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying
message in LD intervention research: Findings from research
syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99–114.
Whalon, K., & Hanline, M. F. (2008). Effects of a reciprocal questioning intervention on the question generation and responding of children with autism spectrum disorder. Education and
Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 367–387.
About the Author
Catharine R. Whittaker, PhD, is a professor of special education
at SUNY New Paltz. Her current interests include adolescent learners with disabilities, diverse student populations, and using case
studies in higher education.