March 9, 1999: Six English Learners form their Literature Circle to discuss the book, James and the Giant Peach (Dahl, 1961). I am walking around to observe the other four literature circles. Each literature circle begins the discussion about the chapter or chapters read the night before. The "James and the Giant Peach" group is discussing the chapter where the Centipede sings a song about Aunt Spiker and Aunt Sponge being smashed by the giant peach. Kayla notes, "This song sounds like a poem to me. I love when Roald Dahl does this for us. I laugh and see the things happening in my head." Daniel agrees by saying, "Oh yeah, like he did in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but the Oompa-Loompas were singing, but really saying a poem." Josefina adds, "Yeah, but the poems, I mean, songs in Charlie were more funny and had more adjectives."

Kayla, Daniel, and Josefina are three of the seventeen Limited English Proficient students, or English Learners, in my classroom. We have been using Literature Circles as a vehicle to discuss literature since November of this school year. My students love "Lit Circles" and get upset if I don't give them their role sheets on time or cancel "Lit Circles" for some reason or another. My students are motivated to read and cannot wait until they select their next book to read for "Lit Circles." Since Literature Circles work in my classroom, the next question I have is this: What language interactions occur within literature circles and how might this affect the oral language development of English Learners?

Literature circles are reading discussion groups in which "we connect with one another around divergent, open-ended, interpretive questions-questions of value" (Daniels, 1994, p. 23). These literature circles provide a natural conversation about literature in which every participant shares his or her personal responses. This response to literature is one of the functions of language. We use language to communicate. In literature circles, children use oral language to communicate about written text. Searfoss and Readance (1994) describe the three roles of oral language: (1) Oral language instruction should utilize real experiences children have both in and out of school; (2) Oral language development should be viewed as an integral part of the whole school day, planned by arising from naturally occurring events in the classroom; and (3) Oral language (speaking and listening) activities should lead naturally into using the tools of reading and writing (p. 63). Thus, literature circles are natural, real experiences for students to develop their oral language.

In a recent study, Linda Souvenir (1997) researched the feasibility of implementing Literature Circles in a Kindergarten classroom. She found that Literature Circles provide an opportunity for Kindergartners to develop their oral language skills. The Kindergartners were "learning to express themselves, communicate, and contribute to a discussion about books that was meaningful to them" (pp. 191-194).

Oral language development in English Learners has been reviewed and analyzed by many advocates of bilingual education, including Stephen Krashen. Krashen (1996) discusses how English learners learn conversational language and academic language (p. 60). Krashen uses James Cummins' work to describe conversational language as the language of everyday language, which is heavily contextualized. In contrast, academic language is the language of school, which is more decontextualized. That is, language must be comprehended with less contextual help. Krashen argues that ESL classes do help in the acquisition of conversational language. However, conversational language is not enough. What is needed to develop academic language is free voluntary reading (p.61). Krashen states, "It has been established that free reading, reading we do because we want to, is the major source of our reading ability, our vocabulary knowledge, our spelling ability, vocabulary size, and ability to deal with complex grammatical constructions" (p. 61). Given this knowledge of free voluntary reading, it follows that literature circles can promote the development of academic language.ooks that was meaningful to them" (pp. 191-194).

Oral language is developed through reading and responding to books in literature circles. In literature circles, students have the power to choose what literature is available to read. The student's job is to read (free voluntary read) and to respond to the literature in the discussion group. MacGillivray, Tse, and McQuillan (1995) observed second language and literacy teachers' conversations about the effectiveness of literature circles in their classrooms. These teachers saw literature circles in the second language "as a type of pleasure reading, which is one of the best ways to promote language development. This, of course, begs the question of why we learn languages. Ultimately, it is to make links to other people. Relating to others is the goal of language, and making connections is the essence of literature circles" (p. 39.)

Once again, the goal of language is to relate to others, and we do that by communicating. Making connections with other members in the literature circle is done by listening, agreeing, or even disagreeing with fellow members. Another second language and literacy teacher quoted in MacGillivray, Tse, and McQuillan's observation agrees that literature circles encourage second language students: "I know that the circles have essentially replaced the textbooks as forms of input in the language. Not only is everything covered in the reading of stories and articles-grammar, vocabulary, discourse forms, idioms, and so forth-but it is done in a highly comprehensible and interesting way" (p.39). Literature circles are thus an excellent vehicle for language growth.

Given the knowledge that literature circles promote language growth, the next question is what types of language growth are seen in literature circles. What language interactions are taking place in the discussion of literature? Wendy C. Kasten (1995) believes that literature circles promote peer discussions, negotiation of ideas, and the expression of comprehension. The expression of comprehension is a feature that is most common in literature circles (p.70). Evelyn Hanssen (1990) also found the common occurrence of comprehension in literature circles. The members of the circle often begin their discussion by retelling the reading selection for that day to make sure everyone understands. Students also ask comprehension questions to clarify any questions or confusion (p.207). In a study of eighth grade small groups Nystrand, Gamoran, and Heck (1993) found similar expressions of comprehension, yet coherent (student) classroom talk promoted active production of knowledge, not just the recitation of it (p.16). This active production of knowledge is going deeper than the comprehension level of thinking.

Suzi Keegan and Karen Shrake (1991) believe that literature circles allow students to extend their comprehension level of thinking. They studied their fourth graders in literature circles and found them comparing and contrasting literature with events in their own lives, wondering about the author's purpose, noting similarities between one author and another , and raising their own questions (p. 545).

Literature circles do extend the comprehension level of thinking. So, what remains to be discussed in literature circle research is what this extended thinking sounds like in literature circles. This calls for assessment and evaluation. Bonnie Campbell Hill (1995) provides many examples of how to assess literature circles, especially when observing oral response. Hill states that many teachers use anecdotal notes to assess the student's strengths and abilities (p.168).

Sebesta, Monson, and Senn (1995) go a step further and have developed their own hierarchy to interpret students' responses to literature. However, the responses in Sebesta, Monson, and Senn's study were written. What seems to be missing in recent research on literature circles is how oral responses are categorized according to the levels of thinking. What are the levels of thinking that are occurring in literature circles?

Thus, the purpose of this research project is to address the question: What language interactions occur within literature circles and how might this affect the oral language development of English Learners? This study addresses the question with six English learners in the fourth grade who are responding to literature in a literature circle.

The six English Learners involved in this study were girls who already formed their literature circle three days before I began my observations. I observed them in my fourth grade classroom located in a public school in San Diego, California. The observations occurred for a period of four days, each day consisting of twenty minute observations of the literature circle. I wanted to know what language interactions occurred within literature circles and how these language interactions might affect the oral language development of English Learners.

Given the fact that my research project is qualitative, I learned the importance of using multiple sources of data to support my findings. This is called triangulation (Hubbard and Power, 1993). The three sources of data I used are audiotape transcripts, anecdotal notes, and vocabulary assessments.

In order to answer the first part of my question, I used a tape recorder to record every oral response given in the literature circle discussion. I recorded the group for two consecutive days. The length of discussions varied each day. The first day I was sitting in their literature circle to make sure the recorder was going. The second day I was outside the circle observing their discussion.

In order to answer the second part of my question, I took daily anecdotal notes for each girl to observe the frequency and function of their oral language exchanges. I adapted a form provided in Bonnie Campbell Hill 's (1995) book to organize my observations by adding my own categories to the form to customize the anecdotal observation sheet (Appendix A). I also gave a verbal language assessment, the Critchlow Verbal Language Scales (CORE, 1999, p.110), to assess the girls' vocabulary knowledge in a decontextualized setting, since Krashen (1996) states that English Learners need to develop Academic Language, the language of the school, which is decontextualized (p. 61). Therefore, the assessment I gave was to assess their academic language, which I believe has been developing via literature circles since October 1998.

I transcribed the tape-recorded discussions that occurred on the third and fourth days of my observation. In order to understand what types of language interactions were occurring in literature circles, I coded their responses into categories based on Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (Bloom, 1956): knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Appendix B).

After transcribing two days worth of discussions, I realized that putting their responses into categories was harder than I thought. In order to verify the reliability of my coding, I asked a colleague to categorize the responses as well. Where we experienced discrepancies in the coding, we discussed it and came to a final decision on the appropriate category (Appendix C).

I then categorized each girl's oral responses according to frequency and function (of oral language) using anecdotal notes (Appendix D). The functions of these oral responses represent objective and subjective levels of thinking. In the Critchlow Verbal Language Scales Assessment, vocabulary is assessed by asking the student to say the "opposite" of a series of words. The words on this assessment are arranged in increasing order of difficulty and scored to identify the approximate vocabulary grade level (Appendix E).

Finding #1: The types of language interactions that are occurring within literature circles vary cognitively with regard to Bloom's Taxonomy as shown in Figure 1.

The oral response represented the coginitve language interactions that were occurring during the literature circles. However, these responses were evaluated according to thirteen different functions of oral language. The most frequent function of oral language was the "explains" category, followed by the "expresses feelings" category. These two functions of oral language represent an efferent and aesthetic respons. An efferent response identifies information from the text whereas an aesthetic response identifies the student's feelings about the text (Rosenblatt, 1991).

The third most frequent function of oral language was the "shares reaction" category followed by the "relates to personal experience" category, both of which are aesthetic responses. The remaining categories represented six efferent responses with only four of them being utilized and three aesthetic responses with all three being utilized. In total, six functions of oral language were aesthetic in nature, while five functions of oral language were efferent in nature. The Majority of the response given most frequently were aesthetic responses. See Figure 2. Frequency and Function of Oral Language (Appendix D).

Finding #3: The cognitive language interactions within literature circles are affecting the oral language development of English learners in a positive, academic manner.

This verbal language assessment examines the girls' vocabulary in a decontextualized setting. Therefore, academic language has been assessed at levels from high second grade to high sixth grade levels of vocabulary knowledge. This assessment truly represents the culminating oral language development of literature circles which began six months prior. Nevertheless, the scores reflect positive, academic, oral language development, especially since half of the girls have a vocabulary knowledge at grade level (4th) or beyond.

Before I began this research, I had a good feeling about the effectiveness of literature circles for my Second Language Learners. Since October 1998, I have observed my students engaging in meaningful discussions about literature and expressing many levels of thinking. I also knew that my Second Language Learners were improving in their English oral skills due to increased production of academic language and the increased engagement of my students with reading during literature circles. After completing this research report, I am convinced that literature circles are one key to the successful development of English oral language for Second Language Learners.

The oral language development that takes place in literature circles is embedded with cognitive levels of thinking as well as aesthetic levels of thinking.During my transcriptions of the literature discussions, I became more aware of the many levels of thinking students did within the groups. I was impressed at times when the girls synthesized parts of the book into new meanings. I was also impressed by the way some of the girls referred to other books for comparison (Analysis). These levels of thinking were aesthetic responses to literature, which are a must in order to truly respond in an efferent manner.

The anecdotal notes I took truly showed just how much the girls were responding in an aesthetic manner. They were expressing their feelings constantly and sharing their reactions towards the chapter in question. Some girls were shy in nature and did not contribute as much to the discussion. For example, Rosie and Maria are very shy and hardly talk in class. However, their scores on the Critchlow Verbal Language Scales show that Rosie's vocabulary knowledge is at a high 4th grade level and Maria scored vocabulary knowledge at a low 6th grade level. There is much to be said about the power of listening, as these girls did the majority of the discussions.

The limitation of this vocabulary assessment is that I did not administer a pretest prior to beginning literature circles in my classroom six months ago. If I had, I would be able to give more reliable proof that literature circles do indeed increase the development of English oral language. However, I am satisfied with these assessment scores because by themselves they make a wonderful case for the implementation of literature circles for English Learners.

I am not done with my observations of English Language Learners participating in literature circles. I have just begun the wonderful discoveries of positive, academic, aesthetic learning behaviors in literature circles. I have learned that oral language development for English Learners must be fostered and cultivated in literature circles in order to produce both efferent and aesthetic responses to literature. I have found a new passion which has already proved itself to be successful in my bilingual classroom and I am looking forward to my next research on this wonderful strategy of literature circles.

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives-Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company, Inc.

Critchlow, D.E. (1999). Critchlow Verbal Language Scales. In Consortium On Reading Excellence-CORE (Eds.), (1999). Assessing Reading: Multiple Measures for Kindergarten through Eighth Grade. (pp. 108-111). Novato, CA: Arena Press.

Daniels, D. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in the student-centered classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Hanssen, E. (1990). Planning for Literature Circles: Variations in Focus and Structure. In K.G. Short & K.M. Pierce, (Eds.), Talking about Books: Creating Literate Communities, (pp.199-209). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hill, B.C. (1995). Chapter 12: Literature Circles: Assessment and Evaluation. In B.C. Hill, N.J Johnson, & K.L. Schlick (Eds.), Literature Circles and Response, (pp.167-198). NY: Christopher-Gordon.

Hubbard, R.S., & Power, B.M. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbook for teacher-researchers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kasten, W. (1995). Literature Circles for the Teaching of Literature-Based Reading. In M. Radencich & L. McKay (Eds.), Flexible Grouping for Literacy in the Elementary Grades, (pp.66-80). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Keegan, S., & Shrake, K. (1991). Literature study groups: An alternative to ability grouping. The Reading Teacher, 44. (8), 542-547.

Krashen, S. (1996). Under Attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates.

MacGillivray, L., Tse, L., & McQuillan, J. (1995). Second Language and literacy teachers considering literature circles: A play. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39,(1), 36-44.

Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., & Heck, M.J., (1993, January). Using small groups for response to and thinking about literature. English Journal, 14-22.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1991). Literature---S.O.S.! Language Arts, 68, 444-448.

Searfoss, L., & Readence, J. (1994). Helping children learn to read. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Sebesta, S.L., Monson, D.L., & Senn, H.D. (1995). A hierarchy to assess reader response. Journal of Reading, 38, (6), 2-9.

Souvenir, L. (1997). To what extent are LRCs developmentally appropriate for 5 and 6 year old kindergartners? In D.L. Grisham (Ed.), Seminar in Research Investigations in Reading and Language Arts, (pp.177-219). San Diego, CA: Aztec Shops

White, E.B. (1945). Stuart Little.

Book Title _________________________________ Date ___________________________________

Question of the Day ______________________________________________________________________ ________

Tally student responses that indicated any of the following:

Brisa: So, have you, ever got, like, do you know a lesson, do you know what E.B. White is trying to tell us?

Berta: Yeah

Brisa: Um, Berta

Berta: I think that E.B. White is trying to tell us that it not a good to be a mouse because they will step on you or sometimes they will make fun of you.

Brisa: Kayla?

Kayla: I think that E.B. White is trying to tell us that having adventures might be good and he has a lot of them.

Brisa: Maria?

Maria: I think that E.B. White is trying to say that it's good to be a mouse because you're tiny and you could go on adventures and bad because you could get stepped on and get hurt and..

Brisa: Or die

Yeah

Maria: A lot of people don't like them

Brisa: Sometimes they can get cracked

Pause

Rosalia: I think that E. B. White is trying to tell us that, well, I agree with Maria because when we want to be a mouse, it can be good or bad and maybe, um, you can like, in the part of yes is because you can drive to, uh, for example go to the zoo and not be seen by people and the part that there is a lot of pebblesand the part of no is because, well, kinda, kinda um, well I kind of agree with Maria

Josefina: Um, I agree with Monste because you can go like good adventures and bad adventures. Um, first of all in bad adventures because they can do traps on you or you could get like a trap on you. Some good adventures is if you want to go somewhere and they don't let you, it's like you could do it because you're small and they don't see you

Berta: And in this chapter, when he went to school I think that the boy might step on him like accidentally

Brisa: Or maybe they'll say, "Oh, he's disgusting, he's disgusting, I really don't want to be his friend and maybe they'll go like, "Oops, I stepped on your tail. Sorry." And then they'll start making fun of him.

Berta: And say like that he's little.

Everybody: Yeah, yeah

Kayla T.: I agree with that

Berta: Like he has little clothes...

Josefina: Like they'll step on the tail and then they're going to step on every part of him

Yeah.

Maria: Or die

Brisa: I got, when I was little, I saw a mouse and then my daddy brought it and then I said, "Oooh, a little mouse." And his eyes were red, like a lot of them have, eyes red, and I said, "Ooh." My dad said, "No, they were born like that." And I said, "Oh," and then I started to play with him. One day, I put him inside the....um......inside the, um, a book, or something, I have six, and then I got a new one, and then I put him inside a book , the big tall book, looks like this, like a little house closet thingamagigee for barbies that's for barbies for little girls, and then I put him in and then his tail got stuck and then I went, "Eeek." And then it died because he got a lot of pressure on his tail.

1. Knowledge (Remember). Requires such skills as remembering specifics: facts, terminology, events, and relationships. Examples: Recalling, brainstroming, defining, recounting, sorting.

2. Comprehension (Show understanding). The ability to understand the meaning of the material or ideas contained in it. Represents the lowest level of understanding. Examples: Understanding, restating, summarizing, recognizing.

3. Application (Use understanding): The ability to apply what has been learned to new situations and to make appropriate generalizations or to derive principles. Examples: Dramatizing, organizing, manipultaing, using, selecting.

4. Analysis (Examine): The breaking down of material into its component parts and the discovery of the relationships and organization of those parts. Examples: Comparing, contrasting, classifying, characterizing, examining, returning.

5. Synthesis (Create): Involves composing the parts of the material into something original--a creative act in which elements or parts are put together to form a new whole predicting on the basis of a new formulation. Examples: Creating, proposing, emulating, designing.

6. Evaluation (Decide): Making judgments according to a set of criteria. This includes rating, ranking and persuading. Examples: Justifying, ranking, persuading, predicting, rating.

Josefina: What changes would you do in Stuart Little? Kayla?

Kayla: I would like, put more like, stuff in it and put like more like details like the experience that Stuart Little is making and I would put more adventures.

Know.___ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth._X_ Eval.__

Josefina: Okay, Brisa?

Brisa: I would put that Stuart is bigger because I don't like that he can get stepped on like if I were Stuart I wouldn't like it if they stepped on me so I would make Stuart bigger....and I would ....

Know.___ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth._X_ Eval.__

Josefina: That's it? Berta?

Berta: Well I would like, well I agree with both of them that I would like iÕ that Stuart Little be like a boy not a mouse and I would like, if I were E.B. White I would like say make more adventures, make more like, make the book interesting, make the people laugh like Roald Dahl.

Know.___ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth.__X_ Eval.__

Josefina: Rosie?

Rosie: If I were E.B. White I would like um make Stuart Little to have a company like a girl or a boy but um so he doesn't feel lonely.

Know.___ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth.__X_ Eval.__

Josefina: Maria?

Maria: If I were E.B White I would um add more to the book cause it's getting interesting and I would and then I would, I agree with them cause, I would agree with them cause he should be a boy and not a mouse and that makes more sense.

Know.___ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth._X_ Eval.__

Josefina: Brisa?

Brisa: If I were E.B. White I would like um put him like Ralph in Mouse and the Motorcycle.

Know.___ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth._X_ Eval.__

Josefina: Um, wel l, um, I would put more details. If I were E.B. White I would like to ask him like why is he making him like a rat instead of a real person?

Know.___ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth.__X_ Eval.__

Everybody: Yeah, yeah....

Josefina: Um, can I hear from L.L?

Brisa: Okay, page 102 and the last last word and the next page is , I don't know what page but the first expression which means fresh.

Know.___ Comp._X_ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth.___ Eval.__

Josefina: Vocabulary Enricher?

Rosie: Page 84....Paragraph 3.......Um and the word is tempting and it means to move or extend in a certain force.

Know.___ Comp._X_ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth.___ Eval.__

Josefina: Can we here from Vocabulary Enricher...no, we already did that, um, Summarizer?

Kayla: Um the summary of this chapter was um that Stuart Little write a letter to Miss Amy and he write like that Amy, write that Amy could meet him at a place and go in a canoe and so um oh Stuart has to look for a canoe and go there.

Know.___ Comp._X_ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth.___ Eval.__

Josefina: Can we here from um Connector?

Berta: Well, I have something to connect in the chapter that I kinda one day, I had a mouse that, I was talking to you about, I bought him like a little like wheel and I was going faster and he was going faster and then I always call that a miracle that he goes faster when I do it and then he stopped and got a drink.

Josefina: Can we here from Illustrator?

Maria: Does anyone know where this picture comes from?

Brisa: It's when he's going in the canoe?

Know._X_ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth.___ Eval.__

Maria: No, riding in the boat. Right here. That's it. Look at it.

Know._X_ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth.___ Eval.__

Kayla: Okay, so that means riding in a canoe. Right?

Know.___ Comp._X_ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth.___ Eval.__

Josefina: So, Monday, we are going to read two chapters...

Berta: Two chapters on Monday..So we're done with the book.

Kayla: Yeah, we're done with the book

Josefina: Do you guys got um connections?

Berta: Um, I already did my connections.

Josefina: Does anyone has like questions, to E.B. White? Kayla?

Kayla: I think that E.B. White is um he's like writing about mouse to show us that mouse can do everything that they can like go on a lot of adventures because they're so small.

Know.___ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal._X_ Synth.___ Eval.__

Josefina: Maria?

Maria: I think that E.B. White trying to tell us that mouses, is like good and bad. It's good to be a mouse and bad to be a mouse.

Know.___ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal.__X Synth.___ Eval.__

Josefina: Brisa?

Brisa: I um have a question for E.B. White is that um like I'm scared of mouse but in this book he looks friendly and I think that E.B. White did this book for showing that mouse is not scary and you could see him really close and be like a pet and be nice to it but they're ugly but maybe they're nice.

Know.___ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth.___ Eval._X

Josefina: Kayla?

Kayla: I agree with Brisa. Maybe rats are good and just because they're mouse with red eyes doesn't mean they're scary or bad you know maybe they're good mouse that maybe they can teach you something.

Know.___ Comp.___ Appl.___ Anal.___ Synth.___ Eval.X_

Josefina: So we're done with our discussion. On Monday we're going to read two chapters, okay.