Research into Practice Karen D.

Wood, Editor

D. Bruce Taylor

Classroom discussion is so often used as a teaching

strategy in American middle school classrooms (Ewens,
2000) that it is an often taken-for-granted part of the
"grammar of schooling" (Tyack & Tobin, 1994; Tyack &
Cuban, 1995). An integral part of literacy in our society
(Myers, 1996), large- and small-group discussion is
influenced by many factors such as gender (Crowston
& Kammerer, 1998; Godinho & Shrimpton, 2002;
Wolfe, 2000), socioeconomic status (Lubienski, 2000),
and cultural influences including race (Delpit, 1995;
Ladsen-Billings, 2000; Wolfe, 2000). Pedagogic traditions
can unintentionally undermine student engagement.
Marshall (1989) found that in secondary English
classrooms, teachers' primary goal was to engage students
in lively discussions to foster deep analysis of texts, yet the
teachers dominated most literary discussions.
History and tradition notwithstanding, discussion
and questioning can be modeled and taught by teachers
and can foster comprehension (Lloyd, 2004; Alvermann
& Hayes, 1989) and higher-level cognitive skills (Delaney,
1991). Vasquez (2003) used classroom discussion to
promote "critical conversations" that led K-6 students
in her study to create social action projects in their
classrooms.
Discussion formats and strategies exist that can help
both teachers and students create more engaging and
lively discussions across subject areas in middle level
classrooms. The strategies included in this article serve
two primary purposes: (a) scaffolding instructional

techniques for teachers who want to create more lively

and engaged classroom discussions, and (b) providing a
structure to model such discursive practices for students.

Fishbowl discussions
Fishbowl is a way to organize a medium- to large-group
discussion that promotes student engagement and can
be used to model small-group activities and discussions.
Fishbowls have been used by group work specialists and
in counseling (Furr & Barret, 2000; Hensley, 2002),
business (Smart & Featheringham, 2006), and education
(Kong, 2002; Priles, 1993; Slade & Conoley, 1989). Kong
(2002) found fishbowls to be an effective strategy to
foster student engagement in book club discussions.
Research suggests that fishbowls work with students
of diverse abilities. Priles (1993) used the discussion
strategy with large groups of honors students, while
Slade and Conoley's (1989) research focused on special
education students.
Fishbowl takes its name from the way seats are
organized with an inner circle and outer circle. Typically,
there are three or five seats in the inner circle with the
remaining seats or desks forming a larger outer circle.
Not all classroom arrangements allow for the creation of
a distinct inner and outer circle, but seats or tables can
be arranged in a similar pattern with a table or small
group of chairs more or less in the middle of the room
and other students facing this group.

This article reflects the following This We Believe characteristics: Students and teachers engaged in active learning - Curriculum that
is relevant, challenging. integrative, and exploratory -

54

Middle School Journal September 2007

Multiple learning and teaching approaches that respond to student diversity

Fishbowl discussions have multiple purposes.

Fishbowls can be effective teaching tools for modeling
group processes (Hensley, 2002; Priles, 1993), for
engaging students or other groups in discussions of
cross-cultural or challenging topics (Slade & Conoley,
1989), or for giving students greater autonomy in
classroom discussions (Dutt, 1997; Gall & Gillett, 1980).

thoughts and ideas rather than on the teacher's.

Teachers can extend students' participation by allowing
them to generate questions for the discussion. Students
can bring these as "entry tickets" to the discussion
or can work in small groups to generate questions
collaboratively. Fishbowl is a flexible format that can also
be used by teachers to model small-group discussion.

Fishbowl as a student-centered discussion activity

Fishbowl as a tool for modeling discussion

The teacher arranges the room in a fishbowl, with inner

and outer circles of students, and often assigns a text
(section of a textbook or book, a poem, an article, or a
video) to be read or viewed prior to the discussion. The
teacher can generate a set of questions by writing them
on slips of paper or index cards, or students can write
questions or comments on cards. Four or five students sit
in the inner fishbowl and begin a discussion using the
questions; only these students can talk. If a student in
the outer circle wants to say something, he or she must
get up, tap one of the students in the inner circle on the
shoulder, and take his or her place. Whenever a student
is "tapped out" of the fishbowl, he or she takes a seat
in the outer circle and cannot speak unless he or she
returns to the inner fishbowl by tapping another student
out. If students are reluctant to enter the fishbowl, the
teacher can change the rules so that, after a few minutes,
the inner group can tap others into the fishbowl. If
students are too quick to jump into the fishbowl (that
is, they do not give their peers a fair amount of time to
talk before tapping them out), the teacher can set a time
limit of one, two, or three minutes during which students
cannot be tapped out.

Middle school students are social and know how to talk

with one another; however, teachers usually find small
and large-group discussions about subject matter more
challenging to facilitate. Fishbowl can be a vehicle for
modeling and having a meta-discussion about discussion.
As in the example above, the teacher and students
arrange the room with an inner and outer circle. The
teacher selects an appropriate text such as a poem, a
short story, a brief article, or a few pages of a textbook or
book and assigns students to read the selection in class
or for homework. After all students have read the text
on their own, the teacher selects three to five students
for the fishbowl group to discuss the text. They can say
or ask anything they want. The outer circle must remain
quiet but can write down their observations about the
discussion. After several minutes, the inner group
stops, and the outer circle critiques the discussion or
offers suggestions to the fishbowl group. The teacher
can point out strengths of the discussion, offer helpful
comments and questions, and make suggestions for ways
to strengthen the discussion. This is a great way to model
a discussion and talk about what makes for an effective
small-group discussion.

Fishbowl can be a vehicle for modeling and haVing

a meta-discussion about discussion.

This discussion format can be used in any subject

area classroom in which student-centered discussion
is desired. The author has used this format in primary
and secondary English language arts, science, social
studies, and mathematics classrooms on such topics as
global warming, the Holocaust and World War II, and
various novels and shon stories. It has also been effective
in math classes for discussions of problem solving. Used
this way, fishbowl discussions place the focus on students'

Fishbowl discussions can be used to model

discussions of challenging or controversial material in
any subject area. For example, a biology teacher can
use fishbowl at the outset of a unit on Evolution to help
students establish generative and appropriate boundaries
for their discussions about the topic. Similarly, a social
studies teacher can use fishbowl as a way to begin
discussions about issues such as slavery or segregation.

Also, fishbowl is a great way to model literature circle

Research mto PractlCe

55

or book club (Raphael & McMahon, 1994) discussions

in an English language arts class. Fishbowl is a flexible
and powerful tool that can help empower students in
discussions across subject areas. The next strategy, ticket
to talk, can be used in conjunction with fishbowl to
increase student ownership of classroom discussions.

Ticket to talk
Ticket to talk is a discussion strategy involving admission
or exit slips. Students create these slips by writing
anonymous comments or questions about a text or topic
at the end of a class period (an exit slip) or as homework
with an assigned reading (an admission slip to the next
day's class) (Fisher & Frey, 2004; Cere, 1985). Teachers
can use these student-generated questions for whole
class or small-group discussions or as writing prompts.
The value of student-generated questions should not
be underestimated. Their use can increase student
participation and allow teachers greater access to
students' levels of comprehension (O'Keefe, 1995).
Ticket to talk can be an effective tool to generate
questions for fishbowl discussions. Teachers assign a
reading in or out of class and give students a ticket to
talk slip as an admission slip to the fishbowl discussion.
Used this way, the authors have seen lively discussions
generated in a variety of middle level classrooms,

including science, social studies, language arts, health,

and family/consumer science.

Discussion webs
Discussion webs (Alvermann, 1992) encourage students
to engage the text and each other in thoughtful
discussion by creating a framework for students to
explore texts and consider different sides of an issue in
discussion before drawing conclusions (Wood & Taylor,
2005). Discussion webs are an alternative to teacher
dominated discussions to help activate prior knowledge
and make predictions about the text. This activity can
also help students who are not comfortable participating
in large-group discussions talk with a partner or in a
small group.
Discussion webs work well in various content areas.
For instance, discussion web is an excellent format
for considering differing views on global warming in
a science class (Wood & Taylor, 2005). As we see in
Figure 1, discussion web can also be used in an English/
language arts class. The group of sixth grade students
in this class was discussing Bridge to Terebithia (Paterson,
1977) after their literature circle group finished reading
the book. Students in a social studies class could use
discussion web to consider reasons for and against the
U.S. decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and

Figure 1 Discussion web paired with discussion of Bridge to Terebithia

Question
Should Jess have gone back to
Terebithia after the accident?

Reasons
He wanted to say goodbye to Leslie.
He needed to face his fear.
He was there to save May Belle.

;7

Reasons
It could have been dangerous.
It wasn't the same without Leslie.
He should have gone back when he
found out May Belle followed him.

He saw a sign (a bird) and it

made him feel better.

Conclusions
Yes. Even though it was
dangerous, going back to
Terebithia helped Jess.

56

MiddlE' School Journal September 2007

Nagasaki at the end of World War II or in a math class to

consider alternate ways to solve a multi-step problem.
As with strategies such as fishbowl and ticket to talk,
discussion webs help break the tradition of teacher
centered and controlled discussion and create an
opening for student engagement in conversations that
foster higher-level thinking (O'Keefe, 1995). However,
questions for discussion webs must be crafted carefully so
that they are yes/no questions. Discussion web does not
work with open-ended and nuanced questions but can
create meaningful and lively discussions about substantive
issues that arise in different subject area classrooms.
Motivation is an important aspect of engagement,
which, in turn, is itself an important prerequisite for
learning and a factor in reading achievement and text
comprehension (Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox,
1999). The strategies suggested above, such as fishbowl
and discussion web, are powerful tools for motivating
and engaging students in classroom discussions.
However, there are times when students' struggles with
challenging texts and material are more demanding,
requiring teaching strategies that offer opportunities
for modeling and scaffolding (Combs, 2004) of processes
that promote comprehension, such as say something
and QAR.

Say something
Say something (Short, Harste, & Burke, 1996) is a
metacognitive discussion strategy that provides students
with opportunities to increase comprehension and
monitor their understanding of diverse and challenging
texts. While the strategies suggested so far provide more
open-ended opportunities for students to discuss texts
and topics, say something is a more structured approach
to discussion. Say something provides a set of discussion
prompts for pairs of students to use in a text or topic
centered conversation. These prompts work well with
narrative and expository texts.
Teachers assign students a partner and then
assign a portion of a text that is read either silently or
aloud. Students take turns reading parts of the text
and, in turn, "say something" about what they have just
read. This might involve summarizing the material,
connecting with a character, or asking each other
questions. Partners take turns reading and saying
something until the text selection is complete. The rules
or prompts for say something are these:
Make a prediction.
-

Ask a question.

Figure 2 QAR with a science textbook reading about forest fires

"Right There"

"Think and Search"

"On My Own"

What are three common causes of forest fires?

Why are more homes affected by forest fires

(lightning strikes, volcanic eruptions,

today than 50 or 100 years ago? (Increases

on their own? (students can take a position

and humans)

in population, more homes built near forests,

for or against this)

Should forest fires be allowed to burn

more fire suppression today than in the past)

Research into Practice

57

Clarify something you had misunderstood.

Make a comment.
-

Make a connection.

When a student cannot do one of these five things, he

or she needs to reread the text selection. Say something
is a strategy that helps students who struggle with
comprehension learn to have what Wolfe (1995) calls
a conversation with the text. The range of questions
embedded in say something provides learners with a
metacognitive vocabulary for having that conversation,
which is the hallmark of successful reading and learning.
The final strategy, QAR, also helps scaffold discussions
and foster comprehension but places emphasis on the
kinds of questions we ask of texts.

Question-answer relationships (QAR)

Like its name suggests, question-answer relationships
(Raphael, 1982; Raphael & Au, 2005) is a strategy
that has students examine the relationship between a
question and the kind of information needed to answer
that question. QAR uses three or four categories of
questions, such as (a) "right there" questions that can
be answered directly from the text, (b) "think and
search" questions that require students to combine

their prior knowledge with information from the text

to make inferences, and (c) "in my head" questions that
students answer on their own. These categories cause
students to indicate whether the information they used
to answer questions about the text was textually explicit
information (information that was directly stated in the
text), textually implicit information (information that
was implied in the text), or information entirely from the
student's own background knowledge.
This strategy works well with both fiction and
nonfiction. Teachers and students can create questions
that fall into one of the three categories. It is helpful
for students to read the questions prior to reading the
text and to make predictions about which category each
question fits into. Teachers can model QAR using an
overhead transparency and then transfer responsibility
for using QAR to small groups, pairs, and then
individual students.
Figure 2 provides examples of the three kinds of
questions asked of students during a unit on natural
hazards in a science class. The first question, "What
are three common causes of forest fires?", is an explicit
question that requires students to go to a specific
section of the textbook to answer it. Students must use
information in the text to answer the second question,
"Why are more homes affected by forest fires today than
50 or 100 years ago?", but they must also make inferences
based on their knowledge of population increases over
the last century. Students can take a stand on either side
of the third question, "Should forest fires be allowed
to burn on their own?" Their answer may be informed
by what they have read, but it is essentially an opinion
question.
QAR can help foster a metacognitive conversation
among students about what a question demands of them.
It can provide a vocabulary or set of terms that can
be useful when students struggle to answer a question
during a discussion about a text. The teacher can ask
students to consider what kind of question is being
asked-a text implicit or explicit question. Finally, in an
era of high-stakes accountability testing, QAR is a useful
test-taking strategy for multiple choice test questions that
follow reading passages.

Conclusion
A small group of students learns to apply the question-answer
relationship strategy. P'wto'yAln" Geho

58

Middle School Journal September 2007

Strategies like fishbowl, discussion webs, and ticket to

talk can help middle grades teachers motivate students
to participate in active and comprehensive discussions

Kong, A. (2002, April). Scaffolding in a learning community ofpmctice:

in several content areas. They work with students across

ability levels and give more ownership of classroom
discussion to students. Motivation and engagement are
two key ingredients in fostering comprehension with
diverse learners, but for students who may struggle
with comprehension, we include QAR and say something.
These two strategies provide metacognitive tools
for students and provide teachers a way to model
meaningful discussion.

References
Alvermann, D. E. (1992). The discussion web: A graphic aid for
learning across the curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 45,92-99.
Alvermann, D. E., & Haves, D. A. (1989). Classroom discussion
of content area read'ing assignments: An intervention study.
Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 305-335.
Combs, D. (2004). A framework for scaffolding content area
reading strategies. Middle SchoolJournal, 36(2), 13-20.
Crowston, K., & Kammerer, E. (1998). Communicative style and
gender differences in computer-mediated communications. In
B. Ebo (Ed.), Cyberghetto or cybertopia? Race, class, and gender on
the internet (pp. 185-203). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Delaney, E. (1991). Applying geography in the classroom through
structured discussions. Journal of Geography, 90, 129-133.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people'S children: Cultural conflict in the
classroom. New York: The New Press.
Dun, K. M. (1997). The fishbowl motivates students to participate.
College Teaching, 45, 143-148.
Ewens, W. (2000). Teaching using discussion. In R. Neff & M.
Weimer (Eds.), Classroom communication: Collected readingsfor
effective discussion and questioning (pp. 21-26). Madison, WI:
Atwood Publishing.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2004). Improving adolescent literacy: Strategies at
work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Furr, S. R., & Barret, B. (2000). Teaching group counseling skills:
Problems and solutions. Counselor Education and Supervision,
40(2),94-104.

Gall, M. D., & Gillett, M. (1980). The discussion method in

classroom teaching. Theory into Practice, 19(2),98-103.
Gere, A. R. (Ed.). (1985). Roots in the sawdust: Writing to learn across
the diSCIplines. Urbana, lL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Godinho, S., & Shrimp ton, B. (2002, December). Exploring
differences in students' engagement in literature discussions. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Association
for Research in Education, Brisbane, Australia.
Guthrie,]. T, Wigfield, A., Metsala,]. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999).
Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension
and reading amount. Scientific Studies ofReading, 3, 231-256.
Hensley, L. G. (2002). Teaching group process and leadership: The
two-way fishbowl model. .Journalfor Specialists in Group Work, 27,
273-286.

:l. case study of a gradual release of responsibility from the teacher to

the students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

International Reading Association, San Francisco.

Ladsen-Billings, G. (2000). Fighting for our lives. Journal of Teacher
Education, 51(3), 206-214.
Lloyd, S. L. (2004). Using comprehension strategies as a
springboard for student talk. Journal of/ldolescent and Adult
Literacy, 49(2), 114-124.
Lubienski, S. T. (2000). A clash of social class cultures'
Students' experiences in a discussion-intensive seventh-grade
mathematics classroom. The Elementary SchoolJournal, 100,
377-403.
Marshall,]. D. (1989). Patterns of discourse in classroom discussions of
literature. Albany, NY: SUNY Albany, Center for the Learning
and Teaching of Literature.
Myers, M. (1996). Changing our minds: Negotiating English and literacy.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
O'Keefe, V. (1995). Speaking to think/thinking to speak: The importance
of talk in the learning process. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook
Publishers.
Paterson, K. (1977). Bridge to Terabithia. New York: Thomas Y.
Crowell.
Priles, M. A. (1993). The fishbowl discussion: A strategy for large
honors classes. TheEnglishJournal, 82(6), 49-50.
Raphael, T E. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children.
Reading Teacher, 36, 186-191.
Raphael, T E., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing
comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas.
The Reading Teacher, 59, 206-22\.
Raphael, T E., & McMahon, S. (1994). Book club: An alternative
framework for reading instruction. Reading Teacher, 48, 102-116.
Short, K. G., Harste,]., & Burke, C. (1996). Creatingclassroomsfor
authors and inquirers (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Slade,]. C., & Conoley, C. W. (1989). Multicultural experiences for
special educators. Teaching Exceptional Chzldren, 22(1),60-64.
Smart, K. L., & Featheringham, R. (2006). Developing effective
interpersonal communication and discussion skills. Business
Communication Quarterly, 69(3),276-283.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The "grammar" of schooling: Why
has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research
Journal, 31, 453-479.
Vasquez, V. (2003). Getting beyond "!like the book": Creating space
for cnticalliteracy in K-6 classrooms. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Wolfe,]. (2000). Gender, ethnicity, and classroom discourse:
Communication patterns of Hispanic and White students in
networked classrooms. Written Communication, 17,491-519.
Wolfe, D. P. (1995). Reading reconsidered: Literature and literacy In high
school. New York: The College Board.
Wood, K. D., & Taylor, D. B. (2005). Literacy strategies acroSs the
subject areas (2nd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Karen D. Wood is a professor of reading education and graduate reading program coordinator at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
E-mail: kdwood@emall.uncc.edu
D. Bruce Taylor is an assistant professor of reading and elementary education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
E-mail: dbtaylor@uncc.edu

Research into Practice

59