Week 2 Blog Kelsi Vidal

I thought the articles this week brought up some good points about having group discussions in class.  In the Almasi article "A New View of Discussion" I liked when she talked about students gaining new perspective, constructing meaning, or considering alternate interpretations of text by sharing ideas with their peers.  I think it is beneficial for students to construct their own meaning and bounce ideas off one another rather than just having the teacher tell them the answers or ask multiple questions.  The new view of discussions helps students make sense of the material by allowing them to obtain different roles such as inquisitor, facilitator, and evaluator rather than merely responding to questions with a single answer.  I think this view really helps students investigate the depth of the story and consider different dimensions through discussion. I thought the McGee article "Response-Centered Talk: Windows on Children's Thinking" related to the ideas of the new discussion.  Both articles focused on having discussions on a book and allowing students to share ideas and construct meaning and new understanding from that discussion and their peers.  The articles also have the teacher participating minimally in the discussion and only guiding students and responding when necessary.  I feel that these methods are a positive way to promote a classroom community and let students use each other as funds of knowledge.   I also think discussion is less intimidating if the students are in charge of responding to one another rather than being questioned by the teacher.  Students are fully involved in the learning process and creating meaning themselves as opposed to being told by a teacher.  

I am in a kindergarten classroom and do not see much discussion like this mainly because students do not have the attention span, social skills, or cognitive development to carry out an in depth discussion on a book.  The books read in class are also mostly picture books and do not offer "opportunities for interpretive work" which the McGee article claims is an important feature of books used for response-centered talks.  My CT will usually inquire into students thoughts on the story as she reads, but does not really turn it into a formal discussion. We do have discussions on the books read in class, but the teacher is always an integral part of it as students are unable to lead themselves through the discussion at this point.  Is there any way to modify talks or discussions so younger students can participate?  Do you think teachers should attempt to have response-centered talks at such a young age or wait until students are more developed and can obtain meaning in a more significant way?