A book on the desk.
But where is the talk?
In a conventional reading lesson, everyone can read the same pages, complete the same exercises, and still have little reason to speak to one another. Bedel wanted to know what would happen if the reading itself became a shared social event.
He was teaching English in Bulgaria when accounts of literature circles caught his attention. These are small groups that read a common text and then discuss it. For students learning English as a foreign language, the idea offered a possible answer to a familiar problem: reading can feel difficult or dull when it is mainly followed by repeated vocabulary and comprehension tasks.
The study asked what kinds of talk arise when learners discuss literature, how that talk may support their English, and whether literary texts can help students focus on meaning and communication as well as language form. It also asked a practical question: can a class use books in a way that makes learners want to read and gives them something genuine to say?
What happens to interaction and collaborative learning when English learners read, prepare, and discuss literature together?
The thesis proposes that literature circles can be a useful part of a balanced curriculum. Its interest is the relationship among reading, conversation, shared responsibility, and enjoyment—not the memorization of literary facts.
In the thesis: Introduction, printed pp. 1–5 ; research questions, pp. 21–24 .
A book club,
adapted for English learners.
The model begins with a simple human habit: people read something, meet, and ask each other what they made of it. In a classroom, a little structure helps more voices enter that conversation.
Bedel traces the approach from adult book clubs to peer-led groups in schools, drawing especially on Harvey Daniels’s work. He also discusses earlier studies in first- and second-language settings. Their common thread is that readers make meaning by bringing questions, experiences, and interpretations to a text, then testing those ideas with other people.
Choose texts learners can respond to, so reading is more than decoding words or completing a worksheet.
Use different perspectives on one story. A classmate’s question can change how a reader understands it.
Give students responsibility for starting, sustaining, and deepening the exchange while the teacher supports them.
In the thesis, a literature circle is a teacher-supported discussion group. Students read an agreed section of a graded story or literary excerpt, prepare notes, and come together to explain ideas, ask questions, and respond. Graded stories are written or adapted to suit a learner’s current English level; older, more advanced students in this study also read excerpts from unabridged literature.
Preparation was distributed through six rotating viewpoints. The discussion leader prepared questions; other learners summarized, noticed useful words, selected passages, made links to life, or explored cultural details. The exact labels and tasks changed with the class. The important point was that the roles gave learners a way into the text and a reason to listen to one another.
Bedel distinguishes cooperative work, which tends to be more tightly directed by the teacher, from collaborative work, in which students have more room to build an answer together. In practice, the circles used elements of both: a clear frame for the meeting and space for students’ own thoughts.
In the thesis: Background and theory, printed pp. 6–14 ; classroom procedure, pp. 29–31 ; sample role schedule, p. 112 .
Two groups.
Two kinds of reading.
The research followed two English classes at a private high school in Sofia during the 2009–2010 school year. Bedel was both their teacher and the researcher observing the discussions.
Eighth-grade students, around age 14, in a preparatory year of intensive English study. They used graded short stories as their language level developed.
Twelfth-grade students, around age 18, studying English at a more advanced level. They discussed excerpts from literary works and other demanding texts.
The school’s multilingual setting made English a useful shared language. The two groups followed the same broad research purpose, but their texts and day-to-day experience differed. Older learners sometimes preferred to prepare together during the first of two consecutive lessons. The younger group gradually became more comfortable with routines built around short stories.
This was research in ordinary classes rather than a laboratory experiment. There was no separate comparison class. The thesis combines a teacher’s close account of what happened with questionnaires and records of what students did and said. The classes contained 67 learners in total; the questionnaire charts discussed later use 40 responses. These figures describe different parts of the study and should not be treated as the same sample.
In the thesis: Design and participants, printed pp. 15–29 ; observation year, p. 38 ; questionnaire basis, p. 43 .
Read. Prepare.
Make room for another voice.
A circle began before anyone sat down together. Learners had to know the text well enough to bring a question, a passage, a word, or a connection worth sharing.
- 01
Read something worth discussing.
The eighth graders used level-appropriate short fiction. The older group worked with excerpts suited to more advanced English. The choice of text mattered: difficulty could invite curiosity or block the conversation.
- 02
Bring a way in.
At first, students filled in role sheets. Later, as they knew the routine, many used personal journals instead. They could record questions and ideas more freely. Roles rotated so no one always did the same work.
- 03
Let the discussion develop.
Small groups shared summaries, words, passages, cultural observations, and links to real life. Everyone prepared comprehension questions. Students formed groups and distributed roles themselves as the practice matured.
- 04
Look back at the talk.
Some discussions were recorded with students’ knowledge. The class watched selected recordings together, noticing not only pronunciation or vocabulary but also how people asked, interrupted, agreed, disagreed, and invited quieter peers in.
There was a practical adjustment. When several small groups spoke at once, the teacher could not easily hear every exchange or support English use. The class sometimes shifted to an open discussion or group presentation in front of everyone. That made observation and video review possible, although it took more time and could make students nervous at first. Those not presenting were later asked to listen and comment rather than wait passively.
Bedel’s account is unusually candid about change. Role sheets gave beginners support but later felt mechanical. Journals opened the task up. Some learners initially scripted who would ask whom a question; later, students were asked to prepare more broadly so the exchange could be less rehearsed. The routine was meant to serve a conversation, not become the conversation itself.
In the thesis: Research procedure, printed pp. 29–35 ; classroom account, pp. 69–76 ; journal examples, pp. 113–115 .
Watching the conversation
from more than one angle.
The thesis uses a mixed approach: notes and recordings describe the texture of classroom talk, while questionnaires put some learner judgments into numbers.
Teacher observations. A checklist recorded social behaviours such as taking turns and inviting others in, alongside thinking behaviours such as making connections, interpreting, and drawing conclusions. Its detailed results appear in an appendix.
Recorded discussions. Sample transcripts show students asking for clarification, disagreeing, explaining vocabulary, and moving between the story and their own experience. The published transcript names were changed in the thesis.
Replay and reflection. In what researchers call stimulated recall, the class watched a recording and talked about what was happening at a particular moment. This helped connect an observation to students’ own interpretations.
Student questionnaires. Learners assessed their own contributions, the group atmosphere, preparation, participation, and areas to improve. The charts in the thesis report averages from 40 responses.
For observation, Bedel drew on Robert Bales’s system for classifying small-group interaction. In ordinary language, it asks us to notice two kinds of work at once: how a group tackles the topic and how members treat one another. A learner might ask for information, offer an interpretation, support a classmate, or show disagreement. The distinction kept the study focused on the quality of interaction, not merely on who spoke most.
The supporting materials include the observation checklist, the four questionnaire forms, sample transcripts, a role schedule, examples from student journals, and the numerical tables. They are part of the original thesis and available in the full PDF below.
In the thesis: Instruments and analysis, printed pp. 26–37 ; observation forms, pp. 94–97 ; questionnaire forms, pp. 98–101 ; transcripts, pp. 102–108 .
More reasons to speak.
More to learn about speaking.
Across observations, transcripts, and learner reflections, Bedel describes a shift from prepared individual turns toward more responsive discussion. The students did not simply report on a story; they began questioning, explaining, and reacting to one another.
Reading had a social destination.
Preparation was no longer only for a teacher’s check. It was for a meeting with peers. The thesis describes learners making connections to everyday life and cultural questions, looking for passages, and becoming more motivated to read because they had something to contribute. Some students even organized a book-reading competition.
Language needs became visible.
Students wanted the English to ask a follow-up question, give a reason, interrupt politely, or disagree without insulting someone. Bedel notes greater attention to vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, and body language when learners reviewed their recorded talk. These are classroom observations and learner accounts, rather than separate test scores for each language skill.
The group could help—or hold someone back.
Some learners helped a classmate find a word or asked a quiet peer to join in. Others dominated, or stayed silent because the text or speaking task was difficult. The questionnaires make both sides visible. In the self-assessment chart, 82% rated their courteous, effective listening “very good,” while 42% gave that rating to encouraging others to participate. Both figures come from the 40-response questionnaire summary; they are self-ratings, not independent tests.
These are answers to different statements, not a before-and-after comparison.
The conversation grew with practice.
The transcript samples show learners asking for clarification, testing interpretations, and using the text to make a point. Bedel also recalls early meetings in which students worried about the camera or stuck closely to planned turns. Later, he observed more spontaneous responses and active listening. The advanced group could discuss a character’s motives or social background; younger learners moved from basic comprehension toward making judgments and personal connections.
In an older group’s discussion of crime fiction, one learner asks whether a story or its characters matter more. Another answers, and the first presses for a clearer explanation; classmates then test different views. In a younger group’s discussion of a murder story, students move from comprehension questions to word meanings and a real-life question about how a crime might be discovered. These are examples of the actual talk, not invented classroom scenes.
Students noticed both strengths and gaps.
In the group-assessment questionnaire, 85% answered “yes” when asked whether discussion stayed on topic. Asked whether everyone participated, 57.5% answered “yes” and 40% answered “sometimes.” Their written comments explain the tension behind those figures: some students felt supported, while others said classmates stayed quiet, lacked the words they needed, or had too little time for a real exchange. Other responses describe vocabulary learning, more confidence in speaking, and plans to read or practise further. These are the learners’ own reports about their groups.
The teacher’s observation checklist also recorded social and thinking behaviours, including taking turns, supporting an opinion with evidence, rereading for clarity, and drawing conclusions. Bedel’s broad conclusion is that the circles gave students a meaningful setting in which to practise interaction while reading literature in English.
In the thesis: Observations, printed pp. 38–43 ; self-assessment charts, pp. 45–48 ; group questionnaires, pp. 50–66 ; discussion, pp. 69–76 .
A good discussion
does not happen by itself.
The research is also a record of the conditions that made discussion harder. The same freedom that gave students a voice required attention to preparation, time, language, and group dynamics.
Silence and dominance
Some students hesitated in front of others or struggled to find words. Confident speakers could take too much space. The class had to practise inviting contributions and listening across differences in fluency.
Words and time
Learners often had ideas they could not yet express. Unknown vocabulary, short lessons, and—in some afternoon classes—fatigue could interrupt the exchange.
Over-rehearsed turns
Early role sheets and planned question sequences helped students start, but could turn the meeting into a series of speeches. Bedel moved toward journals and wider preparation to make genuine responses possible.
Being recorded
The camera made some learners nervous at first. Watching the recordings later helped them notice their own language and discussion habits, but it took time and care.
Assessment and explanation
Interactive work is difficult to grade quickly. Bedel also notes that families or administrators might mistake a discussion for an unstructured lesson unless its purpose is explained.
Different texts, different groups
A role that works with one story may feel forced with another. Groups, roles, and texts needed adjustment as students’ confidence and interests changed.
These difficulties matter to the thesis’s argument. Its picture of collaboration includes the work of learning to ask, listen, wait, clarify, and disagree. A lively room alone is not the finding; the question is whether learners are making sense together.
In the thesis: learner comments, printed pp. 53–66 ; problems experienced, pp. 67–68 ; discussion, pp. 69–76 .
The point was not
to finish the book faster.
Bedel’s conclusion is that literature circles gave these learners a more purposeful way to read and use English. A story became common ground for speaking, listening, negotiating meaning, and taking responsibility with others.
In his account, students became more willing to read, more aware of what they needed to say in English, and better able to work through a discussion. The teacher’s role remained important: choosing suitable material, modeling useful language, watching the group, and changing the routine when it stopped helping. The thesis argues for circles as one element of language learning, alongside other classroom work.
The study’s evidence is especially strong as a close description of how these discussions operated in two real classes: who spoke, what questions appeared, how the group changed, and what students thought of the experience. It was conducted in one school, by the teacher of the classes, without an experimental comparison group. The thesis itself calls for further studies of reading, writing, vocabulary, gender and participation, and different ways of preparing for peer discussion. These are directions for inquiry, not missing pieces to be invented here.
Reading gave students something to think about. The circle gave them someone to think with.
In the thesis: conclusions and future questions, printed pp. 77–80 ; final chapter, pp. 81–87 .
Go to the source.
This page is a public-language adaptation, not a replacement for the original research. The complete 2011 thesis includes the literature review, tables, questionnaires, classroom transcripts, role materials, references, and appendices.
Literature Circles in EFL: How They Stimulate the Social Interaction and Promote Collaborative Learning
Osman Bedel · Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” · 2011
- Author
- Osman Bedel
- University
- Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
- Faculty
- Faculty of Classical and Modern Philology
- Department
- Department of English and American Studies
- Supervisor
- Emilia Slavova, D.Phil.
- Research setting
- Drujba High School, Sofia
About this edition. The prose and organization on this page are newly written for general readers. Numbers and classroom details are drawn from the thesis; links beside each section lead to the relevant original pages. The full PDF offered here is byte-identical to the final thesis in the project archive.