…was that a question?
	No…no	Yeah, no, that was, like an inference
oh
Oh, oh, …	Wh- why did he want to exercise when he could make someone happy… by making bacon
ah, maybe he wants to exercise to like, lose weight or something. and then...so…	And so he don’t have to become bacon
ya
		I pr- I, I, I predict that in the next chapter Charlotte is gonna like, bite Mr. Zuckerman, and like some farmers leave the door open when they get inside, oo, om, um, Charlotte might bite ‘em, Charlotte, Charlotte might bite him and then Wilbur’s gonna run.
Uh huh Father…ya…he was going to..	I think, um, they’re they’re gonna um, Charlotte’s parent, Char, I mean, Fern went to visit, um, Wilbur and tried to take him home, because maybe she found out that, um, her uncle was going to, (eat him), and then she took him home, and then that’s what the talk about was about …..why she took him, and it wasn’t her responsibility to take him, and, I think she will get in trouble and get grounded and she can never see Wilbur again.

Sophie is seeking clarification on the intent of a previous utterance, and Josh clarifies that it was not a question but in inference. This suggests that he knows the difference between a question and an inference (since we don’t actually hear his remarks prior to Sophie’s question) and was able to clarify that the previous statement was an inference. Kent continues by putting out a question to the group and Sophie offers a possible explanation as to why Wilbur (the pig) would want to exercise. We don’t get to hear if there is more to her thinking (and then…so…). Possible that this is a kind of filling in of time/stalling if she has nothing more to say. Josh follows this with a comment in which he uses the language of ‘predict’. He uses it appropriately as he goes on to explain what he thinks Charlotte is going to do which would enable Wilbur to run. This connects to the previous turn by Kent and Sophie as they talk about Wilbur exercising to lose weight, so he would be less likely be seen as a pig suitable for killing and eating. Kent follows Josh’s prediction with a prediction of his own. Was he encouraged to make a prediction by hearing another student’s prediction? Did hearing another student’s thinking help him with formulating a prediction of his own? Kent goes on to suggest a possible explanation – inference- as to why Fern tried to take Wilbur home, and then again offers an inference on how that may be connected to what the talk was about. He then makes a judgement that it wasn’t Fern’s responsibility and another prediction that Fern will get in trouble and be grounded. There is a lot of strategic thinking happening in his turn.

These 3 students have an awareness of the language of strategic readers (asking questions, making inferences, making predictions) as Keene, Harvey and Goudvis (2000) would suggest. Beyond an awareness, they are using this language appropriately (ex. Josh’s predicts what may take place in the next chapter) in a student conversation about a book they are all reading. We don’t know what role the teacher may have played in setting up this conversation or if this is an authentic conversation in the moment.

Hypothesis: Students have been taught the language of strategic readers (and using the comprehension strategies) and are using it in a student-led literature circle structure.

Hi Laura,

I am looking at your hypothesis. It looks very far away from the data themselves. Perhaps you put in a few sub-hypotheses that show the way from the data to the what you think is going on. For example, if you took from the lesson that they have been taught language, then you could indicate some of the processes by means of which this happened. See, what we want you to do is ground everything you say in the data. So you get something like this:

raw data ---> low level abstraction ---> high level abstraction

What you wrote is a high level abstraction in the sense that it is not easy to recognize that that teaching has actually happened. Can you try a lower level abstraction?

Even from the first to the second sentence of your analysis, from the one beginning with "Sophie" to the one "This suggests . . ." you want to build up, show us slowly how you see this showing to occur. Also, you say "Josh clarifies . . .' when in fact he states a prediction . . . Again, you went with lightening speed compared to what I think you need to do, slowly build up our reading, helping us to see how you get from what can be described to what you then depict at a high level of abstraction. Once you build up these description, from low level to high level of abstraction, you may already have your paper.

Also, you need to tell us, for example, what evidence you have for her knowing the difference. Where are you getting this from. Just take your time to build up the analysis. Provide a slow and careful and detailed reading. . . .

Does this make sense? Let me know if you feel you need more help, or more detailed descriptions.