IRE Versus "New Discussion"

In my classroom, there is not a lot of large group reading and discussion happening. Nevertheless, based on today’s readings, the type of talk I am seeing in my classroom is mostly IRE (initiation – recitation – evaluation). My teacher reads some to the students, about twenty or thirty minutes of story time after lunch if she does not teach social studies. However, after the story, if she asks questions, she asks ones that are intended to gauge whether or not students paid attention to or read the story. What is frustrating about this is that a lot of times, the same students are answering the initiation questions, and then she is stuck evaluating the entire class on a few students who were particularly attentive. I notice that the IRE model is especially dominant in my class when students are reading or discussing informational texts.
On the occasion that the students were working on Writer’s Workshop, my CT worked to engage students in the first step of “Being Out and Stepping In.” She read through each story and gave students a question from this category that would help them expand on their story, emphasizing that these were questions that readers asked while reading a text. However, none of her questions went beyond this stage, and no question involved “Objectifying the Experience.” Due to the fact that I have not seen students discuss a book in depth, the only role that was mentioned in the Almasi article that I have seen was the Inquisitor. For this role, there are a few students who are constantly questioning things, although their questions are not received well or discussed on a regular basis.
In regard to scaffolding, most of my students would benefit from some form of scaffolding. Many would need them to have the teacher model each role, particularly that of inquisitor. My students seem to ask questions, but not higher-level questions, mostly questions that require simple answers. Also, since they are not used to engaging in texts, it would be helpful for my CT to ask a few probing questions to start the discussion, but then to let students follow up as respondents, and slowly let them take over the discussion. I think from that position, the teacher could step in to help the students’ transition from the IRE format to this new discussion format. She could do it by scaffolding, eventually allowing the students to run their own discussion, with little interruption. If my CT was willing to do this, I think that response-centered discussion could really take off!
For specific needs of students, there are a few students who need help thinking past the “Being Out and Stepping In” stage. They are less proficient readers, and are still practicing reading for the “what” of a story and not the “why.” These students would need to be shown, and helped to think through, how to be inquisitors, and how to respond to others inquisitions. Also, other students may need to help my CT scaffold by being a facilitator, and inviting these students to contribute to the group discussion. Finally, some students may need scaffolding especially in regards to behavior and attentiveness during book talks. Maybe another student could work with them, as well as the instructor, to help them be productive members of the discussion, instead of distractions away from the discussion.
Overall, there is little book discussion done in my classroom at all. This is incredibly worrisome to me because as Almasi stated, “…students who talk about what they read are more likely to engage in reading.” I think that more response-centered discussion, as well as more discussion in general, should take place. A crucial part of processing literature is missing, because my students hear a story and do not then actively engage with the material! I hope that this can be remedied, if not in my CT’s classroom, than in my intern classroom and certainly in my own classroom someday!