Reflection 6: It’s All about Me!
I am probably most familiar with Reader-Response Theory. I have been using a reader-response approach to teaching literature since I first started teaching; In fact, I was using it before I knew what to call it. It is how I learned to approach literature and it is how I have most enjoyed dealing with literature, so it just made sense to use this method in my teaching. It didn’t always work out the way I anticipated though; it didn’t always seem like my students valued the practice as much as I did. I was beginning to doubt my pedagogy, but then I encountered Reader Response Theory in my graduate courses. Once I read about Louise Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory, I began to understand why I taught the way I did. I learned sound theory to back up my pedagogical practices. However, even though I felt vindicated that I was doing something worthwhile and educationally sound, I still felt like things weren’t quite right during classroom discussions. I had a sinking suspicion that students weren’t making the connections that I hoped they would…that they couldn’t move beyond the personal and really evaluate a text for its literary merits.
Thus, I am especially grateful for the suggestions that Deborah Appleman makes about teaching Reader Response Theory. In her book, Critical Encounters in High School English: Teaching Literary Theory to Adolescents, she seems to be writing about a typical scene from my classroom. She writes: “Try as I might, I couldn’t move our conversation back to Hester or to anything specifically textual about The Scarlet Letter…I felt that she had dived off the springboard of personal response into an autobiographical wreck” (2000, p. 26). I have had this feeling many times during literature discussions. I want students to connect personally to the text, but I want their discussions to stay embedded in the text as well. But I have found that when I tell students to respond personally to texts, Pandora’s Box opens and I quickly lose control of the discussion. I have even considered eliminating reader response from literature-based discussions, but I’m not comfortable with taking away something that could be so meaningful for students. I am excited to try Appleman’s suggestion that I explicitly teach the theory to students before I expect them to apply it appropriately. Maybe if students could label the process of reader response and understand that it is a specific theory (and not just an anything goes, my opinion is all that counts and can’t be wrong kind of approach to literature), they could move beyond elementary or surface-level reactions and use reader response to get into a text or to prompt deeper-level discussions. I am curious as to how other teachers have handled Reader Response Theory. What has worked? What has failed and why?
March 9th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I have had virtually the same experience with my classes! They have no problem relating the text to themselves, but they will begin talking about their own lives and lose sight of the text. It is really difficult to get them to connect the text to other things (besides themselves.) Actually putting a name on what they are already doing—reader response criticism—could go either way. Either they will view themselves as more intelligent members of a literature community or they will start thinking too much and stop talking. I would hope that it would be the former, but I could also see the latter happening. The trick will be to encourage an increased awareness and participation in the literature discussion.
March 9th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I really like having students respond by making personal connections to literature or a certain aspect in the text. One way that this has worked (and, I promise, many others have not worked for me) is to have this response be their journal entry. The journal is not graded for mechanics and is supposed to help students to become comfortable expressing themselves through free-writing. I give an allotted amount of time to discuss the journal, then I am firm about moving on to the text and other discussions about the text that are not wrapped up in personal stuff. If the students aren’t quite finished with discussing their journal entries, I still stop the discussion but tell them that: “I’m so glad that you have so much to share, I appreciate the conversation that we’re having. Please don’t feel limited to this class. I’m always open to hearing more before or after class, but please, continue the conversation with multiple people beyond this class. Use your voice!”
Also, perhaps you could combine a little reader-response with literary study. For instance, when speaking about how language in a text reflects the time period, location, and culture that the text is set in, I gave a very brief example that they could relate to and then they could better understand and focus in on how these literary elements influenced the language and actions in the text.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
What you’ve shared is the fear I have of reader response in the classroom and the reason why I think maybe it shouldn’t be part of literature discussions. However, this isn’t the case because reader response is valuable and has a place in the classroom. Reader response is a theory that should be part of the classroom because students need to learn how to connect to the text, especially since this connection keeps readers interested in the text. However, I am with you that maybe reader response prompts off topic discussions instead of discussions that use the text.
To combat this problem, my best suggestions, is to use the idea Appleman shares and that you included in your blog. Clearly explain the reader response theory and may sure your students understand that there is a critical element to this literary theory.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I often require my students to tell me what they think about literature and then I have them to explain to me why they feel this way. I try to make reader response painless. The further we get into the year, the better my students are at picking quotes and noticing literary devices on their own. I think that Reader Response, even though it can seem scary, can helo students to understand that a writers words must be interpreted in some way. Maybe we could think of Reader Response as the gateway theory.