Entry 2: (Re)Introducing Reader Response

SAY:

Articles used:

• "Critical Literacy as Comprehension: Expanding Reader Response" (Maureen McLaughlin, Glenn DeVoogd)
• "Where We Are: Responsive Reading Using Edmodo" (Mary E. Styslinger, Emily Langdon Eberlin)
• "The Lens of Reader Response: The Promise and Peril of Response-Based Pedagogy" (from Critical Encounters in High School English)
• "The Challenge of Literature" (from Literature as Exploration)

McLaughlin and DeVoogd's article offers great insight on how students actually respond to what they are reading by using Rosenblatt's "Efferent-Aesthetic Contiuum".  According to Rosenblatt, "readers transact with text from aesthetic and efferent stances. The aesthetic stance is a more emotional perspective; the efferent stance is a more factual one" (2004).  Rosenblatt also claims that when students are reading, they are not engaged in either efferent or aesthetic by themselves, but a combination of both.  McLaughlin and DeVoogd go on to make a really good point when they say that exposing students to more than one perspective opens them up to new ideas which benefits their connecting to the text in a personal way.  To integrate this into the classroom, they suggest "juxtapositioning texts, photos, videos, and lyrics".  To further illustrate their point, they mention a middle school teacher who incorporated the theme of World War II by reading her class snippets from Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation.  The students were also exposed to the perspectives of German soldiers, Holocaust victims, and Japanese internment camp victims.  They were then put into groups and created a visual display of these perspectives.

I completely agree with McLaughlin and DeVoogd's points about exposing students to multiple perspectives, especially ones that are not normally encountered (such as the German soldiers' viewpoints during WWII).  While being careful not to be biased towards one perspective, students learn about more than just literary criticism; they discover things about themselves and how everyone has a different perspective and story on the same event.  The WWII unit the teacher in the article used is a great example of how to integrate multiple viewpoints of the same event because of all of the players involved in WWII.  Night by Elie Wiesel is a wonderful resource to use for the viewpoint of a Holocaust victim while interviews from actor George Takei would be good resource to gain more insight into how Japanese-Americans were affected after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Styslinger and Eberlin's article tackles a similar issue that McLaughlin and DeVoogd dicussed, but in a technological context.  Their main question revolves around how best to incorporate reader response in classrooms that are either completely paper free or are in the process of becoming paper free.  They also wanted to know how to integrate reader response with technology, including social media.  Styslinger and Eberlin decided to turn to Edmodo, a site that mirrors the social media site Facebook but with an educational twist.  According to the article, "incorporating Edmodo allowed her [Eberlin] to meet students in their worlds".  The authors continue their praise of using Edmodo with reader response and say "not only were students responding individually, they were responding collaboratively.  In lieu of a dialogue between the self, text, and perhaps teacher, they were engaged in a digital response conversation with one another".
Having used Edmodo myself, I can confidently concur with Styslinger and Eberlin.  Not only are students comfortable with using this type of technology, it allows them to hone their skills in connecting with the text and how to use technology in a way other than for social reasons.  While it seems unfortunate that print books are slowly becoming archaic, it is a sign of the times that students are more comfortable using technology to respond to reading.  Some critics would say that this type of response is not beneficial to students due to the unorthodox use of technology in literary analysis, we must find a way that allows students to best connect to the text in order for them to understanding it.

This next article also discusses the many "benefits of the reader-centered approach".  According to the author, "it has forced us to rethink what we do when we teach literature, why we do it, and whom we do it for".  While reading that is centered around the audience has not always been popular, it has gained steam in modern times.  The author then moves on to talk about Rachel, a teacher who is an advocate of "the reader-centered approach" but who is having difficulty in taking advantage of its full benefits.  Her main concern deals with the fact that "something that might trivialize the importance of the real differences that exist between the students' world and the world of the text.  Are we really all the same?...We know the personal connection and engagement with literature that is gained when students measure the relationship of Hester and Chillingsworth through their own dating experiences, or measure issues of adultery with contemporary examples involving American presidents.  But what is lost?"  The author then turns to Rosenblatt who has come up with a way to bridge this gap between focusing solely on the personal connection and understanding the text as it is.  Rosenblatt's diagram has "meaning" in the middle with "reader" and "text" on either side.  According to the article, students look at "the textual properties that might affect their reading or response and to list those properties".  After this, students then turn to their personal reactions to the work and use these along with "the textual properties" to analyze and connect to the text.
This issue involving "the reader-centered approach" never phased me until now, but the problems discussed in the article are completely legitimate.  There needs to be a line between the reader's personal connection to the text and the actual analyzing of the text itself.  We can connect to a text until we are blue in the fact but this does not necessarily mean we are understanding the text and its meaning.    However, students still need to believe that their personal connections matter in their understanding of a text but that the author does have an intent and that needs to be taken into consideration in the analysis as well.  Using Rosenblatt's diagram is a great idea to use in the classroom to help students remember how to draw the line between their personal connections and the author's intent.

DO:

I think Rosenblatt's "Reader Response Diagram" would be worth making copies of and handing to students.  Revisiting the diagram at the start of each text would also be beneficial to remind students to refer back to as they are reading.

To highlight the points made in the McLaughlin and DeVoogd article,  I think showing students an interview with George Takei about the Japanese-American internment camps during WWII and comparing it to an interview with a WWII veteran.

An interview with George Takei: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yogXJl9H9z0

Interview with WWII veteran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LK2sRmffc0