Appleman Chap. 3

I have always been under the impression that connecting with the text via personal experiences is the best way to get students to make meaning of what they are reading. Appleman argues, however, that this process implemented in reader-response criticism has become oversimplified and often ignores a knowledge of context. She includes a quotation from Bruce Pirie (1997) which reads "I am, however, suspicious of the suggestion that just expressing your personal response is a satisfactory educational attainment, or that such a response could be evaluated for its authenticity" (p. 28).

Although I believe that reader-response is a good way for students to appreciate and become interested in literature, I am suspicious too that the reader simply expressing his or her thoughts may become trivialized and lack sufficient support from the text. But some have said that reader-response criticism is the only way to reach students. I guess this then brings up the issue of will everybody benefit from a wide-range of theories, even those students who are 'at-risk'? Can the reader-response limit the literary interpretive capacities of students? What about the real differences, as opposed to similarities, that exist between a text and the reader? Further, how can you enrich or validate a student's experience since it is unique? These criticisms of reader response speak directly to the cliche 'too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.' Yes it may be the case that students aren't learning enough about a literary work via reader-response, but it does have it's benefits. A simple compromise: Use reader-response in conjunction with other theories. If we use reader-response in moderation, not for all readings, students are less likely to be devoid of meaning when they feel a text does not relate to their personal experiences. Man, Appleman sure is on top of her game!

Appleman Chap. 2

Appleman does a wonderful job of making the reader understand the importance of acknowledging multiple perspectives in teaching literature with the opening vignettes. The activities extend the literature and ask the students to acknowledge others' points of view. These examples resonate with the important idea that there is always more than one way of examining a situation. In other words, there are two sides to every story. This seems like a simple ideology, but it is very difficult to get some students to think outside themselves. I feel as educators, it is our duty to objectively present multiple perspectives with anything we teach--especially literature--because students will inevitably be placed in thousands, millions of situations where considering someone else's position will help them make better decisions. Instead of immediately passing judgment, first realizing why someone may have acted the way they did can be an enlightening experience.

To attempt to answer my question posed in the chapter 1 blog, 'Is explicitly teaching literary theory worthwhile?', I really like the idea of introducing literary theories after discussing multiple perspectives, since in essence, this is what literary theories embody. The handout given in Martha's twelfth-grade AP class that explains characteristics of prominent literary theories (appendix) after the lessons on different perspectives seems like a logical, smooth transition. I was initially uneasy about students experiencing information overload with a handout on literary theories, but whatever happened to holding high expectations? Just making students aware of these theories will help them be prepared to read texts in different ways. Instead, her students would be using them to explore various texts. Additionally, I found it relieving when Appleman asserts that she may go weeks without applying theory, and sometimes it is not until a student implicitly references a theory when she uses it. Any instructional material or strategy which gives students more options to respond/analyze literature can and should be employed; therefore, it is my belief that yes, teaching literary theories can be worthwhile.

Appleman, D. (2000). Critical Encounters in High School English: Teaching Literary Theory to Adolescents. Chap. 1

In the opening chapter Deborah Appleman makes the case for 1) explicitly teaching literary theory to high school students and 2) employing a wide-range of literary theories to teach various texts. To me, at this point, literary theories are merely different ways to interpret texts. Each theory has a different perspective and context in which to focus on with a given text. It is easy to point out which texts could be explored through, for example, a feminist perspective; however, I am unsure which theories will best help students make meaning of other texts... Awareness of these 'critical lenses' will enable students to better reflect and respond to texts and as she states "the guiding assumption of the book is that the direct teaching of literary theory in secondary English classes will better prepare adolescent readers to respond reflectively and analytically to teach texts, both 'canonical" and multicultural' (p. 2).

Before I began reading the book I had never really thought about various literary theories, and ironically, my final English methods course, English 4800, is my first introduction to them. Nevertheless, after I read chapter one I felt like I was given plenty of motivation to learn more about literary theories and the benifits of their implementation in high school English classes. Having garnered a little more information about the various contemporary literary theories which exist, it is clear that in my high school English classes, New Critical theory was the predominant one. The book mentions the balancing act between New Critical and Reader Response, but I rarely was asked to connect my personal experiences to the literature I was reading. My teacher was the main interpreter, and most of our time was spent searching for literary elements, especially overarching themes.

With that being said, I've thought of some questions worth answering. First, is explicitly teaching literary theory worthwhile? Should multiple theories find their way into the English language arts classroom, or is connecting personal experiences to literature (i.e. Reader Response) merely enough to evoke reflection/analysis? Has anyone else in Eng. 4800 class been in a classroom that touched on several literary theories and used different ones to teach different texts? Additionally, I think Appleman's 'questions addressed' section is important topic of discussion, hmmm...

Wilhelm Chap. 6

'I think though, that we need to ask what our purposes are as (English language arts) teachers: to teach texts, or to develop readers who can and will want to engage with and know texts in peronally powerful ways throughout their lives' (p. 145)? For me, the answer to this question is obvious. We as teachers of English need to develop readers and begin to have students reevaluate their commonly held beliefs about reading and its benifits. The easiest way to being to do so is to provide students access to a wide-varitey of literature.

Surely, "the classics" have certain political, social, and cultural significance, and I feel that they should be implemented based on an indivdual class' needs, but in a rapidly changing technological era in which information is readily available, students need to be given changes to explore several literary genres. Young adult novels, newspapers, magazines, comic books and other peices of literature need to be options for students. Students will never learn to appreciate literature if it is constantly being 'forced down their throats,' so why not allow them to pursue works that interest them? Furthermore, this issue of access coincides with the idea of acknowledging students' interest and providing them with as many choices as possible; thus we can, at the very least, begin to erase the stigma attached to reading. Consequently, when students bring a positive attitude when they are about to engage with a text, their is a better chance that they will take on an active role.

After reading Wilhelm's book, like any, there are still some questions that plague me. 1) How do we get students to evaluate literature with a critical eye, meaning investigating author purpose, credibility and bias?; 2) Which 'classics' are worth teaching, and is it plausible to choose certain classics based on an individual classes interests / needs?; and 3) How can we move past the constraints of curricula that ask us as teachers to adhere to the canonical perspective? I will be searching for the answers throughout this semester and long into my teaching career. Any suggestions are welcomed...

Wilhelm Chap. 5

'We cannot know through language what we cannot imagine. The image--visual, tactile, auditory--plays a crucial role in the construction of meaning through text. Those who cannot imagine cannot read' (p. 120). This quotation in Wilhelm, taken from Eisner (1992), basically sums up the chapter. For some reason Wilhelm's few students documented as struggling readers failed to "see" things when they read. Again, I want to touch on the use of guided imagery to reach these types of students. This task asks students to draw a picture of what they see when they are read a particular scene from a story aloud. The scene should be one that naturally induces imagery, and when students are read to aloud, they may be able to envision objects moreso than when they read. Think of it basically as students explicitly practicing producing images in your head. It is a relatively short exercise, so depending on the severity of the concerns that students aren't imagining when they read, guided imagery could be done weekly to daily. The task may not instantly help students produce images in their minds, but with enough practice they will begin to use the strategies when they read themselves.

The other visualization techniques described definitely help, in conjuction with one another, students to begin producing images as they read. I like how Wilhem refers to this as art, because techniques like these aren't really offered anywhere else, except for maybe the art class. These techniques also help students develop their abstract thinking skills, which many students tend to lack. Drawing pictures, cutting out symbols that represent objects or characters from a text, performing read alouds with illustrated books, etc. all help students envision story, and as Wihelm suggests, visualizing helps students better remember what they read.

Wilhelm Chap. 4

On a broad note, I want to make it clear that it is my belief that the incorporation of drama into the literature will help reach more struggling readers than if it were to entirely be excluded from the activites of the class. Whether this number of students is significant I am unsure; however, one thing is clear: Dramatizations cannot be counterproductive with regards to meaning making if time is managed effectively. Pulling in all readers, including reluctant ones, is a fundamental goal of literature instruction, and any task which allows more readers to connect with a text is worthwhile. More specifically, when students are asked to recreate and enact a scene from a text, it will inevitably provide them with a deeper understanding of that scene; this ultimately leads them to begin becoming 'active participants'--as Wilhelm calls it--of the text. Additionally, it is important that these reenactments be done in groups, because not only do you usually need more than a few characters per scene but especially for readers who still struggle to interact with the text.

When I initally thought of incorporation drama into the classroom, my thoughts were limited to reenacting scenes from a particular text. But when I saw the various types of activites Wilhelm used in his classroom (pp. 100-01), it is obvious that the concept of dramatization entails much more. During my high school experiences with literature I have done such tasks as role playing, guided imagery and newscasts, but I've never thought of the idea students filling in textual gaps, an activity which Wilhelm refers to as "missing scene scripts." I really like what opportunities this activity affords students. First, it enables students to use their to logical reasoning skills to assume what would happen in these missing scenes. Second, their interpretations require justifications based on what has already occured in the story. Third, they are given creative license to possibly explore alternate story possibilites. If nothing else, activites like these will get students to actively participate in thier meaning making process, as opposed to the traditionally passive question-answer forum.

Wilhelm Chap 3

Wilhelm touches on various reader's response techniques, and I am very interested in two of them. The first are the visual protocols and second is the "Symbolic Story Representation" (SRI).
We always are reminded of the different learning styles which teachers must accommodate, and the visual protcols are a reminder that visual learners are actually out there. I like this strategy and I have actually studied a similar technique called guided imagery. As the name suggests, students are allowed to draw a picture that represents something or someone from what they have just read. What I like even more about the visual protocols that Wilhelm mentions is that they allow for a combination of writing and drawing. Being able to do both will empower students and even lead to interpretations of eachother's drawings. When students compare their drawings with one another, they will be suprised with how many different pictures can represent the same story. Let me mention that some who aren't confident with their art might feel a little apprehensive about sharing their work. Thus the sharing can take place in small groups. If there is a classroom community of learners established hinging on mutual respect, students should not fear sharing their work. Students should always be encouraged to develop mental images as they read, and the visual protocols take those images one step further.

I have never heard of the SRI, but it has so many potential benefits that I do not know how I'm not familar with this response strategy. First, the SRI is an alternative to the monotony of answering convergent summary and thematic questions while still urging students to look at these ideas. Second, the cutting out of shapes to represent thems, motifs, symbols, characters etc. brings a creative element to responding to literature. I'm convinced that in order to reach all readers, including those who struggle, it is necessary to foster creativity, and the SRI does just that. Third, it provides an opportunity to decorate the classroom with students' work. Fourth, it enables students to compare their cutouts with one another and to justify why they cutout a particular representation.

I want to leave by briefly touching on the idea of evaluating an author which is mentioned in Wilhelm's four "reflective dimensions" of response. I don't think many students realize enough what the author's purpose or intended audience is when they read. Often times they see an author as the omnicent speaker of truth. I'm not totally sure how to switch students to this critical mode of thinking, but we as teachers should continually encourage students to question the texts that they are reading, and this includes agreeing/disagreeing with an author's idea or political ideology. When student's are "trained" to examine the author's purpose by examining the historical context in which it was written, they can begin to see how effective or ineffective her writing is.

Wilhelm Chap. 2

During the conversations that Wilhelm had with three "good" students and lovers of reading, the students voice their attitudes toward reading. One common response was that they read in order to learn and experience enjoyment. This struck me as interesting because it is obvious that a majority of students do not spend enough time reading. This overwhelming number of students who don't read have the attitude that reading isn't enjoyable, nor do they see it as personally gratifying. If only every student could sit down with a text and think to himself "All right, what will this book provide me with that I could not experience in any other way?" Reading is no different than any other task or hobby people perform. To become better at it one must practice. Further, the notion of simply having an open mind and a positive perspective when sitting down to read can make reading that much more enjoyable. Perhaps it is the several summary questions students are usually required to answer after or during reading a particular text which doesn't allow students to adopt a postitive attitude toward reading. I guess this is leading to the question of how can we change the negative attitudes of students who begin to read? Is it to provide them with texts that speak directly to adolescent issues such as identity, love and autonomy or is it something more deep such as moving pass the stigma of reading as something "nerds" do? I hope to discover some answers as I read on...

Also worth noting is the perspective one of the three students, Cora, had on character-reader relationships. She refered to literary characters as 'people [she] knew.' Realizing that literary characters, although fictional, have characteristics and tendencies as illuminated by that author that are very real is important in achieving deep engagment with a text. Cora's claim seems directly in contrast with struggling readers' perspectives that characters in stories are strictly what their genre suggests, purely fictional. If English language arts teachers can explicitly explain to students to look at various facets of literary characters and encourage them to juxtapose these characters with people students have encountered in their own lives, they may begin to see texts as more meaningful.

Wilhelm, J.D. (1997). 'You Gotta BE the Book.' Chap. 1

I want to start by commenting on the literary theory known as New Criticism. I admit I am not well versed in literary theory, but when Wilhelm begins describing its characteristics, I was immediately brought back to taking the reading comprehension section of a standardized test. A single correct interpretation of a literary work doesn't seem too inviting for students, and in fact, it seems very closed minded. If we want students to become engaged in the text they must be allowed to make their own judgments, predictions, and conclusions without fear of these assumptions being different from the standard interpretation. This includes asking students to be aware of the emotions or feelings that arise or what parts of the texts pique their interests when they read. Another possible way to combat this is simply to foster multiple interpretations by frequently posing divergent questions. Identifying and discussing potential/similar situations that arise in texts which students may have experienced is also a means of achieving this goal.

Wilhelm also mentions the distinction between 1.) "efferent," or information-seeking reading, and 2.) "aesthetic" reading, or reading for enjoyment. As the author suggests, the majority of reading that students are asked to take part in is for the acquiring of information. Speaking from my experience as a student, generally students will look at questions on a study guide or questionnaire and skim the material to find answers. This constant probing for answers makes students see reading as a mechanical, tedious task, rather than an enjoyable, meaning-making "quest." The big question that remains is how do we switch students into the aesthetic mode? On one hand, I would say it is giving them reading material that they are interested in as they search for answers to their own questions that result from their shared experiences. On the other hand, how do we create a balance between providing material that is of interest to them and material that the teacher deems important without losing the motivation of the readers?