finding Pleasure and Meaning in the text By Terre Sychterz Kutztown University

Children must first “live through” literature. (Rosenblatt, 1978)

We use children’s literature as a means to teach reading strategies rather than the understanding that “learning to read is to read literature” (Martinez & McGee, 2000, p.166)

Wolfgang Iser Views reading as an interaction between text and reader The reader looks for the gaps or indeterminacies and fills in using inference The meaning is NOT in the text but the active reader who uses schema and the text to build meaning

Louise Rosenblatt Views reading as a transactional process involving the text and the reader as EQUAL partners Reader takes stances: Efferent -‘to carry away knowledge” expository in nature Aesthetic – evokes a “sense of feelings, ideas, and attitudes”

“Rosenblatt believes that any text can be read efferently or aesthetically, and that the difference is in the stance of the reader, not in qualities of the text.” (Sipe, 2008, p.60)

Deanne Bogdan Extended Rosenblatt’s theory Two paths to “full response” Stasis = efferent Dialectic = aesthetic Both are necessary for a “full response”

“Full Response” Stock Response: understanding the moral of the story Kinetic Response: emotions evoked by the story; pleasure Spectator: relates to literary analysis This extends Rosenblatt’s Theory to include literary experience and analysis.

Yesterday and Today New Criticism, prevalent before the seventies, states that there is only one correct interpretation of the story/poem.

New Criticism Meaning found in the text Since there is only one text there can only be one meaning with which close and careful reading will reveal. The reader and the author play little or no part in this way of reading.

New Criticism “Currently people who say they have no articulated theory of reading are probably teaching reading with theories of behaviorism; and people who say they have no theory of literary criticism are probably teaching English using New Critical principals…Indeed, most standardized tests of reading are based on New Critical principals, and most researchers who investigate ‘comprehension’ are assuming that meaning resides exclusively in the text. (Sipe, 2008, p.46)

Reader Response Theory This theory posits that different readers will naturally and inevitably construct different meanings of the same text. It opens the text to the reader so the author is not in possession of the text - in direct opposition to McKeown’s Questioning the Author strategy

Reader Response Theory It is open to personal interpretation It reflects the reader’s own experience and personality “Readers Response ” (Beach, 1993; Marshall,1993; Tompkins, 1980)

Need for Balance Literacy (ability to read and write) can be learned through literary transaction with the text Literary Literacy Meaning Making Comprehension Plot Sequence Themes Main ideas Language Vocabulary

Prediction /Inference Overuse of some reading strategies engenders a false sense of success. In using prediction, there is no one right answer because it is opinion, yet linguistically there is the suggestion of a right response. (Cow by Doyle) Prediction requires schema and from this background we can build inferences. (First the Egg by Seeger) Overuse or inappropriate use of prediction is problematic because the emergent or unaccomplished reader will mimic this practice.

Other Strategies Beginning a story by stating, “I want you to read to find out…” puts the teacher in control of the read. It is no longer the child’s read. Stopping and starting a read to answer teacher directed questions is annoying to most good readers and deflating to emergent readers. Accomplished readers continue to read a text despite unknown words or questions because they like the flow, topic, illustrations, etc.

Other Strategies Reader response journals or use of sticky notes for young children are developmentally inappropriate. (small motor control and disrupts imaginative experience) A focus on prevention rather than what is the best way to teach young children to read. High stakes testing asks the teacher to “prevent” reading difficulties. Therefore teachers teach skills to meet that request. This requires the efferent reading of text over the aesthetic.

READICIDE Read-i-cide: noun, the systematic killing of the love of reading, often exacerbated by the inane, mind-numbing practice found in schools. Gallagher, K. (2009), p.2

To Kill - a - Reader Casserole “Take one large novel. Dice into as many pieces as possible. Douse with sticky notes. Remove book from oven every five minutes and insert worksheets. Add more sticky notes. Baste until novel is unrecognizable, far beyond well done. Serve in choppy, bite-size chunks.” Gallagher, K. (2009), p.73

How to Prevent Readicide Access to great books. Large doses of uninterrupted time to read them.

“READ IT AGAIN”

Meaning Making Sloan (1984) and Peterson & Eeds (1990) emphasize meaning making as critique and inquiry. Both of which are necessary for critical thinking. This requires transacting with the text. Students discuss their personal responses and discover similar and/or divergent responses. Students re-read and re-look the text.

What does this look like? Partnership Model of Literature Response

What does it sound like? See transcript

Partnership and Meaning Making “When meaning is interactively constructed, then comprehension involves negotiating many possible meanings, not only in your own head but also with the heads of others, who all have unique backgrounds and ways of constructing meaning. ( Hammerberg, 2004, p. 650)

Imagination Imagination is another element at the core of meaning making. It is a critical way in which students and teachers reach toward meaning and come to understanding (Langer, 1995). Therefore when we transact with text we are calling upon imaginative powers to form meaning

Interactive Read Alouds Sipe’ s (2008) research shows that two-thirds of children’s conversational turns take place during the read of a story and one-third take place after the read. Types of responses were Intertextual responses Performative responses Predictions Talking back to the story

My Learning's Children are not marginalized in a partnership model of reading but capable of producing knowledge. Children’s personal responses “I like…,” I would…,” “I think…,” “I agree…,” etc. Children found pleasure in our reading. (laughter, sadness, surprise, etc.) Children acted as critics, sharing voice and vision. (Critical analysis) Children’s writing reflected their reading.

Teacher’s Role Limit questions – use probing questions, encouragements, invitational questions, predictions (when appropriate) Scaffold: adjust teaching to children’s needs and leads Refine and extend your own understanding of art, illustration and picturebook theory (Bang, 2000; Doonan, 1993; Kiefer 1995) Openness and acceptance of a variety of responses

Teacher’s Role Let go of the control. Instead of “using” literature, experience it yourself. Make your own meanings, not what a manual tells you or a book guide. Prepare for a Read Aloud by experiencing the read yourself.

So that no child will be left behind Why should Reading Instruction for the early learner include literature? So that no child will be left behind