1. THE IMPACT OF DISCUSSION, MIND WANDERING, AND eREADERS IN STUDENTS' READING EXPERIENCE Promoting Discourse in the University Classroom through Reader Response Presented by Lisa Ciecierski and Bethany Scullin Edinboro University of Pennsylvania & Kent State University

2. Rationale  This notion came to being as a result of a personal experience in which the first researcher experienced in a doctoral class.  This experience prompted a reflection of how and why students respond during class in a higher education setting.  This reflection led to a deep exploration of these concepts.

3. Louise Rosenblatt

4.  “There is no such thing as a generic reader or generic literary work; there are only the potential millions of individual readers of the potential millions of individual works. A novel or a poem or play remains merely inkspots on paper until a reader transforms them into a set of meaningful symbols” (Rosenblatt, 1995, p. 24).

5.  Rosenblatt (1978) differentiates between the two types of responses readers make.  Efferent responses are those that the primary concern of the reader is what he or she will carry away from the reading. These takeaways are at the literal level.  In contrast, when the reader makes an aesthetic response, their concern is what happens while they are reading. They are “listening” to their inner self. They pay attention to the associations, feelings, attitudes, and ideas that the words arouse in them. Their response becomes personal.

6.  “The distinction between aesthetic and nonaesthetic reading, then, derives ultimately from what the reader does, the stance that he adopts and the activities he carries out in relation to the text” (Rosenblatt, 1978, p. 27).  In essence, the reader “breathes life” into the text through personal meaning making and prior experiences (Larson, 2009).

7. The Research Questions  What reading processes do students implement when using the transactional reading theory?  How do college students engage in classroom discourse while using reader response?  What are students’ perceptions when using reader response?

8. Research Context  Study was conducted during the 2012 spring semester at a liberal arts university in northwestern Pennsylvania.  Participants were enrolled in a mandatory remedial reading, writing, and study skills course.  Diverse population: Two ESL students (Somalia and Russia) Ages range from 18-46 Seven African American students Fourteen Caucasian students Several were American veterans

9. The Texts  High interest  Variety of reading levels  Focus was to engage readers  Variety of symbolism and perspectives

10. The Procedure  First, several organizers were chosen for use.  When choosing these organizers, the type of reading and the purpose for reading were both considered.  Throughout the semester, students utilized a variety of organizers as a vehicle to record both efferent and aesthetic responses while they were reading selected novels and textbooks.  Students brought these completed organizers to class so they could be utilized for classroom conversation.

11. Highlight and Revisit Quote highlightedReason for Highlighting New or Deeper Thinking

12. Quotes and Questions QuotesQuestions

13. PQNS Responses P = Praise Q = QuestionNS = Not Sure Major Idea or ConceptPQNS Response

14. Thin & Thick Questions Thin QuestionResponseThick QuestionResponse

15. Findings

16. What practices do students implement and demonstrate when using the transactional reading theory?

17.  Students employed critical thinking skills in a way that seemed natural.  Students didn’t necessarily intend on employing these critical thinking skills.  They wrote about and analyzed the character’s motives.  Students questioned ideas from the book as well the author’s decisions when writing the book.  “I’m not sure about this idea because I was surprised someone as clever as Fox Face would actually risk eating wild berries.”

18.  They brought ideas and questions from the book and connected them to the real world; they voiced a strong emotional reaction to events from the book.  Theme student identified: The media is evil.  “Sometimes the media tries to only entertain and not inform. They don’t worry about the true story.”  Students showed critical thinking in what they chose to include on their organizer. An example was seen while identifying purposeful quotes.

19.  Students demonstrated their thinking processes in their responses.  It was evident that the students used this as a tool to process what they were reading and to show their understanding of what they had read.  Students formulated questions that reached below the surface and showed deep thinking.  The participants were engaged in thinking during the reading process rather than after.

20.  Students made connections while they were reading and while they were participating in conversations.  The participants made connections between the questions they were writing and the conversations they would have in class.  Participants made connections to the characters in the books and their motives.

21.  They connected strong themes between the book and how these themes pertained to real life.  “This idea is worth praising because it teaches readers survival of the fittest. Never give up on yourself and fight!”  Theme student identified: History repeats itself.  “We are barbaric (referenced Roman Gladiators). We will be again and again in the future.”

22. How do college students engage in classroom discourse while using reader response?

23.  The conversation was more fluent than it had been in the past; there were not as many lulls in the conversation.  Participants were more willing to share varying perspectives and also more willing to listen to varying perspectives shared by others.  Conversations were much deeper because students felt confident in what they had to share because they could readily use their organizer to cite the evidence for their thinking.

24. What are students’ perceptions when using reader response?

25.  Many students shared that they did not like using the organizers while they read, but they felt that using the organizers had benefits.  “I honestly don’t like the organizer. I did think this was a good way to separate questions.”  “I liked the organizer; it made asking questions easier. It made me think harder about what I read.”  “I still feel that it did not help me at all. The only thing it did is help me pay attention more.”

26.  “It helped me think of some test questions from the book. That is what surprised me most.”  “The ‘Thin and Thick Questions’ did work for me because I got my thoughts and ideas organized. It also helped me go back and reflect on the events that I have read so far.”  “They (the organizers) made me think a little bit harder than I usually do.”

27. Resources Larson, L. C. (2009). Reader response meets new literacies: Empowering readers in online learning communities. The Reading Teacher, 62, pp. 638 – 648. Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as Exploration. New York, NY: The Modern Language Association of America. Rosenblatt, L. (1978). the reader, the text, the poem: The Transactional Reading Theory. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

28. Contact Information  Lisa Ciecierski  Edinboro University & Kent State University lciecierski@edinboro.edu  Bethany Scullin  Edinboro University & Kent State University bscullin@edinboro.edu