(re)Introducing Reader Response

-Probst, R. (2004). Response & analysis: Teaching literature in secondary school (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
-Milner, J., & Milner, L. (1999). Bridging English (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
-Articles: Critical literacy as comprehension: expanding reader response; An introduction to Reader-Response Theories; What is Written Conversation?; A summary of engagements to help students transact with texts; 21 Lessons Teachers Demonstrate about Reading; Dimensions of Failure in Reader Response; The Challenge of Literature (chp.1); The Lens of Reader Response: The Promise and Peril of Response-Based Pedagogy; Where We Are: Responsive Reading using Edmodo;  Responding to Reading (chp. 5)

Say:

     "We have to bring those texts to bear upon our lives"(Probst vii). Wow. I wanted to wait until more than the 3rd page of Probst to start responding, but the entire section bout reading "trash" really hits home. As pretentious or learned as I may act sometimes, I connect with the idea that "'Literature'...is what you want to have read, but you don't particularly want to read it tonight" (3). That is still as true today as it was in my high school days. Even before hitting this quote I began thinking about how i'd really like to have some Milton under my belt once I was reminded of him, thanks to a name-drop a page earlier. Yet right now my personal read is a YA sci-fi book. The bit about the rise of New Criticisms reminds me of an idea I've seen many times where students are given The Rose That Grew from Concrete with the title withheld for a big reveal after initial reaction.
     Subjective Criticism and the process of reformation is very important to Bleich, about how readers "transform the text into symbols...and we interpret the symbols we have created. "Not until the text is read, and thus reformulated in the reader's mind, does it become literature" (6). The reader alone is the one directing the thoughts on the text--the text cannot act. This is quite the opposite from New Criticism in which the meaning resides in the stable text regardless of the human interaction (7). Bleich goes on to mention discussion as well with the idea that literature is "not a source of knowledge, but only a stimulus...the knowledge is formulated later, in the interchange among reader" (12). This is pretty wild to me; while i'm not sure that I entirely agree, it's a great starter for conversation among students or teachers at any level. Personally I tend to lean towards the idea that texts have inherent meaning. The idea of asking, "What does that mean? How do you feel? Isn't that nice?" and moving on doesn't always attract me--sometimes I do want them to analyze for the text's sake. I get the point though, "The uniqueness of the reader must be respected" (14).
      Reception Aesthetics. Rosenblatt apparently is more moderate, she understands that the reader/viewers experience will have a part to play, but understands that the work itself has powers. The exercise of word-association with the car is a good indication of this (the experiences are different, but the word still clearly matters). Therefore the reading is not about finding what does it mean, but more combining that question with, "What can we do with the work?" (18). 
      "Iser's discussion suggests...that a literary work is not a thing, but a process. Often, perhaps especially in the secondary school classroom, the work is treated as a single unchanging entity" (23). This is so true. This is part of the very reason that i'm sure nearly every single of my peers in this MT cohort have the same understanding of most major canonical works that find their way into the classroom. I'm beginning to see that it may not be the right course of action to push one interpretation--one complete text. The work's meaning lies in the process. The work's meaning lies in the process. The work's meaning lies in the process. A great example of this are powerful books like To Kill A Mockingbird or Huck Finn, where the act of questioning "general 'attitudes toward human nature and conduct' that permeate society at the time they were written, and still contaminate it" (25) is what really connects with the students--I suppose i agree with Iser because these are the things in my opinion makes the books worth teaching. 
      "The pleasures that first drew us to literature were not those of the literary scholar"(29). 
      "Adolescents should not yet be content with their conception of the world, with their understanding of themselves and their society. They should not grow rigid and unchanging, working as hard to avoid learning as the young child does to learn" (30). That is what is so beautiful about this discipline, how responsive the works and material can be within everybody. Even if it's not Hamlet, there is a work of English out there that strikes a chord with everyone--speeches, famous movie monologues, etc. 
     Students read literature "to know themselves". Reading helps everyone refine what they believe their own selves to be as well as sharpen their larger perception of the world and larger society (31). It's so wonderful that just as each person in the world is unique and special in their own way, so is literature--and there is a text that connects with each and every one. 
      Literature (in the secondary curriculum) is not written for academic exercises, it's not the "private domain of the intellectual elite" (34). Rosenblatt pushes that reading is an unmediated, private exchange between the text and the reader, and It's hard to disagree.
      The discussion of Jones' poem, As Best She Could addresses two very important issues that seem to conflict with the touchy-feely Rosenblatt connections above. Errors in Reading and Authorial Intent can skew the interpretations away from the intended or what would be productive. If a students cannot perform at a certain level during reading, with vocabulary and fluency, then it's time to back up. The errors are mentioned next to Intent in the text because they are connected--if the errors in understanding skew the details enough, purpose of the piece can disappear, weakening it all around. This reminds me of my most recent class Lesson Plan in which I planned an assessment, but due to larger and more basic reading and writing skills, many of the students were not able to even communicate their thoughts.
      There are conditions for these response teachings (As I'm very quickly noticing every day)... Students have to be receptive, tentative, and rigorous. They have to be willing to take risks.
      Reviewing Bridging English reminded me of some great and basic strategies of the teaching cycle: Enter, Explore, Extend. Among these are things like ThinkPairShare and such. It seems basic, but a reminder of Reader Response--> Interpretive Community--> Formal Analysis--> Critical Synthesis is helpful to remember when planning lessons.
      "I see students who choose a failing grade rather than: make a phone call to a stranger, get up in front of the class for two minutes, take a bus to a library for research,read an entire book, compose an original poem, have a parent sign a form. And nowhere is this apathy and fear more evident than in my English classes"
      Students greatest weapon against learning it there passivity. The less effort they put in, the less they'll be disappointed if they fail. Bridging the gap is convincing them to be themselves, that they are safe, and that it's ok to mess up a few times.

Encourage Response: 

1. Don't makes the pieces too long.

2. Videos.

3. Be careful during the critical beginning minutes of a discussion.

4. If they won't talk, have them write.

5. Give them different modes to express in.

Do:
        I also like the idea of starting a classroom discussion with the question of "subjective synthesis"; having students respond to these literary philosophies that they probably were never presented with. This would work well to pair with the idea about the earth being flat until "rebels" were brave enough to explore it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2tEAoQnQ_m8MXFoT2ZsOEtLWmc/view?usp=sharing

        I love Probst's Word-Association exersize that illustrates to the students how experience of reading and teaching literature is related to the "subjective syntheses of the reader". This is something that can easily be done without any external materials, just the students pen and paper.
      The Marginalia activity is a useful tool to have in your arsenal, though I don't tend to exhaust my struggling CP seniors with it at the moment (though i'm sure there is a way to pair it with something that will make it appear practical or exciting). 
      One Text, Two Poems Activity.

I don't have a physical representative of this, but I've been doing Dr. Vic O's Celebrations ice-breakers at the open of class in order to help build community and create a safe space to be yourself and share. I say this because of it's relation to the "Dimensions of Failure" article specifically and how (i've noticed too) so many students are so reluctant to share and participate.