Conclusions
A nurturing environment that values the whole range of human achievements, the opportunity for stimulating experiences, cultivation of habits of observation, opportunities for satisfying natural curiosity about the world, a sense of creative freedom -- all of these lay the foundation for linguistic development.... Reading, especially aesthetic reading, extends the scope of that environment and feeds the growth of the individual, who can then bring a richer self to further transactions with life and literature. (Rosenblatt, 1982, pp. 273-274)
When I took over my first class in the fall, I had students complete a survey about themselves as learners. One of the questions asked, “How do you learn best?” Without directly saying so, most students responded that they learned best when lessons were student-centered (Artifact 10). Since an aesthetic reading stance is reader-centered, lessons that promote an aesthetic stance can be said to be student-centered and thus worthy of pursuit. Considering implications for future practice, I continue to return to the question of how to “untrain” students who have been conditioned by a system that seems to define purposeful reading as exclusively that which leads readers correct answers.
If I want students to take an aesthetic stance toward fiction, it will help if they understand what an aesthetic stance is and that it is acceptable in the classroom. To enable students to interact with fictional texts in personally relevant ways, Vijayarajoo & Samuel (2013) make a strong argument for explicitly teaching reader response theory to students: “This student connection to literature can be achieved through the students’ awareness that they hold the answer to the meaning of the text rather than to submit to their teacher’s meaning or that of an authority” (p. 177). Because it is easier for students to do what is expected of them when they are aware of what the expectations are, it seems that there is much to be gained from introducing them to the idea that they have not only the power, but also the responsibility to construct personal meaning with the texts they encounter.
In addition to inspiring me to share reader response theory with my future students, this inquiry process has given me various ideas for what I might do to promote an aesthetic stance when I am given more freedom over the curriculum I teach. Going off what students themselves wrote on the teacher report cards (Artifact 6), I would like to implement a system in which students are given more of a say over what they read. There are various ways I could do this. One option would be to have students vote as a class on a book to read together. This would allow the students to all experience the same text, but unless the vote is unanimous, it would also mean that some students would still end up reading books they did not choose. Like literature circles, such an option also limits student choices to a list of books that are pre-approved by the teacher.
To give students still more sovereignty, another possibility could be to institute a “mandated pleasure reading” component that requires students to read texts of their choosing in addition to whichever texts are being read by the whole class. Since getting students to read one novel at a time is a challenge in itself, if I were to try something like this, I would want to avoid having students read multiple novels simultaneously. Instead, I might keep whole-class reading assignments short - poems, short stories, news articles, or plays that can be read primarily in class. This would give students time outside of class to focus on a novel of their choosing. Using Mitchell’s (1993) suggestions for reflection prompts, I would have students annotate their reading experience - as opposed to tracking assigned elements like character traits and plot development - using post-its so that they could easily return to the specific part of the text they were responding to.
Rather than having students read novels independently and short texts as a group, an alternative option would be to have students read a novel as a class but rotate bringing in short stories, poems, or even song lyrics of their choosing to present to the class, as is often done with current events stories in social studies classes. Instead of analyzing the text that they brought in, I would have students share what made the text meaningful to them. This could help enhance students’ understanding of how readers construct personal meaning from the sound of words themselves, the rhythm, and the overarching message of a piece of writing.
Reading is a personal experience, and one's approach to reading is shaped by his/her cumulative life experiences. I cannot control my students' past experiences, and as a high school teacher, I will inherit students with a wide range of already-established reading habits. This is not an excuse to neglect an aesthetic stance in the name of standardization. Rather, I should strive to provide all students with an opportunity to broaden their relationship with literature.
If I want students to take an aesthetic stance toward fiction, it will help if they understand what an aesthetic stance is and that it is acceptable in the classroom. To enable students to interact with fictional texts in personally relevant ways, Vijayarajoo & Samuel (2013) make a strong argument for explicitly teaching reader response theory to students: “This student connection to literature can be achieved through the students’ awareness that they hold the answer to the meaning of the text rather than to submit to their teacher’s meaning or that of an authority” (p. 177). Because it is easier for students to do what is expected of them when they are aware of what the expectations are, it seems that there is much to be gained from introducing them to the idea that they have not only the power, but also the responsibility to construct personal meaning with the texts they encounter.
In addition to inspiring me to share reader response theory with my future students, this inquiry process has given me various ideas for what I might do to promote an aesthetic stance when I am given more freedom over the curriculum I teach. Going off what students themselves wrote on the teacher report cards (Artifact 6), I would like to implement a system in which students are given more of a say over what they read. There are various ways I could do this. One option would be to have students vote as a class on a book to read together. This would allow the students to all experience the same text, but unless the vote is unanimous, it would also mean that some students would still end up reading books they did not choose. Like literature circles, such an option also limits student choices to a list of books that are pre-approved by the teacher.
To give students still more sovereignty, another possibility could be to institute a “mandated pleasure reading” component that requires students to read texts of their choosing in addition to whichever texts are being read by the whole class. Since getting students to read one novel at a time is a challenge in itself, if I were to try something like this, I would want to avoid having students read multiple novels simultaneously. Instead, I might keep whole-class reading assignments short - poems, short stories, news articles, or plays that can be read primarily in class. This would give students time outside of class to focus on a novel of their choosing. Using Mitchell’s (1993) suggestions for reflection prompts, I would have students annotate their reading experience - as opposed to tracking assigned elements like character traits and plot development - using post-its so that they could easily return to the specific part of the text they were responding to.
Rather than having students read novels independently and short texts as a group, an alternative option would be to have students read a novel as a class but rotate bringing in short stories, poems, or even song lyrics of their choosing to present to the class, as is often done with current events stories in social studies classes. Instead of analyzing the text that they brought in, I would have students share what made the text meaningful to them. This could help enhance students’ understanding of how readers construct personal meaning from the sound of words themselves, the rhythm, and the overarching message of a piece of writing.
Reading is a personal experience, and one's approach to reading is shaped by his/her cumulative life experiences. I cannot control my students' past experiences, and as a high school teacher, I will inherit students with a wide range of already-established reading habits. This is not an excuse to neglect an aesthetic stance in the name of standardization. Rather, I should strive to provide all students with an opportunity to broaden their relationship with literature.