Reading Lenses

Both Appleman and Beach addressed issues of teaching literature to adolescents. Why, what, and how we teach literature as well as why adolescents need to read literature and what they can learn from reading literature are discussed in both readings. While many points mentioned in the readings are critical and interesting, making me think about their connection with my reading of The Catcher in the Rye, I would like to focus on the discussion of the reader response lens and perspective-taking.

Reading through the lens of reader response caught my attention as my first encounter of Louise Rosenblatt, a pioneer of reader-response theory. Her ideas intrigued me because I was always an invisible reader as I reflected on my education experience in Taiwan. I remembered no matter whether it was in my Chinese or English class, teachers interpreted readings for students, and students had to memorize what teachers impart and reproduce teachers’ explanations during the tests. Thus, when I read about Rosenblatt’s conception of reading – efferent reading and aesthetic reading, I thought that finally there is someone speaking up for readers. However, as I explored more in the realm of reading and writing, I was baffled.

Why?

With an unexpected opportunity, I read an essay, Good Readers and Good Writers, by Vladimir Nabokov, author of Lolita. In his essay, he likened writers to mountain builders and readers to hikers. As writers build a mountain via their work, what they wish is that one day they can meet readers on the top of the mountain. Although writers know that such an opportunity is rare, once it happens, every effort writers put into creating the work of art pays off. This totally makes sense for me, for I consider that the purpose of writing lies in not only telling a story but also having the story be known, be heard, and be understood.

So, here comes my confusion. On one hand, I believe readers should have the freedom of interpreting texts on the basis of their personal experiences. On the other hand, I also believe literature carries messages that writers try to deliver to their readers. I felt I got lost in the ideas of scholars, wondering around the forest of reading theories, not knowing which direction to go.

Chpater 3 in Appleman’s book saved me. After reading that chapter, I started to realize that the use of reader-response approach depends on student population and literature. I agree with Appleman’s statement that “Meaning is a result of a kind of negotiation between authorial intent and the reader’s response” (p.31). That is, both writers’ intention and readers’ personal responses are crucial in the act of reading literature. Also, using reader-response approach may be a starter to attract students to read, but to support students to read in breadth and depth, they need more. That is why both Appleman and Beach mentioned that one of the important components of teaching literature to adolescents is to prepare them with the ability to adopt different perspectives to see the world. Taking different perspectives enables adolescents to understand different aspects of reality. Then, from reading literature, they will know that reading is not merely about themselves but beyond.

(Source: http://www.theillustratedprofessor.com/?p=1356)

Questions: 
In Beach's reading, it mentioned three learning theories that shaped instructions, and they are transmission theories, student-centered theories, and practice-oriented theories. In transmission theories, teacher modeling ways of interpreting texts has an implication of "correct answer." However, in practice-oriented theories/Socio-cultural learning theory, Beach also talked about the importance of teaching modeling ("I do, you watch; you try, I watch," p. 9). I wonder whether modeling in socio-cultural learning theory also suggests a correct way to interpret texts too.