The primary purpose of this study was to explore the effects of the use of aesthetic and efferent stances in response to literature. Subjects included 43 fourth graders, 47 sixth graders, and 40 eighth graders who were reading on-grade level or above. All subjects read the same three short stories and completed written free responses to each. Responses were analyzed for reader stance and level of understanding reached. Two-way analyses of variance revealed significant main effects for stance and grade on level of understanding for all three stories. The use of an aesthetic stance, where readers focused on the lived-through experience of the work, was associated with higher levels of personal understanding. Level of understanding was also found to increase with grade level. No interaction effects were found, indicating students' grade levels do not influence the relationship between the aesthetic stance and higher levels of personal understanding.
References
1.
ApplebeeA. N. (1978). The child's concept of story: Ages two to seventeen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
ApplebeeA. N. (1985). Studies in the spectator role: An approach to response to literature. In CooperC. R. (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 87–102). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
3.
BeachR. (1973). The literary response process of college students while reading and discussing three poems (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 656A. (University Microfilms No. 73-17112).
4.
BeachR. (1985). Discourse conventions and researching response to literary dialogue. In CooperC. R. (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 103–127). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
5.
BeachR. (1987, December). Applying life to literature: Reader's use of autobiographical experiences to interpret texts. Paper presented at the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.
6.
BonhamF. (1976). Secret of the Aztec idol. In DivenA. (Ed.), The Scribner anthology for young people (pp. 116–124). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
7.
BrittonJ. N. (1984). Viewpoints: The distinction between participant and spectator role language in research and practice. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 320–331.
8.
CooperC. R. (Ed.) (1985). Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
9.
CorcoranB. (1987). Teachers creating readers. In CorcoranB.EvansE. (Eds.), Readers, texts, and teachers (pp. 41–74). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
10.
CoxC.ManyJ. E. (1989, March). Reader stance towards a literary work: Applying the transactional theory to children's responses. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
11.
CullinanB. E.HarwoodK. T.GaldaL. (1983). The reader and the story: Comprehension and response. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16(3), 20–38.
12.
DorfmanM. (1988, April). A model for understanding the points of stories: Evidence from child readers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
13.
EvansE. (1987). Readers recreating texts. In CorcoranB.EvansE. (Eds.), Readers, texts and teachers (pp. 22–40). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
14.
GaldaL. (1982). Assuming the spectator stance: An examination of the responses of three young readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 1–20.
15.
GentileC.KaneS. (1987, December). A study of diverse responses to an allegorical text. Paper presented at the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.
16.
GoldenJ. M. (1979). A schema for analyzing response to literature applied to the responses of fifth and eighth grade readers to realistic and fantasy short stories (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 5996A. (University Microfilms No.7908149).
17.
GoldenJ. M.GuthrieJ. T. (1986). Convergence and divergence in reader response to literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 408–421.
18.
HollandN. N. (1985). Reading readers reading. In CooperC. R. (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 3–21). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19.
HolmanF. (1976). The runaway. In DivenA. (Ed.), The Scribner anthology for young people (pp. 17–21). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
20.
HyndsS. D. (1985). Interpersonal cognitive complexity and the literary response processes of adolescent readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 386–404.
21.
IserW. (1974). The implied reader: Patterns of communication in prose fiction from Bunyan to Becket. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22.
JohnsonD. E. (1983). Gifted fifth and sixth graders preferences and responses regarding contemporary or classic literature (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 126A. (University Microfilms No. DA8312154).
23.
LehrS. (1988). The child's developing sense of theme as a response to literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 337–357.
24.
Louisiana statewide norm-referenced testing program: Guide to test interpretation. (1988). New York: McGraw-Hill.
25.
ManyJ. E. (1990). The effect of reader stance on students' personal understanding of literature. In McCormickS.ZutellJ. (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms (pp. 51–63). Thirty-ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
26.
McNamaraS. G. (1981). Responses of fourth and seventh grade students to satire as reflected in selected contemporary picture books (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2978A. (University Microfilms No. 8101136).
27.
NewellG. E.SuszynskiKWeingartR. (1989). The effects of writing in a reader-based and text-based mode on students' understanding of two short stories. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 37–57.
28.
ProbstR. E. (1988). Response and analysis: Teaching literature in junior and senior high school. Portsmouth, NH; Boynton/Cook.
29.
PurvesA. C. (1975). Research in the teaching of literature. Elementary English, 52, 463–466.
30.
PurvesA. C. (1981). Reading and literature: American achievement in international perspective. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
31.
PurvesA. C. (1985). That sunny dome: Those caves of ice. In CooperC. R. (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 54–69). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32.
PurvesA. C.BeachR. (1972). Literature and the reader: Research in response to literature, reading interests, and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
33.
PurvesA. C.RippereV. (1968). Elements of writing about a literary work. Urbana, IL; National Council of Teachers of English.
34.
RaygorA. L. (1977). The Raygor readability estimate: A quick and easy ways to determine difficulty. In PearsonP. D. (Ed.), Reading: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 259–263). Twenty-sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.
35.
RichardsI. A. (1929). Practical criticism. New York: Harcourt Brace.
36.
RicoeurP. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press.
37.
RogersT. (1988, April). High school students' thematic interpretations of complex short stories. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
38.
RosenblattL. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
39.
RosenblattL. M. (1983). Literature as exploration (4th ed.). New York: Modem Language Association.
40.
RosenblattL. M. (1985a). The transactional theory of the literary work. In CooperC. R. (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 33–53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
41.
RosenblattL. M. (1985b). Viewpoints: Transaction versus interaction—A terminological rescue operation. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 96–107.
42.
RosenblattL. M. (1986). The aesthetic transaction. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20, 122–128.
43.
SwordJ. (1985). Criteria for evaluating picture story books (CEPSB). In FagenW. T.JensenJ. M.CooperC. R. (Eds.), Measures for research and evaluation in the English language arts: Vol. 2 (pp. 225–227). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 236 658).
44.
WernerH. (1979). The dollar's worth. In ShapiroJ. (Ed.), Triple action short stories (pp. 26–35). New York: Scholastic.
