This study examined effects of teaching approaches on students' responses to three picture books. One hundred and twenty third-grade students were randomly assigned to treatments: literary analysis, literary experience, and no discussion. The literary-analysis approach focused on identifying and critiquing literary elements; the literary-experience approach centered on having students live through and react to the storyline. Teaching approach affected the content of students' subsequent efferent and aesthetic responses, with subjects from the literary-analysis group more likely to focus on the identification of literary elements in free written responses. Subjects from the literary-experience group wrote responses indicating more involvement in the story world, described similarities between characters and real people, and treated literature more as an aesthetic experience than a lesson or an object to be studied. Subjects who had no discussion on the stories were more likely to simply retell the story.
References
1.
AnzulM. H. (1989). Exploring literature with children within a transactional framework (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 2132A.
2.
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.
3.
BentonM. (1983). Secondary worlds. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16, 68–75.
4.
BleichD. (1975). Readings and feelings: An introduction to subjective criticism. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
BrunerJ. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
CooperC. R., (Ed.) (1985). Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8.
CorcoranB. (1987). Teachers creating readers. In CorcoranB.EvansE. (Eds.), Readers, texts, and teachers (pp. 41–74). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
9.
CoxC.ManyJ. E. (1992a). Reader stance towards a literary work: Applying the transactional theory to children's responses. Reading Psychology, 13, 37–72.
10.
CoxC.ManyJ. E. (1992b). Towards an understanding of the aesthetic response to literature. Language Arts, 69, 28–33.
11.
EdelskyC.AltwergerB.FloresB. (1991). Whole language: What's the difference. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
12.
GoodmanK. S. (1985). Unity in reading. In SingerH.RuddellR. B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 813–840). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
13.
HarsteJ. C.WoodwardV. A.BurkeC. L. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
14.
HickmanJ. (1983). Everything considered: Response to literature in an elementary school setting. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16, 8–13.
15.
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.
16.
HuckC. S.HeplerS.HickmanJ. (1987). Children's literature in the elementary school (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
17.
IserW. (1978). The act of reading. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
18.
LangerJ. A. (1990). The process of understanding: Reading for literary and informative purposes. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 229–260.
19.
LukensR. J. (1986). A critical handbook of children's literature (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
20.
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. Thirty-ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 51–63). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
21.
ManyJ. E. (1991). The effects of stance and age level on children's literary responses. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 61–85.
22.
NortonD. E. (1991). Through the eyes of a child: An introduction to children's literature (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
23.
ProbstR. E. (1988). Response and analysis: Teaching literature in junior and senior high school. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
24.
PurvesA. C. (1985). That sunny dome: Those caves of ice. In CooperC. R. (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 33–53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
25.
PurvesA. C.RippereV. (1968). Elements of writing about a literary work. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
26.
RosenblattL. M. (1938/1983). Literature as exploration (4th ed.). New York: Modern Language Association.
27.
RosenblattL. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
28.
RosenblattL. M. (1980). “What facts does this poem teach you?”Language Arts, 57, 386–394.
29.
RosenblattL. M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory Into Practice, 21, 268–277.
30.
RosenblattL. M. (1985). 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.
31.
RosenblattL. M. (1986). The aesthetic transaction. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20, 122–128.
32.
RosenblattL. M. (1991). Literature—S.O.S.!Language Arts, 68, 444–448.
33.
SacksL. F. (1987). Efferent and aesthetic modes in the teaching of poetry as related to teachers' construal of poetry (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 325A.
34.
San SouciR. D. (1989). The talking eggs. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.
35.
SmithM. (1992). Submission versus control in literary transactions. In ManyJ.CoxC. (Eds.), Reader stance and literary understanding: Exploring the theories, research, and practice. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
36.
SwopeJ. W.ThompsonE. H. (1986). Three R's for critical thinking about literature: Reading, 'riting, and responding. In GolubJ. (Ed.), Activities to promote critical thinking. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
37.
SuleimanS. R.CrosmanI. (1980). The reader in the text. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
VipondD.HuntR. A. (1984). Point-driven understanding: Pragmatic and cognitive dimensions of literary understanding. Poetics, 13, 261–277.
39.
WalmsleyS. A.WalpT. P. (1989). Teaching literature in elementary school (Tech. Rep. No. 1.3). Albany: University at Albany-State University of New York, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.
40.
YolenJ. (1988). The emperor and the kite (new ed.). New York: Philomel Books.
41.
ZarrilloJ.CoxC. (1992). Efferent and aesthetic teaching. In ManyJ.CoxC. (Eds.), Reader stance and literary understanding: Exploring the theories, research, and practice. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
42.
ZelinskyP. O. (1986). Rumpelstiltskin. New York: Dutton.
