EDUC 622 Responding to Literature

PURPOSE AND GOALS OF THE COURSE

The general purpose of this course is to acquaint you with some of the range of possibilities for responding to literature for children and adolescents: the various ways in which readers respond to texts. It is not a methods or a “how to” course, in other words, it takes the view that before we “use” children’s literature in the classroom, we must first of all develop, refine, and extend our own literary sensibilities. Thus, although we will be talking about real children and their response to literature, the course is not primarily pedagogical in focus, even though it is hoped (even expected) that it will inform your practice.
We will be reading three types of “written discourse”: literary theories of various types; children’s literature (by which I mean literature for children and adolescents); and empirical research on response to literature. We will try to forge links among these three discourses. This means that we will be discussing (1) the ways in which theory can refine and extend our personal interpretations of children’s literature; (2) the ways in which our personal interpretations can extend or refine theory; (3) the ways in which our views of children’s literature can inform our understanding of research about children’s literary response; (4) the ways in which empirical research on response can inform our literary understanding and our pedagogy; and (5) the ways in which theory influences, directs, and is foundational for research in this area.
The course is weighted toward the many varieties of “reader?based” theory. However, other perspectives (formalist, structuralist, feminist, cultural criticism, and a few forays into poststructuralism) will also be considered. The object isn’t to cover the waterfront, but the course should broaden your view of what constitutes response to literature and the issues related to this response. Roughly the first half of the course introduces some of the major theories, while the second half of the course considers response from various broad perspectives. Although research will be read in tandem with theory throughout the course, there will be one class with a specific focus on research in response to literature.
There is heavy intellectual content to the course, but it is expected that there will be a degree of emotional satisfaction as well. After all, one of the purposes of literature is to make the world new and “strange,” “defamiliarizing life” (Schlovsky, 1919/1965), challenging our comfortable assumptions, and jarring us awake. To get the most out of this course, you should be a person who has a passion for children’s literature and who isn’t afraid to share that passion with others.

COURSE READINGS

“Our reading lists should be long, heterodox, seductive …” (White, 1994).
The theoretical and research readings for this course are all contained in the Bulk Pack.

The texts of children’s literature for this course are:

The Giver, by Lois Lowry
Ghost In the Mirror, by R. L. Stine
The Goats, by Brock Cole
The House on Mango Street, by Sandra Cisneros
Missing May, by Cynthia Rylant
Morning Girl, by Michael Dorris
Nightjohn, by Gary Paulsen
Maniac Magee, by Jerry Spinelli
The Raincatchers, by Jean Thesman
Bull Run, by Paul Fleischman

These books have been ordered from the university bookstore (36th and Walnut), but you may be able to get them from your school library or the public library.

There are also several picturebooks:
Dear Mili, by Maurice Sendak, We Are All in the Dumps with Jack and Guy, by Maurice Sendak, The Stinky Cheese Man, by John Scieszka, The Paper Bag Princess, by Robert Munsch. It is not expected that you purchase these; they will be placed on reserve in Dr. Sipe’s office if you can’t find them in the children’s section of the public library or your school library. If you use Dr. Sipe’s copies, please do not remove them from the third floor of GSE and please return them to his office when you are done with them.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

1. Do all the readings so that you can participate fully in discussion.

2. Attendance in a course like this is critical, because our knowledge will be socially constructed as we discuss the texts and issues. If you know that you’re going to be absent, I’d appreciate an e?mail or phone message.

3. A journal, handed in every other week, in which you respond to the pieces of children’s literature and the theory/research articles. You will hand in your first entry at the beginning of the second class, then for class 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12: a total of six entries. This should not be lengthy ? about two or three typed pages, and certainty no more than four. I will read all the journal entries, divide the class into two groups, and respond in writing to alternate groups. The journal is the place for you to record your personal response to the texts of literature we read, and also for you to make links between these texts and the theory/research you’re reading. It’s also the place for you to record the questions that arise as you read, and the possibilities for further exploration. You can also write about the moves you make in deciding upon and narrowing the topic of your course paper.

4. One major piece of writing, due at the end of the course, which can assume several forms. Options include:

a. Text?based paper. A critical reading of a piece of children’s literature. Begin with a “close reading,” also paying attention to your own emotional/aesthetic experience. Then widen your consideration to some of the theoretical literary perspectives we’ve discussed in class. Use these in making your interpretive moves.

b. Issues paper. Choose an issue or concern that has arisen for you, and develop an exposition of some approaches to that issue. The issue may be quite broad to begin with (for example, the issue of gender in relation to children’s literature; the insider/outsider debate; some aspect of the ideology inscribed in children’s literature; race/ethnicity as a factor in response; gay/lesbian issues and children’s literature; the construct of development as it applies to response); you then need to narrow it so that you can adequately deal with it in the space of the paper.

c. Theoretical paper. Choose one theorist whose work you find particularly compelling, and read extensively in her/his work. Then consider the various ways in which this theoretical position relates to children’s literature and its use in the classroom. In other words, synthesize the theoretical argument/position of the person whose work you choose, and then draw some connections to the implications of this theory for the field of children’s literature.

d. Genre paper. Take a genre that particularly interests you (such as historical fiction for children, fantasy, or realistic fiction) and explore the issues ?involved in responding to such a genre. You will need to narrow your topic so that you can deal with a few of the issues related to this genre.

e. Mini?study. If you have access to a classroom, audio tape and transcribe one or several discussions about a piece of children’s literature. This can be at any level, from picturebooks to novels. Remember that you want the students’ responses, not yours! Try your hand at analyzing this discourse. Write about the students’ responses using the theoretical lens/approach of one or more of the theorists we’ve discussed. How do these theoretical lenses assist you in understanding/interpreting/saying something interesting about the responses and the text? The point is to get your feet wet as an empirical researcher, trying to understand the actual talk of actual children, and putting some of your theoretical knowledge to use.

f Part of a research proposal. Write the first draft of part of a research proposal that deals with student response to literature. You may want to make a fif st attempt at a review of the research, for example, as a beginning of a chapter 2. If you choose this option, you must schedule an appointment to speak with me about it.

g. Another substantial topic or approach of your choice. Please speak with me about this early in the term. Schedule an appointment, and come loaded for bear: you must have a good idea of what you want to do, and be able to explain it clearly and persuasively.

At the last meeting of the course, there will be an opportunity to talk about your project with each other. The paper must be typed and there must be a complete list of references. The fourth edition of the APA manual is a good resource. The length depends on how tight and dense your writing style is. Remember that this is the major piece of writing for the course, and that a considerable part of your grade -- about 50% -- will depend on it. The other 50% will be determined from the combination of attendance, class participation, and the journal. I will not grade the journal separately.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Class #1
Prestructuralism and Structuralism: Representative Critics.

Class #2
Missing May
A collage of quotes from Rosenblatt, L. (1938). Literature as exploration. New York: Noble & Noble.
Rosenblatt, L. (1964). The poem as event. College English, 26, 123?128.
Rosenblatt, L. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory Into Practice, 21, 268?277.
Rosenblatt, L. (1985). Viewpoints: Transaction versus interaction: A terminological rescue operation. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 96?107.

Class #3
The Giver
Rosenblatt, L. (1986). The aesthetic transaction. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20, 122?128.
Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Cox, C., & Many, J. E. (1992). Stance towards a literary work: Applying the transactional theory to children's responses. Reading Psychology, 13, 37?72.
Lowry, L. (1994). Newbery Medal Acceptance. The Horn Book Magazine (July-August), 414-426.
Allen, J. S. (1995). Exploring the individual’s responsibility in society in The Giver and Brave New World. In J. F. Kaywell (Ed.), Adolescent Literature as a Complement to the Classics, Volume II. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Menexas, V. (1997). Efferent and aesthetic stance: Understanding the definition of Lois Lowry’s The Giver as metaphor. Journal of Children’s Literature, 23, 34-41.

Class #4
The Goats
Iser, W. (1978). The Act of Reading (pp. 53-85). Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bleich, D. (1976). Pedagogical directions in subjective criticism. College English, 37, 454?467.

Class #5
The House on Mango Street
Harding, D. W. (1962). Psychological processes in the reading of fiction. Scrutiny, 6, 247?258.
Britton, J. (1984). Viewpoints: The distinction between participant and spectator role language in research and practice. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 320?331.
Galda, L. (1982). Assuming the spectator stance: An examination of the responses of three young readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 1?20.
Galda, L. (1990). A longitudinal study of the spectator stance as a function of age and genre. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 261?278.

Class #6
Morning Girl
Bogdan, D. (1990). In and out of love with literature: Response and the aesthetics of total form. In Bogdan, D., & Straw, S. (Eds.), Beyond communication: Reading comprehension and criticism (pp. 109?137). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Langer, J. (1990). Understanding literature. Language Arts, 67, 812?816.
Langer, J. (1990). The process of understanding: Reading for literary and informative purposes. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 229?260.
Tuleja, E. A. (1998). Understanding Morning Girl through Judith Langer's "envisionment" model. Journal of Children's Literature 24 (2), 56?65.

Class #7
Nightjohn
Benton, M. (1979). Children's responses to stories. Children's Literature in Education, 10, 68?85.
Benton, M. (1992). Secondary worlds: Literature teaching and the visual arts (chapter 2). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Robertson, J. P. (1997). Teaching about worlds of hurt through encounters with literature: Reflections on pedagogy. Language Arts, 74, 457?466.
Gale, D. (1997). The maximum expression of being human: Gary Paulsen "pushes the envelope" in his writing?and in life. School Library Journal, 43 (6), 24?29.
Karolides, N. J. (1997). Challenging old habits of mind: Revisiting reader’s stance. The New Advocate, 10, 161-169.

Class #8
Maniac Magee
McGinley, W., & Kamberelis, G. (1996). Maniac Magee and Ragtime Tumpie: Children negotiating self and world through reading and writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 75?113.
Enciso, P. (1994). Cultural identity and response to literature: Running lessons from Maniac Magee. Language Arts, 71, 524?533.
Lee, C. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 608?630.
Zinn, M. B. (1979). Field research in minority communities: Ethical, methodological, and political observations of an insider. Social Problems, 27, 209?219.
Lehr, S. & Thompson, D. L. (2000). The dynamic nature of response: Children reading and responding to Maniac Magee and The Friendship. The Reading Teacher, 53, 480-493.

Class #9
Dear Mili and We Are All in the Dumps with Jack and Guy
Galda, L. & Beach, R. (2001). Response to literature as a cultural activity. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 64-73.
Steig, M., & Campbell?Wilson, A. (1994). Illustration and interpretation as rewriting: Three stories of reading Sendak's Dear Mili. Children's Literature Association Quarterly, 19, 122?127.
Bosmajian, M. (1995). Memory and desire in the landscapes of Sendak's Dear Mili. The Lion and the Unicorn, 19, 186?2 10.
Sipe, L. R. (1996). The private and public worlds of We Are All in the Dumps with Jack and Guy. Children's Literature in Education, 27, 87?108.
Doonan, J. (1994). Into the dangerous world: We Are All in the Dumps with Jack and Guy by Maurice Sendak. Signal, 75, 155?171.
Neumeyer, P. (1994). We Are All in the Dumps with Jack and Guy: Two nursery rhymes with pictures by Maurice Sendak. Children's Literature in Education, 25, 29-40.
Lehman, B. A. & Crook, P. R. (1998). Doubletalk: A literary pairing of The Giver and We Are All in the Dumps with Jack and Guy. Children's Literature in Education, 29, (2),69?78.

Class #10
The Rain Catchers and The Paper Bag Princess
Trousdale, A. (1995). I'd rather be normal: A young girl's responses to "feminist" fairy tales. The New Advocate, 8, 167?182.
Cherland, M. (1992). Gendered readings: Cultural restraints upon response to literature. The New Advocate, 5, 187?198.
Evans, K. (1996). A closer look at literature discussion groups: The influence of gender on student response and discourse. The New Advocate, 9, 183?196.
Altmann, A. E. (1994). Parody and poesis in feminist fairy tales. Canadian Children's Literature, 73 (20), 22?31.

Class #11
Bull Run and The Stinky Cheese Man
Touponce, W. (1996). Children's literature and the pleasures of the text. Children's Literature Association Quarterly. 20, 175?182.
Stevenson, D. (1994). "If you read this last sentence, it won't tell you anything": Postmodernism, self?referentiality, and The Stinky Cheese Man. Children's Literature Association Quarterly, 19, 32?34.
Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry 8, 1?21.

Class #12
Several picturebooks
Wood, N. (1996). Domesticating dreams in Walt Disney's Cinderella. The Lion and the Unicorn, 20, 25?40.
Landes, S. (1983). Teaching literary criticism in the elementary grades: A symposium. In J. P. May (Ed.), Children and their literature: A readings book (pp. 161?164). West Lafayette, IN: ChLA Publications.
Dickinson, Peter. [ 1970] 1976. "A Defence of Rubbish." In Fox et al (Eds.), Writers, Critics and Children (pp. 73?76). London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Nodelman, P. (1997). Ordinary monstrosity: The world of Goosebumps. Children's Literature Association Quarterly, 22, 118?125.