Reader Response Methods

This article presents an overview of reader-response teaching methods, which follow a theory of epistemology that focuses on how readers make knowledge or meaning by reading a short story, novel, poem, or other text. Reader response theorists such as Louise Rosenblatt, Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Iser advocate a reader-oriented approach to responding to a text. The rise of Reader-Response theory (also known as transactional theory) resulted from a focus away from Romantic theory and New Criticism.

Within reader-response theory, hermeneutics theory states that a literary work is finished by the reader, as the process of reading is carried out through the interaction between reader and literary work. It is also said that the hiatus of the work is filled in by the imagination of the reader. In the practical literary science school, meaning, sense is tied to the inner and outer status of the individual, thus it is a relative thing (Demeny, 2102). According to transactional literary theory (Rosenblatt) meaning is born within transaction; through reader-response, the reader brings his or her own experiences to the selection. There is no one true interpretation, as the reader is the active creator of the responses. Reading becomes a transaction between the reader and the text, a relationship evoking an experience or meaning for the particular individual reader. The five theoretical perspectives surrounding Reader-Response theory are also discussed.

Keywords Aesthetic Response; Book Clubs; Cultural Texts; Dialogue Journals; Efferent Response; Literature Circles; New Criticism; Romantic Theory; Rosenblatt, Louise; Transactional Theory

Overview

Reader-Response literary theory (also known as transactional theory) is a theory of epistemology, focusing on how readers make knowledge when reading a text. A text can be of any genre - short story, novel, poem, etc. Reader-response theory advocates a reader-oriented approach to responding to text, marking a shift from a text-centered to a reader-oriented focus on reading. In this theory, readers respond to the text by creating their own meaning to what they are reading. Louise Rosenblatt, along with other promoters of reader-response theory such as Wolfgang Iser and Stanley Fish, promote the transaction between the reader and the text. Each individual reader extracts his or her own unique meaning out of the text. The theory promotes critical thinking in readers and enhances multiple perspectives and associations with past experiences. Rosenblatt (1985) also states that Reader-Response offers benefits beyond the classroom, enhancing the open-mindedness that is the foundation of a democratic society.

Historically there have been, and still exist, three major approaches to making meaning through texts. Romantic theory was the dominant theory in the 19th century to the 1940's, as every critic tried to explain the intentions of the writer. This theory supports the preoccupation with the author and his or her message; the literary work is seen as a reflection of the writer's biography and historical background. The general assumption of this theory is that competent readers learn to interpret the text, looking for the author's intended message or meaning. The author's intention is the key to ascertaining what the work is really all about, i.e., its meaning. Only through close scrutiny and analysis of the structure and techniques of the author can a reader reach the one meaning that is the only meaning that the author meant the text to express. Typically in the classroom where formal analysis is the focus, the instructor lectures, presenting an analysis of the work and the author's background.

In the 1940's, the predominant theory that explained the making of meaning shifted as readers focused on a close reading of the language in a text. Through a theory called New Criticism. In New Criticism, the reader focuses on a close reading of the text, with a formal analysis of the setting, character, plot, language theme, etc. The reader's task is to carefully identify the major literary elements of what he or she is reading. Teachers teach close, concise analysis of the text. Those who teach through this theory are critical of the reader's attempt to make his or her own feelings important in the reading of any text. Readers are not encouraged to respond to their own personal connections with the text.

The rise in Reader-Response occurred during the 1960's to 1980's, with a marked shift of attention on the reader. This reaction challenged New Criticism as educators attempted to focus away from structural analysis of the texts. Instead, teachers who promote reader-response help their students improve the quality of their reading. In Reader-Response theory, readers are taught to justify their responses by providing textual support, as a means of avoiding irrelevant, inappropriate or arbitrary interpretations. The teacher's role is to create a community that fosters individuality of response.

There are three elements to reader-response: the reader, the text, and the context. In Rosenblatt's (1983) view, reading is not a passive act. When readers read, they bring their own experiences to the selection. There is no one true interpretation, as the reader is the active creator of responses. Readers re-create the text for themselves. They do this by bringing forward their own understandings about how texts work as well as their own beliefs and expectations. A reader creates his or her own meanings, not one specific meaning that the author of the text may want the reader to achieve.

Reader-response is a transaction between the reader and the text. Karolides (1992) defines transaction as "denoting the special nature between the relationships between the reader and the text during the reading event: mutually acting on each other, affecting each other to evoke an experience or meaning for a particular reader of the text" (p. 22).

For a transaction to happen, the text must be understandable and within the developmental range of the reader. The reader also must be motivated to read; inattention blocks one's ability to respond. Younger children's responses are more literal than those of more mature readers, whose responses tend to be more interpretative.

Besides producing their own individual responses, readers work in small groups to further enhance their understanding about the text. Rosenblatt (1983) promotes sharing of responses:

"In that sharing, their students can learn from each other; reconsider what they found in a poem; keep, modify, or reject parts of their responses; and go away to rethink their reactions" (p. 19). Small-scale studies conducted by a teacher allow him or her to understand better what students are thinking when they encounter particular concepts (Lesser, 2013).

Rosenblatt (1983) states that no two readers experience the same poem in the same way. By comparing responses, the readers may discover further possibilities in the text and in their own writing, and move into conversation that will further their understanding of the text and their own responses.

Reader-response can be broken down further into five theoretical perspectives. Beach (1993) states that reader-response theorists have evaluated readers' processes of reading and have identified ways in which the reader creates meaning, through textual, experiential, psychological, social and cultural means. Theorists study certain characteristics of readers in order to determine how they make meaning through reading of a text.

Textual theorists focus on knowledge of text conventions, what students know about genre conventions to response to specific parts of the text. Readers apply this knowledge to help them understand what they are reading and are encouraged to look for links between several texts, perhaps defining similarities between stories. Through each new experience, readers revise their knowledge of the conventions of a genre and use this knowledge in their approach to the next text. For example, in the classroom, readers may compare two texts and look at similarities in terms of language and style.

Experiential reader-response theorists focus on the nature of the readers' engagement with the text, the ways in which students identify with characters, visualize images, etc. Louise Rosenblatt (1983), a leader in the study of reader-response, states that readers shift back and forth between efferent and aesthetic responses. Readers who respond aesthetically are creating a private meaning, responding to personal thoughts and feelings as they react to the text. When students engage with the text, they become involved emotionally, empathizing or identifying with the characters. They construct alternative worlds through their reading, conceptualizing the characters, the setting, the events, etc. and create visual images. They make connections with the text and their own lives, and reflect upon the quality of their own experiences with the text. For example, in the classroom, readers are often given optional activities that they choose, based on their learning styles. After readers have explored their personal responses, efferent responses follow, with a focus more on analysis (Jenkins, 1997). Reader-response does not preclude the literary examination of the text; this often develops through the writing of ongoing responses. But with either aesthetic or efferent responses, students must always return to the text to validate their responses.

Psychological reader-response theorists look at the psychological aspects of readers, focusing on their personalities and development levels and how they affect reading response. Appleyard (1990) states that responses are shaped by a host of psychological dimensions; the reader may engage in a fantasy world, vicariously experiencing the romantic quests of characters, adopting the characters' perspectives. The reader may respond as a thinker, reflecting on the underlying meanings associated with the characters' actions. Readers may become interpreters of texts, as they wrestle with the contradictions within the text. In the classroom, teachers consider developmental levels and abilities to problem-solve in promoting strategies for responding to texts.

Social reader-response theorists determine how social settings or contexts impact responses, such as ways in which book clubs or literature circles promote reader-response. Students work in small groups so that all their voices can be heard; they are mutually dependent on one another for sharing responses. They draw parallels between their own social experiences with other members of the group, as well as characters in the texts.

Cultural theorists determine how readers' cultural roles, attitudes and values shape responses. Readers' identities can also be shaped by texts. In the classroom, readers write about their own families and backgrounds, which have shaped their lives and self-concepts. Brooks & Browne suggest that because a range of cultural positions factors into students' meaning making, we should mine texts more carefully for cultural milieu as well as find acceptance with a broader range of literary interpretations (Brooks & Browne, 2012).

Applications

Activities used in Reader-Response theory can be applied to any genre, poem, short story, novel or play. The method can provide a forum whereby readers can react to text from their own unique perspective, providing them with an opportunity to engage in in-depth and thought-provoking dialogue with other readers (Totten, 1998).

Appleyard (1984) presents multiple strategies for promoting reader-response. He invites students to provide an emotional or intellectual response to a reading, giving them time to shape their responses. He then finds links between responses, or similarities that underline a shared experience. Through use of small groups, he then invites a discussion about the responses, as students connect with other texts.

Another guiding protocol to promote reader response is to give support without directing. Students read the text, recording what is happening in their thoughts as they read: What do they remember? What is their sense of the text? Teachers can then go on to ask: What did they see in the text? Upon what did they focus most intensely as they read? What words, phrases, images, and ideas? The teacher then groups students to respond to one another's responses: Did the text call to mind different memories, etc.? Students then reflect on the process: How did they change in their own understandings through this process (Appleyard, 1984)?

Romantic theory, Reader-Response and New Criticism methodologies are all used in today's classrooms, in varying degrees. The implementation of any of these methods depends upon the kind of relationship teachers want their readers to have with the text. When teachers use New Criticism or Romantic theory as a literary approach, they are maintaining an objective distance from the text and the students. Those implementing Reader-Response are drawing out readers' experiences with the text. Most reading occurs along a continuum of aesthetic and efferent responses; proponents of reader-response theory are challenging the traditional methods of literature teaching as being too restrictive and leading to limited views.

Stages in Reader - Response

Rosenblatt (1983) presents stages to fostering reader response in the classroom. Teachers follow these stages by promoting four aspects: awareness of past experiences with a text; a revision of any previous interpretations; a sharing of reader-responses in small groups; and, taking a closer look at the text after reflecting on others' responses.

Response Strategies

Beach (1993) identifies a wide range of response strategies that readers can use to gain understanding of a text: engaging, conceiving, connecting, explaining, interpreting, and judging. These can be enhanced through written or discussion responses, oral interpretations, role-playing, artwork, rewriting texts, or creating new ones. There are several types of transactions that readers make when responding. These include: making literary judgments, whereby readers make more informed evaluations after reading; writing narration and associational responses, as readers retell stories and depart from the text into personal experience; and, making self-involvement responses, where the reader makes responses of association with the actions and feelings of characters.

Response Groups

Literature Circles and Book Clubs are arranged sessions whereby readers are collaboratively involved in reading and responding to texts. Within these groups are free expressions of readers' opinions, promoting critical thinking among the group members. One yearlong qualitative study that explored how urban middle school girls participated in an after-school book club showed that the adolescent girls, through reading communally, gained deeper understanding of the written text and also encountered different ways of looking at themselves and others (Park, 2102).

Journals

Journals promote opportunities to support growth in responses. Through responding in journals, students take time to think about what they have read. Dialogue journals are response journals whereby the teacher responds to the reader's writing. This creates a joint sharing of both personal, or affective, and cognitive responses on any given character or plot.

Response Prompts

Response prompts are opened-ended prompts that move students from initial retellings of stories and summaries to more analytical responses and greater emotional involvement. Response prompts move readers from writing in logs to discussing their responses, fostering richer classroom discussion (Martinez & Roser, 2002).

Influences on Reader-Responses

Karolides (1992) lists many influences that impact reader-responses. Responses are influenced by readers' past experiences and current circumstances; readers' reasons for reading; the recursive nature of responses; readers' depth of involvement in reading and the maturity of readers; and the selective attention which causes readers to focus on singular elements of the text (p 27).

Determining Validity of Reader-Responses

Reader-response theory is predicated on the belief that there is no single correct interpretation or meaning to a literary work, that the text does not hold the one right answer to meaning, and that there is a consistent set of criteria that identifies valid responses to text (Karolides, 1992). Teachers can use these three questions to shape their assessment of responses: To what degree does the reader-response include the various features of the text and the nuances of the language? To what degree does the response include aspects that do not reflect the text? To what degree has the reading evoked a coherent work? Rouse (1991) states that responders must stay focused on their purpose, that "becoming attracted by some element in their past experiences and go[ing] off on a train of associations, leaving the text and passing into reveries" will distract the readers from their justifications for their responses (p. 201).

Viewpoints

What Teachers Need to Consider

Karolides (1992) suggests the use of certain strategies and principles for teachers interested in promoting reader-response theory in their classrooms. They must:

• Understand that transaction between the text and the reader must be at the center of the classroom.

• Start discussion where the readers are, focusing on initial reactions and understandings of texts before they can focus on perceptions.

• Support and validate responses.

• Provide guidance by using thoughtful questions, personal responses, and compelling information.

• Promote personal growth and allow readers ownership of their reading.

Cultural Texts - Extended Reader Response

Cultural texts are an extension of reader-response. Cultural texts are generally used in urban classrooms with those students who have little exposure to literary texts that connect with their lives. In this model, teachers identify texts and authors whose ideological stances are familiar and appealing to readers. The responses that result from these readings become the cultural texts, the readers' own work. These personal stories reflect the particular aspirations, struggles and realities of urban experiences. These reader-responses become the vehicle for discussion and exploration (Blake, 1998).

Encisco (1994) states that there are four major interrelated points that teachers must consider when implementing cultural texts. They must:

• Encourage students' desire to understand and feel empathy for different people, times, and dilemmas.

• Promote the use of students' own cultural resources to make connections, not only to a text, but with themselves and others.

• Promote responses to other students' writings so that students can interpret stereotypical characters.

• Promote the articulation of critical responses to their own texts, so that they become critical of other texts and learn to challenge racism and sexism their own and societal stances and beliefs. (p. 52)

Terms & Concepts

Aesthetic Response: The reader's response that is primarily focused on what happens during the actual reading process. The reader responds to his or her associations, feelings, attitudes and ideas that the text arouses.

Book Clubs: Book Clubs are student-led discussion groups, heterogeneously grouped by reading level. Members of the group may all read the same book or different books within the same shared theme. Students discuss ideas that emerged from their reader-response logs, airing their questions, confusions, and related personal experiences. Students are also taught group dynamics for book club discussions, such as listening with respect, building on others' ideas, debating and critiquing ideas, assuming leadership, and following another's lead.

Efferent Response: The reader focuses on the information that he or she will acquire AFTER the reading occurs (Rosenblatt, 1976).

Literature Circles: Literature Circles are student-centered reading activities for a group of four to six students at any grade level. Each member is responsible for reading the title chosen by the group; they meet in the group to share their thoughts, concerns and understandings about the novel. Reader-response journals are often used to foster conversation about the plot, the characters, etc. Each member of the Circle is responsible for bringing information about the text to the group; this information could include discussion about characters, vocabulary, etc.

New Criticism: New Criticism theory was a dominant theory of analyzing text in the 1950's. Readers involved themselves in a formal analysis of the language and structure of the work, with little interest in the author's message.

Reader-Response Theorists: Reader-Response theorists evaluate readers' processes of reading, and identify ways in which the reader creates meaning, through textual, experiential, psychological, social and cultural means

Romantic Theory: Romantic theory was a dominant theory of analyzing text before the 1950's. This theory supported the preoccupation with the author's message; the reader was to interpret the text, looking for that one true meaning that the author meant the text to express.

Text: Text is any printed version of something, such as a novel, poetry, short story, etc.

Transaction: The concept of transaction emphasizes the reader's relationship with, and continuing awareness of, the text. Karolides (1992) states that it denotes the special relationship between the reader and the text during the reading process.

Bibliography

Appleyard, A. (1984). Context for learning to write. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Appleyard, A. (1990). Becoming a reader: The Experience of fiction from childhood to adulthood. NY: Cambridge UP.

Beach, R. (1993). A teacher's introduction to reader-response theories. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Blake, B. (1998 Summer). "Critical" reader response in an urban classroom: Creating cultural texts to engage diverse readers. Theory in Practice, 39, 238-244. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=1096903&site=ehost-live

Brooks, W., & Browne, S. (2012). Towards a culturally situated Reader Response theory. Children's Literature in Education, 43, 74-85. Retrieved December 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=71920816&site=ehost-live

Demeny, P. (2012). Developing written text production competence using the reader-response method. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 5, 53-60. Retrieved December 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90504191&site=ehost-live

Jenkins, C. (1997). Aristotle comes to the literature circle. Journal of Education, 179, 59- 81. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=377515&site=ehost-live

Karolides, N. (1992). Reader-response in the classroom. In N. Karolides (Ed.). The transactional theory of literature (pp. 21-32). NY: Longman.

Lesser, L. M. (2013). Reader's Response: Learning about learning: Moving beyond a teacher-centered approach. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 7, 1-2. Retrieved December 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92710081&site=ehost-live

Martinez, M, & Roser, N. (2002). Children's response to literature. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, and J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (pp. 67-73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.

Rosenblatt, L. (1983). Literature as exploration (4th ed.). NY: MLA.

Rosenblatt, L. (1985). Transaction versus interaction: A terminology rescue operation. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 96-107.

Rouse, J. (1991). A transactional affair. In J. Clifford (Ed.), The experience of reading: Louise Rosenblatt and reader-response theory (pp. 197-108. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Totten, S. (1998 January/February). Using reader response theory to study poetry about the Holocaust with high school students. Social Studies, 89, 30-35. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Educational Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=206268&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Anderson, L. (1991 June). Using reader-response theory in the introductory literature classroom. College Literature, 18 141-146. Retrieved May 29, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9603085683&site=ehost-live

Asselin, M. (2000 April). Reader response in literature and reading instruction. Teacher Librarian, 27, 62-64. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3050879&site=ehost-live

Bartles, R. (1977). Image, music, text. Trans. S. Heath. NY: Hill and Wang.

Carlisle, A. (2000 January). Reading logs: An application of reader-response theory in ELT. English Language Teachers Journal, 54, 12-20. Retrieved May 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2793903&site=ehost-live

Christenbury, L. (1992). The guy who wrote this poem seems to have the same

Christenbury, L. (1992). The guy who wrote this poem seems to have the same feelings as you have: Reader-response methodology. In N. Karolides (Ed.), The transactional theory of literature (pp. 33-44). NY: Longman.

Cheu, H. (2001 Summer). There is no class in this text: From reader-response to biblio-therapy. Textual Studies in Canada, 13/14, 37. Retrieved May 28, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5348546&site=ehost-live

Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Freund, E. (1987). The return of the reader: Reader-response criticism. NY: Methuen.

Henly, C. (1993 March). Reader-response theory as antidote to controversy: Teaching 'The Bluest Eye'. English Journal, 82, 14-20. Retrieved May 26, 2007 from Online Database Education Research Complete.

Hirschman, E. (1999). Applying reader-response theory to a television program. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 549-554. Retrieved May 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=27569423&site=ehost-live

Hirvela, A. (1996 April). Reader response theory and ELT. English Language Teachers Journal, 50, 127-135. Retrieved May 26, 2007 from Online Database Education Research Complete.

Howard, J., & Allen, C. (1989 December). Making meaning: Revealing attributions through analysis of readers' responses. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 280-298. Retrieved May 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13569161&site=ehost-live

Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP.

Mikokawa, D., & Hensen-Krenig, N. (2000 September). The ABCs of attitudes toward reading: Inquiring about the reader's responses. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44, 72-79.

Park, J. (2012). Re-imaging reader-response in middle and secondary schools: Early adolescent girls' critical and communal reader responses to the young adult novel speak. Children's Literature in Education, 43, 191-212. Retrieved December 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=78217904&site=ehost-live

Poirier, J. (2000 April). Some detracting considerations for reader-response theory.

Catholic Bible Quarterly, 62, 250-264. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=3466947&site=ehost-live

Probst, R. (2002). Response to literature. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, and J. Jensen (Eds.),Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (pp. 67-73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Purves, A. (1968). Elements of writing about the literary work: A study of response to literature. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Rosenblatt, L. (2002). Literary theory. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, and J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (pp. 67-73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Samway, K., & Whang, G. (1996). Literature circles in a multicultural classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Sheridan, D. (1991 November). Changing business as usual: Reader response in the classroom. College English, 53, 804-815.Retrieved May 26, 2007 from Online Database EBSCO Education Research Complete.

Shull, E. (1989 December). The reader, the text, the poem - and the film. English Journal, 78, 53-58. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Shuman, R. (1993 September). The past as present: Reader response and literary study. English Journal, 82, 30-33. Retrieved May 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Soublis, T., & Winkler, E. (2004 November). Transcending bias through reader-response theory. English Journal, 94, 12-14. Retrieved May 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=15352213&site=ehost-live

Spiegel, D. (1998 September). Reader response approaches and the growth of readers. Language Arts, 76, 41-49. Retrieved May 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1083889&site=ehost-live

Tompkins, S. (1997 December). How does a reader make a poem meaningful? Reader- response theory and the poetry portfolio. Teaching English in the two year college, 24, 317-326. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.