Transactional Models

Louise Rosenblatt's transactional theory, known as the reader-response theory, is still used by literature instructors today. She believed that the meaning of any text lies in the transaction that happens between the student and text. Rosenblatt helped define the difference between focusing literature instruction on recall and recitation or using the transactional theory and its efferent and aesthetic stances. The differences between aesthetic and efferent stances are here included, as well as examples of other reading models in use by instructors.

Keywords Aesthetic Stance; Efferent Stance; High-Stakes Testing; Reflection; Rosenblatt, Louise; Transactional Model; Transactional Theory

Overview

In the early 1900s, the traditional way to instruct English was to produce a standard list of classics, emphasize generalized interpretations, and have students answer questions based on the text (Rosenblatt, 1983, as cited in Connell, 2001). The primary goal of instruction was focused on introducing students to the classics and promoting an understanding of the literary techniques used in the texts (Connell, 2001). One woman, Louise Rosenblatt, felt that the traditional approach to instructing literature blunted the possibility of having reading be an aesthetic experience for students and instead made it more remote and abstract (Rosenblatt, 1983, as cited in Connell, 2001). In her book Literature as Exploration, published in 1938, Rosenblatt created a new way of teaching literature. She called her theory "the transactional theory of the literary work," but it is now commonly known as "transactional theory" also Reader-Response Theory (Raines, Brabham & Aycock, 2007). In developing the transactional theory, Rosenblatt stated that students count at least as much as the text (Rosenblatt, 1983, as cited in Connell, 2001).

English instruction still includes emphasis on teaching literature from books, but in the almost 70 years since Rosenblatt first published her transactional theory in Literature as Exploration, it is a technique still used in some classrooms. The New Criticism theory of the late 1930s through the 1950s made the texts central; instructors taught skills with close, concise analysis while discouraging expression of students' individual responses (Church, 1998). Then, in the 1960s and early 1970s there was a shift away from teaching the text as the main authority to one that focused on each student's relationship with the text (Rosenblatt, 1938, 1964, 1968, 1978; Squire, 1964; Squire & Applebee, 1968; Purves, 1975; Purves & Beach, 1972; Bleich, 1975, as cited in Church, 1998).

In 1938, Rosenblatt described the transaction that happens between the student and text and said that the meaning of any text lies in the reader's interaction with the words because readers are bringing their own background information, experiences, attitudes, and understandings to the text. These factors influence their understanding of the words on the page. For example, the phrase 'it was snowing' can mean many different things to whoever is reading it. For readers who love to ski, it can bring forth many positive feelings; for readers who are afraid to drive in the snow, it can bring forth many negative feelings; for readers who have never seen snow in person before, it can cause them to pause and wonder what snow is really like; and for readers who do not like descriptive phrases of any kind, it might cause them to skip right over it. There are also the author's intended meanings embedded in the text, but readers bring their own qualities to the act of reading that influence how texts are interpreted. Therefore, every text sends messages other than those intended or stated on the page (Martin, 2003).

Raines felt that literary texts were “works of art and should be read from the aesthetic stance, which emphasizes the emotional aspects of the transaction” (Raines, 2007, 100). When students read using the aesthetic stance, they concentrate on what is going on during the reading experience and the responses evoked by the text. Once evocation happens, then students can work on the interpretation, which is the effort made by readers to describe the nature of what happened to them (Rosenblatt, 1994, as cited in Raines et al., 2007).

When looking at reading from this perspective, it is an important part of the process to ask why each reader understands the text to mean one thing and not another and to look at the process of attaching meaning to the words in a unique and personal process. It then follows that deep understanding of any text requires readers to ask questions about broader social, historical, and cultural influences on the text and reader perception. Since meaning comes from the interaction between the reader and the text, then examining the factors that caused a particular reader to come up with a particular interpretation is necessary and is constructed through critical thinking about the text (Martin, 2003).

The Two Stances of Transactional Theory

Rosenblatt helped define the difference between focusing literature instruction on recall and recitation and using the transactional theory as the efferent and aesthetic stances, respectively. When answering from an efferent stance, students have a need to acquire specific information from the text; and when students take an aesthetic stance, their own unique experience with a text is most important (Church, 1998). “Aesthetic teaching focuses students on reading primarily for living through and experiencing a text. Efferent teaching focuses students on reading for the purpose of recalling the information at a later date” (Raines et al., 2007, p. 28). However, while reading the text, students will probably “shift back and forth along a continuum between efferent and aesthetic by reading” aesthetically and briefly focusing on analyzing the techniques used or by remembering a personal experience while efferently reading (The Aesthetic Transaction, 1986, as cited in Church, 1998, ¶ 6). Rosenblatt advocates using the aesthetic stance for reading poems, novels, plays, and stories (Raines et al., 2007).

Transactional theory deals with who the readers are, what they bring to the text, and the expectations they may have of the text. Transactional theory also looks at the choices students make as they are reading the text, with the choice of which stance they take possibly the most important choice of all. There are two basic stances:

• Aesthetic. The aesthetic stance is concerned with students primarily focusing on the experience lived through during reading of the text.

• Efferent. The efferent stance is primarily concerned with what student will take away as information from the text that is read (Probst, 1987).

The Aesthetic Stance

Readers who use the aesthetic stance look at the text without a directive in mind, not looking for any particular piece of information, and not trying to accomplish an assigned task. Instead, students are looking for the emotional, aesthetic, and intellectual experience that the text has to offer. Students not only pay attention to the content of the text and the information, story, or argument it has to offer; they also look at the feelings the text evokes, the associations and memories the text brings out in them, and the images that pass through their minds while reading the text. Pantaleo’s examination of transactional theory (2013) provides an example of one student’s aesthetic response to a graphic novel. The aesthetic stance is more than reading for knowledge, it is reading for the experience itself (Probst, 1987).

With the aesthetic stance, what is evoked is not “static for subsequent reflection, it cannot be shared directly with others, and it cannot be the same for different readers even for the same literary text because of their ultimately private nature. However, readers can report and discuss interpretations of their evocation with other students,” but it can be difficult to do because of communication difficulties and the inability to articulate exactly what they are feeling and thinking (Raines, 2007, p. 99).

The Efferent Stance

The efferent stance is one in which readers are seeking specific information and is necessary when reading a science textbooks, technical manuals, or any other text where students are trying to extract information from the text. The efferent stance is not concerned with the rhythm or sound of the language used or the emotions it evokes but is more concerned with the accuracy of the text and students' ability to understand it. In fact, students should not be swayed by the language so that it does not obscure any defects in logic, lack of evidence, or anything else that may detract from analysis of the message presented (Probst, 1987).

With the efferent stance, different readers should be able to develop a more common interpretation of the meaning of the text than when approaching it from an aesthetic stance (Rosenblatt, 1994, as cited in Raines et al., 2007). The efferent stance should allow someone to read and summarize a text and come up with something similar to what everyone else who reads the same text and summarizes it does. Additionally, when those summaries are given to someone who has never read the text, that person should be able to attain accurate information without having to personally read the text (Raines et al., 2007).

When looking at aesthetic and efferent stances, it is not a matter of one or the other but more of where one is on a continuum. Students may prefer to use one stance more than the other, but ultimately it is a matter of whether they are looking at the text as a source of information or as a source of experience, efferently or aesthetically, respectively (Probst, 1987).

Applications

Teaching Using Transactional Theory

In teaching literature, transactional theory assumes that the text is created in the act of reading rather than in the text itself. This means that any literary work is different for each student, and it can be different even for the same student from one reading to the next. This can be challenging for instructors because they are not trying to help their students arrive at definite conclusions about literary works, which are backed up by scholarly authority, but instead have to accept the uniqueness of each student and try to develop from each unique response meaningful discussions and writing. In doing so, instructors should encourage students to respect and examine their initial responses and all the emotions, associations, memories, and ideas the text evokes. Out of this response, they create their own unique understanding of the text. This means that teaching becomes a matter of encouraging students to articulate their responses, examine how they came about with respect to the text and in other experiences, reflect upon them, and then analyze them in conjunction with what other students in their class, as well as critics, have said about the text.

Transactional theory transforms the classroom into a more cooperative atmosphere when discussing a text-one without debating who is right and who is wrong. Classroom discussion should attempt to encourage students not to try to win over others but to clarify and refine their thoughts on the text (Galda, 2013). The classroom atmosphere also can lead students to gain a greater knowledge of themselves, the text, and of other students with whom they discuss their viewpoints (Probst, 1987).

According to Probst (1987), there are several principles of instruction that literature teachers can utilize when using the transactional theory:

• Instructors should do their best to make clear to students that both their emotional and intellectual responses are valid places to begin discussions and writing and encourage their responses.

• Instructors should encourage their students to reflect upon their responses and give them time to crystallize their ideas. Ideally, this occurs before they hear other students' viewpoints.

• Instructors should try to find some commonalities among the different viewpoints, which can help facilitate discussion even with their different viewpoints.

• Instructors should begin the discussion of the topics of themselves, the text, and other students because transactional theory advocates this method as an opportunity to learn about all three topics.

• Instructors should let discussions build and make sure students feel they have the freedom to change their minds without repercussions as they encourage insight instead of victory.

• Instructors can help pull together the process by having students look back at other texts they have read and other discussions that were held to help students connect what they have read with other experiences they have had.

• Instructors should also look for the next step in class to try to determine what text should be read next and what other things could students write about (Probst, 1987, p. 3).

Three Models of the Reading Process

There are three different models of the reading process:

• Transmission model,

• Translation model, and

• Transactional model (Bogdan & Straw, 1990; Straw & Bogdan, 1993, as cited in Schraw & Bruning, 1996).

Transmission Model

The transmission model is based on the theory that the meaning of the text is transmitted directly from the author to the reader. The reader is considered a passive receiver of information in this model and is supposed to derive the author's intended meaning and not be an active maker of the meaning of the text (Schraw & Bruning, 1996).

Translation Model

The translation model is based on the theory that meaning is in the text and is not influenced by the author's intended meaning or the reader's capacity to create different interpretations. Readers are required to decode the messages implied or stated in the text without any reference to their own experiences, the cultural surroundings in which the text was written, or by trying to figure out what the author intended to convey (Schraw & Bruning, 1996).

Transactional Model

The transactional model is based on the theory that a text means different things to different readers without concern for what the author intended when it was written or what is contained in the text. Readers are expected to interpret a text based on their own personal experiences, and meaning can be obtained based on prior knowledge of the topic and previous reading experiences. Reading is viewed as a subjective process rather than trying to receive the author's meaning or translate the meaning of the text in an objective manner (Schraw & Bruning, 1996).

Rosenblatt felt that transactions that happened “between readers and literary works of art are different from other events of reading. She argued that the appropriate stance for reading poems, novels, plays, and stories is an aesthetic one. An aesthetic stance leads readers to focus more on what they are experiencing” while reading instead of focusing on facts and figures (Raines, 2007, p. 99). By reading something aesthetically, students live through the text in ways that are personally meaningful to them (Rosenblatt, 1994, as cited in Raines et al., 2007) and may lead to increased comprehension (Pilonieta & Hancock, 2012).

Transactional theory is more than just reading aesthetically. In order to develop thoughts and critical judgment, students must build upon their initial responses with critical reflection through writing, class discussion, and further study (Rosenblatt, 1983, as cited in Connell, 2001). Rosenblatt also cautioned against concentrating too much on the external life of readers so that it fails to lead them to experiences beyond their immediate surroundings. One goal of studying literary works is to broaden students' comprehension of the world (Connell, 2001).

Viewpoints

Student Preferences

In a study reported by Raines, et al. (2007) to try to determine high school students' preference of reading instructional methods, students were found to prefer the aesthetic stance to the efferent stance. Those who participated in the study preferred the aesthetic stance by almost 61 percent, while 39 percent preferred the efferent stance. When the results were broken down by gender, 54 percent of the male students preferred the aesthetic stance and 46 percent preferred the efferent stance, while 66 percent of the female students preferred the aesthetic stance and 34 percent preferred the efferent method of instruction. The study showed “that students' concepts of reading did not predict their instructional preference” (Raines et al., 2007, p. 103).

Students who preferred the aesthetic method of instruction gave various reasons for their preference. Thirty-nine percent of the time students felt positive about being able to create their own story about the story they read, 21 percent of the students felt that there were “benefits of having their own opinions and meanings favored over the preferred opinion or correct meaning of all the comments, 21 percent fell into this category. Students reported that students’ interactions during whole class discussions helped them to expand and broaden their perspectives” (Raines, 2007, p. 103). Fourteen percent of the students felt that the aesthetic lesson had a greater impact on their learning and understanding of the story, and six percent of the students felt that the instructional method stimulated more student-driven questions as opposed to instructor-driven questions. Of the students who preferred the efferent method of instruction, students also had various reasons for their preference. Thirty-four percent of the students were okay with the comprehension questions they had to answer, 31 percent of the students described different components of character mapping as the reason they preferred the efferent method, 19 percent of the students preferred this method because it allowed them to understand the correct meaning of the story, and 16 percent of the students appreciated the structure that is involved with the efferent method (Raines et al., 2007).

Disadvantages

Having no one correct meaning or interpretation can make it almost impossible for instructors to grade students' work when the entire class is aesthetically taught. It is also difficult to see how transactional theory helps students prepare for high-stakes tests and meet global standards such as those established by the No Child Left Behind Act because students need to be aware that when undertaking standardized testing that there are correct and incorrect answers.

With her transactional theory, Rosenblatt argued that there is no single correct interpretation for a literary text, but she did acknowledge that some meanings were more defensible through texts than others (Raines et al., 2007). While transactional theory does acknowledge that other approaches to literature are valid because they can help provide insight to students, the theory sees reading as a unique, individual experience (Probst, 1987). Transactional theory can help students discover their own value, as it encourages them to share their thoughts; and it can also help them find the joy that can be found in reading, which can last a lifetime.

Terms & Concepts

Aesthetic Stance: The aesthetic stance of teaching focuses students on reading primarily for living through and personally experiencing a literary work.

Efferent Stance: The efferent stance of teaching focuses students on reading for the purpose of recalling the information at a later date.

High-stakes Testing: High-stakes testing is the use of test scores to make decisions that have important consequences for individuals, schools, school districts, and/or states and can include high school graduation, promotion to the next grade, resource allocation, and instructor retention.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the latest reauthorization and a major overhaul of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the major federal law regarding K-12 education.

Reflection: Reflection is the process of deriving meaning and knowledge from an experience and to consciously connect classroom learning to the experience.

Standardized Testing: Standardized testing is the use of a test that is administered and scored in a uniform manner, and the tests are designed in such a way that the questions and interpretations are consistent.

Bibliography:

Church, G. W. (1997). The significance of Louise Rosenblatt on the field of teaching literature [Electronic version]. Inquiry 1 , 71-77. Retrieved December 17, 2007 from Virginia Community College System, http://www.vccaedu.org/inquiry/inquiry-spring97/i11chur.html

Connell, J. (2001). Restoring aesthetic experiences in the school curriculum: The legacy of Rosenblatt’s transactional theory. From Literature as Exploration. Retrieved December 17, 2007 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi%5fqa3971/is%5f200101/ai%5fn8950251/print

Galda, L. (2013). Learning from children reading books: transactional theory and the teaching of literature. Journal of Children's Literature, 39, 5-13. Retrieved on December 12, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91540448&site=ehost-live

Martin, S. (2003). Close the book. It’s time to read. Clearing House, 76 , 289-291. Retrieved December 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11853021&site=ehost-live

Pantaleo, S. (2013). Revisiting Rosenblatt's aesthetic response through The Arrival. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 36, 125-134. Retrieved on December 12, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90619653&site=ehost-live

Pilonieta, P., & Hancock, S. D. (2012). Negotiating first graders' reading stance: The relationship between their efferent and aesthetic connections and their reading comprehension. Current Issues in Education, 15, 1-9. Retrieved on December 12, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88843598&site=ehost-live

Probst, R.E. (1987). Transactional theory in the teaching of literature. Retrieved December 17, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content%5fstorage%5f01/0000019b/80/32/2c/2f.pdf

Raines, A., Brabham, E. & Aycock, A. (2007). High schools students’ instructional preferences when reading literary works of art. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 7 , 97-116. Retrieved December 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=27402949&site=ehost-live

Schraw, G. & Bruning, R. (1996). Readers’ implicit models of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 31 , 290. Retrieved December 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9612112162&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Beach, R. (1993). A Teacher's Introduction to Reader-Response Theories. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Clifford, J. (1991). The Experience of Reading: Louise Rosenblatt and Reader-Response Theory. Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook.

Rosenblatt, L. (1996). Literature as Exploration (5th ed.). New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America.

Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Wilhelm, J. (1997). "You Gotta Be the Book": Teaching Engaged and Reflective Reading with Adolescents. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Wihelm, J., Baker, T. & Dube, J. (2001). Strategic Reading: Guiding Students to Lifelong Literacy 6-12. Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook.