 |
Envisionment
Building
The
Center for English Learning and Achievement (CELA) has made
these two great resources available for teachers. Authored
by Dr. Judith Langer and Elizabeth Close, both documents contain
concise explanations of envisionment and concrete suggestions
for creating a classroom where students have rich interactions
with literature.
You
will need a copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader to read these articles.
You can download
it for free from Adobe.
A Response-Based Approach to Reading Literature
 Judith
A. Langer
National Research Center on Literature Teaching and Learning
University at Albany
State University of New York
1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222
Report Series 6.7
1994
Language Arts, v71 n3, March 1994. Copyright 1994 by
the National
Council of Teachers of English. Reprinted with permission.
Also published in Language Arts, Vol. 71, March 1994.
National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement
University at Albany, School of Education, B-9
1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222
http://cela.albany.edu/
518-442-5026
The Center on English Learning & Achievement (CELA) is
a national research and development center located at the
University at Albany, State University of New York, in collaboration
with the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The Center, established
in 1987, initially focused on the teaching and learning of
literature. In March 1996, the Center expanded its focus to
include the teaching and learning of English, both as a subject
in its own right and as it is learned in other content areas.
CELA's work is sponsored by the Office of Educational Research
and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, as part
of the National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum,
and Assessment.
A Response-Based Approach to Reading Literature is based on
research conducted at the National Research Center on Literature
Teaching and Learning, supported under the Research and Development
Centers Program (Grant number R117G10015). Distribution is
supported in part under award number R305A960005 as administered
by OERI. However, the contents do not necessarily represent
the positions or policies of the Department of Education,
OERI, or the Institute on Student Achievement. All Center
reports are peer reviewed before publication.
Published 1997
http://cela.albany.edu/response/index.html
In this Research Report, I will discuss my work on response-based
instruction, the strategies teachers call upon to orchestrate
such classroom experiences, and ways in which it supports
the development of students' thinking. This work is part of
a larger program of research into the teaching and learning
of literature I began some years ago. During the past few
years, an increasing number of researchers and theorists have
been focusing on related issues relevant to language arts
readers about the processes involved in understanding literature
from a reader-based perspective (e.g., Benton,1992, Corcoran,
1992, Eeds & Wells, 1989, Encisco, 1992, Rosenblatt, 1993),
as well as ways to support students' learning in the elementary
and middle grades (e.g., Andrasik 1990, Cianciolo & Quirk
1992; Close 1990, 1992; Goodman & Wilde 1992; Many &
Wiseman 1992; McMahon 1992; Nystrand, Gamoran, & Heck
1993; Zancanella 1992, Zarillo & Cox 1992). Still others
have been focusing on literature-based and whole language
instruction at the primary level (e.g., Jipson & Paley
1992; Mills, O'Keefe, & Stephens 1992; Morrow 1992; Roser
in press; Uhry & Shephard 1993; Villaume & Worden
1993; Walmsley & Adams 1993; Yatvin 1992).
On the heels of the reform we have all witnessed in writing
education has followed a widespread rethinking of literature
in the English language arts, initiated as often as not by
teachers who have wanted to bring their literature instructional
practices in line with their student-focused approaches to
writing. During this time, I have become increasingly aware
that as teachers experiment with the many related types of
response-centered approaches (including whole language and
literature-based instruction), many are uncertain about the
place of instruction in these paradigms and their role in
it. On the one hand they are attracted to the notions underlying
a pedagogy of student thoughtfulness because they think it
provides students with ownership for their own learning, motivates
and engages them in making sense, and provides a context for
them to try out, negotiate, and refine their ideas in interaction
with others. On the other hand, they are uncertain how to
carry through such lessons.
Often I am asked, "Does anything go, and if not, how do I
know what to do? Once I get an initial response, what do I
do with it?" I consider these concerns valid, even predictable.
The old teaching routines almost all of us learned in graduate
coursework and saw modeled in curriculum guides, instructional
materials, and assessment instruments don't apply when response-based
instruction is the goal. Yet the field has not yet provided
adequate guidelines or strategies to allow teachers to build
"new bones," internalized routines and options to take the
place of plot summaries and leading questions guiding students
toward predetermined interpretations — new bones that
can guide their moment-to-moment decision-making as they plan
for and interact with their students.
For the past few years, through my work at the National Research
Center on Literature Teaching and Learning (funded by the
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement), I have been working toward a reader-based
theory for the teaching of literature — one that can
help us understand what it means to make sense of literature
from a reader's point of view, and what that means for refocusing
our instructional goals and practices (see Langer, 1990a,b;
1991, 1992a,b; 1993; Roberts & Langer 1991). One part
of this work helps explain the process of literary understanding
while the other addresses ways in which such understanding
can be most effectively taught. I will discuss each in turn.
1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
 more
|
2. 
