Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Engagement with literature through writing : examining the ongoing written responses of adolescents Kooy, Mary 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8 K66.pdf [ 8.15MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078299.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078299-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078299-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078299-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078299-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078299-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078299-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078299-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078299.ris

Full Text

ENGAGEMENT WITH LITERATURE THROUGH WRITING: NING THE ONGOING WRITTEN RESPONSES OF ADOLESCENTS By MARY KOOY B . A . , C a l v i n C o l l e g e , 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Depar tment o f Language E d u c a t i o n ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1988 0 Mary K o o y , 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of L-a*\Qjkeu^ BAu&Oufton I fciCuulty o$ The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date H/rKL MM DE-6(3/81) ABSTRACT This study examined the written responses of seven adolescents to three novels. During the course of two school years, the students recorded t h e i r ongoing responses to small sections (ten to f i f t e e n pages) of each novel i n a response log. These responses were examined for evidence of patterns, t y p i c a l responses, i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s , and the e f f e c t s of narrative structure. The Purves and Rippere instrument was used to determine response patterns while a new instrument developed by the researcher to accomodate the nature of the preliminary, ongoing responses was implemented to address the remaining three questions. The following general observations were made: 1. No predictable, sequential pattern of response could be found i n student response writings 2. Certain responses predominated: namely, nar r a t i o n a l r e t e l l i n g , tentative frameworklng of the content, and analysis of characters and events 3. The written responses were generally characterized by considerable v a r i a t i o n i n i n d i v i d u a l responses. 4. Texts bearing d i s t i n c t narrative features prompted d i f f e r e n t responses both for i n d i v i d u a l s and the group as a whole. Conclusions: The e f f e c t s of writing during the reading of l i t e r a r y texts appears to bring response to a c l e a r , conscious l e v e l . Writing i n the response log encourages a conscious transaction with the l i t e r a r y text and consequently, readers can engage more a c t i v e l y and knowledgeably i n the reading experience. Some broad conclusions and impl i ca t ions emerged from the study: 1. P a r t i c u l a r l y as they encounter complex l i t e r a r y works, adolescents should be encouraged to engage a c t i v e l y and consc ious ly i n t h e i r reading of l i t e r a t u r e by recording t h e i r ongoing responses i n a l o g . 2. Teachers ought to promote the development of personal l i t e r a r y responses that require ac t ive th ink ing through t e s t ing hypotheses, making connections and i n t e r p r e t i n g the l i t e r a r y content 3. By purposefu l ly s t r u c t u r i n g ac t ive meaning-making i n the study of l i t e r a t u r e , teachers can determine the student needs and create the context for meaningful d i s c u s s i o n . Moreover, by p u b l i c l y sharing the contents of the response logs , a l l c l a s s members can contr ibute to and enhance t h e i r responses. Using w r i t i n g to gauge the ongoing l i t e r a r y response allows both students and t h e i r teachers to be consc ious ly aware of the "sense-making" s t ra teg i e s employed. As the medium for c r i t i c a l reading , w r i t i n g promotes t e n t a t i v e , f l e x i b l e cons truc t ion of meaning. Furthermore, the instrument developed for analyz ing the ongoing student responses i n th i s study provides both a way to consc ious ly examine the content of wr i t t en responses and exposes a l t e r n a t i v e responses in order to extend understanding and a p p r e c i a t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT. . . . . . . i i TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES v i i i DEDICATION ix CHAPTER 1. THE NATURE OF THE STUDY 1 I. Purpose of the Study 1 II . Background of the Problem 1 II I . Context for the Study 2 IV. Research Questions 9 V. D e f i n i t i o n of the Terms 9 VI. Design of the Study 11 A. Selection of the Novels 11 B. Organization of the Study 13 C. The Students 15 VII. Limitations of the Study 16 VIII. Conclusion 17 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 18 I. Reading 18 I I . Reader Response ( L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m ) 21 II I . Writing i n Response to Li t e r a t u r e 30 IV. Analyzing Written Response to L i t e r a t u r e . . . 38 VI. Summary 42 3. PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY . 44 I. Background 44 A. I Am the Cheese 45 B. The Reading Response Logs . . 46 V CHAPTER PAGE I I . The Design of the Study: Phase One 51 A. The Students 51 B. The Instruments: Ap p l i c a t i o n and Description . . . . . . 52 C. Analyzing the I Am the Cheese Response Logs 54 D. Developing the Response Descriptors . . . 55 E. The L i t e r a r y Response Descriptors . . . . 55 F. The R e l i a b i l i t y of the Instrument . . . . 56 I I I . Desing of the Study: Phase Two 57 A. The Novels 57 B. The Procedure 58 C. Analyzing the Results 59 D. Interviewing the Students 60 4. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS . . . . . . 61 I. Question One 61 A. I Am the Cheese 84 B. A Hero Ain't Nothln' But a Sandwich . . . and A Wizard of Earthsea 86 II. Question Two 66 A. Predominant Responses Across the Three Novels 68 B. Predominant Responses to Individual Novels. 69 II I . Question Three 72 A. I Am the Cheese 73 B. A Hero Ain't Nothin' But a Sandwich . . . 89 C. A Wizard of Earthsea 109 IV. Question Four 133 A. Individual Novels: A l l Readers 133 V. Summary 137 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 138 I. Summary 138 A. Statement of the Problem 138 B. Overview of the Study 139 v i CHAPTER PAGE II . Conclusions and Interpretations 141 A. Research Question One 141 B. Research Question Two 144 C. Research Question Three 150 D. Research Question Four 152 II I . Implications of the Study 154 A. Implications for Teaching . . . . . . . . 154 B. Implications for Further Research . . . . 158 IV. Summary 161 BIBLIOGRAPHY 162 APPENDIX: A. Reading Response Log Guide 177 B. Purves: Elements of Response 178 C. Squire: Categories of Response 180 D. F i l l i o n : Response Matrix ; . . . . 181 E. Kooy: Response Descriptors 183 F. Letter to Students 184 G. Order of Predominant Responses: Three Novels . . 185 H. Order of Group Response Preferences: Individual Novels 186 I. Average of Response Preferences: Three Novels. . 188 J. Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese 189 K. Predominant Responses: A Hero Ain't Nothln' But a Sandwich 190 L. Predominant Responses: A Wizard of Earthsea. . . 191 v i i APPENDIX: PAGE M. Interview Questions 192 N. Reading Response Log: I Am the Cheese 199 0. Reading Response Log: A Hero Ain't Nothin' But A Sandwich 202 P. Reading Response Log: A Wizard of Earthsea. . . . 205 Q. Questionnaire: I Am the Cheese 209 R. Response Comparisons: Average to Individual Responses 211 S. Research Question One: Response Patterns . . . . 212 v i i i LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Predominant Responses: Averages for Three Novels. . . 68 2 Predominant Responses: Three Novels 70 3 Grant: Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese . . . 74 10 A Hero A i n x t Nothln' But a Sandwich. . . 91 17 A Wizard of Earthsea . . . 110 4 J e s s i c a : Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese. . . 76 11 A Hero Ain't Nothin' But a Sandwich. . . 93 18 A Wizard of Earthsea. . . 114 5 * Annette: Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese. . . 78 12 A Hero Ain't Nothln x But a Sandwich. . . 96 19 A Wizard of Earthsea. . . 118 6 Tracey: Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese. . . 81 i-3 A Hero Ain't Nothln* But a Sandwich, , , 98 20 A Wizard of Earthsea. . . 120 7 Marleen: Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese. . . 83 14 A Hero A l n x t Nothln' But a Sandwich. . . 100 21 A Wizard of Earthsea. . . 123 8 Miranda: Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese. . . 85 15 A Hero Ain't Nothln' But a Sandwich. . . 104 22 A Wizard of Earthsea. . . 126 9 Gordon: Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese. . . 88 16 A Hero Ain't Nothln' but a Sandwich. . . 107 23 ft Wizard of Earthsea. . . 130 Someone once s a i d , "Whatever God c a l l s us to do He also makes poss ib le for us to accomplish." So He does. He provided an abundance of love , care and patience i n my husband and c h i l d r e n , that encouraged and enabled me to see t h i s pro jec t through to completion. For Wayne, Tracey, Kent and K u r t , With H e a r t f e l t Grat i tude Page 1 CHAPTER 1 THE NATURE OF THE STUDY I . PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y i s t o examine the w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e s o f a d o l e s c e n t s r e c o r d e d d u r i n g the r e a d i n g o f l i t e r a r y t e x t s . These w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e s w i l l be examined f o r f o u r d i s t i n c t f e a t u r e s : 0 p a t t e r n s o f r e s p o n s e ; p r e d o m i n a n c e o f s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s e s ; the i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s i n w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e s t o the l i t e r a r y t e x t ; the e f f e c t s o f n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e on r e a d i n g r e s p o n s e . The s t u d y a ims t o i n c r e a s e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t he o n g o i n g l i t e r a r y r e s p o n s e s o f a d o l e s c e n t s . I I . BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM T h i s i n q u i r y a r o s e from an i n c r e a s i n g awareness t h a t t he t r a d i t i o n a l model o f r e s p o n d i n g t o l i t e r a r y t e x t s by w r i t i n g e s s a y s o r a n s w e r i n g p r e s c r i b e d c o m p r e h e n s i o n q u e s t i o n s a f t e r the r e a d i n g l i m i t e d the a d o l e s c e n t s ' o v e r a l l e x p e r i e n c e o f l i t e r a t u r e . M o r e o v e r , t e a c h i n g a b o u t t he t e x t - the b a c k g r o u n d , t he a u t h o r , t he l i t e r a r y d e v i c e s - c r e a t e d s t u d e n t s who became i n c r e a s i n g l y b e t t e r m e m o r i z e r s o f f a c t s a b o u t the t e x t , b u t n o t p e r c e p t i b l y more a b l e r e a d e r s o f i t . The p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e o f l i t e r a t u r e seemed r e s t r a i n e d by the f r e q u e n t l y d i a g n o s t i c and a n a l y t i c a l t e a c h i n g methods commonly u s e d . Page 2 I I I . CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY Although New C r i t i c i s m held that a l l meaning res ided i n the l i t e r a r y text , a growing body of research into the reading process suggests that the reader must assume an ac t ive ro le i n making meaning. Nonetheless, many E n g l i s h classrooms continue to hold to the t r a d i t i o n a l model that took root during the ear ly 1940's. The pres t ige and increas ing inf luence of the movement motivated teachers to i n s t i l l i n students the formal, w e l l - d i s c i p l i n e d techniques for l i t e r a r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n through d e t a i l e d ana lys i s of the l i t e r a r y elements. Although o r i g i n a t i n g at the u n i v e r s i t i e s , th i s methodology eventual ly f i l t e r e d into secondary school classrooms. Heavy emphasis on text d i s s e c t i o n remains f i rmly entrenched i n ac tua l classroom p r a c t i c e both at the u n i v e r s i t y and high school l eve l s (Purves,1981; F a r r e l l , 1981; Squire , 1984). Consequently, students often l e a r n a great deal about a l i t e r a r y text without neces sar i ly reading or experiencing i t for themselves. Convict ions about the reader 's response as e s s e n t i a l to e f f e c t i v e l i t e r a r y study surfaced as e a r l y as 1929. I . A . Richards conducted a study to determine the a b i l i t i e s of u n i v e r s i t y students to i n t e r p r e t l i t e r a t u r e based on the p r i n c i p l e s c u r r e n t l y r e f e r r e d to as the New C r i t i c i s m . To h is dismay, Richards found that i n sp i te of prescr ibed i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Page 3 l i t e r a r y works, students s t i l l responded i n persona l , d i s t i n c t ways. C a p i t a l i z i n g on that f i n d i n g , Downey (1929), and Harding (1937) explored i n d i v i d u a l response fur ther . In 1938, Rosenblatt proposed that "the experience of l i t e r a t u r e , far from being for the reader a passive process of absorpt ion , i s a form of intense personal a c t i v i t y " (1938, p. v . ) . She encouraged acknowledging and incorporat ing student responses i n the l i t e r a t u r e c l a s s . Subsequent research i n reading , p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s , response theory and schema theory by Rosenblatt (1938, 1978), Smith (1971), Purves and Beach (1973), B l e i c h (1975), Squire (1978), Cooper and Odel l (1978) and Applebee, et a l . , (1981) af f irms the inf luence of the reader 's frame of reference . Two readers reading the same l i t e r a r y text w i l l respond to d i f f e r e n t elements of that text ; that i s , one may r e c a l l d i f f e r e n t events, be moved by the poet ic language or reminded of personal experiences while another may respond more c l i n i c a l l y or be unmoved by the reading . A l l the reader 's previous l i f e experiences , per sona l i ty t r a i t s and reading experiences come together to determine the reader 's comprehensive experience of the text . In short , "A novel or poem or play remains merely inkspots on paper u n t i l a reader transforms them into a set of meaningful symbols" (Rosenblatt , 1938, p. 25). i Interested i n l earn ing more about personal response to l i t e r a t u r e , James Squire (1964) conducted a seminal study i n 1956 Page 4 monitoring the responses of f i f ty - two adolescents during the reading of four short s t o r i e s . His study aimed to provide an o v e r a l l d e s c r i p t i o n of responses, the development of the response during the reading , the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the responses to socio-economic background, reading a b i l i t i e s , and other personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of readers , and an ana lys i s of the factors that l i m i t e d e f f e c t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of l i t e r a t u r e . Squire d iv ided each story into s ix pre-determined sec t ions . The students read the s tory segment and stopped to respond at s p e c i f i c a l l y - d e s i g n a t e d po int s . Squire recorded the o r a l responses of the students that described t h e i r op in ions , r e a c t i o n s , ideas and fee l ings to the s t o r i e s at each stage. An e n t i r e s tory was completed i n interview sessions ranging from t h i r t y to e ighty minutes. He t ranscr ibed the recordings and, using his taxonomy of seven ca tegor ies , analyzed the data for patterns based on sex, i n t e l l i g e n c e , reading a b i l i t y , socio-economic s ta tus , and persona l i ty p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s . He found that c e r t a i n patterns emerged: for instance , a f ter the f i r s t reading segment students made quick genera l i za t ions concerning s t y l i s t i c matters and a f ter the f i n a l segment, assessed the t o t a l s e l e c t i o n (p.31) . Although some patterns were common to a l l , unique i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s due to i n d i v i d u a l background experiences and personal p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s , remained. In a d d i t i o n . Squire i d e n t i f i e d s ix general areas of d i f f i c u l t y for adolescent readers such as r e l i a n c e on stock responses and a determination Page 5 "to.achieve c e r t a i n t y i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " (p. 37). Although Squire had gathered valuable data about the nature of adolescent readers ' responses, he recommended that more work be done. D i f f e r e n t ages and genres and "'breakage p o i n t s ' se lected for each story as an o r a l responding point could be re-examined (1964, p. 52). I f , as Squire found, "adolescent readers c l e a r l y need ass is tance i n l earn ing to i n t e r p r e t l i t e r a t u r e " (p. 54), increas ing awareness of the nature of student responses could inform teaching p r a c t i c e . Drawing on the s i g n i f i c a n c e of Squire ' s work, the present study attempts to charac ter i ze reader response by r e p l i c a t i n g some dimensions of the Squire study. Both studies demonstrate concern for the developing, ongoing respo nse to l i t e r a t u r e . His categories of response were appl i ed to the students' responses. To expand understanding of the ongoing response, however, th i s study d i f f e r s from Squire ' s i n a number of s i g n i f i c a n t ways: 1. The number of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study was cons iderably smaller (seven as opposed to t h i r t e e n case s t u d i e s ) . 2. While Squire ' s students responded o r a l l y , students p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the present study recorded t h e i r responses i n a Reading Response Log. Page 6 3. Since wr i t ten response requires more time, the quant i ty of data c o l l e c t e d was more l i m i t e d than data c o l l e c t e d using o r a l responses. 4. Although a general suggestion of every ten to f i f t e e n pages was g iven , the students i n th i s study determined the ac tua l responding points i n the novels . 5. Students read three s t y l i s t i c a l l y d i s t i n c t novels rather than short s t o r i e s , thus experiencing longer f i c t i o n a l works r e q u i r i n g more time for formulating the o v e r a l l response. 6. Students rece ived a general "responding guide" (Appendix A) as a too l to d i r e c t t h e i r thoughts about t h e i r reading of the l i t e r a r y text . However, students could f r e e l y pursue personal r e f l e c t i o n s about the l i t e r a t u r e . Few studies have attempted to r e p l i c a t e the work done by Squire although many subsequent studies have examined response to l i t e r a t u r e . Purves and Rippere's (1968) study examined adolescents ' responses to se lected l i t e r a r y readings . Their study led to the c r e a t i o n of an extensive a n a l y t i c a l instrument. Hansson's (1973) work at descr ib ing the nature of response through b i p o l a r verbal scales y i e lded ins ights that nevertheless s t i l l led him recent ly to r e f l e c t that "we know shockingly l i t t l e of what cons t i tu tes response to l i t e r a t u r e " (1985, p. 226). In Page 7 an extensive study designed to describe t y p i c a l l i t e r a r y essays of adolescents , Purves (1981) concluded that patterns of response to l i t e r a t u r e appeared to be learned. As students progressed i n school , t h e i r approach to l i t e r a t u r e i n c r e a s i n g l y a l igned with that of the i r teachers. Monson's (1984) study summarized the research done i n l i t e r a r y response (1972-1983) and found that small ethnographic studies of elementary students that explored response to l i t e r a t u r e wi th in the classroom context were becoming more prevalent . S o c i a l dimensions of response rece ived the bulk of a t t e n t i o n . The current research i n t e r e s t i n the processes of reading and wr i t ing r e f l e c t s the b e l i e f that the development of the process of reading response i s s i m i l a r to the process of w r i t i n g and c o u l d , i n fac t , expand the knowledge about the nature of l i t e r a r y response (Purves, 1982; Pierson and Tierney , 1983; Harmon, 1980; B r i t t o n , 1982; Petrosky, 1982; Horner, 1983; M a r s h a l l , 1984). Comparing the reading and wr i t ing processes r a i s e s i n t e r e s t i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s about the benef i ts of wr i t ing for the development of personal response to l i t e r a t u r e . The wr i t ing act i t s e l f , moreover, o f f ers a powerful h e u r i s t i c for l earn ing ( B r i t t o n , 1970; M a r t i n , 1971; Emig, 1977; O d e l l , 1980; Moffet t , 1981; Berthof f , 1981; Applebee, 1982; Langer and Applebee, i n progress ) . Composing to make meaning i n the development of i n i t i a l l i t e r a r y response encourages ac t ive Page 8 engagement with the text and o f fers p o t e n t i a l for growth i n apprec ia t ion and understanding. In a recent a r t i c l e Buckler p o s i t s : Louise Rosenblatt ' s model for the process of reading l i t e r a t u r e and James Moffe t t ' s concept of the process of w r i t i n g are both grounded i n the percept ion of the human i n t e l l e c t as an ac t ive e n t i t y which c o l l e c t s , synthes izes , organizes , a s s i m i l a t e s , and reconstructs experience according to p r e d i c t a b l e , recurs ive pat terns . (1984, p. 22) Personal wr i t ing i n response to l i t e r a t u r e i s beginning to gain acceptance (Cookston, 1982; F l y n n , 1983; Buckler , 1985). Genera l ly , however, such wr i t ing tends to focus on a personal response that turns inward; the reading becomes a springboard for associated l i n k s to previous personal experiences. Although th i s represents a major s h i f t away from New C r i t i c i s m , the text now recedes into the d i s tan t background. The present study, rather than use the reading response log for in trospec t ive response, aims to keep the l i t e r a r y text c e n t r a l through guided, r e f l e c t i v e wr i t ten responses that occur at regular i n t e r v a l s during the reading of the three novels . Page 9 IV. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. Do i d e n t i f i a b l e patterns emerge when adolescents respond i n wr i t ing at regular i n t e r v a l s during the reading of l i t e r a r y texts? 2 . Do c e r t a i n types of responses predominate when adolescents respond i n w r i t i n g during the reading of l i t e r a r y texts? 3. What i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s i n the responses of adolescents are evident i n these wr i t ten response logs? 4 . Do narra t ive s t r u c t u r a l features of l i t e r a r y texts a f f ec t the responses of adolescent readers? V. DEFINITION OF TERMS 1. Response: unl ike l i t e r a r y response l i m i t e d to the t r a d i t i o n a l formal essay, th i s concept, s i g n i f i e s a broader, more comprehensive understanding of the reading experience. Research suggests that response to l i t e r a t u r e v a r i e s , changes i n the i n d i v i d u a l over time, i s unique to the i n d i v i d u a l and emerges i n r e l a t i o n to various background and contextual f ac tor s . Response reveals the reader 's ^experience' with the text . 2 . Aesthet ic Transact ion: the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a reader and Page 10 the l i t e r a r y work that incorporates the reader 's experiences into the process of reading the l i t e r a r y text . Transact ion i s defined by Rosenblatt as "an ongoing process i n which the elements or factors are , one might say, aspects of a t o t a l s i t u a t i o n , each condit ioned by and cond i t ion ing the other" (1978, p. 17). The stance the reader assumes makes the d i f f e r e n c e . The mission i s not to extract data ("efferent reading") but to personal ly experience the work ("aesthetic t ransact ion") . 3. Reading Response Log: a wr i t ten record of immediate react ions to a personal ly se lected sec t ion of the text , ranging from the personal-emotional to the i m p e r s o n a l - a n a l y t i c a l . Students respond using e i ther a general 'response guide' (Appendix A) and/or supply t h e i r own personal r e f l e c t i o n s about the text . 4. Elements: Purves (1968) used the term 'elements' to describe the sub-categories or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features of each element described below. 5. Categories : Four general headings of engagement-involvement, percept ion , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and eva luat ion used by Purves (1968) to describe response to a l i t e r a r y work. Squire developed seven general C a t e g o r i e s ' that provided a " r e l i a b l e , systematic , quant i ta t ive d e s c r i p t i o n " of the process of reading; for instance , l i t e r a r y judgments and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l responses (1964, pp. 16,17). Page 11 6 . Response Descr ip tors : i n th i s study, response d e s c r i p t o r s i d e n t i f y the nature of the response statement without implying an h i e r a r c h i c a l or p r e f e r e n t i a l order . The l i s t of response d e s c r i p t o r s was developed from the wr i t ten response logs themselves and although some such as 'personal response' and ^textual s t r u c t u r e ' are s i m i l a r to those found i n other instruments, many are not. To avoid i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with other instruments, these categories w i l l be termed 'response d e s c r i p t o r s . ' VI . THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY A. The Se lec t ion of the Novels The three novels c i t e d below were chosen for t h e i r use of adolescent charac ters , appropriate complexity for capable readers , d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and p o t e n t i a l for e l i c i t i n g a v a r i e t y of responses. 1. I Am the Cheese - Robert Cormier Genre: Contemporary Realism Content: The d i s t o r t i o n of government author i ty and misal igned j u s t i c e as they a f f e c t the l i v e s of one American fami ly . S t y l e : An interweaving of four d i f f e r e n t strands of events Page 12 combine to create a complete p i c ture of the hero's l i f e . The text makes use of a v a r i e t y of soph i s t i ca ted l i t e r a r y techniques. 2. A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich - A l i c e C h i l d r e s s Genre: Contemporary Realism Content: A boy's s truggle with drug a d d i c t i o n profoundly a f fec t s h i s immediate family and f r i e n d s . S t y l e : In b r i e f , interspersed chapters , the hero's s truggles are seen from numerous contextual perspect ives through ten d i f f e r e n t f i r s t person ' v o i c e s ' ( fami ly , f r i e n d s , school ) . In teres t ing use of d i a l e c t var ie s with the d i f f e r e n t speakers. 3. A Wizard of Earthsea - Ursula LeGuin Genre: Fantasy Content; A fantasy dea l ing with the concept of good and e v i l , t h i s t h i r d person ta le chron ic l e s the adventures of Sparrowhawk who defends h i s v i l l a g e against powerful enemies through h is myst ica l powers. Sent to a school for wizards, he re leases the e v i l shadow-beast who pursues him to the farthes t corners of Earthsea . S t y l e : This adventure fantasy, wr i t ten i n t r a d i t i o n a l narra t ive s t y l e , features p a r t i c u l a r l y r i c h , powerful language. Page 13 B. Organizat ion of the Study This study c l a s s i f i e s the responses recorded i n reading response logs during the reading of these three novels over a per iod of two school years (three academic semesters) by seven adolescents . The responses to the f i r s t novel occurred during the winter semester of the 1984-1985 school year; the remaining two during the f a l l and winter of the 1985-1986 school year. The students had been members of the researcher ' s Eng l i sh c lasses during the f i r s t school year of the study. For a per iod of two weeks during the 1984-1985 school year, two of the researcher ' s Eng l i sh 9 c lasses read Robert Cormier's I Am  the Cheese. The students recorded t h e i r r e f l e c t i o n s i n a reading response log approximately every ten to f i f t e e n pages of the novel . Although a general guide (Appendix A) was a v a i l a b l e , the students themselves determined the length , content and s ty le of each response. When a l l the students had completed t h e i r reading , the response logs were c o l l e c t e d and responded to i n the margins. The responses ind icated ac t ive engagement with the text . The students subsequently used the contents of t h e i r response logs to st imulate c la s s d iscuss ions about the nove l . To f ind a group of students to continue the work s tar ted i n the previous school year, volunteers were drawn from the o r i g i n a l E n g l i s h c las ses . The researcher explained the aim of the study Page 14 and the reading schedule for the subsequent two novels . Of the twelve vo lunteers , seven capable, experienced readers were se lec ted . Each statement i n the seven I Am the Cheese response logs was t ranscr ibed into i n d i v i d u a l l y numbered statements to f a c i l i t a t e a n a l y s i s . Using the three a n a l y t i c schemes of Purves and Rippere (Appendix B) , Squire (Appendix C ) , and F i l l i o n (Appendix D), the wr i t ten responses were analyzed and coded. The express ive , exploratory nature of the wr i t ten responses made ana lys i s d i f f i c u l t . None of the three instruments adequately accommodated the nature of the wr i t ten responses; consequently, a new set of response descr ip tors was created . The new instrument was appl ied to the response logs by the researcher . An independent ra ter appl ied the new instrument to port ions of each I Am the Cheese response l og . An i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of .80 confirmed the s u i t a b i l i t y of the new response d e s c r i p t o r s . The students read the two subsequent novels over a per iod of f ive weeks. Since they read independently outside of a s tructured classroom environment, c o l l e c t i n g the response logs once during the reading was deemed necessary for keeping students on task and encouraging them toward completion. The response logs for both novels were subsequently t r a n s c r i b e d , analyzed and coded. In preparat ion for an interview about t h e i r reading experiences Page'15 a f ter the two novels had been read, the students were asked to reread t h e i r response logs . Asked to respond to questions wr i t ten on the interview quest ionnaire (Appendix M), the students had opportuni t i e s to make a d d i t i o n a l comments about the texts , t h e i r reading and t h e i r experiences with wr i t ing the response logs . Responses were recorded by the researcher on i n d i v i d u a l interview quest ionnaires . C. The Students From the o r i g i n a l group of f o r t y - f i v e students i n the researcher ' s Eng l i sh c lasses (1984-1985), twelve students volunteered to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. Seven p a r t i c i p a n t s , f ive g i r l s and two boys, were se lected on the basis of reading a b i l i t y and experience as e s tab l i shed by the researcher through working with the students r e g u l a r l y over the course of the previous school year. A l l seven p a r t i c i p a t i n g students had been se lected for the top "stream" of the Grade 9 c lasses and were considered strong academic students by s t a f f and peers. They earned A's and B's on t h e i r Grade 9 Eng l i sh work. During the fo l lowing 1985-1986 school year, s ix of the students, two boys and four g i r l s , were e n r o l l e d i n Grade 10 at a small independent high school i n the Fraser V a l l e y ; one student was e n r o l l e d i n Grade 10 at another independent high school i n the Fraser V a l l e y . Page 16 VII . LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 1. A l i m i t a t i o n may well be the wr i t ing act i t s e l f . Wri t ing both in terrupt s and inf luences the flow of response. Since thoughts t r a v e l faster than the hand, responses may have been only p a r t i a l l y recorded. 2. Since the subjects possess strong reading a b i l i t i e s , the f indings may not apply to adolescent readers d i s p l a y i n g less competence. 3. The response guide given to each student may have inf luenced the content of the response log . Although designed to keep the text at the center , i t may have prevented students from accurate ly recording t h e i r ongoing impressions. 4. The teacher response i n the reading logs focused l a r g e l y on asking quest ions , acknowledging ' f i n d i n g s , ' and s ta t ing acceptance of t h e i r response to the work. Since the researcher c o l l e c t e d the reading response logs once during the second phase of the study to maintain continued i n t e r e s t , students may have been inf luenced by the researcher ' s comments i n the margins. Page 17 VII I . CONCLUSION Using seven experienced, capable readers , th i s study attempted to examine wri t ten responses recorded during the reading of three s t r u c t u r a l l y d i s t i n c t novels . Since research ind icates that l i t e r a t u r e o f fers students opportuni t i e s for "1ived-through" experiences not a v a i l a b l e i n other d i s c i p l i n e s , the need to promote ac t ive engagement with the l i t e r a t u r e would prove b e n e f i c i a l . Moreover, a growing awareness of what cons t i tu tes response becomes important for e f f e c t i v e , meaningful l i t e r a t u r e teaching. Substant ia l research corroborates the value of analyz ing the personal response of readers of l i t e r a r y text . Chapter Two aims to c l a r i f y that background i n a thorough review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n reading , reader response and wr i t ing in response to l i t e r a t u r e . Page 18 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In conducting a review of the l i t e r a t u r e of increas ing engagement with l i t e r a t u r e through w r i t i n g , a number of issues need to be explored. The term " l i t e r a t u r e " implies a canon of l i t e r a r y texts , a process of reading and a methodology for connecting the l i t e r a r y text and the student. W r i t i n g , the second major feature of the study, implies both the nature and purpose of w r i t i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y as r e f l e c t e d i n engagement with the l i t e r a r y text i n the present study. This review of the l i t e r a t u r e w i l l examine the research and f indings i n reading , reader response c r i t i c i s m , w r i t i n g i n response to l i t e r a t u r e , and analyz ing wr i t t en responses to l i t e r a t u r e that lead to increased understanding of the complex processes involved i n reading and transac t ing with the l i t e r a r y text . I . READING A commonly-held not ion of reading a c q u i s i t i o n depicts the l earn ing reader progress ing from l e t t e r to word to meaning. Reading, then, r e l i e s on a ser ies of mechanical s k i l l s that , i f absorbed proper ly , w i l l automat ica l ly provide readers both with the s k i l l s required i n l earn ing to read and the a b i l i t y to execute the quantum leap into ^reading to l e a r n . • But reading as a 'decoding' funct ion faced oppos i t ion by theor i s t s as far back Page 19 as Edmund Burke (1908), who asserted that meaning, not words and phrases, dominated reading . Later l i n g u i s t s such as Noam Chomsky (1965) explored the "surface" and "deep" s tructures of language. Concurrent ly , cogn i t ive psychology found that learners use "se lect ive a t tent ion" i n processing information; that much depends on the l e a r n e r ' s mental landscape of background knowledge and experience. The two d i s c i p l i n e s of l i n g u i s t i c s and psychology have, i n p a r t , jo ined forces as p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s to examine a more comprehensive view of reading that takes into account i n d i v i d u a l readers and the impact of t h e i r unique experiences on the reading process. Researchers such as Smith (1973, 1982, 1985), Cooper and Petrosky (1976), the Goodmans (1977), Lederer (1978), Applebee (1978), and Scholes (1985) have v a l i d a t e d Burke's not ion of reading as a meaning-making a c t i v i t y . Current theory p e r t a i n i n g more p a r t i c u l a r l y to l i t e r a t u r e teaching tends to diverge i n two d i r e c t i o n s : the f i r s t into p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s ; the second into 'reader response' theory. The tenets of psycho l inguis t s can be charac ter i zed i n nine general statements: 1. Reading can best be learned i n the context of a language-steeped environment that c a p i t a l i z e s on the language s k i l l s of l i s t e n i n g , speaking, and w r i t i n g that the c h i l d already possesses (Meek, 1983; Smith, 1983, 1985; Strong, 1987) as an entry into reading . Page 20 2. Beginning readers require many v i s u a l c lues ; f luent readers a minimum (Goodman, 1973; Smith, 1973). 3. A sentence conveys meaning larger than a simple sum of i t s l i n e a r parts (Smith, 1973, 1982, 1985; Goodman, 1973, Chomsky, 1965). 4. The framework of reading and l earn ing to read i s charac ter i zed by feature ana lys i s (what i s d i s t i n c t i v e ) , schema, and redundancy (Goodman, 1973; Smith, 1973). 5. Since the v i s u a l system is e a s i l y overloaded, ' b r a i n to eye' (schema) transfer i s more important than the 'eye to b r a i n ' t r a n s f e r . These schemata are ' s c r i p t s ' or mental out l ines that help readers organize information. Old information i s l i n k e d with new i n order to expand the ' s c r i p t s . ' This kind of ' i n s i d e - o u t ' reading assumes the reader brings a great deal to the text (Purves, 1974). 6. These s y n t a c t i c r u l e s , moreover> operate below the reader 's l e v e l of awareness; the more s k i l l e d the reader, the more i m p l i c i t the "rules" (Chomsky, 1965). 7. The f luent reader reads a l o t , makes mistakes, takes r i s k s , and tests hypotheses (Cooper, Petrosky, 1976; Goodman, 1973). Page 21 8. R e a d i n g i s an a c t i v e , m e a n i n g - m a k i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n (Goodman, 1973 ; S c h o l e s , 1985; R o s e n b l a t t , 1 9 7 8 ) . 9 . R e a d i n g l i t e r a t u r e becomes a p r o c e s s o f dynamic i n t e r a c t i o n , a t r a n s a c t i o n , be tween the t e x t and the r e a d e r ( S c h o l e s , 1985 ; R o s e n b l a t t , 1938, 1978 , Duke , 1 9 8 0 ) . The work o f the Goodmans (1973) r e p r e s e n t s a d r a m a t i c v e e r i n g away from the p h o n e t i c ( l e t t e r to word to s e n t e n c e ) n o t i o n o f l e a r n i n g t o r e a d and f o c u s e s i n s t e a d on m e a n i n g - m a k i n g . They d i s t i n g u i s h be tween a " m i s c u e " ( " h o u s e , " i n s t e a d o f "home," f o r i n s t a n c e , s t i l l i n d i c a t e s c o m p r e h e n s i o n ) and " e r r o r , " w h i c h r e v e a l s l a c k o f c o m p r e h e n s i o n ( " s h o u l d , " i n s t e a d o f " h o u s e " ) . M o r e o v e r , p s y c h o l i n g u i s t s a c c e p t t he r e a d e r ' s p e r s o n a l b a c k g r o u n d e x p e r i e n c e s and p r e v i o u s r e a d i n g as i n f l u e n t i a l i n the r e a d i n g p r o c e s s . C e n t r a l t o the t h e o r e t i c a l f ramework o f p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s , t h e n , l i e s t he c r u c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n be tween r e a d i n g from the " o u t s i d e i n , " ( t he t e x t to the mind) and from the " i n s i d e o u t " ( t he mind to the t e x t ) . The p r o c e s s i n g o f t e x t becomes a m e a n i n g - m a k i n g a c t i v i t y . I I . READER RESPONSE C R I T I C I S M The s e c o n d d i r e c t i o n , b r i d g e d by the c o n c e p t o f " s c h e m a , " i s Page 2 2 "reader response" theory. In h i s t ext . The Mirror and the Lamp. M.H. Abrams drew a model of the reading process that included the text , author, universe (the subject and world i n which the work ex i s t s ) and the reader (1953, p. 6) . H i s t o r i c a l l y , the study of l i t e r a t u r e has tended to focus on one p a r t i c u l a r element at a time, genera l ly e i ther the text or the author, l eav ing the other components i n l i t e r a r y l imbo. The reader has r a r e l y been accepted as an i n t e g r a l dimension i n l i t e r a r y study. New C r i t i c i s m , for instance , s t i l l predominant i n E n g l i s h classrooms, views the text as the locus of meaning and disregards the r o l e of the reader. I n f l u e n t i a l l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s such as Brooks and Warren, Wellek, Abrams, Heilman and Booth r e s i s t e d l i t e r a r y response outs ide of the text i t s e l f . During the ear ly 1940's, the e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g enrolments at u n i v e r s i t i e s compounded by the pres t ige bestowed on such c r i t i c i s m , set the stage for i n s t i l l i n g i n students c a r e f u l designs for textual a n a l y s i s . New C r i t i c i s m , focusing p r i m a r i l y on e x t r a c t i n g d e t a i l s and l i t e r a r y elements of the text , frequent ly f a i l e d to put the parts back together again . Taken to the extreme, the New C r i t i c p o s i t i o n encourages students to be knowledgeable about a text , without n e c e s s a r i l y experiencing i t . Unless the reader , however, becomes an ac t ive rather than recept ive agent i n the process , l i t e r a t u r e becomes another informat ional hurdle for students; "almost a spectator sport for Page 2 3 many readers s a t i s f i e d • t o pass ive ly watch the c r i t i c s at t h e i r e l i t e l i t e r a r y games" (Rosenblatt , 1978. p. 140). Although the work of Rosenblatt , Downing and Harding urging the i n c l u s i o n of the reader i n the l i t e r a r y experience emerged almost s imultaneously , the text as the primary source of "meaning" for the reader has kept tenacious hold on E n g l i s h departments at a l l l e v e l s . Yet , as e a r l y as 1938 Rosenblat t ' s L i t e r a t u r e as E x p l o r a t i o n chal lenged the notions of textual supremacy, a s s e r t i n g the reader ' s i n t e g r a l place i n the process of reading l i t e r a r y text . Rosenblatt c a r e f u l l y explored the r e l a t i o n s h i p between reader and text . V i r t u a l l y ignored for a number of years,' Rosenblat t ' s reader-response theory eventual ly achieved c r e d i b i l i t y and r e c o g n i t i o n through the research of a d iverse group of t h e o r i s t s who advanced r a d i c a l l y new conceptions about reading (Smith, 1971; Goodman, 1973), w r i t i n g as th ink ing (Berthoff , 1981, 1984; Emig, 1983; B a r r , 1985), language (Vygotsky, 1962), educat ional processes (Bruner, 1975) and reader response theory (Rosenblatt , 1978; Cooper, Michelak, 1981; Purves, 1968, 1985; Scholes , 1985). Rosenblatt expressed concern . that r a i s i n g a generat ion of readers who are content to d iges t information w i l l indeed create incapac i ta t ed , responseless readers . She urged, r a t h e r , a r e c o g n i t i o n of the fact that no one can read a l i t e r a r y text for another reader; that the experience of reader meeting text bears Page 24 a unique, i n d i v i d u a l stamp. Such a r e c o g n i t i o n a f f e c t s pedagogy, of ten turning genera l ly accepted teaching p r a c t i c e s ins ide out. No longer can teachers alone expound on the meaning of the text . Rather, student perceptions of the l i t e r a t u r e through the reading experience, abetted by a c t i v i t i e s that encourage engagement and t r a n s a c t i o n with the l i t e r a t u r e , provide the bas is for the l i t e r a t u r e c u r r i c u l u m . Two more of Rosenblat t ' s concepts deserve a t t e n t i o n : f i r s t , her p o s i t i o n on the reader ' s stance to the l i t e r a r y work, and second, her view on "transact ion" between the reader and the text . Rosenblatt d i s t i n g u i s h e d c l e a r l y between two poss ib le predominant p o s i t i o n s i n dea l ing with the text : the "efferent" and the "aesthetic" stance. The e f ferent stance requires readers to act upon, to "carry away" from what they have read, as i n a rec ipe or i n s t r u c t i o n a l manual. The reader i s "disengaged." The aes the t i c stance, on the other hand, focuses on what happens during the reading . "In aes the t i c reading , the reader ' s a t t e n t i o n i s centered d i r e c t l y on what he i s l i v i n g through during his r e l a t i o n s h i p with that p a r t i c u l a r text" (1938,p. 25). Rosenblatt (1938, 1978) a lso forces a c lo ser look at the "transact ion" between reader and text and opens the way for acknowledging and incorporat ing student response. E s s e n t i a l l y , the reader , rather than being a "passive decoder," c a r r i e s on an a c t i v e t ransac t ion with the l i t e r a r y work; a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s Page 25 e s t a b l i s h e d . The text "brings into the reader ' s consciousness c e r t a i n concepts, c e r t a i n sensuous experiences , c e r t a i n images of th ings , people, a c t i o n , scenes" (Rosenblatt , 1938, p .30) . The reader contr ibutes a host of i n d i v i d u a l experiences and knowledge to the reading . These, combined with the circumstances of the reading event, make up the reader ' s persona l , unique response. Rosenblatt describes the t ransac t ion between text and reader, the new experience a r i s i n g out of the union between a reader and the text , as a "poem" and that "the reader ' s c r e a t i o n of a poem out of a text must be an a c t i v e , s e l f - o r d e r i n g and s e l f - c o r r e c t i v e process" (1978, p .11) . In surveying trends i n t h e o r e t i c a l approaches to l i t e r a t u r e , the personal response of readers now appears, at l eas t to a number of researchers , to play an accepted r o l e i n the reading of l i t e r a r y text . In f a c t , asserts Suleiman, readers have "acceded to a s t a r r i n g ro le" (p. 3). Research by Smith (1973, 1982), Petrosky (1977), Cooper (1976), Hansson (1973), Purves and Beach (1972), Purves and Rippere (1968), and Squire (1964), expanded on Rosenblat t ' s t h e o r e t i c a l base. A l b e i t no general agreement ex i s t s on the prec i se parameters of the reader ' s ro l e (see Suleiman and Crossman (1980) for further notes, pp. 7-45), nevertheless , readers have assumed t h e i r r i g h t f u l p l a c e , i f not i n the classroom, then sure ly i n the research. In 1956, Squire (1964) conducted one of the f i r s t s tudies that Page 26 examined the nature of the developing response. He examined the responses of adolescents and, i n gathering o r a l protoco l s during the reading of four short s t o r i e s , noted that although some patterns of response emerged, i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s created a v a r i e t y of response (See chapter one, pp. 4 - 5 for e laborated d i s c u s s i o n ) . Squire a lso noted s ix areas of d i f f i c u l t y for most adolescent readers: f a i l u r e to grasp the most obvious meaning of the author; a r e l i a n c e on "stock responses" when faced with seemingly f a m i l i a r s i t u a t i o n s ; commitment to be "happiness 0 bound" ( a l l s t o r i e s should end h a p p i l y ) ; often held i n f l e x i b l e " c r i t i c a l d i s p o s i t i o n s ; " made i r r e l e v a n t as soc ia t ions and i n s i s t e d on c e r t a i n t y even without evidence i n the s tory ; would not withhold judgment u n t i l the whole work had been read. Findings such as these ind icate some areas needing remediat ion (1964, p. 39). Purves and Beach (1972) undertook an i n t e r n a t i o n a l study of achievement i n l i t e r a t u r e ; that i s , response to l i t e r a t u r e , reading i n t e r e s t s , and the teaching of l i t e r a t u r e . B r i e f l y , i n l i t e r a r y response Purves and Beach found that students respond academical ly with good comprehension, independent of s e l e c t i o n , to any l i t e r a r y work. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , students "apparently l earn to read f i c t i o n and simultaneously to acquire a response set that concerns i t s e l f with thematic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s rather than l i t e r a r y ana lys i s or l i t e r a r y h i s tory" (Purves and Beach, p. 96). Thematic and m o r a l i s t i c responses are learned, corresponding to Page 27 the patterns set by academica l ly -or iented teachers . The study a lso r a i s e d the next ques t ion , "Are these the responses the kind that we want the c h i l d r e n to learn?" (Purves and Beach, 1982, p. 103). The work of Purves and Beach proved s i g n i f i c a n t i n r a i s i n g c r u c i a l questions concerning the purpose of l i t e r a t u r e teaching and urging a r e - e v a l u a t i o n of current p r a c t i c e s i n the t r a d i t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e classroom. Purves' extens ive , d e s c r i p t i v e study summarized i n "Evaluat ion of Learning i n L i t e r a t u r e " (1979), i d e n t i f i e d three representat ive l i t e r a t u r e c u r r i c u l a - the i m i t a t i v e , a n a l y t i c , and generat ive . Purves measured the knowledge, understanding, and expressed response to the l i t e r a r y work by using samples from each of the views to c l a r i f y pedagogical techniques for l earn ing i n l i t e r a t u r e . While the i m i t a t i v e and a n a l y t i c r e l i e s heav i ly on a "right or wrong" answers, the generative attempts to focus on "the appropriateness of the student d e s c r i p t i o n of the l i t e r a r y experience" (p. 104). Again, the generative approach appears to acknowledge student perceptions of the l i t e r a t u r e as a v a l i d s t a r t i n g po int . Gunnar Hansson (1973) examined response to l i t e r a t u r e , the e f f ec t s of teaching l i t e r a t u r e and the problems of eva lua t ion in Swedish schools using polar scales as a device for assess ing the responses of students , experts and workers to the same poem. Using unipo lar scales encouraged growth i n l i t e r a r y response. Page 28 Hannson s ta ted , however, that although numerous books of l i t e r a r y theory e x i s t , much research w i l l be needed before we know even the gross o u t l i n e s of what goes into the reading process where the l a t e n t meanings, q u a l i t i e s , and s tructures of works of l i t e r a t u r e are r e a l i z e d i n the minds of the readers . (p. 226) Hansson, too, saw the need to continue probing and conducting research i n response to l i t e r a t u r e . Cons ider ing the time and e f f o r t that are spent i n teaching how to i n t e r p r e t and appreciate l i t e r a t u r e , we know shockingly l i t t l e of what cons t i tu tes response to l i t e r a t u r e (p. 226) . Two ethnographic s tudies by Jack Thomson (1979) and Janet Hickman( 1981) produced some i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s . Thomson used interview techniques to uncover the reading response of one fourteen-year o l d ; Hickman entered classrooms and became an observer with "descr ipt ive notes and anecdotal records kept i n a d a i l y log" (p. 345). Thomson's work i n apply ing the response models of Blunt and Harding led him to recommend that students be encouraged to read and respond to l i t e r a t u r e frequent ly i n order to develop "a genuine c r i t i c a l sense" (1979, p. 10). Hickman spent over four months working with ninety c h i l d r e n i n three Page 29 elementary classroom spanning Kindergarten through grade f i v e . Attempting to assess response to l i t e r a t u r e , she found that c h i l d r e n who frequent ly heard s t o r i e s read aloud and were surrounded with books demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t developmental cogn i t i ve growth i n l i t e r a r y response. By l i m i t i n g reading experiences , teachers work contrary to the increas ing a b i l i t i e s i n l i t e r a r y response. Using the years 1974-1983 as a base, Diane Monson (1984) conducted a survey of d i s s e r t a t i o n s dea l ing with l i t e r a r y . response and concluded that "a major trend during the past decade has been toward s tudies with f a i r l y small samples that r e l y on observat ion of response based on ethnographic techniques" (p. 2). This method takes into account the s o c i a l context of response to l i t e r a t u r e as well as the context of classrooms, teachers and other c u r r i c u l a r f a c t o r s . Although knowledge about the nature of l i t e r a r y response i s on the r i s e , the t h e o r e t i c a l domain predominates. Studies conducted have genera l ly been t h e o r e t i c a l (Rosenblat t ) , d e s c r i p t i v e (Purves) , and more r e c e n t l y , ethnographic (Hickman). I f our knowledge of the responding reader i s to become meaningful for classroom p r a c t i c e , however, much work remains. Page 30 I I I . WRITING IN RESPONSE TO LITERATURE Responding to l i t e r a t u r e through w r i t i n g has long been an e s tab l i shed t r a d i t i o n i n the E n g l i s h classroom. Wri t ing that explores the experience of the l i t e r a t u r e , however, remains r e l a t i v e l y scant in classroom p r a c t i c e in sp i te of a growing body of research conf irming the bene f i t s . T r a d i t i o n a l l y w r i t i n g has been used c h i e f l y to examine student knowledge rather than a means of he lp ing them experience or examine the l i t e r a t u r e . Newkirk s tates : Because th i s type of w r i t i n g [ c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s paper] does not e x i s t outs ide the academic community, i t s j u s t i f i c a t i o n presumably i s that i t helps the student engage with the text . But the cons tra in t s of th i s form seem to preclude the muddling that occcurs when readers confront d i f f i c u l t texts for the f i r s t time. I f ee l that the t r a d i t i o n a l c r i t i c a l ana lys i s paper may discourage students from dea l ing with react ions that are not e a s i l y resolved into a t h e s i s , that they may discourage the students from dea l ing with the more puzz l ing (and very l i k e l y more complex) issues of meaning and change, that , i n sum, they encourage the student to play i t safe . (Newkirk, 1985, p. 757) Page 31 Another perspect ive on l i t e r a r y response can be gained through studies examining the e f fec t s of genre or l i t e r a r y type on response. Research ind icates that d i f f e r e n t texts e l i c i t d i f f e r e n t responses (Purves, 1981). B l e i c h (1978) asserts that the response l i e s p r i m a r i l y wi th in the i n d i v i d u a l . Cornaby (1975) be l i eves that meaning l i e s p r i m a r i l y i n the text . Applebee (1976) suggests that the tone of the work determines the type of response. Few s tud ies , however, seek to define the l i t e r a r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that determine the nature of response to any given genre. Recent ly , however, Zaharias (1985) s tudied the e f f ec t s of tone and genre on student response preferences using a modified ver s ion of the Response Preference Measure (Purves, 1973, 1981). Students rated each item from 1.0 (very important) to 5.0 (very unimportant) . Zaharias found that students pre ferred expressing personal response to short s t o r i e s more than to poems. In a subsequent study, Zaharias confirmed e a r l i e r f indings by Cornaby (1975) and Corcoran (1979) that "students' pre ferred patterns of response are s trongly inf luenced by the nature of the texts they read" (p. 64) and that "tone and genre appear to be two s p e c i f i c textual a t t r i b u t e s which a f f e c t response" (1986, p. 64). The ro l e of w r i t i n g i n response to l i t e r a t u r e needs to be examined in l i g h t of what i s c u r r e n t l y known about the process of w r i t i n g . The work of Barr (1985), Emig (1983), Berthof f (1981, Page 32 1984), Applebee (1982), Odel l (1980), Mart in (1975), -Bri t ton (1970), and Moffett (1968), for instance , not only came to gr ips with wr i t ing as a process but a l so attempted to synthesize the research i n language (Vygotsky, 1962), l i t e r a c y (Meek., 1983), philosophy (Po lany i , 1969), educat ional theory (Bruner, 1960), and developmental psychology (Piaget , 1965) to develop a theory that recognizes w r i t i n g as a powerful , unique pedagogical l earn ing too l i n the schools . Janet Emig's essay, "Writing as a Mode of Learning" opened d r a m a t i c a l l y with the statement: "Writing represents a unique model of l earn ing - not merely va luab le , not merely s p e c i a l , but unique" (1983, p. 123). Wri t ing being slower than speaking, allows for "the s h u t t l i n g of the past , present and future . W r i t i n g , i n other words, connects the three major tenses of our experience to make meaning" (1983, p.129) . Through w r i t i n g the learner can make connect ions, e s t a b l i s h r e l a t i o n s h i p s and construct what Vygotsky termed a "web of meaning." D i s t i n c t from speaking i n numerous other ways, "wr i t ing ," as Vygotsky c la ims , c e n t r a l l y represents an expansion of inner speech, that mode whereby we t a l k to ourse lves , which i s "maximally compact" and "almost e n t i r e l y p r e d i c a t i v e " ; wr i t ten speech i s a mode which i s "maximally de ta i l ed" and which requires e x p l i c i t l y suppl ied subjects and t o p i c s . (Quoted i n Emig, 1983, p. 127) Page 33 Learning f l o u r i s h e s , pos i t s Jerome Bruner (1975), i n three d i s t i n c t ways; through the enact ive (doing) , the i c o n i c (image), and the representa t iona l or symbolic ("restatement i n words"). Wri t ing becomes a valuable veh ic l e for l earn ing because i t employs, almost s imultaneously , a l l three dimensions. But l earn ing must prove useful to the development of the student. F o r s t e r ' s adage of "How can I know what I think u n t i l I see what I've written?" helps to place the complexi t ies of short memory overload into perspec t ive , a l lowing students to perce ive , organize , and r e s t r u c t u r e information wi th in the context of t h e i r own schemas. Wri t ing develops c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g , "the capac i ty to see r e l a t i o n s h i p s methodica l ly ." Wri t ing then, becomes a way of "making meaning" (Berthoff , 1981, p.114). Studies comparing the use of w r i t i n g as a too l for l earn ing with ' the use of w r i t i n g as a 'product* confirm the bene f i t s . Learning through w r i t i n g about l i t e r a t u r e concerned Purves and Rippere. Through a thorough ana lys i s of student w r i t i n g , they devised categories of response; namely, engagement-involvement, percept ion , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and eva lua t ion . Response began with an i n i t i a l personal response (engagement-involvement) and moved toward increas ing d i s t a n c i n g and a more g loba l percept ion (eva luat ion) . Purves does not intend an h i e r a r c h i c a l order , however, but rather descr ibed " s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s c r e t e procedures used by wri ters" (Purves, Rippere , 1968, p . 4 ) . Page 34 A nat iona l study conducted by Applebee (1982) cons i s ted of "data drawn from a recent study of w r i t i n g i n n inth and eleventh grade classrooms i n s ix subject areas" (Applebee, p. 369). Two high schools p a r t i c i p a t e d i n one strand of the study for one year. Researchers spent 13,293 minutes observing classroom procedures, interv iewing teachers and students , and c o l l e c t i n g w r i t i n g samples. Applebee found that language s k i l l s at the word and sentence l e v e l and " r e c a l l " tasks addressed to h ighly- informed teacher audiences were most preva lent . Applebee recommended: We have to broaden the range of r h e t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n s to ask students to share information that they possess with others who need to be persuaded of i t s i n t e r e s t and importance. And at that point we w i l l have a l t e r e d the nature of subjec t -area l earn ing as well as broadened our teaching of w r i t i n g . (Applebee, p. 380) In a study e n t i t l e d , "Language and Learning: From Research into Secondary School P r a c t i c e , " Barr found: When students wrote or ta lked i n order to be understood they used language that was c l e a r , substant ive , and, at t imes, eloquent. When students expected to be judged by the pat tern of t h e i r language, however, they produced not only formula ic , sometimes nonsensical language but a lso ( Page 35 poorly pat terned, often nonstandard language. (1985, p.2) This experimental study confirmed that the teaching p r a c t i c e s recommended by current research i n language development and w r i t i n g re su l t ed i n higher student achievement. Using w r i t i n g to l e a r n i n a l l content areas has become a de fens ib l e , indeed, e s s e n t i a l too l for e f f e c t i v e l e a r n i n g . The research conducted i n both composit ion and reader response theory sees both processes as acts of 'making meaning'. Kucer (1985), Johnson (1985), Horner (1983), B r i t t o n (1982), Petrosky (1982), and Harmon (1980) a l l propose a c l o s e l y a l igned r e l a t i o n s h i p between composit ion and the study of l i t e r a t u r e . In an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d , "From Story to Essay: Reading and W r i t i n g , " Petrosky c a l l s for a s s i m i l a t i n g the composing and responding ac t s . E s s e n t i a l l y , my argument i s that our comprehension of texts , whether they are l i t e r a r y or not, i s more an act of composit ion - for understanding i s composing - than of information r e t r i e v a l . (Petrosky, 1982, p. 19) In h i s 1984 study, Marshal l asserts that "very l i t t l e empir i ca l work has focused on how the act of composing i t s e l f may be instrumental i n shaping a w r i t e r ' s understanding of concepts or Page 36 contexts". (Marsha l l , 1984, p . ' l ) . Marshal l examined the contras t ive e f f ec t s of d i f f e r e n t kinds of w r i t i n g (short answer, extended personal response, formal w r i t i n g and no wri t ing) on tes t performance and understanding of l i t e r a t u r e . Students who had wri t ten extens ive ly i n e i t h e r the personal or formal mode made s i g n i f i c a n t l y better scores than those who had wr i t t en only i n the r e s t r i c t e d mode (short answer); i n f a c t , the short answer and no w r i t i n g groups fared about equal ly w e l l . He added, moreover, that w r i t i n g o f fers an h e u r i s t i c to continue th ink ing about the l i t e r a t u r e , represents a powerful l earn ing strategy and may well be conducive to forms of t h i n k i n g . Rosenblatt recommended: "The i n t e r p l a y between w r i t i n g and reading - and the hypothesis i s that the inf luence tends to be r e c i p r o c a l - o f f er s another area of research , e s p e c i a l l y for those in teres ted i n the teaching of l i t e r a t u r e " (1985, p. 50). E s s e n t i a l l y , then, s ince both composing and responding to l i t e r a t u r e are c r e a t i v e , ac t ive processes designed to construct a "web of meaning" (Vygotsky's term), a s s i m i l a t i n g the research to examine the connections as they r e l a t e to the developing l i t e r a r y response appears necessary. Where does the research i n the teaching of l i t e r a t u r e appear to be headed? From a l l appearances, into the larger framework of language and l i t e r a c y . Connecting reading to w r i t i n g continues to s t imulate considerable research (Anson, 1986; S terng lass , Page 37 1986; B r i t t o n , 1987; Buckley, 1986; S a l v a t o r i , 1986). Petersen and Newkirk, for Instance, both ed i ted texts on connecting w r i t i n g and reading i n 1986. Although the e f f ec t s have been f i l t e r i n g into some elementary classrooms, secondary E n g l i s h c lasses remain less r e c e p t i v e . Much of the research continues to b u i l d on e s tab l i shed research and theory to describe and define empowerment through l i t e r a c y and language development ( F r e i r e , 1968; Vygotsky, 1962; Greene, 1986; Scholes , 1987). In l i t e r a t u r e , as i n other d i s c i p l i n e s , language remains the c e n t r a l a c t i v i t y . "Making meaning' i n the l i t e r a t u r e c la s s has been described as the development of l i t e r a c y i n l i t e r a t u r e (Greene, 1986; Strong, 1987; Sanders, 1987; H a l l and Duffy, 1987; Meek, 1983). The focus of personal empowerment has l ed to a growing i n t e r e s t i n e s t a b l i s h i n g communities of l e a r n i n g . C o l l a b o r a t i v e l earn ing and w r i t i n g have become frequent topics of journa l a r t i c l e s (Lunsford and Ede, 1985; Ady, 1986; Freeman and Sanders, 1987; F i n e , 1987; L i n d f o r s , 1988). The research a c t i v i t y seeks to examine language development not on the bas is of what c h i l d r e n do not know about l i t e r a t u r e , i n t h i s instance , but rather on the var i ed language experiences of c h i l d r e n as the s t a r t i n g point for l i t e r a t u r e l e a r n i n g . Incorporat ing the f indings of various f i e l d s (research i n read ing , w r i t i n g , response to l i t e r a t u r e , for instance) to extend Page 38 growth in l i t e r a t u r e l earn ing through wr i t ing o f f er s e x c i t i n g p o t e n t i a l . Wri t ing as the medium for c r i t i c a l reading allows for t e n t a t i v e , p l a n - a l t e r i n g cons truc t ion of meaning i n a concrete way. IV. ANALYZING WRITTEN RESPONSE TO LITERATURE Numerous instruments to analyze wr i t ten responses of adolescents have been developed. I n i t i a l l y , t h i s study used three instruments developed by Squire , Purves and Rippere and an informal one by P i l l i o n to categor ize the wr i t ten responses of the students i n the present study. Each w i l l be descr ibed i n some d e t a i l . A. Categories of Response: Squire In an attempt to understand more f u l l y the l i t e r a r y response of adolescents . Squire chose to monitor the ongoing, developing response of adolescents by using four short s t o r i e s d iv ided into s ix segments. After reading each segment, students responded o r a l l y to the s tory to express t h e i r "fee l ings , ideas , opinions or react ions" (1968, p. 16). Interviewers encouraged response through nondirec t ive techniques. Each response was duly recorded and t r a n s c r i b e d . A thorough ana lys i s of the protoco l s led Squire to i d e n t i f y seven general categor ies of responses: L i t e r a r y Judgment, I n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l Response, Narra t iona l React ions , Page 39 A s s o c i a t i o n a l Response, Self -Inyolvement, P r e s c r i p t i v e Judgments and Misce l laneous . In analyz ing the o r a l p r o t o c o l s , Squire attempted to provide an o v e r a l l d e s c r i p t i o n of response, trace the development of the responses as they occurred , "relate these responses to i n t e l l i g e n c e , socio-economic backgrounds, reading a b i l i t i e s , and other personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the readers" (p. 2) and 0 i d e n t i f y the b a r r i e r s to sound i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e . Squire found that although group tendencies i n response were found, cons iderable i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n e x i s t e d , perhaps i n d i c a t i n g that "readers respond to l i t e r a t u r e i n unique and s e l e c t i v e ways and that the nature of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s react ions i s condit ioned by the dynamic i n t e r p l a y of a c o n s t e l l a t i o n of factors rather than by a s ing le cause" (p. 51). Two other i n t e r e s t i n g f indings emerged: a strong t i e was found between l i t e r a r y judgment ("It's good") and se l f - invo lvement , and s t e r e o t y p i c a l reac t ions proved equal ly common among a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s regardless of a b i l i t y according to the reading tests administered. Squire ' s work merits a t t e n t i o n s ince he attempted to c a r e f u l l y examine the psycho log ica l event of reading a short s tory . He recommended that more work be done through the use of d i f f e r e n t l i t e r a r y genres, d i f f e r e n t breaking points i n the s t o r i e s and the Page 40 use of d i f f e r e n t age groups. B. Elements of Response: Purves and Rippere Unl ike Squire ' s attempt to monitor the developing response, Purves and Rippere (1968) analyzed the wr i t ten responses of adolescents recorded a f ter the reading of the l i t e r a r y text . Acknowledging that the wr i t ten response reveals merely the "tip of the i ceberg ," they set out to develop a c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme for content ana lys i s that would descr ibe the nature of the response statement. Purves undertook an i n t e r n a t i o n a l study of wr i t ten responses to l i t e r a t u r e that encompassed numerous l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n s . He examined numerous e x i s t i n g instruments of ana lys i s and found them e i t h e r too broad o r , as i n Squire ' s case, over lapping . The instrument required enough d e t a i l to adequately describe the wr i t t en responses. Consequently, Purves and Rippere i d e n t i f i e d four main categories of response: engagement-involvement (surrender to the work), percept ion (understanding), i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( f ind ing meaning) and eva luat ion (assessing the work) that served as a ske le ton. Each of the categories was further d iv ided into s p e c i f i c elements. Neither the categor ies nor the elements were intended to be used h i e r a r c h i c a l l y or as an i n d i c a t i o n of superior response to the l i t e r a t u r e . Page 41 How do Purves and Rippere suggest that the categories and elements apply to teaching l i t e r a t u r e ? I f , as i s genera l ly accepted, teachers des ire that students gain a growing a b i l i t y to read and develop response to l i t e r a t u r e , they can "help a teacher f ind ways to lead h is student through the d i f f i c u l t process of a t t a i n i n g a respons ib le a t t i t u d e towards himself and l i t e r a t u r e . F u r t h e r , they can serve as one of the points of departure for curr icu lum experimentation" (1968, pp. 63,64). C. The Response Matr ix : F i l l i o n F i l l i o n ' s (1981) informal response matrix attempts to describe the range of l i t e r a r y response evident i n the w r i t i n g of adolescents . Using the open-ended "comment on the poem" approach, F i l l i o n ' s matrix i d e n t i f i e d the areas of response used by students i n order to both acknowledge and expand the d i v e r s i t y . F i l l i o n attempted to use the matrix i n the context of students as " interrogators and discussants" of the text i n the l i t e r a t u r e classroom (p. 41). Using the four Purves categor ies of engagement-involvement (personal a s s o c i a t i o n , s i g n i f i c a n c e ) , percept ion ( f a c t u a l ) , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( i n t e r p r e t i v e ) , and eva luat ion as the h o r i z o n t a l a x i s , F i l l i o n l i s t e d the elements of (a) events, p l o t , (b) charac ter s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s (c) s e t t i n g , mood, atmosphere, (d) images (e) ideas , themes, (f) language, s t y l e and s t ruc ture along Page 4 2 the v e r t i c a l axis of the matrix. In analyz ing the wr i t t en responses of students , teachers could t a l l y each of the responses i n the appropriate matrix boxes to determine the focus of the w r i t i n g , and through a ser i e s of wr i t ings to determine the areas needing development. F i l l i o n pos i ted that students who a c t i v e l y engage i n the l i t e r a t u r e can be encouraged to d i v e r s i f y t h e i r responses i f they see evidence of t h e i r response range on the matrix . Each of the three methods of a n a l y s i s described above functioned for a d i s t i n c t purpose. Only one monitored ongoing response as i n the current study. The work of Squire and Purves and Rippere contr ibuted s i g n i f i c a n t l y to understanding the l i t e r a r y response, while F i l l i o n ' s matrix o f fers a p r a c t i c a l pedagogical t o o l . The present study, too, examines the l i t e r a r y response of adolescents . Unl ike Squire ' s o r a l protoco l s and Purves' ana lys i s of w r i t i n g a f t er the reading , th i s study examines the developing l i t e r a r y response recorded during the reading . VI . SUMMARY In summary, reading a c t i v e l y r e l i e s on "the reader ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n i n the two-way, ' t r a n s a c t i o n a l ' r e l a t i o n s h i p with the text" (Rosenblatt , 1978, p. i x ) . Only when the reader i s engaged i n the process can meaningful l earn ing take p lace . Research i n the areas of reader response and w r i t i n g with the r e l a t e d areas of Page 4 3 l earn ing and reading , have opened p o s s i b i l i t i e s for extending a more g l o b a l , dynamic l earn ing process for students . Although most of the research has been d i r e c t e d to exp lor ing the e f fec t s of reading on w r i t i n g , the reverse may well prove b e n e f i c i a l . Through w r i t i n g , students can explore and a c t i v e l y reconstruct t h e i r reading experience. In a p r a c t i c a l way, reading and wr i t ing processes can be jo ined to create unique l earn ing and reading experiences . "Commitment, whether to the process of w r i t i n g or to the process of reading the l i t e r a r y text , begins with the students' f ind ing and expressing t h e i r own ideas" ( B u t l e r , 1984, p; 24). F i n a l l y , the work, a lready done provides a strong d i r e c t i o n i n which to cont inue. Exemplary s tudies done by B r i t t o n , Squire , Applebee, Beach, Purves, et a l . , need to be r e p l i c a t e d using d i f f e r e n t age groups and d i f f e r e n t l i t e r a r y genres i n order to expand knowledge about the nature of l i t e r a r y response. More s tudies are needed that draw widely on r e l a t e d d i s c i p l i n e s i n order to understand more c l e a r l y the nature of the developing response and strengthen the l i n k s now as yet t e n t a t i v e l y e s tab l i shed . Page 44 CHAPTER 3 PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY This chapter describes the background and procedures used to conduct the present study. The s e l e c t i o n of students , l i t e r a r y texts , procedures and instruments used to analyze the wr i t ten response logs are descr ibed . Although beginning with three e s tab l i shed instruments, ana lys i s of the response logs led to the development of a new instrument designed to describe the ongoing nature of the l i t e r a r y response. I . BACKGROUND Examining the circumstance that framed the study i t s e l f w i l l help e s t a b l i s h an appropriate context . During the 1984-1985 school year, the researcher taught E n g l i s h at a smal l , independent high school i n the Fraser V a l l e y . To a s s i s t two c lasses of Grade 9 students i n reading Cormier's complex I Am the Cheese, the fo l lowing method was introduced. With no information about the t ex t , students were asked to read approximately ten to f i f t e e n pages and then respond i n wr i t ing to the reading . Sentence l e a d - i n s were o f fered to guide the students: X I wonder', X I have a quest ion about ' , X I don't understand' , X I l i k e . ' The thrust of the response needed to focus on the text i t s e l f . No length l i m i t s or s p e c i f i c questions were p r e s c r i b e d . The students used about ten one-hour c lasses as well as homework time to read and Page 45 wri te . No d i s c u s s i o n of the novel took place at th i s time. Due to minimum page l i m i t s set for each day, a l l students had completed the reading by the due date which allowed them to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the ensuing c la s s d i s cus s ions . A. The Text: I Am the Cheese I Am the Cheese by Robert Cormier t e l l s the g r i p p i n g ta l e of a teenage boy's c o n f l i c t with soc i e ty . The story i s t o l d i n three separate but t i g h t l y interwoven s trands . In one s t rand , a f i r s t - p e r s o n present tense n a r r a t i v e , recounts Adam Farmer's imaginary b i c y c l e r i d e from his home i n Massachusetts to an i n s t i t u t i o n i n Rutterburg, Vermont to v i s i t h i s fa ther . The second strand cons i s t s of t r a n s c r i p t s of the taped conversat ions between Adam and B r i n t , who appears to be a p s y c h i a t r i s t . The . t h i r d strand a r i s e s out of the taped conversat ions with B r i n t and moves into a t h i r d person past tense narra t ive d e s c r i b i n g Adam's e a r l y l i f e . Genera l ly , the text presents a present tense segment followed by e i ther one or two segments c o n s i s t i n g of t r a n s c r i p t s interspersed with past tense n a r r a t i v e s . Cormier uses the three strands to reveal Adam's s tory . The complex s tructure both confuses and gr ips the reader who must read c l o s e l y , drawing many inferences to understand the p l o t . Even then, the c h i l l i n g impl i ca t ions of the l a s t three pages are not e a s i l y grasped. Page 46 B. The Reading Response Logs The students responded to I Am the Cheese i n t h e i r reading logs using the sentence l ead- ins provided or t h e i r personal r e f l e c t i o n s about the text . A l l the students kept the text c e n t r a l to the response. I t can be assumed, there fore , that students understood the nature of the task, a l b e i t they in terpre ted i t i n var i ed ways. When a l l students had completed reading I Am the Cheese, the teacher c o l l e c t e d the logs and responded to the content i n the margins; that i s , she attempted to dialogue with each student by asking quest ions , making encouraging comments and making references to the mechanics or w r i t i n g s t y l e . Representative comments were: "I never thought of that ," "I wonder, too," "Wow," " in teres t ing comment," "Really?" "I can see you are puzz led ." The response logs revealed d iverse ins ight s into the novel . While one student become absorbed with the s tructure of the nove l , another focused on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Adam and h is fa ther . Others t r i e d to probe the ' r e a l ' s tory . One student spent seven pages asking quest ions . Some questions surfaced i n a number of the response logs ("Who i s Adam Farmer?" "Where i s he-going?" "What are these tapes?"). Each i n d i v i d u a l in terpre ted the text i n a persona l , often unique way. These f o r t y - f i v e Page 47 students r a i s e d 1,296 questions and on the average produced seven pages of w r i t i n g . Moreover, seventeen of these students unraveled the "so lut ion ' to the complex p l o t i n t h e i r f i r s t reading . In the response log openings, the students often expressed f r u s t r a t i o n with the s t y l e and unknowns i n the text . As the response logs progressed, however, f r u s t r a t i o n often grew into c u r i o s i t y and eventual ly into dogged determination to solve the mystery. One student ended h is log th i s way: I've f i n i s h e d the book. I t ' s d r i v i n g me crazy . I can ' t f igure out i f the bike r i d i n g was present or past . I f i t s present i t doesn't make sense. This book i s i n t e r e s t i n g , I would l i k e to look into i t more. I have to f ind the answer. Approximately e ight sessions were devoted to both small group and c las s d i scuss ions about the novel . The d i s c u s s i o n topics were drawn from the response logs . Having the response logs proved h e l p f u l for s t imula t ing d i s c u s s i o n . The students had questions that remained unanswered and theories about the endings that were t e n t a t i v e . These d i scuss ions led to some i n t e r e s t i n g observat ions: . the number of students a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g Page 48 . ownership of response . the power of the wr i t t en icon as fuel for d i s c u s s i o n . v i t a l i t y and i n t e r e s t i n the d i s cus s ion . the c e n t r a l i t y of the text . the d imin i sh ing ro l e of the teacher in keeping d i s c u s s i o n moving An extensive quest ionnaire (Appendix Q) completed by a l l the students a f ter the l i t e r a t u r e un i t genera l ly confirmed the accuracy of these observat ions . As the fo l lowing observat ions i n d i c a t e , students found the log to be h e l p f u l : I t helped i n the reading of the book because I would look back and f ind answers to quest ions . This helped me piece the s tory together. I t served as something to extend my t h i n k i n g . I t was a way of w r i t i n g down things I d i d n ' t understand. I t was almost l i k e a place where I could put my f r u s t r a t i o n s on paper. The log served as a thing to ask questions from, or t e l l answers to , almost l i k e t e l l i n g someone what I thought of the book. In a d d i t i o n , the students expressed the benef i t s of w r i t i n g Page 49 during the reading for complex books such as I Am the Cheese. For books that are more d e t a i l e d and complicated, yes. Because you can "pick i t apart" while you wr i te . For some books I could see because they are d i f f i c u l t to read and understand. I f i t i s a novel tha t ' s easy to read, I would not want to do a l o g . Nevertheless , most students r a i s e d the concern that stopping to write in terrupted the reading flow: The log was a b i t of a pain at times because I'm used to reading a book at one/two shots & usua l ly i n bed! I l i k e d the log w r i t i n g except of course for the constant i n t e r r u p t i o n s i t caused. I t was d i f f e r e n t and better than jus t answering essay quest ions . The response logs provided- a v a l i d s t a r t i n g point for the subsequent d i s cus s ions . Students had a record of t h e i r observat ions , impressions and questions that could be shared with the c l a s s ; consequently, students learned from each other . The logs proved valuable as a veh ic l e to f u l l e r understanding of the nove l : Page 50 I got to hear other people's point of view and ideas. I t a lso put i n some of the missing pieces .I ju s t cou ldn ' t get by myself. Some p o i n t s , ideas and s i t u a t i o n s came up that I hadn't even thought of . I t made you think over what you f i r s t thought the book was about, and l i s t e n i n g to other people's thoughts. I l i k e the way th i s puzzle came together when doing I AM THE CHEESE. Although the logs appeared to s t imulate ac t ive engagement with the text and product ive d i s c u s s i o n , questions arose out of the experience: Why was the response log e f f e c t i v e for understanding I Am the Cheese? Would the recording of ongoing response enhance the reading of a l l novels? Were s t ra teg i e s invoked that would or could be used i n other l i t e r a r y experiences? What began as informal teacher r e f l e c t i o n s on the texts the students had produced led to the formulat ion of four research quest ions: 1 . Do i d e n t i f i a b l e patterns emerge when adolescents respond i n w r i t i n g at regular i n t e r v a l s during the reading of l i t e r a r y texts? Page 51 2. Do c e r t a i n types of response statements predominate when adolescents respond i n w r i t i n g during the reading of l i t e r a r y texts? 3. What i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s i n the responses of adolescents are evident i n these wr i t ten response logs? 0 4. Do n arra t ive s t r u c t u r a l features of l i t e r a r y texts a f f e c t the wr i t ten responses of adolescent readers? I I . THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY: PHASE ONE Of the twelve volunteer students from the researcher ' s o r i g i n a l Eng l i sh c l a s s e s , seven were se lected both for t h e i r reading a b i l i t y , reading experience and responses revealed i n the i r I Am  the Cheese logs . Thus seven capable readers p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study. A. The Students The seven students , f ive g i r l s and two boys, were students i n the researcher ' s Grade 9 Eng l i sh c la s s at a sma l l , independent high school i n the Fraser V a l l e y during the 1984-1985 school year. A l l . the p a r t i c i p a n t s had been placed i n the top academic Grade 9 Page 52 "stream.' These students had demonstrated promptness and r e l i a b i l i t y , important factors since the required task, had to be completed i n t h e i r l e i s u r e time. Six of the students entered Grade 10 at the same high school for the 1985-1986 school year; one student t rans ferred to another l o c a l independent high school . A l l remained i n academic, col lege-bound programs. Besides being experienced readers , the student volunteers were se lec ted for t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Some students were very reserved (Gordon, Annette) , some openly gregarious (Tracey, Marleen) , some more even-tempered (Grant, J e s s i c a , Miranda). Marleen and Grant tended to become persona l ly involved i n the reading; o thers , l i k e Miranda and Gordon, maintained a more o b j e c t i v e , d is tanced approach. Grant , J e s s i c a and Miranda openly d i s l i k e d fantasy; Gordon and Tracey often chose i t for personal reading . While strong academic q u a l i t i e s charac ter i zed a l l of the students , v a r i a t i o n i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l s t ra teg i e s e x i s t e d . . B. The Instruments; A p p l i c a t i o n and D e s c r i p t i o n Statements i n the seven I Am the Cheese reading response logs were numbered, t ranscr ibed and analyzed using the three d i f f e r e n t instruments of response ana lys i s descr ibed below. Page 53 1. Squire ' s categories of response: Squire ' s categories of L i t e r a r y Judgment, I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , N a r r a t i o n , A s s o c i a t i o n , Sel f - involvement and P r e s c r i p t i v e Judgment (Appendix C) were appl i ed to c l a s s i f y each response statement for I Am the Cheese. 2. Purves and Rippere's Elements of L i t e r a r y Response: A much more extensive instrument of a n a l y s i s , the Purves and Rippere instrument incorporates four general categories of response: namely, engagement-involvement, percept ion , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and eva luat ion (Appendix D). Each category is further d iv ided into elements. A t o t a l of 133 poss ib le elements are l i s t e d under the four general ca tegor ies . Although o r i g i n a l l y designed to describe the wr i t t en response to l i t e r a t u r e a f t er the completed reading of the l i t e r a r y work, the elements provided a wide range of poss ib le choices for descr ib ing the response statements used i n th i s study. 3. F i l l i o n ' s L i t e r a r y Response G r i d : F i l l i o n ' s response g r i d provided an opportunity for i n d i c a t i n g the range and v a r i e t y of responses v i s u a l l y . Simple to apply , i t categorizes the scope of response wr i t t en a f ter the completed reading of the l i t e r a r y text (Appendix D). Page 54 Using the instruments developed by Squire , F i l l i o n and Purves and Rippere allowed for cross -checking of general s i m i l a r i t i e s and for viewing the response logs from a s i i g h t l y 'd i f ferent perspect ive i n each case. Since none of the a n a l y t i c a l gr ids used an h i e r a r c h i c a l approach to response, they seemed appropriate for examining pre l iminary response to the nove l . C. Analyzing the I Am the Cheese Reading Response Logs Analyzing the I Am the Cheese reading response logs with the Squire , Purves and Rippere and F i l l i o n instruments allowed for numerous c l a r i f i c a t i o n s . The general categories of the Purves and Rippere instrument seemed most s u i t a b l e for addressing the f i r s t research quest ion (response patterns) s ince general trends of response could be i d e n t i f i e d through a few comprehensive categories such as engagement-involvement or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , for example. None of the three e s tab l i shed instruments adequately captured the essence of the forming, ongoing responses i n the reading logs . Squire developed h is categories from monitoring o r a l responses. The other two instruments were designed to account for the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of responses wr i t t en a f t er the completed reading of the l i t e r a r y text . Thus, the f i r s t phase of the study proved useful i n applying the instruments, recogniz ing t h e i r l i m i t a t i o n s Page 55 and determining the need to develop a new instrument. D. Developing the Response Descr iptors Using the response statements i n the students' logs as well as the o r i g i n a l response x g u i d e , ' a new instrument of twenty-f ive response d e s c r i p t o r s was developed that attempted to charac ter i ze both the nature of the response and the textual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the novels . Not h i e r a r c h i c a l i n order , each d e s c r i p t o r t r i e d to capture the nature of the statement: for ins tance . Questions -s imple , d i r e c t (E); Tentat ive Frameworking/ "Sense-making" ( J ) . Many statement d e s c r i p t o r s found i n the other instruments (personal response, for instance) were used again. This new instrument, descr ibed below, was subsequently appl i ed to a l l seven I Am the Cheese response logs (Appendix E ) . E . The L i t e r a r y Response Descr iptors A. PERSONAL RESPONSE/ENGAGEMENT ("I love th i s book. .") B. NARRATION/ RETELLING - p l o t , events C. KNOWLEDGE GAPS - ("I don't understand") D. CONFUSION ("This i s confus ing . ." ) E . QUESTIONS - s imple, d i r e c t ("What were the p i l l s . . . " ) F . QUESTIONS - i m p l i c i t hypothesis ("Is that why he...".) G. REFLECTION - ("I wonder " "I hope . . ." ) H. PREDICTION ("I think Ged w i l l defeat the shadow") Page 56 I . CONFIRMATION ("I knew.. , I thought so, I thought so") J . TENTATIVE FRAMEWORKING/ "SENSE MAKING" (" seems l ike") K. INSIGHT/ UNDERSTANDING ("is") L . STRIKING IMPRESSION/ VIEW/ PICTURE/ EVENT M. UNEXPECTED FINDING ("I never thought . . ." ) N. CHARACTER/ EVENT - ana lys i s ("He seems shy . . . " ) 0. CHARACTER/ EVENT - judgment/evaluation (" How dumb..") P. CHARACTER/ EVENT - p r e s c r i p t i o n / advice (" She should") Q. TEXTUAL LANGUAGE - words, phrases, quotes R. TEXTUAL STRUCTURE - l i t e r a r y elements S. TEXTUAL CONTENT T. TEXTUAL CONCEPTS/ IDEAS/ THEMES ("good vs. ev i l" ) U. VIEWING THE NOVEL'S LITERARY "WORLD" V. COMPARISON TO OTHER LITERARY TEXTS ("This i s 1 i k e . . . ) W. PROJECTION/ APPLICATION - to l a r g e r , outs ide world X. AUTHOR'S METHOD/ STYLE/ PROCESS Y. MISCELLANEOUS F. The R e l i a b i l i t y of the Instrument In a d d i t i o n to the researcher ' s a n a l y s i s , an independent ra ter appl i ed the twenty-f ive response d e s c r i p t o r s to three or four pages taken from d i f f e r e n t sect ions of each of the seven I Am the  Cheese logs . Comparisons revealed an eighty percent agreement. D i f f erences , moreover, occurred i n the same general area: while one ra ter may have designated a quest ion as s imple , d i r e c t (E) , Page 57 the other may have designated i t as a quest ion implying an hypothesis (F) . S u f f i c i e n t evidence of agreement ex i s ted to warrant using the response d e s c r i p t o r s for c l a s s i f y i n g the wr i t t en responses i n the subsequent reading response logs . I I I . THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY: PHASE TWO Two a d d i t i o n a l novels were chosen for th i s study s ince the study had begun with response to a nove l . Moreover, novels require longer reading time than poems and short s t o r i e s and consequently, the ongoing responses could develop, grow and change. A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich by A l i c e C h i l d r e s s and Ursula LeGuin's A Wizard of Earthsea a lso o f fered d i s t i n c t i v e l i t e r a r y features: appeal to adolescents , l i t e r a r y techniques, t o p i c s , and adolescent protagonis t s . A. The Novels 1. A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But A Sandwich by A l i c e C h i l d r e s s exposes the inner c i t y world of slums and drug abuse. Having problems adjus t ing to a fragmented fami ly , poor housing and schoo l ing , Benjie succumbs to the pressures by t r y i n g drugs. B e n j i e ' s v u l n e r a b i l i t y becomes a prime target for l o c a l drug dea lers . To support h i s h a b i t , he s tea l s even from his own fami ly . In sp i te of cons i s tent e f f o r t s to reach out and help him, Benjie fee ls that nei ther the teachers and counselors at school nor h i s family Page 58 can meet his needs. The ending leaves the reader unsure of B e n j i e ' s future . The world of slums and black, d i a l e c t pervades the text . B e n j i e ' s s tory comes together through ten f i r s t - p e r s o n "voices . ' 2. A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula LeGuin, the f i r s t book i n a fantasy t r i l o g y , t e l l s the s tory of young Sparrowhawk, son of a bronzesmith, who rece ives the g i f t of wizardry and the true name Ged from the Great Wizard. Anxious to tes t h i s new g i f t , Ged accepts the chal lenge to c a l l someone back from the dead, ignoring the f u l l impl i ca t ions of the deed. Consequently, a nameless "shadow" haunts him. Determining the shadow's name i n order to gain mastery over i t takes Ged to the far thes t ' reaches of Earthsea . He completes the dangerous journey and confronts the shadow. Ged matures by conquering h is youthful d e s i r e s . Stark symbolism of good and e v i l predominates the text . Although t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t u r e , LeGuin's novel combines both the complex and poet ic i n language. B. Procedure For the two novels descr ibed above, students rece ived a typed "guide sheet' (Appendix A) . About ten months,had passed s ince the f i r s t response log and the students , no longer i n the researcher ' s Eng l i sh c l a s s , could not be d i r e c t l y supervised. Page 59 Consequently, each p a r t i c i p a n t rece ived a cover l e t t e r (Appendix F) o u t l i n i n g a r e a d i n g / w r i t i n g schedule, a fo lder for the wr i t ten responses, a copy of the novel to be read and a reading response guide. While the students read I Am the Cheese i n a s t ruc tured classroom s e t t i n g , the remaining two. novels had to be read i n t h e i r l e i s u r e time. To encourage students to cont inue , each log was c o l l e c t e d and responded to once during the reading . Again , comments such as " i n t e r e s t i n g , " "wow!" and "I never thought of th i s before" were made by the researcher . A p o s i t i v e comment at the end of the w r i t i n g was intended to encourage readers to cont inue. No comments attempted to r e d i r e c t students or to e l i c i t pre ferred responses. C. Analyzing the Results To provide a f u l l p i c t u r e of the wr i t t en response and to account for the d i f f e r e n t nature of the l i t e r a r y texts , the responses to A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich and A Wizard of Earthsea were f i r s t analyzed using the Squire , Purves and Rippere and F i l l i o n instruments. Again, the Purves and Rippere's four categor ies were used to address the f i r s t research quest ion. For questions two, three and four , however, the newly-developed instrument was again a p p l i e d . Page 60 Since response statements sometimes encompassed more than one s p e c i f i c response, two and sometimes even three response d e s c r i p t o r s were assigned to a s ing le statement. A l l response d e s c r i p t o r s were then t o t a l l e d and c a l c u l a t e d into percentages based on the t o t a l number of response statements. G e n e r a l l y , f i f t e e n to twenty percent of the response statements rece ived more than one response d e s c r i p t o r ; consequently, chart headings depic t both the number of response statements (statements = ) and the number of response d e s c r i p t o r s (n = ). D. Interviewing The Students The interviews took place about f ive months a f ter the completion of the second two novels and fourteen months af ter the completion of I Am the Cheese. The students reread t h e i r response logs before responding. They e laborated on anything that appeared r e l e v a n t , unclear or of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to the researcher . A l l student responses to the interview questions (Appendix M) were recorded on the quest ionnaire sheets by the researcher . Interview mater ia l i s included i n the d i s c u s s i o n of the f indings (Chapter Four) and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the study (Chapter F i v e ) . The f indings presented i n Chapter Four focus on four areas of response to the l i t e r a r y work: (1) patterns of response (2) predominant responses, (3) i n d i v i d u a l response v a r i a t i o n s , and (4) the e f f ec t s of d i s t i n c t l i t e r a r y s tructures on response. Page 61 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS This chapter focuses on a d i s c u s s i o n of the f indings for each of the four research quest ions . The f i r s t quest ion focuses on patterns i n the responses of the seven adolescents i n the study to three novels . The second quest ion concerns the predominant responses of the group to each of the three novels . D i scuss ion of quest ion three focuses on the i n d i v i d u a l responses of the seven students to each novel . F i n a l l y , the fourth quest ion discusses the e f f ec t s of n a r r a t i v e s t ruc ture on response. i . DISCUSSION OF QUESTION # 1: IDENTIFIABLE RESPONSE PATTERNS QUESTION # 1 : Do i d e n t i f i a b l e patterns emerge when adolescents respond i n w r i t i n g at regular i n t e r v a l s during the reading of l i t e r a r y texts? No pat tern c o n s i s t i n g of an i d e n t i f i a b l e , p r e d i c t a b l e process of response that app l i e s genera l ly to readers of l i t e r a r y texts could be i d e n t i f i e d . The reading logs were examined to i d e n t i f y the general tone and content of the responses. The Squ ire , F i l l i o n , and Purves and Rippere instruments were a p p l i e d to each response statement i n a l l the readings logs . Subsequently, the Purves and Rippere categor ies of percept ion , engagement-involvement, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n , general Page 6 2 enough to i d e n t i f y a poss ib le pat tern of response, were se l ec ted . Three of the four categor ies emerged i n a l l of the responses but no pat tern was ev ident . [See Appendix S: Response Patterns] A. I Am the Cheese Although no general pat tern of response could be e s t a b l i s h e d , numerous expressions of uncerta inty about the text emerged. Several students began t h e i r responses with quest ions . Grant opened h is reading log with: "What are these tapes? What happened to h i s father?" Marleen a lso opened her response log t e n t a t i v e l y : [the numbers fo l lowing the quote i d e n t i f y the statement i n the s tudent 's log] I don't understand why the boy i s l eav ing and where from? [perception] I think, the tapes were of Adam t a l k i n g to a p s y c h i a t r i s t about h i s l i f e , [perception] What were the p i l l s that he threw away? [perception] I not iced that th i s boy i s weird, [engagement] I wonder what the package to h i s father i s? [perception] What year Is the s tory wr i t ten in? [perception] [1-6] However, not a l l students expressed t h e i r i n i t i a l responses i n that way. Annette began i n t e r p r e t i n g the text e a r l y i n her I Am  the Cheese response. She s ta ted: . Page 63 This chapter answered my questions about h i s name which i s Adam, [perception] Now I a l so understand why i t i s c a l l e d "I Am the Cheese." i t has to do with the song The Farmer i n the D e l l , [ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ] [9-11] A tentat iveness about the content of the text genera l ly appeared i n the in troduct ions and i n t e r p r e t i v e responses increased as the logs progressed. No pred ic tab le pa t t ern , however, could be i d e n t i f i e d . [See Appendix N: one s tudent 's response log and Appendix S: Responses to I Am the Cheese]] B. A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich and A Wizard of Earthsea Responses to A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich and A Wizard of  Earthsea v a r i e d . G e n e r a l l y , engagement-involvement responses increased from 13.8% for I Am the Cheese to 24.5% for A Hero  A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich and 37.8% for A Wizard of Earthsea . On the other hand, Annette expressed cons iderable engagement-involvement with the novel (21 of 52 response statements for I Am the Cheese) and moved toward more i n t e r p r e t i v e responses. [See Appendix S: Responses to A Hero  A i n ' t Nothln' But a Sandwich and A Wizard of Earthsea] The i n d i v i d u a l responses moved i n an unpred ic tab le , r ecurs ive fash ion , making i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a p a t t e r n , p a r t i c u l a r l y one that appl i ed to a l l three novels , impossible . J e s s i c a , for Page 64 instance , incorporated the elements o £ engagement-involvement and percept ion i n her I Am the Cheese and A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a  Sandwich response logs , but a l so expressed a number of i n t e r p r e t i v e responses. This book seems pre t ty strange because i t s t a r t s i n s lang and black language and i t gets more normal, [percept ion , engagement-involvement] I t must be strange for the author to wr i te , [engagement-involvement] The language makes i t eas ier to understand B e n j i e ' s point of view, [ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ] The way he t e l l s things you can almost understand why he s tar ted drugs when h i s l i f e i s the way i t i s . [engagement-involvement] I wonder i f he OD's or i f he "kicks?" [perception] I th ink i f he k icks he would probably get a job he lp ing other k ids q u i t drugs, [ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ] [1-6] G e n e r a l l y , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and engagement-involvement responses surfaced more frequent ly i n response to these novels . In Miranda's A Wizard of Earthsea reading l o g , she wrote: Ged has decided to go to the Is land of Roke. [perception] I think t h i s was a dumb d e c i s i o n because Ogion seemed so wise, ex. "to hear one must be s i l e n t . " [engagement/ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ] This sounds profound, [ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ] Page 65 "Shadow" was i n a major s t o r m and the s h i p m a s t e r a s k e d Ged t o do s o m e t h i n g and he w o u l d n ' t go t o R o k e . [ p e r c e p t i o n ] Ged d i d n ' t know what to do b u t t h e n he saw a l i g h t ( e v e n t u a l l y l e d them t h e r e ) b u t t h i s i s 1 i g h t t h a t l e d them, [ p e r c e p t i o n / i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ] a n o t h e r c o i n c i d e n c e ? [ p e r c e p t i o n ] t h i s book maybe p l a y s w i t h s y m b o l s / f o r e s h a d o w i n g e t c . [ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ] [ 9 - 1 8 ] A l r e a d y a t t h i s e a r l y s t a g e o f he r r e s p o n s e , M i r a n d a began t o i n t e r p r e t the e v e n t s o f the n o v e l . Three o f t h e f o u r c a t e g o r i e s - e n g a g e m e n t - i n v o l v e m e n t , p e r c e p t i o n , and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n - were woven t h r o u g h o u t the r e s p o n s e s . The f o u r t h c a t e g o r y , e v a l u a t i o n , a p p e a r e d o n l y m i n i m a l l y . S i n c e r e s p o n s e s were r e c o r d e d d u r i n g the r e a d i n g o f t he t e x t , most r e a d i n g l o g s ended when t h e r e a d i n g d i d . Some s t u d e n t s e x p r e s s e d e v a l u a t i o n o f the n o v e l a t the end o f t h e i r r e a d i n g . Of the t w e n t y - o n e r e a d i n g l o g s , e i g h t i n c o r p o r a t e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f the n o v e l . [See A p p e n d i x 0 and P : s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e l o g s ] I f a " p a t t e r n ' s u g g e s t s p r e d i c t a b l e , s e q u e n t i a l s t e p s t h e n no p a t t e r n c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d . Of the f o u r c a t e g o r i e s , o n l y e n g a g e m e n t - i n v o l v e m e n t t y p i c a l l y i n c r e a s e d f o r most s t u d e n t s as the r e s p o n s e s p r o g r e s s e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , the i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s e s r e v e a l e d t h a t p e r c e p t i o n , e n g a g e m e n t - i n v o l v e m e n t , and Page 66 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n recurred throughout and in no p a r t i c u l a r pat tern that could be i d e n t i f i e d as present i n a l l three novel responses. DISCUSSION OF QUESTION # 2 : PREDOMINANT RESPONSE STATEMENTS Question # 2 : Do c e r t a i n types of responses predominate when adolescents respond i n w r i t i n g during the reading of l i t e r a r y texts? To address t h i s ques t ion , a l i s t of d e s c r i p t o r s was developed to c l a s s i f y the response log statements. Each response statement was subsequently l a b e l l e d with the appropriate response d e s c r i p t o r ( s ) . Simply s ta ted , a response d e s c r i p t o r i d e n t i f i e s the nature, in tent or character of the response statement; for example, ques t ion , p r e d i c t i o n , i n s i g h t , confusion or unexpected f i n d i n g . To determine predominant responses, t a l l i e s of each response d e s c r i p t o r were c a l c u l a t e d for the responses to each novel ; for example, character /event ana lys i s (N) may have been used twenty-three times i n one response l o g . For each reader, the response d e s c r i p t o r t o t a l s were t a l l i e d for a l l of the three novels . Tota l s for a l l the readers were then c a l c u l a t e d . Each response log v a r i e d i n length; consequently, the t o t a l s of each response d e s c r i p t o r are reported i n percentages i n order to i d e n t i f y c l u s t e r s of response and predominant responses. At times more than one response d e s c r i p t o r proved to be Page 67 appropriate for a s ing le response statement; for instance , a quest ion with an i m p l i c i t hypothesis (F) could a lso be an attempt at Tentat ive Frameworking/"Sense-making" (J) of the content . On the average, o n e - f i f t h of the response statements warranted more than one d e s c r i p t o r ; consequently, the t o t a l number of d e s c r i p t o r s assigned exceeded the number of response statements. The percentage was der ived from the t o t a l number of d e s c r i p t o r s assigned rather than the t o t a l number of statements i n the response logs . I f f i f t y statements i n a response log rece ived s ixty-two d e s c r i p t o r s , the percentages were based on the s ixty-two d e s c r i p t o r s . Of the twenty-f ive types of responses, f ive predominated when c a l c u l a t i n g the average of a l l the student responses to the three novels ( J , N , B , A , E ; see Table 1). A d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e emerged when i d e n t i f y i n g the average responses for the i n d i v i d u a l novels , however. Questions (E) , for instance , d id not emerge predominantly i n the responses to A Hero A i n ' t Nothln' But a  Sandwich. The remaining four types of responses, however, a lso f igured predominantly i n the averages c a l c u l a t e d for a l l the students to each of the three novels ( J , N , B , A ; see Table 2). Other types of responses, not evident i n the c a l c u l a t i o n s for a l l students to the three novels (Table 1) , appeared i n the responses to the i n d i v i d u a l novels (Table 2). A. Predominant Responses Across the Three Novels Page 68 Averaging a l l the response revealed that f ive scored above 5% of the t o t a l responses recorded: Personal Response/ Engagement (A); Character / Event - a n a l y s i s (N); Tentat ive Frameworking/ "Sense-making" ( J ) ; N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g (B); and Questions -s imple , d i r e c t (E) . In the tables below, the remaining types of response scor ing below 5% are combined into a s ing le percentage. Table 1 demonstrates the averages of a l l the responses to the three novels: Table 1 PREDOMINANT RESPONSES: AVERAGES FOR THREE NOVELS* n = 2,031 [statements = 1,538] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses A. Personal Response/ Engagement 15.3% N. Character / Event - ana lys i s 14.3% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/Sense making 11.3% B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g 8.9% E. Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 8.3% Remaining Types of Response 41.9% * See Appendix I for d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of average Page 69 On the average. Personal Reuponue/ Engagement (A) , Character / Event - ana lys i s (N), Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making ( J ) , N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g (B) and Questions (E) responses proved most common. B. Predominant Responses to I n d i v i d u a l Novels C a l c u l a t i n g the average of each type of response for the three novels i n d i v i d u a l l y revealed four scored above 5%: Personal Response/ Engagement (A) , N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g (B), Character / Event - a n a l y s i s (N), and Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making ( J ) . A l l twenty-f ive d e s c r i p t o r s were represented i n the responses to the three novels , most only nominally (see Appendix I ) . The greatest v a r i e t y of response occurred i n A Wizard of Earthsea (an average of 15.4 response types per reader as opposed to 13.3 in I Am the Cheese and 12.2 i n A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich). In the responses to A Wizard of Earthsea . a l l twenty-f ive of the designated response types were represented (see Appendix L ) . For both the remaining novels . Conf irmation ( I ) , Unexpected F ind ing (M), Textual Content (S) , Textual Concepts, Ideas, Themes (T) , and Viewing the Novel 's L i t e r a r y World (U) rece ived minimal a t t e n t i o n (see Appendix J and Appendix K ) . Table 2 compares the predominant responses for the three novels . The dashes s i g n i f y an average response of l ess than 5% of the t o t a l responses. Page 70 Table 2 PREDOMINANT RESPONSES: THREE NOVELS •1.1 AM THE CHEESE n = 685 [statements = 540] 2. A HERO AIN'T NOTHIN' BUT A SANDWICH n = 610 [statements = 426] 3. A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA N = 736 [statements = 572] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses 1. 2. 3. J . Tentat ive Frameworking/Sense-making 16.5% 7.8% 9.6% E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 15.5% — . 8.3% F . Questions - i m p l i c i t hypothesis 11.6% — — N. Character / Event - a n a l y s i s 10.8% 20.3% 11.9% B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g 8.1% 12.1% 8.9 % K. Ins ight / Understanding 7.9% A. Personal Response/Engagement 6.1% 17.8% 22.1% O. Character / Events - judgment, — 9.2% eva luat ion Remaining Types of Responses 23.5% 32.8% 39.2% Of the twenty- f ive , four responses emerged for each of the three novels: Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making ( J ) , Character / Event - a n a l y s i s (N), N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g (B), and Personal Page 71 Response/ Engagement (A). N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g (B) proved most cons i s tent i n range; Personal Response/ Engagement (A) , the widest i n range. Table 2 a lso reveals the predominant focus for each novel response. A d i f f e r e n t s ing l e predominant response c h a r a c t e r i z e d each novel response: Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making (J) i n I Am the Cheese, Character /Event - a n a l y s i s (N) i n A Hero A i n ' t  Nothin' But a Sandwich and Personal Response/ Engagement (A) i n A Wizard of Earthsea . Moreover, the predominant responses emerged in a d i f f e r e n t order for each of the novels . As Table 2 i n d i c a t e s , each novel e l i c i t e d s p e c i f i c predominant responses. Tentat ive Frameworking/Sense-making, ( J , 16.5%) and Questions (E, 15.5%; F , 11.6%) charac ter i zed the responses to I_ Am the Cheese s ince the readers t r i e d to deal with the novel ' s complex s t r u c t u r e . In the A Hero A i n ' t Nothing but a Sandwich responses, however, Character / Event - a n a l y s i s (N, 20.3%) and Personal Response/ Engagement (A, 17.8%) proved more dominant. Personal Response/ Engagement (A, 22.1%) and Character / Event -a n a l y s i s (N, 11.9%) charac ter i zed the responses to A Wizard of  Earthsea . S p e c i f i c types of responses predominated when the adolescents i n t h i s study responded i n w r i t i n g during the reading of l i t e r a r y texts . Page 72 I I I . DISCUSSION OF QUESTION 3: INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES TO THREE LITERARY TEXTS QUESTION # 3: What i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s i n the responses of adolescents are evident i n these wr i t t en response logs? Considerable v a r i a t i o n ex i s ted i n the i n d i v i d u a l responses to the same nove l . Questions (E) i n i n d i v i d u a l I Am the Cheese responses, for ins tance , cons t i tu ted 6.1%, 12.2%, 14.4%, 18.0%, 18.8%, 18.8% and 20.3% of the t o t a l response, an average of 13.5%. Those asking fewer questions responded a l t e r n a t e l y ; for example. Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making ( J ) , Knowledge Gaps (C) , Ongoing R e f l e c t i o n (G) and Confusion (D). The i n d i v i d u a l response logs were examined to i d e n t i f y the predominant responses to each nove l . This allowed l o c a t i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f erences i n the responses of the students to the same novel . A comparison of each student 's response to the three novels i s presented as a summary a f t er the d i s c u s s i o n of the responses to A Wizard of Earthsea . Where r e l e v a n t , s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f erences among the students are d i scussed . Tables 3 - 23 present the predominant responses of each reader to each novel . Page 73 A. I Am the Cheese Analyses of the seven i n d i v i d u a l responses to I Am the Cheese fo l lows . 1. Grant Grant responded to the novel as a quest ioner seeking answers, with two types of questions (E , s imple; F , i m p l i c i t hypothesis) c o n s t i t u t i n g 29.4% o f the expressed responses (see Table 3). Frequent ly , he began with questions and then stopped to consider them. pp. 77-90* I wonder how he f e l t spying on h i s parents , l i s t e n i n g i n on c a l l s , e t c . Are the tapes from the past , present? Are the c l u e s , c lues to h i s r e a l h i s t o r y ? He must fee l bad, knowing that h i s parents l i e d to him. Are they his r e a l parents? Is B r i n t a r e a l doctor? [31 - 36] pp. 91-107 The gray man? I am sure he i s t e l l i n g a s tory and not l i v i n g i t at the same time. I think the "clues" are to h i s r e a l h i s t o r y . That 's what B r i n t i s t r y i n g to f i n d out , Adam's r e a l h i s t o r y . He goes to B r i n t when he needs he lp . I th ink he's i n a mental h o s p i t a l while t e l l i n g Page 74 h i s s tory . [37 - 42] [* Page numbers ind i ca te s p e c i f i c pages i n the paperback, e d i t i o n of the nove l . ] Table 3 presents Grant ' s seven dominant types of responses: Table 3 Grant: Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese n = 85 [statements = 62] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses N. Character /Event - a n a l y s i s 20. 0% E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 18. 8% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/Sense-making 14. 1% K. I n s i g h t / Understanding 14. 1% F . Questions - i m p l i c i t hypothesis 10 . 6% A. Personal Response/ Engagement 8. 2% R. Textual Structure 5. 9% Remaining Types of Responses 8. 3% As d i d some of the o thers . Grant asked numerous quest ions . He a lso analyzed the characters and events (N, 20%) and expressed Page 75 ins igh t and understanding (K, 14.1%). His responses were predominantly l i m i t e d to seven types of responses (91.7% of the t o t a l responses) . Grant ' s ac t ive quest ion asking l ed him to conclude: I t i s a l l very c l e a r now. I have no questions on the bas ic s tory . I know he was put i n the i n s t i t u t i o n 3 years ago a f t er the family part of the s tory . His mom and dad were k i l l e d by Grey who was suspended, then l e t go again . The whole b i c y c l e t r i p was a dream. He was daydreaming while r i d i n g around the i n s t i t u t e . A l l the people in h i s dream were a l l res idents or workers at the i n s t i t u t e (except h i s parents ) . Grey was never he lp ing them. He was always against them. (54 - 62] Even i n a novel that required c lose read ing . Grant c o n s i s t e n t l y analyzed the charac ters . He dea l t with the complexity of the novel by posing h i s own questions and seeking answers to construct meaning. 2. J e s s i c a J e s s i c a ' s reading response log can best be descr ibed through the image of a p u l l e y . She c o n s i s t e n t l y moved between "I don' t know" and "I t h i n k , " "I suppose" and "maybe." She frequent ly asked . Page 76 questions (E , 18.8%) and attempted to make sense of the novel ( J , 17.6%) as Table 4 presents . Table 4 J e s s i c a : Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese n = 85 [statements = 72] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 18. 8% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 17. 6% C. Knowledge Gaps 12. 9% K. Ins ight / Understanding 7. 1% F. Questions - i m p l i c i t hypothesis 5. 9% A. Personal Response/Engagement 5. 9% G. Ongoing R e f l e c t i o n 5. 9% Remaining Types of Responses 25. 9% J e s s i c a openly acknowledged the gaps i n her understanding (C) . Fourteen of the seventy-two responses expressed her uncer ta in ty ; "I don't know" or "maybe." At the end, however, l i k e Grant , she t r i e d to make sense of the novel . I understand what happened i n the end. Adam never went on Page 77 a t r i p . He jus t went crazy when his parents d i e d . He l i v e d i n a loony b i n and he pretended he was going on a t r i p but he jus t rode around the grounds and when he met someone from the h o s p i t a l he pretended to meet them on the t r i p . [ 6 5 - 6 9 ] J e s s i c a ' s responses moved between asking questions (E , 18.8% and F , 5.9%) and posing tentat ive i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ( J , 17.6%). She openly acknowledged uncerta inty ( C , 12.9%), withheld judgment and at various points attempted to construct the meaning of the text (K, 7.1%). 3. Annette Annette's s trategy for t h i s novel cons i s ted of "taking s tock." She asked questions or made observat ions and at regular i n t e r v a l s stopped to assess her p o s i t i o n . The f i r s t chapter leaves me with l o t s of questions l i k e : Why is the father i n the h o s p i t a l ? How o l d i s he, and what's h i s name? What do the tapes mean and why are they used? It g ives me the idea that maybe h is parents were i n an acc ident or l e f t him and now he i s seeing a p s y c h i t r i s t (however you s p e l l i t ! ) because a mental problem i t gave him. [ 1 - 5 ] Page 78 Table 5 presents Annette's predominant responses to I Am the  Cheese. Table 5 Annette: Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese n = 69 [statements =49] Type of Response Percentage of T o t a l Responses E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 20. 3% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/Sense-making 17. 4% K. Ins ight / Understanding 14. 5% D. Confusion 8. 7% F. Questions - i m p l i c i t hypothesis 7. 2% A. Personal Response/ Engagement 7. 2% Remaining Types of Response 24. 7% Her reading log d i f f e r e d from the o thers ; i t included no s i g n i f i c a n t a n a l y s i s of characters or events (N) and frequent express ion of confus ion (D, 8.7%). Like Grant , she placed cons iderable emphasis on asking questions (E , 20.3%; F , 7.2%) and on express ing ins ight s and understanding (K, 14.5%). Over h a l f of her responses expressed uncerta inty ( E , J , D , F , 53.6%). More than the o thers , she r e g u l a r l y stopped to x take stock' before Page 79 cont inu ing; g e n e r a l l y , at the end of each reading s e c t i o n : pp. 22-34 Who i s Paul Delmont? I t ' s confusing when i t t e l l s about where he's going r i g h t now. (his journey to Rutterburg) and then comes the tape, and i n between another person ta lks about the boy. What i s happening now? What i s he th ink ing or remembering? This chapter answered my quest ion about h i s name which is Adam (Farmer). Now I a l so understand why i t i s c a l l e d , "I am the Cheese," i t has to do with the song the Farmer i n the D e l l . [6 - 11] Annette revealed her tenuous grasp of the meaning of the novel i n her c l o s i n g impressions: I t ' s confusing how (they) the author writes about h i s t r a v e l l i n g to Rutterburg and how he seems to be in the past and then t e l l s what happened the f i r s t time that he went to that h o t e l . Who are the men who k i l l them? Why d i d they do i t ? Now as Adam (Paul) gets to Rutterburg a l l the people i n the h o s p i t a l are the people he met r i d i n g to Rutterburg , l i k e the "wise guys" and fat man and dog. [44 - 47] At the end of her reading , Annette appeared l ess conf ident of the meaning of the novel than d i d e i t h e r Grant or J e s s i c a . Page 80 Nevertheless , she c o n s i s t e n t l y attempted to construct meaning from the nove l . 4. Tracey Tracey frequent ly narrated and r e t o l d the events of the novel (B, 35.6%). Usual ly she c l u s t e r e d these responses to r e t e l l an i n c i d e n t : Finds c l u e s . Gets r i d of dogs with dad. Background information about Amy. T r i e s to c a l l her. [18 - 21] Table 6 presents the f i ve types of response represent ing 5% or more of Tracey*s t o t a l responses. Page 81 Table 6 Tracey: Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese n = 104 [statements = 94] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g 35. 6% E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 14. 4% N. Character / Event - a n a l y s i s 11. 5% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 11. 5% F. Questions - i m p l i c i t hypothesis 6. 7% Remaining Types of Responses 20. 3% Although Tracey, l i k e Marleen, asked fewer questions than the other students , an apparent urge to make sense of the text was ev ident: I think he's dreaming up t h i s whole s t o r y . [67]. . . . I think Adam i s dreaming. The second time I read i t I d iscovered t h i s . [75, 76]. . . . I not ice that there are people i n Adam's t r i p that he speaks about i n the room to B r i n t . He must be dreaming t h i s b /c the dog, s i l v e r , appears there too! [79, 80] Page 82 Tracey r e t o l d the events (B, 35.6%) and asked fewer quest ions than the other students; 21.1% as opposed to the 28.1% average for the group. 5. Marleen Marleen's responses to I Am the Cheese revealed a sense of f r u s t r a t i o n and urgency. She responded emotional ly to the world of the novel . that doctor sure i s pushy. He doesn't sound l i k e a normal doctor . [27, 28]. . . . 1 was ge t t ing so impatient with him b /c he kept denying everyth ing . [33]. . . . Those three boys are pre t ty low to do something l i k e that - running Adam o f f the road. I f ee l sorry for him b/c a l l he's doing is br ing ing a simple g i f t to h i s dad & he has a l l these problems along the way. [39, 40] Her concern with the doctor grew: The doctor i s very pushy! [54]. . . . B r i n t i s a j e r k ! [58]. . . . I hope I f ind out who the doctor i s because i t r e a l l y bothers me. [65]. . . . Who's the doctor? [76] Frus tra ted by having to stop reading to w r i t e , she lamented: Page 83 I am g e t t i n g s i c k of w r i t i n g responses i n th i s reading l o g . I ju s t want to keep on reading . At times you get so involved with the s tory that you don't want to put i t down. [49 - 51] Table 7 presents the d i s t r i b u t i o n of Marleen's responses. Table 7 Marleen: Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese n = 98 [statements = 81] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses A. Personal Response/ Engagement 15. 3% N. Character /Event - a n a l y s i s 14. 3% F . Questions - i m p l i c i t hypothesis 12. 2% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 12. 2% K. Ins ight / Understanding 8. 2% E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 6. 1% W. P r o j e c t i o n / A p p l i c a t i o n 5. 1% Remaining Types of Responses 26. 6% Like Miranda, Marleen asked more questions with i m p l i c i t hypotheses (F, 12.2%) than simple questions (E , 6.1%). Moreover, she d i d not narrate or r e t e l l (B) any part of the s t o r y , but Page 84 rather responded persona l ly (15.3%) and analyzed the characters and events of the novel (14.3%). At one po in t , she r e f e r r e d to the textual s t r u c t u r e : The s tory i s coming together, s lowly and s lowly . As Adam f inds c l u e s , you then f ind the c lues as the s tory is pieced together. Maybe t h a t ' s what the author wants to happen? [ 2 9 - 3 1 ] Like Annette and Tracey, Marleen sensed the key to the s tory : Did Adam dream a l l th i s? That 's the only explanat ion I can think of because i t ju s t doesn't otherwise make sense. [79, 80] Unl ike the o thers , Marleen p r i m a r i l y responded persona l ly to the novel . At the same time, she analyzed characters and events (N), asked questions (E ,F) and attempted to make sense of the text ( J ) . 6. Miranda In her ongoing response, Miranda openly expressed her f r u s t r a t i o n with the uncerta inty i n the novel . She posed shor t , searching comments and quest ions: Page 85 I don' t get these tapes. Is th i s a flashback,? It ta lked about Amy Hertz . Is he l eav ing a h o s p i t a l ? What about the p i l l s / m e d i c a t i o n ? They both match up! He is somehow s i c k - from what? How? This puzzles me. Is he a zombie? [ 1 3 - 2 2 ] Table 8 presents Miranda's predominant responses to the nove l . Table 8 Miranda : Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese n =123 [statements = 101] Type of Response Percentage of T o t a l Responses J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 19.5% F . Questions - i m p l i c i t hypothesis 14.6% B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g 13.8% E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 12.2% N. Character / Event - a n a l y s i s 10.6% Y. Miscel laneous 9.8% D. Confusion 8.1% Remaining Types of Response 11.4% Page 86 Miranda responded d i f f e r e n t l y to the novel from most other readers i n severa l ways. F i r s t , she d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y express personal engagement with the text (A, 1%). Secondly, l i k e Tracey, Miranda narrated and r e t o l d (B) parts of the s tory frequent ly; 13.8% compared to the 9.2% o v e r a l l average. Unl ike Tracey, however, Miranda r e t o l d the events i n c i d e n t a l l y among her other responses, rather than i n c l u s t e r s . T h i r d l y , Miranda ended each entry with "Nothing e lse . ' ' Such e n t r i e s were c l a s s i f i e d as miscel laneous (Y, 9.8%). Miranda openly acknowledged d i f f i c u l t y i n put t ing the parts of the novel together. She concluded: I s t i l l don' t understand everyth ing . He (af ter mom and dad's death?) goes into a h o s p i t a l and f i n a l l y comes around (at l e a s t 3 years) and then goes for a t r i p . Says/ r e c a l l s v i s i t i n g Amy e t c . but she's not there -must be r e c a l l i n g (proof: phone #) and then (proof: motel) . He returns to h o s p i t a l and c o n d i t i o n has d e t e r i o r a t e d . I don't get i t but i t sure was a d i f f e r e n t book. [97 - 101] Questions ( E , F , 26.8%) and Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making ( J , 19.5%) c h a r a c t e r i z e d Miranda's response. She a l so stopped frequent ly to r e t e l l the s tory to h e r s e l f (B, 13.8%) i n an Page 87 attempt to create meaning from the text . 7. Gordon Gordon responded l a r g e l y through asking quest ions . Combining the two quest ion responses (E , F) re su l t ed i n a 42% t o t a l . He frequent ly asked questions cont inuously - ten without i n t e r r u p t i o n at one po in t . Occas iona l ly he in terrupted h i s questions with a statement: I not iced that he i s g i v i n g a present to h i s dad. What i s i t ? Something l i k e a thing he used to have? What I wonder about i s why i s he t a l k i n g on a tape? Is he having counse l l ing? Why d i d he and his parents have to run away? What impressed me i n t h i s chapter was that he does not want to give up. [ 3 - 9 ] Page 88 Table 9 ind icates Gordon's four predominant responses: Table 9 Gordon: Predominant Responses: I Am the Cheese n = 121 [statements = 81] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses F . Questions - i m p l i c i t hypothesis 24. 0% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 23. 1% E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 18. 0% N. Character /Event - a n a l y s i s 8. 2% Remaining Types of Response 26. 7% Four types of responses, represent ing almost three - fourths of h i s responses, charac ter i zed Gordon's response l o g . Asking questions (E,F) and making some attempt to answer them (J) c o n s t i t u t e d almost two-thirds of Gordon's response (65.1%). Almost one-fourth of the questions were charac ter i zed by having both a Question - i m p l i c i t hypothesis (F) and Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making (J) c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Gordon wove i n t e r p r e t i v e responses into h i s questions throughout h i s response. Why i s Adam so suspic ious and caut ious? How does Amy Hertz f i t i n with a l l these c lues? Why does the Page 89 newspaper e d i t o r who has l i v e d i n Rawlings a l l h is l i f e not remember the family c a l l e d the Farmers? I admire Adam's determinat ion not to go back, home. Was i t jus t a simple mistake or i s i t because of something qui te bad? How come he i s so scared when he f inds out he has 2 b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e s ? Does he have c e r t a i n r e a l l y bad memories from childhood? [23 - 29] Gordon's response focused p r i m a r i l y on asking questions and attempting to answer them. In summary, then, I Am the Cheese e l i c i t e d a v a r i e t y of i n d i v i d u a l responses. As could be expected, common f a c t u a l information surfaced; for example, v i r t u a l l y a l l the students mentioned the tapes, two b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e s and "clues" i n the nove l . Each d i d so, however, i n d i f f e r e n t ways and at d i f f e r e n t points i n t h e i r response. They asked questions f requent ly , but again in varying degrees. They attempted to make sense of the mater ia l (J) and analyzed the characters and events (N). Discuss ion of the f i n d i n g s , response examples, and Tables 3 - 9 demonstrate how students dea l t with the novel i n i n d i v i d u a l ways. B. A Hero A i n ' t Nothln' But a Sandwich C h i l d r e s s ' novel reveals Benj i e ' s i n c r e a s i n g l y despa ir ing predicament through eleven "voices' that o f f er a pr i smat i c Page 90 perspect ive of B e n j i e ' s growing drug dependency. Through i t s use of black d i a l e c t and i t s presentat ion of a world u n f a m i l i a r to these p a r t i c u l a r readers , th i s novel a f f e r s a d i s t i n c t i v e l i t e r a r y experience . 1. Grant Intensely involved i n the l i t e r a r y world of the nove l . Grant frequently judged the characters and events i n h i s response. When I found out that the boy was a r e a l drug a d d i c t , i t upset me. I hate kids who r u i n t h e i r l i v e s l i k e that . The k i d doesn't even not ice that he has a problem. His s tep- fa ther seems to be a n i c e , concerned, l ov ing man who sees that h i s stepson has a problem. The grandmother seems to be a hyper, r e l i g i o u s f a n a t i c . [ 2 - 6 ] Page 91 Table 10 d e t a i l s h i s involvement with the novel . Table 10 Grant: Predominant Responses: A Hero A i n ' t Nothin n = 93 [statements = 75] But a Sandwich Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses A. Personal Response/ Engagement 24. 7% N. Character / Event - a n a l y s i s 24. 7% 0. Character /Event - e v a l u a t i o n , judgment 14. 0% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 7. 5% E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 5. 4% Remaining Types of Responses 23. 7% Grant revealed not only cons iderable personal response and engagement (A, 24.7%) but focused that involvement on the characters and events of the novel (N,0) . Taken together, these three types of responses (A,N,0) accounted for almost two-thirds (63.4%) of Grant ' s response. As the fo l lowing responses i n d i c a t e . Grant involved himsel f i n the l i v e s and events of the charac ter s : I'm beginning to f ee l a l i t t l e b i t of hate for each character except Benj i e ' s fami ly . [26]. . . The drug Page 92 dealer is a very s i c k person i n my mind. (30] In time, however, he softened h i s judgmental f e e l i n g s . When he was i n the h o s p i t a l I f e l t r e l i e v e d . I thought maybe he'd q u i t for good. But when he sa id he was going to t ry i t again i t r e a l l y made me sad. [43-45] Suddenly, he expressed anger again: I wouldn't be surpr i sed i f th i s l a s t dose k i l l s him. He would almost deserve i t . He's too conf ident . He thinks he can do anything. [ 4 6 - 4 9 ] He appeared to s truggle to balance h i s f ee l ings once again: I'm f ee l ing mixed hate and compassion for Benj ie . [59] . . . I f ee l sorry for B e n j i e ' s mom. [64] . . . Now I'm beginning to fee l some respect for the father and Benj ie . Something l i k e that almost needed to happen to br ing them together. (67, 68]. . . I t sounds l i k e the family w i l l be a bet ter one now. Things seem to be going smooth. Benj i e ' s o f f heroin and a l l the fami ly ' s ge t t ing along w e l l . [70 - 72] Genera l ly , Grant persona l ly and empathet ica l ly expressed h i s fee l ings toward the characters and t h e i r a c t i o n s . Page 93 2. J e s s i c a In her response, J e s s i c a a s s imi la t ed the world of the novel into the r e a l world as she understands i t and in terpre ted the content of the novel accord ing ly : "Benjie probably s tar ted drugs because of h is negative s i t u a t i o n . Lots of people l i v e i n ghettos and make the best of i t . " [7, 8] Personal response (A) f igured predominantly i n her response as Table 11 i n d i c a t e s . Table 11 J e s s i c a : Predominant Responses: A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' n = 85 [statements = 72] But a Sandwich Type of Response Percentage of T o t a l Responses A. Personal Response 25.4% G. Ongoing R e f l e c t i o n 11.1% N. Character / Event - a n a l y s i s 11.1% W. P r o j e c t i o n / A p p l i c a t i o n to Larger World 11.1% 0. Character / Event - judgment, eva lua t ion 7.9% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 7.9% Remaining Types of Responses 25.5% Page 94 J e s s i c a ' s response could be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the responses of the others i n two ways: Ongoing R e f l e c t i o n (G, 11.1%) and A p p l i c a t i o n to the Larger World (W, 11.1%). She c o n s i s t e n t l y r e f l e c t e d (G) on B e n j i e ' s predicament: I wonder i f he OD's or i f he "k icks ." £ 5 ] , . . I a l so sor t of wonder about h i s r e a l father and where he went and i f he was doing drugs too. [9] . . . I wonder about the f i r s t time Benjie shot hero in what made him come back for more. [16]. . . I wonder when N i g e r i a Greene r a t t e d on Benj i e . [20]. . . In t h i s s ec t ion I wondered where Benjie got h i s money for drugs. [31] Secondly, i n the process of synthes iz ing her views, J e s s i c a l i n k e d the circumstances of the novel to the outs ide world (W): I t seems hard to be l i eve that people l i v e t h i s way because I guess jus t that I l i v e in a c l ean town and know about 5 blacks and I bare ly see bums. [18]. . . I know the problem i s there , but I don't know any drug a d d i c t s . I f I had to , I could probably f i n d some around but b a s i c a l l y I'm jus t g lad I don't l i v e in New York. [29, 30 ] A f i n a l i n t e r e s t i n g note about J e s s i c a ' s response concerned her Page 95 judgment of character (0). She never judged Benjie or condemned him as d i d some of the others; r a t h e r , she accepted h i s circumstance as the unquestioned, i n e v i t a b l e r e s u l t of ghetto l i v i n g . 3. Annette Annette appeared to engage intense ly with the nove l . Of her f o r t y - f i v e response statements, seventeen began with "I ." She opened her response with: "I f ee l sorry for Benj ie even though he wishes people wouldn't ." Frequent ly , she analyzed (N) and judged (0) the charac ters : I f ee l sorry for Bernard Cohen, the white teacher. Maybe i t ' s because I'm white too, but i t seems that he jus t t r i e s to mind h is own business , but other teachers s t i l l hassle him. I think N iger ia Greene i s too s trong . His ideas to end black segregation are good but he pushes too hard. He shoves i t down his students' throats . [15 - 18] Page 96 Table 12 reveals Annette's predominant responses: Table 12 Annette: Predominant Responses: A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' n = 62 [statements = 45] But a Sandwich Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses N. Character / Event - a n a l y s i s 19.4% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 19.4% A. Personal Response 14.5% K. Ins ight / Understanding 11.3% 0. Character /Event - judgment, eva lua t ion 9.7% G. Ongoing R e f l e c t i o n 6.5% Remaining Types of Response 19.2 Annette attempted to make sense of the novel ( J , 19.4%) more frequent ly than the other students . Again, as in her reading of I Am the Cheese, she frequent ly stopped to assess the s i t u a t i o n before cont inu ing : I'm wondering who the "hero" i s going to be, i f there i s one, i n th i s s tory and w i l l he save Benjie before i t ' s too l a t e . I don't think Bernard Cohen or N i g e r i a Green w i l l be the hero. [19, 20] Page 97 Annette was the only reader who incorporated the i n s i g h t and understanding (K) types of response, accounting for 11.3% of her t o t a l response. P a r t i c u l a r l y at the end of her response, she revealed severa l in s igh t s into the nove l : Benjie i s going to be a l l r i g h t because someone be l ieves i n him and he be l ieves i n h imsel f . I a l so understand the t i t l e better now. Heroes or c e l e b r i t i e s are sandwiches or nothing s p e c i a l . People l i k e B u t l e r , s t ra igh t forward , hard-working i n r e a l l i f e , are the r e a l heroes. [42 - 45] Unl ike the o thers , Annette maintained her s trategy of regular s tock- tak ing through Tentat ive Frameworking/Sense-making ( J ) . But Annette, l i k e Grant , a l so analyzed characters and events (N) and engaged personal ly (A) with the novel . 4 . Tracey Tracey c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y analyzed characters (N) i n her reading response l o g : " A f r i c a " I sense that he's insecure always accusing others . He thinks that a l l white people are bad. He genera l i ze s . I fee l a lso that he admired his dad. I wonder why he's so worried about f i t t i n g i n i f he's black anyway? Thinks Page 98 that God doesn't care . I found out why he t r i e s to f i t i n : because he wants to be the "savior of the c lassroom." [35 - 41] Because she headed each w r i t i n g segment with the name of the "voice' (the character) in the s e c t i o n , perhaps focusing on the character followed n a t u r a l l y . Table 13 ind icates her focus on Character / Event a n a l y s i s (N): Table 13 Tracey: Predominant Responses: A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' n = 149 [statements = 140] But a Sandwich Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses N. Character /Event - a n a l y s i s 34.6% 0. Character / Event - judgment, eva luat ion 9.4% B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g 6.0% H. P r e d i c t i o n 6.0% E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 5.4% Remaining Types of Responses 38.6% Taken together, a n a l y s i s and judgment of characters c o n s t i t u t e d almost h a l f of Tracey's response (N,0, 44%). Unl ike Grant , Page 99 J e s s i c a and Annette, Tracey responded only minimally i n a personal (A) way to the text . Moreover, while N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g (B) provided the bulk of her response to I Am the  Cheese (35.6%), i t c o n s t i t u t e d only 6% of the response to A Hero  A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich. Only two of the 140 responses r e f l e c t e d d i r e c t personal engagement with the text . G e n e r a l l y , Tracey appeared to remain objec t ive and analyzed the characters and events i n the novel . 5. Marleen Unl ike Tracey, Marleen analyzed the characters i n t h i s novel i n a personal way. "It doesn't sound l i k e Benjie is improving very much," she wrote, "He acts l i k e such a jerk towards h i s family and he doesn't even fee l g u i l t y . " [24,25] Her I Am the Cheese response log emphasized four responses (A, N, F , and J ) . Two responses - A and N - charac ter i ze her response as presented i n Table 14: Page 100 Table 14 Marleen: Predominant Responses: A Hero A i n ' t Nothin 1 n = 69 [statements = 59] But a Sandwich Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses A. Personal Response/ Engagement 23. 2% N. Character / Event - a n a l y s i s 18. 8% R. Textual Structure 8. 7% B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g 7. 2% C. Knowledge Gaps 5. 8% V. Viewing the Novel 's L i t e r a r y World 5. 8% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 5. 8% Remaining Types of Response 24. 7% Marleen r e f l e c t e d about the s t ruc ture of the novel . She thought about the language (black d i a l e c t ) of the text and decided that "that a l l ju s t i s part of the "structure" of the nove l ." [5] She t r i e d to "s tructure ' the s tory for h e r s e l f : " i t ' s sor t of hard to understand so f a r , there i s n ' t a "real s t o r y ' to the nove l ." [4] Marleen demonstrated her strong concept of "story' several times during her response: This s tory i s s t a r t i n g o f f pre t ty good but i t ' s sor t of Page 101 hard to understand because so f a r , there i s n ' t a r e a l "story" to the novel . [3,4] There s t i l l i s n ' t much of a "story" but r a t h e r , i n fac t , i t ' s l i k e separate sect ions from an interview put together. [16] This i s sor t of s t a r t i n g to look l i k e a soap opera: happy marriage, then bad k i d father moves out another lady i s going a f t er the father but the father s t i l l wants h i s wife e t c . I t doesn't have " and they l i v e d happi ly ever a f t er " I t ' s l i k e you have to give your own thoughts & impressions of the end of the nove l . I thought i t was a strange but good book. [57 - 59] Only Marleen compared th i s novel to I Am the Cheese: "A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' but a Sandwich" is s i m i l a r to "I Am the Cheese" i n that there are other point of views. [8] . . . maybe i t w i l l have something to do with the ending ( just l i k e "I am the Cheese") [11]. . . but maybe there ' s Page 10 2 not r e a l l y going to be an ending ( s i m i l a r to "I Am the Cheese") [32,33]. . . I t ' s s i m i l a r & very f r u s t r a t i n g l y l i k e "I Am the Cheese" in the way that explained i t s e l f . [56] Moreover, she was the only reader to r e f e r d i r e c t l y to a personal , emotional memory. During a telephone conversat ion about the reading , she recounted her emotional response to the funeral scene i n the text as she had recorded i t i n her reading response l o g : After reading the d e s c r i p t i o n of the funeral of B e n j i e ' s f r i e n d , i t reminded me of my grandpa's funeral so much that I s tar ted to c r y . I mean l i t e r a l l y tears were s l i d i n g down my cheeks. But i t ' s strange why because there was nothing s i m i l a r between the 2 people. I t sor t of made me think about i t more. [49 - 53] During the interv iew, Marleen explained some poss ib le reasons for her emotional involvement with the novel : My fr iends even t e l l me I'm emotional . Maybe I always see the point of view of the s tory - how people fee l in the s tory and how that r e f l e c t s on me. As in her I Am the Cheese response, Marleen responded persona l ly Page 103 to the characters In the novel . 6. Miranda Miranda s h i f t e d between simple n a r r a t i o n of the content (B) and examination of the characters (N). Although the greates t emphasis again f e l l on r e t e l l i n g the narra t ive (B), she frequently analyzed (N, 18%) and judged (0, 17%) the characters of the s tory . Jimmy-Lee was B e n j i e ' s f r i e n d & was the one that introduced drugs to Ben. But he's sorry he d i d . He sa id he d i d n ' t get a good high o f f drugs - so he d i d n ' t do them. He a lso sa id i t was ge t t ing pre t ty bad w/ Ben The grandmother d i d n ' t say much about Benj i e , but ta lked about everything e l s e . She to ld her whole l i f e s tory & made a long (quite syrupy speech about how Jesus C h r i s t was Lord and her personal Savior i n th is c r u e l , e v i l world. Cohen (teacher) doesn't know what he wants and doesn't r e a l l y care or do much about Benj ie . [9 - 15] Miranda, l i k e Grant , spared no words i n assess ing the worth of the charac ters : The p r i n c i p a l i s use less . He doesn't do much - j u s t stands by and l e t s the world go by. He's wait ing for his Page 104 pension and that ' s about a l l . [19 - 22] Walter i s d i f f e r e n t . He's a pusher. He s e l l s drugs but doesn't take them. He doesn't think i t ' s wrong - some-thing about "free enterpr i se" he says. A l s o , he says, that i f he would q u i t dea l ing then junkies would go to someone e l se (probably true - but not an excuse!) [23-28] Table 15 present Miranda's predominant responses: „ Table 15 Miranda: Predominant Responses: n = 100 [statements = 88] Type of Response A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich Percentage of Tota l Responses 27.0% 18.0% 17.0% 14.0% 5.0% 19.0% B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g N. Character / Event - a n a l y s i s A. Personal Response/ Engagement 0. Character / Event - judgment J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making Remaining Types of Response Most frequent ly , Miranda r e t o l d the s tory (B). When interviewed, she explained that r e t e l l i n g the events allowed her to "get the Page 10 5 w r i t i n g going, to respond." At the end of her response, Miranda evaluated the s tory at length . In the f i n a l s ix teen response statements, she p u l l e d the novel together for h e r s e l f . I l i k e d t h i s book, but I'm not sure why - does that make sense? I found i t very slow moving sometimes. But I guess i t was a l l necessary to show a l l the s ides of the s tory . The unconcerned p r i n c i p a l to the Black vs. White people - l i k e N i g e r i a Green e t c . to the people c lose to Benjie - But ler was important & I admired him i n the book because he cared & t r i e d h i s best (providing for the fami ly , s tep-dad, c a r i n g e t c . ) The book showed a l i f e (& l i f e s ty l e ) that i s t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t to me - ghettos and Black vs. White & drug pushers. The t i t l e "A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich" i s a lso hard to f igure out??? Benjie doesn't l i k e people who try to be b ig shots because i t s for t h e i r own glory?????????? They (heros) jus t get stuck i n the middle - they don't know what's happening - r e a l l y ? ? ? I don't know. The book i s r e a l - with down-to-earth language, to whatever, no fake s t u f f . I t makes an impression on the reader which i s hard to e x p l a i n . In the end, though, there i s some hope; for B e n j i e , B lacks , people with problems. (Maybe I'm reading too much into this??????) (73 - 88] Page 10 6 In the interview, Miranda remembered th i s novel as "just a s tory - only one-and-a-hal f dimensions. At the end I thought, "There. That was n i c e . ' But i t was gone when I knew i t ended up with a fuzzy warm happy ever a f t e r . " Although she enjoyed the book, she f e l t i t provided l i t t l e chal lenge for subsequent r e f l e c t i o n . 7. Gordon 0 In h i s response, Gordon posed as the reader l i s t e n i n g to the "voices' of the l i t e r a r y text . He r e t o l d the narra t ive events frequent ly (B, 38%), of ten pre fac ing h i s remarks with "we hear from," "we l i s t e n to ," and "we get ," as though several readers p a r t i c i p a t e d with him i n the reading event. I not iced i n th i s s ec t ion we get 2 d i f f e r e n t observations of Benj i e . f i r s t , h i s s tepfather t e l l s of how he t r i e s to take care of the boy and love him and how mad he is that Benjie i s "shooting up' a l l the time. Then we l e a r n more about Benjie by h is f r i e n d Jimmy-Lee who also ta lks about how much Benj ie has changed since using drugs. [5 - 7] Page 107 Table 16 Gordon: Predominant Responses: A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' n = 74 [statements = 60] But a Sandwich Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g 38. 0% N. Character / Event - a n a l y s i s 15.5% Q. Textual Language 12.7% A. Personal Response/ Engagement 8.5% E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 7.0% R. Textual Structure 5.6% Remaining Types of Response 12.7% Gordon noted i n t e r e s t i n g features about the language of the novel : One thing I don't r e a l l y understand' i n t h i s book, so f a r , is the language which i s qui te d i f f i c u l t to read and f igure out. [3]. . . This book's language i s qui te neat for i t makes you fee l l i k e you're t a l k i n g d i r e c t l y to the person. [9, 10]. . . Many i n t e r e s t i n g phrases popped out in th i s s e c t i o n . The language that i s used i n the book i s the language of the ghetto and can often be quite Page 108 crude. A couple of phrases that were ' i n t e r e s t i n g ' and made me laugh because of the language and the thought behind the phrase were: "looked l i k e any minute her knockers was gonna pop out and s ing Glory H a l l e l u j a h " and "he and N i g e r i a got so c lose they can p i ss through the same straw together." Benj ie a lso ta lks about "jography" teacher who's voice i s l i k e middle x c ' played over and over again . [35 - 38] Although the ending myst i f i ed a number of the other readers , Gordon seemed to grasp the f r a g i l e , obscure ending: Benjie i s s lowly t r y i n g to give up his habi t but the book does not sound hopeful i n the end because Benj ie has not shown up at the drug r e h a b i l i t a t i o n centre . [56 - 57] Like Miranda, he took the time to assess h i s reading experience: This book leaves you with a l o t and the language is qui te d i f f i c u l t to understand. I learned a l o t about the l i f e in the ghetto and i t s many problems. O v e r a l l th is book was qui te i n t e r e s t i n g and pleasant to read. [58 - 60] In summary, Gordon a l t e r e d h is s trategy to th i s novel cons iderab ly . He asked fewer questions (E , 7%) than i n the I Am  the Cheese novel response (E, 18%; F , 24%) focusing instead on Page 10 9 r e t e l l i n g the n a r r a t i v e (B, 38%). On the average, personal response (A) to t h i s novel increased; an average of 7.83% for I Am the Cheese, 20.4% for A Hero A i n 1 1  Nothin' but a Sandwich. Questions ( E , F ) , on the other hand, f e l l from 20.3% (E) and 15.3% (F) to 3.6% (E) and 1.6% (F) . A s i m i l a r dec l ine occurred for Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making ( J ) . Analys i s and judgment of characters and events increased apprec iably (N, 13.8% to 26%; 0, 3.2% to 11.6%). S h i f t s in the responses were r e f l e c t e d i n the reading logs . C. A Wizard of Earthsea This nove l , a fantasy, c h r o n i c l e s the ta l e of Ged, a wizard i n t r a i n i n g . Because he abuses his magic powers, he must pay the consequences by confront ing a nameless shadow and defeat i t to be free once again . The t r a d i t i o n a l l y s t r u c t u r e d , r i c h narra t ive explores the theme of good versus e v i l . l . Grant Grant i n i t i a l l y expressed hesitancy about the appeal of the text . Before long, however, he surrendered to the s tory through personal involvement with the characters and events. He opened h is response log with an express ion of doubt: Page 110 As a r u l e , I don't l i k e science f i c t i o n . I'm s t i l l not sure what to think of t h i s one, i t ' s not as way out as I thought i t might be. It takes some ge t t ing into the book. [ 1 - 4 1 The fo l lowing table i l l u s t r a t e s the nature of Grant ' s response: Table 17 Grant: Predominant Responses ft Wizard of Earthsea n = 105 [statements = 75] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses A. Personal Response/ Engagement 33. 3 N. Character / Event - ana lys i s 11.8% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 11.4% G. Ongoing R e f l e c t i o n 6.7% E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 5.7% 0. Character / Event - judgment, eva lua t ion 5.7% Remaining Types of Response 25. 4% Although hes i tant about t h i s unfami l iar l i t e r a r y genre, Grant soon expressed personal engagement: "I'm ge t t ing into the book and s t a r t i n g to get used to the s t y l e of w r i t i n g . " He expressed h i s increas ing engagement: Page 111 When the shadow came a l l - o f - a - s u d d e n into the c l e a r , I f e l t l i k e i t was me being i n the wi ld storm, then q u i c k l y into the qu ie t . I t f e l t strange. [14,15], . . I get the f e e l i n g that everything Jasper does, he does jus t to sp i te Ged. I fee l the same way about those l i t t l e t r i c k s . Why do them? [ 2 3 - 2 5 ] . . . When he f i r s t awoke he must have f e l t l i k e dy ing , but I'm glad he d i d n ' t . [32]. . . In a way, Ged has become my hero. [37]. . . I r e a l l y l i k e and get into these v i s i o n s he has. [39]. . . I r e a l l y could p i c t u r e the part when he meets the dragons. I found myself saying the dragon's part out loud. I'm beginning to r e a l l y l i k e t h i s book. i t i s ge t t ing pre t ty i n t e r e s t i n g . [44 - 47]. . . I f ind th i s book easy to p i c t u r e i n my head. [59]. . . I r e a l l y l i k e d t h i s book, (but I would rather read a Cormier . ) [83, 84] Like Gordon and Miranda, Grant responded to the s t ruc ture and language of the text: I never r e a l l y not iced he wasn't t e l l i n g h i s own story i n th i s book. I t i s in the f i r s t person. [20, 21] The author descr ibed the s p e l l of the Summoning very w e l l . [26] Page 112 I think th i s book (without missing a d e t a i l ) so far would make a good movie. [39] So far every place he has gone to has had a purpose. This place must have one a l s o . [53, 54] I r e a l i z e d that in th i s book almost a l l , i f not a l l things done have meaning. [78] During the interv iew, Grant a r t i c u l a t e d h is openness to a l l types of l i t e r a t u r e . I wouldn't say "science f i c t i o n . Oh no!" I t ry to get into i t and think in the mode of what's happening, accept ing i t as normal so I can get into the book. I don't enjoy any book u n t i l I'm r e a l l y into i t . I read slowly but I not ice a l o t of d e t a i l s . Grant ' s response revealed his growing engagement, a fact he aff irmed during the subsequent interview. In sp i te of i n i t i a l r e luc tance , he immersed himself i n the l i t e r a r y experience; t h i r t y - f i v e of the one hundred and f ive statements revealed h i s personal response. Although Grant responded persona l ly (A) to I Am the Cheese (8.2%), h i s Personal Response/Engagement (A) increased Page 113 s u b s t a n t i a l l y for the for the subsequent two novels (24.7%, 33.3%). Four types of responses could be found i n a l l three of h i s three novel responses: Character / Event - a n a l y s i s (N), Questions - simple (E) , Tentat ive Frameworking/Sense-making (J) and Personal Response/ Engagement (A) , a l b e i t with vary ing emphasis. I Am the Cheese response focused on questions ( E , F ) ; A Hero A i n ' t Noth in 1 But a Sandwich, the judgment of characters and events (0); A Wizard of Earthsea , personal response and engagement (A). 2. J e s s i c a J e s s i c a dec lared her a t t i t u d e to the novel i n the in troductory response statements: I think I won't l i k e t h i s book probably. I t ' s very complicated and hard to get in to . I hate science f i c t i o n . [1 - 3] As her reading progressed, however, she expressed some growing a p p r e c i a t i o n of the characters and events i n the novel . Her involvement with the n a r r a t i v e r e s u l t e d i n cons iderable Personal Response/ Engagement (A) as shown i n Table 18. Page 114 Table 18 J e s s i c a : Predominant Responses A Wizard of Earthsea n = 87 [Statements = 68] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses A. Personal Response/ Engagement 29.9% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 11.5% X. Author's Method and Sty le 8.0% G. Ongoing R e f l e c t i o n 6.9% H. P r e d i c t i o n 6.9% R. Textual Structure 5.7% Remaining Types of Response 31.1% J e s s i c a ' s hesitancy about the novel was revealed in her a t t e n t i o n to Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making ( J ) , Ongoing R e f l e c t i o n (G) and P r e d i c t i o n (H); one-fourth (25.3%) of her response focused on these three . Concern with the Author's Method and Sty le (X) and Textual Structure (R) cons t i tu ted 13.7% of the response. She appeared to r e s i s t committing h e r s e l f to the novel . Almost to assure h e r s e l f , she repeatedly reasserted her p o s i t i o n on "science f i c t i o n : " This book i s sure bor ing . I c a n ' t wait to put i t down. Page 115 [6,7] This book is bor ing . ZZZZZZZZ22ZZ222ZZ. [16,17] So far i t i s very boring with very l i t t l e a c t i o n . Maybe the author l i k e s to go at a slow pace. Maybe she thinks i t ' s i n t e r e s t i n g reading . But i t ' s better than at the beginning. [ 2 0 - 2 3 ] Having now made some commitment to the text at l a s t , J e s s i c a responded more openly to the characters and events. I l i k e Vetch a l o t . He seems so happy go lucky and simple. [24, 25]. . . I l i k e the way they descr ibed Ged going into a world to save the s p i r i t of the young boy. [33]. . . I l i k e the way the author wrote about the f i g h t between Ged and the dragons. It kind of makes you cheer for Ged even though you know the re s t of the book i s a lready wr i t t en . [36, 37]. . . This book i s n ' t as bad as before . [43] Nevertheless , she res ta ted her p o s i t i o n on "science f i c t i o n " once more: I don't r e a l l y l i k e the way t h i s book uses magic, because i t makes magic seem l i k e a bunch of b u l l which just happens to be part of the s tory . I think magic should be presented by r e a l i s t i c people i n r e a l i s t i c surroundings. Then again , maybe the magic i s not s i g n i f i c a n t i n the Page 116 message of the s tory . [52 - 54] Soon a f t e r , she expressed her engagement again: The author is r e a l l y bugging me by s t r e t c h i n g out the k i l l i n g of the shadow. She's making me very impatient . [57, 58] J e s s i c a o f fered ins igh t s into the novel i n her c l o s i n g response: I r e a l l y l i k e the ending of th i s book, the way they c o n t r o l l e d the shadow instead of k i l l i n g i t . That 's sor t of the way i t i s in r e a l l i f e too, with e v i l . You c a n ' t t o t a l l y destroy i t but you can c o n t r o l i t to a po in t . This s tory sor t of reminds me of the s tory of a teenage boy i n search of h imsel f . At the end h i s p e r s o n a l i t y t o t a l l y changes from at the beginning. This is sor t of the same young adul t novel presented i n a d i f f e r e n t s e t t i n g . [61 - 67] As with Grant , J e s s i c a ' s personal response increased for A Hero  A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich and A Wizard of Earthsea. Her predominant types of response to each of the novels s h i f t e d : the I Am the Cheese response was p r i m a r i l y Questions (E) , Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making ( J ) , and Knowledge Gaps (C); the A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' but a Sandwich, Personal Response/Engagement Page 117 (A) , Ongoing R e f l e c t i o n (G), Character /Event - a n a l y s i s (N) and P r o j e c t i o n / A p p l i c a t i o n to Larger World (W); the A Wizard of  Earthsea , Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making (J) and Personal Response/ Engagement (A). Only three types of response occurred for a l l three novels; Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making ( J ) , Personal Response/ Engagement (A) and Ongoing R e f l e c t i o n (G). The remaining ten types of response r e c e i v i n g more than 5% appeared i n only one of the novel responses; that i s , they e i t h e r emerged for a l l three or only 0 one of the novel responses. In the fol low-up interv iew, J e s s i c a repeated her pre l iminary d i s l i k e of the novel : I hated Wizard when I f i r s t had to read i t . I d i d n ' t mind i t too much at the end - at l eas t i t was short . Once you get used to the language, you get r i g h t into i t . A l b e i t l ess than d id the r e s t , she acknowledged some unexpected, growing enjoyment of the novel . 3. Annette As presented i n Table 19, Annette p r i m a r i l y r e t o l d the n a r r a t i v e (B) and analyzed the characters and events (N). r Page 113 Table 19 Annette: Predominant Responses A Wizard of Earthsea n = 78 (Statements = 59] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses N. Character / Event - ana lys i s 24. 4% B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g 21. 8% A. Personal Response/ Engagement 16. 7% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 6. 4% 0. Character / Event - judgment, ana lys i s 6. 4% G. Ongoing R e f l e c t i o n 5. 1 E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 5. 1% K. Ins ight / Understanding 5. 1% Remaining Types of Response 9. 0% Annette responded i n three d i s t i n c t ways. F i r s t , un l ike the other readers , Annette waited u n t i l about half-way through her response before revea l ing her own personal response (A) to the text . I thought S k i o r h , the oarman on the boat, was a l i t t l e strange and I d i d n ' t l i k e him. [31]. . . Ged is s t i l l very confused about how to defeat the shadow (so am I) Page 119 bat he is hunting the shadow now. To my surpr i se the shadow i s fr ightened that Ged i s chasing i t . [43, 44] . . . I think everyone involved i n th i s s tory ( i n c l u d i n g me) fee ls bet ter that Vetch i s accompanying Ged. [52] Second, she expressed a wider v a r i e t y of responses in her response l og . Of the twenty- f ive , Annette incorporated twenty types of response. Eight of them cons t i tu ted 91% of the t o t a l response; twelve o thers , the remaining 9%. F i n a l l y , Annette prefaced numerous statements with "I am glad" or "I was a l i t t l e scared ," r e v e a l i n g her ac t ive engagement with the novel . Questions (E) , dominant i n her response to I Am the Cheese, proved scant i n her responses to the remaining two novels . Personal Response/ Engagement (A) and Character / Event - ana lys i s (N), however, increased markedly for these. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g (B) proved predominant only i n her response to A Wizard of  Earthsea. 4. Tracey Tracey expressed response: "This responses to the her a t t i tude to book seems very other two novel ward the novel i n i n t e r e s t i n g . " [1 s, Tracey engaged her opening ] Unl ike her more persona l ly Page 120 with th is novel as Table 20 i n d i c a t e s . Table 20 Tracey: Predominant Responses A Wizard of Earthsea n = 154 [Statements = 130] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses A. Personal Response/ Engagement 23. 4% B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g 13. 6% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 13. 0% 0. Character / Event - judgment, eva luat ion 9. 7% N. Character / Event - ana lys i s 9 . 1% G. Ongoing R e f l e c t i o n 5. 8% H. P r e d i c t i o n 5 . 2% Remaining Types of Response 20. 2% Personal Response/ Engagement (A) , dec idedly absent i n her response to the other two novels , proved predominant. She engaged persona l ly and empathet ica l ly with the characters i n the novel . This g i r l seems dangerous, maybe she i s some type of witch or something. Yes, she i s a witch or almost a Page 121 witch. Her mother i s . [7-10] I hope Ged gets th i s Jasper guy. I don't l i k e him. I s t i l l don't l i k e Jasper & I fee l sorry for Ged because h i s f r i e n d i s studying with Jasper i n that meadow and he's not allowed in there. [28 - 31] Now he's [Ged] extremely s i c k . I hope he's s a t i s f i e d . [36, 37] She expressed deep emotional involvement i n the events several times: This i s scary . [38]. . . I ' d never read t h i s i n the dark. [47]. . . This language b i t and the dragon ( large) being able to l i e i s scary . [63] In one s u b s t a n t i a l s ec t ion (65 - 85) revea l ing personal involvement (A) , her fears and tension crescendoed: I've not s tar ted the chapter yet but I p r e d i c t that h e ' l l be hunted and conquer t h i s beast h e ' l l l e t loose . This shadow has a grudge. I t won't even l e t him s a i l in a boat. I t sounds mighty scary . Now he probably HAS to f ight h i s shadow. I think that he w i l l defeat i t with knowledge and not sorcery . I t says, "It (the waiting) j Page 122 was past bearing" for him and a lso for me.! MENTAL NOTE -don't read th i s book at n i t e , i t ' s scary . I think that th i s guy "dressed i n grey who c a r r i e d a s t a f f THAT WAS NOT A WIZARD'S STAFF" I think he's just met his shadow. Oh great! As I sa id before , th i s book'keeps you on edge for 4 chapters . I bet the shadow thing is a l i e . This guy i n grey i s d r i v i n g me nuts . Ew, gross , the guy's face s h i f t e d . HE HAS FINALLY MET THIS SHADOW. I knew i t . I t was the guy i n the grey! Ha. He beat that th ing . Every time I read about i t I hate i t more. [65-85] Openly responsive to fantasy, Tracey diverged from her responses to the other two novels by not iceably reducing the amount of N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g (B) and increas ing Personal Response/ Engagement (A). Character / Event - ana lys i s (N) charac ter i zed 43% of the response to A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich and 35.6% of response to I Am the Cheese cons i s ted of N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g . Tracey responded d i f f e r e n t l y to each novel . 5. Marleen As i n her response to the other two novels , Marleen again responded personal ly (A) and analyzed the characters and events (N). These two responses emerged i n f o r t y - f i v e of the seventy-four statements. Twenty-seven responses began with "I;" Page 123 some as "I wonder," "I th ink ," "I personal ly f e e l . " Marleen's predominant responses are presented i n Table 21: Table 21 Marleen: Predominant Responses A Wizard of Earthsea n = 105 [Statements = 74] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses N. Character / Event - ana lys i s 21. 9% A. Personal Response/ Engagement 21. 0% 0. Character / Event - judgment, eva luat ion 9. 5% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 7. 6% B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g 6 . 1% E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 5. 7% Remaining Types of Response 27. 6% T e n t a t i v e l y and with an open mind, Marleen began her response with "I d i d n ' t r e a l l y know how I was going to respond to th i s novel because I, have never read a book l i k e t h i s . " [1] Like Grant , she moved q u i c k l y toward acceptance. But as I continued reading some more pages, i t a l l seemed Page 124 e a s i e r . [2] . . . This i s the f i r s t fantasy book. I've read. I u sua l ly read novels where the s t o r i e s are more " r e a l . " This novel i s s t a r t i n g (we l l , i t ' s been for a while a lready) to sound i n t e r e s t i n g . [17] Before long she began i d e n t i f y i n g with the characters and events. Vetch sounds l i k e a nice guy. someone you can become c lose fr iends to. But Jasper is another s tory . He acts l i k e a stuck-up snob. He always seems to want to get the better of Ged. [20-24]. . . I don't l i k e the way Jasper i s always cha l l eng ing Ged. I t ' s ju s t going to lead to trouble . [27,28]. . . I think that t h i n g / s p i r i t i s haunting Ged. I myself would be freaked out i f I had dreams l i k e Ged. [38,39]. . . I fee l sorry for Ged because he has to run a l l the time. The shadow seems to persecute him. It follows Ged everywhere, but Ged doesn't know where i t i s . Ged i s a l l alone r i g h t now with no f r i ends ; i t sor t of wants you to put down the book and go j o i n a group of people so that Ged's l one l ines s doesn't a f f e c t you. [41-45] At the end of the reading , Marleen summed up her experience with the novel : I'm glad everything turned out OK because a f t er a l l the Page 125 trouble Ged went through to get r i d of the shadow he deserved to win. [68] Now Ged can continue on with h i s l i f e . [74] Again , Marleen became persona l ly involved i n the reading . She stated i n her interview that " i t f e l t good w r i t i n g down some of the things because you could get i t a l l out ." Although s i m i l a r i t i e s e x i s t e d , each novel response was charac ter i zed by one or more predominant types of response not evident in the responses to the other two novels , F,K,W In the response to I Am the Cheese, for instance . Of the seven students , however, Marleen responded most, c o n s i s t e n t l y ; Personal Response/ Engagement (A) and Character / Event - ana lys i s (N) proved predominant i n her response to each of the novels . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making (J) rated above 5% for a l l three novel responses. 6. Miranda Miranda grew to accept fantasy as a worthwhile form of l i t e r a t u r e . She stated her i n i t i a l impression ear ly in her response: One th ing I don't l i k e about fantas ies i s that they are so u n r e a l i s t i c - even the places & wizards are f ine - but Page 126 some act ions don't c l i c k . when Duny (Ged) is asked to leave to become a wizard. There are not questions asked - he just hops up & leaves - no prob. I f I d i d that my parents e tc . would freak! [5-8] Miranda's r e f l e c t i o n s , as Table 22 i n d i c a t e s , reveal a broader range of responses than was evident i n her other two response logs . Table 22 Miranda: Predominant Responses A Wizard of Earthsea n = 147 [Statements = 112] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses A. Personal Response/ Engagement 19.7% B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g 14.3% N. Character / Event - ana lys i s 10.2% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 8.8% R. Textual Structure 8.2% T. Textual Concepts/ Ideas/ Themes 7.5% C. Knowledge Gaps 5.4% Q. Textual Language 5.4% Remaining Types of Response 20.5% Page 127 Miranda responded personal ly (A, 19.7%) to th i s novel and continued to r e t e l l parts of the n a r r a t i v e (B, 14.3%). Three textual elements (R, T and Q) drew her a t t e n t i o n : Ged d i d n ' t know what to do but then he saw a l i g h t (eventual ly l ed them there) but th i s is a 1ight that led them. Another coincidence?? This book maybe p l a y ' s with symbols and foreshadowing e t c . Ogion's statement ( e a r l i e r ) s a y s / t a l k s about l i g h t , dark, power, danger, shadows - a l l of which are (becoming) elements of the s tory (?) L ight - keeps coming back- when one of Ged's i n s t r u c t o r s was t a l k i n g to him he s a i d , "to l i g h t a candle is to cast a shadow." (he was t a l k i n g about a balance e t c . ) When Ged f i r s t was looking for the school everyone was teasing him. ex. "The wise don't need to ask, the fools ask i n v a i n . " There are many hidden, quie t l i t t l e h i n t s , small in ser t s of l i t t l e symbols, e t c . [16-24] In at l eas t e ight other instances , Miranda r e f e r r e d to the l i t e r a r y elements of th i s novel . The ideas and concepts of the novel a l so in teres ted Miranda: When he [Ged] does get bet ter the new archmage (old was k i l l e d i n the e v i l ordeal) t a lks shadows/ e v i l / Page 128 ignorance/ power - a l l of: these th ings / ideas re turn again and again . [42-43] The wizard k i l l e d some dragons and made a deal with the o ld one to not f ight the people b /c he had h i s name - the name - th i s is so. important - l i f e -wor thy and i t is way beyond me - why should a name (Joe, Jane, Mary e t c . ) be so important? I t seems the whole being res t s on th i s ( d i f f e r e n t ! ) [58-62] Many concepts - ideas of t h i s book were inexpla inable & maybe that I d i d n ' t l i k e ( i e . d i r e c t i o n s , end of the world, e t c . ) They a r e n ' t f a m i l i a r I guess. [104-105] The wri t ings were o r i g i n a l - ideas and s t u f f that never came to my mind before. [ I l l ] In sp i te of i n i t i a l r e s i s t a n c e , Miranda acknowledged being i n t r i g u e d with the language, ideas , and characters i n the book. She expressed her increas ing involvement: Chapter was very i n t e r e s t i n g . I'm beginning to l i k e the book more. [31,32]. . . The chapter got more i n t e r e s t i n g as i t went on - ge t t ing quite suspenseful [36], . . This was i n t r i g u i n g and I was r e a l l y into i t but r i g h t i n the middle somewhere I thought - "this i s so u n r e a l i s t i c " but I am s t i l l engrossed by what's happening Page 129 - & I can ' t f igure out why. [55-58]. . . When Ged found out what was r e a l l y beside him (with no face anymore) i t reminded me of some kind of horror - b l i n d running not knowing where to go - but never s topping. The f e e l i n g ( t e r r o r / panic / i n s t i n c t , never to stop) my spine s tar ted crawl ing . [63,64] Like J e s s i c a , she r e f l e c t e d on the nove l ' s unexpected ending: He nei ther l o s t nor won! He had completed h imsel f ! I t wasn't black - white pat answer. He made himsel f whole. He was f i g h t i n g the bad side of himself which came in him but was jo ined with the good ( th i s makes sense but i t a lso doesn't - I never have phys i ca l ba t t l e s with my good side and bad I guess I do have s p i r i t u a l and mental ba t t l e s against good and bad. [93-99] During the interview she noted that i n th ink ing about the three novels , she found A Wizard of Earthsea to be the most i n t e r e s t i n g ; i t had a l t e r e d her concept of fantasy. She enjoyed the "imaginat ion," the concepts of "good and e v i l , " and the fact that " i t makes you think while you read ." R e t e l l i n g the n a r r a t i v e (B) cons t i tu ted a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of a l l three of Miranda's novel responses. As with most of the other students, personal response increased s u b s t a n t i a l l y for A Page 130 hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich and A Wizard of Earthsea. Questions (E,F) predominated only in her I Am the Cheese response; judgment and eva luat ion of characters and events (0) only i n A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich. 7. Gordon Gordon expressed h is response through asking numerous quest ions . «0f the f o r t y - f i v e response statements, twenty-seven were quest ions , most simple and d i r e c t (E) , as Table 23 i n d i c a t e s . Table 23 Gordon: Predominant Responses A Wizard of Earthsea n = 60 [Statements = 45] Type of Response Percentage of Tota l Responses E . Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 36.7% X. Author's Method and Style 10.0% F. Questions - i m p l i c i t hypothesis 8.3% J . Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making 8.3% N. Character / Event - a n a l y s i s 8.3% Q. Textual Language 5.0% Remaining Types of Response 23.4% Page 131 More than h a l f of Gordon's response log revealed uncerta inty ( E , F , J , 53.3%). He also expressed awareness and a p p r e c i a t i o n of the author's way with language (Q) and the author 's method and s t y l e (X): • I r e a l l y l i k e the way Mr. LeGuin describes the s i t u a t i o n when Ogion catches Ged looking at some o ld s p e l l books he was not supposed to see. [7] The author continues to descr ibe the s tory very w e l l . [12] On p. 69 the author's d e s c r i p t i o n of the party i s great . [16] The author continues to describe the book well such as on page 151 - "the boat creaked, the waves l i s p e d , the wind h i s sed ." [37] He var ied h i s response by a l t e r n a t i n g questions (E, F) with personal response (A). Like Annette, Gordon stopped to r e f l e c t before cont inu ing . This s tory has a l o t of fantasy i n i t which makes i t qui te i n t e r e s t i n g . Why does the dragon fear so much when Ged knows h is name? what i s the th ing that i s fo l lowing Ged? How come Ged could not heal the c h i l d ? I p r e d i c t the "creature' w i l l follow Ged wherever he goes and that Ged w i l l have to destroy i t . How d id the gebbeth transform into Skiorh? Must Ged f ight th i s thing to i t ' s death now? The author makes th i s book sound very Page 132 e x c i t i n g by using phrases such as "night thickened about the hunter and the hunted." [21-28] Gordon's response resembled a combination of Annette's personal r e f l e c t i o n s and Miranda's observations of LeGuin's textual language. Gordon proved to be the only student who c o n s i s t e n t l y asked questions (E) i n response to a l l three novels , a l b e i t in varying degrees. Moreover, l i k e Miranda, Gordon spent cons iderable time r e t e l l i n g the narra t ive (B) of A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a  Sandwich. The language (Q) and author's s t y l e (X) drew Gordon's a t t e n t i o n i n both A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich and _A Wizard of Earthsea . Each of the novel responses e l i c i t e d a d i f f e r e n t predominant type of response. In summary, i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s of response were c l e a r l y evident for each of the seven readers . Each reader appeared to invoke d i f f e r e n t response s t ra teg i e s for dea l ing with the novels . The students genera l ly focused on d i f f e r e n t types of responses, using them i n varying proport ions and for seemingly d i f f e r e n t reasons. Moreover, the seven students i n th i s study demonstrated i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s i n the i r responses to the three novels . Page 133 IV. DISCUSSION OF QUESTION # 4 : EFFECTS OF NARRATIVE STRUCTURE ON RESPONSE QUESTION # 4: Do n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s o f l i t e r a r y t e x t s a f f e c t the responses o f a d o l e s c e n t r e a d e r s ? N a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s appeared to a f f e c t responses o f the a d o l e s c e n t s both as a group and i n d i v i d u a l l y . Each s e l e c t e d novel c o n t a i n s p a r t i c u l a r f e a t u r e s : I Am the Cheese, a complex s t r u c t u r e ; A Hero A i n ' t N o t h i n ' But a Sandwich, b l a c k d i a l e c t and e l e v e n v o i c e s t h a t r e f l e c t on the main c h a r a c t e r ' s c o n d i t i o n ; A. Wizard o f E a r t h s e a , a t r a d i t i o n a l l y s t r u c t u r e d n a r r a t i v e , r i c h i n symbolism and p o e t i c language; A. I n d i v i d u a l Novels: A l l Readers In order to determine the e f f e c t s o f n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s on l i t e r a r y response, the predominant focus o f response a c r o s s the seven response l o g s f o r each novel was c a l c u l a t e d . The t a l l i e d response types were c o n v e r t e d i n t o percentages and t a b l e s c r e a t e d to demonstrate the predominant types o f response. In t h i s way, any v a r i a t i o n s i n response to the three n o v e l s c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d . Comparisons of i n d i v i d u a l s tudent responses to the average group response can be found i n Appendix R. Table 2 p r e s e n t s the predominant responses to each o f the three n o v e l s . Page 134 Table 2 PREDOMINANT RESPONSES: THREE NOVELS 1.1 AM THE CHEESE n = 685 [statements =540] 2. A HERO AIN'T NOTHIN1 BUT A SANDWICH n = 610 (statements = 426] 3. A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA N = 736 [statements = 572] Type of Responses Percentage of Tota l Responses 1. 2. 3. J . Tentat ive Frameworking/Sense-making 16.5% 7. 8% 9.6% E. Questions - s imple , d i r e c t 15.5% •- 8. 3% F . Questions - i m p l i c i t hypothesis 11.6% - - — N. Character / Event - ana lys i s 10.8% 20 . 3% 11.9% B. N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g 8.1% 12. 1% 8.9% K. Ins ight / Understanding 7.9% - — A. Personal Response/Engagement 6.1% 17. 8% 22.1% 0. Character / Events - judgment, — 9. 2% — eva luat ion Remaining Types of Responses 23. 5% 32 . 8% 39 . 2% Ident i fy ing the predominant responses for each novel h igh l igh ted some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features of the responses. I Am the Cheese responses demonstrated the greatest number of predominant Page 135 responses c o n s t i t u t i n g . o v g r 5% o f the t o t a l response (seven as compared to f i v e i n the oth e r two novel r e s p o n s e s ) . Table 2 demonstrates the emphasis i n response to I Am the Cheese on q u e s t i o n a s k i n g (E,F) and t r y i n g to make sense of the t e x t ( J ) ; on the average, 43% of the responses focused on these response types. In the subsequent two novel responses, these f i g u r e s drop to 7.8% and 20.2%. Both the A Hero A i n ' t Nothin* But a Sandwich and A Wizard o f E a r t h s e a responses focused p r i m a r i l y on C h a r a c t e r / Event - a n a l y s i s (N) and P e r s o n a l Response/ Engagement (A). N e v e r t h e l e s s , each of the three novels e l i c i t e d a - d i f f e r e n t s i n g l e predominant type o f response: T e n t a t i v e Frameworking/ Sense-making (J) f o r I Am the Cheese; C h a r a c t e r / Event - a n a l y s i s (N) f o r A Hero A i n ' t N o t h i n ' But a Sandwich: P e r s o n a l Response/ Engagement (A) f o r A Wizard o f E a r t h s e a . A d i f f e r e n t h i e r a r c h y o f predominant responses emerged f o r each of the three n o v e l s . These d i f f e r e n c e s appear to be a t t r i b u t a b l e to the n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s o f the n o v e l s . I Am the  Cheese responses, f o r i n s t a n c e , r e v e a l e d two that proved i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l f o r the other two n o v e l s ; Questions - i m p l i c i t h y p o t h e s i s (F, 10.1%) and I n s i g h t / Understanding (K, 5.9%): As Adam f i n d s c l u e s , you then f i n d the c l u e s as the s t o r y i s p i e c e d t o g e t h e r . [K, 30, Marleen] How come he's so s c a r e d when he f i n d s he has two b i r t h Page 136 c e r t i f i c a t e s ? Does he have c e r t a i n r e a l l y bad memories from c h i l d h o o d ? [F, 28-29, Gordon] Response to A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich proved d i s t i n c t .from the I Am the Cheese response i n the s h i f t toward more p e r s o n a l response (A); 17.8% compared to 6.1%. Judgment of c h a r a c t e r s and events (0) proved predominant o n l y i n response to t h i s n o v e l . His s t e p - f a t h e r seems to be n i c e , concerned, l o v i n g man who sees t h a t h i s s t e p s o n has a problem. The grandmother seems to be a hyper r e l i g i o u s f a n a t i c . [N, 5-6, Grant] His t e acher N i g e r i a i s r e a l l y hung up about " w h i t e y s . 1 He i s a l l f o r b l a c k l i b e r a t i o n and i s a n t i - w h i t e . [N, 21-22, Gordon] The g r e a t e s t l e v e l s of p e r s o n a l engagement and response (A) o c c u r r e d i n response to A Wizard of E a r t h s e a . Almost o n e - f o u r t h o f the responses (22.1%) expressed p e r s o n a l involvement: T h i s was i n t r i g u i n g and I was r e a l l y i n t o i t but r i g h t i n the middle somewhere I thought - " t h i s i s so u n r e a l i s t i c " but I s t i l l am engrossed by what's happening & I c a n ' t f i g u r e out why. [A, 55-57, Miranda] Page 137 I am g l a d t h a t Ged has come to I f f i s h and met h i s o l d f r i e n d Vetch. He r e a l l y needs a good f r i e n d , I t h i n k . [A, 46-47, Annette] N a r r a t i o n a l / R e t e l l i n g (B) proved more common f o r these two no v e l s whereas responses i n d i c a t i n g c o n f u s i o n and puzzlement (C,D,E,F,J), proved c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s e v i d e n t . N a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s appeared to i n f l u e n c e the responses of the s t u d e n t s ; a d i f f e r e n t o r d e r o f predominant responses emerged f o r each n o v e l . G e n e r a l l y , the v a r i a t i o n s i n the responses o f the seven s t u d e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t the d i f f e r e n t l i t e r a r y s t r u c t u r e s i n f l u e n c e d t h e i r responses. SUMMARY T h i s c hapter d i s c u s s e d the f i n d i n g s t h a t addressed each of the four r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s . No i n d i c a t i o n o f p r e d i c t a b l e p a t t e r n s of response was found i n the r e a d i n g response l o g s . Although s p e c i f i c types o f responses predominated i n the responses to the n o v e l s , i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s responded d i f f e r e n t l y not o n l y from each o t h e r but a l s o from one novel to the o t h e r . Chapter F i v e examines the f i n d i n g s i n an attempt to i n t e r p r e t them and p o s i t s c u r r i c u l a r i m p l i c a t i o n s . Page 138 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This f i n a l chapter i s d iv ided into four sec t ions : summary of the study, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the four research quest ions , impl i ca t ions for pedagogy and research , and conc lus ion . I. SUMMARY: A. Statement of the Problem: T r a d i t i o n a l l y , Eng l i sh classrooms have promoted l earn ing about l i t e r a t u r e as a a body of knowledge: i d e n t i f y i n g the s t r u c t u r a l components, graphing a p l o t , analyz ing characters and i d e n t i f y i n g other d e t a i l s leading to a "correct ' reading of a work. This approach discounts the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the reader i n the reading experience. Substant ia l research ind icates that the reading experience inc ludes , i n at l eas t equal measure, the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the reader: the i n d i v i d u a l background, realms of experiences , and the reading of other l i t e r a r y texts . The reader and the text "transact ' to create a unique, i n d i v i d u a l l i t e r a r y experience. To more f u l l y understand the reader ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n i n the reading t ransac t ion and to expand our knowledge of the nature of the reader ' s ongoing response, th i s study examined the reading response logs of seven capable adolescent readers for patterns of response, the predominance of s p e c i f i c types of response, Page 139 i n d i v i d u a l response d i f f e r e n c e s , and the inf luence of l i t e r a r y s tructure on response. B. Overview of the Studyi 1. Methodology Seven student vo lunteers , a l l experienced and capable readers , read three s t r u c t u r a l l y d i s t i n c t novels . During the reading , they recorded the i r responses i n a read ing ' l og at r e g u l a r , se l f -determined po in t s . The study took place over two school years , approximately three school semesters. Squire ' s categories of response, Purves and Rippere's categories and elements, and F i l l i o n ' s response g r i d were appl i ed to the response logs . Due to the general nature of Research Question One, Purves and Rippere 's broad categories appeared su i tab le for i d e n t i f y i n g patterns of response. None of the instruments, however, adequately described the expressive nature of the w r i t t e n , ongoing response to answer Research Questions Two, Three and Four. Consequently, a new instrument based on the students' responses was developed and used to analyze each of the reading response logs . F i n a l l y , student interviews were conducted. Responding to an informal quest ionnaire (Appendix M), students e laborated both on Page 140 the process of recording l i t e r a r y response in t h e i r reading logs and t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r responses to the three novels . 2. The Findings The student responses to the three novels revealed no d iscernable pat terns . The ongoing responses were not p r e d i c t a b l e . Percept ion , for instance , appeared at any point i n the w r i t i n g ; i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , at t imes, in the log openings. Four common predominant responses emerged i n the responses to each of the three novels: Personal Response/ Engagement (A) , N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g (B), Tentat ive Frameworking/Sense-making (J) and Character /Event - ana lys i s (N) (Table 2). I Am the Cheese response logs exh ib i t ed more questions with i m p l i c i t hypotheses (F) and i n s i g h t and understanding responses (K), while the remaining two novel responses revealed a focus on personal response (A) and the eva luat ion of characters and events (0). Although averages of a l l the student responses determined the o v e r a l l focus of response for the seven students, i n d i v i d u a l response var i ed cons iderably . The number of questions (E) i n the I Am the Cheese response logs , for instance , ranged from 6.1% to 20.3% of the t o t a l response. Some readers focused on r e t e l l i n g the narra t ive (Tracey, Miranda, Gordon), others r e f l e c t e d personal , empathetic involvement (Marleen, Grant ) , yet others Page 141 pos i ted questions (Gordon). Personal Response/ Engagement (A) ranged from 1.2% to 33.3% i n response to A Wizard of Earthsea . Ind iv idua l readers a lso var ied i n t h e i r response to each novel (Appendix R) . Each reader 's response was analyzed separate ly with the predominant responses noted i n Tables 3 - 2 3 . The l i t e r a r y and s t r u c t u r a l features of the novels drew d i f f e r e n t types of response. A Wizard of Earthsea e l i c i t e d the greatest amount of personal response (A); I Am the Cheese, Tentat ive 0 Frameworking/ Sense-making (J) and Questions ( E , F ) ; and A Hero  A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich, ana lys i s of characters and events (N). Ind iv idua l responses genera l ly revealed a d i f f e r e n t focus for each of the three novel responses. I t appeared then, that l i t e r a r y s tructures inf luenced both the nature and content of the wr i t t en responses, [see chapter 4, pp. 133-137], I I . CONCLUSIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS A. QUESTION 1: Do i d e n t i f i a b l e patterns emerge when adolescents respond i n w r i t i n g at regular i n t e r v a l s during the reading of l i t e r a r y texts? No evidence of a pat tern of response emerged from the responses; r a t h e r , engagement, percept ion , and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n responses wove r e c u r s i v e l y throughout the response logs . Why was the reading process revealed i n the logs seemingly recurs ive and Page 142 unpredictable? Three factors could suggest the absence of a" response pa t tern: the readers ' backgrounds, s t ra teg i e s used by able readers , and the process of recording the ongoing responses. F i r s t , readers come to the l i t e r a r y text with d i f f e r e n t backgrounds, p e r s o n a l i t i e s and reading experiences. Ind iv idua l readers f i l t e r the d i f f e r e n t features of the l i t e r a r y text through t h e i r own reading "framework'; consequently, each reader attends to p a r t i c u l a r features of the text . Drawn to a passage, one reader may be led to e laborate and explore; another may f ind d i f f e r e n t features worth examining i n d e t a i l . D i f f e r e n t readers , s i t u a t i o n s and previous reading experiences inf luence response to the l i t e r a r y text . Second, very l i t t l e i s known about the s t ra teg ie s employed by good readers . L i t e r a r y response can be compared to a co l lage or mosaic due i n part to the complexity of the reading act i t s e l f ; many processes operate s imultaneously (Ackerman, 1984; Smith, 1971, 1982; Goodman, 1977; Schank and Ableson, 1977). Whether experienced readers develop s i m i l a r , common s t ra teg i e s or whether each one develops unique, i n d i v i d u a l s t ra teg i e s through wide and var i ed reading experiences remains unknown. Moreover, even the same reader may develop d i f f e r e n t s t ra teg ie s to deal with d i s t i n c t l i t e r a r y texts . C e r t a i n l y , no i n d i c a t i o n that students used s i m i l a r response s t ra teg ie s even i n response to the same novel emerged i n th i s study. Page 143 T h i r d , the expressive nature of recording t h e i r ongoing responses encouraged students to experiment, r i s k and change i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and information prev ious ly recorded. Having no predetermined expectat ions , the students d id not record the often s t i l t e d and a r t i f i c i a l responses found in the t r a d i t i o n a l f ive-paragraph l i t e r a r y essay (Barr , 1985), where students tend to assume both teachers and peers have " f a m i l i a r i t y with the source mater ia l" and consequently, leave gaps (Sternglass , 1986). Rather, opportunity to express t h e i r responses during the reading removed many of the predetermined expectat ions . Both Grant and Marleen expressed the e f f ec t of recording t h e i r reading r e f l e c t i o n s i n the response logs : In the log the ideas come into your head. They're c l e a r . You already know when you have to write what they are . I t ' s more i n t e r e s t i n g . In an essay, there 's nothing d i r e c t l y i n front of you. You have nothing to view. (Grant) The log i s more personal , r e a l l y . Not many people w i l l see i t . I f I had to hand i t i n to be marked, I ' d write i t i n a d i f f e r e n t way, more advanced. But i n t h i s log I could write any l i t t l e thing here and there. (Marleen) Consequently, students d id not appear to be concerned about Page 144 procedural c r i t e r i a and responded f ree ly and openly to the text . B. Question 2 : Do c e r t a i n types of responses predominate when adolescents respond i n w r i t i n g during the reading of l i t e r a r y texts? C e r t a i n types of response statements dominated the reading response logs for a l l three novels; namely, Personal Response/ Engagement (A) Character / Event - ana lys i s (N), Tentat ive Frameworking/ "Sense-making' ( J ) , and N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g (B). Each predominant response w i l l be discussed separate ly . 1. Personal Response and Engagement Personal Response/ Engagement (A) increased i n response to A Hero  A i n ' t Nothin.' But a Sandwich and A Wizard of Earthsea. During the interviews students ind icated that the I Am the Cheese response represented t h e i r f i r s t , experimental response log and they f e l t unsure of the expectat ions . Most students increased t h e i r personal response to the subsequent two novels . In the course of a year , the students had perhaps matured and developed enough confidence to r e f l e c t more openly and personal ly to the l i t e r a t u r e . The s i t u a t i o n of the characters and the content of the s t o r i e s may also exp la in the increase i n personal response for the second Page 145 and t h i r d novels . • the drug problems evident in A Hero A i n ' t  Nothin' but a Sandwich are f a m i l i a r to adolescents through the media. A Wizard of Earthsea's n a r r a t i v e s tructure and p l o t l i n e represents the more t y p i c a l s t ructure found i n l i t e r a t u r e and movies. On the other hand, the s tructure of I Am the Cheese digressed cons iderably from the t y p i c a l adolescent 's reading experience perhaps forc ing a t t e n t i o n on cons truc t ing the meaning of the content rather than being free to respond p e r s o n a l l y . Rosenblat t ' s concept that the t r a n s a c t i o n with the l i t e r a r y work, the evocat ion of a "poem,' encourages a personal response that focuses on the novel was c l e a r l y r e f l e c t e d i n the students' responses. J e s s i c a ' s involvement i n A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a  Sandwich, for instance , led her to express: "The way the author wrote, the s t u f f he s a i d , i t seemed l i k e a black guy was s i t t i n g r i g h t next to you and you're jus t l i s t e n i n g to him." Marleen focused on characters and became deeply involved i n t h e i r l i v e s : "Maybe I always see the point of view of the s tory - how people fee l i n the s tory and how i t r e f l e c t s on me. I t fee ls good w r i t i n g down some of the things because you get i t a l l out ." Writ ten response recorded during the reading of l i t e r a r y text , l i k e the o r a l p r o t o c o l s , encourage personal response to the l i t e r a t u r e although not i n the autobiographica l sense r e f e r r e d to by Beach (1985) and Squire (1968). Personal response and engagement appear both as a r e f l e c t i o n on the nature of the novel Page 146 and the prev ious , ongoing responses. 2. Ana lys i s of Characters and Events (N) I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the ana lys i s of characters and events (N), an i n t e r p r e t i v e response genera l ly taught by teachers , emerged as the most common predominant response to A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But  a Sandwich. Students analyzed the characters and events independently. Although Squire (1968) also found that i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l responses predominated, the students i n his study frequent ly r e l i e d on stock, responses and i n s i s t e d on happy endings. The students i n th i s study, however, genera l ly focused on t r y i n g to understand the nature of the characters and events of the novel . Because the response log was viewed as a repos i tory of t h e i r ongoing r e f l e c t i o n s rather than a f in i shed product , t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s could be s ta ted , a l t e r e d and re f ined throughout the reading . Response to the three novels ind ica ted that the students possessed cons iderable l i t e r a r y knowledge; ana lys i s of characters and events (N) emerged as a predominant response to a l l three novels (10.8%, 20.3%, 14.3%). A study conducted by Birnbaum (1986) ind icates that already at the seventh-grade l e v e l , students demonstrated a t t e n t i o n to s t y l e , ideas and language. The readers i n th i s study, too, a lready at th i s formulat ing stage, heeded the s t y l e , ideas and language of the novels . Page 147 The increase i-n ana lys i s of the characters and events (N) and personal response (A) l inked with the reading of the second and t h i r d novel readings may suggest a r e l a t i o n s h i p . Through attending more to the act ions and circumstances of the characters (N), students may also become more persona l ly involved i n the l i t e r a t u r e (A). Response to I Am the Cheese revealed only a t o t a l of 16.9% for personal response (A) and ana lys i s of characters and events (N) perhaps because a focus on understanding the text ( E , F , J , K ) r e s t r i c t s a t t e n t i o n to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and opportuni t i e s for personal engagement. Responses to A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich and A Wizard of  Earthsea revealed a combined t o t a l (A,N) of 38.1% and 36.4%, r e s p e c t i v e l y , a marked increase . Perhaps surrender to the text allows for increased a t t e n t i o n to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s . I t appears that a r e l a t i o n s h i p between Personal Response/ Engagement (A) and Character / Event - ana lys i s (N) may e x i s t . 3. Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense Making (J) Research ind ica tes l earn ing involves taking r i s k s , t e s t ing hypotheses and connecting re levant information (Berthoff , 1981; Emig, 1983; Bruner, 1975; Dewey,1925; Vygotsky, 1962). The s tructure of I Am the Cheese confused readers (D, 15%). The text proved cha l leng ing and i n v i t e d questions and e f f o r t s to make meaning; that i s , r i s k i n g , hypothes iz ing , and l i n k i n g re levant Page 148 information. "In I Am the Cheese" Grant sa id during the interview, "I had l o t s of questions and I wasn't sure how to do t h i s [reading response log] but i t worked - the questions were answered." Rosenblatt c a l l e d th i s the "act ive , s e l f - o r d e r i n g , s e l f - c o r r e c t i v e process" (1978, p. 11) of response to l i t e r a t u r e . L i t e r a t u r e , research i n reader-response theory found, i s not so much a body of information to be learned as an experience of meaning-making a c t i v i t y (Rosenblatt , 1938, 1978; Scholes , 1985; Thomson, 1979; Cooper, 1982; Beach, 1972; Applebee, 1977; Odel l and Cooper, 1976). Wri t ing allows the making of connections and by being concrete and access ib le over time, encourages r e f l e c t i o n and r e t h i n k i n g . In the I Am the Cheese response logs , for instance , quest ions , hypotheses, assembling of the b i t s of information to "make sense' of the reading abounded. General ly students found the I Am the Cheese log most h e l p f u l . Miranda wrote i n the quest ionnaire (Appendix M): "I r e a l i z e d what the questions were and could go out to solve them." Marleen stated during the interview: "At f i r s t I d i d n ' t know i t was d i f f e r e n t points of view ( in A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich) but as you read you f igure out what's going on. You could discover i t for y o u r s e l f . " The reading response log provided a forum for making meaning of the l i t e r a r y text . Page 149 4• N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g (B) Squire explained the purpose of "narrat iona l react ions" as a technique used "when the reader has d i f f i c u l t y i n comprehending" (1968, p. 17). Gordon, Tracey and Miranda frequent ly used t h e i r logs to r e t e l l the n a r r a t i v e (B). "I write i t i n my own words so I can note i t , l i k e , "Oh yeah. Note that . That 's what I was t a l k i n g about ' ," Gordon expla ined. Tracey s a i d , "It's to res tate your t h i n k i n g . I f you write i t i n your own words, you can understand." Miranda reasoned: "I guess I do that to get my wr i t ing going. To concentrate on the s t o r y . " Although these students used the same s trategy , t h e i r reasons for doing so v a r i e d , h i g h l i g h t i n g another dimension of the complexity of reading and responding. On the whole, considerable a t t e n t i o n was given to Character / Event - ana lys i s (N), Personal Response/ Engagement (A), Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making (J) and N a r r a t i o n / R e t e l l i n g (B). The s c a r c i t y of s p e c i f i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s of l i t e r a r y terms and devices may ind ica te a lack of previous formal l i t e r a r y t r a i n i n g . Purves (1972) found that students become i n c r e a s i n g l y l i k e t h e i r teachers i n t h e i r response to l i t e r a t u r e as they progress through high school . Since these students had completed fewer than two high school years at the onset of the study, many may not have possessed the vocabulary to r e f l e c t on the more t e c h n i c a l aspects of the novels . Since the responses r e f l e c t e d Page 150 only an "ongoing d ia logue ' with the novels , the response log could serve as the bas is for moving beyond the informal response of the reading log to the more s t ruc tured l i t e r a r y response. Genera l ly , the predominant responses of the students r e f l e c t e d t h e i r ac t ive engagement with the novels . The reading logs provided a forum for "making meaning.' R e f l e c t i n g about the reading through wr i t ing gave students entry to the novel and provided a purposeful context for reading . C. QUESTION 3: What i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s , i n the responses of adolescents are evident i n these wr i t t en response logs? Research i n reading ind icates that the reader 's schema or " s c r i p t s ' that make up the reader ' s perceptions of the world bear d i r e c t l y on h is l i t e r a r y experience (Cooper, Petrosky, 1976; Smith, 1982). Purves defined schemata as the "perceptual bases for reading texts" (1986, p. 60). Schemata cons i s t l a r g e l y of previous experiences , readings and spoken discourse i n the world of the i n d i v i d u a l . Evidence of i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s in response c l e a r l y emerged i n the response logs (Table 2, Chapter 4, p. 70). Some responses, however, predominated i n each of the reading logs: Questions - simple (E) i n I Am the Cheese; ana lys i s of Characters /Events - ana lys i s (N) i n A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a  Sandwich; Personal Response/ Engagement (A) i n A Wizard of  Earthsea . Examining the i n d i v i d u a l responses (Tables 3 - 23, Page 151 Chapter 4, pp. 74-130) c l e a r l y reveals the v a r i a t i o n s of focus i n the responses manifested both i n d i v i d u a l l y and among the seven students . Squire a lso found that "readers respond to l i t e r a t u r e i n unique and s e l e c t i v e ways and that the nature of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s react ions i s condit ioned by the dynamic i n t e r p l a y of a c o n s t e l l a t i o n of factors rather than by s ing le causes" (1964, p .50) . Another i n d i c a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l response could be seen i n the reading logs through examples of what Drucker termed "select ive a t t e n t i o n ' (Drucker, 1979). The reader attends to some d e t a i l s while ignoring others . In these reading logs , too, some students attended to the pro tagon i s t ' s p l i g h t (Marleen), some to the language of the text (Gordon), some to connecting the novel ' s world to t h e i r own ( J e s s i c a ) . Each reader se l ec ted , as i t were, d i f f e r e n t dimensions of the nove l ' s world to r e f l e c t on to a l e sser or greater degree. The v a r i e t y i n i n d i v i d u a l response may also be a t t r i b u t a b l e to the act of recording the response i n w r i t i n g . Perhaps once students r e f l e c t e d i n w r i t i n g on a p a r t i c u l a r charac ter , event or element of the text , i t became eas ier to resume the t r a i n of thought begun e a r l i e r . On the other hand, the act of w r i t i n g i t s e l f may have constrained response. Given that w r i t i n g progresses far less q u i c k l y than Page 15 2 thought, readers could not record a l l t h e i r responses; consequently, only a p a r t i a l response to the text could be recorded. I n d i v i d u a l i t y in response may be r e l a t e d to the fact that the w r i t i n g constrained a recounting of the complete l i t e r a r y response. Even when readers appl i ed the same strategy - n a r r a t i o n or r e t e l l i n g for instance - they stated i n t h e i r interviews that they d id so for d i f f e r e n t reasons. But students respond 0 s i m i l a r l y . Four types of response statements emerged most frequent ly : response to I Am the Cheese revealed more questions (E,F) on the whole; A Hero A i n ' t nothing but a Sandwich, more ana lys i s and judgment of characters (N,0) , and A Wizard of  Earthsea , more personal involvement by the readers (A). F i n a l l y , i n the same way that i n d i v i d u a l s respond d i f f e r e n t l y to the same event - an accident or hockey game, for instance - so adolescent readers l e f t t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l stamps on the reading response logs . Each adolescent i n th i s study appeared to apply d i f f e r e n t s t ra teg i e s to assemble, organize and make sense of the reading . D. QUESTION 4 : Do n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r a l features of l i t e r a r y texts a f f e c t the responses of adolescent readers? S t r u c t u r a l l y d i s t i n c t , each novel i n v i t e d and rece ived d i f f e r e n t Page 153 responses. Rosenblatt holds that d i s t i n c t l i t e r a r y texts c a l l upon d i f f e r e n t knowledge and s e n s i t i v i t y . The d i f f erences i n approach to the novels emerged for the group most c l e a r l y i n the averages of predominant responses for the three novels: Tentat ive Frameworking/ Sense-making (16.5%) for I Am the Cheese, Character / Event - a n a l y s i s (20.3%) for A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a  Sandwich, and Personal Response/ Engagement (22.1%) for A Wizard  of Earthsea . Two studies confirm that d i f f e r e n t texts prompted d i f f e r e n t responses (Purves, 1981; Zahar ias , 1986). S i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences i n personal response, d e s c r i p t i o n , and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n were a t t r i b u t a b l e to genre in a recent study conducted by Zaharias (1986). I n t e r e s t i n g l y , a Jacobsen study that found "some texts provide more "reader cues' and i n v i t e more engagement and response than the less acces s ib le texts" ( c i t ed i n Beach, 1986, p. 123) seems to be confirmed i n th i s study. Since I Am  the Cheese appeared to provide fewer reader cues, less personal response emerged; 6.1% as compared to 17.8% and 22.1% for the subsequent two novels r e s p e c t i v e l y . "Differences i n the t ex t ' s d i f f i c u l t y , complexity, depth, q u a l i t y , p r e d i c t a b i l i t y , evocat iveness , subject matter, tone, a t t i t u d e and h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d , " states Beach (1986, p.123) , " a l l inf luence response" (1986, p. 123). I Am the Cheese responses were frequently charac ter i zed by questions ( E , F ) , expressions of Page 154 u n c e r t a i n t y (C,D) and attempts to make sense of the novel ( J ) . Concern f o r B e n j i e and evidence of the r e a d e r ' s p e r s o n a l ' involvement i n B e n j i e ' s predicament c h a r a c t e r i z e d responses to A Hero A i n ' t N o t h i n ' But a Sandwich. P e r s o n a l response (A) c h a r a c t e r i z e d almost o n e - f o u r t h (22.1%) o f the responses to A Wizard of E a r t h s e a . I t appears t h a t the d i f f e r e n t n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s o f the three n o v e l s a f f e c t e d the l i t e r a r y e x p e r i e n c e s of the r e a d e r s i n t h i s study. In summary then, examining student response to l i t e r a t u r e g e n e r a l l y c o r r o b o r a t e d the work done i n p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h . P a t t e r n s of p r o c e s s i n r e a d i n g the l i t e r a r y t e x t c o u l d not be • found. Some responses emerged more f r e q u e n t l y than o t h e r s . In examining i n d i v i d u a l responses, c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n s e x i s t e d . Moreover, r e a d e r s responded d i f f e r e n t l y to s t r u c t u r a l l y d i s t i n c t l i t e r a r y t e x t s both as a group and as i n d i v i d u a l s . I I I . IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY A. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Teaching 1. A R a t i o n a l e f o r Using the Reading Response Log (a) Response to l i t e r a t u r e r e q u i r e s a c t i v e r e a d i n g t h a t teaches us how to t h i n k , l e t s us read without the Page 155 p r e s s u r e of r e c a l l , and then, when we are f i n i s h e d , i t begs us to speak our minds about what we have read and, i n the p r o c e s s , i t asks us to s u b s t a n t i a t e our i n t e p r e t a t i o n and o p i n i o n s - our r e a d i n g s - with evidence from our l i v e s and the t e x t s . ( P e t r o s k y , p.21) Langer (1984) d i s t i n g u i s h e d between o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e response; o b j e c t i v e d e a l s with the e x t e r n a l , s u b j e c t i v e with the r e c r e a t i o n of the e x p e r i e n c e f o r the r e a d e r , an important element i n the l i t e r a r y r e a d i n g e x p e r i e n c e . (b) Since r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g appear to r e f l e c t upon each o t h e r , w r i t i n g d u r i n g the r e a d i n g a c t i v e l y promotes dependence and i n f l u e n c e of the one upon the o t h e r . Both S a l v a t o r i (1983) and F l y n n (1983) view e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g as the r e a d i n g / w r i t i n g l i n k . (c) W r i t i n g d u r i n g the r e a d i n g o f l i t e r a r y t e x t c a p i t a l i z e s on a powerful h e u r i s t i c f o r t h i n k i n g t h a t c a p t u r e s the p o t e n t i a l of r e f l e c t i n g and a c t i v e l y t r a n s a c t i n g with the t e x t . (d) The r e a d i n g response l o g p r o v i d e s purpose f o r the w r i t i n g , a s t r o n g m o t i v a t o r f o r meaningful language ( B a r r , 1985). Moreover, u s i n g w r i t i n g a c t i v e l y to c o n s t r u c t a "web of meaning" a v o i d s the o f t e n s t i l t e d and a r t i f i c i a l w r i t i n g found i n the t r a d i t i o n a l E n g l i s h essay. Page 156 (e) Students l e a r n not o n l y what to t h i n k , but how to t h i n k d u r i n g the r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g "by a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s t h a t demand not j u s t r e c a l l but h i g h e r - l e v e l r e a s o n i n g and p r e d i c t i n g and by sometimes demonstrating r e f l e c t i v e r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r s " ( R o s e n b l a t t , 1986, p. 42). A c t i v e l e a r n i n g r e q u i r e s t a k i n g r i s k s , t e s t i n g hypotheses and f o r m u l a t i n g and a l t e r i n g the meaning of the t e x t f o r the r e a d e r . ( f ) The r e c o r d i n g of response a l l o w s a c o n s c i o u s awareness of the d e v e l o p i n g , p r e - c r i t i c a l response. J u s t as r e a d e r s of l i t e r a t u r e become s p e c t a t o r s while they f o l l o w and e v a l u a t e the u n r a v e l i n g a c t i o n of a n o v e l , s t u d e n t w r i t e r s become s p e c t a t o r s of t h e i r own thought p r o c e s s e s while they use e x p r e s s i v e d i s c o u r s e . The w r i t i n g they produce embodies t h e i r d e v e l o p i n g responses to the l i t e r a t u r e they are r e a d i n g , and the very a c t of w r i t i n g f o r themselves a l l o w s them to monitor and o b j e c t i f y t h a t response. Both e x p r e s s i v e and l i t e r a r y d i s c o u r s e s demand a s e l f - c o n s c i o u s " l o o k i n g back" at the t e x t so f a r , a t both the s t o r y and the s t u d e n t ' s responses, i n order to d i s c o v e r meaning, and a l o o k i n g forward to d e v i s e e x p e c t a t i o n s of what i s to come. Such r e f l e c t i o n a l l o w s students the freedom to e x p l o r e and e x p l a i n t h e i r purpose to themselves b e f o r e going p u b l i c . (Ronald, 1986, p. 234) Page 157 (g) Since no one can have a l i t e r a r y work read f o r them, resp o n d i n g through w r i t i n g r e q u i r e s s t u d e n t s to express t h e i r p e r s o n a l response. Used a p p r o p r i a t e l y , t h i s c o u l d e s t a b l i s h both the value of and c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e i r own response a c h i e v e d through a c t i v e t r a n s a c t i o n with the l i t e r a r y work. 2. F u n c t i o n s o f the Reading Response Log i n the Classroom (a) Readers r e q u i r e d to r e c o r d ongoing r e f l e c t i o n s w i l l read and formulate t h e i r own p e r s o n a l response to the whole l i t e r a r y t e x t . (b) Reading response l o g s p r o v i d e p a r t i c u l a r l y p u r p o s e f u l a c t i v i t y f o r d e a l i n g with complex, extended l i t e r a r y t e x t s by encouraging a c o n s c i o u s , p e r s o n a l "1ived-through" e x p e r i e n c e with the 1 i t e r a t u r e . (c) Response l o g s p r o v i d e evidence of the s t u d e n t s ' l e v e l of involvement and u n d e r s t a n d i n g and serve as a " s t a r t i n g p o i n t ' f o r e x t e n d i n g the l i t e r a r y e x p e r i e n c e i n the l i t e r a t u r e c l assroom. (d) Reading and r e s p o n d i n g to the student response l o g s p r o v i d e s the teacher with an "agenda' f o r i n d i v i d u a l , group and c l a s s r o o m d i s c u s s i o n and a c t i v i t i e s . (e) Students equipped with a w r i t t e n r e c o r d of t h e i r Page 158 r e f l e c t i o n s , questions and hypotheses are more l i k e l y to contr ibute to a c la s s d i s c u s s i o n . The reading log allows students not only to share t h e i r own reading experiences aloud but also to extend the reading experience of others . (f) The reading response log may provide a valuable resource for more formal w r i t i n g topics of personal i n t e r e s t to the reader. In the interviews students confirmed that they could locate a top ic and gather enough information for an extended piece of formal wr i t ing from t h e i r response logs . A philosophy of teaching based on a balanced r e c o g n i t i o n of the many complex elements that make up the l i t e r a r y experience can foster the development of more f r u i t f u l understanding and apprec ia t ion of l i t e r a t u r e . (Rosenblatt , 1938, p. 24) B. Impl icat ions for Further Research 1. This represents the f i r s t study to examine the responses of adolescents to longer pieces of l i t e r a t u r e ; hence, r e p l i c a t i o n on a larger scale would prove va luable . Research needs to monitor ongoing response for l ength ier l i t e r a r y texts (novels) s ince these responses occur over longer periods of time. 2. The urgency of Rosenblat t ' s recent d i r e c t i v e that "we need Page 159 more s t u d i e s c e n t e r e d on the a c t u a l l i t e r a r y t r a n s a c t i o n or r e a d i n g event" (1986, p. 44) remains. Comparative a n a l y s i s of the response of r e a d e r s a t v a r i o u s l e v e l s of r e a d i n g a b i l i t y , i n d i f f e r e n t age groups, u s i n g d i f f e r e n t response s t r a t e g i e s and with a broader v a r i e t y of genres may c a s t new l i g h t on the complex phenomenon o f the a e s t h e t i c t r a n s a c t i o n between reader and the t e x t . 3. A s y m b i o t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p appears to e x i s t between r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g . More ought to be known about the exact nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n o r d e r to maximize l e a r n i n g i n l i t e r a t u r e . 4. L i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been conducted on the e f f e c t s of s p e c i f i c l i t e r a r y t e x t s on r e a d e r s ' responses. What about the e f f e c t s of r e c o r d i n g the ongoing responses to o t h e r types of n o v e l s , dramas and p o e t r y ? I d e n t i f y i n g r e a d i n g s t r a t e g i e s c o u l d prove u s e f u l f o r d e v e l o p i n g e f f e c t i v e ' approaches to the t e a c h i n g of d i v e r s e range l i t e r a r y genres. 5. The e f f e c t s of w r i t i n g d u r i n g the r e a d i n g of l i t e r a r y t e x t appeared to r a i s e response to a c l e a r e r , more c o n s c i o u s l e v e l . I f s t u d e n t s r e c o r d e d t h e i r ongoing responses i n r e a d i n g l o g s , what e f f e c t would t h a t have on o t h e r subsequent formal w r i t i n g such as the t r a d i t i o n a l essay? 6. The c o n t e n t of c l a s s r o o m d i s c u s s i o n appears to be a f f e c t e d and Page 160 enhanced when stu d e n t s r e c o r d t h e i r ongoing r e f l e c t i o n s i n a r e a d i n g response l o g . More r e s e a r c h needs to be conducted to determine, d e f i n e and e x p l a i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p and the e f f e c t s . 7. I f one of the. aims of l i t e r a r y study i s to develop c a p a b l e , c r i t i c a l , a p p r e c i a t i v e r e a d e r s , what p r o c e s s e s and s k i l l s need to be mastered? How do these r e a d e r s read? What s t r a t e g i e s do they employ? How can these s k i l l s be d e f i n e d to make them a c c e s s i b l e and a l l o w a l l s t u d e n t s to a t t a i n some l e v e l of e f f e c t i v e response a b i l i t y ? The c o m p l e x i t y of a s s i m i l a t i n g numerous s k i l l s r e q u i r e d i n the r e a d i n g o f l i t e r a r y t e x t s makes d e f i n i t i o n s d i f f i c u l t . 8. In the I Am the Cheese responses, l e a r n i n g was e v i d e n t . What d i f f e r e n c e s would occur i f response would be l i m i t e d to q u e s t i o n s a f t e r each c h a p t e r , formal essays and l e c t u r e s about the l i t e r a t u r e ? What e f f e c t does p o s i n g and answering p e r s o n a l l y generated q u e s t i o n s have on l e a r n i n g and t r a n s a c t i o n with the l i t e r a r y work? 9. T h i s study s e l e c t e d seven capable r e a d e r s . Would s i m i l a r responses occur f o r l e s s competent r e a d e r s ? 10. Only seven s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study. In order to e s t a b l i s h more g e n e r a l l y what happens when stu d e n t s respond to l i t e r a t u r e by r e c o r d i n g t h e i r ongoing response, the study c o u l d be r e p l i c a t e d on a l a r g e r s c a l e . Page 161 IV. SUMMARY Ado l e s c e n t r e a d e r s , r e c o r d i n g t h e i r ongoing response to l i t e r a r y t e x t s while they read, appeared to engage more f u l l y and knowledgeably i n the e x p e r i e n c e . Although a l l seven s t u d e n t s i n the p r e s e n t study read the same three n o v e l s , no p a t t e r n o f response emerged. While some predominant types o f response o c c u r r e d f o r the seven s t u d e n t s , i n d i v i d u a l responses v a r i e d c o n s i d e r a b l y . The s t r u c t u r e o f the novel appeared to a f f e c t the s t u d e n t s ' responses. I f the major f o r c e o f the q u e s t i o n s above appears to focus on the re a d e r , the s t a t e o f c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h i n the areas o f w r i t i n g and reader response may be a l i k e l y cause. To expand u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f response to l i t e r a t u r e , more r e s e a r c h a d d r e s s i n g q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the complex process o f r e a d i n g and e x p e r i e n c i n g l i t e r a r y t e x t s needs to be conducted. The students i n t h i s study, through r e c o r d i n g t h e i r ongoing responses, c o n t r i b u t e d a p p r e c i a b l y to t h e i r l i t e r a t u r e l e a r n i n g and enhanced t h e i r a b i l i t i e s as c a p a b l e , c r i t i c a l r e a d e r s o f l i t e r a r y t e x t . Page 162 Bib l iography Abrams, M.H. The M i r r o r and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the  C r i t i c a l T r a d i t i o n . Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1953. Ackerman, B . P . "Storage and Process ing c o n s t r a i n s t on Integrat ing Story Information i n C h i l d r e n and A d u l t s . " In Journal of Experimental Psychology, v .38 , n . l , 1984, 64-92. Adams, Peter . "I Wanted to Set Them an Essay." In E n g l i s h i n Aus tra l l a , n.68, 1984, 37-50. Ady, Pau l . "Reading as a Communal Act of Discovery ." In Reader, n. 16, F a l l , 1986, 50-62. Alexander, P . A . , V . C . Hare, and R. Garner. "The E f f e c t s of Time, Access, and Questions Type on Response Accuracy and Frequency of Lookbacks i n Older , P r o f i c i e n t Readers." In Journal of Reading Behavior, v .16 , n .2 , 1984, 119-130. Anderson, Robert. "The Notion of Schemata and the Educat ional E n t e r p r i s e . " Ed. R. Anderson, R. S p i r o , and W. Monague, Schooling and the A c q u i s i t i o n of Knowledge, H i l l s d a l e , New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1977. Anson, C h r i s M. "Reading, Wri t ing and In ten t ion ." In Reader, n. 16, F a l l , 1986, 20-35. Applebee, Arthur N. "Writing and Learning i n School Se t t ings ." In What Writers Know: The Language. Process , and Structure of Discourse . Toronto: Academic Press , 1982, 365-381. Applebee, Arthur N . , Kay Barrow, Rexford Brown, Charles Cooper, Ina Mull i s , Anthony Petrosky. Reading, Thinking and  W r i t i n g . Nat ional Assessment of Educat ional Progress Report No. l l - L - 0 1 , 1981. Applebee, Arthur N. The C h i l d ' s Concept of Story: Ages Two to Seventeen. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press , 1978. Page 163 Applebee, Arthur N. "Chi ldren ' s Construal of S tor i e s and Related Genres as Measured with Repertory G r i d Techniques." In Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , v .10 , 1976, 226 - 238. Barnes, Douglas. "Language Across the Curr icu lum: The Teacher as R e f l e c t i v e P r o f e s s i o n a l . " In The Eng l i sh Q u a r t e r l y , v .13 , n .3 , 1980, 9-19. B a r r , Mary. "Language and Learning: From Research Into Secondary School P r a c t i c e . " New York. U n i v e r s i t y , Paper, 1985. Bashford, Bruce. " C r i t i c a l Theory and the E n g l i s h Classroom." In L i t e r a r y Theory i n the Eng l i sh Classroom, v . 7 , n .2 , 1981, 43-46. Bazen, D. "Li t era ture Without Examination." In E n g l i s h i n  Educat ion , v .13 , n .3 , 1979, 12-17. Beach, Richard . "Discourse Conventions and Researching Response to L i t e r a r y Dialogue." In Researching Response to  L i t e r a t u r e and the Teaching of L i t e r a t u r e : Pointso_f Departure. Ed. Charles Cooper. Norwood, N . J . : Ablex P u b l i s h i n g , 1985, 103-127. Berkenkotter , C a r o l . "Student Writers and t h e i r Sense of Author i ty over Texts ." In Col lege Composition and Communication, v .35 , 1984, 312-319. Berthof f , Ann E . , ed. Reclaiming the Imagination: P h i l o s o p h i c a l  Perspect ives for Writers and Teachers of W r i t i n g . Upper M o n t c l a i r , New Jersey: Boynton/Cook, 1984. Berthof f , Ann E . "The I n t e l l i g e n t Eye and the Thinking Hand." In The W r i t e r ' s Mind: Wri t ing as a Mode of Thinking . Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1983, 191-196. Ber thof f , Ann E . "A Curious Tr iang le and The Double-Entry Note-Book; o r . How a Theory of Language Can Help Us Teach C r i t i c a l Reading and W r i t i n g . " In L i t e r a r y Theory i n the  E n g l i s h Classroom, v . 7 , n .2 , 1981, 19-24. Page 164 Berthof f , Ann E . The Making of Meaning: Metaphors, Models and Maxims for Wri t ing Teachers. M o n t c l a i r , New Jersey: Boynton/Cook, 1981. Beyer, B. "Pre-Wri t ing and Re-Wri t ing to L e a r n . " In S o c i a l  Educat ion, v .44 , 1979, 187-189. Birnbaum, J . C . "Ref lect ive Thought: The Connection Between Reading and W r i t i n g . " In Convergences: Transact ions i n  Reading and W r i t i n g . Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1986, 30-45. Blake, Robert, W., Anna Lunn. "Responding to Poetry: High School Students Read Poetry ." In E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , v .75 , n .2 , 1986, 68-73. B l a t t , G l o r i a T . , Louis Matz Rosen. "The Wri t ing Response to L i t e r a t u r e . " In Journal of Reading, v .28 , n . l , 1984, 8-12. B l e i c h , David. "Teaching L i t e r a c y . " In Teaching E n g l i s h i n the  Two-Year C o l l e g e , v . 6 , n .2 , 1980, 68-73. B l e i c h , David. Readings and F e e l i n g s : An Introduct ion to Subject ive C r i t i c i s m . Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1975. Bloom, Benjamin. Human C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and School Learning . New York: McGraw H i l l , 1976. B r i t t o n , James. " C a l l i t an Experiment: What Can We Expect Our Reading to Do for Our Writ ing?" In Language A r t s , v .19 , n. 2, May, 1987, 83-92. B r i t t o n , James, Tony Burgess, Nancy M a r t i n , Alex McLeod, Harold Rosen. The Development of Wri t ing A b i l i t i e s (11-18). London: MacMil lan Education L t d . , 1975. B r i t t o n , James. "Viewpoints: The D i s t i n c t i o n Between P a r t i c i p a n t and Spectator Role Language i n Research and P r a c t i c e . " In Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h . v .18 , n .3 , 1984, 320-331 B r i t t o n , James. Language and Learning . Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1970. Page 165 Brooks, Cleanth and Robert Penn Warren. Understanding Poetry. New York: H o l t , 1958. Bruner, Jerome. The Process of Educat ion . Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1960, 1977, 1982. Buck ler , P a t r i c i a P r a n d i n i . "Reading, Wri t ing and P s y c h o l i n g u i s -t i c s : An Integrated Approach Using Joyce 's Counterparts ." In Teaching E n g l i s h i n the Two-Year C o l l e g e , v .12 , n . l , 1985, 22-31. Buckley, M a r i l y n Hanf. "When Teachers Decide to Integrate the Language A r t s . " In Language A r t s , v. 63, n .4 , A p r i l , 1986, 369-377. B u t l e r , Sydney. "Unstuffing Stuffed Rabbits : Real Wri t ing About L i t e r a t u r e . " In The Eng l i sh Q u a r t e r l y , v .13 , n . l , 1984. C h i l d r e s s , A l i c e . A Hero A i n ' t Nothin' But a Sandwich. New York: Avon Books, 1973. Chomsky, Naom. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Cambridge, Mass. : M . I . T . Press , 1965. Chomsky, Noam. Syntac t i c S truc tures . The Hague: Mouton, 1957. Chr i s tenbury , L e i l a , P a t r i c i a K e l l y . Quest ioning: A Path to  C r i t i c a l Thinking . Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1983. C l i f f o r d , John. "Beyond S u b j e c t i v i t y : Transac t iona l Reading and W r i t i n g . " In Teaching E n g l i s h i n the Two-Year C o l l e g e . v . 6 , n .2 , 1980, 95-100. Comprone, Joseph. "It i s the Poem That I Remake: Using Kenneth Burke's Pentad to Help Students Write About Robert F r o s t ' s "Mending W a l l . " In Kentucky E n g l i s h B u l l e t i n , v .32 , n . l , 1982, 5-18. Cookston, Diane. "This Guy Can Rea l ly W r i t e . " In What's Going On? Language/Learning Episodes i n B r i t i s h and  American Classrooms, Grades 4 - 1 3 . Ed. Mary B a r r , Upper M o n t c l a i r , N . J . : Boynton/Cook, 1982, 196 - 217 Page 166 Cooper, Charles, Anthony Petrosky. "A Psychological View of the Reading Process." In Journal of Reading, v.20, 1976, 185-207. Cooper,-Charles, R., ed. Researching Response to L i t e r a t u r e and - the Teaching of L i t e r a t u r e : Points of Departure. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing, 1985. Cooper, Charles, R., D.A. Michelak. "Notes and Comments: A Note On determining Response Styles i n Research on Response to L i t e r a t u r e . " In Research i n the Teaching of English, v.15, 1981, 163-169. Corcoran, B i l l . "What i s Reading?" In New Essays i n the Teaching  of L i t e r a t u r e . Norwood, S. A u s t r a l i a : AATE, 1982, 10-17. Cormier, Robert. I Am the Cheese^_ New York: D e l l Publishing Co., 1977. Crowhurst, Marian, Mary Kooy. "The Use of Response Journals i n Teaching the Novel." Reading Canada Lecture, v.3, n.4, 1986, 254-266. de Beaugrande, Robert. "Writer, Reader, C r i t i c : Comparing C r i t i -c a l Theories as Discourse." In College English, v.46, n.6, 1984, 533-559. Dewey, John. Experience and Nature. New York: W.W. Norton Publishing, 1925. Dixon, John. "What Counts as Response." In Reinventing the R h e t o r i c a l T r a d i t i o n . Ed. Aviva Freedman, Ian Pringle. Published for CCTE and L&S Books, University of Central Arkansas, Conway: 1980. Duke, Charles R. "Encouraging Student Response to L i t e r a t u r e . " Paper presented at Southeast National Council of Teachers of English A f f i l i a t e Conference, Atlanta, GA, Sept., 1980, 10 pages, (EDRS No. ED192367). Duke, Charles, R. "How Did You Like I t ? ' The Question of Student Response and L i t e r a t u r e . " In Kentucky English  B u l l e t i n , v.32, n . l , 1982, 19-29. Page 167 Duke, Charles, R. "The Role of R e f l e c t i o n , Problem-Solving and Discussion i n the Teaching of L i t e r a t u r e . " Paper presented at the NCTE Spring Conference, A p r i l , 1984, 10 pages, (EDRS No. ED243142). Eagleson, Robert. "Integrating Language and L i t e r a t u r e Studies." In From Seed to Harvest; Looking at L i t e r a t u r e . Ed. Kathleen B. Whatle, Trevor J . Gambell. CCTE, 1985, 25-34. Emig, Janet. The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Urbana I l l i n o i s : NCTE, 1971. Emig, Janet. "Writing au a Mode of Learning (1977)." In The Web of. Meaning; Essays on W r i t i n g , Teaching, Learning and Thinking. Ed. Dixie Goswami and Maureen Butler. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: Boynton/Cook, 1983, Cook, 1983. F a r r e l l , Edmund J. "L i t e r a t u r e i n C r i s i s . " In English Journal, v.70, n . l , 1981, 13 - 18. F i l l i o n , Bryant. "Reading as Inquiry: An Approach to L i t e r a t u r e Learning." In English Journal, v.70, n . l , 1981, 39-45. Fine, Esther Sokolov. "Marbles Lost, Marbles Found: Collabora-t i v e Production of Text." In Language Arts, v.64, n.5, 1987, 474-488. Flynn, El i z a b e t h . "Composing Responses to a L i t e r a r y Text: A Process Approach." In College Composition and Communication, v.34, n.3, 1983, 342-348. Freeman, Evelyn B., Tobie Sanders. "The S o c i a l Meaning of L i t e r a c y : Writing I n s t r u c t i o n and the Community." In Language Arts, v.64, n.6, October, 1987, 641-647. F r e i r e , Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press, 1968. Fu l w i l e r , Toby, and Art Young, ed. Language Connections: Writing  and Reading Across the Curriculum. Urbana, I l l i n o i s : NCTE, 1982. Page 168 Giroux, H. "Teaching Content and Thinking Through Writing." In S o c i a l Education, v.43, 1979, 190-193. Glauser, Lome. " P r e - C r i t i c a l and C r i t i c a l Response to L i t e r a t u r e . " In The English Quarterly, v.13, n . l , 1980, 31-35. Goldberg, Marilyn. "A Cognitive Approach to the Teaching of. L i t e r a t u r e . " In Teaching English i n the Two-Year  College, v.6, n.2, 1980, 149-159. Golson, Emily Becker, Judith K i r s c h t . "On Making the I Univer-s a l : From Langer to B r i t t o n to Kinneavy." Paper pre-sented at Conference on Composition and Communication, March, 1983, 20 pages. Goodman, Kenneth. "Analysis of Oral Reading Miscues: Applied P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s . " In Frank Smith, ed., Psycholln-g u l s t i c s and Reading, New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1973, 158-176. Greene, Maxine. "Toward P o s s i b i l i t y : Expanding the Range of L i t e r a c y . " In English Education, v.18, n.4, December, 1986, 231-243. H a l l , Nigel, Rose Duffy. "Every C h i l d Has a Story to T e l l . " In Language Arts, v.64, n.5, September, 1987, 523-531. Hansson, Gunnar. "Some Types of Research on Response to L i t e r a -ture." In Research i n the Teaching of English, v.7, n.2, 1973, 260-284 Harding, D. ». "The Role of the Onlooker." In Scrutiny. 6, 1937. Harste, Jerome C , V i r g i n i a A. Woodward, Carolyn L. Burke. "Examining Our Assumptions: A Transactional View of L i t e r a c y and Learning." In Research i n the Teaching of  English, v.18, n . l , 1984, 84-108. Hayes, J . , P. Roth, J . Ramsey, R. Foulke. The Writer's Mind:  Writing as a Mode of Thinking. Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1983. Page 169 Hickman, Janet. "A New Perspective on Response to L i t e r a t u r e : Research i n an Elementary School Setting." In Research  i n the Teaching of English, v.15, n.4, 1981, 343-353. Horner, Winnifred. Composition and L i t e r a t u r e : Bridging the  Gap. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Hunt, Russel. "Towards a Process-Intervention Model i n L i t e r a t u r e Teaching." In College English, v.44, 1982, 345-357. Hynds, Susan D. "Interpersonal Cognitive Complexity and the ' L i t e r a r y Response Process of Adolescents." In Research  i n the Teaching of English, v.19, n.4, 1985, 386-402. Irmscher, W. "Writing as a Way of Learning and Developing." In College Composition and Communication, v.30, 1979, 240-244. Jarraway, David. "Total Emphasis: L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m - The L i t e r a r y context of Evaluation." In The English  Quarterly, v.17, n . l , 1985, 3-18. Johnson, Nan. "A Rhetorical Model for Integrating Composition and L i t e r a t u r e Studies." In From Seed to Harvest:  Looking at L i t e r a t u r e . CCTE, 1985, 35-42. Ke l l y , Lou. "Writing as Learning for Basic Writing Teachers and Their Students." In Basic Writing Journal, v.3, n.4, 1984, 38-54. King, J.R., S. Bigs, and S. Lipsky. "Students' Self-Questioning and Summarizing as Reading Study Str a t e g i e s . " In J o u r n a l o f Reading Behavior, v.16, n.3, 1984, 205-218. Kirby, Dan, Carol Kuykendall. Thinking Through Language. Book One. Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1985. Kinneavy, James L. A Theory of Discourse. New York: Norton, 1980. Page 170 Langer, J . , Arthur Applebee. ( i n Progress). Moving Toward  Excellence; Writing and Learning i n the Highschool  Curriculum. Research sponsored by the National I n s t i t u t e of Education. Langer, J. A. " Examining Background Knowledge and Text Comprehension." In Reading Research Quarterly, v.19, n.4, 1984, 468-481. Lederman, Marie Jean. "Literature and Composition i n the Two-Year College: Love A f f a i r or One-Night Stand?" In Teaching English i n the Two-Year College, v.12, n . l , 1985, 9-13. LeGuin, U r s u l l a K. A Wizard of Earthsea. New York: Bantam Books, 1968. Lindf o r s , Judith Wells. "From "Talking Together" to "Being Together i n Talk." In Language Arts, v.65, n.2, February, 1988, 135-141. Lunsford, Andrea, L i s a Ede. "Let Them Write - Together." In English Quarterly, v.18, n.4. Winter, 1985, 119-128. Marshall, James D. "The E f f e c t s of Writing on Students' Under-standing of L i t e r a r y Texts." Unpublished Paper, Stanford University, 1984. Martin, Nancy. Writing and Learning Across the Curriculum. London: Ward Lock Educational, 1975. M i l l e r , Robert Keith. "The Use Of L i t e r a t u r e i n Composition." In English Journal, v.69, n.9, 1980, 54-55. Meek, Margaret. "Reponse - Begin Again." In New Essays i n the  Teaching of L i t e r a t u r e . Norwood, S. A u s t r a l i a : AATE, 1982, 85-96. M i a l l , D.S. "The Structure of Response: A Repertory Grid Study of a Poem." In Research i n the Teaching of English, v.19, n.3, 1985, 254-268. Page 171 Monson, Diane. "Trends i n Research: Studies of Response to L i t e r a t u r e 1974-1983." Un i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, 1984. Moran, Charles. "Teaching Writing/Teaching L i t e r a t u r e . " In College Composition and Communication, v.32, n . l , 1981, 21-29. Moss, J . " L i t e r a r y Awareness: A Basis for Composition." In Language Arts, v.55, n.7, 1978, 832-836. Newell, G. E. "Learning from Writing i n Two Content Areas: A Case Study/Protocol Analysis." In Research  i n the Teaching of English. v.18, n.3, 1984, 265-287. Newkirk., Thomas, Ed. Only Connect: Uniting Reading and Writing, Upper Montclair, N.J.: Boynton/ Cook, 1986. 0 Newkirk, Thomas. "Looking for Trouble: A Way to Unmask Our Readings." In College English, v.19, n . l , 1985, 756-766. Odell, Lee. "The Process of Writing and the Process of Learning." In College Composition and Communication v.31, 1980, 42-50. P e r l , Sondra. "Understanding Composing." In College Composition  and Communication, v.31, 1980, 363-369. Petersen, Bruce T., ed. Convergences: Transactions i n Reading  and Writing. Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1986. Petrosky, Anthony R. "From Story to Essay: Reading and Writing." In College Composition and Communicatin. v.33, n . l , 1982, 19-36. Petrosky, Anthony, R. "Response: A Way of Knowing." In Researching Response to L i t e r a t u r e and the Teaching of  L i t e r a t u r e . Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishers, 1985, 70-86. Piaget, J . The Child's Conception of the World. Totowa, NJ: L i t t l e f i e l d , Adams, 1965. Page 172 Polanyi, Michael. Knowing and Being; Essays by Michael Polanvi. Ed. Marjorie Greene. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Pri n g l e , Ian, Aviva Freedman, Ed. Teaching Writing Learning, Ottawa: Carlton University Press, CCTE,. 1981. Probst, Robert. Adolescent L i t e r a t u r e ; Response and Analysis Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M i l l e r , 1984. Purves, Alan C. "Evaluation of Learning i n L i t e r a t u r e . " In Evaluation i n Education, v.3, Great B r i t a i n : Pergamon Press, 1979, 93-172. Purves, Alan C. Reading and L i t e r a t u r e ; American Achievement i n International Perspective. Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1981. Purves, Alan C. "That Sunny Dome: Those Caves of Ice." In Researching Response To L i t e r a t u r e and the Teaching of of L i t e r a t u r e . Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publ., 1985, 54-69. Purves, Alan C , V. Rippere. Elements of Writing About a L i t e r a r y Work; A Study of Response to L i t e r a t u r e . Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1968. Purves, Alan C , R. Beach. L i t e r a t u r e and the Reader: Research  In Response to L i t e r a t u r e , Reading Interests and the  Teaching of L i t e r a t u r e . Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1973.. Rati i f f e , Lee. "Reader's Theatre: A Basic Approach to Teaching L i t e r a t u r e . " In Teaching English i n the Two-Year  College, v.12, n . l , 1985, 48-51. Renner, John W. "Content and Concrete Thought." In Science  Education, v.62, n.2, 1978, 215-221. Reynolds, Mark. "Expanding the Freewriting H e u r i s t i c . " In Teaching English i n the Two-Year College, v.11, n . l , 1984. Richards, I.A. P r a c t i c a l C r i t i c i s m . New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1929. Page 173 Ronald, Katharine. "The S e l f and the Other i n the Process of Composing: Implications for Integrating the Acts of Reading and Writing." In Convergences: Transactions i n  Reading and Writing. Ed. Bruce T. Petersen, Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 231-245. Rosenblatt, Louise M. L i t e r a t u r e as Exploration. New York: Noble and Noble, 1938, 1968, 1976. Rosenblatt, Louise M. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the L i t e r a r y Work. Carbondale and Edwardville: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1978. Rosenblatt, Louise, M. "Viewpoints: Transaction Versus Interaction - A Terminological Rescue Operation." In Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , v.19, n . l , 1985, 96-107. Rosenblatt, Louise M. "The Transactional Theory of the L i t e r a r y Work: Implications for Research." In Researching  Response to L i t e r a t u r e and the Teaching of L i t e r a t u r e . Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishers, 1985, 33-53. Rummelhart, David. "Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition." In Theoretical Issues i n Reading and Comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1980. Ryken, Leiand. Triumphs of the Imagination: L i t e r a t u r e i n  C h r i s t i a n Perspectives. Downers Grove, I l l i n o i s : I n t e r v a r s i t y Press, 1979. S a l v a t o r i , Mariolina. "Reading and Writing a Text: C o r r e l a t i o n s Between Reading and Writing." In College English, v.7, 1983, 657-666. S a l v a t o r i , Mariolina. "The Pedagogical Implications of Reader-Response Theory." In Reader, n. 16, F a l l , 1986, 1-19. Sanders, Maureen. "Literacy as "Passionate Attention".' In Language Arts, n.64, n.6, October, 1987, 619-633. Page 174 Sbaratta, P h i l i p . "Reading Meets Writing i n Freshman English." In Teaching English i n the Two-Year College, v.8, n.2, 1982, 131-133. Scholes, Robert. Textual Power; L i t e r a r y Theory and the Teaching of English. New Haven: Yale Univ e r s i t y Press, 1985. Scholes, Robert. "Textuality: Power and Pleasure." In English  Education, v.19, n.2. May, 1987, 69-82. Sherman, Paul. "Journals: the Dialogue Between Text and S e l f . " In Iowa English B u l l e t i n , v.30, n.6, 1981. Smith, Frank. Reading Without Nonsense. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press, 1985. Smith, Frank. Understanding Reading; A P s y c h o l l n g u l s t l c Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read. 3rd ed.. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, Winston, 1982. Smith, Frank. P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s and Reading. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1973. Squire, James. The Responses of Adolescents While Reading Four  Short S t o r i e s . Urbana, 111.; NCTE, 1964. Squire, James. Response to L i t e r a t u r e . Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1978. Sternglass, Marilyn. "Writing Based on Reading." In Convergences: Transactions i n Reading and Writing. Ed. Bruce T. Petersen, Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1986, 151-162. Strong, William. "Language as Teacher." In College Composition  and Communication, v.38, n . l , February, 1987, 21-31. Suleiman, Susan, I. Crossman. The Reader i n the Text: Essays  on Audience and Interpretation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. Page 175 S u l l i v a n , Jerry, L. "Responding to L i t e r a t u r e Via Inquiry." In Exercise Exchange, v.28, n.2, 1983, 11-15. Taylor, Nancy, E. "Metacognitive A b i l i t y : A Curriculum P r i o r i t y . " In Reading Psychology, v.4, n.3-4, 1983, 269-278. Tierney, Robert J . , J i l l Lazansky. "The Rights and Re s p o n s i b i l -i t i e s of Readers and Writers: A Contractual Agreement." In Language Arts, v.57, 1980, 606-613. Tierney, Robert J . , P. David Pearson. "Toward a Composing Model of Reading." In Language Arts, v.60, p. 568-580. Thomson, Jack,. "Response to Reading: the Process as Described by one Fourteen-Year-Old." In English i n Education, v.13, n.3, 1979, 1-11. Vogel, Dan. "The Fancy and the Imagination and the Teaching of L i t e r a t u r e . " In Journal of Aesthetic Education, v.15, n . l , 1981, 5-15. Vygotsky, L.S. Thought and Language. ed. and t r a n s l . by E. Hanfmann and G. Vakars [1934] Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1962. Weaver, C. " P a r a l l e l s Between New Paradigms i n Science and Read-ing and L i t e r a r y Theories: An Essay Review." In Research  i n the Teaching of English, v.19, 1985, 298-316. Weiler, Sharon. "The F a l l a c y of Decontextualization." In The English Quarterly, v.17, n . l , 1985, 19-31. Wellek, Rene and Austin Warren. Theory of L i t e r a t u r e . New York: Harcourt, Brace and Col, 1949. Winograd, P. W. "Strategic D i f f i c u l t i e s i n Summarizing Texts." In Reading Research Quarterly, v.19, n.4, 1984, 404-425. Wilson, L. "Li t e r a t u r e as Part of the Language Program: Inter-view with James B r i t t o n . " In The English Quarterly. v.15, n . l , 1982, 15-23. Page 176 Wooley, Jan. "The Expressive Response." In New Essays i n the Teaching of L i t e r a t u r e . Norwood, S.. A u s t r a l i a : AATE, 1982, 18-31. Zaharias, Jane A. "The E f f e c t s of Genre and Tone on Undergraduate Students' Preferred Patterns of Response To Two Short Stories and Two Poems." In Research i n the  Teaching of English, v.20, n . l , 1986, 56-68. Page 177 APPENDIX A READING RESPONSE LOG GUIDE A response journal i s one e f f e c t i v e way to keep a log of your reading responses. I t o f f e r s a chance to ask questions, to wonder ALOUD, so to speak, about the l i t e r a t u r e . In reading the text, take some time every 10 - 15 pages to record your observations. This i s not a time to " t e l l " what happens i n the story, but a time to ponder on how what happens STRIKES you. Your responses w i l l almost c e r t a i n l y vary i n length. Sometimes you may want to write h a l f a page, other times three or four l i n e s . Neatness i s l i m i t e d only to r e a d a b i l i t y . Do not rewrite or revise your responses. The main idea i s to record your f i r s t impressions. The following "thoughts" o f f e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s for responding. Don't try to answer a l l of them i n each response. Use the ones that most apply to what you've uncovered i n your l a t e s t reading. SUGGESTIONS FOR READING RESPONSE TO LITERATURE 1. In th i s section, I was impressed or struck by..... 2. I noticed 3. I wonder about 4. I p r e d i c t 5. Some questions I have 6. I don't understand 7. Something that I now understand 8. Now I sense why 9. An i n t e r e s t i n g word, sentence, thought from the text i s 10. Something I appreciate/don't appreciate about a character or event I f there are other s t r i k i n g things about your reading, include them. Do not l i m i t y o urself to the suggestions l i s t e d above. Each person responds to a text i n d i f f e r e n t ways. The purpose of t h i s journal i s not to te s t your knowledge, but to help you deal with the l i t e r a t u r e i n a personal way, to ask your own questions. Page 178 APPENDIX B PURVES AND RIPPERE: ELEMENTS OF WRITING ABOUT A LITERARY WORK 100 — ENGAGEMENT/ INVOLVEMENT 110 — Reaction to l i t e r a t u r e 111 - Reaction to author 112* — Assent to the work 113 - Moral taste 120 - Reaction to form 121 - Recreation of the e f f e c t of the work 123 - R e t e l l i n g the work i n a d i f f e r e n t form from the author 130 - Reaction to content 131 - Moral r e a c t i o n to characters/ incidents 132 - Conjecture 133 - I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the writer with the work 134 — The r e l a t i o n of incidents to those i n the writer's l i f e 200 - THE ELEMENTS OF PERCEPTION 202 — Objective perception 203 - Reading comprehension 210 - The perception of parts 212 - Syntax and s y n t a c t i c patterns 214 - D i c t i o n 220 - L i t e r a r y devices 224 - A l l u s i o n 225 - Conventional symbols 226 - Larger l i t e r a r y devices 230 - Content 231 - Subject matter 232 - The a c t i o n of a work 233 - Character i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n 234 - Character r e l a t i o n s h i p s 235 - Setting or milieu 240 - Perception of the whole 250 - Structure 251 - Relation of parts to parts 252 - Relation of parts to whole 253 - Plot or structure 254 - Gestalt 260 — Tone 261 — Description of tone 262 — E f f e c t 263 — Mood 264 - Pace 265 - Point of View 268 - Image patterns 270 - L i t e r a r y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 271 - Generic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n Page 179 300 - THE ELEMENTS OF INTERPRETATION 302 - Interpretive context 303 - The use of part as key to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the whole 310 - Inte r p r e t a t i o n of s t y l e 313 - Inferred A l l u s i o n 315 - The d e r i v a t i o n of s p e c i f i c symbols 316 - Inferred l o g i c 321 - Inference about the past or present 322 - Character analysis 323 - Inference about the s e t t i n g 324 - Inference about the author 330 - Mimetic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 331 - Psychological mimetic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 332 - So c i a l mimetic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 335 - E t h i c a l or the o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 346 - E t h i c a l / t h e o l o g i c a l t y p o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 400 - ELEMENTS OF EVALUATION 401 - C i t a t i o n of c r i t e r i a 410 - A f f e c t i v e evaluation 420 - Evaluation of author's method 422 - Rhetorical evaluation 423 - Typological r h e t o r i c 424 - Generic evaluation 426 - O r i g i n a l i t y 430 - Evaluation of author's v i s i o n 431 - Mimetic p l a u s i b i l i t y 432 - Imagination 433 - Thematic importance 434 - S i n c e r i t y 436 - Moral s i g n i f i c a n c e 437 - Moral a c c e p t a b i l i t y 500 - MISCELLANEOUS 501 - Divergent responses 502 - Rhetorical f i l l e r 504 - Comparison with other works 505 - Digression 506 - U n c l a s s i f i a b l e Page 180 APPENDIX C SQUIRE CATEGORIES READING LOGS STUDY M. KOOY I. L i t e r a r y Judgments I I . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l Responses A. Interp. of Character, Plot B. Interp. of Ideas, Themes C. Visual Reconstr. of Scenes that seem to repr. v i s u a l interp. of s p e c i f i c facts III . Narrational Reactions IV. Associational Responses V. Self-Involvement VI. P r e s c r i p t i v e Judgments VII . Miscellaneous Page 181 APPENDIX D BRYANT FILLION LITERARY ELEMENTS 1. Events. P l o t : Factual Interpretive Personal Assoc., Sign. Evaluation 2. Characters. Relationships: Factual Interpretive Personal Assoc., Sign. Evaluation 3. Setting, Mood, Atmosphere: Factual Interpretive Personal Assoc., Sign. Evaluation ~~ 4. Images: Factual Interpretive Personal Assoc., Sign. Evaluation Page 182 5. Ideas. Themes: Factual Interpretive Personal Assoc., Sign. Evaluation 6. Language - Style, Structure: Factual Interpretive Personal Assoc., Sign. Evaluation 0 Page 183 APPENDIX E RESPONSE DESCRIPTORS FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES TI TLE: NAME: A. PERSONAL RESPONSE/ENGAGEMENT ("I love t h i s book..") B. NARRATION/ RETELLING - p l o t , events C. KNOWLEDGE GAPS - ("I don't understand") D. CONFUSION ("This i s confusing..") E. QUESTIONS - simple, d i r e c t ("What were the p i l l s . . . " ) F. QUESTIONS - i m p l i c i t hypothesis ("Is that why he...") G. REFLECTION - ("I wonder " "I hope...") H. PREDICTION ("I think Ged w i l l defeat the shadow") I. CONFIRMATION ("I knew.., I thought so, I thought so") J. TENTATIVE FRAMEWORKING/ "SENSE MAKING" ("seems l i k e " ) K. INSIGHT/ UNDERSTANDING ("is") L. STRIKING IMPRESSION/ VIEW/ PICTURE/ EVENT M. UNEXPECTED FINDING ("I never thought...") N. CHARACTER/ EVENT - analysis ("He seems shy...") 0. CHARACTER/ EVENT - judgment/evaluation ("How dumb..") P. CHARACTER/ EVENT - p r e s c r i p t i o n / advice ("She should") Q. TEXTUAL LANGUAGE - words, phrases, quotes R. TEXTUAL STRUCTURE - l i t e r a r y elements S. TEXTUAL CONTENT T. TEXTUAL CONCEPTS/ IDEAS/ THEMES ("good vs. e v i l " ) U. VIEWING THE NOVEL'S LITERARY "WORLD" V. COMPARISON TO OTHER LITERARY TEXTS ("This i s l i k e . . . ) W. PROJECTION/ APPLICATION - to larger, outside world X. AUTHOR'S METHOD/ STYLE/ PROCESS Y MISCELLANEOUS Page 185 APPENDIX G ORDER OF PREDOMINANT RESPONSES: THREE NOVELS 2 A. PERSONAL RESPONSE/ENGAGEMENT ("I love t h i s book..") 4 B. NARRATION/ RETELLING - p l o t , events 11 C. KNOWLEDGE GAPS - ("I don't understand") 16 D. CONFUSION ("This i s confusing..") 5 E. QUESTIONS - simple, d i r e c t ("What were the p i l l s . . . " ) 7 F. QUESTIONS - i m p l i c i t hypothesis ("Is that why he...") 10 G. REFLECTION - ("I wonder " "I hope...") 14 H. PREDICTION ("I think Ged w i l l defeat the shadow") 19 I. CONFIRMATION ("I knew.., I thought so, I thought so") 3 J. TENTATIVE FRAMEWORKING/ "SENSE MAKING" ("seems l i k e " ) 8 K. INSIGHT/ UNDERSTANDING ("is") 18 L. STRIKING IMPRESSION/ VIEW/ PICTURE/ EVENT 21 M. UNEXPECTED FINDING ("I never thought...") 1 N. CHARACTER/ EVENT - analysis ("He seems shy...") 6 0. CHARACTER/ EVENT - judgment/evaluation ("How dumb..") 20 P. CHARACTER/ EVENT - p r e s c r i p t i o n / advice ("She should") 12 Q. TEXTUAL LANGUAGE - words, phrases, quotes 9 R. TEXTUAL STRUCTURE - l i t e r a r y elements 22 S. TEXTUAL CONTENT 20 T. TEXTUAL CONCEPTS/ IDEAS/ THEMES ("good vs. e v i l " ) 21 U. VIEWING THE NOVEL'S LITERARY "WORLD" 17 V. COMPARISON TO OTHER LITERARY TEXTS ("This i s l i k e . . . ) 15 W. PROJECTION/ APPLICATION - to large r , outside world 13 X. AUTHOR'S METHOD/ STYLE/ PROCESS 17 Y. MISCELLANEOUS Page 186 APPENDIX H ORDER OF GROUP RESPONSE PREFERENCES: INDIVIDUAL NOVELS l_s_ 2. 3^* 7, 2, 1 A. PERSONAL RESPONSE/ENGAGEMENT 6, 3, 3 B. NARRATION/ RETELLING - pl o t , events 9, 13, 12 C. KNOWLEDGE GAPS - ("I don't understand") 8 ' 16, 17 D. CONFUSION ("This i s confusing..") 2, 11, 5 E. QUESTIONS - simple, d i r e c t 3, 15, 9 F. QUESTIONS - i m p l i c i t hypothesis 13, 10, 6 G. REFLECTION - ("I wonder " "I hope...") 18, 12, 13 H. PREDICTION 25, 25, 16 I. CONFIRMATION ("I knew.., I thought so 1, 5, 4 J. TENTATIVE FRAMEWORKING/ "SENSE MAKING" 5, 8, 10 K. INSIGHT/ UNDERSTANDING 16, 18, 23 L. STRIKING IMPRESSION/ VIEW/ PICTURE/ EVENT 25, 25, 24 M. UNEXPECTED FINDING ("I never thought...") 4, 1, 2 N. CHARACTER/ EVENT - analysis ("He seems shy 11, 4, 7 0. CHARACTER/ EVENT - judgment/evaluation 19, 19, 21 P. CHARACTER/ EVENT - p r e s c r i p t i o n / advice 15, 6, 4 Q. TEXTUAL LANGUAGE - words, phrases, quotes 10, 7, 8 R. TEXTUAL STRUCTURE - l i t e r a r y elements 25, 25, 25** S. TEXTUAL CONTENT 25, 25, 18 T. TEXTUAL CONCEPTS/ IDEAS/ THEMES Page 187 25, 25, 22 U. VIEWING THE NOVEL'S LITERARY "WORLD" 25, 17, 19 V. COMPARISON TO OTHER LITERARY TEXTS 14, 9, 15 W. PROJECTION/ APPLICATION - to outside world 17, 14, 11 X. AUTHOR'S METHOD/ STYLE/ PROCESS 12, 20, 20 Y. MISCELLANEOUS * 1• I Am the Cheese 2. A Hero Ain't Nothln' But a Sandwich 3. A Wizard of Earthsea ** .34 - A l l other p o s i t i o n 25 denotes 0 Page 188 APPENDIX I AVERAGE OF RESPONSE PREFERENCES; THREE NOVELS 15. 3% A. PERSONAL RESPONSE/ ENGAGEMENT 14. 3% N. CHARACTER/ EVENT - analysis 11. 3% J. TENTATIVE FRAMEOWORKING/ "SENSE MAKING" 9. 7% B. NARRATION/ RETELLING 8. 9% E. QUESTIONS - SIMPLE, DIRECT 5. 7% 0. CHARACTER/ EVENT - JUDGMENT, EVALUATION 5. 4% F. QUESTIONS - IMPLICIT HYPOTHESIS 4. 7% K. INSIGHT/ UNDERSTANDING 3. 5% R. TEXTUAL STRUCTURE - LITERARY ELEMENTS 3. 1% G. REFLECTION 2. 6% C. KNOWLEDGE GAPS 2. 5% Q. TEXTUAL LANGUAGE 2. 3% W. PROJECTION/ APPLICATION TO OUTSIDE WORLD 2. 2% H. PREDICTION 2. 1% D. CONFUSION 1. 7% X. AUTHOR'S METHOD, STYLE Page 189 APPENDIX J PREDOMINANT RESPONSES: I AM THE CHEESE 16. 5% J. TENTATIVE FRAMEWORKING/ "SENSE MAKING 15. 5% E. QUESTIONS - SIMPLE, DIRECT 11. 6% F. QUESTIONS - IMPLICIT HYPOTHESIS 10. 8% N. CHARACTER/ EVENT - ANALYSIS 7. 9% K. INSIGHT/ UNDERSTANDING 8. 1% B. NARRATION/ RETELLING 6. 1% A. PERSONAL RESPONSE/ ENGAGEMENT 4. 0% D. CONFUSION 3. 7% C. KNOWLEDGE GAPS 2. 7% R. TEXTUAL STRUCTURE 2. 5% 0. CHARACTER/ EVENT - JUDGMENT, ANALYSIS 2. 4% Y. MISCELLANEOUS 2. 1% G. REFLECTION 1. 9% W. PROJECTION/ APPLICATION 1. 1% Q. TEXTUAL LANGUAGE Page 190 APPENDIX K PREDOMINANT RESPONSES: A HERO AIN'T NOTHIN' BUT A SANDWICH 20. 3% N. CHARACTER/ EVENT - ANALYSIS 17. 8% A. PERSONAL RESPONSE/ ENGAGEMENT 12. 1% B. NARRATION/ RETELLING 9. 2% 0. CHARACTER/ EVENT - JUDGMENT, EVALUATION 7. 8% J. TENTATIVE FRAMEWORKING/ "SENSE MAKING" 4. 3% Q. TEXTUAL LANGUAGE 4. 0% R. TEXTUAL STRUCTURE 3. 2% K. INSIGHT/ UNDERSTANDING 3. 0% W. PROJECTION/ APPLICATION TO OUTSIDE WORLD 2. 9% G. REFLECTION 2. 9% E. QUESTIONS - SIMPLE, DIRECT 2. 5% H. PREDICTION 2. 0% C. KNOWLEDGE GAPS 1. 2% X. AUTHOR'S METHOD/ STYLE 1. 3% F. QUESTIONS - IMPLICIT HYPOTHESIS 1. 1% D. CONFUSION 1. 0% V. COMPARISON TO OTHER LITERARY TEXTS 1. 2% L. STRIKING IMPRESSION/ VIEW/ PICTURE/ EVEN' 1. 0% P. CHARACTER/ EVENT' - PRESCRIPTION, ADVICE 1% Y. MISCELLANEOUS I s u = CONFIRMATION =0 M = UNEXPECTECTED FINDING = 0 = TEXTUAL CONTENT =0 T = TEXTUAL CONCEPTS/IDEAS = 0 = VIEWING THE NOVEL'S LITERARY WORLD = 0 Page 191 APPENDIX L PREDOMINANT RESPONSES: A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA 22. 1% A. PERSONAL RESPONSE/ ENGAGEMENT 11. 9% N. CHARACTER/ EVENT - ANALYSIS 9. 6% J. TENTATIVE FRAMEWORKING/ "SENSE MAKING" 8. 9% B. NARRATION/ RETELLING 8. 3% E. QUESTIONS - SIMPLE, DIRECT 5. 3% 0. CHARACTER/ EVENT - JUDGMENT, EVALUATION 4. 3% G. REFLECTION 3. 8% R. TEXTUAL STRUCTURE 3. 2% F. QUESTIONS - IMPLICIT HYPOTHESIS 3. 1% H. PREDICTION 3. 0% X. AUTHOR'S METHOD, STYLE 2. 9% K. INSIGHT/ UNDERSTANDING 2. 2% C. KNOWLEDGE GAPS 2. 2% Q. TEXTUAL LANGUAGE 1. 9% W. PROJECTION/ APPLICATION TO OUTSIDE WORLD 1. 5% I. CONFIRMATION 1. 2% D. CONFUSION • 1. 1% T. TEXTUAL CONCEPTS/IDEAS/THEMES 1. 0% V. COMPARISON TO OTHER LITERARY TEXTS Page 192 APPENDIX H INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: READING RESPONSE LOG NAME: 1. When writing i n your reading response log, how did you go about deciding what to write? Just write? Think and write? Check the sheet? 2. How do you fe e l about writing out your thoughts i n the log? 3. What e f f e c t did the writing have on your "response" 4. Did you record a l l your thoughts? Why? Why not? 5. Did you go back and read your log before you wrote? At any time during the reading of the novel? Page 193 6. I f you didn't have to f i n i s h a book, how would you decide to stop or continue reading i t ? What are some of the c r i t e r i a of a GOOD book? A BAD book? 7. Which of the three books did you enjoy most? Least? Why? 0 8. In I Am the Cheese you asked l o t s of questions (25) compared to 1 i n Sandwich and 3 i n Wizard. Why do you think that happened? 9. Often i n your writing you ju s t " r e t e l l " b i t s of the story. Is there a reason for that? 10. Do you have a c e r t a i n set way of reading a novel? An approach that you use? Could you describe i t ? Page 194 11. I f you think about the three texts you read, do you think you "read" or approached them a l l i n the same way? Why or why not? 12. How would you decide when you picked up a book on the kind of reading you could expect from i t ? What kinds of things do you look for? 13. How would you describe yourself as a reader? 14. How does the writing i n the reading log compare to other writing that you do i n school? 15. Which one of the response logs proved most useful to you i n the reading. Why? Page 195 16. In Wizard you make no bones about "fantasy" l i t e r a t u r e , yet as the log progresses, you are lured into the story. You make l o t s of comments about the language, for instance, and the concepts or ideas. Can you explain that? 17. What stands out i n your mind about Sandwich? You reacted r i g h t from the st a r t ? Can you explain how the response log affected your reading here? 18. You've ju s t re-read a l l your journals. How do you respond to your response? I f you had to write an essay on one of the books, which would you choose? Would the writing help? GRANT: In I Am the Cheese you made very few personal response statements. In the other two novels you made a s i g n i f i c a n t number. Why do you think that happened? ANNETTE: (1) as Grant (same question) Page196 ANNETTE: The judgment and evaluation of characters was i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n Cheese, important i n the other two. Why? TRACEY: The l e a s t tentative frameworking, the greatest character analysis i n Hero. Why? Why r e l a t e you response by r e - t e l l i n g ? Why i n one, much less i n others? Very personal involvement i n Wizard. Why i s that? MARLEEN: Very personally involved i n the reading. Explain why that happens as you read. Does i t happen i n hi s t o r y texts? Why/ why not? Page 197 Personal response and analysis of characters and events important i n a l l 3. Is there a connection between the two? GORDON: You asked far more questions i n Wizard than any other reader (.45) Can you explain that? Of the 3 novels, which one do you think you analyzed characters most? Why? R e t e l l i n g became an important dimension of Hero. Explain. JESSICA: Very not Cheese? high personal response i n Hero and Wizard. Why Page 198 Reacted strongly to LeGuin's fantasy. Why i s that? You d e l i b e r a t e l y state your feelings openly. Yet, you do become intrigued. What happened there? Can you t e l l me i f you respond s i m i l a r l y to a l l books. Do you use the same approach? Why? How? / Page 199 APPPENDIX N READING RESPONSE LOG I- AM THE CHEESE MARLEEN pp. 11-21 1. I don't understand why the boy i s leaving & where from? 2. I think the tapes were of Adam t a l k i n g to a p h y c i a t r i s t about his l i f e . 3. What were the p i l l s that he threw away? 4. I noticed that t h i s boy i s quite weird, 5. I wonder what the package to his father i s ? pp. 22-32 6. What year i s the story written in? 7. Because the gas station-man said that "there were a l o t of assasinations i n those days" but there r e a l l y i s n ' t . 8. I wonder i s Adam's l a s t name i s r e a l l y "Farmer" as i t says i n the song? 9. This guy i s a f r a i d of a l l animals. 10. (STUPID) pp. 33-38 11. What i s the s p e c i a l medicine that he has to take? 12. I think Adam's father i s i n a mental h o s p i t a l . 13. But what about his mom? pp. 39-48 14. I noticed that Adam i s confused about the doctor. 15. A mental hospital? 16. Does he have two dads? 17. In the beginning, I predict that Adam & his father were running away from someone they knew or the p o l i c e . 18. Why didn't they t e l l the mom about the dog attack? pp. 49-65 19. I'm s t a r t i n g to l i k e the book better now because i t ' s s t a r t i n g to sound l i k e a book. 20. Amy Hertz sounds l i k e a pretty nice g i r l . 21. But she acts strange also. 22. Someday, I'd l i k e to f i l l shopping carts & leave l i k e they did. pp. 66-76 23. The story's coming together i n pieces now. 24. Why i s he so calm about a l l of this? Page 200 25. Two documents, quickly moving i n the middle of the night, secretive parents etc. would make anyone suspicious. 26. But Adam always disagrees with i t . 27. That doctor sure i s pushy. 28. He doesn't sound l i k e a normal doctor. pp. 77-90 29. The story i s coming together, slowly and slowly. 30. As Adam finds clues, you then f i n d the clues as the story i s pieced together. 31. Maybe, that's what the author wants to happen? 32. Adam i s f i n a l l y making some moves. 33. I was getting so impatient with him b/c he kept denying everything. 34. I wonder what the parents would do i f they knew what Adam knew? pp. 91-101 35. the tape on these pgs. was very confusing. 36. Was i t just c o i n c i d e n t a l that Adam had been waiting a l l day to speak to Amy & when he f i n a l l y can, he gets the wrong number? 37. The shots & p i l l s - what do they do to Adam? 38. Do they make him relaxed? pp. 102-115 39. Those three boys are pretty low to do something l i k e that -running Adam o f f the road. 40. I f e e l sorry for him b/c a l l he's doing i s bringing 41. Why does Adam always sing that stupid song? pp. 116-127 42. I can t e l l something's going to happen! 43. I think Adam sings that "Farmer i n the D e l l " b/c his l a s t name i s Farmer and i t reminds him of his family. pp. 128-144 44. I l i k e d t h i s chapter the best i n the book. 45. I t explained b a s i c a l l y a l l my questions that I had before. 46. I think Adam was r e l i e v e d to know. 47. But w i l l t h i s hinder & be a burden to him l a t e r on i n his l i f e ? 48. I r e a l l y think that t h i s doctor that Adam talks to i s a fake! pp. 145-150 49. I am getting sick of writing i n t h i s response journal. 50. I just want to keep on reading. 51. At times you get so involved with the story that you don't want to put i t down to write. Page 201 52. Anyways, the more I read, the better I understand. 53. But I've got to say that t h i s i s a very confusing author. pp. 151-160 54. This doctor i s very pushy! 55. I understand j u s t about everything I've read except for the doctor business. 56. The family was sure r e s t r i c t e d i n what they could do. 57. I bet the dad wishes he had never come across those records and f i l e s . 58. B r i n t i s a jerk, pp. 161-171 59. This chapter was b a s i c a l l y l i k e a l l the other ones. 60. I think that Adam i s becoming suspicious of the doctor. 61. The doctor won't t e l l Adam anything but Adam has to t e l l him everything. pp. 172-191 62. Here Adam ju s t about uncovers who or what the doctor i s . 63. I t i s getting more e x c i t i n g now. 64. "THE PLOT THICKENS" 65. I hope to f i n d out who the doctor i s because i t r e a l l y bothers me. pp. 192-210 66. Adam must f e e l r e a l l y lonely. 67. I f I was to do what he does, I think I would prepare more and at l e a s t take a fr i e n d or something. 68. It must have been disappointing to not fin d the motel there. 69. I think what happened was strange but maybe Adam has been drugged & unconscious by the doctor i n those couple of years. 70. There i s something very strange about "Grey." 71. I don't think he i s who" he says he i s ! 72. I t must have been sad to see his mother die. 73. But what about Adam? 74. Gray k i l l e d them. 75. I'm almost p o s i t i v e , that that's the voice he heard! 76. Who's the doctor? pp. 211-220 77. Adam didn't a c t u a l l y go to see his father because his father wasn't at the h o s p i t a l . 78. This i s t o t a l l y confusing! 79. Did Adam dream a l l this? 80. That's the only explanation I can think of b/c i t ju s t doesn't otherwise make sense. 81. The l a s t couple of pages are confusing too. Page 20 2 APPENDIX 0 READING RESPONSE LOG A HERO AIN'T NOTHIN' BUT A SANDWICH ANNETTE pp. 9-15 1. I f e e l sorry for Benjie, even though he wishes people wouldn't. 2. He says he's not hooked on drugs but because he says that I know he i s for sure. 3. I l i k e the way Benjie t a l k s , his slang, mixed up words, but sometimes It can be hard to understand. V pp. 16-33 4. I t seems that at one time Benjie was a r e a l good k i d , bright, with a loving family. 5. Now he has a "broken" home and has gotten into drugs maybe because his l i f e seems so bad he can't face i t . 6. His f r i e n d Jimmy-Lee i s r e a l l y the lucky one. 7. He gets good grades, has his family and doesn't care for the high, fuzzy-headed f e e l i n g of pot. 8. Benjie's bad l i f e j u s t seems to go more downhill as he gets into drugs. 9. An innocent c h i l d lured (pushed) into i t . 10. the Grandmother seemed l i k e j u s t an old person who doesn't r e a l l y hear, see or think. 11. But i n t h i s chapter you f i n d out more about her. 12. She can and does think. 13. She i s wise i n her old age. 14. Too bad people don't l i s t e n to her a l i t t l e more, pp. 34-50 15. I f e e l sorry for Bernard Cohen, the white teacher. 16. Maybe i t ' s because I'm white too, but i t seems that he just t r i e s to mind his own business, but other teachers s t i l l hassle him. 17. I think Nigeria Greene i s too strong. 18. His ideas to end black segregation are good but he pushes too hard. 19. He shoves i t down his students' throats. 20. I'm wondering who the"hero" i s going to be, i f there i s one, i n t h i s story and w i l l he save Benjie before i t ' s too late? 21. I don't thing Bernard Cohen or Nigeria Green w i l l be the hero. Page 20 3 pp. 50-65 21. Benjie seems mto be more mixed up than anyone thought, even me. 23. He " f a l l s asleep" i n c l a s s even. 24. I think the p r i n c i p a l could do a l i t t l e more for his school/students, at l e a s t be more interested i n them instead of wishing so badly for retirement. 25. I p r e d i c t that Butler (step father) w i l l be Benjie's hero, pp. 67-84 26. Benjie mentions i n t h i s section that " i n t h i s world hero's are nothin' but sandwiches." 27. I t makes me wonder what he means by i t and how i t i s r e l a t e d to the t i t l e . 28. I t seems that Butler Craig has given up and moved out, but I think he'11 be back. 29. I'm confused about what's happening with Benjie, he sto l e Butler's s u i t . 30. I suppose he ran away from home, pp. 85-100 31. I found out Benjie s t i l l l i v e s at home. 32. The fortune t e l l e r that Mrs. Johnson (Craig) took Benjie to was i n t e r e s t i n g . 33. I wonder i f that r e a l l y works or not, the things t h i s fortune t e l l e r does. 34. I kind of doubt i t . 35. Bejie's f r i e n d , Jimmy-Lee Powell, does seem to have everything going for him, except wanting to leave his family. 36. At l e a s t Jimmy Lee knows what he wants and donesn't want. 37. Benjie keeps saying he's not hooked, that just makes one more sure that he i s hooked. pp. 101-121 38. I wonder why Benjie t r i e d to s t e a l that toaster from Emma Dudley, maybe just to get some att e n t i o n from Butler. 39. I knew Butler would be the one to sabe Benjie, but I don't figure that Benjie would try to k i l l himself. 40. Actually i t was a good thing he t r i e d i n a way because Butler saved him and knows the pieces of a l l t h e i r l i v e s . 41. (Benjie, Butler, Rose) are coming together. pp. 122-127 42. I think Jimmy-Lee's father i s a nut, a very crazy person. 43. This l a s t chapter i s r e a l l y the "tear-jerker." 44. Benjie i s going to be a l l r i g h t because someone believes i n him and he believes i n himself. Page 204 45. I also understand the t i t l e better now. 46. Heroes or c e l e b r i t i e s are sandwiches or nothing s p e c i a l . 47. People l i k e Butler, straightforward, hard-working and r e a l l i f e , are the REAL heroes. Page 205 APPENDIX P READING RESPONSE JOURNAL A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA TRACEY Section 1 - "Warriors i n the Mist" 1. The book, seems very i n t e r e s t i n g . 2. Ged i s only a c h i l d when he discovers his power, which must have been hard for others i n the town to believe. 3. He could have been a f r a i d of t h i s power but seems to be excited. 4. I l i k e the way the authro says that she/he? i s going to t e l l about the time before a l l the songs, poems, storys, etc. 5. I think that sometime Ged w i l l return to the town now that he's been taken away by his teacher of wizardry. Section II - The Shadow 6. I think that Ged gets f r u s t r a t e d with Ogion because he doesn't learn anything r i g h t away. 7. This g i r l seems dangerous. 8. maybe she i s some type of witch or something. 9. yes, she i s a witch or almost a witch. 10. Her mother i s . 11. When he has to go on the ship, I think he i s going to miss Ogion, even though he seems excited to further his knowledge. 12. He i s on the ship for such a long time. 13. I expected about two weeks or so, and he's on i t for a couple of years. 14. I think that the ship might somehow appear again i n the story. Section III - "School for Wizards 15. I wonder why he couldn't pass through the door to the school on the f i r s t t r y . 16. I noticed that when he gets trhough, he understands the language of the b i r d and water. 17. Now he meats someone his own age. 18. Good for him. 19. He must be nervous because he doesn't know anyone but Jasper. 20. I think the older men that sat i n p a i r s must be teachers or wizards for the boys to learn from. 21. I wonder i f there's a g i r l there! 22. What does t h i s f a t guy mean about the food a c t u a l l y s t i c k i n g to your r i b s , and i t not being an i l l u s i o n ? 23. How come they're not allowed i n "Imanent Grove?" 24. Why can't Ged do these things l i k e make water from nothing, or bees from d i r t ? 25. Yes, those men with the grey cloaks are teachers, sort of. Page 206 26. This old language b i t i s confusing about foam, seafoam, inner sea, etc. 27. Extremely confusing, p. 60-61 28. I hope Ged gets back at t h i s Jasper guy. 29. I don't l i k e him. SECTION IV 30. I s t i l l don't l i k e Jasper. 31. & I f e e l sorry for Ged because his f r i e n d i s studying with Jasper i n that medow and he's not allowed i n there. 32. F i n a l l y , he's progressed to be regarded as above the other boys. 33. I predict something w i l l happed bad because i t says "This he did without knowledge of the archmage, and unwisely, yet he ment no harm." 34. Now he's done i t . 35. He j u s t made a black thing appear and attack him j u s t to prove something to t h i s Jasper character. 36. Now he's extremely s i c k . 37. I hope he's s a t i s f i e d . 38. 0 This i s scary! 39. He's f i n a l l y getting better now but now I f i n d out that he can't leave Roke because that shadow i s out i n the l i t e and i t ' l l be looking for him. 40. I t ' s nice that Vetch t o l d him his r e a l name. 41. I think that, that i s a big p o s i t i v e thing to happen to Ged. 42. The only way Ged can get r i d of the shadow beast i s to do i t himself. 43. He seems a f r a i d but not enough to quit. 44. I don't know how he's gonna guess the mage's name (Master Doorkeeper). 45. He doesn't guess his name. 46. He gives up and the mage t e l l s him, but now he's going out to the world and i s n ' t that shadow beast going to possess him? 47. I'd never read t h i s book In the dark! SECTION IV - "THE DRAGON OF PENDOR" 48. These people on Roke a c t u a l l y believe i n dragons. 49. I guess they r e a l l y e x i s t i n the story. 50. I got the impression they didn't. 51. I r e a l l y wonder about his shadow - i s i t coming a f t e r him or what? 52. Here comes the beast. 53. I t ' s reaching out. 54. This reminds me of nitemare's I've had s i t t i n g up a l l n i t e . 55. He's going to Pendor, where a l l the dragons are! 56. What s t u p i d i t y ! 57. These wizards seem i n d e s t r u c t i b l e . 58. They have a s p e l l for everything. 59. He destroys 5 dragons by looking at them. 60. He must be brave. 61. I couldn't handle any. 62. This huge one "jokes" around with Ged and pretends to be his Page 207 frie n d . 63. This language b i t and the dragon (large) being able to l i e i s scary. 64. I'm also glad that "G" made t h i s dragon swear and keep his oath. SECTION VI - "HUNTED" 65. I've not started the chapter yet but I pre d i c t that h e ' l l be hunted and conquer t h i s beast he's l e t loose. 66. This shadow has a grudge. 67. I t won't even l e t him s a i l i n a boat. 68. I t sounds mighty scary. 69. Now he probably HAS to f i g h t his shadow. 70. I think that he w i l l defeat i t with knowledge and not sorcery. 71. I t says, " I t (the waiting) was past bearing" for him and also for me t 72. [MENTAL NOTE - don't read t h i s book at n i t e , i t ' s scary!] 73. I think that t h i s guy "dressed i n grey who c a r r i e d a s t a f f THAT WAS NOT A WIZARD'S STAFF." 74. I think he's j u s t muet his shadow. 75. Oh, great! 76. As I said before, t h i s book keeps you on edge for four chapters. 77. I bet the shadow thing i s a l i e . 78. This guy i n grey i s d r i v i n g me nuts. 79. Ew, gross the guy's face s h i f t e d . 80. HE HAS FINALLY MET THIS SHADOW! 81. I knew i t . 82. I t was th i s guy i n the grey! 83. Ha. 84. He beat that thing. 85. Every time I read about i t , I hate i t more. 86. He l o s t his l i t t l e pet. 87. I hate that beast for making him lose his l i t t l e otak. 88. I don't t r u s t t h i s rock or t h i s tower or th i s lady. 89. I wonder i f he l o s t his power. 90. He seems very weak. 91. I HATE t h i s lady. 92. that STUPID SHADOW k i l l e d his pet. 93. I HATE i t . 94. I'm glad that he went back to his i s l a n d . 95. This Ogion guy gives him the fa c t s , true facts and he goes for i t . 96. He's gonna see the thing. 97. H e ' l l be the challenger now. 98. (Good) SECTION VIII 99. I don't think i n t h i s book he w i l l ever get this, shadow. 100. I'm bored waiting. 101. Good n i t e . 102. I wonder why these 2 people l i v e alone on t h i s island? Page 20 8 103. I don't think. L.G. (author) would do that for no reason. 104. That r i n g has something to do with his shadow. 105. It' s running from his now. 106. I hope he k i l l s i t . 107. The i s l a n d seems scary. 108. I'm glad he turned or 109. oh no the shadow i s there. 110. I hope he k i l l s i t . 111. He didn't r e a l i z e that a shadow l i k e smoke, cannot be grasped. 112. But how would i t mutilate him i f i t was only a shadow? 113. The chicken never evkr got r i d of the thing. 114. He should c a l l i t up and speak to i t . 115. Maybe ask i t what i t s problem is? SECTION IX - "IFFISH" 116. I'm glad he met his f r i e n d again. 117. I think I said somewhere he would. 118. I t ' s great that he's met his f r i e n d . 119. Maybe t h i s w i l l keep .hat thing away now because he's happy. 120. He won't have dread i n his heart so he won't be a f r a i d . 121. I'm glad that Vetch i s going with Ged to get r i d of the shadow. 122. The l a s t 7-8 pages have not been very e x c i t i n g . 123. But now they are seeing an i l l u s i o n of land or something. 124. Now I wish the author would make him get r i d of his shadow. 125. I understand the descending order now 1. Jasper 2. Dechuarry 3. Skiorh & the shadow 126. I wonder i f they are the same person? thing? 127. He did i t . 128. I'm now done t h i s book. 129. Observation: The shadow was Ged's own death which he would f i l l i n when he died.. 130. & he (the shadow) was c a l l e d up early and was therefore angry so i t wanted to f i l l Ged's body and k i l l his true soul. Page 209 APPENDIX Q I AM THE CHEESE (CORMIER) GRADE 9 UNIT QUESTIONNAIRE M. KOOY Please look a t v t h e fo l lowing questions and answer them CAREFULLY and as FULLY as you can. I t w i l l help me in not only examining what we have done with I Am the Cheese, but w i l l a lso help me make improvements where necessary. Thank you for your he lp . 1. What i s your genera l , OVERALL impression of (a) the book (b) d i scuss ions (c) a c t i v i t i e s 2. Did you appreciate th i s way of teaching a novel? This approach? EXPLAIN. 3. What was your f i r s t impression of I Am the Cheese? That i s , how d id you l i k e the book when you f i r s t s tar ted reading i t ? 4. E x p l a i n how you respond to the book now. How do you fee l about i t ? 5. We used the "Response Journal" as an a c t i v i t y WHILE you were reading the book. EXPLAIN the "Response Journal" from your point of view. (a) How d id you go about responding? What d i d you DO as you made an entry into the journal? (b) How d id i t he lp /not help your reading? (c) What funct ion d id the journal serve for you in reading the book? (d) Did the journa l he lp /not help your l earn ing about the book? Page 210 (e) Did you ever go back and read what you had w r i t t e n e a r l i e r ? Why? Why not? ( f ) Would the j o u r n a l be a good way to read a l l books f o r E n g l i s h c l a s s e s ? Why? Why not? (g) Did you l e a r n / n o t l e a r n from the j o u r n a l ? E x p l a i n . 6. What d i d you l e a r n about r e a d i n g LITERATURE through t h i s u n i t ? 7. Did our approach d i f f e r from o t h e r ways of r e a d i n g a cla s s r o o m novel? E x p l a i n c a r e f u l l y . 8. Were our c l a s s r o o m d i s c u s s i o n s h e l p f u l to your understanding? How? Why? 9. Did the f i l m v e r s i o n o f the book extend your understanding? Was i t h e l p f u l ? Would you recommend i t f o r the next time t h i s book i s taught? 10. What was your f a v o u r i t e p a r t i n the I Am the Cheese u n i t ? 11. What was your LEAST f a v o u r i t e p a r t . What should we have done i n s t e a d ? 12. Did the cl a s s r o o m work prepare you f o r the exam? E x p l a i n . 13. Would you recommend t h i s book to a f r i e n d , r e l a t i v e , parent? Why? Why not? 14. Do you have any oth e r s u g g e s t i o n s , comments or h e l p f u l h i n t s f o r t h i s u n i t ? Page 211 APPENDIX R RESPONSE COMPARISONS; AVERAGE TO INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES Percentage of Total responses I Am the Cheese A l l students 1* 2* 3* 4* 5* 6* 7* J. 16.5 14.1 17.6 17.4 11.5 12.2 19.5 23.1 E. 15.5 18.8 18.8 20.3 14.4 6.1 12.2 18.0 F. 11.6 10.6 5.9 7.2 6.7 12.2 14.6 24.0 N. 10.8 20.0 8.2 2.9 11.5 14.3 10.6 8.2 B. 8.1 1.2 0 4.3 35.6 0 13.8 1.6 K. 7.9 14.1 7.1 14.5 4.8 8.2 4.1 2.5 A. 6.1 8.2 5.9 7.2 2.9 15.3 .8 2.5 *1. Grant *2. J e s s i c a *3. Annette *4. Tracey *5. Marleen *6. Miranda *7. Gordon A Hero Ain't Nothin' But a Sandwich A l l students 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N. 20. 3 24.7 11. 1 19.4 34.6 18.8 18.0 15.5 A. 17.8 24.7 25.4 14.5 1.3 23. 2 17.0 8.5 B. 12.1 2.2 1.6 6.5 6.0 7.2 27. 0 38.0 0. 9.2 14.0 7.9 9.7 9.4 4.3 14.0 5.6 J. 7.8 7.5 7.9 19. 4 4.7 5.8 . 5.0 4.2 A Wizard of Earthsea A l l students 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A. 22.1 33.3 29. 9 16. 7 23. 4 21.0 19.7 1. 2 N. 11.9 11.8 4.6 24. 4 9.1 21.9 10. 2 8.3 J. 9.6 11.4 11.5 6.4 13.0 7.6 8.8 8.3 B. 8.9 1.9 1.1 21.8 13.6 6.7 14. 3 1.7 E. 8.3 5.7 1.1 5.1 1.9 5.7 1.4 36. 7 Page 212 APPENDIX S RESEARCH QUESTION ONE: RESPONSE PATTERNS PURVES AND RIPPERE CATEGORIES: OVERVIEW OF RESPONSE 100 - engagement-involvement 400 - Evaluation 200 - Perception 500 - Miscellaneous 300 - Interpretation RESPONSES TO I AM THE CHEESE Name Statements 100 200 300 400 500 Annette 52 21 10 13 8 0 Je s s i c a 67 7 44 12 1 3 Tracey 91 4 72 11 0 4 Marleen 82 17 31 30 1 3 Miranda 102 5 65 20 2 10 Gordon 83 10 59 14 0 0 Grant 63 11 32 20 0 0 540 75 313 120 12 20 Percentages 13.8% 58% 22.2% 2.2% 3.5% RESPONSES TO A HERO AIN'T NOTHIN' BUT A SANDWICH Name Statements 100 200 300 400 500 Grant 79 29 22 28 0 0 Annette 57 10 13 27 7 0 Je s s i c a 46 27 12 7 0 0 Tracey 136 24 52 57 3 0 Marleen 57 17 23 14 2 1 Miranda 88 14 44 20 9 1 Gordon 62 8 39 10 5 0 525 Percentages 129 205 163 24.5% 39% 31% 26 5% 2 . 4% Page 213 RESPONSE TO A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA Name Statements 100 200 300 400 500 Grant 83 43 22 18 0 0 Annette 59 11 19 21 8 0 Je s s i c a 69 32 22 10 1 4 Tracey 126 59 46 16 0 5 Marleen 83 29 34 18 1 1 Miranda i l l 34 48 21 7 1 Gordon 45 8 31 6 0 0 576 Percentages 216 222 110 17 37.8% 38.8% 19.2% 3% 11 1.9% 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078299/manifest

Comment

Related Items