In an effort to touch on the many (sometimes very unrelated) things that have come to mind as I’ve read The Literature Workshop, I am once again going to create a list. This time the list will consist of my responses to a few quotations that strike my fancy.

1) “Student readings […] often differ not as a consequence of ideological or theoretical or even cultural differences, but as a consequence of inattention, inexperience, or ignorance (among other causes)” (190).

I like this point because I agree that it is our responsibility to educate students on the difference between misreading or “pseudoliteracy” and expert readings. By giving them a safe and conducive environment in which to practice their reading and writing, we help to improve their “performative literacy,” teaching them how to go off on their own to read as experts themselves. Blau proposes a great deal of useful classroom strategies for (1) modeling and teaching the kind of close reading (to combat inattention), (2) exposing them to a multitude of relevant and difficult texts (to combat inexperience), and (3) encouraging students to experiment with literary endeavors, even in the face of failure or ambiguity (to combat ignorance). I’m a huge fan of this kind of approach because it doesn’t dumb literature down, but it does make learning more accessible for all students.

2) “The decision on how much historical or contextual information it is necessary for a teacher to give to students in order to foster rather than preempt their autonomy as readers is one that each teacher must make based on a knowledge of the students as well of the texts being taught” (200).

This is something we have already talked about in class. I really have a hard time deciding just how much context to give my students prior to reading certain books, especially since the AP exam only gives them so much background, too, on the exam readings (if any background info. at all). This year, I have started to give more contextual information this year than before, but Blau makes a good point that we, as teachers, have to know our students and the texts being taught before we decide what to tell them ahead of time. I also think that, like one of the pieces we read earlier in the semester pointed out, we need to remember that our students (at least in my case) are in high school, and they cannot be expected to read as experts just yet.

3) “While reading, interpretation, and criticism define the overt focus of instruction in the academic discipline of literature, they also analogously describe the sort of critical thinking that is required for responsible intellectual participation in most civic, economic, and moral transactions and in virtually every academic discipline and learned profession” (204).

I completely agree, Blau! Teaching students the kind of higher-level analysis necessary for good literary responses certainly will aid them to think critically in other aspects of their lives. I wonder, however, if the same is not true for any academic endeavor which can, in turn, teach students to think critically. Of course, I am partial to the teaching of literature, but I also wonder whether critical thinking in other core classes (and even electives) might serve the same kind of purpose. Either way, I completely agree with Blau here.

Overall, I am a huge fan of Blau’s book. I feel confident that there are a number of activities in his book that I will incorporate into my own classroom.