Inspired by Blau, but sensing some contradiction

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Blau’s work, and I know that I will continue to refer to his book and work to implement his workshop ideas and writing assignments in my classes. I would love to know about even more of his writing assignment ideas!

Although it seems to be very time-consuming, Blau’s Reading Log assignment sounds very beneficial. My students have “Writer’s Notebooks,” but I give them prompts, and the entries are not nearly as regular as Blau’s Reading Log entries. While I see benefits to the Writer’s Notebook entries (and my students have acknowledged benefits in their end-of-the-year course evaluations), I’m interested in trying Blau’s approach. I am also a fan of his Interpretation Project because it touches on so many skills, and I would love to be able to incorporate his grading and portfolio ideas into my classes! (Any thoughts on how to adapt the portfolio assignment for high school classes?)

I’m also interested in trying his Reading Process Research Report. At the beginning of each school year, my IB students have a “Processes of Reading and Writing” assignment in which they reflect on how they approach texts and writing about those texts. Blau’s assignment is much more authentic, though, since students are actually working through an analysis of a text while reflecting on their process. I plan to revise my assignment and adapt Blau’s. I do not think I will adopt his “twist” on the assignment, though, where he has students share their writings and then allows them to revise their papers (171-2). It seems that the purpose of the assignment is to see where students are in their analytical process at the beginning of the school year. I don’t want to see their “tainted”/influenced interpretations or approaches—I want to see theirs!

On this note, I sense a bit of a contradiction in Blau’s ideas and assignments. At some points he seems to encourage students to use outside sources (collaborating with colleagues on the Reading Process Research Report, stating that research is not prohibited for “The Interpretation Project,” etc), but then he is also critical of students using Cliffs Notes or similar resources as it can result in borrowed, “unearned” interpretations, which Rosenblatt says is “like having someone else eat your dinner for you” (187-8). Am I missing something? Obviously, students should be able to enter the conversation of literary interpretation and respond to other interpretations in a “they say/I say” way (term borrowed from Graff). But I feel that Blau is sending mixed messages. Shouldn’t we start with students’ “untainted,” uninspired-by-outside-source interpretations? How do we balance?