Tag Archives: Louise Rosenblatt

Efferent vs. Aesthetic Reading

There was definitely a lot in The Literature Workshop that I identified with and enjoyed.  The transcriptions of the workshops are great models to use in the classroom, even if I realize I will not be getting quite the same level of response/cooperation as Blau’s students.

I agree with Nikki that although I read a lot of educational theory back in college it all seemed alien to me as I did not have any real world context to place it in.  For example, I know that I read Rosenblatt in college, but I do not really remember much of what she said.  Reading the summary of her ideas about efferent and aesthetic reading in Blau’s book (145-147) now, as someone with classroom experience, I am able to relate to it, and agree that it is one of the fundamental problems I run into as an English teacher.

“Why are we reading this?” “What are we supposed to be getting out of this?”  I am inundated with these questions on a daily basis.  The question as always been so hard to answer and annoying to me because to me it seems obvious: we are reading this because it is literature and the experience is supposed to enrich your lives.  I have tried to tell students that reading literature is all about the experience, about appreciating the language, of relating to a piece of art, of connecting to humanity via shared experience, and so on.  Nope.  They are not buying it.  “What are we supposed to get out of it?” really means “What will be on the test?”

Until I read this passage it never dawned on me that English class is really the ONLY place this students are expected to read aesthetically.  They have to read in every other class, but in every other class they are being trained to read efferently.  I am the only in that classroom who primarily reads texts that are meant to be read aesthetically.  It made me realize that I should be more forgiving of my students and their need to know “what they are supposed to be getting out of it.”

However, as Blau points out, testing for aesthetic reading is remarkable difficult.  There are the state mandated tests that are more efferent that aesthetically based.  There is also a push for common curriculum and common assessments in many school districts.  In my experience common assessments lead towards a “correct reading” of a text, and therefore a more efferent reading.  There is also administrative pressure for crunchable data on assessments.

I guess I should focus on what I can change, as the I do not see the educational system moving away from collective testing anytime soon.  What I need to do in my classroom is incorporate as much of Blau’s ideas about enriching a literary experience for students while also making sure that my students are prepared for the types of assessments that are mandated for secondary students these days.

How do I love thee, Literature Workshop? / Let me count the ways:

  1. Non-threatening Approach:  People often talk about “bad teachers,” but Blau doesn’t assign blame.  He explains that although some traditional teaching practices are flawed, teachers don’t rely on them for malicious reasons.  Now, instead of thinking of these people (and myself) as “bad teachers,” I realize they are (I am) simply misguided.  Call me needy, but I appreciate reassurance that my intentions are good—otherwise I couldn’t stand such prolonged (and painful) reflection on my own practices.
  2. Ironic Paradox of Teaching (55):  Teachers learn more than students when “teaching” a lesson.  I’ve never thought about it quite like this before, but it’s certainly true.  It makes me wonder how so many otherwise “good” teachers can be fooled into thinking they’re doing the teaching, not the learning.  This one idea alone is enough to turn my basic approach in the classroom upside down.
  3. Memorable Sayings:  Blau uses expressions from other scholars to summarize his own arguments, specifically, Newkirk’s “looking for trouble” (24) and Rosenblatt’s contention “that taking someone else’s interpretation as your own is like having someone else eat your dinner for you” (25).  These two sayings will help me apply Blau’s concepts in my classroom because they are easy to remember and clearly encapsulate his ideas.
  4. Two Terms:  “pseudoliteracy” (27) and reading “dysfluency” (30).  I had never come across these ideas stated like this, but I could immediately apply them to what I see in my classroom on a daily basis.
  5. Personal Reflection:  Blau refers to many other scholars throughout TLW, some of whom I remember from my undergrad days.  I pulled out some old books (Rosenblatt in particular) and reflected on my English Ed courses back then.  I’m learning so much more now than I ever did as an undergrad because it’s hard to understand educational theories when you have no concrete experiences to apply them to.  Now, as I read TLW, I’m picturing my students (past and present) in the workshops.  I’m hearing the types of comments they make and envisioning how I can encourage them based on what I know about my teaching environment and myself as a teacher.
  6. “Responsible” Teachers:  Blau questions what it means to be a “responsible” teacher:  “The conventional idea . . . is that a responsible teacher will [answer all possible questions before assigning a reading] as if reading is . . . a process in which one never experiences frustration and . . . always understands everything immediately” (41).  Blau’s suggestion certainly isn’t conventional.  I never thought about providing crutches to students as doing them a disservice, but now I see that it enables them to continue hobbling along lamely with weak skills.  This is going to be a struggle for me because it’s so different from what teachers are tacitly taught to do, but now that I’m aware of the harm of enabling, I can work to improve my methods.
  7. Poetry Workshops:  They’re fantastic!  I was so intrigued by the workshop for “My Papa’s Waltz” that I did an experiment of my own.  Both people I asked to read the poem explained their interpretations apologetically (as if they knew they must be wrong because I, the English teacher, had read the poem differently).  This shows me even intelligent adults believe there is one “correct reading” of a poem.  (The workshops also reminded me that I enjoy poetry a lot more than I usually think I do.)
  8. Transcription of Workshops:  This method enabled me to picture the workshops in my own classroom.  I could even identify my real students by the types of comments made by S1, S2, etc.  I felt like a fly on the wall, and I could see myself in the role of both teacher and student.
  9. Two Disciplines of Interpretation:  Textual evidence and evidentiary reasoning (75).  The next time someone argues that if there is not one correct reading, then any reading could be correct, I can show him this explanation.  Blau outlines the parameters of legitimate interpretation very clearly.
  10. Background Information & Intentional Fallacy:  Excellent practical examples of how background knowledge and the author’s intention do and do not affect students’ readings of a text.  The Roethke discussion and Sir Phillip Sidney exercise were very helpful.