Love all of this—especially over break when I have a bit more space to breathe and imagine in my reflecting.
What would you say are the 4-5 essential "theory methods" that you present to your students as far as how they can enter into and work with a given text?
Great question! I’m actually diving into that more next week. As a preview, I’ll say it’s mostly two things. First, I introduce my students to literary theory shortly after the Eaglestone article. I have an activity I can send you using some literary theory one pagers I made. Those different theoretical schools then become “buckets” for the second step—introducing concepts (power, desire, gender roles, etc) and frameworks that students can apply to a variety of texts. On a lesson plan level, it looks like using a combination of videos and short articles to build students’ knowledge about potential themes/lenses they could apply to whatever texts we’re reading.
Definitely open to those resources—as I wanted to lean into theory in an upcoming unit in February! (But also can wait until next week's post, too, if that's easier. Enjoying this series a ton.)
I love all of this! I wish cultivating literary interpretation and cognitive apprenticeship would trickle down into elementary schools. I hate being forced to teach using basal readers, making students read non-literary texts and answer comprehension questions. 😣
Well, it seems like you’re still doing some awesome work despite the constraints. In fact, I thought you taught middle school at first! If my post piqued your interest, consider checking out some research on disciplinary literacy for primary learners. This article is a good start.
Thank you for sharing this - really useful and thought-provoking. A couple of questions that I found myself puzzling over in looking at the framing of the third slide:
1. On noticing: when do we start by asking students what they see and when do we start by explaining the kinds of things that they might be looking for? Or to put this somewhat differently, when is it good to start with their present encounter with the text and when is it good to start with the practices of the discipline? ("What do you see when we look at this?" vs. "How is the author using figurative language in this passage?")
2. When is it good to bring identifying and analyzing together and when is it good to keep them apart? To be a little more pointed, when is it good to make time to *just* notice, to observe without analyzing (yet)?
3. What makes a question productive? How do we talk with students about this? (And why am I not entirely comfortable with that word?)
4. On theorizing: I'm getting stuck on the idea that theorizing involves using concepts from *other* disciplines to analyze literary texts. When is it useful to emphasize this kind of borrowing from other disciplines, and when is it useful to foreground the kinds of theory-making that authors, critics, teachers, and students themselves do?
These are fantastic questions, jwr! I'll answer them as best I can, but they're all definitely things I'm still working through myself.
1) I think it's context dependent. Sometimes I want my students to experience a text and other times I want them to interrogate it. There are pros/cons with starting with each, but I do think that over time what students "see" will become just as much of a product of their disciplinary training as their own personal wonderings. In an ideal world, those two stances begin to seep into each other in ways that create new modes of "seeing" that are simultaneously conditioned by the discipline and deeply personal.
2) When introducing students to a new aesthetic form, I often start with just noticing. For instance, when teaching film/art I'll ask students to begin by focusing purely on what they see. Generally, this works best for visual mediums. I do try to give them some vocabulary though, as being able to name elements of form often helps them notice more than they would otherwise. Again, there's pros/cons to foregrounding organic vs. conditioned responses to texts and I think both have their place.
3) I understand the hesitancy considering its a term that's tainted by instrumentalized, business-like discourses that emphasize productivity. In this case though, productive means they are questions that have a point, purpose, and/or direction that is personally meaningful to the student posing it. While there might not be any such thing as a "bad question" there are questions that are more or less useful in helping students develop a line of inquiry and form an interpretation. E.g. I wonder how Jack's repressed fear is impacting his violent tendencies? vs. What if Piggy had a black belt in karate and could fight Jack?
4) This one is the trickiest! I've hashed this out with folks in my department too and there were a lot of different opinions. The hardest part is the fact that literary studies is SUCH a weird, heterogenous discipline that its hard to tell where it ends and where other disciplines begin. For instance, when interpreting character motivation aren't we kind of leaning on psychology? When analyzing power dynamics between a husband/wife aren't we kind of leaning on gender studies? Can we teach The Bluest Eye without discussing race? Great Expectations without mentioning class? I mean sure, we could *ONLY* focus on aesthetic form, but to what end? Teaching form is vital, but strict "the text itself" New Criticism approaches to literature have been dead for decades (everywhere except secondary ELA classrooms, sadly). Of all of them, I think theorizing would manifest itself in idiosyncratic ways based on context, grade level, teacher expertise/interest, etc.
1. Your points about context and shifts over time are definitely well-taken. Time is a constraint that I've been thinking about more and more in my own teaching, and time constraints (and other circumstances) have led me to prioritize building an interpretive community *within* my classes more than building connections *between* my classes and the academic discipline of literary studies. (Not "to the exclusion of", just "more than.")
2. I agree that "just noticing" tends to work better with more visual stuff. Interesting to think about why.
3. I think I might prefer "meaningful", then, personally, but this does raise the question, meaningful to who and in what way? I guess I'd say meaningful in the way that literature and literary criticism are generally meaningful, which is to say interpersonally - to the writer, in this case, the study posing the question and forming the interpretation, but also their audience, in this case, other students and me. Having a conversation about what we find meaningful is a big part of the point.
Considering the two illustrations: I definitely have students who would find the Kung Fu Piggy reading way more engaging! And honestly, if a student came up with that kind of reading in class, I would be more than happy to run with it. Sure, it breaks some of the conventions of academic literary discourse, but sometimes that kind of rule-breaking can take you in interesting directions: a little creative mischief, some insight into the student's genuine response, perhaps even some critical thinking about why the rules of the game are the way they are and what happens if we decide to play differently. (The game, in this case, being both Golding's novel and academic literary discourse.)
4. Sounds like a great conversation to have within a department! Thinking about the questions that you're asking here, I'm put in mind of Kundera's essay "The Depreciated Legacy of Cervantes", where he argues (very roughly) that literature offers a distinct and necessary way of understanding our lives in the world. Without subscribing to everything that Kundera has to say, I find this perspective on literature personally compelling. Following that line of thinking, I'd argue that when we think about why characters do what they do (for example), we are exploring human psychology *as it is explored through literature.* While we can bring that literary exploration into dialogue with the academic discipline of psychology (for example), dialogue is different from dependency: literature offers its own way of knowing. (Intending "literature" in the broadest possible senses here, which is probably one of the key places where I'd differ from Kundera.)
Thanks again, you've given me a lot to think about! (And I'll check out the link.)
I'd bet you'd dig this article from Lim, Cope, and Kalantzis. It perfectly frames out the affordances/constraints of the different "knowledge processes" teachers can foreground in their lesson design.
Love all of this—especially over break when I have a bit more space to breathe and imagine in my reflecting.
What would you say are the 4-5 essential "theory methods" that you present to your students as far as how they can enter into and work with a given text?
Great question! I’m actually diving into that more next week. As a preview, I’ll say it’s mostly two things. First, I introduce my students to literary theory shortly after the Eaglestone article. I have an activity I can send you using some literary theory one pagers I made. Those different theoretical schools then become “buckets” for the second step—introducing concepts (power, desire, gender roles, etc) and frameworks that students can apply to a variety of texts. On a lesson plan level, it looks like using a combination of videos and short articles to build students’ knowledge about potential themes/lenses they could apply to whatever texts we’re reading.
Definitely open to those resources—as I wanted to lean into theory in an upcoming unit in February! (But also can wait until next week's post, too, if that's easier. Enjoying this series a ton.)
I love all of this! I wish cultivating literary interpretation and cognitive apprenticeship would trickle down into elementary schools. I hate being forced to teach using basal readers, making students read non-literary texts and answer comprehension questions. 😣
Well, it seems like you’re still doing some awesome work despite the constraints. In fact, I thought you taught middle school at first! If my post piqued your interest, consider checking out some research on disciplinary literacy for primary learners. This article is a good start.
https://www.edutopia.org/article/disciplinary-literacy-empowers-elementary-students/
Thank you for sharing!
Thank you for sharing this - really useful and thought-provoking. A couple of questions that I found myself puzzling over in looking at the framing of the third slide:
1. On noticing: when do we start by asking students what they see and when do we start by explaining the kinds of things that they might be looking for? Or to put this somewhat differently, when is it good to start with their present encounter with the text and when is it good to start with the practices of the discipline? ("What do you see when we look at this?" vs. "How is the author using figurative language in this passage?")
2. When is it good to bring identifying and analyzing together and when is it good to keep them apart? To be a little more pointed, when is it good to make time to *just* notice, to observe without analyzing (yet)?
3. What makes a question productive? How do we talk with students about this? (And why am I not entirely comfortable with that word?)
4. On theorizing: I'm getting stuck on the idea that theorizing involves using concepts from *other* disciplines to analyze literary texts. When is it useful to emphasize this kind of borrowing from other disciplines, and when is it useful to foreground the kinds of theory-making that authors, critics, teachers, and students themselves do?
These are fantastic questions, jwr! I'll answer them as best I can, but they're all definitely things I'm still working through myself.
1) I think it's context dependent. Sometimes I want my students to experience a text and other times I want them to interrogate it. There are pros/cons with starting with each, but I do think that over time what students "see" will become just as much of a product of their disciplinary training as their own personal wonderings. In an ideal world, those two stances begin to seep into each other in ways that create new modes of "seeing" that are simultaneously conditioned by the discipline and deeply personal.
2) When introducing students to a new aesthetic form, I often start with just noticing. For instance, when teaching film/art I'll ask students to begin by focusing purely on what they see. Generally, this works best for visual mediums. I do try to give them some vocabulary though, as being able to name elements of form often helps them notice more than they would otherwise. Again, there's pros/cons to foregrounding organic vs. conditioned responses to texts and I think both have their place.
3) I understand the hesitancy considering its a term that's tainted by instrumentalized, business-like discourses that emphasize productivity. In this case though, productive means they are questions that have a point, purpose, and/or direction that is personally meaningful to the student posing it. While there might not be any such thing as a "bad question" there are questions that are more or less useful in helping students develop a line of inquiry and form an interpretation. E.g. I wonder how Jack's repressed fear is impacting his violent tendencies? vs. What if Piggy had a black belt in karate and could fight Jack?
4) This one is the trickiest! I've hashed this out with folks in my department too and there were a lot of different opinions. The hardest part is the fact that literary studies is SUCH a weird, heterogenous discipline that its hard to tell where it ends and where other disciplines begin. For instance, when interpreting character motivation aren't we kind of leaning on psychology? When analyzing power dynamics between a husband/wife aren't we kind of leaning on gender studies? Can we teach The Bluest Eye without discussing race? Great Expectations without mentioning class? I mean sure, we could *ONLY* focus on aesthetic form, but to what end? Teaching form is vital, but strict "the text itself" New Criticism approaches to literature have been dead for decades (everywhere except secondary ELA classrooms, sadly). Of all of them, I think theorizing would manifest itself in idiosyncratic ways based on context, grade level, teacher expertise/interest, etc.
Appreciate the thoughtful response!
1. Your points about context and shifts over time are definitely well-taken. Time is a constraint that I've been thinking about more and more in my own teaching, and time constraints (and other circumstances) have led me to prioritize building an interpretive community *within* my classes more than building connections *between* my classes and the academic discipline of literary studies. (Not "to the exclusion of", just "more than.")
2. I agree that "just noticing" tends to work better with more visual stuff. Interesting to think about why.
3. I think I might prefer "meaningful", then, personally, but this does raise the question, meaningful to who and in what way? I guess I'd say meaningful in the way that literature and literary criticism are generally meaningful, which is to say interpersonally - to the writer, in this case, the study posing the question and forming the interpretation, but also their audience, in this case, other students and me. Having a conversation about what we find meaningful is a big part of the point.
Considering the two illustrations: I definitely have students who would find the Kung Fu Piggy reading way more engaging! And honestly, if a student came up with that kind of reading in class, I would be more than happy to run with it. Sure, it breaks some of the conventions of academic literary discourse, but sometimes that kind of rule-breaking can take you in interesting directions: a little creative mischief, some insight into the student's genuine response, perhaps even some critical thinking about why the rules of the game are the way they are and what happens if we decide to play differently. (The game, in this case, being both Golding's novel and academic literary discourse.)
4. Sounds like a great conversation to have within a department! Thinking about the questions that you're asking here, I'm put in mind of Kundera's essay "The Depreciated Legacy of Cervantes", where he argues (very roughly) that literature offers a distinct and necessary way of understanding our lives in the world. Without subscribing to everything that Kundera has to say, I find this perspective on literature personally compelling. Following that line of thinking, I'd argue that when we think about why characters do what they do (for example), we are exploring human psychology *as it is explored through literature.* While we can bring that literary exploration into dialogue with the academic discipline of psychology (for example), dialogue is different from dependency: literature offers its own way of knowing. (Intending "literature" in the broadest possible senses here, which is probably one of the key places where I'd differ from Kundera.)
Thanks again, you've given me a lot to think about! (And I'll check out the link.)
I'd bet you'd dig this article from Lim, Cope, and Kalantzis. It perfectly frames out the affordances/constraints of the different "knowledge processes" teachers can foreground in their lesson design.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Metalanguage-for-Learning%3A-Rebalancing-the-with-Lim-Cope/d8596708e1a1870727a3625402584ca0794901b6