Running head: DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE

Directed Learning Experience:

Reader Response Theories and Pedagogies

Aliza Robinson

University of Nevada Las Vegas

DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
2

Directed Learning Experience:

Reader Response Theories and Pedagogies

The process of meaning making between reader and text, efferent and aesthetic responses

to text, use of background schemata to create meaningful interpretations, literacy driven insights;

What is Reader Response and how does it stand out from Epistemology, Transactional, and

Schema theories? How has Louise Rosenblatt made lasting changes to the way literacy

professionals view literacy instruction? How does the focus on response to reading affect student

learning? What does the Reader Response Theory look like in the classroom? These were the

driving questions for my research. I aim to explain the importance of the Reader Response

Theory, why Reader Response is a valuable tool, and what Reader Response looks like in the

classroom.

Basic Tenets & Theorists

In order to understand the Reader Response Theory, it is important to understand its

influences and relation to other theories. Often times, the Reader Response Theory is used in

conjunction with theories related to constructivist and social learning lenses (Tracey & Morrow,

2017). In articles, such as the one by Hodge, Feng, Kuo, and McTigue (2016), a distinction is

made between the Reader Response Theory and Transactional Theory; Reader Response Theory

views the reader as the foci, whereas Transactional Theory emphasises the text. In other works,

the Reader Response Theory and Transactional theory are used interchangeably and often

together. For the purposes of this paper, the Reader Response Theory will be referred to as a

separate and distinct theory.

DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
3

Epistemology & Reader Response Theory

The Reader Response Theory, which focuses on the formation of meaning between the

reader and text, is very closely related to Dewey’s Epistemology; “Dewey’s Epistemology

writings, implies that the ‘self’ of the reader and the text are more flexible, taking on their

character during the process of reading” (Connell, 1996, p. 395). Connell points out, Dewey’s

epistemology was the guiding philosophical reference for Rosenblatt’s reader response theory

(1996). The transactional theory revolves around the text-reader relationship and the knowledge

constructed between the two.

Rosenblatt’s Reader Response Theory

Rosenblatt’s Reader Response Theory adopts the reader as the main foci and the

experiences or schemata the reader brings. Tracey and Morrow state, “Based on the idea that

every individual is unique with regard to what constitutes his or her schema in any particular

area, Rosenblatt argued that every reading experience is therefore unique to each individual as

well” (2017, p.63). Rosenblatt believed the reader experiences two responses to reading; efferent,

the understanding of factual information and aesthetic, personally and emotionally based

responses also known as “literacy evocation” (Tracey & Morrow, 2017). Rosenblatt later

introduces the “critical” response to reading in which the reader adopts the position as text critic.

The reader uses their background knowledge to analyze the ideas presented in a text and form

unique opinions and positions, independent of outside influences(McLaughlin & DeVoogd,

2004). The focus on the reader’s past experiences, or schemata, “...can be seen as earlier

experiences that students re-actualize in order to make meaning in a new situation” (Rudsberg,

Ostman, & Ostman, 2016, p. 714). Reader’s are using their past experiences to construct new
DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
4

ideas therefore the experience of the writer (author) is different than that of the reader when

transacting with the same text (Hodges et al., 2016).

Social Constructivist Theory & Reader Response Theory

Tracey and Morrow make the point, “...all readers have individualized reading

experiences because each reader has unique background schemata,” therefore an emphasis is

placed on constructing meaning through the analysis of background knowledge and information

presented through text. (2017, p. 63). When readers collaborate to discuss and co-construct

meaning from experience, and text, this leads to social construction or social constructivist

theory. “Social constructivist theory argues that knowledge is co-constructed within a social

activity and evolves through negotiation” (Kiili, Laurinen, Marttunen, & Leu, 2012, p. 450).

Pedogogical Approaches

From an educator’s perspective, many theories can and must be utilized when

incorporating the Reader Response Theory in practice; ideas rooted in the affective lense,

engagement theory, schema theory, social constructivist theory, and new literacies theory are

utilized in conjunction with the reader response theory. A meta-analysis conducted by Stahl,

McKenna, and Pagnucco, found reading programs that utilize an eclectic approach to be most

effective:

Such a program might include a great deal of attention to decoding, especially in the early

grade, but would give greater emphasis to the reading of interesting and motivating texts.

Such a program might include open-ended tasks and discussion about literature but also

might include some specific instruction about comprehension strategies. (1994, p.182)

Rosenblatt’s Reader Response Theory is not the only theory that makes up an effective literacy

block, it is complimented by ideas from other theories and models.

DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
5

Engagement

A study conducted by Guthrie and Klauda found, a conjunction of motivational-

engagement supports combined with strategy instruction for informational texts in history,

increased comprehension more strongly than TI (Traditional Instruction) (2014). This study was

conducted using Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) in which competence support:

providing choice, emphasizing importance of reading, and arranging collaboration are utilized.

The elements of CORI can be employed to maximize the effectiveness of the Reader Response

Theory.

Schema

Tracey and Morrow make the point that Rosenblatt’s Reader Response Theory is

foundationally supported by the schema theory in that each reader has a unique experience with a

text, given their distinctive schemata (2017). These unique experiences can be explored and

explained by students and the teacher within the classroom. Before reading, special attention to

the purpose should be made clear to students; “we must remember the different purposes of

reading informational texts and literature when designing lessons for our students” (Tracey &

Morrow, 2017, p. 64). When working with an informational piece, the instructor may want

students to focus on efferent responses and when working with a literary piece, the instructor

may want students to focus on aesthetic responses. Bringing attention to the purpose of the text

may allow for more effective use of meaning making during the reading process.
DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
6

Social Constructivism

Tracey and Morrow (2017) make the point that the Reader Response Theory is rooted in

constructivism given the nature of meaning making from the interaction of the reader’s

experiences and text. This concept can be taken a step further by incorporating the social

constructivist theory; literacy instructors who allow for student discourse based on efferent and

aesthetic responses are incorporating both the reading response and social constructivist theory.

Rudsberg et al. state, “...when making meaning a student actively operates on other students’

utterances by extending, criticising or refining their arguments” (2016, p. 728). The influence of

peers’ responses will, in turn, lead to a “reactualization” for the individual student’s meaning

making processes.

New Literacies Theory

Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, and Henry make the point that “literacy has also become

deictic because we live in an age of rapid idly changing information and communication

technologies, each of which requires new literacies” (2013, p.1). In an attempt to keep up with

the ever changing demand of technology, teachers may choose to incorporate technology in pair

with the Reader Response Theory. Studies have focused on the effectiveness of incorporating

technology in student responses and discussions. Kiili et al. (2012) compared individual reading

with collaborative online reading and report, students spent a “substantial” amount of time

collaborating on content processing and collaborative knowledge construction. The students

participating in collaborative online reading spent three times as much time, as students working

individually, on the construction of knowledge.

DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
7

Classroom Application

I have utilized the Reader Response Theory in my classroom since before I understood I

was using the Reader Response Theory in my classroom. My students are expected to respond to

texts from both efferent and aesthetic positions in a number of ways. I have chosen three modes

of reader response (reading response journals, threaded discussions, and face-to-face discussions)

that best represent this theory in my instructional practices. I expect students to respond to their

nightly readings in a response journal, respond to daily read-alouds through threaded digital

discussions, and respond to guided readings in face-to-face peer discussions, on a daily basis.

Reading Response Journals

Each of my students were given a composition notebook at the beginning of the year with

the title: Reader Response Journal. Inside of this journal we glued the requirements of their

responses as well as reading response strategy sentence starters (e.g. making connections, asking

questions, inferencing, etc.), as they are introduced. Each night, my students are required to read

with their families for twenty minutes; students may read to a family member/pet, be read to by a

family member, or simply interact with a book for the allotted time. After their reading, they are

expected to write a response to their text in this journal. The majority of my students choose to

write text-self and text-text connections in their response journals. Many of my students include

an illustration with their work as well. Each morning I either stamp their writing or write a quick

response and have a very short conversation about what they read the night before.

These journals keep students accountable for their nightly readings, allow me to stay an

active participant in their readings, and allow students practice in creating meaning making with

a variety of texts of their choosing.

DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
8

Threaded Discussions

For my own research, I have decided to conduct a small study based on the Reader

Response Theory, in my own classroom. My driving research question: “What are the effects of

online threaded discussions on 2nd graders’ development of higher level discourse?” As my

intervention, I have incorporated daily threaded discussions based on a common text and

explicitly taught comprehension strategies.

I started by choosing a demanding novel within my students’ zone of proximal

development that I felt would challenge their current levels of comprehension. Each day I read

one chapter from the book while modeling self-selected comprehension strategies. Students are

then expected to participate in a series of four literacy stations; one of the literacy stations is the

threaded discussions station. At this station, students are required to ask a “thick” question (we

discussed the difference between concrete, text-based questions and questions that require

thought provoking responses) on Monday. On the following days, students are required to write

responses (one a day) to their peers using the Restate Answer Cite Explain (R.A.C.E.) strategy.

In responses, students are required to restate their peers’ question, answer the entire question, cite

evidence from the book, and explain their evidence.

My students are at the beginning stages of this process and still require many supports to

develop their discourse skills. This will continue as an ongoing process throughout the school

year. My students are, by no means, independently proficient at holding response based

discussions in threaded format, but I have seen growth in their abilities. In a study done, that

compares face-to-face conversations to threaded discussions, found, “While higher-order

thinking may (or may not) occur in the classroom, the evidence does appear to support earlier

studies that students involved in threaded discussions are exhibiting higher-order thinking,
DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
9

especially by contributing comments that are explanatory (51%), integrative (22%), or resolution

(7%)” (Meyer, 2003, p. 63). Not only are students creating their own meaning in response to text,

but individual students’ meaning is being affected by peers and vise versa.

Face-to-Face

I teach at a school in which the majority of students are English learners (EL) and our

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium SBAC proficiency rate is shockingly low. These two

facts, among other reasons, make it especially important for my students to interact with a

variety of texts in a meaningful way, every single day. My students are asked to respond to texts

throughout the day and discuss their thoughts with peers. Eighty-three percent of my students are

ELs, their language development is supported through the use of sentence stems, cooperative

learning strategies, and visual aids.

My students participate in peer discourse through partner, small group, and whole group

discussions. I may have students share a personal connection with a text quickly with a partner

and then allow students to share their partner’s ideas with the class. I conduct daily discussions at

my small group table during literacy stations in which we utilize sentence stems and graphic

organizers. We also incorporate Socratic Seminars in which students are discussing/proving

perspectives based on critical questions about our common text.

To help my students vocalize their thoughts, I provide specific sentence stems and more

broad sentence stems. Often times, I will ask a question and give my students a specific sentence

stem to utilize in their pair discourse. Other times, it is up to my students to use our “Discourse

Moves” (sentence frames created to continue discussions and build upon ideas) poster and pick

out an appropriate sentence stem to respond to peers. We also create “Anchor Charts” that

provide students with learned vocabulary and curricular concepts.

DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
10

Cooperative learning strategies are a big part of our classroom that promote student

discourse. These cooperative learning strategies strategically organize student discourse in a way

that all students participate in the conversation. Not only do these strategies allow for my

students to respond to texts, but my students are responding to math problems, science

observations, and social studies events.

Assessment

Given the nature of the Reader Response Theory, assessment goes beyond a checklist

approach. Rosenblatt’s Reader Response Theory focuses on an individual’s experience with a

text and the meaning they take away from the text. The driving question behind assessment of

the Reader Response Theory could be represented as “What meaning making, if any, is the

reader achieving with a text?” Each individual has their own set of schemata, and therefore, each

individual will have a different experience with each text. Hodges et al. make the point, “Rather

than being judged as either right or wrong, reader’s responses are respected and examined

individually for their values” (2016, p. 4).

We must then analyze what the idea of “value” is representative of. According to

Rudsberg et al., meaning making is categorized into three different categories, intrapersonal,

interpersonal, and institutional (2016). The Reader Response Theory focuses on the individual’s

experience with a text, so for the purposes of this paper, we will focus on the intrapersonal

dimension. Given the similarities of Epistemology, Transactivity, and Reader Response Thoery,

the Practical Epistemology Analysis (PEA) may give a fair representation. Rudsberg et al. (2016)

utilizes the concepts of encounter, gap, stand fast, relation, and meaning. These ideas are

depicted by the following questions:

DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
11

With whom and with what does the student interact? What is that is not understood or

makes sense? What is already known in the situation? How does the student connect

earlier experiences to what is new in the encounter? What kind of meaning is created in

this process? (p. 717).

The five analytical concepts within PEA give a roadmap to the process the reader

experiences when encountering a text. The assessment is then relevant during the last

component, meaning. What meaning has been created within the process of reading and

processing? According to Rudsberg, “If a student fills a gap by construing relations that enable

him or her to move forward in the activity in a way that is in line with its purpose, we can say

that learning is taking place” (2016, p. 716). It is then the instructor’s responsibility to provide

the means that allow students to prove the “filling of gaps,” or construction of meaning in a

concrete format.

Application of Assessment

In order to assess the construction of new knowledge, evidence must be collected to

prove that “a student fills a gap.” There are certain tools that can be utilized to show evidence of

learning. Some of these tools may include the Know, Want to learn, Learned (KWL) Chart and

reader response journals/ reading logs.

KWL. The KWL chart is a tool/graphic organizer that allows students to organize their

thoughts in a concrete manner. Before reading, students write down what they already know (K)

about the topic and what they want to learn (W) about the topic. In this sense, students are

retrieving knowledge that they feel may connect to the text before they begin reading. After, or

during, the reading process students then write down information they have learned (L) about the
DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
12

topic. To dive even deeper, teachers may request that students correct any misinformation they

may have placed in the “K” section of the graphic organizer/chart.

The KWL chart allows students to organize information in a concrete manner, and thus

may be suitable for primary grades. This metacognitive strategy allows readers to “use their

background knowledge to understand relationships between their ideas and the ideas presented

by the author of the text” (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004, pp. 52-53).

Response Journal/Reading Log. The reading log allows students to write down

thoughts they have, during reading and as they occur. These thoughts are represented as

questions about the text, text-self connections, text-text connections, text-world connections, and

inferencing (Tovani, 1998). Journals allow the teacher to view the students’ thoughts in a

concrete manner. Evidence of growth and deeper connections can be recorded over time and kept

as evidence.

Conclusion

The Reader Response Theory is used in conjunction with many other theories such as

Social Constructivist Theory, Schema Theory, New Literacies Theory, Transactional Theory, and

engagement theories. The Reader Response Theory thus, can be manipulated to fit the needs of

the instructor through the use of various instructional methods (threaded discussions, face-to-face

discussions, and reader response journals). It is important that the instructor make clear the

purpose of readings to bring attention to efferent versus aesthetic responses. These responses

should be analyzed for proof of construction of knowledge in collaboration with readings.

Rosenblatt’s Reader Response Theory has since been extended to include a critical stance

on the efferent-aesthetic continuum. Readers are encouraged to analyze the position of the

author, utilize personal knowledge, construct new meaning and seek alternative explanations
DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
13

(McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004). The versatility of the Reader Response Theory has allowed

instructors to incorporate this theory in new and engaging ways. Just as Rosenblatt’s theory has

evolved in the past, it may continue to do so with the help of future research.
DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
14

References

Connell, J. (1996). Assessing the influence of Dewey’s Epistemology on Rosenblatt’s Reader

Response Theory. Educational Theory, 46(4), 395-413.

Guthrie, J., & Klauda, S. (2014). Effects of Classroom Practices on Reading Comprehension,

Engagement, and Motivations for Adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly,49(4), 387-

416.

Hodges, T., Feng, L., Kuo, L., Mctigue, E., & Serpa, S. (2016). Discovering the literacy gap: A

systematic review of reading and writing theories in research. Cogent Education, 3(1), .

Leu, D., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. (2017). New Literacies: A Dual-Level

Theory of the Changing Nature of Literacy, Instruction, and Assessment. Journal of

Education, 197(2), 1-18.

McLaughlin, Maureen, & De Voogd, Glenn. (2004). Critical Literacy as Comprehension:

Expanding Reader Response. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1), 52-62.

Meyer, K. A. (2003) Face-To-Face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-

order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 7(3), 55-65.

http://itecideas.pbworks.com/f/v7n3_meyer.pdf

Rudsberg, Karin, Östman, Leif, & Aaro Östman, Elisabeth. (2017). Students' Meaning Making in

Classroom Discussions: The Importance of Peer Interaction. Cultural Studies of Science

Education, 12(3), 709-738.

Stahl, S., Mckenna, M., & Pagnucco, J. (1994). The effects of whole-language instruction: An

update and a reappraisal. Educational Psychologist, 29(4), 175-185.

Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2017). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and

models. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

DIRECTED LEARNING EXPERIENCE
15