RESPONDING TO TEXT AND WHY THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS ARE RIDICULOUS

IT’S ALL ABOUT ME

I recently was out walking with my wife Dr. Nancy Fitzsimons. She was in the process of writing a book, The Danger of the Single Story of Disability, Vulnerability, and the Single Solution of Protection. Here she details the abuses that take place with people who have disabilities and the systems and thinking that are locked in place that enable these conditions to continue. As I am a relatively good spouse and extremely interested in her work, I was reading through her book as she was in the final stages of preparing the manuscript. She is an exceptionally good writer and thinker (bias noted) and as such, her writing was stirring up emotions in me.

As we were out walking the dogs one evening, we started talking about her book. I began to share similar things I had experienced and relating how some of the very things she was writing about were occurring to me at the university at which we both work. I did not realize she was getting exasperated with me (a common occurrence). Finally, she turned to me and said, “Does everything have to be about you?” 

I did not have a ready answer in the moment (another common occurrence), so I did some think-O-rating on this question, “Does everything have to be about me?” I will answer this question below – but first.

LITERATURE AND EXPLORATION

In the classic book, Literature and Exploration, Louise Rosenblatt distinguished between two different kinds of approaches and responses to text: efferent and aesthetic. These two approaches and responses are described here: 

An efferent approach and response. In an efferent approach to reading, the reader focuses on details or information found in the text. When reading expository text (informational text), we want students to take an efferent approach. This is because the purpose for reading expository text is to gain information or construct new knowledge related to things in the text. To do this, a comprehension strategy is usually used to enable readers to focus specifically on the content or information presented.

Similarly, in an efferent response to text, the reader identifies salient or important details or information found within the text. An efferent response is appropriate when students read textbooks, articles, or news. 

An efferent approach and response to narrative texts. An efferent approach to reading narrative text (stories) would have the reader focus on story details or information found in the text. An efferent response to narrative text would have readers recount story details and information. However, this is highly inappropriate (silly). Why? Because the purpose for reading narrative text (stories) is to enjoy the story, not to recount story details. This is why we read stories. In the real world, when we go to bookstores and libraries, we look for good books to read and enjoy. We do not read the Harry Potter books to gain information (an efferent approach), rather, we read them to enjoy the story, to experience a magical world, to watch the drama unfold, and to relate to familiar characters. We care nothing of plots and themes and resolutions as such. Reading is a pleasurable act - until teachers make it not pleasurable by demanding efferent responses. 

CCSS. Some of the Common Core State Standards require an efferent response to narrative text. Figure 1 contains some of CCSS English Language Arts Standards related to Reading: Literature.  While these might be interesting activities or things to address in a reading workshop or a literature-based approach to reading instruction, insisting that all students (or any student) demonstrate mastery of these standards is patently absurd. It shows that these literacy standards were put together by literacy amateurs. When in your adult life, have you been asked to do any of these things? If I was reading a good book, and somebody asked me to “Acknowledge differences in the points of view of characters, including by speaking in a different voice for each character when reading dialogue aloud,” or to “compare and contrast the themes, settings or plots of stories written by the same author,” or to “Determine the theme of a story”, I would most likely tell you to go away so that I could enjoy the story.

As stated previously, in our real-world adult lives we read narrative texts for the sole purpose of enjoying them. Anything else distracts from this purpose. The CCSS standards in Figure 1 are all examples efferent responses to narrative text. Teaching and expecting mastery of any of these standards is ludicrous because it takes time away from reading, enjoying stories, and talking about good books, and they have nothing to do with how real people approach narrative text.

An Aesthetic approach and response. In an aesthetic approach to reading, the reader focuses on being engaged in the experience of reading and living through the events being described. An aesthetic response is when the readers makes a personal and emotional connection with the characters and drama unfolding. In short, you enjoy the very act of reading. As described above, stories are to be read to be enjoyed. That is exactly why we read them. Nobody reads a good book to distinguish a point of view or to compare and contrast patterns of events. 

Demanding that students describe story details and themes and plots is a form of gentle interrogation that should not take place. Could you imagine coming out of a movie theater and somebody insisting that you recount for them the plot and resolution? Or identify the theme of the movie? Or describe a character and explain how their actions contribute to the sequence of events? You would most likely tell that person to go away (or much worse). But if somebody asked you what you thought of the movie (or a book) or which were your favorite parts, you would most likely have much to say.

Two Big Ideas

1. Literacy standards should not be designed by literacy amateurs (as literacy standards most often are). There are some things that should be left to educational professionals (like classroom teachers).

2. In our approaches to literacy instruction, we must always focus on real world macro goals for reading vs. artificial micro goals. When reading narrative text, the macro goal is for students to be able to read and enjoy the story. When reading expository text, the macro goal is for students to read and understand (construct knowledge with) the text. 

IT’S ALL ABOUT ME

Which brings us back to my wife’s question, “Does everything have to be about me?” The answer is, “Yes … when it involves reading.” Good writing of any kind (expository or narrative text), invites readers to think laterally, to make connections to their own lives and experiences. My wife’s manuscript was such. It engaged me in a way that stirred emotions and those emotions made me think of my own lived experiences. I could not help but make connections. As well, the concepts were described in such a way that I was able to use what I already knew to construct new knowledge. So yes, it became all about me.

All About Them

Reading any kind of text can be a powerful experience if students are able to make it all about them. That is, if they are able to make connections with their own lives and lived experiences. We can help them make these kinds of connections by using the types of discussion questions or journal prompts below. 

Expository Text

1. Generate a list of things students know about the topic before reading. After reading, put a check mark next to those things described in the text.

2. Ask students to use a comparison chart or Venn diagram to compare and contrast a concept or construct from the text to a concept or construct from their lives.

3. Given a concept or construct from the text, ask students to identify ways in which it manifests in their lives.

4. Given a concept or construct from the text, ask students to identify similar concepts or constructs in their own lives and experiences.

5. Ask students to describe how they would apply the concept or construct?

Narrative Text

1. Identify an emotion a character felt. Ask students to describe a time or experience from their lives when they felt the same emotion.

2. Identify a story experience or event. Ask students to describe a similar experience or event they have had or observed.

3. Ask students to use a comparison chart or Venn diagram to compare and contrast one of the following: them to another character, a life character to a story character, a life event to a story event, a life setting to a story setting, a life action to a story action, or a life problem to a story problem.

4. Identify a problem in the story. Ask students to work in groups using a problem-solving strategy to solve that problem. Students would then write their solution in a journal or reading log.

5. Ask students to identify and describe what they would do in a similar story situation.

6. Ask students to describe thoughts or images they associate with the story.

Making Connections Right Now

Hopefully, you are making connections right now with this article. Hopefully, you are seeing how these ideas reflect what you are currently doing. Or perhaps, this article prompted some ideas for how you might help students to make personal connections with what they read. If so, my job is done here. Remember, when you read, it is all about you. And when students read, it is all about them.

PODCAST

https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/50743