A Response to “A Response-Based Approach 

to Reading Literature”

Judith Langer’s article “A Response-Based Approach to Reading Literature” was very interesting and engaging while discussing the different processes of involved with understanding given literature. It was when I read...

 “ Research Indicates that literature is usually taught and tested in a nonliterary manner, as if there is one right answer arrived at through point-of-reference reading or writing” (Langer), 

that I literally froze and became almost inadvertently concerned and very confused. It made me question everything I have observed thus far in my student teaching observations and classroom/educator interactions.

That quote literally perplexed and twisted my mind on so many levels. I had to read it several times to make sure I wasn’t imagining what I had just read or at least misinterpreting it. The fact that  educators could ever even think to assess literature in a nonliterary manner makes no sense. We try and teach our students to use different points of view and think complexly constantly digging deeper in search of more in depth meanings or underlying points that could potentially be present. The search for a deeper meaning and more complex thinking is destroyed by assessing it in the opposite way. To assess fact is one thing but to assess opinions or points of view after reading apiece of literary works cannot be treated the same. Each student is going to interpret things differently especially when reading literature. Some may be affected one way while others another. That piece is out of our control. 

Directing learning in search of meaning while reading can be orientated as suggested in the text in two forms: literary orientation and discursive orientation. Literary being used to place a reader in a characters actions or life from a psychological or social perspective in which you read from. Discursive orientated reading looks to facts and details in a more research based form; question and answer. This approach is more specific and, in my opinion, the assessable form of reading literature. When I think about assessing literature I always think about written response that is more so assessing a thought process. Looking for more complex thinking and dissection of the content the literature is presenting. Literature can be assessed from a discursive oriented perspective if that is applicable to the literature. Characters, dates, locations and details as such can be assessed through a one right answer standpoint. As far as assessing why a character is the way they are based on text based information or what they might do in a given scenario; that is not only a loaded question but a very in-depth question that requires analyzing a piece of information from a multitude of perspectives. True false questions cannot be used to answer questions regarding issues in the literature that can be looked at through different view points in the reading. If this is going to be done, the point of view must be established and the question must follow. 

There is a reason that we have Common Core State Standards for BOTH Literature and for Informational Text. They must be assessed in different ways because they are involving two separate types of reading and meaning.  The shift from focusing on textural content to actually focusing on the way a student interprets and understands the text is going to develop and encourage student growth on a deeper thinking and learning level which the CCSS's are looking for. Assessing them off of their individual understanding and analyzing is where assessment and response post literary study should be and should have been. Realistically it is what makes sense. 

The sad truth that I felt while reading this text was that what determines which orientation and what determines which method of learning or assessment is used is a direct reflection (seemingly) on the teacher and their level of commitment and effort. Assessing a student on their understanding and their analyzing or thinking and determining growth takes a lot more time, energy, and dedication from a teacher than giving fact based, true/false, nonliterary assessments. Directing learning in a literary formation requires more guidance and engagement from the teacher because it is asking the students to dig deeper than surface level, get creative and really be engaged in the literature which at times, is a difficult task. Dealing with discursive approaches to literature, hopefully informational text, is someone easier because there are going to be factual details to the reading that are concrete and do not require a deeper understanding or study to be had. Dates and places are easy to assess on a test because there are right and wrong answers. Looking at students thinking and processing is time consuming and is original from each student because not every student is going to think or perceive literature the same way. Literature and perspectives taken by students will make them feel certain ways or connect them to memories that are specific to them. It is a more original form of thinking that shows process and that process is where assessment should be.

As educators, we need to be teaching our students to decipher between the types of literature and the approaches or forms of reading in which they can orient themselves to before they begin engaging themselves in the reading. We should teach the how to take positions and develop opinions or literature in addition to showing them how to think critically and develop their own understandings while reading. It is important for students to know what they need to be looking for before they begin reading. If they are researching and using the text for discursive purposes, they need to know how to pull facts, quotes, and necessary information from the text rather then developing an opinion and investigating different situations, points of view, or characters. The framework of optional strategies Langer provides is an excellent guide to guiding students in the direction and mindset they should be approaching the text with.