Journal of Reading Behavior
1991, Volume XXIII, No. 1
THE EFFECTS OF STANCE AND AGE LEVEL ON CHILDREN'S
LITERARY RESPONSES
Joyce E. Many
Texas A & M University
ABSTRACT
The primary purpose of this study was to explore the effects of the use of aesthetic
and efferent stances in response to literature. Subjects included 43 fourth graders,
47 sixth graders, and 40 eighth graders who were reading on-grade level or above.
All subjects read the same three short stories and completed written free responses
to each. Responses were analyzed for reader stance and level of understanding
reached. Two-way analyses of variance revealed significant main effects for stance
and grade on level of understanding for all three stories. The use of an aesthetic
stance, where readers focused on the lived-through experience of the work, was
associated with higher levels of personal understanding. Level of understanding
was also found to increase with grade level. No interaction effects were found,
indicating students' grade levels do not influence the relationship between the
aesthetic stance and higher levels of personal understanding.
In the preface to her book Literature as Exploration, Louise Rosenblatt (1983)
described the literacy experience as follows:
. . . far from being for the reader a passive process of absorption, (the literacy
experience) is a form of intense personal activity. The reader counts for at least
as much as the book or poem itself; he responds to some of its aspects and not
others; he finds it refreshing and stimulating, or barren and unrewarding. Literature
is thus for him a medium of exploration, (p. vi)
Literature from this perspective offers to readers the opportunity for an experience which they can live through and find meaningful in terms of their own ideas,
interests, and needs. Such an emphasis on the reader and the personal nature of
the literary experience provides a backdrop for theory, research, and teaching
focusing on the reader's response to literature (Beach, 1985, 1987; Cooper, 1985;
Corcoran, 1987; Evans, 1987; Holland, 1985; Probst, 1988; Purves, 1985; Rosen61
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
62
Journal of Reading Behavior
blatt, 1978,1983, 1985a, 1986). This perspective, known as reader-response theory
or reader-response criticism, emphasizes the reader's role during the reading of a
literary work and his or her reflection on the work after the reading event.
Unlike the earlier New Critics' perspective, which viewed meaning as being
determined by the text (Richards, 1929), recent reader-response theory elevates the
reader to an equal status with the text in terms of contributing to the meaning of
the literary work (Cooper, 1985). The text to some extent creates the readerstimulating ideas, images, and feelings; while at the same time the marks on the
page become a literary work by virtue of the relationship with the reader (Rosenblatt, 1978). It is the convergence of the reader and text which brings the literary
work into existence (Iser, 1974).
In Rosenblatt's opinion, the reading of all types of texts (fiction or non-fiction)
occurs through this process, which she calls evocation. Where the reading of an
informational text and a literary text differ is in the appropriate approach or stance
the reader should take during the evocation. The stance a reader takes indicates the
focus of attention when evoking a text. An efferent stance indicates the reader is
directing his attention toward the information that is to be taken away during a
reading event. The efferent stance is appropriate for informational texts or when a
text is to be analyzed according to some type of outside structure or criteria.
According to Rosenblatt, the suitable approach to a literary work is the use of an
aesthetic stance. When reading and responding from an aesthetic stance, the
reader's attention is on the evocation, or what happens during the reading event.
The lived-through experience of the work is the center or interest, as the reader
savors the cognitive and affective associations generated by the qualitative aspects
of the text.
Reader-response theory's emphasis of the role of the reader has also resulted
in a valuing of individual interpretations and consequently a new view of the reason
for reading literature. Literature, as events to be lived through, offers opportunities
for self-knowledge and for understanding others (Cooper, 1985). Thus, from a
reader-response perspective, the contention that all readers should reach the same
interpretation or deduce the same theme is no longer valid.
The primary purpose of this study was to examine elementary and middle
school students' response to literature to explore the tendencies of readers at varying
grade levels in terms of the stance taken in their response and the types of personal
understanding reached. Specifically, the following research question was addressed:
What are the effects of the grade of the reader and the degree of aesthetic stance
taken on the reader's level of personal understanding of three short stories?
Research in Reader Response
Although Rosenblatt and other reader-response theorists, researchers, and
teachers have focused on the aesthetic stance as a point of discussion or as an
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Effects of Stance and Age Level
63
underlying assumption in their works (Corcoran, 1987; Evans, 1987; Probst, 1988;
Rosenblatt, 1978, 1983, 1986), only two recent studies (Cox & Many, 1989;
Many, 1990) have examined the reader's use of aesthetic or efferent stance when
responding to a literary work, and no research has been conducted looking at the
stances taken by students at different age levels.
Cox and Many examined the free written responses of 38 above-level fifthgrade students to four novels. They devised data-driven instruments to describe the
stance taken in a response and the level of personal understanding reached. Correlation analyses revealed significant relationships between stance and level of understanding with students responding from an aesthetic stance reaching higher levels
of understanding.
Many's (1990) study analyzed the responses of eighth-grade students to three
short stories. Qualitative analysis of the responses, coded at the extreme ends of
the efferent-aesthetic continuum, revealed the most efferent responses to focus
primarily on analyzing literary elements and to take the form of shallow critiques
describing characterization or plot development as good, bad, boring, or exciting.
Aesthetic responses included accounts of imaging and picturing, of associations
and feelings evoked, and of hypothesizing, retrospecting, and extending. Students
who focused on the aesthetic, the lived-through experience of the story, were
significantly more likely to interpret story events, to apply story events to life, and
to reach abstract generalizations than were students who responded efferently or
with no single primary stance. The fact that the results were significant across story
selections indicates that stance is a factor affecting response to literature regardless
of text.
A study by Galda (1982) investigated the ability of 3 fifth-grade girls to assume
a spectator stance while responding. According to Galda, the spectator stance refers
to the reader's ability to separate himself or herself from the individual events in
the story and to take a holistic look at the literary selection. Galda found the
subjects to demonstrate patterns of response over texts, and that the ability to
assume the spectator stance was necessary for a mature literary judgement. Galda
emphasized the need for more highly structured studies using a larger number of
participants as well as cross-sectional studies to give a clearer picture of the development of mature literary response. Like the spectator stance, an efferent or aesthetic stance is also likely to affect the mature literary response and warrants further
investigation.
Numerous studies have examined the understandings students reach when responding to literature. Applebee (1978) investigated 6- through 17-year-olds' response to literature in what is considered to be a landmark study. Referring to
Piaget's stages, Applebee described the preoperational and concrete operational
child as concentrating primarily on narration, summarization, and categorization.
Not until the onset of formal operations did the student begin to analyze the structure of the work, the motives of the characters, or become involved in the work.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
64
Journal of Reading Behavior
Generalization about the work and consideration of point of view, theme, or the
effect of the work on the reader's own views was associated with only stage two
of formal operational thought (age 16—adult).
Recent studies, examining the interpretative capabilties of elementary age children in terms of their ability to identify morals or themes in literature (Dorfman,
1988; Lehr, 1988), have expanded our perception of younger students' capabilities
beyond earlier beliefs formed by Applebee's study. Dorfman's research indicated
second-grade children to demonstrate a rudimentary ability to generate fable points,
and fourth- and sixth-grade children to be skilled at differentiating texts with points
from no-point texts. By the fourth and sixth grade, students became much more
likely to explain morals using causal relationships between actions and outcomes
and to state points in the form of a moral assertion. Students at all levels were able
to form abstractions.
Lehr (1988) found even kindergarten children capable of making abstract thematic statements about stories. Kindergarten children identified thematically
matched realistic fiction 80% of the time and folktales 35% of the time. When
the kindergarten, second-, and fourth-grade students' thematic statements were
compared with adult statements about the same stories, the majority of the children's statements differed (with more subtle differences at the fourth-grade level)
but the statements were congruent with the text.
Lehr's findings support the reader-response position that readers interact with
the text in their own idiosyncratic ways, building up personal meaning based on
their own knowledge of the world. Younger children processed "meaning in literature with perspectives that differ[ed] from those of adults" (Lehr, 1988, p. 350)
but which still were valid abstractions when examined in light of the text itself.
Approximately half of the second-grade and fourth-grade children who had a background of high exposure to literature were at the levels of analysis and generalization using Applebee's categories (1978), a finding at odds with Applebee's contention that children at the concrete operational stage of thought are unable to
generalize and analyze stories.
Cox and Many (1989) suggested viewing responses in terms of the degree to
which the personal understanding reached by the reader breaks through the boundaries of the text and is applied to life. They define four levels of understanding
based on Applebee's (1978) levels of meaning and Ricoeur's (1976) interpretation
theory. The lower levels of understanding are tied to the world of the text, not
going beyond literal understanding or interpretation of story events. Responses
demonstrating the highest levels of understanding (similar to Applebee's levels of
exemplification and generalization) reach beyond the world of the text and encompass beliefs reached about life.
This study examined the free written response to literature of elementary and
middle school children. Although a large body of research in the area of readerresponse has been conducted, the majority of the empirical research which has
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Effects of Stance and Age Level
65
elicited readers' response to literary works has been carried out with secondary
students and adult readers. Little corresponding empirical research has been undertaken to examine the free response of elementary and middle school readers.
Although Applebee's work did examine the differences in the responses of
children from age 6 through 17, two aspects of that study should be noted when
examining the need for additional studies across grade levels. First, different modes
of response were used across the age levels (oral responses with 6- and 9-year
olds, written response with some 9-year-olds, and with the 13- and 17-year olds).
Applebee noted that comparison of the responses of the 9-year-olds who were
orally interviewed with those who used the written form seemed to indicate that
the written mode elicited a more mature, linguistically more complex response.
Beach (1973) also found the written mode to result in a more interpretative response
when compared with the oral mode.
Second, in Applebee's study students responded to different texts. Studies,
examining the effect of text on response to literature, have found different texts to
produce wide variations in the content of the response of the readers (Golden, 1979;
Johnson, 1983; Purves, 1975, 1981). Purves' research conducted with readers
from 10 countries, found that not only was each text unique in the emotions and
understanding which it elicited but also in the critical perspective which it inspired.
To compare the content of responses across groups of readers, it is therefore important that they are reading and responding to the same works.
Other studies, examining the responses of students across the intermediate
grade levels using identical response modes and identical texts, have analyzed
relationships between reader expectation, comprehension, evaluation, and preference (Cullinan, Harwood, & Galda, 1983); elements of the response (Gentile &
Kane, 1987; Golden, 1979); and understanding of satire (McNamara, 1981). These
studies indicated students in even the third through the fifth grade as capable of
interpreting story events and understanding abstract concepts, but often the younger
students' understandings were framed in simplistic language or they related the
thematic interpretation to their own lives in different ways. Only Gentile & Kane's
descriptive study, however, utilized samples of greater than 12 subjects per grade
level. Although smaller sample sizes may have led to greater in-depth examination
of responses, a need still exists for large-scale empirical investigations which extend
the knowledge base by analyzing the levels of interpretation and factors affecting
interpretations in responses of students at various grade levels.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the written free responses
of fourth-, sixth-, and eighth-grade subjects to three short stories. The free response
format allowed for the gathering of information indicating the range of response
of readers at these ages when reacting freely to a literary work. The importance of
this research is evident, first, in that it examines the relationship between a reader's
stance and the content of his or her response to literature. The theoretical principle
underlying the importance of the aesthetic stance to the reading of and responding
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
66
Journal of Reading Behavior
to a literary work has been used as a foundation for much of the response-based
research and for the teaching of literature and, yet at this time, it has not been
empirically examined across grade levels. Second, a developmental examination
of elementary and middle school readers' free response to literature using a written
response mode is lacking. Such information will allow a clearer understanding of
the differences and similarities between children at these levels in terms of their
response and the understandings they reach about the literary work.
METHOD
Subjects
The population, from which the sample for this study was drawn, consisted of
students (reading on level or above) enrolled in Grades 4, 6, and 8 in the same
school system. A stratified cluster sampling was used by choosing classes from
one elementary and one middle school from a low socioeconomic area and one
elementary and one middle school from a middle to upper socioeconomic area.
Specific classes participating in the study were chosen at random from classes
available at the appropriate grade level(s). A fourth-grade class was randomly
chosen from each elementary school and a sixth- and an eighth-grade class were
randomly chosen from each middle school. All students in each class participated
in the data collection but only data from on-level subjects were used in the data
analysis.
To determine reading ability, scores on the reading portion of the Comprehensive Assessment Program (CAP) given by the school system the previous spring
were obtained from school records. For the purpose of this study, the cut-off score
was the fourth stanine, which is considered in the average range (Louisiana Statewide Norm-Referenced Testing Progam, 1988). For a small number of subjects,
results from the previous year's CAP test were unavailable, but results from a
Stanford reading test given within the last year were examined and students scoring
on-grade level or above were included in the study.
Subjects consisted of 43 fourth graders, 47 sixth graders, and 40 eighth graders, which comprised the on-grade level students found in the six intact classes
participating in the study.
Materials
Three realistic short stories were chosen through a field testing of possible
selections and a pilot study. Research indicates realistic stories to be preferred
reading in the upper elementary grades (Golden, 1979; Purves & Beach, 1972) and
to be easier than folktales for elementary students when trying to make abstract
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Effects of Stance and Age Level
67
generalizations (Lehr, 1988); therefore, the initial chosen selections were realistic
short stories.
Readability estimates (Raygor, 1977) of the selections were used to select
stories with readability levels falling in the upper elementary range. An initial field
testing provided feedback on appropriate length of stories and student interest in
the stories. Considering the results of the initial field testing, six stories were then
chosen for use in the pilot study. These stories were examined by a panel of
reading experts and were rated as above average using a story evaluation instrument
(Sword, 1985) on the criteria of plot unification, plot believability, imaginative
plot, main character portrayal, believability of main character, use of vivid imagery, and establishment of mood.
The final three stories were chosen based on those rated highest by all students
in the pilot study. Student rating was considered of utmost importance in that it
was necessary to find appropriate stories that would be of interest across the wide
range of age levels used in the study. The ratings of the three selected stories
(1 = high, 5 = low) were: The Runaway (Holman, 1976)—2.63; The Dollar's Worth
(Werner, 1979)—2.72; and The Secret of the Aztec Idol (Bonham, 1976)—2.72
(hereafter referred to as The Aztec Idol). Synopses of the stories are found in
Appendix A.
Procedure
For each of the three stories, the subjects read the selection and then wrote a
free response. Data were collected in three separate episodes over a 9-week period:
The order of stories was randomized from subject to subject to account for possible
influence of story sequence on response.
For each session data were collected by the researcher, who followed procedural routines refined during the pilot study. Subjects were issued a story selection
and a packet consisting of loose leaf paper and a rating instrument. All subjects
were instructed to read their story selection and then wait until everyone else was
also finished. Next, instructions for the free response were shown on an overhead
projection screen and read orally by the researcher. Instructions for the free response were based on a free response probe used in earlier research (Cox & Many,
1989): "Write anything you want about the story you just read." Subjects were
allowed as much time as needed for every student to complete the task.
Coding the data. All of the data were coded by the researcher. Independent
raters, trained in the use of each instrument, coded a random sample of 20% of
the data to check for reliability. Interrater reliability was established using the
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. For the holistic rating of stance
the reliabilty was r = . 7 9 ; the rating of level of understanding was r = . 8 1 . The
instruments used to code the responses are described below.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
68
Journal of Reading Behavior
Level of understanding. The responses were classified according to the level
of understanding reached using An Instrument for Rating a Reader's Level of
Personal Understanding (Cox & Many, 1989). The level of understanding rating
indicates the degree to which the response is tied to the story events and the level
of abstraction reached in the response. Level 1 indicates the level of understanding
in the response did not go beyond the literal meaning of the story; Level 2 responses
indicate interpretation of story events; Level 3 responses demonstrate understanding
of specific story events through analogies to the world; and, Level 4 responses
include a generalized belief or understanding about life.
This data-driven instrument was based on Applebee's (1978) levels of meaning
and was informed by Ricoeur's (1976) interpretation theory. According to Applebee, children move from not understanding the meaning of a text, to a literal
understanding, and then to understanding through exemplifications or analogies,
and finally to generalizations.
Ricoeur's interpretation theory was useful in clarifying the distinctions between
responses coded at Levels 1 and 2 and responses coded at Levels 3 and 4. According
to Ricoeur, interpretation occurs through a series of dialectical relationships. The
first dialectic involves the reader's understanding and explanation. When reading
a text, the reader's first understanding is a simple guess as to the verbal meaning
of the text. This is constantly compared with an analytical look at the text, which
attempts to verify the guess by explaining it with textual connections. This type of
understanding, remaining in the confines of the world of the text, is exemplified
by responses coded at the first two levels of understanding (see Appendix B for
subjects' examples). (The world of the text is used here to refer to the evoked
literary world built up by the transaction of the reader and the text.)
Ricoeur's second dialectical stage involves the reader's explanation of the work
and his or her comprehension. In this process of give and take, the referent expands
beyond the text to all possible worlds. Instead of understanding what the work
means in terms of the author's intentions, or the audience to which it was intended,
the world horizon of the author and the world horizon of the reader are combined.
The reader now expands his understanding of what a referent means in the text to
include what it refers to in relevance to other possible worlds.
Responses coded at levels of 3 and 4 exemplify this type of understanding by
leaving the boundaries of the text. Respondents apply story events or abstract
generalizations to their own life or to the world. They consider the story in terms
of their literary or life experiences, sometimes testing the story against their
versions of reality. They extend beyond the world of the text through reference
to their own world, subsequently coming away with new understandings about
themselves, the story, or life (see Appendix B).
Stance. The reader's stance when responding to the literary work was examined
using Cox and Many's (1989) Instrument for Measuring Reader Stance on an
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Effects of Stance and Age Level
69
Efferent to Aesthetic Continuum. Like earlier data-driven methods of classifying
response to literature (Applebee, 1978; Galda, 1982; Purves & Rippere, 1968),
this rating system emerged from the data analysis of subject responses. Construction
of the categorization system was recursive, moving from children's responses to
Rosenblatt's description (1978, 1983, 1985a, 1986) of the aesthetic and efferent
poles of the reader stance continuum. Corcoran's detailing of aesthetic reading as
including "picturing and imaging, anticipating and retrospecting, engagement and
construction, and valuing and evaluating" (Corcoran, 1987, p. 44) was helpful in
delineating responses which focused primarily on the aesthetic stance. Using this
instrument, responses rated on one end of a 5-point continuum indicate a primarily
efferent stance, whereas scores on the opposing end indicate the use of a more
aesthetic stance. Appendix C gives a description of each level on the instrument.
These instruments allow for responses demonstrating from low to high levels
of understanding at both the efferent and aesthetic poles of the continuum. For
example, the following response would be scored at the most efferent stance and
would fall at the lowest level of understanding.
Stance Rating 1—Level of Understanding 1
It was a pretty good story and I enjoyed it. The characters were designed
pretty well but I didn't like the way the plot kept skipping time and not telling
you what was happening. They picked a good setting for a plot like this one.
The analytical critique of the literary elements found in this response is characteristic of many of the responses rated as most efferent. The response is rated at
Level 1 on the level of understanding instrument because there is no evidence of
understanding the story beyond the literal level. In constrast, the next example is
also written from the most efferent stance but it would be scored at the highest
level of understanding. The efferent focus is apparent in that the writer focused on
what was learned from the story, the information carried away from the reading
event. The highest level of understanding is reached, however, because the student
came away with an abstract understanding which was applied to life in general.
Stance Rating 1—Level of Understanding 4
It is a very unusual show. It tells us that we can do anything we want to. It
also tells grownups a thing or two. One of the things it told grownups is: Before
you step ahead make sure you've seen all the details.
At the aesthetic end of the continuum on the stance instrument, responses can
also range in the level of understanding demonstrated. The next example illustrates
a response written from the most aesthetic stance and would be rated at the lowest
level of understanding.
Stance Rating 5—Level of Understanding 1
I really enjoyed reading the book, it kept me curious throughout. After I was
finished I kept going back and thinking about the story. I could picture what was
happening.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
70
Journal of Reading Behavior
This student's emphasis on what occurred during the evocation of the story,
the fact that curiosity was experienced throughout the reading and that he could
visualize the images described, characterize the aesthetic nature of this response.
The response is coded at Level 1 in terms of understanding because the response
gives no evidence of moving beyond a literal understanding of the story.
Finally, as the next excerpt illustrates, aesthetic responses can also demonstrate
the highest levels of personal understanding. Again the student's focus is on what
occurred during the reading event. The reader is deeply rooted in the experience,
to the point of putting herself in the main character's shoes. The generalization the
student reaches, that life can be unfair, is indicative of Level 4 on the level of
understanding instrument in that this is a understanding the student has reached
about life in general as a result of this reading experience.
Stance Rating 5—Level of Understanding 4
I probably wouldn't have handled it as well as the family in the story did
when she died, if my sister or daughter fell out of a tree and died when she was
only eleven. The story really made you sit back and think about how unfair life
can really be.
Statistical analysis. The design for this study was a 3 X 3 (Grade Level X Stance)
factorial. Separate two-way analyses of variance were computed for each story to
test for main effects and for interaction effects of grade and stance on the dependent
variable of level of understanding. For the purpose of the ANOVAs, the variable
stance was converted to a three-level rating and treated as an independent variable.
Ratings 1 and 2 on the stance instrument converted to an ANOVA Level of 1
(primarily efferent), a rating of 3 to Level 2 (neither primarily efferent or aesthetic),
and ratings of 4 and 5 to Level 3 (primarily aesthetic). In the event of significant
F-tests analysis of pairwise comparisons was conducted using Duncan's Multiple
Range Test.
RESULTS
Means and standard deviations for scores on the level of understanding and
stance instruments are reported by grade for each story in Table 1. Because statistical analyses were computed separately for each story, data from subjects who
missed a particular story session were included in the analyses on the remaining
story selections.
Main effects beyond the .05 level significance were found for grade [The
Dollar's Worth, F(2, 120) = 5.68; The Aztec Idol, F(2, 123) = 3.48; The Runaway,
F(2, 126) = 20.67] and stance [The Dollar's Worth, F(2, 120) = 5.64; The Aztec
Idol, F(2, 123) = 6.87; The Runaway, F(2,126) = 19.90] on level of understanding.
This phenomena was consistent across all three short stories.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Effects of Stance and Age Level
71
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Level of Understanding and Stance
Variable
Stance
Level of
Understanding
Stance
Level of
Understanding
Stance
Level of
Understanding
4
M
SD
M
SD
3.05
(1.13)
1.65a
(.70)
(«=40)
M
SD
M
SD
2.76
(1.14)
1.55.
(.99)
(« = 42)
M
SD
M
SD
3.17
(1.24)
1.59,
(.77)
(«=41)
Grade
6
The Dollar's Worth
3.49
(1.37)
2.26b
(.93)
(« = 43)
The Aztec Idol
2.93
(1.36)
1.64,
(.91)
(n = 44)
The Runaway
3.57
(1.57)
2.74b
(1.03)
(n = 46)
8
3.24
(1.42)
2.32b
(.93)
(« = 38)
2.87
(1.34)
2.05b
(1.18)
(TJ = 3 8 )
3.7
(1.45)
2.72b
(1.01)
(7i = 40)
Note. Differences in n across stories due to subject absenteeism. Means with different subscripts differ
significantly at p<.05.
Between Grade Differences
Post hoc analyses using Duncan's Multiple Range test revealed that for the
main effect of grade, fourth graders were consistently lower than eighth graders in
the mean level of understanding reached. Whether sixth graders were similar to
either fourth graders or eighth graders depended on the text (see Table 1).
To clarify the range of the response capabilities, in terms of the level of
understanding demonstrated by subjects at each grade level, a cross tabulation table
by grade and the four levels of understanding is found in Table 2. This table
illustrates the number and percentages of responses across all three stories which
fell at each level of understanding.
Fourth graders in this study clearly demonstrated that they were capable of
going beyond the literal level in their written response to literature. Like Emily,
the fourth grader responding below, 25.2% included some interpretation of story
events. (In response excerpts where a misspelled word is likely to confuse the
reader, the correct spelling is found in brackets.)
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
72
Journal of Reading Behavior
Table 2
Cross Tabulation Table of Total Responses by Grade and Levels of Understanding
Grade
4
6
8
1
73
59.3%
44
33.1%
29
25.0%
2
Level of Understanding
3
31
25.2%
36
27.1%
39
33.6%
15
12.2%
35
26.3%
24
20.7%
4
4
3.3%
!8
13.5%
24
20.7%
I think this story was wonderful. I mostly like the characters, espeacialy
[especially] Mr. Watts. The characters in this story are Trish, Mr. Watts and Mr.
Kirkland. I like the part when she finds the 20 dollar bill and when Mr. Watts
comes back to get it. This story tells you about onasty [honesty] that is why I
like it.
—Emily, The Dollar's Worth (Understanding Level 2)
In 15.5% of the responses, fourth graders were also able to leave the confines
of the text and consider the story in terms of their own world horizon. Johnny, in
the following response excerpt, considers a particular story event in terms of what
should have been done. Alicia, on the other hand, is able to generalize from the
specific happening in the story to construct a more global understanding.
This is a good story to read because it talks about how people feel and how
people treat them sometimes. And running away is not the sloution [solution] for
that. I think that you should talk to your parents about that.
—Johnny, The Runaway (Understanding Level 3)
I like it alot. It has a moral in it, don't take something that you know is
wrong, I like the part were [where] the boy got the idol.
—Alicia, The Aztec Idol (Understanding Level 4)
The tendency to apply the story events to the world increased with grade, with
39.8% of the sixth-grade responses and 41.4% of the eighth-grade responses falling
at Levels 3 and 4. As shown below, responses at Level 3 often take the form of
personal analogies, as students respond to the stories by drawing comparisons to
events or people in their own lives.
I think this story was very realistic. I can defanatly [definitely] relate to this
girls problems. This happes [happens] to me alot. I've almost runaway once,
because I felt crowded. So this story is a really good one to me because its so
down to earth. I liked the fact that she had a pushy friend because I have one too.
this was a neat story because. It was full of realistic stuff and it sort of relates to
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Effects of Stance and Age Level
73
my everyday life. It is what I want in a story. I have many times planed how to
escape or runaway, and I like her because she had some wild ideas. Sometimes I
think up wild stuff but then alwase [always] come back to square one, reality. I
like the way that she felt croweded [crowded] in. I sometimes have this feeling.
I think this was a real good story and I wouldnt mind reading it again.
—Jenny, Grade 6, The Runaway (Understanding Level 3)
It was kind of instering [interesting]. I mean it was also stupid. I would have
killed anybody if they bit me on the leg for no reason. And that chick is going to
cry when she runs away! When I ran I was happy. Plus going over to a friends
house. NO WAY! Man [that] ain't gonna help yo [you] out none. Pluse [plus]
She don't know what trouble is. I been living away from my house for 3'/ 2 years.
For running, stealing, doing drugs, trespazing [trespassing] and vandializing [vandalizing]. She had no reason to go away from home. It was not realistic in some
ways. Well there you have it.
—Stan, Grade 8, The Runaway (Understanding Level 3)
Responses at Level 4 were most frequent at the eighth grade level and they
ranged in complexity at all grades. Some, as shown in the following response from
a sixth grader, did little more than identify the moral which was drawn from the
story experience. As demonstrated in eighth grader Victoria's response, however,
students also articulated mature and sophisticated beliefs about life.
I think that the story was an excellent story, and it had a very good moral to
it. I think the story's moral was, always have proof before you believe. It was
really awsome dood [dude].
—Tom, Grade 6, The Aztec Idol (Understanding Level 4)
This was a good story. It showed two different sides of people. It showed
how the man really felt and how he had to act. Some people don't understand
those two sides. You don't really have to know someone just look at how they
act. If someone acts hyper or shows off, they may not be doing it just because
they want to, but probably because they want some attention.
This man in the story, Mr. Watts, probably wasn't really a mean man, he
just wanted someone to talk to or he was just defending himself so people wouldn't
feel sorry for him. Maybe he didn't want anyone to know he was poor, because
he might have felt ashamed. He also might not really have been prejudice against
girls but maybe something bad happened, that a girl did to him. He might have
even wanted to marry some girl and they wouldn't. But you can't really be angry
with people like that, because if you are a person you should know how people
act.
—Victoria, Grade 8, The Dollar's Worth (Understanding Level 4)
Between-Stance Differences
Post-hoc analyses on the main effect of stance on level of understanding revealed that for all three stories a primarily aesthetic stance (Level 3) was associated
with a signficantly higher level of understanding than responses from a primarily
efferent stance (Level 1) or those which included aspects of both an efferent and
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
74
Journal of Reading Behavior
an aesthetic stance (Level 2). The means and standard errors for the three stance
levels are listed by the story in Table 3, and a contingency table showing a break
down of the total responses by stance and level of understanding is found in
Table 4.
These results indicate that subjects who predominately focus on the aesthetic
lived-through experience of the story are more likely to go beyond the literal events
of the story, to apply the story to life, and to make abstract generalizations than
are subjects who analyze the story or focus on the information they have taken
away from the story.
Responses written from the most efferent stance focused for the most part on
analyzing the literary elements of the story. Many of the students simply evaluated
story parts or characters as good, bad, or boring. The more complex efferent
responses tended to expand an analysis by describing and clarifying a position. The
following excerpt is from a response characterized as efferent due to the student's
attempt to analyze the text in order to discover the author's intended meaning.
The Runaway was a story that I really didn't understand. I have my own
conclusion about what it meant but I don't think the author's idea is the same as
what I think.
I think the author is trying to say (this is in my opinion) that home is the best
place to be. And that just because things may not go your way or your parents are
pressuring you. That your home is the best. Just because things look good on the
outside doesn't mean they're good on the inside.
—Victoria, The Runaway (Understanding Level 4)
Victoria's efferent analysis reaches the highest level of understanding in that
she deduces a number of conclusions from her experience with the story which can
be applied to understanding the world in general. Responses containing abstract
generalizations were much more prevalent, however, in responses which were
written from the aesthetic stance. Aesthetic responses were characterized by the
student's attention to the lived-through experience of the story and thoughts, feelings, and images which emerged.
It was a great story. I like the way it began, I understand what she's doing
though. But steel [still] I would not have run away. Why? Because I Love my
parents and they love me, and I am sure if she would have explained her problems
to her parents they would have onderstude [understood] her. But parents have to
undersand to that children arent perfect, they have to undersand that nobody is
perfect at all, the only person thats perfect is god. Back to the story, I would go
back home. No [Know] Why? There is no place like home.
—Claudia, The Runaway (Understanding Level 4)
Claudia's focus ón the feelings and associations which emerged during the
story reading indicates her aesthetic focus. While imagining herself in the story
and determining what she would have done, she reaches the overall conclusion that
parents need to understand imperfection in their children. In other aesthetic re-
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Effects of Stance and Age Level
75
Table 3
Means and Standard Errors Across Grades for Level of Understanding by Stance
Stance Level
n
1
2
3
41
25
55
1
2
3
59
26
39
1
2
3
40
23
64
M
The Dollar's Worth
1.86,
1.82,
2.37b
The Aztec Idol
1.50,
1.57,
2.23 b
The Runaway
1.80,
2.02,
2.81 b
Standard Error
.130
.167
.112
.128
.193
.157
.132
.174
.105
Note. Means with different subscripts differ significantly at the p<.05.
sponses, creativity emerged as students empathized with characters in the story. In
the response below, Amy uses poetry to express what she imagines to be the
characters' feelings.
I'm Marcie
Everyone's ideal.
Their precious darling,
Their perfect angel.
Yet through the superficial smile
The false gay smile,
The golden hair,
The dreamy skin,
The angelic features,
I am dead.
Emotionally dead.
I've died many times before my death.
With all the ooing and ahhing, they
never really seemed to care.
Now a razor blade shall end it all,
and they might take notice.
And I'll be equal
And a deadly silence will bring
the oo's and ah's to
a sudden and lifeless halt.
—Amy, The Runaway (Understanding Level 3)
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
76
Journal of Reading Behavior
Table 4
Total Response by Stance and Levels of Understanding
Level of Understanding
Stance Level
1
2
3
1
82
59%
43
58%
21
13%
36
26%
14
19%
56
35%
9
6%
7
9%
59
37%
2
3
4
13
9%
10
14%
24
15%
Note. Stance Levels used in ANOVA: Level 1—Most or primarily efferent, Level 2—Both efferent
and aesthetic elements, Level 3—Most or primarily aesthetic.
Amy's response reveals what is almost a shocking rendition of what it might
feel like to be in Marcie, the main character's place. In actuality, the poem Amy
creates extends the story far beyond what was written in the text by the author (as
opposed to the earlier efferent response which attempted to determine the author's
purpose). Extending the story, or rewriting the storyline was another aspect of
aesthetic responses which indicated the students' deep involvement in the story
experience.
Overall, the aesthetic responses had varied cognitive and affective forms. Students integrated accounts of how they visualized particular scenes with descriptions
of similar literary or life experiences, or with response segments relating intense
emotional involvement. It was this articulation of their own uniquely personal
response which often revealed generalized understandings students had drawn from
the literary event.
Interaction Effects of Grade and Stance
It is important to note that no interaction effects between grade and stance
were found to be significant. This indicates that the effect of stance on the subjects'
ability to apply literary experiences to life is not related to the grade of the subject.
DISCUSSION
Analysis of variance revealed main effects for grade on the dependent variable
of level of understanding. Fourth graders were consistently lower than eighth graders, indicating an increase with age in the level of understanding reached in free
written responses. Contrary to Applebee's study (1978), however, the present study
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Effects of Stance and Age Level
11
indicated fourth grade students were capable of going beyond the literal level. Over
40% of the fourth-grade subjects included some interpretation of story events or
were able to go beyond the text and apply story events or generalizations from the
story to life.
Applebee's study also found children at the ages of 6, 9, and 13 to rarely make
generalizations about a work. Such generalizations, or consideration of point of
view or theme, occurred frequently only with the 17-year-old students. Subjects at
the sixth- and eighth-grade levels in this study demonstrated the ability to make
abstract generalizations about the story. One reason for the increased performance
by subjects in this study might be that not only were overall thematic statements
included as generalizations, but also individual personal understandings stemming
from the literary experience which applied to life itself.
In reference to classroom implications of these results, it is notable that although students will increase in ability to apply story events to life and to make
abstract generalizations, this ability, is not beyond the capabilities of younger
students (including some fourth graders). This calls into question whether or not
such abstract thought is actually directly related to the developmental stage of
formal operations or if, as suggested by Lehr (1988), younger students make abstract statements but they process the information differently from adults. By taking
a reader-response perspective to the teaching of literature, elementary and middle
school teachers could recognize the validity of the abstract statements made by
their students, even though those statements may differ from the adult interpretation
of the theme of the story. Thus, students could be encouraged to experience literature within the frameworks of their own ability to draw personal understandings,
rather than being taught to look for the correct theme or agreed upon meaning of
a story.
Stance was also found to significantly affect level of understanding, with higher
levels of understanding associated with the aesthetic stance. These results reinforce
earlier research findings (Cox & Many, 1989; Many, 1990) that stance and understanding are significantly related. The subjects who focused in their responses on
the lived-through experience of the story were significantly more likely to interpret
story events, to apply the story to life, and to make abstract generalizations than
were students who responded efferently or with no single, primary stance. The
consistency of these results across stories indicates this phenomena is not text
specific.
It is apparent that when students focus on the story experience rather than on
an analysis of the work, they are more likely to relate to it and find it meaningful
in terms of their own lives. It was also noted that the majority of the efferent
responses focusing on the literary elements tended to be trite and superficial. In
comparison, many of the responses written from an aesthetic focus were complex,
creative responses. These results are consistent with Newell, Suszynski, and
Weingart's (1989) findings that the quality of a written response in terms of elabo-
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
78
Journal of Reading Behavior
rated interpretation and diversity of elements is significantly better when the student
is given a reader-based or personal writing task than when given a formal writing
task. Likewise other research studies examining the responses of secondary school
students (Golden & Guthrie, 1986; Hynds 1985; Rogers, 1988) have found relationships between students' personal involvement in a story and perception of story
characters, interpretation of story events, and thematic generalizations. Thus, focusing on the reader's experience of the story, on his or her personal evocation of
the literary work, can play an important role in the development of the reader's
response.
In terms of the classroom, these findings underscore the importance of encouraging and supporting the aesthetic stance when students respond to literature. When
teachers use ping-pong questioning techniques where students parrot back responses
to questions listed in the teacher's manual, students may assume the only appropriate focus when reading literature is to analyze the selection and retain important
information. Although teachers may use such methods in an attempt to extend
literal and inferential comprehension and to develop analytical thinking skills, inviting students to fully relive the literary experience could lead them to greater heights
of understanding.
The two-way analyses of variance indicated no interaction effects between
grade and stance on level of understanding. These findings provide empirical documentation that the assumption of an aesthetic or efferent stance and its subsequent
effect on the level of understanding reached is not related to the grade level of the
student.
This lack of an interaction between grade and stance can subsequently raise
questions about the theoretical links between the aesthetic and efferent stances as
described in this study and Britton's terms of spectator and participant, two other
stances which have been the subject of essays and research emphases. Britton
(1984) has suggested that terms are interchangeable, while Rosenblatt (1985b) has
contended that the terms are not congruent.
The spectator stance (paralleling the aesthetic stance) has been characterized
as a stance where the reader realizes one does not have to act as a result of the
reading experience and therefore is able to enter more fully into the reading event
(Applebee, 1985). Galda (1982) described this position as one in which the reader
withholds judgement until the text has been completed and then evaluates the text
in terms of the world which the author has created. Galda concluded from her
research that the ability to assume a spectator stance seemed to be characteristic of
formal operational thought.
Galda's description of the spectator stance as one where the reader is an
observer-critic, a detached observer of human behavior, requires a certain distance
from the work by the reader. In this study the subjects responding from the aesthetic
stance often described themselves as being very involved with and closely identifying with the characters, a phenomenon which would seem at odds with Galda's
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Effects of Stance and Age Level
79
use of the spectator stance. Galda also underscores the observer nature of the
spectator stance as being important to allow the reader to have a virtual experience.
The reader is, in Britton's (1984) terms, a non-participant in the events unfolding.
Rosenblatt (1985a), however, points out that the aesthetic transaction is not a
vicarious or a virtual experience but an experience in its own right, in that the
reader is creating the experience as the text is read. It is the focus of attention on
this created experience that underlies the definition of the aesthetic stance as used
in this study. Thus, the contradicting findings between Galda's research, which
linked the spectator stance to formal operational thought, and this research, which
found no interaction effect between grade and stance, seem to underscore Rosenblatt's contention that the terms are not synonymous.
In terms of the classroom, the fact that subjects at all grade levels, who assumed the aesthetic stance, reached higher levels of personal understanding indicates that, as contended by Rosenblatt (1983), the aesthetic stance can be an important part of the literature experience at any age. Consequently, even fourth-grade
teachers can encourage students to focus on the exploration of the literary experience and find students' to subsequently be more likely to make inferential observations, be better able to apply story events to life, and to generalize understandings
from the story to the world around them. Literature can then serve the purpose
described by Rosenblatt of having human meaningfulness, addressing the ultimate
questions of " . . . relevance or value to the reader's ongoing life" (1983, p. 30).
Limitations. This study sought to examine the responses of subjects at three
age levels to identical texts. One limitation to the use of identical texts across age
levels is the possible inhibiting effect a difficult text may have on the reader's
response. Subjects reading at least on grade level or above were used at each grade
level so that the fourth-grade level subjects would be more likely to be able to
process the text with little difficulty. Still, ease of reading may have affected the
response and, therefore, limits the implications drawn from this study.
Second, the age differences between the subjects may have also affected their
ability to express themselves in writing and subsequently influenced the content of
their written response.
Third, as with any study examining response to literature, the unit of analysis
(in this case, a written response) is limited in its representation of the subjects'
complete experience of the literary work. Although written responses have been
found to be linguistically more complex and more interpretive than oral responses
(Applebee, 1978; Beach, 1973), the level of understanding reached in the free
written response is limited to the response itself and not necessarily generalizable
to the level of understanding reached during the reading experience.
Similarly, this study examined the stance subjects took when responding to a
literary work. Although the written response may indicate the focus of attention
during reading, subjects could have assumed a different stance in their written
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
80
Journal of Reading Behavior
response than that assumed when actually reading the literary work. Readerresponse theorists often describe response as incorporating the full reading process
from decoding to the accompanying aesthetic experience (Cooper, 1985), but implications drawn from this study were limited in terms of the degree to which stance
could be generalized from the written response to the reading act itself.
Future research. This study investigated the effects of grade level and stance
on students' level of understanding. Future research needs to investigate not only
the student's stance in the response but also the teacher's stance in the teaching of
literature and its relationship with students' responses. Such research could aid in
informing educators as to the effects of teacher influence on students' response to
literature.
The present study examined the reader's stance as indicated in a written response. An area which also needs to be examined is the reader's stance during the
actual reading process. What textual or contextual elements cause readers to assume
a particular stance when reading? Do students identify informational texts as more
appropriate for an efferent stance and read accordingly? Does grade level affect
students' tendencies to read efferently for informational texts? Research utilizing
both fiction and nonfiction texts and methodologies such as protocol analyses could
lead to additional understanding of reader stance.
Reader-response theory remains a promising field for both classroom teachers
and researchers alike. This perspective has long influenced the research in response
to literature and the teaching of literature at the secondary level. The present study
offers empirical support for reader-response based teaching at the elementary and
middle school levels. Such methodology is needed if young students' encounters
with literature are going to be personally meaningful experiences which lead to
lifetime relationships with the world horizons offered through books.
REFERENCES
Applebee, A. N. (1978). The child's concept of story: Ages two to seventeen. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Applebee, A. N. (1985). Studies in the spectator role: An approach to response to literature. In C. R.
Cooper (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 87-102).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Beach, R. (1973). The literary response process of college students while reading and discussing three
poems (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International,
34, 656A. (University Microfilms No. 73-17112)
Beach, R. (1985). Discourse conventions and researching response to literary dialogue. In C. R. Cooper
(Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 103-127). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Beach, R. (1987, December). Applying life to literature: Reader's use of autobiographical experiences
to interpret texts. Paper presented at the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the National Reading
Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Effects of Stance and Age Level
81
Bonham, F. (1976). Secret of the Aztec idol. In A. Diven (Ed.), The Scribner anthology for young
people (pp. 116-124). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Britton, J. N. (1984). Viewpoints: The distinction between participant and spectator role language in
research and practice. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 320-331.
Cooper, C. R. (Ed.) (1985). Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Corcoran, B. (1987). Teachers creating readers. In B. Corcoran & E. Evans (Eds.), Readers, texts,
and teachers (pp. 41-74). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Cox, C , & Many, J. E. (1989, March). Reader stance towards a literary work: Applying the transactional theory to children's responses. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Cullinan, B. E., Harwood, K. T., & Galda, L. (1983). The reader and the story: Comprehension and
response. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16(3), 20-38.
Dorfman, M. (1988, April). A model for understanding the points of stories: Evidence from child
readers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Evans, E. (1987). Readers recreating texts. In B. Corcoran & E. Evans (Eds.), Readers, texts and
teachers (pp. 22-40). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Galda, L. (1982). Assuming the spectator stance: An examination of the responses of three young
readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 1-20.
Gentile, C., & Kane, S. (1987, December). A study of diverse responses to an allegorical text. Paper
presented at the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.
Golden, J. M. (1979). A schema for analyzing response to literature applied to the responses of fifth
and eighth grade readers to realistic and fantasy short stories (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State
University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 5996A. (University Microfilms
No.7908149)
Golden, J. M., & Guthrie, J. T. (1986). Convergence and divergence in reader response to literature.
Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 408-421.
Holland, N. N. (1985). Reading readers reading. In C. R. Cooper (Ed.), Researching response to
literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 3-21). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Holman, F. (1976). The runaway. In A. Diven (Ed.), The Scribner anthology for young people
(pp. 17-21). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Hynds, S. D. (1985). Interpersonal cognitive complexity and the literary response processes of adolescent readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 386-404.
Iser, W. (1974). The implied reader: Patterns of communication in prose fiction from Bunyan to Becket.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Johnson, D. E. (1983). Gifted fifth and sixth graders preferences and responses regarding contemporary
or classic literature (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 44, 126A. (University Microfilms No. DA8312154)
Lehr, S. (1988). The child's developing sense of theme as a response to literature. Reading Research
Quarterly, 23, 337-357.
Louisiana statewide norm-referenced testing program: Guide to test interpretation. (1988). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Many, J. E. (1990). The effect of reader stance on students' personal understanding of literature. In S.
McCormick & J. Zuteil (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms
(pp. 51-63). Thirty-ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: National
Reading Conference.
McNamara, S. G. (1981). Responses of fourth and seventh grade students to satire as reflected in
selected contemporary picture books (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1980).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2978A. (University Microfilms No. 8101136)
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
82
Journal of Reading Behavior
Newell, G. E., Suszynski, K, & Weingart, R. (1989). The effects of writing in a reader-based and
text-based mode on students' understanding of two short stories. Journal of Reading Behavior,
21, 37-57.
Probst, R. E. (1988). Response and analysis: Teaching literature in junior and senior high school.
Portsmouth, NH; Boynton/Cook.
Purves, A. C. (1975). Research in the teaching of literature. Elementary English, 52, 463-466.
Purves, A. C. (1981). Reading and literature: American achievement in international perspective.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Purves, A. C. (1985). That sunny dome: Those caves of ice. In C. R. Cooper (Ed.), Researching
response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 54-69). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Purves, A. C , & Beach, R. (1972). Literature and the reader: Research in response to literature,
reading interests, and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Purves, A. C., & Rippere, V. (1968). Elements of writing about a literary work. Urbana, IL; National
Council of Teachers of English.
Raygor, A. L. (1977). The Raygor readability estimate: A quick and easy ways to determine difficulty.
In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Reading: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 259-263). Twenty-sixth
Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.
Richards, I. A. (1929). Practical criticism. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth: Texas
Christian University Press.
Rogers, T. (1988, April). High school students' thematic interpretations of complex short stories.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1983). Literature as exploration (4th ed.). New York: Modem Language Association.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1985a). The transactional theory of the literary work. In C. R. Cooper (Ed.),
Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 33-53). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1985b). Viewpoints: Transaction versus interaction—A terminological rescue operation. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 96-107.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1986). The aesthetic transaction. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20, 122-128.
Sword, J. (1985). Criteria for evaluating picture story books (CEPSB). In W. T. Fagen, J. M. Jensen,
& C. R. Cooper (Eds.), Measures for research and evaluation in the English language arts:
Vol. 2 (pp. 225-227). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 236 658)
Werner, H. (1979). The dollar's worth. In J. Shapiro (Ed.), Triple action short stories (pp. 26-35).
New York: Scholastic.
APPENDIX A
Synopses of Stories
Werner, H. (1979). The dollar's worth. In J. Shapiro (Ed.), Triple action short stories
(pp. 26-35). New York: Scholastic.
Trish Paro, a young girl working at a gas station, is made to deal with a spiteful old
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Effects of Stance and Age Level
83
man, Mr. Watts, who continually asks for a dollar's worth of gas. One day she finds a
twenty dollar bill dropped by the old man and Trish feels she deserves it for putting up with
his weekly insults. Mr. Watts returns and insists that he gave Trish a twenty, instead of his
usual one dollar bill. When the station manager backs Trish, she gets a glimpse of the old
man as a poor, frightened person trying desperately to hold on to his pride. Trish pretends
to find the twenty in the back seat of his car and Mr. Watts snatches it away and drives off
without even a thank you.
Bonham, F. (1976). Secret of the Aztec idol. In A. Diven (Ed.), The Scribner anthology
for young people (pp. 116-124). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Looking for an adventure, two young boys buy a secret from an old fisherman. The
secret turns out to be an ancient Aztec idol which the man declares to be worth five hundred
dollars. When they place an ad in the paper offering the priceless idol for sale, a policeman
shows up at their house declaring the idol has been stolen and then confiscates it. Later the
boys realize the policeman had shown up before the ad had even run and they begin to
suspect the old fisherman and the policeman of working together. They set a trap for the
duo and end up regaining the idol and their money and sending the crooks to jail.
Holman, F. (1976). The runaway. In A. Diven (Ed.), The Scribner anthology for young
people (pp. 17-21). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Marcie, a teenage girl, often feels smothered by her parents' love and daydreams about
running away. She visualizes many options but her favorite is going to her friend Hilda's
house. One day she comes home to find a new dress on her bed. A note from her mother
explained that it was to wear to an upcoming party being given by one of Marcie's old
friends. Marcie had told her mother repeatedly that she did not want to go to that party, and
feeling strained and forced, she decides to actually runaway to Hilda's. When she arrives
at Hilda's, she does not find the welcome she expects. Marcie discovers that life at Hilda's
isn't the answer she was looking for and she returns to her own home with its unbearable
love.
APPENDIX B
Examples of Responses Coded at each Level of Understanding
Level 1—Does not go beyond literal meaning of the story
"I liked the story. It had me curious to where I wanted to keep reading it. I
especially liked the end."
"There was two boys that bought a secret. There was a guy named Secret. He
told the policeman about the idol. . . . "
"I liked the story. I liked the setting and plot. The end was great. The place and
time is ok. I like Charlie and Brian."
Level 2—Interprets story events
" . . . This story appears to be where a girl is in a situation where her parents
don't know to show affection. It also appears that the parents have too much money
and too little amount of time for the girl."
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
84
Journal of Reading Behavior
" I think this story is a type of mystery story. I think Trish will try to find out
about Mr. Watts. They will probably become best friends towards the end of the story.
Because thru the story when she is looking and finding out about his past she will
understand why he acts the way he does."
Level 3—Analogizes, applies story events to life
"I really like this story because this sometimes happens to me. Sometimes I hate
my parents because they make me do something I don't want to do. This story was
very true. In this story it tells about the girls friend not trusting her and my sister is
just like that. She can't trust me turning her back so if we're playing a game she makes
me watch t.v. when she goes out of the room. I think this story is good for kids our
age to read because I know that most of us are just like the girl in this story. I know
I am."
"I liked this story because it seemed realistic. The old man in this story is a lot
like old people in the real world. I also liked the setting at the gas station."
Level 4—Reaches an abstract generalization about life
"I think this story is a very good, interesting story. It teaches me that to not judge
a book by its cover an example for that is: Dont judge a person wrong or write just
because they [are] pretty, or ugly, fat or skinny, or boy or girl, or even black and
white."
"The characters were nice. It was an interesting story the way it set up the plot.
I think men shouldn't trick little boys or girls unless they want to be tricked back. Just
like the boy Charlie, did Secrets in this story . . . . And I learned a lesson from this
story, if you don't want to be tricked don't trick anybody yourself."
APPENDIX C
Definitions and Examples of Responses Written from Different Points on an
Efferent to Aesthetic Continuum (Cox & Many, 1989)
Point 1—Most efferent response
Focus is on what was learned or the information gained from the reading rather
than the reading experience itself. The text is analyzed by breaking it down into specific
parts or by placing it into a category and responding accordingly. The responses might
focus on literary analysis, technical analysis, or analysis using other standards or systems (i.e., social or historical context).
"It was a pretty good story and I enjoyed it. The characters were realistic and
designed pretty well but I didn't like the way the plot kept skipping time and not telling
you what was happening then."
Point 2—Primarily efferent response
Responses of this type focus on an emphasis on the storyline or what the story is
about by giving an accounting of the narrative.
"It was about a boy . . . (retelling of storyline)."
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Effects of Stance and Age Level
85
Point 3—Elements of aesthetic and efferent
Such responses include portions of both an aesthetic evocation and an efferent
analysis without a primary emphasis of either. Responses might contain a mixture of
either analysis or retelling, as well as selective attention to specific story parts or to
characters or an emphasis on the lived-through experience of the story.
"I like the way the characters were described, just by reading this story I hate
Mr.Watts too. I wish the setting had been described better, I pictured it out in the
country but for all I know it could have been in New York City. . . . "
Point 4—Primarily aesthetic response
These responses state a preference, make a judgment of the quality of the story or
of character's behavior, or relate an impression about story events or people in the story
and then describe story sections which elicited those specific responses. It involves the
selective attention to the story world.
"My favorite part of this story was when. . . . I thought the father was mean
when. . . . "
Point 5—Most aesthetic response
Responses indicating the most aesthetic stance focus on the lived-through evocation
of the work. Attention is centered on the ideas, scenes, sounds, associations, or feelings
called to mind during the reader-text transaction. Responses representative of the most
aesthetic stance might include a focus on one or more of the following: imaging and
picturing, relating associations or feelings evoked, and extending, hypothesizing or
restrospecting.
"I like the story because it was adventurous. We never had a dull moment reading.
The best part was the beginning when he got his dogs. You could picture his affection
for the pups and see his wide proud happy eyes."
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016