Reader-Response Criticism
Another important approach to interpreting literature is reader-response criticism. While the role of the reader in experiencing literature had been sidelined during various historical periods (for example, during the Romantic period of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which prioritized the “genius” of the artist), by the 20th century, literary critics were re-establishing the vital role of the reader or audience in experiencing literature (Richter, 1998). One way to understand reader-response theory is to see it as something like the opposite of formalism. Formalism identifies the text as the sole object of scrutiny—the roles of the author and the reader are not important to the creation of meaning. Reader-response theory examines the reaction of the reader as the key element in establishing meaning. Wayne C. Booth (1961) expressed this idea most fully in The Rhetoric of Fiction.
One inherent difficulty with the reader-response method is its potential to generate as many readings of a text as there are readers of the text. While it is correct that the reader is vital to the creation of textual meaning, students practicing close reading will need to share a common method that produces common results. Further, the common elements of literary criticism provide the basis for standardized tests, not the response of the reader. Although reader-response theory has its role in the interpretation of literature, it isn’t useful on its own for close reading in classrooms.
In the end, multiple valid readings of any written piece are the result. This fact challenges every teacher to present a reasonable approach for arriving at a valid reading of the text. Formalist literary devices provide the foundation for any critical reading of a text and will provide the evidence for students to assemble meaning. Students might then apply one of the critical lenses to establish a valid reading, grounded in solid textual evidence. As teachers work with beginning critical readers, the focus must be solidly on formalist ideas, since this will provide emerging literary critics with the necessary tools to be accurate in their analysis, both in class and on standardized tests.
Having reviewed the historical background of literary criticism and its instructional technique, close reading, let us consider two important factors in bringing this technique to the classroom, its research background and important instructional shifts that close reading helps us meet.
Research Background
In examining the research background on close reading as an instructional strategy, it is useful to define a turning point in interest in the strategy. Prior to the implementation of the CCSS and the subsequent revisions of state standards in non–Common Core states, close reading was not a widely practiced instructional strategy in U.S. secondary schools, and thus “it has not been studied directly through rigorous academic research” (Student Achievement Partners, 2016, p. 10). Since 2005, with changes wrought by the aforementioned revisions of state standards, there has been increased interest in the use of close reading. Luckily, there are encouraging research studies of aspects of close reading that suggest the strategy is highly effective.
Close reading accesses several important aspects of the teaching of reading, most importantly vocabulary and syntax instruction. Further, close reading encourages the development of fluency through its repeated readings of texts, made more broadly effective with its focus on deliberately practicing with complex texts. Researchers K. Anders Ericsson, Ralf T. Krampe, and Clemens Tesch-Römer (1993) have shown that working repeatedly with complex texts, where students have feedback on their progress over extended periods, results in highly developed interpretation skills. An additional area that close reading accesses is the standard of coherence, where closely reading complex texts develops students’ appreciation for what texts have to offer. Students who develop a high standard of coherence expect to understand a text deeply and will work to achieve that understanding (Pearson & Liben, 2013).
Researchers have shown the importance of vocabulary development for decades. Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley (1995) studied the effects of poor vocabulary development on students at risk in a study of conversations in the home as the children developed. The study showed that low-socioeconomic families provide fewer exposures to conversation than high-socioeconomic families. In 2003, Hart and Risley published a study including the 1995 information with additional data that demonstrated students from low-socioeconomic families can arrive at age three having been exposed to thirty million fewer words than their high-socioeconomic counterparts. Vocabulary level is directly related to a student’s ability to read, as most reading instruction begins by teaching students to decode words on a page (Kamil & Hiebert, 2005). Thus, the vocabulary gap becomes a reading gap. Keith E. Stanovich’s (1986) study described the prolonged effects of reading gaps. Poor readers do not make the same progress as strong readers across reading instruction in school, so the reading gap expands. By having them practice close reading as one aspect of a robust reading instruction program, teachers give students the tools to help close these gaps.
In the practice of close reading, students must interact with textual structures at the sentence and paragraph levels. This action develops an understanding of and the ability to analyze syntax, which has been shown to be one of the most challenging analytical elements for students (Nelson, Perfetti, Liben, & Liben, 2012). A strong understanding of syntax has been shown to promote student reading comprehension (Goff, Pratt, & Ong, 2005).
Close reading also requires students to return often to the same text with increasingly closer looks at the elements of the passage. These repeated readings improve fluency, which has been shown to have a direct connection to student reading comprehension (Paige, 2011). Further, the National Reading Panel’s (2000) meta-analysis demonstrated the direct connection between repeated readings of the same text and increases in both reading fluency and comprehension.
Instructional Shifts
Instructional shifts in English language arts and mathematics have been identified as implementation of Common Core State Standards and the associated revisions of non-CCSS state standards proceed. In English language arts, these key instructional shifts include (Common Core State Standards Initiative, n.d.):
1. Regular practice with complex texts and their academic language
2. Reading, writing, and speaking grounded in evidence from texts, both literary and informational
3. Building knowledge through content-rich nonfiction
The instructional strategy of close reading is one very powerful method of achieving all these instructional shifts. It provides the additional benefits of increasing vocabulary acquisition, reading fluency, and reading comprehension (Student Achievement Partners, 2016). A 2006 study of the ACT test indicated that students’ abilities to work with, comprehend, and analyze complex texts is a strong indicator of college readiness. Useful in most situations, the close reading process has the advantage of being a strong method for practicing analysis, whether by a single student (such as in a testing situation) or, more ideally, in a group situation (such as a class discussion; ACT, 2006). Given that information, close reading is a strategy every teacher should consider using on a regular basis, since the ACT study indicated that only 51 percent of all students who took the ACT in 2005 (and significantly lower proportions of disadvantaged socioeconomic and ethnic groups) demonstrated college readiness in reading (ACT, 2006).
Following is an effective process for teaching close reading, recommended as a way to support these instructional shifts. The following chapters provide more detail on the process.
A Process for Close Reading
Teachers who have