Search

Designed to improve the teaching and learning of critical aesthetic response to literature, a 2-year collaborative study involved 20 teachers, 2 university-based researchers, and approximately 300 elementary school students in the Lansing, Michigan, area. The study examined aspects of the teachers' understanding of the theory and their practices pertaining to some crucial issues that affect this approach to literature. The issues examined included: the nature of literature and of critical thinking, critical aesthetic response to literature, and assessment procedures). Major objectives of the study were: (1) to help students become acquainted with all types of literature; (2) to create an environment in which literature is valued and enjoyed for the aesthetic experience it offers; and (3) to create an environment in which literature is valued and enjoyed for the varied and valid uses one can make of it. While all of the teachers taught some aspect of critical aesthetic response to literature, individual teachers chose different kinds of literature and encouraged different aspects of response. Results indicated that: (1) through the study and implementation of questioning techniques and through the activities they chose, the students learned to verbalize more precisely their responses to literature; and (2) critical aesthetic development consists of a very gradual acquisition of insights about the aesthetic aspects of a literary selection. The study concluded that elementary school students, even those in kindergarten and first grade, are quite capable of learning how to respond critically aesthetically to literature. (Six tables of data are included; 21 professional references and a 70-item children's literature bibliography are attached.) (RS)

A descriptive/observational study examined one teacher's approach to teaching literature in a heterogeneous, self-contained fifth-grade classroom in a growing suburban community in southeastern Michigan during one school year. The teacher (with 21 years experience) was selected by the Murray Hill School administrators and was observed once a week for 1.5 hours each time. Data included a teacher interview, conferences before and after classroom observations, field notes, audio tapes of each observed literature lesson, and interviews with and written and graphic response of six students. Results indicated that the teacher: (1) understood and valued the importance of exposing students to a variety of literary genre; (2) wanted students to understand that there were specific criteria and techniques to analyze literature; (3) emphasized in various ways that she thought literature should be valued for the aesthetic experience it offers; (4) often asked the students to engage in creative writing activities; (5) helped students develop collaborative learning skills; and (6) chose reading materials of keen interest to students. However, results also indicated that the teacher did not appear to help students recognize the criteria and techniques for determining the merits of a literary selection, and that the teacher appeared to need assistance in learning about the role that questioning plays in eliciting higher order thinking, especially critical aesthetic response to literature. (A group advertisement for one of the books read and several semantic webs are included; seven professional references and 16 children's literature selections are attached.) (RS)

This paper analyzes the curriculum materials of the California Literature Program, a distinctive literature curriculum for grades K-6, in terms of how it addresses the critical/aesthetic approach. The paper notes that although a sequence of concepts, skills, and attitudes about literature in parts of the program can be identified, the organizing idea is one of literature as a tool or vehicle for developing concepts, skills, and attitudes about communication. The paper looks at the titles selected, the program's discussion of the characteristics of and range of possible responses and approaches to literature, and the type of pedagogical knowledge needed to implement the program. The paper evaluates the directions given regarding the selection of titles and types of enabling activities to be used, the questions teachers might ask students about their responses to the selections, and the focus teachers might encourage students to take during their written or oral discussions. Finally, the paper examines the specific techniques recommended for assessing students' progress in realizing the program goals and the development of their critical/aesthetic responses. (Nineteen references and an appendix of framing questions are attached.) (RS)