Reader Response and Odyssey

8/11/2019 Reader Response and Odyssey

1/18

Reader Response and Classical Pedagogy: Teaching the "Odyssey"

Author(s): Panos SeranisSource: The Classical World, Vol. 98, No. 1 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 61-77Published by: Classical Association of the Atlantic StatesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4352904Accessed: 06/10/2008 09:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classaas.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Classical Association of the Atlantic Statesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access

to The Classical World.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4352904?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classaashttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classaashttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4352904?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/18

PAEDAGOGUS

READER

RESPONSE

AND

CLASSICAL

PEDAGOGY:

TEACHING THE ODYSSEY

The present

study' explored

the

reader-response patterns produced by

thirty-five A-Level

(year 12) students

from three different schools to the

teaching of classical literature in

translation. The

emphasis

was

placed

on

their

reading and reacting to the Odyssey, one of

the set

texts for

their A-

Level Classical Civilization course

in

Britain. Lesson

plans

and activities

using reader

response techniques were provided

to the

teachers,

and

per-

sonal

reading logs

were

distributed

to

all

students

participating

in the

study.

I. Conceptualizing the Problem

The

introduction

of

the

A-Level

Classical

Civilization

syllabus

in Brit-

ain in 1974

marked

a

shift in

emphasis

on the

study

of

classics, high-

lighting the need

for a reorientation of classical education. The introduc-

tion of a course

dealing

with

the teaching of classical literature in trans-

lation, however,

raised

concerns

about

the

relevance of

its

place

within

classical education.2

Any question of teaching and learning the subject

needs to

be considered

in

relation

to

this context,

which,

in

turn, can be

viewed as a pragmatic response to the decline

in

the number of students

taking classical subjects.

Classical Civilization

is

now an established

subject

that

has been

taught

and examined for thirty years. The A-Level statistics

for

the year 2003

indicate

that

Classical Civilization had more entries than

Greek, Latin,

and Ancient

History put together.

It

seems

a

paradox that

the

subject with

the most students is the

one

least researched.

It

is,

therefore, an appropri-

ate

time to

investigate

the

teaching of

the course

that

deals

more with

a

broader

sweep

of the

literature

and

the

culture

of

the

Graeco-Roman civi-

lizations than

linguistic courses. Such an investigation

needs to

be

carried

out within

the

context

of the

teaching-learning process.

The

encounters

of

teachers and

students

with

classical texts can shed

light on the signifi-

cance

of the

subject from

both

a

literary

and a

pedagogical point

of view.

Reader response, as

used

in

this study, provides the link between literary

theory and

pedagogy, two areas which have been habitually approached as

separate entities.3

II. The Research Questions

This

study

seeks

to

investigate

the

extent

to which

students' voices can

be

expressed

in

the classical

literature classroom.

It

explores how reader-

response

activities

(hereafter, RRA)

can

encourage

a

genuine encounter

between

the

reader

and

the

text, leading

to

self-understanding and active

learning.

It

was

decided that the research should emphasize the reading

I

This article is part of a

larger

project that has been

undertaken at the Univer-

sity of

Cambridge.

For an

extensive account

see

P.

Seranis,

The Place

of Reader Response

in the Teaching of Ancient Greek Literature in Translation (Cambridge 2000).

2

See "Editorial: A-Level

Syllabus

in

Classical

Studies," JACT

Bulletin

28

(1972)

1-2.

3 For an

account

concerning literary theory

and

classical literature

in

particular,

see

S.

Goldhill, "Who's

Afraid

of

Literary

Theory?"

JACT Review n.s. 10 (1991)

8-11.

61


3/18

62

CLASSICAL

WORLD

processes of students in relation

to prescribed texts, since the setting

within

which the study was to be implemented presupposed the teaching of clas-

sical literature

for examinations. These processes

would provide insights

into the students' awareness

of reading and the development

of literary

appreciation in respect to classical

texts. In the

light of the issues dis-

cussed above, the following research

questions were

identified:

*

What

are the processes

employed by

students in reading

classical literature?

*

Does reader-oriented

practice contribute to effective reading

of classical literature?

*

What implications

for teaching classical literature can

be

drawn from studying

students' responses?

III.

The

Research Design

The mode

of

inquiry

was

mainly qualitative;

quantitative findings were

reported to the extent that they

inform the qualitative

account. Students

recorded their views in personal

reading logs and

in

questionnaires

ad-

ministered both during and after

the series of lessons.

In-depth interviews

were

also

conducted with a sample

of students. The findings, as

presented

here, are mainly based on students'

reading logs, since they provided

the

richest accounts of students' responses

during

the reading activity.

The Reading

Logs

The

main

aim of

the

reading logs was to

enable students

to

record

their personal responses to the passages studied in the classroom. Stu-

dents recorded

their

thoughts

after their individual

reading,

at

the end

of

their group work, and during

the class discussions. Students

were given

detailed

instructions by the

researcher

as

to

when

they

should

put

down

their

responses,

thus

providing

the

necessary

consistency

for

the

analysis

of

their

responses.

The Lesson

Plans

The six lesson

plans

were

based

on an

equal

number of

key

passages

from the Odyssey, varying

in length between

150

and

200

lines.

This was

considered

to be

a

reasonable

amount

of text

for

students

to tackle within a

fifty-minute

lesson.

The

students

were allowed time

for

a

preliminary "pri-

vate" encounter with the text and time to reflect on their responses indi-

vidually and

then within their groups. The

main

aim

of the

lesson

plans

was to

set

out

a reading program

that

promoted

an

autonomous

reading

based

on

students'

experiences

and

expectations

from

the

reading activity.

Establishing personal response:

Students

need

time to

interact

with

the

text,

to be

able to articulate

their initial

responses

to

it,

and to

share

them

with

the

rest

of

the

class. Furthermore,

if

the

focus

is

on

making meaning

rather

than

finding meaning

in

the

text,

then

this

need becomes

even

greater.

Students

were

given

time

in

the observed

lessons

to

reflect

on

their

own encounters

with

the text.

It

seems

a

paradox that,

whilst stu-

dents are usually told that their written accounts should undergo careful

scrutiny

and constant

rewriting,

a

complete

reading

is

approached

as

something to be acquired

on first encounter.

Group

work:

The next

stage

involved

discussion

within

small

groups

of

up

to five

students.

This

gave

students

the

chance

to

interact

closely

with

each


4/18

PAEDAGOGUS

63

other. The activity

itself

provided

a

setting

where

pupils

shared

ideas

and compared and contrasted differences and likenesses. They also

learned

to defend their

views,

to modify

them in

the light of

com-

pelling

arguments,

and

to be collaborative

and

motivated

without

being antagonistic.

Class

discussion:

The class

as a whole

discussed

the choices

of every group

and

de-

cided on

the most appropriate.

The aim

was to avoid any

sense

of

teacher

or peer

judgment.

Personal

responses

cannot be

judged

on

a

basis

of

"right"

or "wrong," provided

that they

are not based

on

misunderstandings

r

misinterpretations.

Class

discussion

focused

also

on

the main issues

that had occupied small

groups before

the

ex-

aminations.

The Selected

Activities

The lesson plans

included exercises

involving

three variations

of

the

prediction

exercise. Prediction

activities allow

for multiple interpretations

of

the

taught

text.

Pupils

are like the members

of an audience:

giving

one's

own

predictions

to the

story

is like

receiving

the text

and

filling

in

the gaps according

to one's own

reading processes.

There is a

happy

co-

incidence

where the creator and

the

perceiver

come together

in

one per-

son.

Prediction

activities can also

activate students'

previous

knowledge

and experience of

texts and arouse

motivation

in finding

out the likely

development

or outcome of a story.

There

is,

therefore,

an internal cohesion

between

the theoretical model

adopted

for the undertakingand carryingout of the researchand the for-

mulation of

the activities that put

this

theoretical

model into

classroom

practice.

All six lessons

were

planned

using

a type

of the prediction

ac-

tivities,

as they

are presented

below.

There

were three types

of

predic-

tions

in

total,

so each was used

twice.

Prediction

alternatives:

In

this

activity students

were

given

five alternative

outcomes

to a

scene. In their

reading logs,

students

wrote

down individually,

in

note

form, the reasons

that

led

them to opt

for their

selected

out-

come and reject

the others.

Individuals discussed

with their peers

their choice and came

to a

negotiated

agreement

regarding

the most

likely outcome.

Students' own predictions:

The narrative

was

divided into

short

sections

and students

were asked

to speculate

on what

followed or

to fill in

the

gaps/missing

lines

between the installments.

This

required pupils

to use

the evidence

provided

by

the text up

to this point.

Generic

descriptive

labels:

Students took on

the role of the author in

continuing

the story,

us-

ing

the

following

generic

labels:

action, argument,

description,

event,

conversation,

nd

one's

thoughts.4

he

generic

labels

represented

ifferent

ways

in which the story

might

be developed

by the

author. The

students were also asked to justify their choices and to elaborate

upon

them: for instance,

if

they

chose action, they were

expected

to

I

These were adapted by

E. Lunzer and K.

Gardner, Learning

from

the

Written

Word (Edinburgh 1984).


5/18

64

CLASSICAL

WORLD

say

who the main characters

would be. Whose

argument would be

advanced and why? On what events would the description focus and

who

was going to be the narrator

(the author,

one of the main char-

acters, an

extratextual narrator)? Although the

discussion

was di-

rected, the teacher's

intervention was limited to

clarifying statements

and

providing guidance where

needed.

IV.

Analysis

of

Student

Responses

Many reader-response

theorists5

have

argued

in

favor

of reading

logs.

They claim

that reading logs, by

requiring students to put their

thoughts

on

paper,

help

them

make sense of the

text, organize their more

elaborate

thoughts,

and reread the text

in

a way

that promotes more

advanced re-

sponses.

They

also

note that

self-maintained

records

of

their

work

help

students assess their developing responsiveness to literature. Nevertheless,

responding

in

writing

requires a double

transformation

on

the students'

part:

the

initial reactions

are

transformed into verbal

responses and then

into written

discourse.6

Consequently,

the

realization

of the

initial

responses

into

written form,

making

them

accessible to

others, diminishes the de-

gree to

which

these

reactions

can

be

called

"spontaneous."

Regarding

the

use of

reading logs

and

worksheets

in

classical

literature, Sharwood Smith7

argues

that

they

are

particularly useful,

since there

are

no ideal

textbooks

for

the

needs

of

classical

courses;

and

the

logs

also

help

students

exploit

their

diversity

of

talents and

work

styles.

The

above discussion has focused

on

the value

of

reading

logs

and

their usage

as pedagogical tools. Their

value as

research

tools

in the

present

study

was

determined

by

the fact that

they

shed

light

on

students'

chang-

ing

and

developing responses

to

the activities.

They

served as

a

written

record

of

students' reflective accounts from their encounter

with

the

texts,

which

contributed to

an

understanding

of

the

process

of

response.

V.

Analyzing the

Reading Logs:

The Procedure

Participants

read

a

selected

passage

of

the

Odyssey

in

each

lesson

and

wrote their

responses

in

the

reading logs.

All

reading logs

were

examined

I

See, for instance, L. M.

Rosenblatt, The Reader,the Text, he Poem: The Transactional

Theory of the Literary Work (Carbondale, Ill., 1978) 6-21; Rosenblatt, "The Reading

Transaction:

What For?" in R. Parker and F.

Davis, eds., Developing Literacy (New-

ark, Del.,

1983) 118-35; B. Johnston, Assessing English:

Helping Students to

Reflect

on Their Work (Milton Keynes

1987) 166; L. Stratta and J.

Dixon, "Writing and Lit-

erature: Monitoring and Examining,"

in

B. Corcoran

and

E.

Evans, eds.,

Readers, Texts,

Teachers (Milton

Keynes 1987) 174-96; Corcoran,

"Reader Stance: From Willed Aes-

thetic

to

Discursive Construction,"

in

J.

Many and

C.

Cox,

eds., Reader

Stance

and

Literary Understanding

(Norwood, N.J., 1992)

58; Protherough, Developing Response

to

Fiction

(Milton Keynes

1983) 186-87; R. Protherough,

"What is a Reading

Cur-

riculum?", in Protherough and

P. King, eds., The Challenge of

English in the National

Curriculum

(London 1995) 46; R. Calfee and

P. Drum, "Research

on Teaching Read-

ing,"

in

M.

Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research

on Teaching (London 1986)

804-49;

J. Pikulski,

"A

Critical Review:

Informal Reading Inventories,"

in

L.

J. Chapman

and

P. Czerniewska, eds., Reading: From Process to Practice (London 1978) 352-66; and

J. D. Wilhelm,

"You Gotta Be the Book":

Teaching Engaged

and Reflective Reading

with Adolescents

(Urbana, Ill., 1997)

41.

6

See

C. Harrison

et

al., "Responsive Assessment

of Reading: Seeking

Evidence

on

Reading

Attainment

from

Students,"

in M. Coles and R. Jenkins, eds.,

Assessing

Reading 2: Changing Practice

in Classrooms (London 1998)

101-22.

1

S. Smith, On Teaching Classics (London

1977) 24.


6/18

PAEDAGOGUS 65

through

two

separate

analyses,

with the sentence

serving

as the unit

of

the analysis. The first consisted of reading and rereading the logs, focus-

ing

on

the content

of

the students'

responses.

Extensive notes were

kept,

and key response

patterns

and themes were identified with the use

of

constant

comparison analysis.

In

addition,

the

six-stage

model devised

by

Jack

Thomson8

was

adopted.

Entries in

the

reading logs

were

keyed

ac-

cording

to his

six

stages

in

reading development,

providing

a further

de-

ductive

analysis

of the

reading logs.

This

helped

the researcher focus

on

the

nature of

the students'

responses

in terms

of sentence-level features

that

illustrated

examples

of

empathy, interpretation, reflection, evaluation,

and

so on. Thomson's

six

stages

are:

*

Unreflective

interest

in action

* Empathizing

* Analogizing

*

Reflecting

on the

significance

of events

and

behavior

*

Reviewing the whole work as

the

author's creation

*

Consciously considered relationship

with the author

and

understanding

of self

(identity theme)

and of

one's own

reading processes.

This particular model has been chosen

because it provides a compre-

hensive

classification

of

students'

developing responses.

The

value

of

Thomson's

model

lies in

that it can

relate

the

teacher's

role to the

pupils' responses.

Thomson's claim

that

the

strategies

of

reading are progressive and cumu-

lative9

is also verified

by

this

research. Analysis of

students' worksheets

revealed that their comments involved elements of more than one of these

six

stages.

Because Thomson's categories were not

mutually exclusive and

because the

interviews

extended the researcher's

understanding

of

students'

responses to the

activities,

a

further content analysis followed

to

show the

interrelationship

between

the

descriptive data

as

they emerged in the reading

logs

and the

follow-up accounts

in the

interview

process.

All

interviews

were

audiotaped

and

transcribed. Categories and

themes

were

identified

and

marginal

notes

kept. Identification

of

themes was

based

on

repetition

within

and across

interviews; ideas, concerns,

and

issues, which

were

brought

up

in

students'

responses

in

the

reading logs,

were

considered

significant

and

discussed

extensively

in

the interviews.

What emerged

from this analysis is a profile of four students with

distinctive voices, in that they covered a wide range of responses to the

activities,

from

very positive throughout

the

study

to

the consistently

re-

luctant. The

discussion

also

situates the

individual students' comments

within

the

wider framework

of

the

whole population. Due to limitations

of

space, profiles based on all six lessons

were impractical.

In

terms of

gender

representation,

the

research

profiles

follow the

pattern of the sample

population

and

present

the

accounts of three

females and one male stu-

dent.

The

value of

these profiles

lies

in the

fact

that

they can explain

what

students

bring

to

the reading activity in the form of preconceived

experiences and

expectations

and what

the

particular skills are that stu-

dents can

develop

by using

RRA while

reading.

They

also

show

what

the

factors

are

that affect

responses to literature.

The

objective of the

following analysis is to provide a framework, which

can

help

teachers

organize multiple learning

contexts

for their

students.

8 J.

Thomson, Understanding

Teenagers'

Reading

(Melbourne 1987) 185-223.

9

Thomson

(above,

n.8) 178.


7/18

66

CLASSICAL

WORLD

By

acknowledging a range of

different ways in

which students

approach

texts, teachers can be more effective in planning their teaching to fit their

students' needs.

For instance, the

recognition that some

students are more

aware of their

reading

processes than

others can

contribute to the devel-

opment

of activities that

enable students

to be aware of

the

reading strat-

egies

they employ while

reading and to

improve the

degree of their

awareness

as

readers. Additionally,

a

consideration of factors

affecting

responses helps

teachers

devise

appropriate tasks

likely to trigger

responses.

VI. Type A

(Maria/A4'0):

Reflective

Responsiveness to the

"Significance"

of

the

Text

Maria

was a

self-motivated student and

avid reader, not

concerned merely

with achieving high grades. Her other A-Level choices were Biology and

Chemistry.

She

demonstrated a

positive

attitude to the

activities,

though

she had

constructive criticisms to

make

during the

interview. In her own

predictions,

Maria indicated a clear

understanding of the

storyline. She

was also

able to consider

characters' emotions and

behavior, link

the pas-

sage

in

question

with

earlier

passages,

and comment on

Homer's tech-

niques

and their

contribution to

the overall

aesthetic effect.

The following

is an extract from her

own

prediction

regarding Odysseus'

likely answer to

Penelope's

questioning

about his identity

(lesson 4):

Either he will not

[reveal

his

identity]

and

give

a

clever

reply

like

"I

have a sad

story

and I do not

want to burden you with it," because he has simi-

larly escaped

awkward situations with such

cunning

before,

or

he

will

tell her a lie which will be

pep-

pered

with

ironic

half-myths,

because Homer likes

to use these for effect.

Either

way

he

will

not re-

veal himself, because he still

has some

planning to

do for the suitors'

revenge,

or

if

he does

it will

be

in

a

surreptitious way,

perhaps

not with total clar-

ity,

because

Odysseus does

things

like this.

Maria's

empathizing with the characters reveals a secure

understanding

of

the

passage and certainly

goes

beyond simple,

rudimentary

comments. The

level of her sophistication of response deviates from simple statements

with no further

justification,

and her comments on the characters reveal a

deep

emotional

understanding.

The

critical

stance

adopted,

however,

does

not necessarily mean that her

response

is less

emotionally

connected

to

the

characters.

Maria used

key

words to describe emotions and attitudes

situating

her

prediction

within the

broader context of the

unfolding

of the

story,

re-

flecting,

thus,

on the

significance of

the events and

character attitude.

Her

response

represents

Thomson's

stage

5, too,

when

referring

to the

way

Homer

presents

his

characters,

on the basis of

Odysseus.

She

also

mentioned that the

way

literature is

taught

at school and the examination

questions

require

a distanced evaluation of the

characters,

which

might

have prevented her from identifying with, or relating to, certain charac-

ters

at

different

stages

of the narrative:

10

All names used in this section are

pseudonyms.

Next to the

name,

the code

of each

student

is

given.


8/18

PAEDAGOGUS

67

Ordinarily,

f I were not

specifically

asked to think

of myself in that situation, I wouldn't treat them

as

a

person,

as a characterand

try

to look

at

them

in .

. .

you know,

in that

way really.

You

see,

we

are always taught not

to

put

our

own

values

onto

things. We are

always taught

to

try

and evaluate

these people from such

a

long

time ago

on their

own

values

or what

people

aroundthem

might

have

thought, so it's

not

something

I

automatically

do

...

think of

myself

in

that

situation....

Maria's account

appears

more elaborate

after her

exposure

to

team-

work:

Odysseus

has lied

before about

who

he

is,

to

the

Cyclops,

to

Queen

Arete,

to

Eumaeus,

therefore it

is likely he will

answer

the

question but lie.

I

did

not think he

would reveal himself

to

Telemachus

because

it

would be

anticlimax,

but

he

did, there-

fore

it

is

concievable

sic]

that

he

might reveal himself

to

Penelope.

Yet

she

is

the last

important person

not to

recognize

him,

so

perhaps this

recognition

will

be kept back.

It

appearsthat teamwork

helped

Maria with

both

retrospecting

and

an-

ticipating

(which, according

to

Wolfgang Iser,"

are essential in the

read-

ing activity). Retrospectinghelped her to point out similar situations in

the

past

where

Odysseus

had

lied regarding

his

true

identity, althoughnot

all instances had similar

points

of reference for

the

hero. Maria also

re-

vised previous

predictions and

looked closer

at

the authorial

point of view.

These modified

predictions

enabled her

to

realize

the

multiple options of

how

a

story might develop and

the meaningpossibilities

inherent

in

a text

and

to

comprehend

he

reading process.

She was

able

to

rethink her opin-

ions, share them with

her

peers,

and

modify them

in

the

light of

their

comments and

views.

12

VII.

Type

B

(Heather/C9):

Cumulative Progress

through

Exposure to

the

Activities

Heather

was an

average student who often

expressed

her

views in class.

She

was,

from

the beginning,

very enthusiasticabout the

activities, dem-

onstrating her

enthusiasm

with

overall positive comments.

Although she

was

actively

engaged

in

the

class discussion,

her writing skills were rather

undeveloped

and,

as

her

teacher noticed, she found

difficulty expressing

herself in

writing. Heather

progressedgradually through

her exposure to

the

activities.

Her initial responses fell within

the first stages of Thomson's

model,

especially stages

1

and 2, whereas

her second encounter presents

us with

more

sophisticated

responses,

in

terms of level

and quality.

I

W. Iser,

"Interaction

between Text

and Reader,"

in S. R

Suleiman

and

I

C.

Wimmers,

eds., The Reader in

the Text:

Essays

on Audience

Interpretation

(Princeton

1980) 106-19.

12

For

an illuminative

investigation of

small group

discussions

concerning

re-

sponses

to literature, see

ch.

4

in

J. D.

Marshall,

P.

Smagorinsky, and M.

W.

Smith,

The Language

of

Interpretation:

Patterns of

Discourse in

Discussions of

Literature

(Urbana, Ill.,

1995) 58-99.


9/18

68

CLASSICAL

WORLD

First Encounter:

Lesson I (Prediction

Alternatives)

On the

basis

of her

response to

the first

experimental

lesson,

Heather's

reading

appeared

to be

rather superficial.

She

focused

on

her prescribed

perception

without reflecting

on

new themes

emerging

from

further read-

ing, which

might have

led to a

shift

of her expectations regarding

the

story. The

following extract

of her reading

log is

revealing:

1. Odysseus

thanks

Calypso

and starts

his preparations

immediately.

Odysseus

is an intelligent

man

and

would probably

feel

that she

would not

let him

go.

2. Although

he

is

homesick,

Odysseus

prefers

to stay

with

Calypso,

because she

has

been so

good to him.

He would not

prefer

to stay

with her, because

he terribly

misses

his native land and family.

3. Odysseus

explains

that

he cannot

sail on

a raft

and makes

Ca-

lypso

swear that

she is telling

the truth.

He would

probably

try not

to anger

the goddess

by

insisting

she

tell

him

the truth.

4.

He does

not believe

her

and he is

more miserable

now.

I

agree

with this,

because

Calypso

hasn't

let him

go for seven

years,

why now

all of

a sudden?

Besides, he

has

lost hope after

seven

years.

5.

He

agrees,

but asks her

to

go

with

him.

He

would/may

miss her,

but

not enough

to ask her

to come

with

him.

Her reading

is

characterized

by

an

unreflective

interest

in action.

With

respect

to the Calypso

and

Odysseus

passage,

for

instance,

Heather's

se-

lected

option (4)

reflects

a

partial

reading

based

on

the second

half of the

prediction

alternative.

It fails

to

consider

the

passage

read just

before,

that is,

Hermes'

arrival

at Calypso's

island

and

the announcement

of Zeus'

command to

release Odysseus.

The

impact

of

that event

appears

to

have

been misinterpreted

by

Heather.

Therefore,

one could not be

confident

that

she has

been able

so far

to

incorporate

the

episode

within

her

devel-

oping

reading

schemata

and

perceptual

apparatus.

What

emerges

as a pattern

is that

most responses

were

formed

as short-

term

predictions,

usually

detached

from the

context

of the

passage

under

investigation and shaped on the basis of a partial understanding. They

should,

therefore,

be distinguished

from

long-term

predictions

that

place

specific passages

within a

wider

spectrum

and

reveal

students'

compe-

tence

in

synthesizing

the

relationship

between

different

parts

of

the same

story

and evaluating

the

importance

of the

examined

passages

for

the

epic

as

a whole.

Admittedly,

giving

their

own predictions

was

a

more

demanding

type

of

activity;

students

were

given

no

hints,

apart

from the

passage

to

read.

Thus,

predicting

and anticipating

required

the students'

personal

interest

in the

story

action.

As

in

other

cases,

however,

discussion

within

her

group

led

Heather

to

modify

her

view and

think

again

about the

story.

Even

within the

communal

setting

she

had

kept

her

individual,

distinctive

voice:

We

think

that the

answer

is

a combination

of

I

+

3.

This

is

because

we believe

that he

is

very desper-

ate to leave

and

to

go

home

but

we

think that he


10/18

PAEDAGOGUS

69

wouldn't be so

ready

to

believe

this,

as it

sounds

too good to be true. But I think IT'S NUMBER 3

[sic].

The

language

she

uses

is

particularly

telling:

first she

adopts

a

communal

stance

acknowledging the contribution of her

group

in

shaping

the

com-

mon

consensus (the we of

the

group) and a further

understanding

of the

text.

Nevertheless,

she

gives

very powerful

(through

capitalizing

her

cho-

sen

alternative)

emphasis

to

her own

perception (the

I)

of

the

story. Thus,

the

individual reader

retains a

reading

that is a

unique and

unrepeatable

event in the interactive

context

of the same

interpretive

community.

The

majority

of the

students benefited from

sharing

their individual

"readings"

with

their

groups,

and

the class

discussions with their

teachers

facilitated the whole process. There was a considerable variety of responses

that ranged from

slight

adjustment of

individuals' views in

light

of

peers'

comments

to total shift of

perspective

as a result of

an

enlightening

en-

counter with

others'

"readings."

Second

Encounter:

Lesson 2

Heather's

second encounter with

RRA

presents

distinct

differences

from

the

first one. All the

prediction alternatives are

considered and the rea-

sons for

choosing

the

selected option and for

rejecting

the others are

mentioned. This can

be seen in the

following:

1.

Nausicaa

is so

impressed that she

falls

in

love with

Odysseus

and

expresses it.

No. I feel this is too much.

She doesn't seem

the

type that falls

in

love just

because of nice

words

said

to impress

her.

2.

Nausicaa

praises him

and

promises

to

help.

Yes, she would be

pleased and would

want

to help

him,

not

only

because of

the

speech,

but

also because

she is anxious

to

find

out

why he is

naked

etc....

3.

She

is

sympathetic

but

does not

feel

able

to help, because

she

fears

her

father.

No,

I feel

she has a

very

good

relationship

with

her father.

And

since

she's the

baby

in

the

family

she

probably

know

[sic] she

can

always

get

what

she

wants-spoilt.

4. She orders her companions to feed Odysseus and give him some-

thing to

wear,

but

advises it

would

be better

for

him

to

leave as

soon as

possible.

I

feel she would be

curious to know

why he is here

and

how he

got

to be

this bad.

5. She

shows no

sympathy

and

leaves

with her

attendants.

No.

She seems too

kind to leave

Odysseus in his

hour

of need

after such

a

speech.

And I

feel that

she is kind

underneath.

These

responses

are

more

context-based and

the

predictions

are long-

term. One

notices a more

personal

contribution

apparent

in

linguistic

terms

as well.

Heather

uses

linguistic

structures

signifying personal

emotions

and

feelings,

such as "I

feel" and "I

think," and

her

language

is more

tentative now.

Expressions

like "she

would" and

"she doesn't

seem"

might

signify

that

Heather is more

aware of the

meaning

possibilities

of

the text

and

the fact that

there is

not

always a

"single,

right"

answer

when it

comes to

the

reading of literature.


11/18

70 CLASSICAL WORLD

VIII. Type C (Helen/C

15): Fixed Responses to Reading within

Existing Reading Schemata

Helen was a Hungarian-Philippine

girl with no prior knowledge of classical

texts. Her other A-Levels

were History and Sociology. She chose Classi-

cal Civilization as the closest

equivalent to Ancient History, and she was

very interested in mythology.

Her attitude to the activities was rather in-

different,

as

appears from her responses to the immediate

feedback ques-

tionnaires. Helen understood the basic lines of the plot

and used details

from other passages to strengthen

her arguments or reject alternatives that

seemed unlikely to happen.

It

seemed

that she

felt more

comfortable with

the prediction alternatives

and the generic-label type of activities. These

were the two instances where she expressed herself

in a more articulate

way:

1. Odysseus thanks Calypso and starts his preparations

immediately.

No, Odysseus wouldn't because after 7yrs, he

knows Calypso would

not release him

+

let him journey home safely.

2.

Although

he

is

homesick,

he

prefers

to

stay

with her,

because

she

has been

so

good

to him.

He

would not prefer

to stay

because he

had

wept to go

home

and

would take the

opportunity when given

to

him.

3.

Odysseus explains

that he cannot sail

on a

raft

and

makes Ca-

lypso swear that

she

is telling

him the

truth.

Yes, he

would say he can't sail on

a

raft, because Calypso being

a

sea goddess

could make his journey hard+difficult.

At least

if

she gives her word, Odysseus knows she cannot be lying.

4. He

does not

believe her

and

is more miserable

now.

Possible.

He

may be

more

miserable. Odysseus

would be

suspi-

cious as

why Calypso

would

willingly help

him to

leave.

5. He agrees, but

he

asks her

to

go

with

him.

Odysseus

would

not ask

Calypso

to

go

with

him,

because

he

knows

it

would be

unfair

if

he

took

her

home,

where

Penelope might

be

waiting.

Helen

connected different

parts

of

the

story

in order to

reject

or

accept

the alternative outcomes

given

to her.

In

doing so,

she used

reading

strat-

egies that

revealed a clear

understanding

of

the

plot

and

the

characters.

For instance, she pointed out that Odysseus would not be so naive as to

react

in the

way

that

the first alternative

suggested,

because

this did

not fit

with

the way

the character was

depicted up

to that

point.

Her

responses

are indicative

mainly

of

Thomson's

stage 4,

since

her accounts

focus

on

the

significance

of

Odysseus'

behavior

and

likely

reactions

for

the

story

as

a

whole.

Her own

prediction (lesson

4), however,

was less

articulate

than

Maria's,

and she focused

more on

the

passage

in

question,

failing

to link it

to

passages

read earlier:

I

think he

will

avoid

answering

the

question

or

give

an

answer

that

can be

interpreted

in

different

ways.

He does this because he cannot reveal his identity

or else

Penelope

may inadvertently

reveal

that

Odysseus

is

present.

Her

commentary

indicates

empathy

with

the

characters

(stage 2),

al-

though

the

level of

sophistication

is not

particularly

high.

For

instance,

her

reply regarding Penelope's likely

reaction

in

the case

of

Odysseus


12/18

PAEDAGOGUS

71

revealing

his true

identity

is more reminiscent of

Eurycleia's

reaction

in

the other famous recognition scene, where Odysseus prevented his nurse

from revealing the truth to Penelope. Helen's answer, in a way, does

not

consider the "cunningness"

of

Penelope

as shown in her

manipulation

of

the suitors and

her

weaving

task. Helen was particularly keen on

clear-cut

answers, since "this will give

me

high

marks in the

exams,"

as she men-

tioned. Although

she

enjoyed

exploring

her own and other

peers' views,

she

sometimes

found them

"good,

but rather silly." She goes on to say:

That's the way

I look at

it,

because some of the

responses . . . in the way I understood the charac-

ter, I could

not understand how

they

could think

them

up

. .

.

how

they

could think that the charac-

ters would

think this way.

...

The above quotation

reveals that Helen believed that in

interpreting

the

text there are "correct"

and

"wrong"

answers.

Moreover,

the

right

answers

should be the ones she

thought of,

as she understood the

story.

Helen

lacks sympathy with other readers' ideas and views, and she did not

seem

particularly willing

to consider responses deviating from her

own.

She

also

distinguished

between reading

for

pleasure

and

reading

texts that she

was going to be

examined on:

I

have an interest

in mythology and legends, I re-

ally

love it. I read about

it,

but I could never re-

ally get emotionally

involved and feel connection

or parallel to my own life . . . it is something I

have to

study

.

. .

I

mean,

it's not

something

that

I

read for pleasure. ...

There was a clear dissociation of

reading

for

pleasure

and reading at

school

that prevented Helen from feeling emotionally

involved with the

stories she encountered in the

Odyssey.

Helen tended to

engage

in

her

reading

tasks

mechanically.

Although she was clearly interested in the

reading

of

mythology,

this alone was not a

sufficiently strong

incentive to

attract her

personal engagement

with classical texts. It seems that even

the

elementary prerequisite

of

willing attendance

on Helen's

part

was

over-

shadowed

by

the fact that these were texts she had to

study.

Helen

belongs

to the

category

of students who were

engaged

with the

activities and were able to

gain

new

insights

from

reader-response

ap-

proaches.

The new

insights, however,

were

partial

and

selective,

accepted

only

insofar as

they accommodated

her

existing reading

schemata and

provided

efficient

ways

for her to

proceed

along

a

prestructured pathway to the

reading

of

literature.

This

diminished the level

of

her engagement and the

degree

to which she could

develop

her own

responses:

the fact that she

was reluctant to take into consideration

her classmates' responses

to the

same

passages may

have limited her own

repertoire

of

reading strategies.

As students themselves noted, one of the most significant benefits of

sharing

individual

responses

was that different

views shed light on the possibili-

ties of

multiple meanings that did not form part of the reading repertoire

of individual students.

IX.

Type

D

(Gordon/C19):

Reluctance towards Reflective Reading

Gordon's

reading log did not reveal much about his attitude

towards

the activities.

Therefore,

the

in-depth interview data, which reveal

far more,

have been used as the

focus

of this account. Gordon was a male

student


13/18

72

CLASSICAL WORLD

with no

experience of classical

subjects. His

other A-Level subjects were

Film Studies and English Literature. He chose Classical Civilization be-

cause he

was interested

in the historical aspect of

classics and

for a rather

pragmatic reason: a

"fast track" in

this subject was

available for him.

Reading was his

favorite activity in the classroom;

the fact,

however, that

his

responses to

literature were to be tested

diminished any enjoyment in

reading. A

pattern throughout

Gordon's responses was his

confidence that

he

had grasped all the

basic elements of the plot

and the

motives behind

the

character reactions,

as well as

their interrelationships.

As he men-

tioned, he

had read the whole book in

advance (as other

students had) and

that

might

have curtailed his

involvement with the activities.

Therefore,

he had a

rather negative attitude to the

activities

on the grounds that they

provided

no further

understanding of the

text:

I understood

and thought

about these things before.

I think it

is

better to read than to guess it.

Gordon's

response

to

the

prediction alternatives also

indicates that he

understood the

passage:

1.

Odysseus thanks Calypso and starts his

preparations

immediately.

No, he wouldn't because he wouldn't believe in

what she said

without

her

swearing on it, or repeating herself.

2.

Although

he is

homesick, he prefers to

stay

with

her,

because she

has been so good to him.

He

would take

every opportunity to go. He wouldn't

stay.

3. Odysseus explains that he cannot sail on a raft and makes Ca-

lypso swear that she is

telling

him the truth.

This I

believe

to be right. He would feel

apprehensive

about the

raft,

he couldn't

survive

in

a

ship

and

why

should

Calypso change

her mind now.

4. He does not believe her and is more miserable now.

If there was

some sign or

hope

he would make

Calypso

swear.

5. He agrees, but he asks her to

go

with him.

He wouldn't.

He doesn't love her or even

like her. He

has a wife.

Gordon

appeared

to

situate

Odysseus'

reaction

on

this

particular

occa-

sion within the set of

permanent

characteristics as

depicted

so far.

Odysseus

does not get excited with the sudden change in Calypso's attitude, and he

is

very suspicious.

His

painful experiences

at sea make him

very

cautious

with

regard to the

nymph's suggestion

that he could sail

on

a raft. This

point

in

particular

distinguishes

Gordon's

responses

from those of his

fel-

low students. There were

certain

students who

rejected

alternative 3 on

the grounds that such a claim would not suit

Odysseus'

adventurous char-

acter and

cunning

mind. It is this

"cunningness," however,

as Gordon

pointed

out,

that made him

particularly

reluctant to believe

Calypso.

From

the above

accounts,

it

emerges

that Gordon was reluctant to work

with the activities rather than reluctant to read the classical texts them-

selves.

It

seems that his

reading

was focused

on information to be taken

away

from the

text, contributing

to academic achievement. Gordon's com-

ments

emphasized

efferent

responses

based on outside

structure,

that

is,

literary elements of the text and what

was

learned

in the classroom. There

was no

attempt

to elaborate

any preferences

or

judgments

based on the

way

he has

experienced

the

story. Although

readers tend to fluctuate be-


14/18

PAEDAGOGUS

73

tween their efferent

and afferent stances

of

response,

as

Rosenblatt'3

ar-

gued, there is

research14

that indicates there is a strong association be-

tween the reader

stance and the level

of

understanding

of a text.

This

highlights the

need

for teachers to use more aesthetic

activities in

order

to enhance their students'

aesthetic stance of

responding

to literature.

Gaining lived-through experiences

from literature shifts the

emphasis

of reading

from finding

the "correct" nswerto

acquiring

a

personal

meaning

of the text.

At the

beginning

of the

interview,

Gordon

argued

that the

activities were

rather easy

and the

passages

selected non-challenging,

be-

cause they

had obvious outcomes. In addition, Gordon

could not identify

any ways

in which the activities

helped

him to consider the text

more

carefully

or

to understand it better. This

negativity prevented

him

from

consideringdifferent possibilities of meaning.Gordonhad built up certain

rigid reading

schemata, which appearto have stifled

his creative

power

to

transform them in the light of successive readings.

Later on

in

the

interview,

however,

he stated that the forthcoming ex-

aminationsrestricted

his

engagement

with the text:

You see, although

it's a nice idea in principleas

I

said,

but

if we've

got

exams . . . at the end of the

day

we can't

. . . even if I'd write down what I

thought, it won't give

me

high

marks.

...

What the above quotation illustrates

is Gordon's conviction that

the

examinations do not

require

students' "personalvoices," but clear-cut

an-

swers. It also indicates a likely reason for his unwillingnessto modify his

prescribed perception:

a possible modification of

his reading repertoire

might put

at risk the responses that would lead to

the offer of a univer-

sity place.

It

seems also that Gordon dissociated reading for pleasure

at

his own pace and reading at

school. As he reported

irately:

I think there

are no

answers, when I am reading

that

. . .

I've got

no reason to analyze it . . . and

if I want to

analyze it,

I

want to analyze

it. I pre-

dict what's

going

to

happen

in

my

mind. It's nice

predicting

stuff, because

if

you're right,

it's great,

if

you're wrong, you're proved wrong,

it's fine. It's

personal enjoyment . . . whereas for my exams I

am

reading

all those books and I can't wait to read

a book on

my own,

I want to read.I just, it's something

about

just being

told to

read

a

book

.

.

. I

might

like . . . I

might enjoy

another time . . . but at the

moment,

if

you

told me

to

read

a book.

. ..

Clearly,

what made Gordon reluctant to read was that the selection

of

those texts was forced upon him.

This "forced"reading, in a way, created

a

negative

stance toward

reading

at

school, which

was reinforced by the

31

Rosenblatt, The Reader (above, n.5).

1'

J. Many ("The

Effect of Reader Stance on Students'

Personal Understanding

of

Literature," in R.

Ruddell,

M.

Ruddell,

and H.

Singer, eds.,

Theoretical

Models

and Processes of Reading

[Newark, Del.,

1994]

664) notes that "the

aesthetic responses

were also higher in level

of understanding than the efferent

responses."


15/18

74

CLASSICAL WORLD

nature of

certain examination questions

that,

according to him, required

"predetermined, stock" responses. Thus, in a way, his experience of schooling

so far had

"trained"

him

to look always for the "right" answer. His reply,

when he was asked why there was such a strong connection on students'

part between the reading of literature and the examinations, was particu-

larly telling:

We're brought up that way, it's the way we've been

educated so far . . .

and it's hard to change when

you

are

eighteen....

Gordon

places himself

within

an educational tradition imposing the notion

of certain "correct"

interpretations concerning the study of literature that

is going to be examined. Although his attitude towards the examinations

and the

teaching

of literature was consistent

throughout the interview, it

seems that his

perceptions

of the activities

gradually changed:

It

makes you work better

in

a group and also look

at the

language

of the

passages,

in the text

more....

[W]hen you are asked to predict something which

happens next, you need to

think

about the language

and the characters. . . .

[I]f you

take those

prin-

ciples

and if

you

take that idea and

put

that in the

first term

it

would

work.

. . .

[W]hen we did not

have

the

exams coming up,

then

we would under-

stand more.

...

Thus,

at

a

later stage

in

the interview, probably without realizing it, he

stressed

specific

issues related to the

activities, providing

comments on

the future

applicability

of a similar method. In the course of the inter-

view, Gordon became less defensive and opened up new avenues for com-

munication. His responses reveal that

he had

thought

about the

reading

processes

and how the

responses

of his fellow students could shed

light

on his own views. He also discussed

literary conventions,

such as lan-

guage structure,

and he was able to make

generalizations

about

using pre-

diction activities as a

possible way

of

arriving

at a

greater understanding

of the text. To

summarize,

what is obvious from Gordon's

record is that

shifting

from traditional

perceptions

of

what a "useful" literature lesson

is to more responsive notions of student engagement and involvement re-

quires

a considerable

process

of

adjustment.

As one of the

participant

teachers mentioned:

[I]f they come straight

from

a

history

lesson where

they

are

presented

with a lecture from

which notes

are

"taken,"

or

even

dictated,

and

they

sit

transcribing

for an hour-hard work for the

body,

but

only drawing

on a

tiny part

of the brain-then

in Class.Civ.

[sic],

are asked to

respond, discuss,

articulate

(i.e.,

to be

themselves,

to

think,

to

learn ) well, you

can

imagine

that

it

might

take them a while to

adjust.

.

..

This

adjustment

is a

demanding

task

for teachers and students alike.

Perceptions

that have been formed

over

years

of

schooling

are

difficult to

change.

The switch needs to cater

for the

existing reading

schemata of

students and to

provide

the

necessary

stimuli for the

development

of

per-


16/18

PAEDAGOGUS

75

sonal responses

in a

way

that seems

neither threatening nor

unattainable

to the participants in the teaching-learning process.

X. Conclusions

These profiles

shed

light

on the following

areas of students'

reading

processes:

students'

reading

schemata

and their

responses

to literature,

the contribution

of RRA to

the

development

of

reading

skills, and

the

progressive

nature of

the reading activity.

These are discussed

in turn

below.

Reading

Schemata

and

Responses

to

Literature

The findings of

this

study suggest

that

readers

come to the reading

activity with a set of preexisting schemata. These schemata are based on

their previous

reading

experiences

and

their

expectations

from reading.

Interaction

with

peers

may

contribute to

a shift in these aesthetic pat-

terns, but

this

is

dependent

on

individuals

possessing

the social

and

com-

municative skills

necessary

for effective peer

collaboration. Social sche-

mata certainly

influence the

reading process

insofar as

they

accommodate

new

perspectives

that

modify

the readers' horizons

of

expectations.'5

Re-

search

conducted

by

the Santa

Barbara Classroom Discourse

Group'6

iden-

tifies

three

different types of student

interactions

with

respect

to

reading

in the classroom: interactions

with the text (through

reading),

interactions

about

the text

(class

discussions,

sharing

of

responses,

written

responses),

interactions

through

the text

(response

journals).

The activities

used in

the study covered all the above modes of student engagement with the

reading

activity.

The different

types

of

predictive

activities

are

pedagogi-

cal

strategies

fostering

the

reciprocal

relationship

between

the

interpreting

reader

and

the text to be interpreted.

They also foster the

social processes

of

peer

collaboration.

These two dimensions

of the

interpretive

work of

the

reader lie at the heart of

the collaborative co-construction

of meaning.

This

analysis highlights

some aspects

of the

reading process

in the classroom,

as

evidenced in this study,

and

may have practical

outcomes

for other

studies

as well."7

Being

a communal setting,

the classroom environment

allows

for the interaction of a multiplicity

of reading

faculties. According

to

the

participants,

this enhances

engagement

with the text and

leads

to

the generation of genuine responses. Peer collaboration suggests peer transactions,

based on specific reading

tasks. It

implies

the interchange

of

ideas

and the

active participation

with fellow students in ways

that aim

at

generating

and

promoting personal

responses

to

the texts. Peer collaboration should

not,

however,

exclude the reflections

of individuals on their responses.

On the evidence of

these

findings,

there were students, like Helen,

who, although they

were actively

engaged

in the reading

process, seemed

15 For the role of interpretive communities, see S. Fish, Is There

a Text in This

Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge,

Mass., 1980)

303-21.

16

Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group, "Constructing

Literacy in Class-

rooms: Literate Action as Social Accomplishment," in Ruddell, Ruddell, and Singer,

eds. (above, n.14) 124-54.

1'

According to Iser (The

Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic

Response [Balti-

more and London, 1978] 108),

"[T]he

reader's enjoyment begins when

he himself becomes

productive, i.e., when the text

allows him to

bring

his own faculties into

play."


17/18

76

CLASSICAL

WORLD

withdrawn

in respect to

the classroom setting

within

which responses to

literature were generated. On the other hand, students like Maria, who

were "competent"

readers

of literature, benefited

from the interaction

with

their

peers. Apart from having

improved

her social skills,

she emphasized

that group work

had improved her

knowledge,

since others' views

were

explored

as well as her

own. In this context,

literary appreciation

is

seen

as the symbiotic

relationship between

individual responses

and

the shar-

ing of these responses

with other members

of the community.

The out-

come of

this

encounter

is neither

the

product

of the individual

nor of the

community, just

as

the "poem"'8

lies

neither in the reader

nor in the text,

but in the transaction between

both.

RRA and the

Development of Reading

Skills

The findings also indicate that certain activities guided students to fo-

cus

on

specific aspects

of the reading process;

this, in its turn,

led to

skills corresponding

to different

levels of developing

response.

Providing

students

with

prediction

alternatives

contributed towards

their realization

of

multiple

interpretive possibilities

within a text. Asking students

to

make

predictions improved

their

skills as co-constructors

of meaning.

Finally,

students'

responses

to the generic

descriptive

labels revealed

their

capac-

ity to recognize

literary

devices. Thus,

different

activities

served

different

purposes

and

were effective

in helping

a diverse

set

of students

to inter-

act with

the texts.

Weaker

students

found

it

easier to respond

to

a set of

pre-coded

alternatives,

whereas

giving

one's own prediction

was

a

more

demanding activity that required

more

sophisticated

reading

skills.

Re-

garding

the

generic

labels,

it

seems

that

it

was

the nature of this

particu-

lar

type

of

prediction

that allowed

students to move

to more complex

thought processes

concerning

authorial

choices

and the

construction

of

meaning.

19

The Progressive Nature

of

the Reading Activity

Finally,

it

emerged

that

the

reading process

is

progressive,

following

certain

stages

that

vary

from

simple,

rudimentary

reactions

to the

text to

more

elaborate

and thought-provoking

responses.

"Naive" interpretations

need to

be taken

as the

starting point

for

helping

students

strengthen

their

enjoyment

and understanding

of

literature

and become

aware of the read-

ing activity as

a process

that

they

have

to

engage

with

in

order

to

further

their aesthetic schemata.

Another finding

of this

study

was that

amongst

the

six

developmental

stages

of

Thomson's

model,

analogizing (stage

3)

was the

least

recorded.

This

may

be because students

found

little to

link

fictional

characters

in

classical

texts

with their

counterparts

in

modern

literature,

characters

they

themselves could

more easily identify

with. It

was

not

accidental,

for

example,

that

girls

put

themselves

into

Nausicaa's

situation

very easily:

the

age

of the noble

princess

and

the theme

of

the whole

episode

seemed

to have

moved

female

students

of a similar

age,

who

perhaps

shared

the

heroine's concerns

at

this

particular

moment.

Although

it

is true

that

cer-

18

Rosenblatt, "The Poem as Event," College English 26.2 (1964) 123-29.

19

This

follows

research

conducted

by M.

Lewis and

D. Wray

(Literacy

in

the

Secondary

School [London

2000] 20),

who

emphasized

the

need

for

teachers

to

em-

ploy

reading

strategies

"which

focus

pupils'

attention

on

the

ways

which

texts are

constructed

and

the ways

in which meaning

is created

and

might

be

recreated."


18/18

PAEDAGOGUS

77

tain aspects of the environment and the society described in the story

may sound

alienating to readers

today,

the

themes,

emotions

and feelings

with which

the

Odyssey

deals

retain

a

universal

character,

still

recogniz-

able

for

many contemporary

readers. It is

necessary,

therefore,

for

teach-

ers of

classical literature to

adopt

a

methodology that

points out the com-

monalities of the human

condition

and

links classical

texts with the

expe-

riences of

modern readers.

In order

to develop

more sophisticated responses

that literature requires,

one must

first

investigate

the

reading

processes

of

students in their

sense-

making

approach

to texts.

Using

pedagogical

tools that

allow

space for

students both

to reflect

on

their

responses as individual readers and that

also expose

them

to

public scrutiny

may help

students

realize

the

reading

processes they adopt in the classroom reading. This may lead to aware-

ness

of

themselves as

readers and

to more

responsive "encounters" with

literary

texts.

University

of Cambridge

PANOS

SERANIS

Classical World 98.1

(2004)

[email protected]

Medusa

Mythology Exam

2005

J

Endorsed

by

the

AmericanClassical

League

The

9th

annual

Medusa

Mythology

Exam is

available to all

students

in

grades

9-12

(regardless

of Latin/Greek

enrollment).

The

Medusa

is

composed

of

50

multiple

choice

questions.

"Oracles & Prophecies" is the theme. Top achieversreceive

certificates or

medals

imported

from

Italy.

Our

highest-

scoringparticipants

apply

for

awards to assist with

educational

expenses.

Fees:

$3.00 / student

plus

a

$15

school fee. Exam will

be

administered

during

the

week

of

April 4-8,

2005

(choose

one

day;

we work around

springbreaks).

Register

by

15

February

2005. Download materialsor

contact:

US

MAIL:

Medusa

Mythology

Exam,P.O.Box

1032,Gainesville,

VA

20156

VOX:

800)

896-4671

FAX:

240)

250-4502

WWW:

ww.medusaexam.org

E-MAIL:

[email protected]

Documents

Reader Response and Odyssey