Reader Response and Classical Pedagogy: Teaching the "Odyssey"

Author(s): Panos Seranis

Source: The Classical World, Vol. 98, No. 1 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 61-77
Published by: Classical Association of the Atlantic States
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4352904
Accessed: 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 at
http://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 support@jstor.org.
Classical Association of the Atlantic States is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Classical World.
http://www.jstor.org
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
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
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 or 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 undertaking and carrying out of the research and 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, and one's thoughts.4 The generic labels represented different
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).
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, the 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.
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.
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.
PAEDAGOGUS 67
Ordinarily, if I were not specifically asked to think
of myself in that situation, I wouldn't treat them
as a person, as a character and 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 around them 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 appears that teamwork helped Maria with both retrospecting and an-
ticipating (which, according to Wolfgang Iser," are essential in the read-
ing activity). Retrospecting helped her to point out similar situations in
the past where Odysseus had lied regarding his true identity, although not
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 meaning possibilities inherent in a text
and to comprehend the 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 enthusiastic about 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 progressed gradually 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.
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
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.
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
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
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-
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" answer to 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
considering different possibilities of meaning. Gordon had built up certain
rigid reading schemata, which appear to 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-
aminations restricted his engagement with the text:
You see, although it's a nice idea in principle as 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' "personal voices," but clear-cut an-
swers. It also indicates a likely reason for his unwillingness to 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."
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-
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."
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."
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) ps245@cam.ac.uk
Medusa Mythology Exam 2005
J
Endorsed
by
the American Classical
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 achievers receive
certificates or medals imported from Italy. Our highest-
scoring participants 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 spring breaks).
Register by 15 February 2005. Download materials or contact:
US MAIL: Medusa Mythology Exam, P.O. Box 1032, Gainesville, VA 20156
VOX: (800) 896-4671 FAX: (240) 250-4502
WWW: www.medusaexam.org E-MAIL: info@medusaexam.org