This study examined how experienced high school English teachers defined and gauged effective literature instruction as well as how their perspectives affected their students' experiences with literature. The research focused on 3 questions: (a) How did these teachers define effective literature instruction? (b) What kinds of evidence did they look for to gauge their effectiveness? and (c) How did their perceptions of effective literature instruction inform their decisions about texts and ways of reading them with students in different grade- and ability-level classes? Profiles of 5 teachers showed that they used differing models for literature instruction against which they gauged their effectiveness. Flexible, student-centered models allowed teachers to address differences among students. Inflexible, teacher-centered models often limited teachers' ability to address student needs effectively. The kinds of models the teachers used determined whether or not they were willing to listen to feedback from students and to use it to make changes in their literature curriculum.
References
1.
AgeeJ. (1997). Readers becoming teachers of literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 397–431.
2.
AgeeJ. (1998). Negotiating different conceptions about reading and teaching literature in a preservice literature class. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 85–124.
3.
AllenJ. (1995). It's never too late: Leading adolescents to lifelong literacy.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
4.
AlvermannD. (1990). What teachers do when they say they're having discussions of content area reading assignments: A qualitative study. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 296–322.
5.
ApplebeeA.N. (1993). Literature in the secondary school: Studies of curriculum and instruction in the United States.Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
6.
BeachR.ApplemanD.DorseyS. (1990). Adolescents' uses of intertextual links to understand literature. In BeachR.HyndsS. (Eds.), Developing discourse practices in adolescence and adulthood (pp. 224–245). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7.
BrunerJ. (1990). Acts of meaning.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
CreswellJ. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
DelpitL. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.
10.
DeStigterT. (1998). The Tesoras literacy project: An experiment in democratic communities. Research in the Teaching of English, 32, 10–42.
11.
DiasP. (1992). Literary reading and classroom constraints: Aligning practice with theory. In LangerJ. (Ed.), Literature instruction: A focus on student response (pp. 131–162). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
12.
DiasP. (1996). Reading and responding to poetry: Patterns in the process.Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
13.
EedsM.WellsD. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning construction in literature study groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 4–29.
14.
FindersM. (1998/1999). Raging hormones: Stories of adolescence and implications for teacher preparation. Journal of Adult and Adult Literacy, 42, 252–265.
15.
FullerD. (1992). Monocultural teachers and multicultural students: A demographic clash. Teaching Education, 4, 87–93.
16.
GamoranA. (1993). Alternative uses of ability grouping in secondary schools: Can we bring high-quality instruction to low-ability classrooms?American Journal of Education, 102, 1–22.
17.
GeeJ.P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses.London: Taylor & Francis.
18.
GoodsonI.F. (Ed.). (1992). Studying teachers' lives.New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
GrossmanP. (1991). Overcoming the apprenticeship of observation in teacher education coursework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 345–357.
20.
GutierrezK.RhymesB.LarsonJ. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus “Brown v. the Board of Education.”Harvard Educational Review, 65, 445–471.
21.
HeathS.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HillocksG. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching.New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
HinchmanK.MojeE. (1998). Locating the social and political in secondary school literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 117–128.
24.
HinesM.B. (1995). Complicating the coherence quest(ions): What's theory got to do, got to with it?English Education, 27, 240–257.
25.
HyndsS. (1997). On the brink: Negotiating literature and life with adolescents.New York: Teachers College Press.
26.
HyndsS.ApplemanD. (1997). Walking our talk: Between response and responsibility in the literature classroom. English Education, 29, 272–294.
27.
IveyG. (1999). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities among young adolescent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 172–192.
28.
KnoellerC. (1998). Voicing ourselves: Whose words we use when we talk about books.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
29.
LampertM. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55, 178–194.
30.
LangerJ. (1992). Rethinking literature instruction. In LangerJ. (Ed.), Literature instruction: A focus on student response (pp. 35–53). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
31.
LangerJ. (1995). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction.New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
LeeC.D. (1993). Signifying as a scaffold for literary interpretation: The pedagogical implications of an African American discourse genre (Research Report No. 26). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
33.
LeyT.SchaerB.DismukesB. (1994). Longitudinal study of the reading attitudes and behaviors of middle school students. Reading Psychology, 15, 11–38.
34.
LortieD. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
MarshallJ. (1989). Patterns of discourse in classroom discussions of literature.Albany, NY: Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.
36.
MarshallJ.SmagorinskyP.SmithM. (1995). The language of interpretation: Patterns of discourse in discussions of literature (Research Report 27). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
37.
MayherJ.S. (1990). Uncommon sense: Theoretical practice in language education.Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
38.
MerriamS. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
NystrandM.GamoranA. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261–290.
41.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42.
OakesJ. (1997). Detracking: The social construction of ability, cultural politics, and resistance to reform. Teachers College Record, 98, 482–510.
43.
OgbuJ. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective.New York: Academic Press.
44.
PageR. (1989). The lower-track curriculum at a “heavenly” high school: Cycles of prejudice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21, 197–221.
45.
PradlG. (1996). Literature for democracy: Reading as a social act.Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
46.
ProbstR. (1984). Adolescent literature: Response and analysis.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
47.
PurvesA.BeachR. (1972). Literature and the reader: Research in response to literature, reader interests, and the teaching of literature.Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
48.
PurvesA.RogersT.SoterA. (1995). How porcupines make love: III, Readers, texts, cultures in the response-based literature classroom.New York: Longman.
49.
RabinowitzP.SmithM. (1997). Authorizing readers: Resistance and respect in the teaching of literature.New York: Teachers College Press.
50.
RogersT. (1997). No imagined peaceful place: A story of community, texts, and cultural conversations in one urban high school English classroom. In RogersT.SoterA. (Eds.), Reading across cultures: Teaching literature in a diverse society (pp. 95–115). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
51.
RoseM. (1989). Live on the boundary: A moving account of the struggles and achievements of America's educationally underprepared.New York: Penguin.
52.
RosenblattL. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.
53.
RosenblattL. (1983). Literature as exploration (4th ed.). New York: Modern Language Association.
54.
ScribnerS.ColeM. (1981). The psychology of literacy.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55.
SimsR. (1982). Shadow and substance: Afro-American experience in contemporary children's fiction.Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
56.
SlavinR. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471–499.
57.
SpearR. (1994). Teachers' perceptions of ability grouping practices in middle level schools. Research in Middle Level Education, 18, 117–130.
58.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
59.
VinzR. (1996). Composing a teaching life.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
60.
WoodsP. (1996). Researching the art of teaching: Ethnography for educational use.London: Routledge.
61.
ZancanellaD. (1991). Teachers reading/Readers teaching: Five teachers' personal approaches to literature and their teaching of literature. Research in the Teaching of Literature, 25, 5–32.
