READER RESPONSE JOURNALS IN SENIOR ENGLISH:
REVISITING THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
TO ENHANCE CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Dr. Janet E. McIntosh,
Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Education, Nipissing University

Introduction

During my 13 years as a secondary English teacher, I successfully used reader response journals as a meaningful base for the study of literature (McIntosh, 1992). Student writers clarified their values, explored their feelings and closely examined their own lives (McIntosh, 1999). I’ve experimented with various response techniques in English classes; none has been as successful as the response journal. Two years ago, as a teacher educator, I had the opportunity to teach the Senior English course to pre-service teachers. With recent teaching experience in secondary classrooms, I was confident and eager to share current practice with those new to the teaching of English. My challenge was to determine how to share this effective journaling strategy and at the same time enhance their understanding of the value of classroom implementation. Teaching in a Faculty of Education, I was acutely aware of the need to balance theory and practice. My enthusiasm and commitment to the strategy was an ideal starting point but it wasn’t enough.

Research on beginning teachers indicates that “they teach the way they were taught” (Smagorinsky, 1995). If pre-service teachers’ own classroom experience did not include writing response journals, they would likely be resistant to employing this strategy with their own students. How could I effectively encourage them to implement response journals in their Senior English classrooms? What strategies would I use? Giving pre-service teachers an opportunity to practice personally responding to text would help them understand what constitutes authentic reflection. If they acquired a better sense of their own written responses, this would only enhance their classroom practice as they guided their students to become reflective response writers through use of the reader response journal.

Classroom Strategies

During weekly two hour class sessions, I tried various strategies to assist pre-service teachers with acquiring a clearer understanding of response theory and the practical applications. Frequent opportunities were provided to help them develop the attitudes and skills necessary to effectively implement reader response journals in their classrooms – both during their current practice teaching placements and later on in their future classrooms. (I questioned whether I really knew what attitudes and skills were needed). Two strategies involved pre-service teachers completing their own reader response journal and then participating in literature groups. During our initial class, they selected one of five senior-level English novels. Four or five chose each of the novels to ensure that all five were studied and that they could later share in literature groups with peers who had read the same novel. Over a two month period, they read five 20-page segments, and after reading each segment, they recorded a one page journal entry. On predetermined dates, entries were shared for 20 minutes in their literature groups. After five class sessions of literature groups, they submitted their mini response journal to me for assessment.

By using this strategy, I modeled an approach they could use in their own classrooms. Course participants were actively engaged in the literature group activity; they read the assigned pages, and brought their completed entries to class for literature group discussions which often extended beyond the 20 minute time block. Many wanted to read more than 20 pages in one sitting, and were sometimes annoyed that they needed to stop the reading process and write. We discussed making the process authentic – as it would be in their classrooms and the importance of writing as one reads, as initial impressions often change over time.

Some pre-service teachers asked questions about responding in writing themselves. One said: “But, am I to write as a Grade 12 student would?” The individual nature of journal responses was a topic of discussion; I encouraged them to write about their own interaction with the text. Recognition that their encounters with the text were different than those of Senior English students came after a few literature group sessions. I was, and continue to be, intrigued by the difficulty some of the course participants had with separating their own participation in the classroom activity from the teaching strategy itself. Many, Howard and Hoge’s (2002) research supports my observation:

Some students have difficulty detaching themselves from the workshop experience in order to objectively analyze the teaching strategies…staying aware of and learning from the teaching approach as well would require that students simultaneously note and learn from how they were being taught (from a teacher’s perspective) as well as what was being addressed (from a learner’s perspective). (p. 316)

It was comforting to know that other teacher educators had similar experiences with their students. Taking the time to debrief as a whole class after literature group sharing was essential. Although I sat in with each literature group during sharing sessions, I couldn’t be sure that they had seen what I had. My key questions were: what happened in your group? What worked? What didn’t work and why? How and why would you modify this activity for students at senior level?

In addition to keeping a reader response journal and participating in literature groups, a third strategy I incorporated was that of pre-service teachers completing a Triple Entry Notebook as they reflected on assigned readings from professional journals; these were compiled in a Course Pack that served as the course text. Readings included those on Reader Response theory and practical applications (Kooy, 1996; Parsons, 2001; Probst, 1994; Wilhelm, 1997). Some time for reading in class was provided; articles were read and then initial reactions were recorded in Triple Entry Notebooks (summary, personal reflection, peer sharing). Writers completed columns one and two independently and during small group sharing, they recorded peer comments in the third column. When creating this assignment, I wondered about whether it was too structured but I noted that course participants benefited from this organization, especially when completing the first few entries. Sitting in on Triple Entry Notebook sharing sessions, I observed that theoretical readings provided a challenge to some pre-service teachers. Initially this surprised me, but within a class or two, I noticed that many were anxious to gather practical strategies but were overwhelmed by the theory. Being aware of their discomfort in grasping the theory, I made a conscious effort to balance theoretical readings with those of a practical nature by interspersing them over a number of classes. As a class, we discussed the importance of having a theoretical base for teaching English.

A final strategy I employed was the assessment of the submitted reader response journal and a class discussion about the feedback provided by the professor; this is frequently an issue of concern for teachers. In order for journals to be an integral part of an English program, they need to be assessed. In a senior English class, students do not have the same commitment to writing them if they are simply assigned a ‘complete’ or ‘incomplete’. The Senior English course assignment of completing a response journal culminated in pre-service teachers submitting the product for assessment. Criteria for assessment included organization, evidence of thoughtful reflection, and level of textual engagement. After the assessed journals were returned, with permission, I shared a few excerpts from them, verbally and via transparencies. Discussion about what constituted thoughtful reflection and textual engagement resulted. Excerpts from response journals recorded on transparencies and shared on screen demonstrated the authentic nature of response entries.

Origin of the Study

While using each of the classroom strategies, I carefully observed the pre-service teachers and tried to address some questions in my mind; these were concerns about about my own classroom practice. Making the transition from secondary English teacher to English Educator was an eye-opener. Instilling a theoretical base for teaching English was essential but I was constantly pulled between what I thought pre-service teachers “needed” and what “they thought they needed”. Reading the Course Pack articles, then writing about them in Triple Entry Notebooks, served as a means of exposing course participants to the theory of Reader Response. But, were they internalizing the theory or just reading, writing and reflecting on it?

When I set up the Reader Response Journal assignment, I considered that if they understood the theory, then putting it into practice, by writing a response journal themselves, would make much more sense. But, did this approach make sense to them? Those who had not experienced using journals during their own education, either in high school or university courses seemed hesitant about embracing this strategy; they questioned why I was using it with them. I wondered about whether the strategies used in the course were effective in assisting the pre-service teachers with acquiring a necessary comfort level with using a new technique, especially one which has proven to be so effective in English classrooms in the past 10 years. Wouldn’t journaling themselves help them empathize with their students when they were writing journals for the first time? Why were they so hesitant? Why couldn’t they write what they felt? What did they think I was really looking for in a response? Were they trying to write the ideal response?

With all of these questions, I needed to seek some answers to clarify my own classroom practice. Simple observation didn’t answer the queries I still had in my mind. Internalizing reader response theory would likely result in authentic reflection in their own journal writing…at least, I thought so. What weighed most on my mind was whether the current strategies I was employing to introduce reader response journals to pre-service teachers in the Senior English Course resulted in them creating authentic reflective journal responses in a course assignment.

My quest for closer study of this issue resulted in the question for my action research, and the focus for development and implementation of a research program. Acquiring an increased awareness about pre-service English teachers’ attitudes towards employing response strategies in their English classrooms was one goal. Further knowledge about this issue could only enhance my classroom practice as I assisted pre-service teachers in developing the attitudes and skills necessary to implement response journals in their classrooms. As I planned my course for the following year, I decided to gather data and consider whether change in my practice would benefit the course participants.

Last fall I embarked on a two year study to examine the attitudes of pre-service teachers, in my two Senior English courses, about using Reader Response Journals. Phase One involved an attitude questionnaire and Phase Two explores whether the current teaching strategies I employed to introduce response journals to course participants result in them creating authentic reflective journals responses in a course assignment. Journals have been collected from study participants but data analysis has not yet been completed. A proposal for the study went to the University Ethical Review Committee and approval was granted. Currently, Phase One data for the first year has been gathered and analysed; it is my focus for the next section.

Data Collection

Two months into the Senior English course, pre-service teachers were invited to participate in the study; an informed consent was signed by participants. The 47 participants completed a questionnaire entitled “Pre-service teachers’ attitudes about implementing reader response journals in senior English classrooms”. The focus was on the strategies I had used in the course over the first two months; specific questions were presented about their prior knowledge of response journals, class activities and readings they found most helpful, feelings after completing their own journal, use of journals on practicum, considerations about using them in the future, and lastly, what they still needed to know before they felt comfortable implementing response journals in their classrooms. Answers of “yes” or “no” were requested for each question; in some cases, clarification was requested in the form of a short explanation. Questionnaires were completed in 15 minutes during class time and placed in a box for collection purposes. This process was repeated for the 2 nd Senior English class. I then collated the 47 questionnaire answers and searched for patterns in the responses.

Data Analysis

Data from the questionnaires revealed some significant results. When asked about their awareness of response journals before the current course, 22 responders had knowledge of them in high school or university classes; the split was about even. For those who stated high school, they wrote response journals in Grade 10, 11, 12 English. University introduction to response journals came in a Literary Theory and Criticism Course. The question about whether Course Pack readings clarified their understanding of why English teachers might use response journals in their classrooms resulted in 44 “yes” responses and only three “no” responses. Many respondents (18) stated a reading by Robert Probst (1994) entitled “Reader Response Theory in the English Curriculum” to be the most helpful. A second reading, written by a teacher struggling with implementing literature response journals for the first time, was one that 10 respondents cited.

Activities pre-service teachers stated helped to clarify their understanding of response journals included participating in a reader response or literature group (28), writing their own journal (13), and a combination of the two (5). One respondent wrote, “actual participation in the response groups allowed me to actively learn about the process as opposed to being lectured.” All respondents indicated that both class discussion about Reader Response theory and the professor’s knowledge about theory and use of response journals increased their understanding of this strategy. One wrote, “her excitement and use of this strategy made me want to try them in my classroom.” When asked about whether completing a reader response journal for a course assignment enhanced their understanding or influenced their willingness to implement this strategy, all respondents answered “yes”. This question resulted in detailed answers. One respondent wrote, “it made me more conscious of what I’m expecting from my students, made me more aware of what types of questions students might have on how to write journals.” In writing about the journaling experience, one recorded, “I saw my own engagement with the text develop and the depth of analysis and reflection became more obvious with the writing of each journal.”

One question inquired about use of response journals in senior English classrooms while pre-service teachers were on practicum. Only five respondents stated that they had used response journals with their students. In most cases, the others didn’t have the opportunity as they were placed in intermediate English classrooms or in another subject area for practicum. A respondent who used response journals in a Grade 12 English class wrote, “students responded to different readings in the text…the results were great. They were reflective and not surprisingly, lengthy. Getting those students to write is normally not an easy task.” When asked about whether they would consider using response journals in their own classrooms in future years, 46 responded with “yes.” One respondent wrote, “I think they are an accessible way to engage students in texts and also serve as a good bridge to more analytical reflection; it’s an excellent way to promote critical thinking.” The final question asked whether they felt they had enough information about response journals to implement them in their own Senior English classroom and to state any concerns they still had. 40 respondents answered “yes” and three, “no.” Concerns recorded were a request for “a list of resources specifically for reader response journals” and “I still have evaluation concerns. How can I give a grade for a student’s engagement with a text?”

How preliminary results of the study inform my current practice

Through study and analysis of the pre-service teachers’ questionnaire responses, I certainly acquired an increased awareness about their attitudes toward employing response strategies in English classrooms. Detailed answers to some of the questions were honest and provided me with further insight for course planning. Answers to the question about whether their awareness of journals occurred in high school or university courses were enlightening. Although about half were familiar with journals, what surprised me most was that they wrote journals in high school courses but only discussed them in university. It caused me to ponder the issue of theory and practice. Although teacher education is a university program, the course participants are preparing to teach in high school classrooms. Can one really grasp the essence of a response journal if they talk about it, but don’t have the opportunity to write one? I believe that it is through the act of writing that one truly learns about the journaling process. Even if one is hesitant when first using the strategy, it is definitely a worthwhile assignment in an English Education course. As I had hoped, the respondents’ answers indicated that they found “writing their own journal” helped to clarify their understanding of reader response journals. In their comments, they demonstrated that they saw themselves as both student writers and teachers when they wrote in journals; they reflected on how they felt about experiencing the journaling process, and considered how they felt or how their students might feel. Their reflective stance reinforced in my mind the importance of immersing pre-service teachers in journaling since it integrates the theory and the practice which is essential in a Faculty of Education program. Providing a theoretical base for response journals is important but I have learned that starting with the practical part, the journal writing itself, is the ideal. Study data has convinced me of the validity of this approach, and I continue to assign the writing of a reader response journal as part of the Senior English course.

Participation in reader response or literature groups was an activity which respondents felt helped them better understand reader response journals. A number stated this although some revealed that they valued “writing in their own journal.” This data surprised me but I drew a conclusion. Some of the pre-service teachers saw these as separate activities – writing the journals and then sharing their responses with others whereas I considered them combined since my observation during their literature groups was that that they referred to their journal entries as they engaged in small group sharing. The actual dialogue was precipitated by the focus on their written responses but there was no question that it certainly moved well beyond that. Discussion of journal responses in literature groups contributed to course participants developing a positive attitude about response journals. Their comfort level became more apparent over a few weeks and contributed to their willingness to embrace the possibilities of using new strategies in English classrooms. Although I had set aside limited class time for literature groups, the study results indicated that course participants valued group sharing; this year I will devote more class time to this process.

Although I’m often tempted to focus on the theory and then work at the application of it, the questionnaire results indicated that pre-service teachers valued course readings that presented a balance of theory and practice. I continue to share the readings they cited as being most helpful; this year I added readings of this nature to the Course Pack. I’m searching for further readings, and plan to supplement them as I discover new ones in professional journals. Current research in the field of English teaching is always well received by course participants.

My study is not complete; this paper addresses the preliminary findings. As I re-read and analyse the questionnaire data, I reflect on what aspects of my current classroom practice were valuable to the course participants; enhancing my practice was the focus when I began this study. By gathering data from course participants, I’ve re-visited my classroom practice in order to address the effectiveness of my approach and made some changes. The second year of data collection for Phase I occurs in December 2003; analysis of journals collected for Phase II of the study’s first year is in progress. Will the pre-service teachers’ journals indicate that they have internalized the theory of reader response within their practice of journaling? The learning process continues; I have more questions than answers.

References

Kooy, M. & Wells, J. (1996). Reading Response Logs: Inviting students to explore novels, short stories, plays, poetry and more. Markham: Pembroke.

McIntosh, J.E. (1992). Student Reader Response Journals in Secondary English Classrooms as a meaningful base for the study of literature. Master of Education Thesis. Toronto, ON: York University.

McIntosh, J.E. (1999). The Influence of Gender on Secondary English Students’ written responses to text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.

Many, J.E., Howard, F., & Hoge, P. (2002). Epistemology and Preservice Teacher Education: How do beliefs about knowledge affect our students’ experiences? English Education, 34, (4), 302-322.

Parsons, L. (2001). Response Journals Revisited. Markham, ON: Pembroke.

Probst, R. (1994). Reader-Response Theory and the English Curriculum. English Journal, 83, 37-44.

Smagorinsky, P., & Whiting, M. (1995). How English Teachers Get Taught: Methods of Teaching the Methods Class. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Wilhelm, J.D. (1997). “You Gotta BE the book: Teaching engaged and reflective reading with adolescents. New York, NY: Teachers College.

Biographical Note:

Janet E. McIntosh is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education at Nipissing University, North Bay, Ontario, where her teaching responsibilities include pre-service courses in Junior/Intermediate Language Arts and Senior English. Her research interests include English Education, response to literature, and reader response journals. She can be reached at Nipissing University, Faculty of Education, 100 College Drive, North Bay, ON. Canada, P1B 8L7. Email: janetm@nipissingu.ca