Reading & Writing - Journal of the Literacy Association of South Africa
ISSN: (Online) 2308-1422, (Print) 2079-8245
Page 1 of 8
Original Research
Multiple voices: Learners reflect on literature
Authors:
Jessamy Kromhout1
Eileen M. Scheckle2
Affiliations:
1
Collegiate Girls’ High School,
Port Elizabeth, South Africa
Faculty of Education, Nelson
Mandela University, Port
Elizabeth, South Africa
2
Research Project Registration:
Project Number: 93296
Corresponding author:
Eileen Scheckle,
eileen.scheckle@mandela.
ac.za
Dates:
Received: 19 Dec. 2020
Accepted: 28 June 2021
Published: 26 Aug. 2021
How to cite this article:
Kromhout, J. & Scheckle, E.M.,
2021, ‘Multiple voices:
Learners reflect on literature’,
Reading & Writing 12(1), a304.
https://doi.org/10.4102/
rw.v12i1.304
Copyright:
© 2021. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creative Commons
Attribution License.
Background: Much of the research in literacy focuses on what learners fail to do, especially in
the early grades, but it is equally important to research successful readers. In particular
learners’ experiences with literature contribute to our understanding of the possibilities
literary texts offer. This article focused on learners’ responses to Advanced Programme (AP)
English, which was an optional subject offered at an ex-Model C school, to understand how
the learners had taken up these literary texts.
Objectives: This study explored how matric learners spoke about the literature they had
studied, in their AP English, in an informal group meeting.
Methods: A qualitative case study was used to explore learners’ responses to literature. A final
focus group meeting at the end of their matric year provides the data for this article. The
transcriptions were coded using repeated patterns for themes to explore the stances taken in
relation to the literature whether efferent or aesthetic.
Results: The data showed how learners had incorporated fragments from the literature into
their own utterances so that their language use echoed the literature. In addition to an efferent
exam focus, the literature and AP English practices were used in both Art and Home Language
English examinations.
Conclusions: Learners need opportunities to talk about the multiple voices of literature in
their lives. This kind of talk offers a different perspective on how literature can enrich, disrupt
and extend learners’ thinking about literature and themselves. This research offers a
counterpoint to examination results and contributes to building a nation of readers.
Keywords: Advanced Programme English; literature; Bakhtin; dialogue; efferent and aesthetic
responses; The Waste Land; multiple voices.
Elizabeth: I also quite like how, also just when you mentioned Ozymandias, how I’ve also like personally
identified with one of the poems we’ve kind of learnt.
Emma:
Anyone…
Elizabeth: But like like, you can, like of all the poems like you learn you can always go back to your
favourite one. Because, okay, I’m going to use it, but for me Anyone [unclear] … I used it
in every single flipping exam because it was my favourite and I could really read deep
into it, and I felt like I could just work with everything, just … and when you find
something like that that you really like and identify with, it’s just so nice to know that
you’ve got like …
Patti:
I can appreciate Anyone because, because I never really liked E. E. Cummings before that, and
he’s always been like one of those, “mm, I don’t really, mm, I don’t feel you”. But then, but
with Anyone like I enjoyed it more. Like, I feel, maybe he can write something.
Emma:
And like, even when you take what people would call ‘generic’ poems nowadays, like The
Tiger.
Introduction
Read
Read online:
online:
Scan
Scan this
this QR
QR
code
code with
with your
your
smart
smart phone
phone or
or
mobile
mobile device
device
to
to read
read online.
online.
The learners in this extract are reflecting on the poetry they encountered in the Advanced
Programme (AP) English class. In particular, one used Ozymandias as an inspiration in her
Art exam. Her classmate, Elizabeth, acknowledges her own connection to a particular poem
which her friend suggests is Anyone. This is a reference to E.E. Cummings’s poem Anyone
lived in a pretty how town which Elizabeth reported using ‘in every flipping exam’. A third
learner, Patti, comments on Anyone and suggests it gave her a greater appreciation for the
work of E. E. Cummings. The last comment refers to a ‘generic’ poem, William Blake’s The
Tiger. This conversation occurred in a focus group session at the end of the academic year
where the participants reflected on the literature they had studied, specifically in their AP
English class.
http://www.rw.org.za
Open Access
Page 2 of 8
This was an optional subject, from the Independent
Examinations Board (IEB) curriculum, offered at an all-girls
government school. So, in addition to the prescribed
languages of Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement
(CAPS), a Home Language and an Additional Language,
these learners chose to also do AP English which focused on
literary studies, including film, and expected a level of
intertextuality where learners made links between the
different texts studied (IEB Curriculum Statement 2008). The
focus group occurred on a Saturday morning in the school
library after they had completed their final English exams so
this in no way contributed to any formal assessment. Instead,
it was a space to reflect differently and share their various
responses to literature as we were interested in how they
would talk about their literary experiences.
Talking about literature is a means to make sense of it. In fact,
learners themselves state they don’t understand what they have
read until they have spoken about it (Chambers 1996) and
others appreciate literature more when they have had a chance
to discuss it (Hébert 2008). Talk also provides insight into both
individual learners’ thinking as well as how cumulative
dialogical exchange deepens participants’ engagement with
literature. For those concerned with improving literacy it is
useful to see a vignette of school learners discussing their
personal responses to literature and get a sense of the trajectory
of school literacy (Cliff Hodges 2010a).
Much of our literacy research in South Africa focuses on what
learners cannot do in relation to texts. The Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) tests revealed
how our young learners struggle to find basic information in
texts (Howie et al. 2011, 2017). While the use of decontextualised
passages to assess how well learners read has been critiqued
(Janks 2011; Prinsloo & Krause 2018), these tests, like PIRLS,
are still an indication that our young learners struggle to make
meaning from the texts. What is also worrying from the cycle
of PIRLS tests is that in addition to the majority of learners not
reaching the lowest benchmark, at the other end of the scale,
the number of learners who achieve the highest benchmark on
PIRLS has also declined (Howie et al. 2011). This means that
even in the best resourced schools with a reading culture,
fewer Grade 4 and Grade 5 learners reached the advanced
benchmark where learners are expected to ‘integrate ideas as
well as evidence across a text to appreciate overall themes,
understand the author’s stance and interpret significant
events’ (Howie et al. 2017). As educators in South Africa, we
need to maintain, sustain and grow any pockets of excellence
as we would like to move a growing number of learners to
these high benchmarks.
At one end of the education continuum is the recognition that
success in early grade literacy is an important foundation for
academic progress and enjoyment. So early grade literacy has
been the focus of considerable research which often positions
our young learners as deficient. At the other end of the
education continuum, there is little qualitative research that
explores matric learners’ literacies and in particular their
http://www.rw.org.za
Original Research
responses to literary texts. Matric learners talking about their
responses to literature also provides an example of how
literature can be meaningful for learners – something that
testing does not explore. This article therefore examines
research done with matric learners and focuses on how they
talk about literature (Varga et al. 2020) to understand how
they connected with the literary texts they had studied. In
particular, this article focuses on learners’ aesthetic stance
towards literature (Rosenblatt 1991) as an indicator of both
personal enjoyment and meeting the CAPS development
goals for literature study.
The study of literature has always been a significant
component of the English Home Language curriculum
especially at the Further Education and Training (FET) level
where ‘Literature Study’ is repeated throughout the CAPS
teaching plan and warrants a two-and-a-half-hour
examination. The CAPS document also suggests that at
Home Language level of study, learners will develop their
‘literary, aesthetic and imaginative’ (CAPS 8) abilities and
that through engagement with literature learners will
develop a sensitivity to language ‘that is more refined,
literary, figurative, symbolic and deeply meaningful than
much of what else they may read’ (CAPS 12). The AP English
curriculum extends this goal with an exclusive focus on a
deep appreciation of literature in English and the development
of intertextuality and connections across texts.
These learners’ conversations about literature need to be
contextualised and explored with reference to Rosenblatt’s
(1991) efferent and aesthetic approaches to literature. This
will be supplemented with a discussion of talk and how
Bakhtin’s (1981) concepts of dialogic talk, in particular,
provides a lens to examine learners’ dialogic engagement
and intertextual links. Bakhtin’s interest in literature and his
concept of double-voicedness echoed the multiple voices in
The Waste Land which became a motif in this study.
Literature
Sketching the research landscape
Not much research has been written on matric learners’
responses to literature or even on the relevance or importance
of literary texts for youth in the South African context.
Instead, research studies have, justifiably, pointed to
problems or gaps in our literacy education. For example, a
survey of the articles in Reading & Writing, looking at the
titles and key words between 2015 and 2020, suggests that
most research is carried out at the tertiary level (see Boakye &
Linden 2018; Nkoala 2020) and includes academic literacy
across faculties (see Andrianatos 2019; Drennan 2017;
Esambe, Mosito & Pather 2016) as well as teacher education
courses (see Kimathi & Bertram 2020; Moodley & Aronstom
2016) or teacher practices (see Cekiso 2017; Madikiza, Cekiso,
Tshotsho & Landa 2018). Digital literacy has featured
regularly and was the focus of a special collection in 2018.
Challenges in developing literacy in the Foundation Phase
feature regularly (see Cilliers & Bloch 2018; Daries & Probert
Open Access
Page 3 of 8
2020; Nkomo 2018; Stoffelsma 2019) and less so at the
Intermediate Phase (Beck & Condy 2017). As expected,
multilingual challenges cut across all educational levels and
include practices of code-switching and translanguaging in
English First Additional Language contexts (see Akinyeye &
Plüddemann 2016; Hungwe 2019). These research studies
clearly reflect the over-riding concern with access to literacy,
often powerful forms of literacy (see Gennrich & Dison 2018;
Lloyd 2016), and the various challenges in developing levels
of literacy that will enable learners, at whatever level, to
exploit their literacy prowess in their personal and
educational pursuits (see Olifant, Cekiso & Rautenbach
2020). Cliff Hodges (2010b) noted a similar pattern in the
United Kingdom Literacy Association (UKLA) journal
Literacy, with scant research on learners’ responses to
literature, especially in the higher grades.
In addition to surfacing the challenges and inequalities in the
educational landscape, it is also valuable to see another side
of literacy: what learners might do with texts beyond the
requirements of passing exams, how learners talk about what
they have read and how the literature they have read at
school informs their personal and academic lives. Although
CAPS purports to encourage an appreciation for literature,
assessing learners via an examination seems to mitigate this.
The National Reading Coalition (https://nrc.org.za/) has
extended notions of reading practices. In particular, reading
for pleasure and gaining insights into ourselves and the
world around us has informed the President’s Reading Circle
initiative which seeks to cultivate:
a love of books and reading that will open our minds and hearts
to new ideas and lock in opportunities that flow from a
broadened understanding of the country and the world around
us. (https://nrc.org.za/president-reading-circle/)
Ideally, learners would develop a love of reading literary
texts through their engagement with these at school but this
personal response needs to be affirmed and nurtured. The
requirements of the examination system and the need to
produce essays that meet these requirements mitigate against
this (Doecke et al. 2009). Both teachers and learners are
assessed on how successfully they navigate this system,
which may leave little space for developing a personal
response to the literature.
Bakhtinian theory
Bakhtinian theory offers several entry points to understanding
learners’ responses to literature. Firstly Bakhtin (1981)
suggested that all literature contains echoes of previous
utterances which are taken up and used afresh by different
speakers. Thus, speakers recontextualise what they have read
in new circumstances and nothing is completely new or
original. As ‘the word is born in a dialogue as a living rejoinder’
(Bakhtin 1981:279), the social, interactive, generative elements
of language are stressed as people draw on different levels of
language in a heteroglossic mix. Secondly Bakhtin recognised
different forces at play in language use, namely centripetal, a
pull towards a central standardised language, and centrifugal,
http://www.rw.org.za
Original Research
an outward, sometimes playful, and colloquial language use.
These two forces he suggested act in tension. The centripetal
forces of language serve to pull language towards the centre
and result in common unitary languages that people share
(Bakhtin 1981). This understanding of languages as singular
and standard ignores the contributions and purposes of the
language users (Bakhtin 1981). The individual’s voice, used in
a dialogic context, may be fragmented, may draw on different
levels and generational uses of language, and thereby exert a
centrifugal force. As languages are used and speakers draw on
other utterances and frame them uniquely in the mixing
of ‘different linguistic consciousnesses’ (Bakhtin 1981:429),
languages become heteroglossic and hybrid. A singular,
unitary language only exists as a concept; instead there are
contextualised variations in talk so there are multiple meanings
expressed by multiple voices (Newell 2019). Meaning making
occurs in dialogic spaces where many voices are heard, rather
than monologic, teacher-dominated spaces.
Understanding literary responses
Engagement with literature and the reader’s personal
response has been difficult to pin down (Hébert 2008),
especially among young adults. Rosenblatt (1994) proposed a
distinction between efferent and aesthetic reading and
argued that the reader’s personal response was central to an
appreciation of the text. An aesthetic stance involves a
personal appreciation as opposed to an efferent approach in
which the reader is concerned with finding and possibly
sharing information. Although both of these responses to
literature may be activated interchangeably, school
engagement with literature involves ‘discourse production’
(Hébert 2008) in the form of examinations or essays to be
evaluated. So the efferent approach, in Rosenblatt’s (1991)
terms, is prioritised.
An aesthetic stance, which values the ‘penumbra of private
feelings, attitudes, sensations and ideas’ (Rosenblatt
1994:184), is based on the interactions between the readers
and the text in the activity of reading. In this process, what
the reader brings to the text is central to the meaning that is
created. Therefore, there would be no true or singular
meaning that the reader is trying to uncover. Similarly,
transformative reading (Fialho 2019) focuses on reading as a
literary engagement with personal connections. She suggests
that this kind of reading recognises the reciprocal exchange
between reader and text and suggests that through this
personal involvement in the text, one’s sense of self is
modified and expanded or augmented as there is a personal
awakening (Fialho 2019).
Responses to literature extend beyond personal involvement
and appreciation. Reading literature that excites the
imagination prompts learners to ‘reflect on themselves as
human beings as they shuttle back and forth between
literature and life’ (Cliff Hodges 2010b:66). Thus, their
knowledge of themselves and the world expands. As the
readers enter the fictional world and journey together with
Open Access
Page 4 of 8
the characters, they experience a vicarious world, understand
choices made and develop empathy (Gabrielsen, BlikstadBalas & Tenaberg 2019). When readers identify with a
character’s actions and understand the character’s perspectives
it can result in reducing prejudice and accepting diversity
(Vezalli, Stathi, Giovannini, Capozza & Trifiletti 2015). The
value of literary reading lies in the accretions of experiences
and ‘the power of the text to linger’ (Cliff Hodges 2010b:67)
and motivate re-reading and further reading.
Talking literature
A sociocultural perspective involves understanding what
people do with literacy (Heath 1983) and in this case with
literary texts. In particular, a sociocultural understanding
involves a closer look at the meaning and meaningfulness of
these texts for these learners outside of the classroom. Talking
about texts provides a space to think together with others
and develop an understanding from the cumulative
knowledge that is shared in a collaborative enterprise (Mercer
& Howe 2012). Busch (2010) argues that both the social
context and the relationship between users contribute to the
meaning making. If learners have not had wide exposure to
books and stories as Heath (1983) recognised, then they need
many opportunities to engage with books and ‘require
socialization into the ways of making sense of literary
meaning and values’ (Gabrielsen et al. 2019). This socialisation
frequently occurs through talk, often at a socio-cognitive
level in classrooms (Hébert 2008).
Talking about texts is central to experiencing literature and
making sense of what is read (Hébert 2008). The power and
possibilities for talk and learning from talk are evident in
research in literature circles (Daniels 2002; King 2001) or
book clubs (McMahon & Raphael 1997; Tichenor, Piechura,
Diedrichs & Heins 2020) which are premised on the notion
of dialogic talk to develop learning (Eeds & Wells 1989). In
these examples of literary talk, speakers take up and echo
the words from the text both in their meaning making and
in taking ownership as ‘how students talk about literature
matters’ (Gabrielsen et al. 2019). Talking about literary texts
‘helps to confirm, extend, or modify individual interpretation
and creates a better understanding of the text’ (Eeds & Wells
1989:27). If a dialogic space is created in which responsiveness
is encouraged, longer exchanges of exploratory talk result
(Boyd, Tynan & Potteiger 2018). When learners engage in
reflective talk, where they reflect on their thinking and
learning processes, they begin to make meaning of their
values and beliefs and the discussions that result ‘can lead
to the transformation of ideas and actions’ (Vetter &
Meacham 2018:229). Encouraging talk about the literary
texts motivates thinking and reflection, especially when the
educator figure wants to learn about the learners’ responses
to the texts (Boyd et al. 2018). Cliff Hodges (2010b) argues
that it is important to pay attention to those learners who do
read if we want to understand the complexity of reading
and to value learner voices.
http://www.rw.org.za
Original Research
Methodology
Design
This study was part of a larger case study (Yin 2009)
investigating learners’ experiences of an AP English course.
This was a 2-year programme that focused on literature and
intertextuality. The data for this article came from a focus
group reflection at the end of the learners’ matric year. As
part of the case study this article offers a vignette (Creswell
2013), or a moment in time, of these learners’ thinking about
literature and possible connections they had made.
Participants
Eleven learners from a group of 12 participated in the final
focus group meeting after completion of their final exams. The
choice of meeting day and time was negotiated with the
learners to fit in with their academic schedules. The participants
chose to meet on a Saturday morning in the school library. All
ethical procedures were complied with as permission had
been sought from parents and school administration for the
case study and assent or consent depending on participants’
ages. Participants’ anonymity was protected by the use of
pseudonyms, in this case characters from literary fiction were
chosen in line with the literary focus of the study.
Data collection method and procedure
The reflection session consisted of individual writing and a
focus group meeting. Although this article will focus on what
emerged during the focus group, the writing provided a space
to focus on the AP English experience. Talk is often used as a
precursor, or scaffold, for writing, so that learners try out their
ideas orally (Chambers 1996) and build on each other’s
understanding (Beattie 2007) in preparation to write. However,
writing can also be a form of thinking as Pelias (2011) suggests
that in the process of writing, understanding becomes clearer.
In an effort to prompt their writing and channel their thinking
to their AP English, learners were also given an outline of a
body and invited to reflect on the course using the metaphor of
Written on the Body, which echoed Jeanette Winterson’s (1992)
eponymous novel with the palimpsest suggestion of layers of
writing overlaid with later thinking. Thereafter the participants
gathered and responded to the prompt on what was
meaningful about their AP English experiences. This was a
dialogic space ‘predicated on ceding to students a degree of
control of both content and behaviour’ (Alexander 2018:31)
where the learners took ownership of the discussion, which
was supportive and respectful, thus meeting some of
Alexander’s criteria for dialogic learning. Besides the opening
and closing remarks, the teacher was silent and instead the
learners proffered their thoughts and reflections on their AP
English experience and built on each other’s comments. The
focus group discussion was recorded and transcribed.
Data analysis
Using content analysis, the transcriptions of the focus
group were coded for different themes to find repetitive
Open Access
Page 5 of 8
patterns (Saldanha 2009). Firstly, we looked at how the
learners spoke about the literary texts and how these
informed different aspects of their lives. This also included
particular positions and attitudes with regard to literature
as they looked ahead to their future studies beyond
secondary school. Unsurprisingly there was a focus on
literature in their academic lives, in terms of both Home
Language English and other subjects such as Art. In addition,
there were specific comments on the literary engagement
process of exploring poetry in particular and their growing
appreciation for specific poems that resonated with
individuals. In line with this qualitative approach and
dialogic sharing, codes were emergent (Creswell 2013) as
evidenced in the participants’ utterances. The analysis also
considered Rosenblatt’s (1991) efferent and aesthetic stances
in an effort to understand how learners used texts outside of
the evaluative setting of literature examinations.
Findings
As indicated, the focus group meeting occurred at the end of
the matric year. As such it was an opportune moment for
reflection before the participants embarked on tertiary
studies and adult life. Thus, this article presents a vignette of
their thinking at this moment in time. We were interested in
capturing and understanding how the literature of the AP
English course might have informed the thinking and lives
of the participants. It should be noted that for these learners
the literature and the approach to literature were all part of
the AP experience; however, in the analysis we will try to
disentangle these. Our focus first is on the literature and
particularly the poetry and thereafter on the AP English
experience
‘The Waste Land’
The opening extract between Elizabeth, Emma and Patti
reflects the interactive and shared nature of the group who
could anticipate each other’s poetry preferences. Their
conversation shifted from Shelley’s Ozymandias, to E. E.
Cummings’s Anyone lived in a pretty how town, and how this
poem became a resource in writing examinations. The
conversation built on an understanding of Cummings’
oeuvre and how this poem led to an increased appreciation
of Cummings’s work in general. The dialogue developed
further with a reference to Blake’s The Tiger, which is
described as a ‘generic’ poem, or one that could appeal quite
widely. In the following extract Patti reflects on how AP
English lingered with her in her Art class:
Patti:
I wish I’d used ‘A hand full of dust’ as a title for like
this thing that I did with hourglasses and skulls
turning into fish and stuff … that was cool.
Girls:
(Laugh followed by pause)
Patti:
But then I suppose also my love affair with
Ozymandias …
Girls:
(Chuckle)
Patti:
And um, but I had an artwork that was almost also
subconsciously more based on Ozymandias, well I
http://www.rw.org.za
Original Research
suppose now when I look back and reflect, I’m like –
that’s what I called this artwork, it’s Ozymandias. It’s
like the skull, and then there’s mountains, and there’s
this dude walking into the mountains but there’s like
no hope forwards or backwards, and there’s just like
… emptiness.
Scout:
Almost like … ya (Chuckles)
Patti:
Right? But it was like something I didn’t actually
realise it was affecting me that much until like, you
know, afterwards it was like, ‘Wow’.
In this interaction we see how Patti moves from fragments of
The Waste Land to a recognition of how images from
Ozymandias informed her artwork thinking. Her description
of her artwork suggests a level of abstraction, and reflects
how comfortable she feels with using multiple images or
ideas. She refers to her love affair with the poem and, in this
way, she positions herself in relation to the poem by
emphasising how much she appreciates it.
Bakhtin’s term ‘generational language’ (Bakhtin 1981) also
ties in with the language she uses here, as she uses the word,
‘dude’, as well as ‘like’ which is littered throughout the
discussion. The generational language serves to unify the
participants as they are part of a particular generation of
people, but it also serves to decentralise the meaning found
in Ozymandias, as the centripetal and centrifugal forces are at
play. This mixing of two different linguistic forms, sometimes
from varied historical periods, in one concrete utterance is an
example of Bakhtin’s hybridity. As a result, this manner of
mixing different languages has the possibility of creating a
dynamic space that allows for new meaning, such as Patti’s
artwork or her ability to talk about poetry in a way that
makes sense to her. This open discussion between the
participants is the ‘quintessential form of dialogic interaction’
(Applebee et al. 2003:700) as the learners themselves lead and
volunteer their own contributions as they reflect on how they
used literature. In particular they seem to draw on their
knowledge of literature and apply it across academic
disciplines. When Elizabeth claims she used Anyone in ‘every
flipping exam’, she does not specify particular subject areas,
although it does seem as if it was widely applied. Similarly,
Patti’s artwork was infused with images from the literature
they had studied in AP English and she recognises that this
was done subconsciously and only on reflection did she
observe the connections between her art images and
literature.
Emma also draws on The Waste Land and recontextualises it
in a different interaction:
Emma:
Open Access
I love the way … I actually love the way we’ve learnt
how to intertextualise everything [regardless of the
fact that we do different poems?] that we do in English,
but I mean books that we’ve read in the past that we
may have forgotten about. It’s like, ‘Oh my word!
That actually, you know, it links with that’. And I
find it so weird, like Anais said, when she writes
Paper 3 and T.S. Eliot comes in, what I found is that
when I … for arguments or discussions, or when I’m
Page 6 of 8
trying to persuade something, Waste Land comes in
(giggles) … it’s like a random line from one of the
poems. Then I’ll actually stop, and like, ‘Waaaiitt …’
that kind of thing. I did this to my mom, I don’t
know what we were doing. I was trying to persuade
her of something and I just said, ‘I will show you
fear …’.
Here she recognises how she has made connections across
texts and has seen links to previous novels she has read so
that the literary works speak to each other in her sense
making. This stepping back and thinking about her thinking
is a significant metacognitive indicator as she is showing an
awareness of what is informing her responses to text: her
previous literary encounters. In these exchanges we can see
how the ‘social, cognitive and metacognitive aspects … of the
discussion are intertwined’ (Hébert 2008:30). In addition, she
draws on literary language ‘for arguments or discussions’,
and specifically uses The Waste Land. In trying to persuade
her mother she makes recourse to ‘I will show you fear …’ so
the literary language of the classroom has been transposed
and repurposed for persuasive family talk.
‘Revolutionary Road’
Literature has the potential to challenge, cause discomfort or
disrupt our thinking. Anna comments on another text, in this
case the film Revolutionary Road, and recognises that literature
can affect one on a deeper, uncomfortable level. She states:
‘And for example, Revolutionary Road … now at first I didn’t
really like it because it felt far too familiar to me. I could
associate myself with April and I know what she felt like,
which was scary. Because you’re forced to see something,
realise that you identify with it, and realise that you feel that
way, and that is a part of you.’ (Anna)
Anna is able to identify with the character of April and, as a
result, she recognises that she has the potential to think and
act in a similar fashion to the character. This resonates with
Zadie Smith’s suggestion that literature challenges our sense
of self:
A great piece of fiction can demand that you acknowledge the
reality of its wildest proposition, no matter how alien it may be
to you. It can also force you to concede the radical otherness
lurking within things that appear most familiar. (Smith 2007)
Anna goes on to say how the literature required her to reflect
on a deeper, uncomfortable level. She states that:
‘Like, there was a lot of … of heavy stuff. Like Waste Land. But ya,
other than that … like that’s why like on my thing that I wrote
here, ‘The hands felt the grit of ideas that didn’t want to be dealt
with or confronted’. Like me with Revolutionary Road. I felt
trapped and I felt suffocated, whereas the thought of comfort
was no longer there anymore. But then the other hand grasps
hope. It’s the hope of a sunflower, the hope of the little black boy,
that there is hope in all that darkness, which is kind of a valid.’
It is important to recognise that literature also includes the
‘heavy stuff’, which has the power to linger and in so doing
‘provokes thought about moral social and spiritual issues’
http://www.rw.org.za
Original Research
(Cliff Hodges 2010b:67). Despite the negative associations of
the poem The Waste Land and the film Revolutionary Road,
Anna does make reference to more positive aspects of the
literature which include her references to the Romantic
poetry that was studied, which includes the poems Ah!
Sunflower and The Little Black Boy by William Blake.
Advanced Programme English experience
Although the pedagogy of the AP English classes is not the
focus of this article, many of the learners commented on how
this course informed their thinking, as they made intertextual
links across literature. In addition, there were observations
about practice such as Emma’s comment ‘that in my
vocabulary “Add English” has now become a verb’ and that
she applies the thinking to her other subjects, particularly
Home Language (HL) English. She is aware of the different
requirements of English HL and noted:
‘[W]ith the poetry that we’re doing in class, I find all these
connections and like, I want to write this, but no, it’s Add English.
This is normal English, just talk about the poem itself.’ (Emma)
This comment suggests the more limited focus of the HL
examination. The learners have developed such a familiarity
with the poems that Anna says ‘we have to look at the poetry
as people’. She adds ‘like you’ve met The Tiger. You can kind
of figure out what kind of person they’d be, where they’d
come from’. Other learners spoke about their awareness of
literature in general. For example, Scout mentioned that
‘Add English was, was a stepping stone, a launching pad’.
She felt that ‘we’re like on the threshold of the front door, not
even through the front door’ and ‘I’m absolutely starving. I
want more literature and Add English has given me that’.
Many of these responses carry suggestions of Fialho’s (2019)
personal awakening as the texts linger powerfully in their
lives (Cliff Hodges 2010b). Anais picked up this idea of the
world of literature and shared ‘I started reading Emma by
Jane Austen the other day and, okay, I don’t like the main
character and I’m still … I’m trying to read’.
Others looked back at their days of reading Twilight and
contrasted it with their current reading and future goals to
read Anna Karenina, Jane Austen and The Book Thief (Elizabeth),
Ulysses (Scout) or Charles Dickens, the Brontës and Alexander
Dumas (Emma). From this discussion it would seem that
these are committed readers, aware of their trajectories of
reading (Cliff Hodges 2010a) that extended from early grades
through their AP English into future reading goals.
Discussion
In these extracts we see how in the reading process, the readers
bring their previous knowledge of the world and of texts to
each new text they encounter (Boyd et al. 2018). This knowledge
of the world and other texts that have been read informs and
enhances the meaning-making process (Rosenblatt 1991).
Dialogic interactions allow for rich meaning-making
opportunities as the participants bring varied experiences and
backgrounds (Newell 2019) to this joint interpretation
Open Access
Page 7 of 8
exchange construction. The reader who has encountered many
texts brings these multiple voices and recognises echoes and
allusions in each new textual reading, in the form of a
Bakhtinian dialogic exchange. This kind of reading is more
than comprehension as it is rather an interplay between the
previous and new (Hébert 2008) in accretions of appreciation
and literary playfulness. Learners make meaning of the text as
the multiple voices of the class, the teachers and the texts
themselves (Newell 2019) are brought into dialogue. It seems
axiomatic to suggest that the more learners have read, the
more they can appreciate and draw from new texts; indeed
these learners have shown how they have multiple voices to
mobilise in their meaning making of future texts.
Learners who chose to be part of the AP English were
expected to demonstrate their in-depth knowledge of
individual texts as well as to make connections across texts
and thus display intertextuality in their writing. This
demonstration of understanding required an efferent
approach (Rosenblatt 1991), as examinations demand a
public display of knowledge (Hébert 2008). The timing of the
focus group, immediately after examinations, also meant
examinations were uppermost in the learners’ minds. In
addition to the connections to examinations and schoolwork,
learners’ focus group comments also included some very
personal responses at the aesthetic end of the continuum. An
example of this is in the opening extract where the learners
commented on a personal poem, or one that resonated with
an individual. Anna’s strong emotional responses to
Revolutionary Road is also at the aesthetic end of the continuum
(Rosenblatt 1991). What Rosenblatt (1991) recognises is that
these reading stances are not in opposition, but are often
taken up interchangeably. She argues that the purpose of the
text should determine the stance of the reader, so that
scientific texts would require an efferent stance whereas
literature, involving literary appreciation, would require an
aesthetic appreciation of the images and language of this text
(Rosenblatt 1991). While the learners here shuttled between
efferent and aesthetic stances, they also stepped back and
considered their positions with regard to literature so that for
some literature was presented as a metaphorical person with
whom they had a familiar relationship and for others
literature could be both inspirational and aspirational, as
seen in their reading goals. Literature that is inspirational is
carried beyond the text and continues to reward the reader,
as rereading novels can reveal new ‘nuggets’, according to
Emma. If we want a nation of readers, we need learners who
have reading goals and a strong inclination to read widely
and read for pleasure. This is surely one of the major goals of
our education system that needs further exploration.
Limitations
This article offers a small glimpse into what learners may say
and do with the literature they have read. We acknowledge
that as a small-scale study at a former model C school, it
might be far removed from the literacy challenges facing the
majority of educators and learners in South Africa. We also
do not want to suggest that these learners are in any way
http://www.rw.org.za
Original Research
model learners but instead recognise that they have had
educational and social advantages that have included access
to a wide array of literature. Instead, our focus is to share
possibilities of engagement with literature and to recognise
how learners take up the texts they have encountered and
recontextualise and repurpose them for various contexts.
Conclusion and recommendations
In conclusion, this study has sought to understand how a
group of AP English learners reflected on the role of literature
in their lives, both in and out of school. Although this vignette
presents a window in time, their multiple voices suggest a
trajectory of reading that has led to this appreciation of
literature and a sense of future readings. If we are to build a
reading culture, we need to open up spaces for learners to talk
about their reading and exchange ideas. In addition to
providing suitable and varied books, we need more informal
spaces where the voices of the learners can explore the voices of
the literature in an aesthetic rather than an efferent approach. If
research is to be of any value, it needs to feed back into the
quality of teaching and learning in the classroom (Cliff Hodges
2012) and allowing multiple viewpoints is an encouraging shift
towards developing a personal response to literature. In this
way, we need no longer live in a ‘waste land’, but we are able to
occupy a rich and generative space that gives people the
freedom to encounter literature through multiple perspectives.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.
Authors’ contributions
J.K. did the original research, generated and analysed the
data together with her supervisor, E.M.S. E.M.S. reanalysed
the data and wrote this article.
Ethical considerations
All ethical procedures were observed: permission was sought
and approved from the Nelson Mandela central ethics
committee. Permission was sought and approved from the
school principal, parents and learners as well as from the
Department of Basic Education (H15-EDU-ERE-014).
Funding information
This work was undertaken as part of a South African National
Research Foundation (NRF) funded project entitled ‘Dialogic
engagement between local and university communities:
Enabling agency towards active citizenship in the context of
education’. Grant number 93296.
Data availability
Transcriptions of the focus group discussion are available
from the authors.
Open Access
Page 8 of 8
Disclaimer
Original Research
Howie, S.J., Combrinck, C., Roux, K., Tshele, M., Mokoena, G.M. & McLeod Palane, N.,
2017, PIRLS LITERACY 2016: South African Highlights Report, Centre for Evaluation
and Assessment, Pretoria.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or
position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
Howie, S.J., Van Staden, S., Tshele, M., Dowse, C. & Zimmerman, L., 2011, Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study 2011. Summary report. South African
children’s reading literacy achievement, Centre for Evaluation and Assessment,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
References
Hungwe, V., 2019, ‘Using a translanguaging approach in teaching paraphrasing to
enhance reading comprehension in first-year students’, Reading & Writing 10(1),
1–9.
Akinyeye, C & Plüddemann, P., 2016, ‘The story of a narrative: Teaching and assessing
English in a township school’, Reading & Writing 7(1), 1–8.
IEB, 2008, Curriculum statement grades 10–12 (General), viewed n.d., from www.ieb.
co.za/School/nsccurriculum/advanced%20programme%20english.pdf.
Alexander, R., 2018, ‘Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial’, Research
Papers in Education 33(5), 561–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.148
1140
Andrianatos, K., 2019, ‘Barriers to reading in higher education: Rethinking reading
support’, Reading & Writing 10(1), 1–9
Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A., 2003, ‘Discussion based
approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student
performance in Middle and High School English’, American Education Research
Journal 40(3), 685–730. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685
Bakhtin, M., 1981, The dialogic imagination, four essays, University of Texas Press,
Austin, TX.
Beattie, A., 2007, ‘Exploring the value of dialogue in improving boys’ writing’,
Changing English 14(2), 161–174. hhtps://doi.org/10.1080/13586840701442976
Beck, S. & Condy, J., 2017, ‘Instructional principles used to teach critical comprehension
skills to a Grade 4 earner’, Reading & Writing 8(1), 1–8.
Boakye, N.A.Y. & Linden, M. 2018, ‘Extended strategy-use instruction to improve
students’ reading proficiency in a content subject’, Reading & Writing 9(1), 1–9.
Boyd, M., Tynan, E., & Potteiger, L., 2018, ‘Trusting the local: Opening up the script
with response-able talk practices’, English Teaching: Practice & Critique 17(1),
2–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-09-2017-0125
Cekiso, M., 2017, ‘Teachers’ perceptions of reading instruction in selected primary
schools in the Eastern Cape’, Reading & Writing 8(1), 1–8.
Chambers, A., 1996, Tell me: Children, reading and talk, Stenhouse, York.
Cilliers, L. & Bloch, C., 2018, ‘A reading project to improve literacy in the foundation
phase: A case study in the Eastern Cape’, Reading & Writing 9(1), 1–7.
Cliff Hodges, G., 2010a, ‘Rivers of reading: Using critical incident collages to learn
about adolescent readers and their readership’, English in Education 44(3),
181–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-8845.2010.01072.x
Cliff Hodges, G., 2010b, ‘Reasons for reading: Why literature matters’, Literacy 44(2),
60–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-4369.2010.00552.x
Cliff Hodges, G., 2012, ‘Research and the teaching of English: Spaces where reading
histories meet’, English Teaching Practice and Critique 11(1), 7–25.
Creswell, J., 2013, Qualitative inquiry and research design, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Daniels, H., 2002, Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading
groups, 2nd edn., Stenhouse, Portland, ME.
Daries, M. A. & Probert, T., 2020, ‘A linguistic analysis of spelling errors in Grade 3
isiXhosa home-language learners’, Reading & Writing 11(1), 1–10.
Doecke, B., Gill, P., Illesca, B. & Van de Ven, P.-H., 2009, ‘The literature classroom:
Spaces for dialogue’, L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 9(1),
5–33. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2009.09.01.03
Drennan, L. M., 2017, ‘Traversing the spaces of higher education through writing’,
Reading & Writing 8(1), 1–18.
Eeds, M. & Wells, D., 1989, ‘Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning construction
in literature study groups’, Research in the Teaching of English 23(1), 4–29.
Esambe, E., Mosito, C. & Pather, S., 2016, ‘First-year students’ essay writing practices:
Formative feedback and interim literacies, Reading & Writing 7(1), 1–11.
Janks, H., 2011, ‘Making sense of the PIRLS 2006 results for South Africa’, Reading &
Writing 2(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v2i1.11
Kimathi, F.K. & Bertram, C. 2020, ‘Oral language teaching in English as First Additional
Language at the Foundation Phase: A case study of changing practice’, Reading &
Writing 11(1), 1–10.
King, C., 2001, ‘“I like group reading because we can share ideas”: The role of talk
within the literature circle’, Reading 35(1), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/14679345.00157
Lloyd, G., 2016, ‘Are we teaching critical literacy? Reading practices in a township
classroom, Reading & Writing 7(1), 1–6.
Madikiza, N., Cekiso, M.P., Tshotsho, B.P. & Landa, N. 2018, ‘Analysing English First
Additional Language teachers’ understanding and implementation of reading
strategies’, Reading & Writing 9(1), a170. https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v9i1.170
McMahon, S.I. & Raphael, T.E., 1997, The Book Club Connection: Literacy learning and
classroom talk, Teachers’ College Press and the International Reading Association,
Newark, Delaware.
Mercer, N. & Howe, C., 2012, ‘Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and
learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory’, Learning Culture and
Social Interaction 1(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
Moodley, T. & Aronstam, S., 2016, ‘Authentic learning for teaching reading: Foundation
phase pre-service student teachers’ learning experiences of creating and using
digital stories in real classrooms’, Reading & Writing 7(1), 1–10.
Newell, S., 2019, ‘Learning in dialogue: An exploration of talk in an English Classroom’,
Changing English 26(4), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2019.1645588
Nkoala, S. B., 2020, ‘Student perceptions of multilingualism and the culture of
communication in journalism studies in higher education’, Reading & Writing
11(1), 1–9.
Nkomo, S.A., 2018, ‘Grade 3 learners’ imagined identities as readers revealed through
their drawings’, Reading & Writing 9(1), 1–9.
Oliphant, T. Cekiso, M & Rautenbach, E., 2020, ‘Critical reading perceptions and
practices of English First Additional Language learners in Gauteng, Tshwane South
district’, Reading & Writing 11(1), 1–11.
Pelias, R.J., 2011, ‘Writing into position’, in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research, pp. 662–663, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Prinsloo, M. & Krause, S., 2018, ‘Testing practice in a Southern school’, in D. Bloome,
J. Rowsell, C. Leung & M.L. Castanheira (eds.), Re-theorizing literacy practices,
pp. 154–167, Routledge, New York, NY.
Rosenblatt, L., 1991, ‘Literature – S.O.S’, Language Arts 68(6), 444–448.
Rosenblatt, L., 1994, The reader, the text, the Poem: The transactional theory of the
literary work, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.
Saldanha, J., 2009, The coding manual for qualitative researchers, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Smith, Z., 2007, January 13, Fail better, viewed from http://faculty.sunydutchess.edu/
oneill/failbetter.html.
Stoffelsma, L., 2019, ‘English vocabulary exposure in South African township schools:
Pitfalls and possibilities’, Reading & Writing 10(1), 1–10.
Fialho, O., 2019, ‘What is literature for? The role of transformative reading’, Cogent
Arts & Humanities 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2019.1692532
Tichenor, M., Piechura, K., Diedrichs, R. & Heins, E., 2020, ‘Building a culture of
independent reading through literacy clubs’, Reading Improvement 57(1), 11–15.
Gabrielsen, I.L., Blikstad-Balas, M. & Tengberg, M., 2019, ‘The role of literature in the
class-room. How and for what purposes do teachers in lower secondary school
use literary texts?’, L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 19, 1–32.
https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.01.13.
Varga, Z., McGuinn, N., Naylor, A., Rimmereide, E. & Syed, G., 2020, ‘We are invited to
imagine. Using a literary text to encourage cross-cultural dialogue about
citizenship’, Cambridge Journal of Education 50(4), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1
080/0305764X.2020.1736002
Gennrich, T. & Dison, L., 2018,’ Voice matters: Students’ struggle to find voice’, Reading
& Writing 9(1), 1–9.
Vetter, A. & Meacham, M., 2018, ‘The significance of reflective conversations for
adolescent writers’, English Teaching Practice and Critique 17(3), 228–244.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-11-2017-0168
Heath S., 1983, Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and
classrooms, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Hébert, M., 2008, ‘Co-elaboration of meaning in peer-led literature circles in
secondary School: The interplay between reading modes, quality of talk, and
collaboration modes’, L1 –Educational Studies in Language and Literature 8(3),
23–55. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2008.08.03.02
http://www.rw.org.za
Vezalli, L., Stathi, S., Giovannini, D., Capozza, D. & Trifiletti, E., 2015, ‘The greatest
magic of Harry Potter: Reducing Prejudice’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology
45, 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12279
Yin, R.K., 2009, Case study research: Design and methods, 4th edn., Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Open Access