INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Artxjr, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy available UMI The Use of Dialogue Journals in Senior High English Class by Kathryn Louise Lemmon B. A., York University, 1974 B.Ed., University of Toronto, 1975 M.A., University of Calgary, 1981 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Faculty of Education We accept this dissertation as conforming to the required standard Dr. J. Harker, Supervisor (Department of Communication and Social Foundations) Dr. M. Robertson, DepaHpient Member (Department of Communication and Social Foundations) Dr. y . Anderson, Outside Member (Department of Psychological Foundations) Dr. W. Zuk, Outside Member (Department of Arts in Education) __________________________________________ Dr. M. Iveson, External Examiner (Department of Secondary Education, University of Alberta) © Kathryn Louise Lemmon, 1999 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopying or other means, without the permission of the author. n Supervisor: Dr. W. John Harker ABSTRACT This study was concerned with the use of dialogue journals in senior high school as a central feature of literature studies. The teacher-researcher gathered information from a Grade 10 English course in which the students used dialogue journals as a part of their course in literature studies. All students were asked to volunteer their journals for the study, and nine students’ journals were purposefully selected for study. The study was designed to answer the following questions: (1) What is the nature of secondary students’ responses to literary texts as revealed through their dialogue journals? (2) Do dialogue journals reveal development in secondary students’ responses to literary texts, and, if so, along what dimensions can that development be revealed? The teacher-researcher developed a handbook to provide students with a structure for their responses. The purpose of the handbook was to give students guidelines or directions to examine literary text, without prescribing to the students what they ought to be looking for in the literature. Each guideline suggested in the handbook had been researched to determine if it had a theoretical basis for inclusion.. All students in the Grade 10 English course, including the nine selected, completed the study of a variety of literary genres, including short stories, essays, poetry, drama, novels, and Shakespeare. Students were required to write about the literature in their journals three to four times a week, with the handbook used as a resource for possible responses. These guidelines also provided the readers with lessons on strategies readers m which they may use to explore and examine literary text. The study was conducted over a fourteen week period. During this period the teacher-researcher divided the study of students’ journals into “Early entries” and “Later entries”. These responses to the literary texts, both early and later, were separated into thematic units and analyzed in terms of the guidelines outlined in the resource handbook. Each of the response units were placed on a chart and labeled. Coding procedures began with the idea that students would attempt to follow the handbook, with provision made for students whose responses were diverse. Coding procedures were designed to find patterns in students’ responses. The findings for Question 1 were; (1) students’ responses generally followed the categories outlined in the handbook, as they were encouraged to use the handbook as a guide for their responses. (2) Personal reaction was by far the most common and the most diverse of all the responses. Uncertainty and resistance to making meaning of literary text were more common in earlier responses, but lessened as students gained more strategies for making meaning. (3) Students rarely used categories of response such as using quotes or asking questions of the text. Only one student attempted a graphic representation [drawing] of a literary text. The findings for Question 2 were: (1) The average length, in words, of students’ responses increased over the period of the study. (2) Students did not appear to judge the merits of a literary selection until they had had an opportunity to interpret their meaning of the literary work. (3) Students appeared to become more accustomed to using literary terminology as an integral part of their responses. The conclusion drawn fi*om the study is that, while the dialogue journal may be of IV use in Senior High School English studies, there should be principles established to determine the value of journals. Further research wül be needed to code variation of students’ responses to the literature. An examination of teachers’ comments in students’ response journals will be necessary. Examiners: Dr. W. J. Harker, Supervisor (Department of Communications and Social Foundations) ______________________________________ Dr. M. Robertspi^ department Member (Department of Communications and Social Foundations)" Dr. J. An^rson, Department Member (Department of Educational Psychology) _______________________________________ D r . W. Zuk, Department Member (Department of Art Education) ____________________________________________ Dr. M. Iveson, External Examiner (Department of Secondary Education, University of Alberta) TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................................xi DEDICATION........................................................................................................................ xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 Importance of Literature ............................................................................................ 6 The Purpose of the Study ...........................................................................................15 Organization of Dissertation and Definition of Term s ............................................ 22 Terms ......................................................................................................................... 27 Limitations of the Study ............................................................. 28 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .....................................................30 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 30 Purpose and Nature of Interpretation ...................................................................... 32 Role of the T eacher................................................................................................... 37 Role of the Student ...................................................................................................44 Sensitive Issues and Journals ................................................................................... 47 Definition of Journals as Expressive R esponse .......................................................49 Literary Theory and Dialogue Journals .................................................................... 52 The New Criticism..................................................................................................... 55 New Criticism and Transmission Model of Knowledge Acquisition .................... 60 Rise of Reader Response .......................................................................................... 68 VI Rosenblatt and Is e r ............................................................................................... 74 Journals as Reader Response Practice .................................................................. 84 Composition Theory and Dialogue Journals ...................................................... 88 Reading and Writing Connections to Journals ................................................. 99 Bakhtin, Dialogism, and Journals .................................................................... 103 Journals