Returning to the piece of advice that opened this inquiry, my experiments with paired text curricula, have led me to conclude that "if you're going to use one text" you should, in fact, "use two texts." I found that having students analyze texts together deepened student engagement and analysis. As outlined in my theoretical framework, I believe that this is because analyzing texts together is naturally a cognitively rich task that equips students with the ideas and associations needed to execute rich analysis. In this sense, paired text curricula taps into the cognitive processes by which students make meaning of text. Necessarily, due to the differences in skillset and cognitive development, the implementation of these ideas looks different at the 9th and 11th grade levels.
Paired Text Curricula at the 9th Grade Level
At the 9th grade level, paired text curricula works best in designing curricular concerning a shared theme. Providing multiple perspectives on an abstract theme (as analyzed here in my lessons on dialect) pushes younger students to work with the underlying ideas of a text, rather than getting stuck at the plot level. Of my paired text curricula designed for freshman, I found lessons that paired literary texts with current events most successful. I think the added "real-world" factor helped in this regard, as it made these abstract themes seem more real and relevant. I found that this pairing of literary texts and news articles and analyzing each in terms of the other (goal two, outlined in "A Proposed Solution") led to better understanding of each text and the building of good analytical skills in general.
Paired Text Curricula at the 11th Grade Level
While 9th graders, cognitively, responded much better to texts paired thematically, the richest text pairings for my 11th graders were in using critical theory to provide focus and tools for interpretation. As more experienced students and generally more cognitively developed humans, juniors enthusiastically took to texts that worked directly with abstract ideas, and were able to intentionally construct and apply interpretive schemata (as seen in these two artifact analyses [1 & 2]). This incorporation of critical theory proved to be the most exciting and rewarding curricular experiment of the year, ultimately becoming the focus of my unit design project. Introducing my students to this explicitly theoretical writing structured their construction of interpretive schemata and ultimately built their fluency in working directly with abstract ideas. The benefits of this type of thinking were most apparent in my students' analytical essays. Being given the analytical "tools" of powerful theoretical thinking, my students wrote essays which showed a deeper level of analysis and more intentionally constructed arguments (see this artifact analysis for more on these essays).
Overview and Closing Thoughts
Fundamentally, this inquiry was an attempt to design curricula that challenged the way my students understood literature. The main problem latent in the work of many of my students was a fixation upon the "correct interpretation." This was fundamentally a question of power: many of my students looked to me as an authority figure whose job it was to dictate the correct meaning. In this model of the study of literature, literary meaning is arbitrary and the texts themselves are flattened into two-dimensional vehicles of this single, contrived reading.
In searching for ways in which to trouble this ingrained power dynamic, I was inspired by the literature on the subject of critical literacy, particularly in the work of Pescatore and McLaughlin & DeVoogd. Critical literacy prioritizes building academic agency and equipping students to challenge the authority of the "right answer" by formulating and asserting their own interpretation. Building on solutions offered within this literature, as well as by the results my early curricular experiments, I focused on building critical literacy by structuring textual analysis around paired texts. Even my earliest work in this type of curricula proved promising--deepening student engagement, increasing perceived relevance, and strengthening student analysis.
To evaluate these early lessons and to guide my development of future curricula, I developed a theoretical model for how students make meaning of text. In a synthesis of Anderson's schema theory and Meijer's work on the culturality of textual interpretation, I outlined several goals for my paired text curricula. Outlined in detail in the above section, "A Proposed Solution," I sought to cultivate critical literacy through paired text curricula that:
These goals proved rigorous, and even intentionally developed curricula often did not encompass all three, but I found that these were powerful guideposts in developing paired text curricula, which often proved a promising conduit toward critical literacy. These goals necessarily manifested themselves differently at different grade levels, but, at their most effective, these curricula elicited rigorous analysis from both my 9th and 11th graders. My students demonstrated a trend toward a greater awareness of the ideas underlying the text, and exhibited greater academic agency in developing their own unique interpretations. Although I cannot attribute these results definitively to the paired text curricula analyzed in this inquiry, I have been very pleased with the results and will continue my investigation into my practice next year.
In searching for ways in which to trouble this ingrained power dynamic, I was inspired by the literature on the subject of critical literacy, particularly in the work of Pescatore and McLaughlin & DeVoogd. Critical literacy prioritizes building academic agency and equipping students to challenge the authority of the "right answer" by formulating and asserting their own interpretation. Building on solutions offered within this literature, as well as by the results my early curricular experiments, I focused on building critical literacy by structuring textual analysis around paired texts. Even my earliest work in this type of curricula proved promising--deepening student engagement, increasing perceived relevance, and strengthening student analysis.
To evaluate these early lessons and to guide my development of future curricula, I developed a theoretical model for how students make meaning of text. In a synthesis of Anderson's schema theory and Meijer's work on the culturality of textual interpretation, I outlined several goals for my paired text curricula. Outlined in detail in the above section, "A Proposed Solution," I sought to cultivate critical literacy through paired text curricula that:
- "Adds depth" to text by pairing thematically related texts. This makes text more dynamic, makes the underlying ideas of the text more visible, and opens students to a multiplicity of interpretations.
- Structures the act of interpretation by providing a shared experience, rather than asking students to draw upon a latent, culturally determined interpretive framework to which all students may or may not have access.
- Constructs durable and transferable interpretive skills that can be applied across media, as a conduit to "critical reading" of the world.
These goals proved rigorous, and even intentionally developed curricula often did not encompass all three, but I found that these were powerful guideposts in developing paired text curricula, which often proved a promising conduit toward critical literacy. These goals necessarily manifested themselves differently at different grade levels, but, at their most effective, these curricula elicited rigorous analysis from both my 9th and 11th graders. My students demonstrated a trend toward a greater awareness of the ideas underlying the text, and exhibited greater academic agency in developing their own unique interpretations. Although I cannot attribute these results definitively to the paired text curricula analyzed in this inquiry, I have been very pleased with the results and will continue my investigation into my practice next year.
Use the buttons below to navigate to my complete index of artifacts with analysis, as well as my works cited.