Peter Elbow’s Breathing Life into the Text argues for a less conventional approach to the literature classroom.  In his essay, Elbow calls for more experimental and engaging activities in the reading process.  For Elbow, it is not enough for students to simply read a text and then write a response paper.  This conventional approach does not take into account the complex interactive process between the text and the reader.  If students are to fully engage the text and simultaneously develop their own meta-knowledge of reading, then a new dynamic in the classroom is necessary.

Elbow’s opening discussion about “discussions” reflects my own experience with teaching literature.  My college classes are all basic English Composition courses that feature the traditionally limited five-paragraph essay.  The course requirements do not allow a great deal of time for literature.  Nevertheless, our class reads short essays and stories to generate discussions and ideas.  When I first began teaching, I would distribute the essays and hoped for a lively discussion.  The results were similar to Elbow’s experience: random or little interaction or engagement with the readings.  After a semester or two with these results, a change was needed.

Like Elbow, I decided to experiment with different activities.  These began with simple changes, such as letting the class pick the readings or the topics, but I currently try something new every semester.  Some of these experiments don’t work at all, and many of them only work for particular groups of students.  For example, I tried an activity a few years ago that required the class to break into several groups.  Beforehand, the class had read a short essay critiquing McDonalds.  Each group was required to create a list of descriptive words or phrases describing McDonalds (this was part of a Description Essay assignment).  During that semester, I tried this activity with two different classes.  One class was energetic and argued about the depictions of the restaurant in the essay and the responses from other groups.  Thinking, engagement, and reflection were taking place.  The other class seemed disinterested and even described the activity as “silly”.

I tend to agree with Elbow.  Even if these activities turn out to be failures or yield mixed results, they are worthwhile to try.  The one thing I know from teaching is that the old practice of read and respond does not generate learning within the classroom by itself.  I find Elbow’s activity of prewriting as a form of prereading to be particularly interesting.  In future semesters, I plan to try this activity in the classroom.  The one aspect that Elbow stresses is being honest with his students.  It is vital to be honest with students.  It may appear to be “cheating” to let the students know the rationale behind a particular activity, story, or lesson; however, this lifting of the curtain engages students and makes them a part of the entire learning process.  In course evaluations, I always receive comments from students that they valued the ability to shape the learning process.

Elbow’s activity involving the rearranging of words in a text seems artificial.  Ironically, this is the exact word he uses to describe the objections against cutting-and-pasting.  In my courses, there is no consistent predictor of the success rate of these experiments.  As a teacher, the old system of trial-and-error always manages to be the basic approach.  Hopefully, as more and more teachers publish and share their experiments, educators can cover new ground and learn from each other.