Introduction: “Reader-Response Theory and the English Curriculum” by Robert E. Probst
“Reader-Response Theory and the English Curriculum” by Robert E. Probst first appeared in The English Journal (Vol. 83, No. 3, March 1994), published by the National Council of Teachers of English. Probst’s seminal work emphasizes the importance of placing the reader at the center of literary education, advocating for a curriculum that respects the personal, emotional, and intellectual responses of students to texts. Drawing from Louise Rosenblatt’s assertion that the teacher’s role is to “elaborate the vital influence inherent in literature itself,” Probst argues that literature should be taught not as a static artifact to be dissected, but as a living art form capable of enriching students’ lives. He asserts, “The literary experience…is first of all the immediate encounter between a reader and a book,” stressing that this encounter forms the foundation for further exploration of literary elements like metaphor or genre. Through examples such as David Bottoms’ poem Sign for My Father, Who Stressed the Bunt, Probst illustrates how texts evoke deeply personal connections, enabling students to reflect on their own lives while engaging with broader human experiences. The essay critiques traditional methods that prioritize predetermined interpretations and conformity, instead advocating for an approach that respects diverse readings and fosters intellectual and emotional growth. Probst’s vision calls for an English curriculum that creates readers and writers who view literature not as an academic chore, but as a meaningful, transformative experience.
Summary of “Reader-Response Theory and the English Curriculum” by Robert E. Probst
1. Literature as a Tool for Developing Readers
- Probst argues that the primary purpose of literature instruction is to cultivate readers who engage with texts in ways that enrich their emotional and intellectual lives, rather than creating literary scholars (Probst, 1994, p. 37).
- He stresses that most students will not pursue literary studies professionally, and thus the aim should be to foster an enduring enjoyment and thoughtful response to literature.
2. Respecting Reader Responses
- Emphasizing Louise Rosenblatt’s perspective, Probst highlights the importance of letting literature influence readers naturally, asserting that teaching should enhance this “vital influence inherent in literature” (p. 38).
- He opposes traditional methods that impose rigid interpretations, advocating instead for an environment where individual connections to texts are celebrated.
3. The Dynamic Creation of Meaning
- Probst challenges the idea that meaning is intrinsic to the text, suggesting instead that it is created in the interaction between the text and the reader’s experiences (p. 38).
- He echoes Robert Scholes in stating that “reading text and reflecting upon our lives are essentially the same intellectual process” (p. 39).
4. Encouraging Personal Connections
- Using David Bottoms’ poem Sign for My Father, Who Stressed the Bunt as an example, Probst illustrates how literature evokes personal memories and emotions, such as family dynamics and life lessons (p. 38).
- He argues that these personal responses should be integral to literary education, as they deepen understanding and emotional engagement with texts.
5. Respect for Individual Interpretations
- Probst acknowledges that while some interpretations are stronger than others, a work may evoke unexpected associations in a reader that can hold greater personal significance than the author’s intended meaning (p. 39).
6. Goals for Literature Instruction
- Probst outlines six goals for English curricula:
- Learning about oneself: Literature helps students reflect on their own experiences and identities (p. 39).
- Learning about others: Engaging with diverse perspectives in texts fosters empathy and understanding (p. 39).
- Understanding cultures and societies: Texts reveal societal values and complexities, enabling students to examine their own cultural contexts (p. 40).
- Analyzing textual influence: Students learn how texts shape thoughts and emotions (p. 40).
- Contextualizing meaning: Readers understand that interpretations are shaped by individual and external contexts (p. 40).
- Understanding the process of making meaning: Students recognize meaning-making as a dynamic, interactive process rather than a static discovery (p. 41).
7. Instructional Principles
- Probst recommends several principles for fostering meaningful literary engagement:
- Encourage personal responses as starting points for discussions and writing (p. 42).
- Provide time for students to shape and articulate their interpretations (p. 42).
- Facilitate connections among student responses to promote dialogue and shared learning (p. 42).
- Allow discussions to grow organically, without imposing predetermined conclusions (p. 42).
8. Broadening the Modes of Engagement
- Probst suggests integrating diverse writing tasks, such as personal narratives or creative responses, into the curriculum. This approach mirrors practices in other arts, where students actively create to deepen understanding (p. 43).
- He asserts that such methods foster independence, creativity, and lifelong engagement with literature.
9. The Ultimate Goal: Lifelong Enrichment
- The overarching aim of Probst’s reader-response approach is to cultivate readers and writers who use literature to enrich their lives emotionally, intellectually, and socially (p. 44).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Reader-Response Theory and the English Curriculum” by Robert E. Probst
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Reference in Text |
| Reader-Response Theory | A literary theory emphasizing the active role of readers in creating meaning through their interaction with the text. | Probst highlights this theory as central to teaching literature, where “meaning lies in the shared ground of text and reader” (p. 38). |
| Vital Influence of Literature | The inherent power of literature to evoke emotional and intellectual responses in readers. | Citing Rosenblatt, Probst argues that teachers should enhance this natural influence without substituting external matters (p. 38). |
| Personal Connection | The idea that readers bring their experiences and histories to bear on the text, creating unique meanings. | Illustrated through Bottoms’ poem, Probst emphasizes that personal connections are crucial to the literary experience (p. 38-39). |
| Dynamic Meaning-Making | The concept that meaning is created and recreated during the act of reading, not fixed in the text. | “Meaning happens, it occurs, it is created and recreated in the act of reading and subsequent discussion” (p. 40). |
| Respect for Individual Interpretations | The acknowledgment that different readers will interpret texts uniquely based on their contexts and experiences. | Probst supports multiple interpretations, noting that texts may “mean to a reader what it did not mean to its author” (p. 39). |
| Contextual Influence | How external factors like the reader’s environment, mood, or cultural background shape the reading experience. | Probst asserts that meaning is influenced by circumstances such as “classroom setting or other life events” (p. 40). |
| Textual Influence | The way literary texts manipulate readers’ emotions, thoughts, and values. | Probst explains how texts guide interpretations by emphasizing specific themes, as seen in the concept of “sacrifice” in Bottoms’ poem (p. 40). |
| Respect for the Text | Treating the literary text as an artistic work with inherent value and avoiding reduction to drills or exercises. | “The literary text must not be reduced to exercise or drill but allowed to live as a work of art” (p. 38). |
| Cultural and Societal Understanding | Literature as a means to explore varying societal values, norms, and cultural contexts. | Probst states that understanding cultures and societies through literature is crucial for personal and collective growth (p. 40). |
| Reader’s Agency | The recognition of students as active participants in meaning-making rather than passive recipients of interpretations. | Probst highlights this as key to fostering independent thinking and respect for personal readings (p. 42). |
Contribution of “Reader-Response Theory and the English Curriculum” by Robert E. Probst to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Advancement of Reader-Response Theory
- Core Contribution: Probst emphasizes that the reader’s interaction with the text creates meaning, shifting the focus from the author’s intent or textual structure to the reader’s experience.
- In-Text Reference: “Meaning lies in that shared ground where the reader and text meet—it isn’t resident within the text, to be extracted like a nut from its shell” (p. 38).
- Theoretical Significance: This aligns with Louise Rosenblatt’s transactional theory, reinforcing the role of personal history, context, and emotional resonance in reading.
2. Critique of Formalism and New Criticism
- Core Contribution: Probst critiques the emphasis on “correct” interpretations and established readings inherent in formalist approaches, advocating for diverse, reader-driven interpretations.
- In-Text Reference: “We have tended in the past…to seek consensus in the classroom…to insist upon the rightness of certain readings” (p. 39).
- Theoretical Significance: This challenges New Criticism’s text-centered analysis by emphasizing the fluidity of meaning and individual reader experiences.
3. Integration of Personal and Cultural Contexts
- Core Contribution: Probst explores how personal and cultural contexts influence interpretations, arguing that these factors are integral to the act of reading.
- In-Text Reference: “Meaning resides neither in the text, nor in the reader…but is created and recreated in the act of reading and the subsequent acts of talking and writing about the experience” (p. 40).
- Theoretical Significance: This aligns with Cultural Criticism and Poststructuralist Thought, which view meaning as constructed through interaction between texts and socio-cultural frameworks.
4. Emphasis on Reader Agency
- Core Contribution: Probst advocates for empowering readers, especially students, to see themselves as co-creators of meaning, thus fostering independence and intellectual ownership.
- In-Text Reference: “Students need instead to learn that literary meaning is largely an individual engagement…that the reader must make and take responsibility for” (p. 41).
- Theoretical Significance: This extends Reader-Response Theory’s application in pedagogy, emphasizing the reader’s active role in constructing interpretations.
5. Literary Experience as Personal and Universal
- Core Contribution: Probst underscores that literature serves as a bridge between personal experiences and universal human themes, fostering empathy and understanding.
- In-Text Reference: “Literature…is about life. Rosenblatt says…’of all the arts, literature is most immediately implicated with life itself'” (p. 39).
- Theoretical Significance: This reinforces Humanistic Literary Criticism, which views literature as a means of understanding the human condition.
6. Rejection of Absolute Interpretations
- Core Contribution: Probst argues that texts do not have fixed meanings and that multiple interpretations enrich the reading experience.
- In-Text Reference: “A work may mean to a reader what it did not mean to its author. It may trigger responses, evoke memories…of much more interest and importance to the reader” (p. 39).
- Theoretical Significance: This contribution complements Postmodernist Theories, which deny fixed meanings in favor of subjective interpretations.
7. Pedagogical Implications for Reader-Response Theory
- Core Contribution: Probst outlines practical goals and principles for incorporating Reader-Response Theory into the classroom, such as fostering personal connections, cultural understanding, and critical thinking.
- In-Text Reference: “Our primary goal in the English curriculum…is to make [students] readers and writers, independent and self-reliant thinkers” (p. 44).
- Theoretical Significance: This bridges the gap between theory and practice, demonstrating how Reader-Response Theory can transform literary education into a tool for personal and intellectual growth.
Examples of Critiques Through “Reader-Response Theory and the English Curriculum” by Robert E. Probst
| Literary Work | Critique Through Reader-Response Theory | Key Theoretical Insight |
| David Bottoms’ “Sign for My Father, Who Stressed the Bunt” | Readers connect the poem’s theme of sacrifice to personal experiences, such as parental relationships, life lessons, or moments of loss. | Probst illustrates how readers’ individual contexts, such as memories of their own parents or childhood sports, shape the meaning of “sacrifice” (p. 38-39). |
| Shakespeare’s Macbeth | Probst critiques how traditional analysis might focus on textual elements (e.g., metaphor and irony) while neglecting readers’ personal responses. | Readers might connect the theme of ambition to their own struggles with ambition or ethical dilemmas, demonstrating the subjective nature of meaning (p. 38). |
| Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea | A feminist reader may critique the text through gendered dynamics, while others may view it as a universal tale of perseverance and failure. | Probst’s advocacy for multiple interpretations aligns with how cultural and individual contexts influence a text’s perceived meaning (p. 39). |
| Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird | Readers may respond emotionally to the theme of racial injustice, connecting it to contemporary or personal societal experiences. | Probst’s theory supports exploring how personal and cultural contexts—such as current events—shape interpretations of justice and morality (p. 40). |
Criticism Against “Reader-Response Theory and the English Curriculum” by Robert E. Probst
- Potential for Over-Subjectivity
- Reader-response theory may lead to overly subjective interpretations, where personal responses overshadow the text’s inherent meaning or authorial intent.
- Critics argue this approach risks reducing literary study to individual emotional experiences, neglecting the broader cultural or historical contexts of the text.
- Neglect of Authorial Intent
- Probst’s emphasis on the reader-text interaction might be seen as diminishing the importance of the author’s purpose or the literary techniques intentionally employed to convey specific themes.
- Undermining of Analytical Rigor
- Critics suggest that a heavy focus on personal responses could de-emphasize the need for close reading and textual analysis, which are essential components of literary scholarship.
- Inconsistency in Educational Goals
- The proposed curriculum prioritizes fostering enjoyment and personal engagement with literature, which some educators argue may conflict with academic goals such as mastering literary concepts, theories, and critical approaches.
- Challenges in Assessment
- The subjective nature of reader-response pedagogy makes it difficult to evaluate student performance objectively, particularly when interpretations are highly individualized.
- Risk of Reinforcing Biases
- Encouraging readers to rely on personal experiences and cultural contexts can inadvertently reinforce existing biases or limit exposure to alternative perspectives offered by the text.
- Overemphasis on Students’ Experiences
- Critics argue that prioritizing students’ personal connections to literature might marginalize the text itself, treating it as a mere springboard for personal reflection rather than an artistic artifact deserving critical attention.
- Resistance to Established Interpretations
- The theory’s rejection of “correct” or “dominant” interpretations may lead to a disregard for the rich tradition of literary scholarship and critical analysis that contributes to a text’s depth and understanding.
- Insufficient Preparation for Higher Education
- Critics contend that the approach may not adequately prepare students for the demands of higher-level literary studies, which often require familiarity with canonical interpretations and theoretical frameworks.
Representative Quotations from “Reader-Response Theory and the English Curriculum” by Robert E. Probst with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Meaning lies in that shared ground where the reader and text meet—it isn’t resident within the text, to be extracted like a nut from its shell.” | Probst emphasizes the central tenet of Reader-Response Theory: meaning is created through interaction between the reader and the text. This challenges formalist approaches that locate meaning solely within the text. |
| “The literary text must not be reduced to exercise or drill, but must be allowed to live as a work of art, influencing the reader to see and think and feel.” | This stresses the importance of treating literature as an artistic experience rather than a tool for rote learning, fostering emotional and intellectual engagement in readers. |
| “We must respect readers and their readings, too.” | Probst advocates for valuing individual interpretations, recognizing that readers bring unique perspectives shaped by personal and cultural contexts. |
| “A work may mean to a reader what it did not mean to its author.” | This highlights the fluidity of meaning, asserting that a reader’s interpretation may diverge from authorial intent, thus expanding the potential significance of a literary text. |
| “Students need instead to learn that literary meaning is largely an individual engagement, that it results from the creative effort of a reader working with a text.” | Probst underscores the active role of readers in constructing meaning, which contrasts with traditional pedagogies that position students as passive recipients of knowledge. |
| “If literature is to matter… those personal connections become hard to deny.” | The value of literature is rooted in its ability to evoke personal and emotional connections, making it relevant and meaningful in the lives of readers. |
| “Learning to read books… is not just a matter of acquiring information from texts, it is a matter of learning to read and write the texts of our lives.” | Quoting Robert Scholes, Probst connects literary reading to life skills, asserting that reading enhances self-reflection and understanding of personal experiences. |
| “Meaning resides neither in the text, nor in the reader. In fact, it resides nowhere. Rather, it happens, it occurs, it is created and recreated in the act of reading.” | This reinforces the idea that meaning is dynamic and context-dependent, emerging from the interplay between the reader, the text, and the reading context. |
| “Our primary goal in the English curriculum is not to make literary scholars of all of our students. It is to make them readers and writers.” | Probst redefines the purpose of literary education as fostering lifelong readers and writers rather than producing specialized scholars, aligning with Reader-Response Theory’s emphasis on personal growth. |
| “Students should learn how texts operate, how they shape our thought and manipulate our emotion.” | While prioritizing individual responses, Probst also stresses the importance of analyzing the techniques and mechanisms texts use to influence readers, integrating critical thinking into Reader-Response Theory. |
Suggested Readings: “Reader-Response Theory and the English Curriculum” by Robert E. Probst
- Probst, Robert E. “Reader-Response Theory and the English Curriculum.” The English Journal, vol. 83, no. 3, 1994, pp. 37–44. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/820925. Accessed 7 Jan. 2025.
- Matthews, René, and Robin Chandler. “Using Reader Response to Teach ‘Beloved’ in a High School American Studies Classroom.” The English Journal, vol. 88, no. 2, 1998, pp. 85–92. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/821695. Accessed 7 Jan. 2025.
- Harkin, Patricia. “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 56, no. 3, 2005, pp. 410–25. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30037873. Accessed 7 Jan. 2025.
- Buckley, William K., and Mark Bracher. “Reader-Response Theory.” PMLA, vol. 101, no. 2, 1986, pp. 250–51. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/462409. Accessed 7 Jan. 2025.