Reading: How much is too much?

My question actually (and conveniently) relates to several questions that have already been considered. How much reading should we assign? When you realize (via Josh's response) the prevalence of watching television versus reading books in an average American home, it seems almost impossible to get students to read more than the minimum amount. On the other hand, it is essential (as Alex states) that students understand why a given work must be a certain length, regardless of page requirements. Assigning longer texts seems like the logical way to show students the advantages of longer forms, even if they only write shorter papers.

I began researching by looking at Patricia Harkin's essay "The Reception of Reader-Response Theory." This essay traces the decline of reader-response theory in literary theory (it is too easily applied to literary texts to bestow any amount of prestige on those who adhere to it, professionally speaking) and composition studies (it is too "theoretical" to practice in writing classes, where teachers are often too eager to teach literature instead of writing anyway). Because I am interested in reader-response theorists like Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Iser as well as this tendency for theories to fall out of fashion, I found this discussion pretty illuminating. However, it was difficult to find practical applications for it aside from a few mentions of textbooks written with reader-response in mind. It even comes to the rather depressing conclusion that "a pedagogical or curricular decision not to teach literary texts in writing courses became or entailed a decision not to teach reading" (Harkin 421).

I then found an article by Richard Fulkerson, "Using Full-Length Books in Freshman English," that provided more practical advice. Although he is writing in 1973, in the middle of the theory boom that saw the ascendance of reader-response theory, he gives promising anecdotal evidence of his decision to assign full-length books to his freshman writing classes--evidence, I hope, that will still hold true today. He argues that the form of the essay that is usually assigned in composition classes is necessarily flawed. Such essays are too short to make a comprehensive argument, and therefore assume knowledge that freshman are unlikely to have. A selection of essays over the course of the semester, each of which assumes different sets of knowledge, will therefore lead to a frustrated classroom. Full-length books, on the other hand, are designed to give the reader all the information necessary for a thorough understanding of the topic. He found that his students responded better to longer works, and remembered them better during classroom discussions. In addition, he argues that students "abstract a writer's techniques and reapply them with the necessary modifications in their own work." He found his students "nearly as unable, in a theme of five hundred to a thousand words, to imitate a professional essay several times that long as they are to imitate a book" (Fulkerson 220).

If, then, students enjoy longer works more than essays, retain more information from them, and imitate them just as well, it seems that there is nothing lost in choosing longer works over shorter ones. There is still the nagging question, of course, of how to make sure students actually do the reading they are assigned. I would like to continue my research by finding studies as to the efficacy of various pedagogical tactics (reading quizzes, etc.) toward this end. More recent evidence of Fulkerson's conclusion and dissenting opinions would also be helpful.

Works Cited:

Harkin, Patricia. "The Reception of Reader-Response Theory." College Composition and Communication 56.3 (2005): 410-425. Print.

Fulkerson, Richard P. "Using Full-Length Books in Freshman English." College Composition and Communication 24.2 (1973): 218-220. Print.