Structure in Literature

and Applebee, 1968) disclosed, not surprisingly, that the teaching of literature receives 52 percent of classroom time. Yet there is cause for concern in that the report cites confusion among teachers "about the nature of close reading and about how to translate into classroom prac-tice knowledge of the critical reading of literature acquired in college courses " (p. 120). It remains, therefore, that while much sound teach-ing of literature can be found in junior and senior high schools, far too many students fail to learn to read imaginative literature with knowledge and understanding and with a desire to continue to read literature independently. Like those who write well, those who read literature skillfully like-ly do so without conscious awareness of the process involved. And this process, widely divergent in its aspects, can be described at best in a limited fashion. The highly personal nature of the reader's encounter with a literary work either has discouraged research in this area or has tended to force researchers who have sought to assess the process to attempt in many instances to quantify essentially subjective re-sponses to literature. The latter approach has not been fruitless, as subsequent discussion shows, but much research is yet needed to sup-plement our present knowledge of the ways students read literature and of more improved classroom techniques for implementing or re-inforcing these skills. This article looks briefly at the concern for structure in the study of literature, after which it examines, in light of recent research, the reading of imaginative literature, first in terms of learner behavior and then in terms of teacher behavior