Others' Responses to Documents for Major Assignment II

Different people read documents differently. Individuals each possess a different set of background knowledge and have different expectations when coming into an interaction with a text. Interestingly, these differences in personal interactions can be noted as different readers see different texts.

To test this, I recruited two other freshman RCAH students, Elleda and Brittany. I wanted to record how their reactions to the menu posted in front of the Gallery differed. They obviously had no idea of what they were getting themselves into when they agreed to eat lunch with me and help me with a 111 assignment this weekend.

As we walked downstairs towards the Gallery, I asked both of my test subjects if they typically stop to read the menu posted by the door. Both replied in the affirmative. I asked them to please read the menu normally, but to make note of their reactions as they were interacting with the text as I would ask them questions after they read the menu.

In taking retrospective accounts of their reactions to the texts, I asked the readers for their reactions to the document using methods outlined by Elbow. First, I asked them to summarize or sayback the main idea or ideas of the document. They both identified what they saw as the "gist" of the text. As a summary, Elleda saidback "It was the menu, I looked at the headings and read to find what items I had interest in." Brittany said that the gist of the document that she noted was "Eat food." She said that the gist could be summarized as the food options available and what looks good. Both gave an extremely broad summary of the text with very few specific details.

Next, I asked each reader what resonated with her as the center of gravity. After reading the document, could they choose the center of gravity or what stuck in their minds? I informed both subjects that there is no right or wrong center of gravity, but just what they are drawn to within the text and take away from it. Elleda said the center of gravity for her was the words "Lunch" and the Berg's selections of soups and salad. This was the center of gravity for her because it was what she went into the experience wanting to eat. Brittany's center of gravity were the words "Lunch", "Dinner", and "Pepperoni Pizza". She liked the idea of pizza; therefore, that piece of information resonated with her. The text itself did not present a definitive center of gravity; it was left open so individuals could choose what information would become the center of gravity. Individuals chose a center of gravity based on their desires, background knowledge, and personal likes and dislikes.

Also, different readers peruse a texts differently. It is not uncommon for a reader to skim, scan, or skip sections of text entirely when it is not laid out in a linear format. Elleda said that she began at the heading saying "Lunch", then she started in the upper left hand corner of the menu and read straight down and through. Once she reached the bottom of the left column, she read the entirety of the right hand column in a similar fashion. Brittany, on the other hand, read the heading of "Lunch", then decided she was more interested in what would be served for dinner later on in the day. She sought out the dinner posting and read the entire dinner document straight down the columns. She then went back and skimmed the lunch menu. When I read the menu, as a reader, I skip from section to section depending on whether or not I like the main dish being served at a particular station. Elleda reads straight through, she says that she reads the sides as well because they are not always directly related to the main dish, just coordinating. Brittany shared this opinion. She said she would be willing to go out of her way to go to stations serving sides that she liked. She says, furthermore, that she always looks especially for stations serving mashed potatoes and scans for those specifically.

Points where the readers got stuck or places where they could "almost hear" what the author was trying to convey were spots where the information in the text was not explicitly stated. First, Elleda said that while reading some of the names for dishes (i.e. "Vermont Cheddar") confused her because they were rather ambiguous. This was a point where the text caused readers to ask questions, but the questions were not answered. Brittany said that because she is a picky eater, stuck points for her included not knowing what was in some of the dishes based solely on their names. She says that while there are times when one would not want to know the ingredients of a dish, for her, it would be helpful to the text if these things were made clear. Both readers felt that elaboration on descriptions of dishes would eliminate their stuck points.

Elleda first read "Lunch", she knew it was lunchtime and totally skipped over the entire breakfast section of the board. Going down to lunch, Elleda decided she wanted soup or salad; she read the section of the menu delegated for the meal options served at the Berg with special interest and care. She decided that she wanted the salad being served. When she went into the cafeteria, she found out that the salad was no longer being served. Brittany, on the other hand, thought she wanted a sandwich. Going into an interaction with the text, Brittany realized that sandwich options were not listed. She saw the word pirogi listed by Brimstone, and she decided that was what she was going to get to eat. Both readers' stories show how their prior knowledge and choices that they made going into their interactions with the text affected the results the text had on them.

In response to the text, Elleda's reply was that she wanted a salad. Brittany decided that she wanted a pirogi. Both went to the stations that were listed as where to find these food options.

Elleda stated that the one point that worked with the text was it showed her many different options and made her feel like she was empowered in choosing what she wanted. However, she said that one thing that does not work within the text is that the menu does not tell you times when options are no longer going to be available. Brittany said that one point of the text that worked was she was able to make a choice of what she wanted, but she could also note secondary options as well. She said that one reason the text does not work is that based on her prior knowledge, she knows that she does not typically favor things served at New Traditions and Latitudes. She typically skims and barely notes the things printed in these sections of the menus. She shortchanges them, although these are the the meals that change on a daily basis and are specially made. She says that although she does not particularly like these meals, they should be emphasized or highlighted for others.

Therefore, based on retrospective accounts, it can be seen that readers react with texts differently; also, that personal preferences, experiences, and prior knowledge affects interactions with a document.