SCET Journal 2020

Prompting

Critical Thinking

R: What was the motivation though? In both stories? Abdul: It was fear. Fear of the old man’s eye. In Khashuggi’s case, it was fear that he might know some- thing. He maybe has information. Terry: Maybe he [Khashuggi] was a threat. John: It seems that the old man is giving the guy a look, like he knows something. Terry: Yeah, a sharp look, like saying, “I know something about you.” R: But, why Khashuggi? Jack: Because I’m Saudi and the story [Khashuggi’s] hit a trend, so that’s how I saw the connection. As the story of the Saudi journalist has gained tre- mendous attention from politicians and people around the world, the discussion of the political motivations and agendas is beyond the scope of this paper. More- over, because of the different sources and agendas of those reporting the event, it makes it difficult to refer to a trusted source. Seeking connections between the stories, regardless of what is reported in world news and whether the information gained is accurate or oth- erwise, participants saw there was fear which led to the murder of both victims in both stories. The eye in the story is the link, or as Tyson (2012) refers to as the symbolic trigger for making connections. Participants saw that the knowledge the journalist might have had was seen as a threat. But why is it specifically the Saudi journalist’s story, and not any other story, that the participants connect- ed to? If we are only investigating what is happening in politics, there are similar stories, but the reference was made particularly to the Saudi journalist. Recall Jack’s response: “because I’m Saudi and the story hit a trend.” Amongst other responses, this response specifically supports Rosenblatt’s (1995) theory; he is Saudi, and he saw the connection because this incident has affected his identity in today’s world. “An intense response to a work will have its roots in

capacities and experiences already present in the personality and mind of the reader” (Rosenblatt, 1995, p. 41). Moreover, the murder of the Saudi journalist is a political issue that occupies the political climate. Conclusion Participants’ responses speak against the results of some studies that undermine Saudi students’ critical thinking abilities (Alwehaibi, 2012; Allamnakrah, 2013). I was fascinated by the fact that my participants were able to respond to the reading and think across con- texts in a 50-minute session with no prior exposure to reader response in their reading classes. They were able to make connections and navigate responses from the two different, yet similar-plotted stories. In order to create a space for students to share responses, they need to feel safe in the classroom (Rosenblatt, 1995). They need to see that the teacher is providing that space where there is collaboration to negotiate knowledge (Freire, 2000). As a researcher, potentially in the position of a literature teacher, my role in the study was to only guide the discussion and create a safe space for participants to share their re- sponses. The literary piece and participants’ respons- es are all intense; both stories involved killing. Howev- er, participants felt comfortable enough to share what they thought was relevant to the discussion, and such an environment created a more meaningful, engaging discussion. Connecting readers with texts through their lived experiences cultivates their critical thinking (Ali, 1993; Rosenblatt, 1995) and helps readers create meaning from their own experiences. The purpose of teaching reading is to help readers be active, critical thinkers (Morrow, Gambrell, & Casey, 2018). Reader response does not only cultivate critical thinking; it helps readers see how valid and valuable their experi- ences, stories, and positions as world citizens in how they create meaning from the text they are reading.

2018/2019

C CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

31