Adaptivity in reading literary texts;

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Flexibility in reading literary texts -2- processes, they may differ in how well they adapt their processes to a given situation. In the present study, we adopted the last approach. Adaptivity or ‘flexibility’ (a more common term in literary studies) is theoretically considered to be important in the domain of literature reading. Rosenblatt (1999), for instance, argued that ‘flexibility of mind’ is part of the essence of literature reading, and a fundamental goal of literature teaching: “A poem or a novel should provide fresh insight. Readers, therefore, must be helped to develop flexibility of mind, a freedom from rigid emotional habits, if they are to enter into the aesthetic experiences the artist has made possible.” (ibid., 1999: 98). Groeben (2001) related creativity and ‘flexibility’ to the literary convention of polyvalence; that is, the possibility or necessity of (actively) assigning different meanings to a literary text. Flexible readers, then, would be readers who are able to generate multiple meanings in response to a single literary text. This ability is strongly associated with literary competence; in think aloud studies, expert readers of literature were found to be more ‘flexible’ in their processing of literary texts than novice readers, in that they searched for alternative interpretations and were able to perceive a literary text from multiple perspectives (Andringa, 1995a; Earthman, 1992). Other empirical research on ‘flexibility’ in literary reading is scarce. In the present study, we mean by ‘flexibility’: the ability to spontaneously change ones reading activities in adaptive response to different parts of a literary text and/or to different literary texts, with the purpose of making meaning. Thus, we assume that readers, in their attempt to understand a literary text, may adapt or shift their reading activities at two levels; within (the reading of) a single text and between different texts. For example, when reading and interpreting a story, a reader may use a pattern of ‘delayed evaluation’; deferring evaluative responses until the end of the reading process (Vipond & Hunt, 1984). The same reader may use a different pattern when reading another story, for instance, evaluating the story immediately at the beginning of the reading process, instead of at the end. In other words, readers may vary the ‘orchestration’ of their mental activities over the course of the reading process, and they may orchestrate their activities differently in response to different stories. Previous think aloud studies of literary reading (e.g., Andringa, 1995a; Earthman, 1992) have provided indications that some readers are more capable of flexibly changing their patterns of response during reading than other readers of literature. In all likelihood, some readers are also more capable of changing their patterns of response when reading different texts. These differences are probably related to students’ capability in the domain of literature. Successful readers of literature may be more sensitive to differences between literary texts and text parts (and adjust their processing accordingly) than less-successful or ‘weak’ readers. In this study, we examine whether adolescent readers differ in flexibility when reading short stories, and whether strong readers are more flexible in their processing than weak readers. Before describing our study, we first present an overview of empirical research, relevant to individual differences in literary processing. Background In reading research, attempts have been made to uncover the fundamental processes that are involved in the understanding of text (e.g., Britton & Graesser, 1996; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). One shared assumption is that text comprehension involves a constructive process, in which readers are actively attempting to make sense of a text. A second assumption is that readers are attempting to build mental representations of the states, events, actions, and characters that are dealt with in the text (Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). It is
Flexibility in reading literary texts -3- assumed that these representations evolve during reading; readers continuously extend and update their representations of a text. In this process, they draw not only on their linguistic knowledge and world knowledge, but also on their personal knowledge and experiences. Most models of text comprehension focus on cognitive aspects of the reading process. However, in literary reading, feelings, sensations, emotional and aesthetic reactions play an important role; they are part of the process of understanding, as shown by empirical research (e.g., Eva-Wood, 2004; Kneepkens & Zwaan, 1994). In addition, literary texts are often ambiguous, indefinite, and open. Because literary texts raise questions about meanings (e.g., by open endings, allusions, metaphorical language), readers are stimulated to deal with gaps, to search for connections, and to develop their own interpretations (Andringa, 1995b). Andringa (1995b) presents a systematic overview of literary reading processes, in which components of cognitive models (e.g., Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983) and insights of empirical literary studies are interwoven. She distinguishes several types of processes: identification (e.g., determining the literary genre), selection (e.g., focusing on information), (re)construction (e.g., filling in gaps), elaboration (e.g., making personal associations), evaluation (judging, criticizing), emotional processes (e.g., experiencing suspense, pity), and metacognition (e.g., reflecting on one’s own reading activities). Readers may vary in the extent to which they display certain processes when they attempt to make sense of a literary text. A body of research provides evidence of differences between expert and novice readers of literature (e.g., Andringa, 1995a; Dorfman, 1996; Earthman, 1992; Peskin, 1998; Thury & Friedlander, 1995; Zeitz, 1994). Some of these studies rely on questionnaires or other types of post-reading responses, whereas others use a think aloud methodology to reconstruct readers’ online processes. Earthman (1992), for example, conducted a think aloud study involving eight college freshmen and eight graduate students who thought aloud while reading two short stories and two poems. She found that the freshmen produced less elaborated responses than the graduate students. Freshmen tended to retain their initial view of the text, while graduate students read in a more open manner, searching for alternative interpretations, and assuming varying perspectives. Andringa (1995a) compared the think aloud responses of three groups; adolescent readers, less experienced adult readers, and experts of literature. The 22 participants each read a Faulkner story under think aloud conditions. Andringa found that the less experienced readers focused primarily on the story events, and tended to view the story from one perspective only, whereas the expert readers were able to perceive multiple perspectives. The adolescent readers displayed a limited repertoire of text processing activities compared to the adult readers. Similar findings were reported by Peskin (1998), who analyzed the think aloud responses of eight expert readers (English PhD candidates) and eight novices (undergraduates and advanced high school students) during their reading of two poems. She found that experts produced more elaborate responses, and used more productive interpretive strategies during reading than did the novices. According to Peskin, the expert readers possessed a rich knowledge base, enabling them to recognize large and meaningful patterns. The novices, who had only general expectations for poetry (for example, that metaphor is important in poems), had difficulty in making the poems coherent. Clearly, as in other domains, there is a considerable gap between experts and novices. However, expert-novice studies typically do not examine the variability that exists within each group. Moreover, it is important to note that most novices will not attain the expert level. In fact, the literature curriculum in secondary education is not aimed at students becoming experts of literature. Rather, the aim is to acquaint students with literature, and to stimulate them to become engaged and independent readers. So, in addition to expert-novice studies, we
Page 1: Flexibility in reading literary tex
Page 5 and 6: Flexibility in reading literary tex
Page 15 and 16: Appendix Flexibility in reading lit
Page 17 and 18: Table 2. Example of a coded transcr
Page 19 and 20: W (Estimated) Probability (Estimate

Adaptivity in reading literary texts;

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?