The interpretive beliefs, processes, and instructional experiences of 8 ninth-grade students were studied as they participated in instructional subcommunities within their existing English classes. An observational analysis of the instructional communities was undertaken, and the students' interpretive processes were analyzed as intertextual transactions, which include reasoning operations and inference sources. Overall results revealed that students reasoned about literary works at an interpretive level, and that their inferences were largely textual focussing on characters and events, reflecting the type of literary instruction they receive. After participating in an alternative response-centered instructional unit, students were more intertextual in terms of their preferences related to the interpretive process and more interpretive in their reasoning about literary works. The shift in the range of inference sources students drew on—the intertextuality of their transactions—varied by individual. Individual students were profiled to reveal the relationship of beliefs, experiences, and processes that form their critical interpretive stances toward literary works.
References
1.
ApplebeeA. N. (1978). The child's concept of story. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BarnesD. (1976). From communication to curriculum. New York: Penguin.
3.
BarthesR. (1974). S/Z. (MillerRichard, Trans.) New York: Hill & Wang.
4.
BeachR.WendlerL. (1987). Developmental differences in response to a story. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 286–297.
5.
BleichD. (1975). Readings and feelings: An introduction to subjective criticism. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
6.
BleichD. (1978). Subjective criticism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
7.
BleichD. (1986). Intersubjective reading. New Literary History, 17, 401–421.
8.
BruceB. L. (1981). A social interaction model of reading. Discourse Processes, 4, 273–311.
9.
CooperC. (1969). Preferred modes of literary response: The characteristics of high school juniors in relation to the consistency of their reactions to three dissimilar short stories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
10.
CoxC.ManyJ. E. (1989, March). Reader stance toward a literary work: Applying the transactional theory to children's responses. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
11.
CritchlowD. E.VerducciJ. S. (1989). Detecting a trend in paired rankings (Tech. Rep. No. 418). Department of Statistics, Ohio State University, Columbus.
12.
CullerJ. (1981). The pursuit of signs: Semiotics, literature, and deconstruction. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
13.
DenzinK. (1978). The research act (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
14.
DorfmanM. (1988). A model for understanding the points of stories. Unpublished paper, Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
15.
EcoU. (1979). The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
16.
EdwardsD.MercerN. (1987). Common knowledge. London: Methuen.
17.
EriccsonK. A.SimonH. E. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
FeinbergS. (1980). The analysis of cross-classified categorical data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
FishS. (1980). Is there a text in this class?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
FishS. (1989). Doing what comes naturally. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
21.
GaldaL. (1982). Assuming the spectator stance: An examination of the responses of three young readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 1–20.
22.
GoldenJ. M.GuthrieJ. T. (1986). Convergence and divergence in reader response to literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 408–421.
23.
HawkesT. (1977). Structuralism and semiotics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
24.
HollandN. H. (1975). 5 readers reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
HuntK. (1965). The grammar structure written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
26.
HyndsS. D. (1985). Interpersonal cognitive complexity and the literary response process. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 386–402.
27.
KennedyJ. J. (1988). Applying log-linear models in educational research. Australian Journal of Education., 32, 3–24.
28.
LangerJ. A. (1986). Reading, writing and understanding: An analysis of the construction of meaning. Written Communication, 3, 219–267.
29.
LangerJ. A.ApplebeeA. N.MullisI. V. S.FoertschM. A. (1990). Learning to read in our nation's schools: Instruction and achievement in 1988 at grades 4, 8, and 12. Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress.
30.
LehrS. (1988). The child's developing sense of theme as a response to literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 337–357.
31.
LemonL. T. (1971). A glossary for the study of English. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
LytleS. (1985, April). Comprehension styles of twelfth grade readers: What verbal protocols can (and can't) tell us. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
33.
MaillouxS. (1989). Rhetorical power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
34.
MandlerJ. M.JohnsonN. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111–151.
35.
ManyJ. E. (1990). The effect of stance on students' personal understanding of literature. In McCormickS.ZutellJ. (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms (pp. 51–63). Thirty-ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
36.
ManyJ. E. (1991). The effects of stance and age level on children's literary responses. JRB: A Journal of Literacy, 23, 61–85.
37.
MarshallJ. D. (1987). The effects of writing on students' understanding of literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 30–63.
38.
MarshallJ. D. (1989). Patterns of discourse in classroom discussions of literature (Rep. No. 2.9). Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature, State University of New York at Albany.
39.
MauroL. (1983). Personal constructs and response to literature: Case studies of adolescent readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
40.
MehanH. (1979). Learning lessons: The social organization of classroom behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
NicholasD. W.TrabassoT. (1980). Toward a taxonomy of inferences for story comprehension. In WilkeningF.BeckerJ.TrabassoT. (Eds.), Information integration by children (pp. 243–266). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
OmansonR. C. (1982). An analysis of narratives: Identifying central, supportive, and distracting content. Discourse Processes, 5, 195–224.
43.
PurvesA. C. (1981). Reading and literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
44.
PurvesA. C. (1985). That sunny dome: Those caves of ice. In CooperL. (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 54–69). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
45.
PurvesA. C.BeachR. (1972). Literature and the reader: Research in response to literature, reading interests and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
46.
PurvesA. C.RippereV. (1968). Elements of writing about a literary work: A study in response to literature (Research Rep. No. 9). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
47.
RogersT. (1987). Exploring a socio-cognitive perspective on the interpretive process of junior high school students. English Quarterly, 20, 218–230.
48.
RogersT. (1988). Students as literary critics: The interpretive processes, theories and experiences of ninth grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
49.
RogersT. (1990a). The role of personal response in high school students' thematic interpretations of complex short stories. English Quarterly, 23, 51–61.
50.
RogersT. (1990b). A point, counterpoint response strategy for teaching complex short stories. Journal of Reading, 34, 278–282.
51.
RogersT.GreenJ. L.NussbaumN. R. (1990). Asking questions about questions. In HyndsS.RubinD. (Eds.), Perspectives on talk and learning (pp. 73–90). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
52.
RosenblattL. M. (1938). Literature as exploration. New York: Appleton-Century.
53.
RosenblattL. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of a literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
54.
Saville-TroikeM. (1982). The ethnography of communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
55.
ScholesR. (1986). Textual power: Literary theory and the teaching of English. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
56.
ScribnerM. E. (1960). The responses of students, teachers, and critics to selected poetry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
SquireJ. R. (1964). The responses of adolescents while reading four short stories (Research Rep. No. 2). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
59.
SteinN.GlennC. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In FreedleR. (Ed.), Advances in discourse processes. Volume, 2 (pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
60.
SvennsonC. (1985). The construction of poetic meaning: A cultural-developmental study of symbolic and non-symbolic strategies in the interpretation of contemporary poetry. Sweden: Liber Forlag.
61.
WellekR.WarrenA. (1956). Theory of literature (3rd ed.) New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
62.
WilsonJ. R. (1966). Responses of college freshman to three novels. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
63.
WimsattW. K.BeardsleyM. L. (1954). The verbal icon. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
