How Feeling Supports Students’ Interpretive Discussions About Literature

IF 1.4 2区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Literacy Research Pub Date : 2021-11-15 DOI:10.1177/1086296x211052249
S. Levine, Karoline Trepper, Rosalie Hiuyan Chung, Raquel Coelho
{"title":"How Feeling Supports Students’ Interpretive Discussions About Literature","authors":"S. Levine, Karoline Trepper, Rosalie Hiuyan Chung, Raquel Coelho","doi":"10.1177/1086296x211052249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research indicates that feeling is fundamental to the multilayered experience of literary interpretation. However, despite great strides in U.S. high school classrooms, discussions about literature are still often characterized by known-answer discourses that exclude feeling. This article builds on small-scale studies of affective evaluation, an interpretive approach in which readers attend to and reflect on their feeling-based responses to texts. Those studies, focused on individual students, showed that when responding to texts with feeling, students were more likely to build multilayered interpretations as opposed to summary or one-dimensional thematic interpretations. The current study explores affective evaluation in the more complex arena of class discussion, where known-answer discourses are particularly entrenched. We compared the same teachers and students using affective evaluation in one discussion, but not the other. Discussions using affective evaluation were correlated with increased multidimensional interpretation, adding to evidence that feeling enriches students’ literary sense-making and disrupts known-answer discourses.","PeriodicalId":47294,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literacy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Literacy Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x211052249","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Research indicates that feeling is fundamental to the multilayered experience of literary interpretation. However, despite great strides in U.S. high school classrooms, discussions about literature are still often characterized by known-answer discourses that exclude feeling. This article builds on small-scale studies of affective evaluation, an interpretive approach in which readers attend to and reflect on their feeling-based responses to texts. Those studies, focused on individual students, showed that when responding to texts with feeling, students were more likely to build multilayered interpretations as opposed to summary or one-dimensional thematic interpretations. The current study explores affective evaluation in the more complex arena of class discussion, where known-answer discourses are particularly entrenched. We compared the same teachers and students using affective evaluation in one discussion, but not the other. Discussions using affective evaluation were correlated with increased multidimensional interpretation, adding to evidence that feeling enriches students’ literary sense-making and disrupts known-answer discourses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
情感如何支持学生文学解释性讨论
研究表明,感觉是文学阐释的多层次体验的基础。然而,尽管在美国高中课堂上取得了长足的进步,但关于文学的讨论仍然经常以排除情感的已知答案话语为特征。本文建立在对情感评价的小规模研究的基础上,情感评价是一种解释性的方法,读者可以关注和反思他们对文本的基于感觉的反应。这些针对个别学生的研究表明,当对文本做出有感觉的回应时,学生更有可能建立多层次的解释,而不是总结或一维的主题解释。目前的研究探索了课堂讨论中更复杂的领域中的情感评价,在课堂讨论中,已知答案话语尤其根深蒂固。我们在一次讨论中比较了同样的教师和学生使用情感评价的情况,但在另一次中没有。使用情感评价的讨论与增加的多维解释相关,这进一步证明了情感丰富了学生的文学感,扰乱了已知的答案话语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Journal of Literacy Research (JLR) is a peer-reviewed journal contributes to the advancement research related to literacy and literacy education. Current focuses include, but are not limited to: -Literacies from preschool to adulthood -Evolving and expanding definitions of ‘literacy’ -Innovative applications of theory, pedagogy and instruction -Methodological developments in literacy and language research
期刊最新文献
“What's Unexpected?” Interventionist Explanations of Dyslexia I’m Still Nigerian: Navigating Race Through Digital Literacies Literacy as Bearing Witness: Teachers Expanding Literacy Through Authentic and Hybrid Student Narratives From Silence to Testimonio: Latina Adolescents’ Agency in Writing Squeezed in: Writing Instruction Over Time
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1