Interpretation and experience: Two pedagogical interventions observed

Abstract

In light of the hard times in which literary education has been finding itself, this paper evaluates the merits of two instructional interventions. It describes an experiment which contrasts interpretive and experiential approaches to reading carried out with 17 Comparative Literature Canadian university students. Two different sets of pre-reading and reading instructions were prepared. The group working under the control condition followed a set of 'interpretive instructions' while the one working under the experimental condition followed 'experiential instructions'. Participants in both conditions completed four measures: three questionnaires and a response essay. Videorecording of small group discussions also occurred. Intervention effects were evaluated statistically. No differences were found in any of the measurements except for story-driven reading, in which the control group scored higher than the experimental one. This means that participants preferred to focus on the plot or story-line and showed interest for action and compelling conclusions. The video recording, however, indicated higher voluntary participation in the experimental condition. As regards class assessment, the results were rather contradictory and unexpected, leading to the conclusion that interpretation and experiencing may not present us with an either-or situation but may most productively be regarded as complementary. Ultimately, this study advances the debate on the need to examine instructional interventions in literature classes empirically.Corresponding author: ofialho@ualberta.ca 236

The impact of literature education on students' perceptions of self and others: Exploring personal and social learning experiences in relation to teacher approach

“…This may have important implications for the potential of using literature in specific environments, for example, teachers' professional development (Kooy, 2006), people's professional behavior in general (Bal, Butterman & Bakker, 2011), and domainspecific education in literary studies (e.g., Fialho, Zyngier & Miall, 2011;Fialho, Miall & Zyngier, 2012) as well as the secondary literature classroom that forms the context for the present study.…”

“…Other distinctions have been made as well, such as an interpretative versus an experiential approach (Fialho, Zyngier & Miall, 2011;Fialho, Miall & Zyngier, 2012), while other scholars have argued for bridging the gap by attending both to meaning of literary texts as well as bringing personal experiences to these texts (Wilhelm, 2007), for example by creating 'a social community that supports learning literature' (Beach et al, 2011, p. 8). Similarly, Van de Ven and Doecke (2011) noted that the teachers in their study connected the interpretation of literary texts to 'the need to negotiate the social relationships that comprise any classroom' (p. 219).…”

“…To gain insight into their approaches to literature teaching, we asked teachers to complete the newly constructed Teachers' Approaches to Literature Education Questionnaire (TALE-Q) online. Since various distinctions have been made in literature teaching approaches (Fialho et al, 2011;Janssen, 1998;Verboord & Van Rees, 2003, cf. introductory section), the TALE-Q emphasized what these studies have in common, thereby relying on a continuum with a so-called analytical-interpretative approach at one end, and a personal-experiential approach at the other end.…”

Audiobooks and Print Narrative: Similarities in Text Experience

“…This may be partly due to the assumption, traditionally prevailing in the literary academia, that reading is meant to primarily serve systematic, analytical, distanced reflection (see, e. g., Fialho, Zyngier, and Miall 2011).…”

Outer vs. Inner Reverberations: Verbal Auditory Imagery and Meaning-Making in Literary Narrative

“…The kind of meaning at stake is to be understood quite broadly, so as to include any response toward the personal relevance of the story for the individual reader and other forms of »lived« or »experienced« signification (see e. g. Seilman and Larsen 1989;Miall 2006). As empirical research into the effects of pedagogical interventions has shown (Fialho/Zyngier/Miall 2011), this is how the general concept of interpretation may be widely understood amongst first-year (Canadian) university students of literature. When assessing classes where personal response to text was expressly encouraged, they were found to report more focus on »analysis and interpretation«, compared to their assessment of classes encouraging impersonal, analytic commentary only.…”