Literary reading and critical thinking

Abstract

Previous research suggests that literary reading may involve critical thinking. This involvement may facilitate critical literary understanding (CLU), i.e. understanding the literary text in a reconstructive, de-automatized manner. However, little is known about the cognitive processes this involvement entails. This study aims: (1) to conceptualize CLU, by relating dual process theory to concepts from the domain of literary studies (foregrounding, defamiliarization); (2) to test CLU in an educational context. An instrument to measure CLU was designed. A prospective cohort study was conducted (N = 271, grades 10–12, pre-university education, ages 14–19) at a Dutch secondary school. CLU, critical thinking skills (CTS) and dispositions (CTD) were measured one month after the start of the academic year, CLU was measured again four months later. Results show that students improve in CLU. This improvement is mediated by CTD and moderated by CTS. These results suggest that critical thinking can be engaged in the literature classroom.

Literature education as a school for thinking: Students' learning experiences in secondary literature education

“…So far, the empirical support for our theory that literature education can stimulate students' tendency to engage in de-automatization and thoughtful (re)construction, is correlative. As we mentioned in our introduction, at one particular Dutch school 37% of students' growth in literary interpretation skills after four months of literature education was predicted by their critical thinking skills and dispositions (Koek et al, 2016), both of which have been correlated with de-automatization and (re)construction in earlier studies (Frederick, 2005;Stanovich & West, 2013). The issue now is whether de-automatization and (re)construction were indeed part of these students' learning experiences over the course of the four months of this specific literature program.…”

“…Therefore, to further validate our theory, our research question is: Which experiences of de-automatization and (re)construction of meaningif any-do secondary school students (pre-university track, Grade 10-12, age 14-19) of one Dutch school report when they look back at four months of a specific program of literary arts? We expect to find such experiences in these particular students' recollections, since the specific program that the students followed was associated with de-automatization and (re)construction in previous research (Koek et al, 2016). Furthermore, if we identify experiences of de-automatization and (re)construction in students' recollections, we expect that students who had shown growth in literary interpretation skills after four months of literature education will recall more of these experiences than students who had not shown growth.…”

“…With this potential to de-automatize our thinking, the literary experience may go beyond mere interplay between automatized processes (such as recognizing words, anticipating events) and conscious processes (such as making thoughtful inferences) that is typical of all reading (Jacobs, 2015;Van den Broek, Lorch, Linderholm & Gustafson, 2001). In addition, in a recent study of a specific program of literary fiction at one Dutch school we found that 37% of variation in growth in upper secondary students' literary interpretation skills was explained by students' critical thinking dispositions and critical thinking skills (Koek, Janssen, Hakemulder & Rijlaarsdam, 2016). These dispositions and skills have been associated with people's inclination and ability to de-automate their thinking and to then consciously (re)construct meaning from the data at hand (Ennis, 2011;Evans & Stanovich, 2013;Facione, 1990).…”

“…The present study followed a quantitative study in which we had measured 271 preuniversity (grade 10-12) students' 1) growth in critical literary understanding (CLU; defined as de-automatized, (re)constructive meaning making in response to literary texts) after four months of the literature course, via pre-and post-measurements of the Critical Thinking in Literary Context-test, both of which showed satisfactory internal reliability (Cronbach's Alpha .72 -.78), construct validity and correlational validity (37% of improvement in the test was predicted by skills and dispositions theoretically related to critical literary understanding), as well as high interrater reliability (CTLC; Koek et al, 2016); 2) critical thinking skills via a single measurement of the Cornell Critical Thinking Test (CCTT; Ennis, Millman & Tomko, 2005;Koek et al, 2016); 3) critical thinking dispositions (CTD) via a single measurement of the Critical Thinking Dispositions Questionnaire (CTDQ; Cacioppo & Petty, 1984;Eysenk, 1954;Koek et al, 2016;West, Meserve & Stanovich, 2012).…”

Introduction

“…How may we foster students' critical literary reading skills and insights into human nature in the literature classroom? These are some of the questions of literature projects that Gert initiated and supervised over the years (e.g., Witte et al, 2006;Koek, et al, 2016;Schrijvers, et al, 2016). The methodology Gert developed for studying writing processes came in handy in studies of students' literary reading processes.…”