You are here:

Constructing interpretive inferences about literary text: The role of domain-specific knowledge
ARTICLE

,

Learning and Instruction Volume 60, Number 1, ISSN 0959-4752 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Student readers struggle to construct the interpretive inferences necessary for successful literary comprehension. Expert think-alouds were conducted to identify the kinds of domain-specific knowledge that were drawn upon when reading the short story "The Elephant". These data were used to construct three reading instructions provided to student (novice) literary readers. These instructions informed the student about two types of literary conventions (Rules of Notice, Rules of Signification, Combined). Analysis of the students’ essays indicated having both types of domain-specific knowledge yielded the most interpretive inferences. Attention to language mediated the effect suggesting a means for domain-specific knowledge to be used to leverage student engagement in literary interpretation.

Citation

McCarthy, K.S. & Goldman, S.R. (2019). Constructing interpretive inferences about literary text: The role of domain-specific knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 60(1), 245-251. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved January 20, 2020 from .

This record was imported from Learning and Instruction on March 15, 2019. Learning and Instruction is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.004

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Acheson, D.J., Wells, J.B., & MacDonald, M.C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40, pp. 278-289.
  2. Burkett, C., & Goldman, S.R. (2016). Getting the point of literature: Relations between processing and interpretation. Discourse Processes, 53, pp. 457-487.
  3. Earthman, E. (1992). Creating the virtual work: Readers' processes in understanding literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, pp. 351-384.
  4. Goldman, S.R. (2012). Adolescent literacy: Learning and understanding content. The Future of Children, 22, pp. 89-116.
  5. Goldman, S.R., Britt, M.A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., & Greenleaf, C. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), pp. 219-246.
  6. Goldman, S.R., McCarthy, K.S., & Burkett, C. (2015). Interpretive inferences in literature. Inferences during reading, pp. 386-415. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Graesser, A.C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, pp. 371-395.
  8. Graves, B., & Frederiksen, C.H. (1991). Literary expertise in the description of fictional narrative. Poetics, 20, pp. 1-26.
  9. Hanauer, D. (1998). The genre-specific hypothesis of reading: Reading poetry and encyclopedic items. Poetics, 26, pp. 63-80.
  10. Hayes, A.F., & Preacher, K.J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, pp. 451-470.
  11. Langer, J.A. (2010). Envisioning Literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  12. Lee, C.D. (2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York: Teachers College Press.
  13. Lee, C.D. (2011). Education and the study of literature. Scientific Study of Literature, 1, pp. 49-58.
  14. Lee, C.D., & Goldman, S.R. (2015). Assessing literary reasoning: Text and task complexities. Theory Into Practice, 54, pp. 213-227.
  15. Lee, C.D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
  16. Levine, S., & Horton, W.S. (2013). Using affective appraisal to help readers construct literary interpretations. Scientific Study of Literature, 3, pp. 105-136.
  17. Magliano, J.P., Baggett, W.B., & Graesser, A.C. (1996). A taxonomy of inference categories that may be generated during the comprehension of literary texts. Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics, pp. 201-220. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  18. McCarthy, K.S. (2015). Reading beyond the lines: A critical review of cognitive approaches to literary interpretation and comprehension. Scientific Study of Literature, 5, pp. 99-128.
  19. McCarthy, K.S., & Goldman, S.R. (2015). Comprehension of short stories: Effects of task instructions on literary interpretation. Discourse Processes, 52, pp. 585-608.
  20. Mrozek, S. (1972). The elephant (Słoń). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  21. Peskin, J. (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study. Cognition and Instruction, 16, pp. 135-263.
  22. Peskin, J. (2007). The genre of poetry: Secondary school students' conventional expectations and interpretive operations. English in Education, 41(3), pp. 20-36.
  23. Rabinowitz, P. (1987). Before reading: Narrative conventions and the politics of interpretation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  24. Zeitz, C.M. (1994). Expert-novice differences in memory, abstraction, and reasoning in the domain of literature. Cognition and Instruction, 4, pp. 277-312.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References