Advertisement

An Extended Model of Literary Literacy

  • Christel MeierEmail author
  • Thorsten Roick
  • Sofie Henschel
  • Jörn Brüggemann
  • Volker Frederking
  • Adelheid Rieder
  • Volker Gerner
  • Petra Stanat
Chapter
Part of the Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment book series (MEMA)

Abstract

Empirical findings on the question whether the competencies of understanding literary and non-literary (expository) texts are distinct, have been lacking for a long time. In our research we have made an attempt to resolve this issue. Our aim was to develop and evaluate a model of literary literacy, based on the theory of aesthetic semiotics, that includes a content-related and a form-related understanding of literary texts. We conducted several studies to test whether comprehending literary and expository texts represents partly distinct facets of reading literacy. This chapter presents an extended model of literary literacy that expands the range of competence facets of literary understanding. Our findings indicate that the competence of comprehending literary texts encompasses—in addition to content and form-related understanding—the ability to apply specific literary knowledge, to recognize foregrounded passages and to recognize emotions that are intended by the text.

Keywords

Literary literacy Reading literacy Competence model Aesthetic semiotics Literature class 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The preparation of this chapter was supported by grant FR 2640/1-3 and RO 3960/1-3 from the German Research Foundation (DFG) in the Priority Program “Competence Models for Assessing Individual Learning Outcomes and Evaluating Educational Processes” (SPP 1293).

References

  1. Altmann, U., Bohrn, I. C., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M. (2014). Fact vs fiction: How paratextual information shapes our reading processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9, 22–29. doi: 10.1093/scan/nss098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brecht, B. (1995). Herr Keuner und der hilflose Knabe [Mr. Keuner and the helpless boy] (1932). In B. Brecht, Werke. V. 18: Prosa 3. Sammlungen und Dialoge (p. 19). Berlin: Aufbau Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  3. Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eco, U. (1989). The open work. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Eco, U. (1990). The limits of interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Frederking, V., & Brüggemann, J. (2012). Literarisch kodierte, intendierte bzw. evozierte Emotionen und literarästhetische Verstehenskompetenz: Theoretische Grundlagen einer empirischen Erforschung [Literary coded, intended, or evoked emotions and literary literacy: Theoretical background of some empirical research]. In D. Frickel, C. Kammler, & G. Rupp (Eds.), Literaturdidaktik im Zeichen von Kompetenzorientierung und Empirie. Perspektiven und Probleme (pp. 15–41). Freiburg: Fillibach.Google Scholar
  7. Frederking, V., Henschel, S., Meier, C., Roick, T., Stanat, P., & Dickhäuser, O. (2012). Beyond functional aspects of reading literacy: Theoretical structure and empirical validity of literary literacy. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 12, 35–58.Google Scholar
  8. Frederking, V., Brüggemann, J., Albrecht, C., Henschel, S., & Gölitz, D. (2016). Emotionale Facetten literarischen Verstehens und ästhetischer Erfahrung. Empirische Befunde literaturdidaktischer Grundlagen- und Anwendungsforschung [Emotional facets of literary literacy and aesthetic experience. Empirical results of basic research and applied research in the pedagogy of literature]. In J. Brüggemann, M.-G. Dehrmann, & J. Standke (Eds.), Literarizität. Herausforderungen für Literaturdidaktik und Literaturwissenschaft (pp. 87–132). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.Google Scholar
  9. Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163–189. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanauer, D. (1999). Attention and literary education: A model of literary knowledge development. Language Awareness, 8, 15–29. doi: 10.1080/09658419908667114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henschel, S., & Roick, T. (2013). Zusammenhang zwischen Empathie und dem Verstehen literarischer Texte [The link between empathy and literary text comprehension]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 45, 103–113. doi: 10.1026/0049-8637/a000084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henschel, S., & Schaffner, E. (2014). Differenzielle Zusammenhänge zwischen Komponenten der Lesemotivation und dem Verstehen literarischer bzw. expositorischer Texte [Differential relationships between components of reading motivation and comprehension of literary and expository texts]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 16, 112–126. doi: 10.2378/peu2014.art10d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henschel, S., Roick, T., Brunner, M., & Stanat, P. (2013). Leseselbstkonzept und Textart: Lassen sich literarisches und faktuales Leseselbstkonzept trennen [Reading self-concept and text-type: Can literary and factual reading self-concept be differentiated]? Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 27, 181–191. doi: 10.1024/1010-0652/a000103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henschel, S., Meier, C., & Roick, T. (2016). Effects of two types of task instructions on literary text comprehension and motivational and affective factors. Learning and Instruction, 44, 11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.005
  15. Hertel, S., Hochweber, J., Steinert, B., & Klieme, E. (2010). Schulische Rahmenbedingungen und Lerngelegenheiten im Deutschunterricht [Educational framework and learning opportunities in German lessons]. In E. Klieme, C. Artelt, J. Hartig, N. Jude, O. Köller, M. Prenzel, et al. (Eds.), PISA 2009. Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt (pp. 113–148). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  16. Hoffstaedter, P. (1986). Poetizität aus der Sicht des Lesers. Eine empirische Untersuchung der Rolle von Text-, Leser- und Kontexteigenschaften bei der poetischen Verarbeitung von Texten [Poeticity from the reader’s point of view. An empirical study on text, reader, and context in the poetical processing of texts]. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
  17. Huang, H.-Y., & Wang, W.-C. (2013). Higher order testlet response models for hierarchical latent traits and testlet-based items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 491–511. doi: 10.1177/0013164412454431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IQ (The Institute for Qualitiy Improvement) (2009). Lese(verständnis)test 9 Hessen [Reading comprehension test 9 Hessen]. Wiesbaden: Author.Google Scholar
  19. IQB (The Institute for Educational Quality Improvement) (2012). Vergleichsaufgaben Deutsch für Sekundarstufe I . Unveröffentlichtes Testmaterial [Items for comparisons in German for secondary schools, unpublished test material]. Berlin: Author.Google Scholar
  20. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. KMK (The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany) (2004). Bildungsstandards im Fach Deutsch für den Mittleren Schulabschluss: Beschluss vom 4.12.2003 [Educational Standards for German language learning in secondary-level schooling: Resolution approved by the Standing Conference on 4 December 2003]. München: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
  22. Kneepkens, E. W., & Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Emotions and literary text comprehension. Poetics, 23, 125–138. doi: 10.1016/0304-422X(94)00021-W.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lehmann, R. H. (1994). Lesen Mädchen wirklich besser? Ergebnisse aus der internationalen IEA-Lesestudie [Do girls really read better? Results of the international IEA-reading study]. In S. Richter & H. Brügelmann (Eds.), Mädchen lernen ANDERS lernen Jungen: Geschlechtsspezifische Unterschiede beim Schriftspracherwerb (pp. 99–109). Lengwil: Libelle.Google Scholar
  24. Levine, S. (2014). Making interpretation visible with an affect-based strategy. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 283–303. doi: 10.1002/rrq.71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Djikic, M., & Mullin, J. (2011). Emotion and narrative fiction: Interactive influences before, during, and after reading. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 818–833. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2010.515151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meier, C., Henschel, S., Roick, T., & Frederking, V. (2012). Literarästhetische Textverstehenskompetenz und fachliches Wissen. Möglichkeiten und Probleme domänenspezifischer Kompetenzforschung [Literary literacy and expert knowledge. Chances and problems of competence research in specific domains]. In I. Pieper & D. Wieser (Eds.), Fachliches Wissen und literarisches Verstehen. Studien zu einer brisanten Relation (pp. 237–258). Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
  27. Meier, C., Roick, T., & Henschel, S. (2013). Erfassung literarischen Textverstehens: Zu Faktoren der Aufgabenschwierigkeit bei der Konstruktion von Testaufgaben [Measuring literary literacy: Using factors of item difficulty in item construction]. In C. Rieckmann & J. Gahn (Eds.), Poesie verstehen—Literatur unterrichten (pp. 103–123). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.Google Scholar
  28. Meutsch, D. (1987). Literatur verstehen [Understanding Literature]. Braunschweig: Vieweg.Google Scholar
  29. Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 389–407. doi: 10.1016/0304-422X(94)00011-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th edn.) Los Angeles: Author.Google Scholar
  31. Nutz, M. (2002). Geschichten vom Herrn Keuner [Stories of Mr. Keuner]. In J. Knopf (Ed.), Brecht Handbuch V.3: Prosa, Filme, Drehbücher (pp. 129–155). Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
  32. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2009). PISA 2009 Assessment framework. Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/44455820.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2015.
  33. Plummer, M. (2008). Penalized loss functions for Bayesian model comparison. Biostatistics, 9, 523–539. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxm049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roick, T., & Henschel, S. (2015). Strategie zur Validierung von Kompetenzstrukturmodellen [A strategy to validate the structure of competence models]. In U. Riegel, I. Schubert, G. Siebert-Ott, & K. Macha (Eds.), Kompetenzmodellierung und -forschung in den Fachdidaktiken (pp. 11–28). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  36. Roick, T., Frederking, V., Henschel, S., & Meier, C. (2013). Literarische Textverstehenskompetenz bei Schülerinnen und Schülern unterschiedlicher Schulformen [Literary literacy of students from different school tracks]. In C. Rosebrock & A. Bertschi-Kaufmann (Eds.), Literalität erfassen: bildungspolitisch, kulturell, individuell (pp. 69–84). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  37. Rupp, A. A., Dey, D. K., & Zumbo, B. D. (2004). To Bayes or not to Bayes, from whether to when: Applications of bayesian methodology to modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 424–451. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheines, R., Hoijtink, H., & Boomsma, A. (1999). Bayesian estimation and testing of structural equation models. Psychometrika, 64, 37–52. doi: 10.1007/BF02294318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 239–472. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & van der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 64, 583–639. doi: 10.1111/1467-9868.00353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spinner, K. H. (2006). Literarisches Lernen [Literary learning]. Praxis Deutsch, 200, 6–16.Google Scholar
  42. van Peer, W. (1986). Stylistics and psychology. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  43. Vipond, D., & Hunt, R. A. (1984). Point-driven understanding: Pragmatic and cognitive dimensions of literary reading. Poetics, 13, 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Winko, S. (2003). Kodierte Gefühle. Zu einer Poetik der Emotionen in lyrischen und poetologischen Texten um 1900 [Coded emotions. On a poetics of emotions in lyrical and poetological texts around 1900]. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
  45. Yen, W. M., & Fitzpatrick, A. R. (2006). Item response theory. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 111–153). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  46. Zwaan, R. A. (1993). Aspects of literary comprehension. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zyngier, S., Fialho, O., & do Prado Rios, P. A. (2007). Revisiting literary awareness. In G. Watson & S. Zyngier (Eds.), Literature and stylistics for language learners: Theory and practice (pp. 194–209). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christel Meier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thorsten Roick
    • 2
  • Sofie Henschel
    • 3
  • Jörn Brüggemann
    • 4
  • Volker Frederking
    • 1
  • Adelheid Rieder
    • 1
  • Volker Gerner
    • 1
  • Petra Stanat
    • 3
  1. 1.Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Senate Department for Education, Youth and ScienceSIBUZ PankowBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Educational Quality Improvement (IQB)Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Carl von Ossietzky University of OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations