Nurturing the Literate Mind through Group Interaction among Literary Thinkers

Tina Abdullah, Zaidah Zainal, Abdul Halim Abdul Raof

Abstract


Conventional classroom discourse structure that nurtures literacy through the scientific way of thinking is argued to limit personal engagement and exploration of alternative thinking processes among literary thinkers. In nurturing literacy for the literate mind, this study investigated how the literary way of thinking through group interaction can become a powerful alternative avenue to complement the established scientific way of thinking. Based on the Reader Response and Envisionment Building theories, participants were given the freedom to wander and become personally involved in group interactions advancing thinking about meaning through exploring horizons of possibilities. Through peer-led group discussions, this case study examined a group of 31 undergraduate learners who discussed a short story as part of a literature course. The overall findings show that when given the freedom to explore horizons of possibilities through group interactions, the participants demonstrated personal engagement and the ability to explore different thinking processes. Among the common themes observed were that participants shared personal recalling of facts or literary devices, contemplated personal interpretations of meaning, discussed the personal evaluation of the text, expressed doubts or misunderstandings, made personal connections or extended the imaginary world. It may thus be concluded that to nurture the literate mind, the literary way of thinking should complement the scientific way of thinking to promote different thinking processes and personal engagement. Opportunities to explore horizons of possibilities through group interactions support literacy in literature classrooms.

 

Keywords: the literate mind; literary thinking; horizons of possibilities; group interaction; literature instruction


Full Text:

PDF

References


Adler, M. & Rougle, E. (2005). Building literacy through classroom discussion: Research-based strategies for developing critical readers and thoughtful writers in middle school. New York: Scholastic Inc.

Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly. Vol. 3(3), 314-35. https://doi.org/10.2307/747620

Aukerman, M., Johnson, E.M., & Schuldt, C.S. (2017). Reciprocity of student and teacher discourse practices in monologically and dialogically organised text discussion. Journal of Language and Literacy Education. Vol. 13(2), 1-52. Retrieved September 2, 2020 from

http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/Aukerman_JoLLE2016_243.pdf

Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer, & s. Hodgkinson (eds.) Exploring talk in school (pp. 1-6). London: Sage Publications.

Barnes, D. (2010). Why talk is important. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. Vol. 9(2), 7-10. http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2010v9n2art1.pdf

Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Beach, R., Enciso, P., Harste, J., Jenkins, C., Raina, S.A., Rogers, R., Short, K.G., Yoo Kyung Sung, Wilson, M. & Agbaw, V.Y. (2009). Aiming for the future: Cultivating a sense of the possible. In National Reading Conference Yearbook. Vol. 58, 129 -143. Retrieved February 14, 2020 from

https://www.coe.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/critical_content_analysis-nrc.pdf

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, possible Worlds. London: Harvard University Press.

Chi, F. (2012). Searching for intertextual connections in small group discussion. Journal of Research in Reading. Vol. 35(3), 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01457.x

Cho, K.S & Krashen, S. (2020). Why don’t EFL students read more? Because “we are tested on what we read in class.” In Language and Language Teaching. 50-53. Retrieved September 2, 2020 from

http://publications.azimpremjifoundation.org/2190/1/8_Why%20don%27t%20EFL%20students%20read%20more%20because%20we%20are%20tested%20on%20what%20we%20read%20in%20class.pdf

Clarke, L. W. & Whitney, E. (2009). Walking in their shoes: Using multiple-perspectives texts as a bridge to critical literacy. The Reading Teacher. Vol. 62(6), 530-534. Retrieved February 14, 2020 from https://eric.ed.gov/?redir=http%3a%2f%2fdx.doi.org%2f10.1598%2fRT.62.6.7

Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voices and choice in book clubs and reading groups. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.

Douglas, K., Barnett, T., Poletti, A., Seaboyer, J. & Kennedy, R. (2015). Building reading resilience: re-thinking reading for the literary studies classroom. Higher Education Research & Development. Vol. 35(2), 254-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1087475

Friend, L. (2017). IRE and content area literacies: A Critical Analysis of Classroom Discourse. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. Vol. 40(2), 124-134.

Gough, P. B. (1995). The new literacy: Caveat emptor. Journal of Research in Reading. Vol. 18(2), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1995.tb00074.x

Harste, J.C. (March, 2003). What do we mean by literacy now? Voices from the Middle. Vol. 10(3), 8-12. Retrieved February 14, 2021 from https://library.ncte.org/journals/vm/issues/v10-3

Heller, M. F. (2007). Telling stories and talking facts: First graders’ engagements in a nonfiction book club. The Reading Teacher. Vol. 60(4), 358-369. Retrieved January 14, 2020 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/i20204469

Howard, P. (2010). How literature works: Poetry and the phenomenology of reader response. Phenomenology & Practice. Vol. 4(1), 52-67. Retrieved February 14, 2021 from https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/pandpr/index.php/pandpr/article/view/19827/15345

Howe, A. (2013). Developing the Talking School: Action research at Qxford Spires and St Mark’s Church of England Academies. 1-36. Retrieved February 2, 2020 from https://www.oxfordspiresacademy.org/download/documents/r-talking-schools-report-2013-1.pdf

Johnston, P.H. (2020). Engaging literate minds: Developing children’s social, emotional and intellectual lives. Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Karolides, N.J. (2020). Reader Response in Elementary Classrooms. New York: Routledge. Retrieved July 31, 2020 from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781315045061

Khamkhong, S. (2018). Developing English L2 critical reading and thinking skills through the PISA reading literacy assessment Framework: A case study of Thai EFL learners. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. Vol. 24(3): 83-94.

http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2403-07

Langer, J.A. (1986). Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies. New Jersey: Ablex Pub. Corp.

Langer, J.A. (2002). The literate mind. (ED 476 824). Educational Resources Information Center. Retrieved June 14, 2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED476284.pdf

Langer, J.A. (2011). Envisioning Literature: Literary understanding and literary instruction. (2Ed.). New Jersey: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Marlia Puteh, Zuhana Mohd Zin & Ihsan Ismail. (2016). Reading Performance of Malaysian Students across Gender in PISA 2012. 3L: The Southern Asian Journal of English Language Studies. Vol. 22(2), 109-121. http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2016-2202-08

Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English. Vol. 40(4), 392-412. Retrieved July 24, 2020 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171709?refreqid=excelsior%3A801ff5ef5b39cc7449095d7d906a30fd

Reynolds, T. (2019). Like a conductor: Whole-class discussion in English classrooms. English Teaching: Practice & Critique. Vol. 18(4), 478-491. Retrieved September 25, 2020 from

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ETPC-04-2019-0053/full/html

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1988). Writing and reading: The transactional theory. (416). Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. Retrieved June 10, 2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED292062.pdf

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1993). The transactional theory: Against dualisms. College English. Vol. 55(4), 377-386.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1995). Literature as exploration. New York: Modern Languages Association.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (2005). Meaning making with the text: Selected essays. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Rosenberg, J. (2019). Literacy...from the beginning in parents’ league review. Retrieved September 2, 2020 from https://www.parentsleague.org/sites/default/files/LiteracyFromBeginning.pdf.

Simpson, A., Mercer, N. & Majors, Y. (2010). Editorial: Douglas Barnes revisited: If learning floats on a sea of talk, what kind of talk? And what kind of learning? English Teaching: Practice and Critique. Vol.9(2), 1-6.

Smith, V. (2004). Empowering teachers: Empowering children? How can researchers initiate and research empowerment? Journal of Research in Reading. Vol. 27(4), 413-424. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00243.x

Soter, A.O., Wilkinson, I.A.G., Murphy, P.K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K. & Edwards, M. (2009). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 47, 372-391. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://eric.ed.gov/?

redir=http%3a%2f%2fdx.doi.org%2f10.1016%2fj.ijer.2009.01.001

Tan, S.Y., Tee, M.Y. & Moses, S. (2017). Persistent monologicality amidst variation in teachers’ questioning practices in Malaysian English language classrooms. Journal of Asia TEFL. Vol. 14(4), 621-637. Retrieved June 20, 2020 from https://search.proquest.com/openview/77c75933587f279c651b64d52a06c664/1?pq-

origsite=gscholar&cbl=4424407

Tatum, A.W. (2019). Meaningful literacy and life exchanges with text: An uncommon trilogy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Vol. 62(5), 579-582. http://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.931

Teo, P. (2019). Teaching for the 21st century: A case for dialogic pedagogy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. Vol. 21, 170-178. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.03.009

Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind: The origins of thought and language. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tytler, R. & Prain, V. (2010). A framework for re-thinking learning in science from recent cognitive science perspectives. International Journal of Science Education. Vol. 32(15), 2055-2078. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903334849

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2006). Education for all: Literacy of life. Education for All Global Monitoring Report UNESCO. Retrieved January 18, 2021 from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000141639

Yeoh, G.S. (2009). Coffee Break Talk. Pelanduk Publications.

Zuhana Mohd Zin, Wong, B. E. & Shameem Rafik-Galea. (2014). Critical reading ability and its relation to L2 proficiency of Malaysia ESL learners. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 20(2): 43 – 54. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/3L-2014-2002-04




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/3L-2021-2703-07

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2247

ISSN : 0128-5157