ARLE ROLE 2018

Juli-Anna Aerila Merja Kauppinen	Creating meaningful dialogue in the literature classroom
Ellen Agnello Hannah Dostal Joan Weir Rachael Gabriel	Using children’s literature to further inclusionary practices: Selecting quality texts and facilitating classroom discussion
Ellen Agnello Joan Weir Hannah Dostal	Starting Conversations: Children’s Literature as a Path to Human Rights
Corina I.A. Breukink Tanja Janssen Huub van den Bergh	Text comprehension in the classroom setting: On high school and higher education students’ reading and comprehending of poetry and prose
Mark-Oliver Carl Nathalie Kónya-Jobs	Teacher Students` Knowledge-in-Action of Literary History: Comparing Data from Literary Seminar Conservations (Heidelberg Model) and Think Aloud Protocols
Simone Depner	Dramaturgy of dialogue in the literature classroom and literary learning
Rachael Gabriel	Patterns of discourse during read-alouds in classrooms rated very effective or very ineffective
Ida Gabrielsen	How and why do students read fiction? A Study of Literature Instruction in 182 Lower Secondary Language Arts Lessons in Norway
Sotiria Kalasaridou	Teaching Holocaust in secondary education in Greece: educational context and pedagogical perspectives.
Merja Kauppinen Juli-Anna Aerila	Promoting primary school teachers’ readership in order to create innovative literature pedagogy in classrooms
Natalia Kolodina	From Language Games to Literature Receptions in Classroom
Marco Magirius	Beliefs of L1-Teacher Training Students on Interpreting Literature and Literature Education
Nadia Mansour	Developing a literary reading design with multicultural youth literature in the subject Danish
Fiona Moreno Christophe Ronveaux	Keeping Track of Frictions in Reading Comprehension Instruction : A Case for Interactions Studies
Marianne Oksbjerg	Teachers´ perception and practice of didactic literature learning resources in terms of enhancing Bildung among students in grade five end six
Irene Pieper Andrea Bertschi-Kaufmann Steffen Siebenhuener Nora Kernen	Teacher priorities and objectives, student motivations, and classroom practices – Project TAMoLi
Irene Pieper Iris Winkler Sören Ohlhus	Interaction in the literature classroom - Workshop I
Irene Pieper Tina Høegh Daniel A. Scherf John Gordon	Interaction in the literature classroom - Workshop II
Louise Rosendal Bang	Is there a literary conversation in this class?
Marloes Schrijvers	Using written imaginary dialogues to assess the effects of dialogic literature lessons on students’ insights in self and others
Margrethe Sonneland	Frictions - A study of the importance of obstacles and resistance in conversations about literature
Bianca Strutz	Constitution of poetic metaphor as a matter of learning in German literature classroom
Caroline Wittig	Teaching Literature with Comics – Performative Panelreadings in the Primary School

Juli-Anna Aerila & Merja Kauppinen (Finland)
CREATING MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE IN THE LITERATURE CLASSROOM
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Thursday, 09:45-13:00

Room LN 226

Chair: Elkad-Lehman, Ilana

Successful literature discussions are one of the key elements in enhancing children to make connections with literature and reading. However, in many cases the classroom discussions centred to literature fail. According to prior research (Allington & Gabriel, 2012; Goodman, 2001; Tauveron, 2006) literature discussions should be lead as small-group discussions and concentrate on sharing the thoughts and experiences aroused during reading. Especially personal experiences shared in social interaction seems to be crucial in order to facilitate the understanding of others and can improve the resources for empathy and social inference (Mar & Oatley 2008). Currently, the literature discussion are still very teacher-oriented and controlled by the teacher. This means that most of the students are passive, and do not participate or find the discussions meaningful. (Chinn & Anderson, 2001).

We have implemented a literature pedagogy promoting programme StoRe – Stories make readers since 2017. The programme is aimed at in-service teachers of primary schools in order to support the meaningful pedagogy in literature education and to enhance the conscious of readership of teachers’ own. StoRe-program includes research implemented in accordance to the traditions of educational design research (Stephan, 2014). This means that teachers plan partly collectively, partly themselves a teaching period of literature for their students. After designing, teachers implement, document and assess the literature teaching period in the joint session of the StoRe teachers’ group.

As a part of StoRe programme, we have collected data from classroom interventions of the primary school teachers. The data consists of the designs of literature teaching periods, audio-recorded conversations in the lessons and primary school students’ products relating to the literature period. Analysing the data students’ reading experiences and approaches to literature are revealed. Additionally, we aim to support the effectiveness of literature discussions and scaffold the innovative reading practices creating during the StoRe-programme.

In this study we concentrate on the quality of the literature conversations aroused during implementing different literature-based tasks, like creating a readers’ theater performance or continuing the experience of reading poetry to the form students have chosen. This kind of activities are commonly used to create engagement to literature and reading. However, there is only a little research on the quality of the interaction during these small group activities. Furthermore, it seems that the educators do not value or realize the possibilities these conversations contain.

The data of the study is analysed using multimodal discourse analysis. Multimodal discourse analysis is implemented to studying social interaction and it approaches meaning as multimodal and through multiple modes. However, multimodal discourse analysis is not about identifying and studying modes as isolated but rather about understanding the world as multimodal. (Bezemer, Diamantopoulou, Jewitt, Kress & Mavers, 2001). The aim of this multimodal analysis is to investigate the modes of expressing the individual reading experiences and signs of sharing these experiences.

The high quality of literature discussions is one of the keys in good reading skills and in feeling the reading of literature meaningful. The traditional teacher-led classroom discussions concentrate often on memory-based questions and studying concepts of literature matched to texts. In these cases the personal experiences are left aside. In the StoRE-program one of the aims is to produce research-based information on the quality and effectiveness of the small group discussions while enhancing the bond between the readers and literature.

A central point for discussion concerns the multimodal analysis of the data: What are the modes expressing the individual reading experiences as well as sign sharing these experiences?

Allington R.L. & Gabriel R.E. (2012) Every child, every day. Reading: The core skills 69(6): 10–15.
Chinn, C.A. & Andersson, R.C. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly 36 (4), 378–411.
Bezemer, J., Diamantopoulou, S., Jewitt, C., Kress, G. & Mavers, D. (2012).Using a social semiotic approach to multimodality: researching learning in schools, museums and hospitals. National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper 01/12.
Stephan, M. L. (2014). Conducting classroom design research with teachers. The International Journal of Mathematics Education 47(6). DOI: 10.1007/s11858-014-0651-6
Tauveron, C. (2006). Literature in French primary school. Aikakauskirja Äidinkielen opetustiede 5/2006. [The Journal of the Science of the Mother tongue].Helsinki: Edita, 3 – 37.
Grossman, P. (2001). Research on the teaching of literature: Finding a place. In V. Richardson (Ed.): Handbook of research on teaching. Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association, 416 – 432.
Mar, R. A. & Oatley, K. 2008. The Function of Fiction is the Abstraction and Simulation of Social Experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3).


Ellen Agnello & Hannah Dostal & Joan Weir & Rachael Gabriel (United States)
USING CHILDREN’S LITERATURE TO FURTHER INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES: SELECTING QUALITY TEXTS AND FACILITATING CLASSROOM DISCUSSION
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Friday, 09:30-12:30

Room LN 226

Chair: Gourvennec, Aslaug Fodstad

Context
All children deserve exposure to positive representations of themselves in text. Children’s perceptions of themselves and their standing in society are largely shaped by the texts that they consume (Hurley, 2005). Children with disabilities who encounter no representations of themselves in media may internalize negative notions about their social standing and ultimately develop a feeling of marginalization (Hurley, 2005). It is important for the positive development of their self-image that children with disabilities not only see representations of themselves in texts but that those images be positive to strengthen their positive sense of self and group and/or refute their negative preconceptions (Hurley, 2005).
Non-disabled children who do not have direct contact to peers with disabilities prior to entering the inclusive classroom could also benefit from exposure to picture books with positive representations of individuals with disabilities (Cameron & Rutland, 2006). Cameron & Rutland (2006) assert that “research demonstrates the effectiveness of contact as an intervention to change younger children’s out group attitudes toward the disabled.” Direct contact, however, is not always possible. In these circumstances, extended contact through the use of children’s books with positive representations of individuals with disabilities (Cameron & Rutland, 2006) can help to “encourage a more positive attitude toward the disabled in non-disabled children” (Cameron & Rutland, 2006).
It is paramount to note that not all children’s literature that portrays disability is high-quality literature. Teachers must be vigilant in their screening of texts to avoid perpetuating the hidden curriculum. When selecting a text, teachers must “argue with the author, question assumptions, unmask ideologies, and examine how the author uses language” (Botelho & Rudman, 2009). Teachers must remember that children’s books are multidimensional, meaning that both text and pictures convey meaning and that they may not always align (Hughes, 2010). Young children, especially those who are emergent readers, will more often construct meaning through the pictures which is why it is important for teachers to screen both text and pictures carefully for stereotypes, prejudices, inequities, and power imbalances (Hughes, 2010).
Aim
This study is relevant to today’s literacy educators because schools are inclusive environments with a number of different types of learners. The World Health Organization’s World Report on Disability (2011) estimates more than 15% of adults have a disability, and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF; 2006) reports that there are approximately 150 million children with a disability worldwide, but representation in children’s literature is significantly lower. Students, because of their lack of experience and limited range of perspectives, are more likely to be influenced by any sort of prejudice portrayed towards a character with a dis/ability (Hughes, 2010). Hughes found that even Caldecott winners perpetuated stereotypes by portraying disabilities in ways that maintain societal biases (2010). There is a tendency, because of this paucity of literature containing characters with disabilities, to accept all books that feature a character with a disability (Hughes, 2010) without regard to quality.
Methods
The following three research questions guided this study:(1) To what extent is children’s literature containing characters with dis/ability labels available in the general education classroom (i.e., are there books in school and class libraries, are they teacher provided, or do they not exist?), (2) How is children’s literature containing characters with dis/ability labels utilized in classrooms (i.e., are they used to further inclusionary practices and if so, how?), (3) What is the ability of educators to evaluate text to ensure text is not promoting misconceptions and stereotypes?
Invitations were sent to superintendents of the largest school district identified in each state, with the request that the invitation be distributed to the elementary teachers in the district. US-based teachers were invited to complete an anonymous Qualtrics survey that included thirteen questions. The questions were created based on The Connecticut Human Rights Education Survey (Mitoma, 2017). Survey questions probe teachers’ background knowledge, asking them to report whether or not special education was a specific area of study, in what context, and for how long. It asks teachers if their school and/or district promotes the teaching of dis/ability labels and to what extent a number of factors contribute to their willingness and ability to teach dis/ability labels. These factors include familiarity with dis/ability labels, access to high-quality materials, adherence to school, district, and/or state standards, and community areas of focus.

Results
The survey is currently active, and results will be ready to be shared at the time of the conference. Preliminary results indicate that teachers are willing to include books that have characters with dis/ability labels, but they need training in how to incorporate them into the curriculum in ways that promote discussion and inclusion.
Discussion
The educational need this session will fulfill is to help to facilitate the inclusion of students with dis/ability labels into the school environments. It is important that teachers are able to evaluate texts in a way that allows for positive discussion that does not relegate people with dis/ability labels into the historic roles of “poor little thing” or “brave little soul” (Ayala, 2007). Educators can help overcome students’ negative preconceptions and foster sensitive, positive attitudes through the use of well-chosen children’s books that foster discussion and learning.


The term ‘disability’ is represented as: ‘dis/ability’ in this paper to suggest that there are different ways of being ‘able’.

References:

Ayala, E. C. (1999). “Poor little things” and “Brave little souls”: The portrayal of individuals
with disabilities in children’s literature. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(1),
103-117.
Baskin, & Harris. (1984). More notes from a different drummer: A guide to juvenile fiction portraying the disabled. New York, NY: Bowker.

Botelho, M. J., & Rudman, M. K. (2009). Critical multicultural analysis of children's literature: Mirrors, windows, and doors. Routledge.

Cameron, L., & Rutland, A. (2006). Extended contact through story reading in school: Reducing children's prejudice toward the disabled. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 469-488.

Hurley, D. L. (2005). Seeing white: Children of color and the Disney fairy tale princess. The Journal of Negro Education, 221-232.

Kelly, J. (2012). Two daddy tigers and a baby tiger: Promoting understandings about same gender parented families using picture books. Early Years, 32(3), 288-300.)

The World Health Organization. (2011). World report on disability. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf.

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2006). The state of the world’s children: Excluded and invisible. New York, NY.


Ellen Agnello & Joan Weir & Hannah Dostal (United States)
STARTING CONVERSATIONS: CHILDREN’S LITERATURE AS A PATH TO HUMAN RIGHTS
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Thursday, 09:45-13:00

Room LN 226

Chair: Elkad-Lehman, Ilana

School-aged children are exposed to devastating issues of human rights now more than ever. With one press of a button or swipe of a finger across a screen, they can be instantly inundated with the images and sounds of victims both near and far. Even in their safe places, their schools; they are often asked to participate in or contribute to relief efforts for people whose conflicts they don’t understand. This decontextualized exposure creates fear, confusion, and even flippancy, as children are lead to believe that minimal efforts collecting cans of food or clothing can solve catastrophes (Lucas, 2009).
According to Flowers et al., (2000), children establish attitudes about equality and human dignity by the age of ten. Without authentic exposure to the real-life situations of people across the globe, their development of empathy is unlikely (Lucas, 2009). As Todres and Higinbotham (2016) contend, “if a primary goal of a democratic society is to have an engaged citizenry that is aware of its rights and respectful of the rights of others, then that society must educate its newest members about human rights” (p. 6). It is essential, therefore, that schools expose children to human rights issues in the early elementary grades. One way to accomplish this is through text. Reading about authentic agents of oppressed, violated and/or victimized groups can help students understand that all people deserve the right to voice and power but that often those rights are not accessible to many (Darragh, 2015).
According to Louise Rosenblatt’s (1938), Reader Response Theory, readers must combine their personal experience, background knowledge, and the content of the text in order to achieve comprehension. In line with this theory, we hypothesize that readers can build background knowledge through text and apply it to new personal experiences. Through conversations about children’s literature depicting human rights issues, students can construct new understandings about what it means to have access to human rights or not, and apply these understandings to inform their perceptions of and interactions with the world.

The purpose of this study threefold. First, we are in the process of creating a screening tool that teachers can use to determine the authenticity of children’s literature depicting human rights issues. Additionally, a survey was distributed to practitioners in February 2018 to find out if they currently address human rights issues in their elementary classrooms and what methods they employ to do so. Finally, we are creating a pedagogical tool that combines language arts learning standards and human rights education learning outcomes. This tool can help teachers determine how to implement the children’s books they select.

The following questions guided this study: (1) Are elementary educators teaching human rights issues? (2) Why or why not? (3) How can elementary educators determine the authenticity of a book depicting human rights issues? (4) What strategies can elementary educators employ to engage students in constructive discourse about human rights issues through children’s literature?
First, we administered our survey. K-12 teachers across the world were invited to complete an anonymous Qualtrics survey that included thirteen questions. The questions were created based on The Connecticut Human Rights Education Survey (Mitoma, 2016). Survey questions probed teachers’ background knowledge, asking them to report whether or not human rights was a specific area of study, in what context, and for how long. It asks teachers if their school and/or district promotes the teaching of human rights and to what extent a number of factors contribute to their willingness and ability to teach human rights issues. These factors include familiarity with human rights, access to high-quality materials, adherence to school, district, and/or state standards, and community areas of focus.
Then, we created the screening tool which focuses on both the literary merit of the text in question and its portrayal of human rights events and/or issues. We consulted Santora, Anti-defamation League & Tunnell, Jacobs, Young, & Bryan (2016) to create the items concerning the literary merit of the text. To create the items pertaining the portrayal of human rights events and/or issues, we consulted Guidelines on Human Rights Education for Secondary School Systems (OSCE/ODIHR, 2012).
Finally, we created a pedagogical tool by merging the English Language Arts standards from the Common Core State Standards with the learning outcomes from Guidelines on Human Rights Education for Secondary School Systems (OSCE/ODIHR, 2012) and the South African Qualifications Authority (Keet, Masuku, Meyers, Farisani, Carrim, & Govender, 2001).

This session will offer methods for educators to facilitate the development of global awareness, humanitarianism, and empathy in their students through exposure to children’s books depicting human rights issues. Educators often steer clear of these issues to avoid engaging in controversial discussions or exposing students to trauma. Students, however; are exposed to these issues on a daily basis. To avoid the misconceptions that might ensue from students’ informal exposure, it is imperative that teachers intervene and discuss these issues in explicit and constructive ways.

References
Darragh, J. J. (2015). Exploring the Effects of Reading Young Adult Literature that Portrays
People with Disabilities in the Inclusion Classroom. Electronic Journal for Inclusive
Education, 3(4), 5.
Flowers, N., Bernbaum, M., Rudelius-Palmer, K., & Toman, J. (2000). The human rights
education handbook: Effective practices for learning, action, and change. Minneapolis:
Human Rights Resource Center.
Lucas, A. G. (2009). Teaching about human rights in the elementary classroom using the book a
life like mine: How children live around the world. The Social Studies, 100(2), 79-84.
Keet, A., Masuku, N., Meyers, A., Farisani, M., Carrim, N., & Govender, S. (2001). Guidelines
document-the national curriculum statement and the promotion and protection of human
rights, values and inclusivity. Working group on human rights values and inclusivity.
Unpublished). Google Scholar.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1938). Literature as exploration. NY: D. Appleton-Century.
Todres, J., & Higinbotham, S. (2015). Human rights in children's literature: Imagination and
the narrative of law. Oxford University Press.


Corina I.A. Breukink & Tanja Janssen & Huub van den Bergh (Netherlands (the))
TEXT COMPREHENSION IN THE CLASSROOM SETTING: ON HIGH SCHOOL AND HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’ READING AND COMPREHENDING OF POETRY AND PROSE
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Thursday, 09:45-13:00

Room LN 304

Chair: Pieper, Irene

In Dutch high school programmes, the importance of expository reading is strongly emphasized. In contrast, the teaching of literary reading is absent or neglected, especially when poetry reading is concerned. The final attainment level for literature involves the ability to read, comprehend, interpret and evaluate relatively complex literary texts. ‘Relatively complex’ implies that these texts are characterized by ambiguity, which urges a reader to make inferences in order to be able to comprehend what is being read. In Dutch teacher education programmes for high schools, literary competence is a domain within the current Knowledge Bases, which are established and followed by all Dutch universities of applied sciences. Students in undergraduate and graduate teacher training programmes are educated in ‘dominant’ literary theoretic models to analyze and interpret poetic texts. At graduate level students learn how to critically consider the usefulness of these theoretical models in high school. With lack of effective didactic interventions, how to read and understand poetry, poetry is generally hardly taught. Simultaneously, empirical reading research aims at an augmented understanding of what literary reading is and how it actually works in learning environments. Thus, the scientific need meets with the problems that teachers experience when teaching literature, and particularly poetry. Previous reading research examined readers’ literary reading activities, their responses and reading processes, but is mostly restricted to the reading of short literary narratives (Janssen et al. 2012). Few studies were focussed on comparing reading expository texts and literary narratives or reading for information and reading esthetically (Frederking et al. 2012). The few previous studies that were aimed at poetry reading by adolescent readers, showed that they experienced problems in comprehending poetic texts beyond the literal meaning, which negatively effected their appreciation of poetry (Eva-Wood, 2004; Peskin, 1998; Peskin 2007; Peskin 2010). In this study we investigated to what extent adolescent poetry readers, that is thirty 9th, twenty-nine 11th graders and twenty-two freshmen at a university of applied sciences, read and comprehended poetry in comparison to prose. Comprehending a text is a complex and largely unconscious cognitive process in which a reader has to engage actively (Kintsch & Rawson, 2005). In his model for text comprehension processes, Kintsch distinghuishes three levels of text comprehension: The situation model represents the deepest reading experience, in which the reader connects the textual information with his own world knowledge, experiences and soforth. In relation to expository texts, it is assumed that readers develop the same situation model, in order to extract the same meaning. In poems, that are defined by a high ambiguity and few cues in comparison with expository texts and literary narratives, it is hypothesized that multiple situation models are constructed. In this study, each participant performed 6-8 reading comprehension tasks in a prose and poetry condition: two short expository texts, two short literary narratives and four poems. After each text, participants answered 3-4 comprehensive questions. Firstly, statistical analysis shows that there are no significant differences between the mean comprehension scores for prose and poetry. An interaction effect between classes and genres is not significant. Secondly, on all three classes, the difference between prose and poetry is significant. Furthermore, the stimulated-recall data from stronger and weaker poetry readers indicate that stronger readers undertake more reading and answering activities. In contrast, weaker readers appear to be less active readers: only after reading the comprehensive questions, they are prompted to look beyond the surface or text base level and formulate more elaborated answers in the direction of a situation model. In the context of this study, several points of discussion could be mentioned. Most critical is the internal validity in relation to the selected texts and the comprehensive questions in the reading test. There is no guarantee that the combination of text and comprehensive questions elicits comprehension at the situation model level. Another point of discussion is the method to select weaker, average and stronger readers for the retrospective interviews. For example, the determination of the reading comprehension level of the first year’s students was derived from the reading comprehension test in this study. Although this test contains a variety of texts, genres and questions, there is no guarantee that the results of a single reading comprehension test is sufficient enough to distinguish between the three reading levels.
Bibliography
Eva-Wood, A. L. (2004). Thinking and feeling poetry: Exploring meanings aloud. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 182-191.
Frederking, V., Henschel, S., Meier, C., Roick, T., Stanat, P., & Oliver, D. (2012). Beyond functional
aspects of reading literacy: Theoretical structure and empirical validity of literary literacy. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 12, 1-24.
Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2006). Literary reading activities of good and weak students: A think aloud study. European Journal of Psychology of Education – EJPE (Instituto Superior De Psicologia Aplicada), 21(1), 35-52.
Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G. & Bergh, H. van den (2012). Flexibility in reading literature: Differences between good and poor adolescent readers. Scientific Study of Literature, 2(1), 83-107. DOI:10.1075
Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209-226). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI:10.1002/9780470757642
Peskin, J. (1998). Constructing Meaning When Reading Poetry: An Expert-Novice Study. Cognition and Instruction, 16(3), 235-263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1603_1
Peskin, J. (2010). The development of poetic literacy during the school years. Discourse Processes, 47(2), 77-103. DOI: 10.1080/01638530902959653
Peskin, J. (2007). The genre of poetry: Secondary school students’ conventional expectations and interpretive operations. English in Education, 41(3), 20-36.


Mark-Oliver Carl & Nathalie Kónya-Jobs (Germany)
TEACHER STUDENTS` KNOWLEDGE-IN-ACTION OF LITERARY HISTORY: COMPARING DATA FROM LITERARY SEMINAR CONSERVATIONS (HEIDELBERG MODEL) AND THINK ALOUD PROTOCOLS
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Friday, 09:30-12:30

Room LN 226

Chair: Gourvennec, Aslaug Fodstad

Teaching the history of literature has been challenged by the increased focus on fostering literacy. Traditional approaches of instruction which aimed at the acquisition of systematic knowledge, associated with Hirsch`s concept of “cultural literacy” (Hirsch 1983), neither represent the state of the art in literary history (Rauch/Geisenhanslücke 2012; Buschmeier et al. 2014), nor is such propositional knowledge helpful to student readers who seek to understand and interpret given literary texts (Freudenberg 2012).
Yet, literary historical knowledge has not been rendered obsolete at all. Recent critical approaches to literary history as contribution to cultural memory (Lachmann 1997; Assmann 2008; Miller 2011) or Spinner’s concept of a “literary historical consciousness” (“literaturgeschichtliches Bewusstsein”, 2006) have reconfigured the type of knowledge which is deemed desirable and call for new and more exploratory ways of teaching the historical dimension of literary texts and their understanding (Nutz 2012).
To foster such learning processes, teachers themselves must rely not only on pedagogical content knowledge, but also on profound and flexible knowledge of literary history. Teacher education is where such knowledge is, hopefully, acquired. It can be surmised that teacher students enter tertiary education with some knowledge about literary history, and that their knowledge undergoes some processes of transformation throughout the course of their studies.
But how exactly does this knowledge look? Regarding German teacher education, quantitative empirical studies like TEDS-LT have focused on propositional knowledge only (Bremerich-Vos/Dämmer 2013). How these future teachers apply their knowledge in the kind of individual confrontations with literary texts which will later mark much of their professional reading praxis of literary texts, and how they apply and co-construct it in seminar discussions, has not been researched so far.
Two empirical studies at the University of Cologne seek to close this gap. Kónya-Jobs analyses students’ contributions to seminar discussions with regards to conceptualisations of history and a literary-historical consciousness, while Carl examines knowledge structures activated during the construction of mental representations of the communicative context during individual first encounters with literary texts. While Carl uses Think-Aloud Protocols of teacher students from three German universities, Kónya-Jobs’s data stem from Literary Conversations (Steinbrenner/Wiprächtiger-Geppert 2010) with groups of Bachelor and Master students in Cologne. The latter method was chosen for the potentials of its familiarity-oriented design and of the authentic, participatory and only cautiously directive roles it assigns to the teacher (Nickel-Bacon 2011; Zabka 2015), to foster open search movements in the students’ co-operative, but not necessarily convergent process of meaning construction (Härle 2010), which means that students activate and draw on diverse types of knowledge without teacher-driven pre-selection.
Early in the process of data analysis, interesting parallels have become apparent with regards to the knowledge structures activated by the teacher students in both studies. Together, both researchers follow up on these traces, using an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith et al. 2009) joint research design, which, although it highlights underlying common cognitive structures, also provides space to account for the differences in knowledge-activation between the individualized experimental setting and the group discussion. Transcripts from both sets of data are sequentially analysed in descriptive, then explorative steps, followed by eidetically reductive loops of comparative interpretations which aim to reconstruct the underlying cognitive frames.
In the SIG meeting, we present our preliminary findings about activated and verbalised literary historical knowledge of teacher students, illustrated by data from the transcripts, which highlight differences between M.Ed. class Literary Conversations on the one hand and introductory Bachelor seminar conversations as well as Think-Aloud Protocols on the other hand.
Apart from these preliminary results, we would also welcome a methodological discussion on the feasibility of “epoché” (Husserl 1998) and purely inductive pattern recognition in the context of phenomenological sequential analysis of verbal data about text comprehension which are situated at the fringes of conversationality and dialogicity.


Literature:
Assmann, Jan: Communicative and Cultural Memory. In: A. Erll/A. Nünning (Eds.), Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook (pp. 109–118). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2008.
Bremerich-Vos, Albert/Dämmer, Jutta: Professionelles Wissen im Studienverlauf. Lehramt Deutsch. In: Professionelle Kompetenzen im Studienverlauf. Weitere Ergebnisse zur Deutsch-, Englisch- und Mathematiklehrerausbildung aus TEDS-LT. Münster: Waxmann, 2013, pp. 47-76.
Buschmeier, Matthias/Erhart, Walther/Kaufmann, Kai (eds.): Literaturgeschichte. Theorien, Modelle, Praktiken, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014.
Freudenberg, Ricarda: Zur Rolle des Vorwissens beim Verstehen literarischer Texte, Wiesbaden: VS, 2012.
Härle, Gerhard: Lenken – Steuern – Leiten. Theorie und Praxis der Leitung literarischer Gespräche in Hochschule und Schule. In: G. Härle/M. Steinbrenner (eds.): Kein endgültiges Wort. Die Wiederentdeckung des Gesprächs im Literaturunterricht. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren, 2010, pp. 107–139.
Hirsch, Eric D.: Cultural Literacy. What Every American Needs to Know. Boston: Houghton, 1983.
Husserl, Edmund: Die phänomenologische Methode. Ausgewählte Texte. Ed. by Klaus Held. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1998.
Lachmann, Renate: Memory and Literature. Minneapolis; University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
Miller, J. Hillis: The Conflagration of Community: Fiction Before and After Auschwitz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.
Nickel-Bacon, Irmgard: Authentizität in der literarischen Kommunikation: Anthropologische, poetologische und didaktische Aspekte. In: M. Steinbrenner/J. Mayer/ B. Rank (eds.): Seit wir ein Gespräch sind und hören voneinander. Das Heidelberger Modell des Literarischen Unterrichtsgesprächs in Theorie und Praxis. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren, 2011, pp. 117-138.
Nutz, Maximilian: Historisches Verstehen durch Literaturgeschichte? Plädoyer für eine reflektierte Erinnerungsarbeit. In: M. Rauch/A. Geisenhanslücke (eds.): Texte zur Theorie und Didaktik der Literaturgeschichte, Stuttgart 2012, pp. 270-283.
Smith, Jonathan/Flowers, Paul/Larkin, Michael: Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Theory, Method and Research, Los Angeles: Sage, 2009.
Spinner, Kaspar H.: Literarisches Lernen. In: Praxis Deutsch 200 (2006), pp. 6- 15.
Steinbrenner, Marcus/Wiprächtiger-Geppert, Maja: Verstehen und Nicht-Verstehen im Gespräch. Das Heidelberger Modell des Literarischen Unterrichtsgesprächs. In: Leseforum Schweiz Literalität in Forschung und Praxis 03/2010: http://leseforum.ch/ myUploadData/files/2010_3_steinbrenner_wipraechtiger.pdf
Zabka, Thomas: Konversation oder Interpretation? Überlegungen zum Gespräch im Literaturunterricht. In: Leseräume. Zeitschrift für Literalität in Schule und Forschung 2: 2, 2015, pp. 169-187.


Simone Depner (Germany)
DRAMATURGY OF DIALOGUE IN THE LITERATURE CLASSROOM AND LITERARY LEARNING
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Friday, 09:30-12:30

Room LN 304

Chair: Pieper, Irene

Theoretical underpinnings
Dealing with literature plays an important role both for cultural education and the personal development of the individual.
However, after the controversial discussion about the results of the PISA study, the importance of reading literacy has taken the role of a key qualification. In contrast to this aims in literature education are broader. There is a general concern about personal and social development via encounters with literature as well as getting insights into literature in a historical, current and formal perspective. Because of their aesthetical structure poetical texts enable the reader to experience reality in many different complex ways (Humboldt 1830; 1963; Schrijvers et al. 2016; Witte & Sâmihăian 2013).
Despite the general appreciation of the meaningfulness of literature little attention has been paid to how literary texts are actually dealt with, to their position und significance in German literature education, and to the related orientations of teachers. It can be assumed that literature education is under pressure because of the literacy debate. Nevertheless, we do not know what the exact role of literature is in the current literature education in German speaking Switzerland and Lower Saxony (Bertschi-Kaufmann et al. 2018). Furthermore, little is known about the students experiences in dealing with literature and about how teachers aims and procedures relate to students perceptions and motivations.
It is difficult to measure the outcome of literary education in school, for several reasons: Different actors interact with each other in the classroom, the teacher with the students, the students among each other. Besides, personal development is difficult to assess. Additionally, literary reading includes the individual attitudes and different motivations of the teenagers. That is why it is interesting to focus on the literature classroom as a space where literature is deployed. While the obvious structure of the school lessons can be determined distinctly, the reconstruction of the literary didactics is a challenge, considering it is hardly possible to measure the negotiation of literature (Scherf 2017).

Description of the project
The binational research project TAMoLi – Texts, Activities, and Motivations in Literature Education – is an empirical study working with a mixed-method-design to find out about the relevance of literary education in the teaching curricula of all kinds of lower secondary schools in Germany and German-speaking Switzerland. The study mainly focuses on the teachers‘ orientations and objectives in teaching literature, the kind of texts they read in the classroom, the learning activities the teachers apply, the students‘ reading interests and motivations in different school forms. In each of these areas teachers‘ and students‘ views are assessed. The interaction of these different parts is analyzed by looking at the connections between the selections of texts and the curricula on the one hand and the teachers´ and pupils´ interests in literature on the other hand. The different aspects of school lessons and the role of teachers and pupils will also be looked at.
Methods and modus operandi / Methods and approach
In our TAMoLi-study we use a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design, in which a quantitative phase is followed by a qualitative phase (Ivankova 2006).
My PhD is linked to the third step, the qualitative part of the study. On the basis of results of teachers’ and students’ questionnaires we picked a random sample of classes. Most important were orientations of teachers with regard to literature and/or reading literacy. We also considered the different school types of secondary schooling in German speaking Switzerland and Germany (CH: N = 9; D-NDS: N = 12) and the students’ reading motivation. In these classes a literature lesson was video-recorded. The teachers were asked to present a literature lesson dealing with one out of four given short stories or a fictional text of their own choice. Because we assume that negotiations of literature in the class are particularly important the teachers had the task to discuss the story with the whole class at some stage of the lesson. Finally, the teacher and four pupils were interviewed about the lesson. The interviews concentrated on how the teacher experience literature education, the texts that have been converged in the current school year, as well as their general attitude towards reading. The students were asked how they perceive reading and literature instruction.

Research questions
My research follows the question of how the literary text is constituted in the recorded lesson . In this context the focus will be on the structure of the literary discussion within the dramaturgy of the lesson: Which concepts of literature do the teachers implement? How do the teachers address the pupils? What do they do to activate their students for explicate literary dialogues and for reflecting upon texts? How are the students positioned towards the texts and what are the students positions regarding the text? Which negotiation processes and which intermediation processes can be reconstructed?
Moving beyond single cases, I ask: To what extent can the way of arranging dialogue around literature in class be systematized? Can we reconstruct particular techniques or strategies? Can we reconstruct a dramaturgy or choreography of shaping these dialogues? Apart from that, the teachers` statements from the interviews are supposed to show connections between their way of teaching literature and the concept of their own literary preferences, their attitudes towards literature and teaching literature and their aims for the lessons.

For discussion at the SIG-seminar
Part of the qualitative data are still being transcribed. I have started to assess some of the lessons more thoroughly. At this stage, I would like to discuss possible approaches to the data, mainly how to reconstruct the dramaturgy respectively the choreography of the literary lesson. Therefore, I plan to analyse certain sequences by using discourse analysis. Overall, my approach is a reconstructive one – which is labour-intensive. Questions at this stage are: What are suitable procedures to select sequences for in-depth-analysis? A plausible aim of the study could be a systematic concept to categorize literature staging from the perception of the teachers on the one hand and positions and attitudes students adopt towards the particular text on the other hand. By relating sequences from the lessons with data from the interviews, the study wants to examine the influence of teachers` attitudes and beliefs on the way the lessons are carried out. Furthermore, I would also like to discuss how the data can be used to further explore the topic. How can tasks and text-based discussions from the recorded lessons be related to the teachers´ aims and intentions mentioned in the interviews to gain insights into quality in literature education? What can we learn from this in order to improve dialogue about literary texts in particular and teaching literature in general?
The projects TAMoLi Lower Saxony and TAMoLi Switzerland are supported in the Program
*Pro Niedersachsen/ Niedersächsisches Vorab als well as the Nationalfonds of Switzerland SNF.


References

Abraham, Ulf; Bremerich-Vos, Albert; Frederking, Volker; Wieler, Petra (2003): Deutschunterricht und Deutschdidaktik nach PISA. Freiburg/Br.: Fillibach.

Bertschi-Kaufmann, Andrea; Pieper, Irene; Siebenhüner, Steffen (2018): Literarische Bildung in der aktuellen Praxis des Lese- und Literaturunterrichts auf der Sekundarstufe I. In: Scherf, Daniel (Hrsg.): Ästhetische Rezeptionsprozesse aus didaktischer Perspektive. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa, S. 194 - 217.

Humboldt, Wilhelm von ([1830] 1963): Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. In: Flitner, Andreas; Giel, Klaus (ed.): Werke in fünf Bänden. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Band III, S. 368-756.

Ivankova, Natalyia V.; Creswell, John W.; Stick, S. (2006): Using Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory To Practice. Field Methods. http://wtgrantmixedmethods.com/sites/default/files/literature/Ivankova%20etal_2006_mixed%20methods%20sequential%20design.pdf (last access: 12.02.2018).

Scherf, Daniel (2017): Inszenierungen literalen Lernens: kulturelle Anforderungen und individueller Kompetenzerwerb. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.

Schrijvers, Marloes; Janssen, Tanja; Fialho, Olivia; Rijlaarsdam, Gerd (2016). The Impact of Literature Education on Students’ Perceptions of Self and Others: Exploring Personal and Social Learning Experiences in Relation to Teacher Approach. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 17, 1-37. https://l1.publication-archive.com/publication/1/1592 (last access: 12.02.2018).

Witte, Theo, & Sâmihăian, Florentina (2013): Is Europe open to a student-oriented framework for literature? A comparative analysis of the formal literature curriculum in six European countries. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, (13), 1–22. https://l1.publication-archive.com/publication/1/1437 (last access: 12.02.2018).


Rachael Gabriel (United States)
PATTERNS OF DISCOURSE DURING READ-ALOUDS IN CLASSROOMS RATED VERY EFFECTIVE OR VERY INEFFECTIVE
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Friday, 09:30-12:30

Room LN 304

Chair: Pieper, Irene

This study presents a microanalysis of talk during episodes of instruction where a teacher reads some or all of a literary text aloud to students ("read alouds") in classrooms that were rated either very effective or very ineffective by evaluators trained as part of a longitudinal study of measures of effective teaching. Drawing on some of the analytic tools of conversation analysis (Sacks, 1992), I analyze turn-taking, lexical choice and the sequencing of student participation within the lesson, as well as the relationships between talk and text in order to generate comparisons of classrooms labeled either very effective or ineffective. By comparing features of the talk in classrooms labeled highly effective or ineffective with similar instructional routines (e.g. read alouds) I generate findings related to the nature of discourse associated with higher ratings and consider the utility and reliability of transcript analysis for reflection and evaluation.
Data for this study are drawn from a large database of classroom videos that were rated using a range of observation protocols and statistical analyses as part of the 2010 Measures of Effective Teaching project (c.f. MET Project, 2013) funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. There are six videos of each classroom, captured across a year of instruction, and rated by two independent raters using a range of observation protocols. The sample used in this study included the five highest and five lowest scoring teachers/classrooms based on the Framework For Teaching rubric (Danielson, 1996) out of over 200 4th grade classrooms that represent five states in diverse geographical regions of the U.S. In total, two videotaped lessons from the five highest scoring teachers, and two from the five lowest scoring videos, were sampled for a total of 10 lessons. Each lesson was transcribed for close analysis. This analysis focuses on the section of a lesson that included the teacher reading a text aloud to the class and discussing it (5-20 minutes).
Reading aloud to students in English/Language Arts classrooms is a common practice that is included in a wide range of instructional frameworks. Both low- and high-scoring videos included teacher read-alouds as an instructional routine despite differences in their effectiveness ratings. Drawing on Vygotsky’s theory of sociogenesis, studies of classroom discourse assume that growth is “ more likely when one is required to defend one’s position to others, as well as to oneself; striving for an explanation often makes a learner integrate and elaborate knowledge in new ways” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 158). Thus discourse analysts have theorized that it is the moment-to-moment interactions of classroom instruction that constitute everything from students’ identities as learners (Gee, 1996) to the enacted curriculum (e.g. Cazden, 2001) and learning itself (Vygotsky, 1978). Dialogue and discussion during and after read-alouds are therefore an important site for inquiry because of the ubiquity and potential utility of read aloud as an instructional tool.
The results of this analysis include two main findings related to the sequence of participation and the content of student talk in classrooms rated as more versus less effective. First, classrooms rated as more effective included fewer interruptions of the read-aloud with longer, more extended student responses after reading. Student responses constituted a student-student discussion wherein students took up and built upon each other’s ideas, and text was discussed as an example of a style or type of story, rather than maintaining a focus on retelling or discussing the details of the particular text.
Classrooms rated less effective each demonstrated multiple teacher interruptions of the text being read aloud. Interruptions included short, initiate-response-evaluate (IRE, Cazden 2001) sequences wherein the teacher quizzed students on what was just read multiple times throughout the read aloud with minimal discussion at the end. Interruptions sometimes also included redirecting misbehavior, which suggests that the pattern of more interruptions is both a feature of the discourse and potentially in indication of the strength of other aspects of classroom instruction, including classroom climate, management, and engagement.
In keeping with the theme of the conference, challenges with analyzing video transcripts - including the difficulty of deciphering overlapping talk during partner or small group work - will be discussed in terms of implications for the possible use of such analyses for teacher evaluation or reflection. As Rex and Schiller (2011) have noted, feedback about teacher language use can focus teacher reflection in ways that drive professional growth and a level of interactional awareness that supports responsive teaching. Thus, I argue that identifying and disseminating a few key, observable features of classroom talk - such as the pattern of participation or focus of discussion during and after read alouds - could support teacher reflection on practice and provide a feasible and fruitful focus for observation. Future research will investigate whether, once identified, these patterns of dialogue and discussion may be observable in real time without transcript analysis.

References
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning, 2 ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
MET Project (2010) Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. Retrieved from: www.metproject.org/.../Preliminary_Finding- Policy_Brief.pdf
Rex, L. & Schiller, L. (2009) Using discourse analysis to improve classroom interaction. New York: Routledge.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Vygotsky L.(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, 2 ed. London: Falmer Press.


Ida Gabrielsen (Norway)
HOW AND WHY DO STUDENTS READ FICTION? A STUDY OF LITERATURE INSTRUCTION IN 182 LOWER SECONDARY LANGUAGE ARTS LESSONS IN NORWAY
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Friday, 09:30-12:30

Room LN 226

Chair: Gourvennec, Aslaug Fodstad

This study investigates literature instruction in language arts lessons across 46 lower-secondary Norwegian classrooms. We examine what students read, instructional practices related to literary texts and functions of text in instruction.

Contexts
Students develop as readers by reading a variety of texts for multiple purposes (e.g. Duke&Pearson, 2008). In addition to reading non-fiction across school subjects, students need to engage in reading fiction. There is strong research evidence that reading fiction does not only develop literary text competence, but also a general text competence not only important for reading in itself, but also to enable students to acquire knowledge and express themselves in various subjects and situations (se e.g. Alsup, 2013; Ivey & Johnston, 2013; Leverage & colleges, 2011). As Langer (2013) emphasizes, “reading literature involves cognitive dimensions that are critical components of intellectual development”.

Literature has always been considered a central part of language arts curricula, and is still a key component of language arts. Yet, an essential change is taking place across countries: the core focus is changing from literature to literacy, increasingly stressing non-fiction (Appleman, 2014; Langer, 2013; Penne, 2013; Stotsky, Traffas,&Woodworth, 2010). Norway’s new 2006 curriculum gives fiction and nonfiction equal weight, with few guidelines on methods and specific literature. This shift makes it timely to investigate the roles of literary texts across language arts lessons.

Studies have indicated the importance of instruction that provides students with opportunities to discuss texts to build a deeper understanding of them (e.g. Applebee et.al, 2003; Nystrand, 2006). The literary tradition the students learn within, appears to be an important factor for how students handle literary qualities in the texts they read (Johansson, 2015), and there are a various of ways to approach literary texts (Rosenblatt, 1978), but how students actually work with literary texts in language arts lessons, is an understudied area in times where the role of literature in school may be challenged by a strong focus on general, non-fiction literacy.

Methods and aims
Drawing on videotaped language arts lessons (n=182) from 46 Norwegian lower-secondary classrooms, we investigate how literary texts are used across language arts classrooms in Norway. All lessons are coded for the use of literary texts, using the validated socio-cultural PLATO-manual (Grossman, 2015), to assess to what degree students engage in discourse and activities that are grounded in literary texts. Further qualitative analyses investigate what the instructional practices related to literary texts are, and functions of texts in instructions. In the presentation, the main focus will be on the instructional practices across classrooms, emphasizing literary classroom discussions. Nuances in coding and analyses will be shown in the presentation itself.

Results, analyses and discussion
We found three dominant instructional practices related to literary texts: silent individual reading (without contextualization), genre instruction (often related to students own writing) and literary classroom discussions. In these three distinct practices, the texts either has a rather unclear role during silent reading, a very defined role as a model text or example in genre/writing instruction, or is used as grounds for literary conversations and analyses.

A key finding is that in the majority of lessons where students read fiction, the texts play a limited and rather narrow role, where references to the texts, when they occur, focus on recall of specific details. We also find a strong genre discourse across classrooms, and it is more common that the teachers frame knowledge about genre as the main purpose for the lesson, rather than getting to know the specific text students are reading. Thus, in these lessons, there is more emphasis on genre and specific genre features than e.g. on the theme, the characters or the students reactions to the texts.

The variety of texts is rather low. Most texts students read are from the textbook, strongly emphasizing pre-1990 male writers. Students scarcely read texts by foreign writers and there are no texts by Sami (indigenous group in Scandinavia) writers.

In addition to the somewhat concerning findings described, our material also offers detailed insight into how some teachers provide instructional activities or opportunity for discussion that require students to actively use texts. These lessons contain extensive literary work and a discourse that could engage students to build deeper understandings of texts. A commonality across these lessons is that texts are actively used in literary discussions and analyses where form and content in literary texts are seen as interrelated.

In all lessons with literary classroom discussions, it was the teacher who lead the discussion, often following a traditional IRE-model, where the teacher held a question and answer session about the text`s form and/or content and theme. In some classrooms we found discussions where the students voices and meanings where given more attention. Even though we found both opportunity for and uptake on students talk and responses, most discussions was between the teacher and the students, not amongst the students. Our impression is that the teachers often have a specific aim, e.g. a beforehand decided interpretation, for the analyses and literary discussions, and they direct the discussion in that direction. However, we also found lessons where the teacher would let student`s thoughts and questions about a text guide the interpretation and discussion of the text. Analyses of these lessons will be given priority in our presentation.

Relevance
In addition to highlighting some serious challenges concerning literature instruction and the role of literary texts in lower secondary schools, our study also provides insight into high quality reading instruction - as we have systematically mapped what happens in the lessons where such instruction occurs. Both findings are highly relevant to the educational field, for researchers and practitioners alike.

Selected references
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2008). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. The Journal of Education


Sotiria Kalasaridou (Greece)
TEACHING HOLOCAUST IN SECONDARY EDUCATION IN GREECE: EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT AND PEDAGOGICAL PERSPECTIVES.
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Thursday, 09:45-13:00

Room LN 226

Chair: Elkad-Lehman, Ilana

The proposed presentation aims to explore aspects that are related to the teaching of the Holocaust in secondary education (middle and high school) in Greece through the teaching of Literature. In this presentation we will be discussing three areas of research: a. The educational framework regarding the teaching of the Holocaust as it is found within the reality of Greek education nowadays. b. The theoretical and pedagogical framework within which the teaching of the Holocaust can be taught. c. The instructional practices which can be used to teach literary works and films about the Holocaust in literature classes in Greece.
Two of the most significant problems concerning the teaching of the Holocaust at school seem to be, on the one hand, the connection of the educational process and teaching with the demonstration of the traumatic experience whereas on the other, it is the emergence of an emotion of pity towards the Holocaust victims by the students. These problems bring to light a series of questions: a. In what way instruction as a crucial part of education can shed light on the mystery of the trauma caused by the Holocaust without influencing the outcome of the teaching process and without shocking the students? b. To what extent the teacher will or must go through a state of self-censorship? c. What is the analogy in the relationship between the students’ maturity and the selected material to be taught regarding the Holocaust, in terms of a deeper understanding of such an act of absolute horror? (Saxton, 2008; Eaglestone and Langford, 2008).
Taking for granted the lack of a systemic and complete teaching of the Holocaust in Greek secondary education, as far as a curriculum is concerned, such questions and considerations can be put into practice within the context given in the literature class for students, which offers solid ground of examining the Holocaust in association with Literary and cinematic works as parts of the topics: ‘Portraits of Adolescents’, ‘The Notion of Alterity in Literature’, ‘Subject and Society’ and ‘Genders in Literature’. The New Curricula regarding Literature in Greece (2011), characterised by their lack of rigidity, make up for a privileged field as regards the teaching of literature works (novels, short stories, poetry, commix, autobiographies, testimonies) and films about the Holocaust, which can interact with the proposed topics.
The theoretical framework of the research based on theories concerning the Representation, the Memory and Trauma. According to Cultural Memory Studies, the concept of Memory plays an important cultural role, as far as its relation to the mass media culture is concerned and due to the fact that it is a fundamental part of representation. The notion of representation, as set by Raymond Williams, presupposes a range of senses which are inextricably linked with the mind and the ability of symbolic representation; such ability requires a system of signs set to demonstrate reality either verbally or visually (Williams 2, 1983; Pearson, 2001).
Memory depends not only upon the experience of the trauma, its description and narrative, but also on the reception of the trauma’s narration by ‘others’ and especially their ability to listen to the survivor’s account with empathy. In other words, the traumatic event is experienced as a culturally integrated incident, which is shaped and re-shaped in relation to the response of the ‘others’ in the survivor’s culture. In many cases, as it is indeed maintained, traumatic Memory is embodied in narrative Memory.
Literary and cinematic works in the first place portray their protagonists’ traumatic events; they are texts of trauma. However, the aforementioned narratives suggest themselves a kind of text as trauma to the degree that they represent acts of violence against the protagonists and also they sometimes fail in recounting adequately the protagonists’ traumatic story. The inability of sufficient response of the ‘others’ to the trauma and its representation can also be characterised as traumatic, a condition that introduces an ethics of collective Memory. On the other hand, the notion of trauma is interwoven with the notion of post-Memory to the degree that many listeners of traumatic events are capable of being influenced and so reformat their identity by events they did not themselves experience (Caruth, 1996; Brison, 1999; Kidd, 2005; Langford, 2008; Whitehead, 2008).
The pedagogical framework within which the design of the proposed teaching methodology is registered focuses on the utilisation of Cultural Studies, Critical Pedagogy, and Social Constructivism (Williams, 1994; Giroux, 1981; Giroux, 1997; Moll, 1990). The fundamental component of the proposed teaching methodology is the educational scenario, which can be defined as a series of planned activities and instructional practices that are involving one or more subjects, using digital tools and educational worksheets.
Whatever strikes as particularly demanding is the effort to design the educational scenarios using the following axes: a. Students’ awareness of the strong relationship between Memory, Trauma and History, b. the development of mechanisms against stereotypes and prejudices, and c. the identification of the trauma as an integral component of the pedagogical process and the effectiveness of teaching.
The methodological challenges arise by applying, in a pilotic stage, two different educational scenarios on two different literature classes in middle school (Grades 1,2) regarding the teaching of Holocaust. An effort to explore interaction in the aforementioned literature classes is being made through the use of Ethnography method (more specifically participant observation). The educational data, namely the contributions between teachers and students are analysed using Qualitative Content Analysis. The particular insights to be followed up seem focus on the following criteria: a. the identification of the perpetrator, the bystander and the victim, b. the development of arguments in the classroom about controversial issues regarding the representation of the Holocaust, and c. the discussion in the classroom issues that generated feelings of shock and embarrassment.


Dr. Sotiria Kalasaridou, Post-doctoral fellow researcher of the State Scholarships Foundation – Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece


Merja Kauppinen & Juli-Anna Aerila (Finland)
PROMOTING PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ READERSHIP IN ORDER TO CREATE INNOVATIVE LITERATURE PEDAGOGY IN CLASSROOMS
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Friday, 09:30-12:30

Room LN 304

Chair: Pieper, Irene

As a part of the literature pedagogy promoting programme StoRe – Stories make readers (https://peda.net/id/b7896a1230b), teachers’ consciousness of their own readership has been promoted. Supporting teachers as readers and at the same time, enhancing teachers’ understanding about a text world of fiction, their agency as literature instructors is supposed to improve (Cremin, Mottram, Collins & Powell, 2008; Cremin, Mottram, Collins, Powell & Safford, 2009). Primary school teachers have many content areas and pedagogies to manage, and for this reason the special character of literature education and the features of fiction is in danger of being forgotten. However, according to Merga (2016), the joint discussion about fiction in the context of pleasure, and reading with expression and emotional connection in classroom, are essential when promoting students as readers. Creating a positive culture of reading in classrooms is mainly a matter of teacher’s will and values, which can be promoted in a teachers’ peer group trough active collaboration. Knowing oneself as a reader means rethinking one’s reading habits and values towards various texts. This forms a base for reader’s identity, and further for teacher’s readership. (Commeyras, Bisplinghoff & Olson, 2003; Cremin, Mottram, Collins, Powell & Safford, 2009.)

The role of primary school teachers is important while supporting the children as becoming readers. The parental support in reading fiction regularly at homes varies a lot. For example, less than three Finnish parents out of four (72 %) reports having a routine of reading books to their 10-years-old child (PIRLS 2016). However, reading fiction since the early years has proved to be an important asset of supporting a child’s emotional, ethic-moral and cognitive development, attention, literacy as well as thinking skills (Clark & Foster, 2005; Clark & Osborne, 2008; Merga, 2016). Furthermore, primary school teachers have an opportunity to create equal cultural capital to every child by highlighting child-centered literacy activities in their classrooms (Howard, 2003). Many international literacy assessments indicate, that there is a strong relationship between reading attitudes at home and reading commitment of a child (f. ex. PIRLS 2017). In the best case, teachers with high literacy instruction capacity can diminish the gap between the small literacy resources of home and the needs of individual development. Teachers who act as models of regular recreational readers to their students, are able to encourage children to be lifelong readers (cf. Cremin, Mottram, Collins, Powell & Safford, 2014; Merga, 2016). Teachers reading for pleasure and showing it to their students, are especially valuable to those children, who lack such model in the circle of acquaintances, like among friends or relatives.

Our data consists of a questionnaire for primary school teachers, which was used in data collection in two phases. Firstly, the questionnaire was answered by 100 teachers from 1st to 6th graders including the teachers of StoRe programme. Secondly the questionnaire was implemented by the StoRe teachers after they got through the StoRe programme. The repetition was made in order to study the possible changes in teachers’ readership and literature pedagogy. The questionnaire included 39 questions about teacher’s reading, opinions and conceptions about different kinds of texts, knowledge of literature pedagogy and pedagogical practices in classrooms. There were both Likert scale and open questions to answer. The questionnaire was analyzed in the means of quantitative and qualitative content analysis. In this paper, we investigate the readership of primary school teachers’ on the terms of cultural potential available in classroom.

The results show, that there are various kind of reading profiles among primary school teachers. As a consequence, many types of paths are also needed to get the teachers realize the value and meaning of their reading habits as well as support them in their reading. In addition to this, different approaches to books and reading have to be available for teachers in order to give them pedagogical ideas to create their a positive reading climate in their classrooms. This is also a way to support a teacher’s agency concerning his/her readership and innovative reading practices.

A central point for discussion concerns the analysis of the data: What could be the themes, factors and details to look for in order to investigate the reading profiles of the teachers?

References

Clark, C. & Foster, S. (2005). Children’s and young people’s reading habits and preferences. The who, what, why, where and when. London: National Literacy Trust.
Clark, C. & Osborne, S. (2008). How does age relate to pupils’ perceptions of themselves as readers? London: National Literacy Trust.
Commeyrass, M. Bisplinghoff, B. & Olson, J. (2003). Teachers as Readers: perspectives on the importance of reading in teachers’ classrooms and lives. Newark: International Reading Association.
Cremin, T., Mottram, M. Collins, F. & Powell, S. (2008). Building Communities of Readers.
London: PNS/UKLA.
Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S. & Safford, K. (2014). Building Communities of Engaged Readers: Reading for pleasure. New York: Routledge.
Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S. & Safford, K. (2009). Teachers as Readers: Building
communities of readers. Literacy 43 (1):11-19.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection. Journal Theory Into Practice 42.
Merga, M. (2016). I don't know if she likes reading”. Are teachers perceived to be keen readers, and how is this determined? English in Education 50(3):255-269.
The PIRLS 2016. International Results in Reading. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/index-pirls.html


Natalia Kolodina ()
FROM LANGUAGE GAMES TO LITERATURE RECEPTIONS IN CLASSROOM
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Thursday, 09:45-13:00

Room LN 304

Chair: Pieper, Irene

The actions of all language mechanisms are called language games (L. Wittgenstein,1953). Language games in literature pieces are very attractive to school age students (Kolodina, 2016). Not surprisingly, game based activities are an inherent part of child's develompent. How could a Reading Teacher use the potential of language games in Literature Classes? Based on the fact that the means of literary expression correlate with the corresponding types of language games (V. Sannikov, 1995, N. Tamarchenko, 2008), I created a set of lesson plans which includes studying poems through the phenomenon of language games. The set consists of two different approaches: 1) pick a phrase with a language game, look at in detail and understand how the words function in the phrase (Are we dealing with homonyms? Polysemantic words? etc.); 2) take one specific game algorithm and observe its application in several literature pieces.
A significant part of children's literature is literary nonsense (P.Hunt, 1996), which is usually based on language games (M. Epstein, M. Kronhaus, B. Sannikov). Therefore the first part of the my research was dedicated to nonsense literature. Fifteen bilingual students 8-9 read and analyze Dina Rubina's prose text «Gentlemen and Dogs», A.Givargizov «Summative dictation and Ancient Greek tragedy», S. Sedov’s «Once upon a time there lived a mom», for sheer pleasure, - rereading and analysing the meaning of the text and finding different game algorithms. Students broadened their vocabulary, improved their reading speed and comprehension of the text during lessons activities.
What would happen with the student's enthusiasm, if the teacher changed a funny text to a serious one ? Could the teacher see the same amount of interest?
For the second step poems «A Bird», V. Zhukovcky (1851), «Pushkin», M. Tsvetaeva (1931), «Overture» from a poem in fragments «Pushkin Mine», K. Arbenin (1992) were selected. Twelve bilingual students 10-12 read it. In the course of the lesson the students worked from different angle: their goal was to find only one game algorithm (a repetition) in three different pieces. Students coped with the assignment independently. Along the way they found out the inner beauty of each piece, which was an undercover goal for this lesson. While analizing the poem «A Bird», V. Zhukovcky, the students created an unique literature hypothesis about it, which doesn't exist in Russian philology yet.
The learning process was based on playing game activities in both the lessons, which allowed students to work independently during class, students tend to reread the text containing language games and feel more immersed in the context (Kolodina, 2015). Questions to discuss: which texts and in what order are more suitable for which age group? How does diversify work on same text for children of different ages and language abilities? Would there be any restraints connected form the students' age, the length or subject of the text?


Marco Magirius (Germany)
BELIEFS OF L1-TEACHER TRAINING STUDENTS ON INTERPRETING LITERATURE AND LITERATURE EDUCATION
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Thursday, 09:45-13:00

Room LN 226

Chair: Elkad-Lehman, Ilana

In my short presentation I want show results from my PhD. project and give empirical insights on the beliefs of German teacher training students about the characteristics of the process of interpreting literary texts and their concepts of literary education.

Enrolled at a university students are confronted with a diversity of methods and positions in part differing clearly from school practices of interpretation. In order to forge their own concept of literature education in school they integrate those different cultures of interpreting literary texts. I am interested in their according beliefs at the end of their studies and I am going to show how their attempts of integration do not lead to viable bridges between those cultures but rather to subjectively blurred reductions from academic positions. Those reductions seem neither appropriate to the specific qualities of literary texts, e.g. ambiguity, nor are likely to induce literary learning. Before any tailor-made intervention can be planned, I had to collect and analyse data on those beliefs. This was done within the scope of my mixed methods PhD. thesis.

I began by adapting resp. constructing questionnaires to ask 467 students about their beliefs on the characteristics of interpreting literature, employing i.a. latent class analyses, and pedagogical content beliefs in literature education, i.e. cognitive constructivism versus direct-transmission view of learning (Staub & Stern 2002). Subsequently I used these results to choose 22 students for 60 minute guided interviews, examined mainly with qualitative content analysis. I acquired reasons for their decisions when filling in the questionnaire and remarks on differences between school and university interpretations, for example regarding the role of the author's intention, the reader's subjectivity or criteria for appropriateness of interpretations (Hermerén 1983). Furthermore I asked them to evaluate 5 worksheets for use in class, which were systematically constructed along the oppositions: usage of poetic versus discursive language and overly objective versus overly subjective approaches to the literary text.

In the discussion I want to ponder over methodological questions particularly regarding the evaluation of my results from a perspective of literature education. The invited expert Iris Winkler (2011) conducted a latent class analysis and collected data on pedagogical content beliefs of literature teachers. In a recent study she interviewed teachers to specify cognitive activation in literature classes. She used qualitative content analysis, too. I am very interested in discussing my coding scheme, since her work heavily influenced my coding categories. Furthermore, together with Sören Ohlhus and Tina Høegh we could discuss the challenges of coding, for example the crucial trade-off between concretisation and abstraction when defining coding categories.
Since I am interested in beliefs, experts in documentary methods like Daniel Scherf may raise the issue of lacking compatibility between qualitative content analysis and implicit components. Qualitative content analysis proposed by Kuckartz (2014) reflects upon the hermeneutics of coding and encourages inferences instead of solely describing meanings on the surface of the interview transcripts. Therefore I claim that such methods can be used to analyse implicit components of beliefs, but this needs to be debated.


Hermerén, G. (1983). Interpretation: Types and Criteria. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 19, 131-161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-90000195

Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (= Qualitative Content Analysis. Methods, Practice, Aid of Computers ) Beltz Juventa.

Staub, F. C. & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs matters for students’ achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 344-355. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.344

Winkler, I. (2011) Aufgabenpräferenzen für den Literaturunterricht - Eine Erhebung unter Deutschlehrkräften (=Task Preferences of Literature Teachers) Springer-Verlag.

Zabka, Th. (2012). Analyserituale und Lehrerüberzeugungen. Theoretische Untersuchung vermuteter Zusammenhänge. (=Rituals of text analysis and teachers' beliefs. Theoretical inquiry of suspected interrelationships.) In: Pieper, I. & Wieser, D. (ed.): Fachliches Wissen und literarisches Verstehen. Studien zu einer brisanten Relation (S. 35–52). Peter Lang.


Nadia Mansour (Denmark)
DEVELOPING A LITERARY READING DESIGN WITH MULTICULTURAL YOUTH LITERATURE IN THE SUBJECT DANISH
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Friday, 09:30-12:30

Room LN 226

Chair: Gourvennec, Aslaug Fodstad

The subject of Danish Literature in the Danish public school has a central position in creating access to cultural stories and tools so that the students can see their own lives valued in the school setting and to be able to see their own position in a wider and more reflective perspective (Holmen, 2011). As we are experiencing an increasing student diversity in the Danish public school, where children with different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds is attending school, multicultural education and the use of multicultural literature is seen as a necessity to help students from diverse ethnic groups see themselves valued and equal in the school setting, an is seen as an advantage for academic and social success for the students from ethnic minorities (Banks, 2007; Gitz-Johansen, 2006; Mansour, 2015).
This paper is a study on how the Danish public school can cope with and acknowledge ethnic diversity in the Danish society. The study is both a theory based study which aims for developing and contextualizing theories about multicultural literature in a Danish context, and an empirical intervention study, which aims to create a design for reading multicultural literature in the subject Danish.
The theory based study contributes to the existing definition of multicultural literature, formulated by Mingshui Cai and Rudine Sims Bishop (1994), where multicultural literature is defined as literature written by minorities with an insider perspective. In order to develop a new definition of multicultural literature, where culture and identity is seen as fluid, dynamic and changing notions depending on the context in which they appear, this study presents five thematic categories and two stylistic categories that are relevant for multicultural literature. In that sense this project defines a new understanding of multicultural literature by analyzing and mapping literature published in Denmark. The thematic categories are characterized by a mimetic logic, in that multicultural literature reflects multicultural issues in a society within a nation. For instance multicultural literature reflects the question of multiple identities and cultures and deals thematically with cross-cultural experience, hybrid cultural identity and integration issues. The stylistic level reflects a multicultural society with the impurity of language as a result mixing several languages and dialects. Multicultural literature does not require the presence of all the categories, but it will be the combination of the characteristics that in each case determines the character of the text.
The intervention is based on a mediated discourse analysis with an intervention with text defined as multicultural in three different classroom settings in 8. grade (Jones & Norris, 2005, Scollon, 1998, Meyer, 2001). One of the classes is located in a little school with only white ethnic Danish children. The second class is located in a school in the second biggest city in Denmark, Aarhus, and it has the national average of 15 % students with different ethnic background than Danish. The last class is located in a ghettoized area and has 97 % students with different ethnic backgrounds than Danish. The empirical intervention study focuses on which possibilities for positioning (Blackledge & Pavlenko 2004) the students have, when the multicultural youth novel “Haram” (Aamand, 2017) is used in classrooms. In the empirical study the focus is how students negotiate meaning, identities and culture through the dialogues about literature, and interviews with the three teachers before and after the intervention (Tanggaard & Brinkmann, 2010). In the interviews I focus on what, how and why the teacher chooses the reading design. I ask them if the student backgrounds has any influence on how they choose to work with and read multicultural literature. The second interview is a focus group interview, where I ask the teachers to evaluate the design used in the intervention. I also ask them to reflect on their students work with “Haram” (2017). Was it different from reading other literature?
Using empirical video observations in the three classrooms, the students individual writing exercises and the interviews, my aim is to develop a design for reading multicultural literature, where teachers in the subject Danish are able to choose literature where minority students are mirrored in order to acknowledge diversity in the society, and at the same time use instructional strategies in the classroom without connecting specific literature to individuals.
Using the existing definition of multicultural literature (Cai & Bishop 1994), and migration theory (Frank 2008), selected literature are analyzed to categorize and develop a new theoretical definition of multicultural literature. In the empirical study, I use a mediated discourse analysis (nexus analysis) (Scollon, 1998) to study how negotiations of reading modes and reader identities are characterized in three 8.grade classes with pupils with diverse cultural backgrounds when multicultural texts are embedded in the didactical setting.
References:
Aamand,K. (2017): Haram. Gyldendal 2017

Banks, J. A. (2007): Educationg citizens in a multicultural society. Teachers College Columbia University New York and London.

Cai, M. Bishop, R, S. (1994): Multicultural Literature for Children: Towards Clarification of the concept. In: Dyson, A, H. (eds) The need for story. Cultural Diversity in Classroom and community. (pg 57-72) 1994 by the National Council of Teachers of English.

Frank, S. (2008): Migration and Literature. Günter Grass, Milan Kundera, Salman Rushdie, and Jan Kjærstad. Palgrave Macmillan.

Gitz-Johansen (2006): Den multikulturelle skole – integration og sortering. Roskilde universitetsforlag.

Holmen, A. (2011): Den gode gardner og ukrudtet. Om minoritetselever i grundskolens danskfag. I: Haas, C. (red): Ret til dansk. Uddannelse sprog og kulturarv. (31-115) Aarhus universitetsforlag.

Jones, R. H., & Norris, S. (2005): Methodological principles and new directions in MDA. In: S. Norris & R. H. Jones (red). Discourse in Action. Introducing mediated discourse analysis London Routledge.

Mansour, N. (2015): Student diversity and content of the literature curriculum. A study of the potentials of multicultural literature in the Danish public schools. Master thesis Aarhus University, DPU.

Meyer, M. (2001): Between theory, method, and politics: positioning approaches to CDA. In: R. Wodak & M. Meyer (red). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (14-31). London: Sage Publications.Scollon, R. (1998): Mediated discourse ad social interaction. A study of news discourse. Addison Wesley Longman Limited 1998.

Scollon, R. (1998): Mediated discourse ad social interaction. A study of news discourse.
Addison Wesley Longman Limited 1998.

Tanggaard, L. & Brinkmann, S. (2010): Interviewet: samtalen som forskningsmetode. In: S. Brinkmann, S, & Tanggaard, L. (eds) Kvalitative metoder- en grundbog. (29-53) Hans Reitzels Forlag.


Fiona Moreno & Christophe Ronveaux ()
KEEPING TRACK OF FRICTIONS IN READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION : A CASE FOR INTERACTIONS STUDIES
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Friday, 09:30-12:30

Room LN 304

Chair: Pieper, Irene

We know for an indisputable fact that somehow, something gets taught through “literary” reading instruction. Yet, from curricular prescriptions to lesson planning, from teaching practices to actual learning, the aforementioned “something” appears rhizomatic in its evolutions and implications. The apparently nebulous entity is likely to encompass the what, why and how of a particular teaching situation as well as teacher and student expectations, projections, (inter)actions.
From a didactic point of view, classroom interactions certainly are not to be taken as the transparent reflection of teaching or learning processes; neither can they be limited to teacher-student relationships. Instead, they are built on and of sedimented teaching practices, specific communicational stakes, specifically functioning objects of knowledge, all of which compose a relatively stable yet ever-evolving instrument (Wirthner, 2017).
Close reading didactic interactions (Schneuwly & Thévenaz-Christen, 2006) would allow to accurately understand and conceptualize this equally elusive and effective teaching instrument. Such is the ambition underlying much recent research in the field of Francophone didactics, which – importantly – tend to focus on teacher work rather than acquisitional modes, thus shifting the stake of interactional processes from the latter to the former (Flilliettaz & Schubauer-Leoni, 2008).
Tracking didactic interactions within French language and literature education across primary and secondary school has been a major concern of the GRAFE research team (University of Geneva) for years. In this contribution, we propose to focus on a particularly revealing parcel of a research project dedicated to better describing and comprehending teaching instrument transformation dynamics as they can be captured in collective reading and discussion sessions.
Six 3rd-grade class groups were recorded over several weeks, as they separately went through the same textbook teaching unit and a particularly resistant textual artefact (Tauveron, 1999), characterized by heterogeneous enunciation, text-image disjunction, problematic stereotypy.
We will discuss cross-group (absence of?) variations as observed in the first two days of the teaching sequence, namely the contextualization stage.
These observations will be related to Francophone theoretical work conducted on literature instruction and progression throughout the reading instruction curriculum, in an effort to make part of this untranslated body of knowledge more readily accessible to our international audience.
If the 3rd grade is known to be an emblematically transitional year as far as reading instruction is concerned, cultural-historical characteristics of the French discipline result in this transition presenting particular asperities in the Swiss-French context. The need for more nuanced tracking of specialized professional action in contexts of French language and literature instruction will be posited, using the “contextualisation stage” research snapshot as a case study.
We will conclude by briefly presenting two ongoing follow-up studies, inviting the audience to reflect on updated research questions. We believe these questions to be of relevance far beyond Francophone / primary school settings, as they propose to dig deeper into our conceptions of teacher work, textuality, and literature.
Throughout the talk, we will highlight key aspects of research design, dwelling on the particular methodological stance developed in the course of the GRAFE research and adopted in the studies presented. Most importantly, we will seek the audience’s feedback on our provisional terminology, approach, and follow-up study planning.

References:
Cèbe, S., & Goigoux, R. (2007). Concevoir un instrument didactique pour améliorer l’enseignement de la compréhension de textes. Repères, n°35, 185-208.
Class, B. & Schneider, D. (2013). La recherche Design en éducation: vers une nouvelle approche ? frantice.net, 7, 5-16. Retrieved from http://frantice.net/index.php?id=762
Filliettaz, L., & Schubauer-Leoni (Eds.) (2008). Processus interactionnels et situations éducatives. Brussels : De Boeck.
Hofstetter, R. & Schneuwly, B. (2014). Disciplinarisation et disciplination consubstantiellement liées: deux exemples prototypiques sous la loupe: les sciences de l'éducation et les didactiques des disciplines. In B. Engler (Ed.), Disziplin - discipline (pp. 27-46). Freiburg (CH): Academic Press.
Nonnon, E. (2010). La notion de progression au coeur des tensions de l’activité d’enseignement. Repères, 41. 5-33.
Ronveaux, Chr. & Soussi, A. (2013). Lire des histoires ou comprendre des textes ? Le(s) récit(s) enseigné(s) au fil des cycles. Recherches, 59, 45-58.
Ronveaux, Chr. & Schneuwly, B. (Ed.) (2017). Lire des textes littéraires au fil des niveaux scolaires. Bern : Peter Lang.
Schneuwly, B. & Dolz, J. (Éd.) (2009). Des objets enseignés en classe de français: le travail de l’enseignant sur la rédaction de textes argumentatifs et sur la subordonnée relative (Païdeïa). Rennes : PUR.
Schneuwly, B. & Thévenaz-Christen, Th. (2006). Analyses des objets enseignés. Le cas du français. Brussels : De Boeck.
Tauveron, Catherine (1999). Comprendre et interpréter le littéraire à l’école: du texte réticent au texte proliférant. Repères, 19, 9-38.
Thévenaz-Christen, Th. (Ed.) (2014). La lecture enseignée au fil de l’école obligatoire. L’exemple genevois. Namur: Presses Universitaires de Namur.
Wirthner, M. (2017). Outils d’enseignement : au-delà de la baguette magique. Outils transformateurs, outils transformés dans des séquences d’enseignement en production écrite. Bern : Peter Lang.


Marianne Oksbjerg (Denmark)
TEACHERS´ PERCEPTION AND PRACTICE OF DIDACTIC LITERATURE LEARNING RESOURCES IN TERMS OF ENHANCING BILDUNG AMONG STUDENTS IN GRADE FIVE END SIX
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Thursday, 09:45-13:00

Room LN 304

Chair: Pieper, Irene

Teachers´ perception and practice of didactic literature learning resources in terms of enhancing Bildung among students in grade five end six


The aim of the project is to develop new knowledge about the interrelation between teacher, didactic learning resources and literature teaching.
Background
One of the main purposes of literature teaching is traditionally connected with the task of Bildung. In a modern democracy, Bildung can be defined as development of personal and cultural identities, and the shaping of students as citizens for a democratic society (Kemp, 2013; Klafki, 2011; UVM, 2014). The interest of this project is how literature teaching in school is understood and how learning resources impact on this area of school practice.
A newly published comprehensive quantitative study of the selection of learning resources among teachers in Danish L 1 concludes that teachers in general select learning resources that do not enhance the competences to interpret, reflect and discuss the information they get from reading texts. Teachers seem to select learning resources focusing on the training of specific skill (Bremholm, Bundsgaard, Fougt, & Skyggebjerg, 2017).
.
A hypothesis of this project is that literature teaching includes a potential for the students dialogues on philosophical themes of life. The study is to some extent based on empirical research that focuses on language and practices that characterize dialogical teaching.
Research on teachers learning resource practice indicates that teacher’s perception of the core of learning, their educational background and teaching experience are influencing their practice (Stein and Coburn, 2008; Hodgson, Rønning and Tomlinson, 2012; Tallaksen and Hodne, 2014; Penuel, Phillips and Harris, 2014).
One of the projects´ hypothesizes is that learning resources strongly influence teaching practice and the learning processes in the classroom (Heyerdahl-Larsen, 2000; Slot, 2010, Bremholm et al., 2017). The interrelations between the selection and use of learning resources and the enhancing of student’s Bildung-aims will be investigated.
Research questions
How do didactic learning resources for teaching literature support teachers in their planning and practice in order to achieve development of students´ Bildung?
• How is the interpretation of the implicit intensions of the learning resources among teachers?
• What are the impacts of teacher’s interpretation on the possibilities that teachers establish in classes for increased development of students´ Bildung?
Theoretical framework
The project has a sociocultural approach to learning (Säljö, 2005) and sees literacy as connected to social practice (Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Group, 1996). Didactical learning resources are defined as material artifacts in which ideologies, norms and values are embedded (Hansen, 2010). The project is developed within the framework of three levels of assessment of learning resources: “The potential learning potential, the actualized learning potential, the actualized learning” (Bundsgaard & Hansen, 2011). Ideas of how literature teaching are seen to have potentials regarding development of the student’ Bildung, are inspired by (Gee, 2012; Klafki, 2011; Langer, 2011).
Research design and method
The project is a qualitative case study with multiple cases that will help provide understanding of the research question. The aim is to provide exploration and explanation of the complex interactions in classroom between teachers, learning resources and literature teaching with special focus on supporting students´ Bildung. The researchers role is defined as Peripheral-member researcher (Angrosino, 2007), and I will be performing ethnographic classroom observations (video and field notes), semi-structured interviews with teachers and analysis of the learning materials used in class.
In January-March 2018, I performed a pilot study. The purpose of the pilot study is find empirical data for the development of framework for classroom observation and for the interview guide. In the pilot study, two Danish teachers and their classes (fifth and sixth grade) were monitored and observed during six lessons. In addition, two semi structured interviews with the teachers where carried out. Some of the preliminary conclusions of the pilot study are that many authorities or discourses are at stake in class. Thus, I have identified the learning resource, the official documents of Danish as Language 1, the final school examinations, the students and the teachers’ ideas of the students´ Bildung in the analyzed data.
The pilot study has in addition to other research results of the field, resulted in reflections on which cases to select for the actual empirical study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Flyvbjerg, 1991). As consequence of theses reflections, the study will be carried out in cooperation with six teachers and their classes. Three of the teachers will have relatively long teaching experience and three will be newly educated.
The pilot study has furthermore developed considerations about the complexity of observing classes. In order to grasp this complexity I seek inspiration in the report of observation studies in the Danish Demonstrationsskoleforsøgene (Bundsgaard & Hansen, 2016). I am inspired by the definition and delimitation of lessons sequences in the main category Activity, which is defined as sequences of interaction where the participators in a certain period are part of a homogeneous division of roles and are repeating homogeneous response patterns (Bundsgaard & Hansen, 2016).
The pros and cons by using codes defined by others researchers should be evaluated. There is a risk that the codes do not match the specific context that you want to examine (Klette & Blikstad-Balas, 2017). For that reason, the codes for this PhD study are adjusted to the specific context of the literature classes. Activities that indicate dialogic classroom interaction are registered for further analysis and assessment.

Methological challenge to be discussed at the seminar:

• As my scientific basis is in the tradition of social constructivism, I am aware that I exert an influence of the case that I want to examine. Therefore, there has to be transparency between my project and the informants of the study. In that respect, I find it challenging to on one hand having to explain how I see the field for the participating teachers and on the other hand ´draw a picture´ of how they understand the field.

References
Angrosino, M. (2007). Doing ethnographic and observational research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context, 7, 15.
Bremholm, J., Bundsgaard, J., Fougt, S. S., & Skyggebjerg, A. K. (2017). Hvordan ser danskfaget så ud? In Læremidlernes danskfag (pp. 273-282): Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
Bundsgaard, J., & Hansen, T. I. (2011). Evaluation of Learning Materials: A Holistic Framework. Journal of Learning Design, 4(4), 31-44.
Bundsgaard, J., & Hansen, T. I. (2016). Blik på undervisning : rapport om observationsstudier af undervisning gennemført i demonstrationsskoleforsøgene. Retrieved from https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/95991875/Bundsgaard_Hansen_2016._Blik_p_undervisning._Rapport_om_observationsstudier_af_undervisning_gennemf_rt_i_demonstrationsskolefors_gene.pdf
https://www.statsbiblioteket.dk/au/#/search?query=recordID%3A%22sb_pure_ddfmxd%3A3a73f620-787f-4725-89d0-98c8cf7992f9%22
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An international journal, 4(3), 164-195.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Fifth edition, international student ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1991). Rationalitet og magt. København: Akademisk Forlag.
Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies : ideology in discourses (4. edition ed.). New York: Routledge.
Group, T. N. L. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard educational review, 66(1), 60-93.
Hansen, J. J. f. (2010). Læremiddellandskabet : fra læremiddel til undervisning (1. udgave ed.). Kbh.: Akademisk.
Kemp, P. f. (2013). Verdensborgeren : pædagogisk og politisk ideal for det 21. århundrede (2. reviderede og opdaterede udgave ed.). Kbh.: Hans Reitzel.
Klafki, W. (2011). Dannelsesteori og didaktik : nye studier (3. udgave ed.). Århus: Klim.
Klette, K., & Blikstad-Balas, M. (2017). Observation manuals as lenses to classroom teaching: Pitfalls and possibilities. European Educational Research Journal, 1474904117703228.
Langer, J. A. (2011). Envisioning literature : literary understanding and literature instruction (2. ed. ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Säljö, R. (2005). Læring i praksis : et sociokulturelt perspektiv (1. bogklubudgave ed.). Kbh.: Gyldendals Bogklubber.


Irene Pieper & Andrea Bertschi-Kaufmann & Steffen Siebenhuener & Nora Kernen (Germany)
TEACHER PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES, STUDENT MOTIVATIONS, AND CLASSROOM PRACTICES – PROJECT TAMOLI
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Thursday, 09:45-13:00

Room LN 304

Chair: Pieper, Irene

TAMoLi
Texts, activities and motivations in literature education at the lower secondary level
(TAMoLi-Team CH: Andrea Bertschi-Kaufmann, Pädagogische Hochschule FHNW; Katrin Böhme, Uni-versität Potsdam; Dominik Fässler, Pädagogische Hochschule FHNW; Nora Kernen, Pädagogische Hochschule FHNW; Steffen Siebenhüner, Pädagogische Hochschule FHNW; ehemalig, Erhebung und Statistik: Cornelia Stress
TAMoLi-Team D: Irene Pieper; Universität Hildesheim; Simone Depner, Universität Hildesheim; Erhebung und Statistik: Maren Reder, Universität Hildesheim)


Sub-study within TAMoLi (CH):
Cognitive activation in literary education at secondary level I
Nora Kernen

The study focuses on how to conceptualize cognitive activation (CA) within the framework of teaching literature (see part I). It looks at the potential for CA that can be found in task design (activation through task planning), and in student’s activities in the classroom (work on the task; indicators for activatedness; activation in conversation, see part II).

Questions to be addressed are: What is cognitive activation in the literature classroom and how can it be fostered (part I)? How does CA present itself in tasks and during lessons, in particular during class discussions (part II)? Do reading motivation, reading skills, and cognitive activation interact in the TAMoLi data sample (part III)?

Part I – Conceptualizing CA: Only few studies (e.g. Winkler, 2017) work out the concept of «cognitive activation» for the teaching of literature. The first part of the publication discusses existing concepts; it aims to make them concrete for the literature classroom. In part, this has already happened in TAMoLi (development of the questionnaires, grid categories for video and interview analysis).

Part II – Qualitative study (video and interview data): This part will look at indicators and manifestations of CA in video samples from Swiss literature classes. The potential for cognitive activation can, supposedly, be found in tasks and assignments, as well as in their implementation in the classroom when students carry them out. Two aspects are of particular interest: the follow-up conversation after reading or after working on the text, and the way teachers organize conversation in the classroom. How are students’ contributions handled? How do students perceive the assignments they are given (=interview data)? The analyses rest on previous research on object-oriented CA and on classroom talk theory (“accountable talk”, Pauli et al. 2008).

Part III – Quantitative study: The third part presents first (preliminary) results of the quantitative data from TAMoLi. Cognitive activation may interact with variables like school type, reading skills/motivation, or teachers’ orientation towards reading comprehension or literature teaching; we derive information about these from the large quantitative data set we collected.



Literature

Lotz, M. (2016). Kognitive Aktivierung im Leseunterricht der Grundschule: Eine Videostudie zur Gestal-tung und Qualität von Leseübungen im ersten Schuljahr. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Abgerufen von DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-10436-8
Lotz, M., Lipowsky, F., & Faust, G. (2011). Kognitive Aktivierung im Leseunterricht der Grundschule: Konzeptionelle Überlegungen und erste empirische Ergebnisse zu ausgewählten Merkmalen kog-nitiv aktivierender Unterrichtsgespräche. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie, 80, 145–165.
Michaels, Sara, O’Connor, Catherine, Resnick, Lauren B. (2007).Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life. Springer Science+Business B. V; Studies in Philosophy and Education (https://link.springer.com/journal/11217 - Zugriff: 14.05.2018)
Pauli, C., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Hugener, I., & Lipowsky, F. (2008). Kognitive Aktivierung im Mathematik-unterricht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 22, 127–133.
Resnick, L. B.; Asterhan, Ch. S. C.; Clarke, S. N. (2015): Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.
Wilkinson, Jan A.G., Murphy, P.Karen & Binici, Sevda (2015). Dialogue-Intensive Pedagogies for Pro-moting Reading Comprehension: What We Know, What We Need to Know: Resnick, Lauren B. Asterhan, Christa S. C. & Clarke, Sherice N..Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dia-logue. American Educational Research Association Publisher: American Educational Research As-sociation, p. 37-50
Winkler, I. (2017): Potenzial zu kognitiver Aktivierung im Literaturunterricht. Fachspezifische Profilierung eines prominenten Konstrukts der Unterrichtsforschung. In: Didaktik Deutsch. 22 (43). 78-97.
Zabka, T. (2015): Konversation oder Interpretation? Überlegungen zum Gespräch im Literaturunterricht. In: Leseräume. Zeitschrift für Literalität in Schule und Forschung. 2 (2). 169-187.


Irene Pieper & Iris Winkler & Sören Ohlhus (Germany)
INTERACTION IN THE LITERATURE CLASSROOM - WORKSHOP I
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Workshop

Thursday, 14:00-15:45

Room LN 304

The workshop provides opportunities for discussing approaches to data from the literature classroom - in this case from the bi-national project TAMoLi (Texts, Activities and Motivation in literature education in lower secondary). We focus on dialogue. A main concern is how the specific quality/qualities of (verbal) interaction in the respective lessons can be assessed - from various methodological angles. In workshop I we look into two literature lessons from the bi-national project TAMoLi. Two experts - Iris Winkler and Sören Ohlhus - respond to the data. Later on we will have room for discussion in plenary.


Irene Pieper & Tina Høegh & Daniel A. Scherf & John Gordon (Germany)
INTERACTION IN THE LITERATURE CLASSROOM - WORKSHOP II
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Friday, 13:30-15:00

Room LN 304

The workshop again provides opportunities for discussing approaches to data from the literature classroom. We focus on dialogue. A main concern is how the specific quality/qualities of (verbal) interaction in the respective lessons can be assessed - from various methodological angles. In workshop II we look into literature lessons from the UK (GCSE-stage, Lower Secondary, provided by John Gordon) and Denmark (Lower Secondary, provided by Tina Hoegh). Two experts - Daniel Scherf and Tina Hoegh - respond to the data. Later on we will have room for discussion in plenary.


Louise Rosendal Bang (Denmark)
IS THERE A LITERARY CONVERSATION IN THIS CLASS?
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Thursday, 09:45-13:00

Room LN 304

Chair: Pieper, Irene

In the book called Authorizing Readers, Peter J. Rabinowitz refers to Graff’s expression “The Bully/wimp syndrome.” The expression is associated with literature teachers’ sense of either dominating their classes by concluding what will be legitimate and not legitimate to claim about a literary text or the opposite: a sense of letting the pupils down by letting them chat on (Rabinowitz & Smith 1998).

This PhD project is based on a qualitative research study of the literary conversation as it takes place in senior classes in the Danish public school and in the gymnasium. The main focus is the teacher’s verbal didactical strategies when combining and connecting the pupils’ own cultural identity themes with literary conventions within the literary institution and tradition.

According to researchers in the field (Nystrand 1997, Mercer & Littleton 2007), literature teachers tend to follow the Initiate Response Evaluate model, which implies sessions of teacher led questions followed by the pupils’ responses (Nystrand 1991). Eventually, research points out the shortcomings of literary conversations based or partly based on this model. Recently, the Norwegian researcher Emilia Andersson-Bakken has constructed a study relevant to this issue by categorizing types of teacher constructed questions (Andersson-Bakken 2015). The outcome of this study confirms and qualifies what other researchers in the field conclude: the literary conversation in the school system is problematic, particularly when it comes to the teacher’s organization of open questions (Andersson-Bakken 2015).

Open questions are, with Nystrand’s definitions, constructed with the intention to create a dialogic discourse in which the pupils’ own intuitive responses are a natural part of the literary conversation. An open question can be characterized as being open if what follows is the possibility of several different answers. In contrast, a closed question calls for one specific answer.
So far the common approach lies in the assumption that the more open questions the more dialogic the conversation turns out. Relevant to this assumption, Andersson-Bakken’s research clarifies two notable effects. First; open questions are not a guarantee for the dialogical conversation. Second; the distinction between open and closed questions is not necessarily important for the development of the conversation. The cause of those effects can be found in what I define as clopen questions: questions that semantically seem open, but in a given context they actually function in a closed direction.

The goal of this project is to contribute with further understanding of the clopen question discourse for the benefits of literature teachers. A relevant part of this contribution is to study the relations between the teacher’s questioning strategies and the context; hereby the elements represented in the classroom.
In doing so I take a phenomenological approach by asking: What if I step outside the public school and the gymnasium and from such a position examine the literary conversation in a collective of readers? In author schools literary conversations are a natural part of the educational process. What characterizes the inherent didactic order of which the literature teacher organizes a conversation in an author school? From that perspective: How can we then understand the literary conversation in the traditionally schooled institution?

The Danish author Josephine Klougart believes that many people often read literature with some sort of fearful notion (klougart 2014). She believes that this notion is a result of what she describes as a very prescriptive and normative way of reading in the public school system. With such an allegation it is interesting to study how she orchestrates the literary conversation, when she teaches at writing school.

The theoretical frame of the project also includes the thinking of Stanley Fish who has made a particularly notable contribution to the field of reader-response-theory (Fish 1980). With his perspective, everything in the process of interpretation is connected to the reader and the cultural settings that the reader is a part of. One of Fish’s main points is that every individual is anchored in social and cultural contexts. In that sense the individual is not an individual but a communal you. It is Fish’s statement that a communal you will not be able to see the world either with subjective or objective eyes. If anything; the communal you sees the world with both a subjective and an objective discourse at the same time.

Subjective and objective discourses are present at the same time in the literary classroom, and they are embedded in the traditional questioning technique. It seems that the more the teacher separates them it generates a literary classroom conversation that is: 1) either a marketplace where every claim about a text becomes a mirror of the pupils’ own everyday experiences, or 2) a courtroom where only one or a few readings are legitimate (Faust 2000). Further, it seems that when the teacher attempts to integrate the subjective and objective discourses in one question, the question will turn out both open and closed at the same time. This project examines the complexity related to these issues.

Questions I would like to discuss in the seminar:
What are the specific and/or general challenges when building a bridge between author school readings and classroom readings?
How do I avoid favouring the author readings/my own idea too much?

References:

Andersson-Bakken, E. (2015). Når åpne spørsmål ikke er åpne. I: Nordic studies in Education(35), 280-298.

Faust, M. (2000). Reconstructing familiar metaphors. I: Research in the teaching of English(35), 9-34.

Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.
Klougart, J. (2014, 6. juni).

Min yndlingssætning. Set den 26.08.2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvmWtabJvo8

Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking. London: Routledge.

Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A. & Kachur, A. & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue. New York: teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement and literature achievement. I: Research in the Teaching of English(25), 261-290.

Rabinowitz, P. J. & Smith, M. W. (1998). Authorizing Readers. New York: Teachers College Press.


Marloes Schrijvers (Netherlands (the))
USING WRITTEN IMAGINARY DIALOGUES TO ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF DIALOGIC LITERATURE LESSONS ON STUDENTS’ INSIGHTS IN SELF AND OTHERS
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Thursday, 09:45-13:00

Room LN 304

Chair: Pieper, Irene

Background

Reading fictional and/or literary texts may impact readers’ insights in themselves and others. For example, it may change their views on their own personalities, their lives and their place in the world, as well as their perspectives on others (for overviews, see Koopman & Hakemulder, 2015; Hakemulder, Fialho & Bal, 2016). Recent research has conceptualized this impact as ‘transformative reading’ and has shown that it entails various reading experiences such as vividly picturing the setting and characters of a story, identification with characters, and feeling sympathy for them (Fialho, in preparation).

The transformative impact of reading is often described as one of the merits of literature teaching. However, research into instructional approaches that may foster students insights in themselves and others is scarce. A systematic review of intervention studies that attempted to foster such insights among adolescent students indicated that these effects are achieved when three design principles are met, concerning the choice of texts, activation of and reflection on personal life and reading experiences in writing activities, and verbally sharing these experiences with others in exploratory dialogic activities (Schrijvers, Janssen, Fialho & Rijlaarsdam, under review). Based on these design principles, in an iterative design cycle two interventions were developed. The outcomes of these interventions were empirically assessed. In this paper, we will focus on the application of a newly developed qualitative instrument, which was used in the second intervention study.

Method

In the second intervention study, 332 students from twelve 10th grade classes participated (M = 15.5 years old). In a quasi-experimental design, six classes (n = 166) participated in the experimental condition, and six other classes (n = 166) participated in the control condition. In the experimental condition, students attended six dialogic literature lessons that centered around the theme of ‘injustice’. They were taught by their own teachers, who were either involved in designing the intervention or had attended a preparatory workshop during which they were trained to teach the intervention. Students read six short literary stories and engaged in activities in which they activated relevant personal experiences before reading a story (e.g., by a short writing task), reflected on their reading experiences directly after reading the story (e.g., by indicating which part of the story stood out most to them), and talked in pairs or small groups about the story and how it related to their own lives and the outer-textual world. Particular attention was paid to developing techniques to deepen dialogues about stories, such as listening attentively, postponing a first judgment and asking each other follow-up questions. In the control condition, teachers followed their regular literature teaching program, mostly focusing on applying literary terms in structural analyses of literary texts.

In addition to questionnaires that were administered as pre-test, post-test and delayed post-test, students completed an individual assignment. For the students in the experimental condition, this was the final task of the intervention. In the control condition, teachers implemented the assignment at the end of a series of regular literature lessons. The task was to write an imaginary dialogue between oneself and a classmate, in the form of a comic, about a story that students had selected themselves. They could choose from four stories, of which they all read a couple of sentences and a short characterization of what to expect in terms of difficulty. After reading, they were asked to indicate how much they liked the story and how difficult it was, both on a scale of 1 to 5, and to write at least two and maximum three pages of the dialogue. The opening of this imaginary dialogue was given: ‘Which part of the story stood out to you?’ Students were instructed to try to write an authentic conversation, instead of a ‘question-and-answer’ interview.

Data analysis: questions to be discussed

The imaginary dialogues are typed out by research assistants. Currently, data analysis procedures are being developed to compare the tasks completed by students in the experimental condition to those completed by students in the control condition. Data analysis will focus on extensiveness (number of turns; number of words) and on content, including topics, self-references, social-moral considerations, references to transformative reading. During the seminar, I will present the coding schemes and ask the audience for their feedback. I would also like to discuss the possibility to code for the ‘form’ or ‘quality’ of the dialogues as well, and if so, how. Additionally, advantages and pitfalls of this task as a methodological instrument will be discussed as well.


References
Fialho, O. (in preparation). Walking Along the Paths of Transformative Reading Experiences: A Theoretical-Empirical Model (manuscript in preparation).
Hakemulder, F., Fialho, O., & Bal, P.M. (2016). Learning From Literature: Empirical Research on Readers in Schools and at the Workplace. In M. Burke, O. Fialho & S. Zyngier (Eds.), Scientific Approaches to Literature in Learning Environments (pp. 19-38). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Koopman, E. M., & Hakemulder, F. (2015). Effects of Literature on Empathy and Self-Reflection: A Theoretical-Empirical Framework. Journal of Literary Theory, 9(1), 79-111.
Schrijvers, M., Janssen, T., Fialho, O. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (under review). Learning about Self and Others in the Literature Classroom: A Review of Intervention Studies (submitted manuscript).


Margrethe Sonneland (Norway)
FRICTIONS - A STUDY OF THE IMPORTANCE OF OBSTACLES AND RESISTANCE IN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT LITERATURE
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Thursday, 09:45-13:00

Room LN 226

Chair: Elkad-Lehman, Ilana

This study is part of a multiple case study of literature work in lower secondary school, where three classes are invited to talk about texts – presented as meaningful food for thought issues – as disciplinary problems. The study in its entirety includes four attempts – four cases – where the goal is to gain knowledge about what happens when students are invited to find out of demanding literary texts on their own. The first study found that the students appreciated working with disciplinary problems on their own – that both the task and the text had appeal and created affinity spaces and thus student engagement. The second study found, through a description of intensity and analysis of students' discursive valuation mechanisms, variations in students’ engagement. In this study it is investigated, based on the same text encounters, what it is with these texts that seem to engage students. The goal is to gain knowledge of the texts significance for student’s engagement in conversations about literature in lower secondary school, within the framework of open, inviting instructions.

In the study, 8A talks about «Brønnen» (Jacobsen, 2001), 9B talks about «Foran loven» (Kafka, 2000), 9D talks about «Løp for livet» (Jacobsen, 2001) and 9A talks about «Små ting» (Carver, 2004). «Brønnen» changes perspective, alternates between different time periods and omits much of the story that binds the events together. The same features are found in the text «Løp for livet». «Foran loven » offers massive openness and unpredictability, thus making a number of interpretations possible. The text «Små ting» can be regarded as a dark grown-up drama, where the outcome and cause of the dispute has several possible interpretations.

These conversations are seen as discursive universes – as wholes – where the texts are participants. From this perspective where the texts are considered participants in the conversations, it is examined how the students’ utterances are relating to the texts’. The close reading of the conversations is based on dialogical discourse analysis (Skaftun, 2009), with particular interest to which intentionality the voices represents (Bakhtin, 1984). The analysis show that when the students’ engagement is expressed, the texts function as centrifugal forces and the students’ narrative desire (Brooks, 1984; Miller, 1998) is activated. Findings indicate that literary texts that activate readers' narrative desire create potent spaces for hermeneutic negotiation. The didactic implications of the findings are that texts that resist simple interpretations and solutions, generate a new textual space that gives the students valuable experience with hermeneutic friction.


Literature
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. (C. Emerson, Ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Brooks, P. (1984). Reading For The Plot. Design and Intention in Narrative. London: Harvard University Press.
Carver, R. (2004). Små ting. In Hvem har ligget i denne sengen? Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag AS.
Jacobsen, R. (2001). Fugler og soldater: noveller. Oslo: Cappelen.
Kafka, F. (2000). Foran loven. In Prosessen. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag AS.
Miller, J. H. (1998). Reading Narrative. The University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Skaftun, A. (2009). Litteraturens nytteverdi. Fagbokforlaget.


Bianca Strutz (Germany)
CONSTITUTION OF POETIC METAPHOR AS A MATTER OF LEARNING IN GERMAN LITERATURE CLASSROOM
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Friday, 09:30-12:30

Room LN 304

Chair: Pieper, Irene

Theoretical underpinnings
Metaphors are usually found in poetic texts and therefore expected by competent readers (see Steen 1994). However, learners first have to learn how to deal with metaphors while developing certain expectations towards literature. Previous research considering the reception of metaphors demonstrates that the ability to explicitly interpret metaphor is acquired at school (see Peskin 2010; Pieper & Wieser 2011). Although it is well-known that dealing with metaphor is a central aspect of literature education, the way teachers design lessons and the way the actual teaching and learning takes place in class, are still largely unexplored (see Pieper & Wieser 2011). Recent results of the LiMet-study show that the development of interpretative skills is not simply age-related but influenced by e.g. epistemological beliefs (see Pieper & Wieser 2018). It could also be shown that teachers approach the field teaching interpretative skills differently so that it is to be examined how epistemic beliefs and interpretative skills are acquired in school (see Lessing-Sattari 2018).

Description of the project
My PHD-study addresses the above-mentioned desideratum. It follows the interaction theory of metaphor (see Christmann & Scheele 2001, Eco 1985), which recognizes the diversity of metaphorical structures and contextual connections. The sample consist of four teachers and their six classes in middle schools and Gymnasium (higher academic track; grades 6, 8, 10 and 12). The study is based on the three metaphorically structured poems “Zirksukind” by Rose Ausländer, “Gefrorener Wasserfall” by Christine Busta and “Wünschelrute” by Joseph von Eichendorff.
The collection of data involves videography and interviews: Teachers were asked to plan and execute a lesson about each of the poems, focusing on the poems’ metaphor and including one plenary discussion of the poems’ metaphor. The lessons were video recorded and afterwards, the teachers were interviewed about some aspects of those lessons. Furthermore, before and after each lesson, four students of each class were asked to think aloud while reading the poems. In total, 18 lessons are recorded, there are 4 preparing and 18 post-processing interviews with teachers and 36 think aloud protocols of students.

Methods
The analysis of the data is based on principles of discourse analysis with a focus on subject learning. The method is adapted to suit research questions that are situated in the frame of subject oriented educational research. Based on an analysis of the macro- and microstructure of the lessons, individual sequences are selected and analysed by using sequential analysis. The approach of discourse analysis focuses on the achievement and indication of mutual understanding in interaction, since students often refer to each other through dialogue in the class discussion, so that individual interpretations are broadened productively (see Segal &Lefstein 2016). Through the approach of sequential analysis, attention is paid to the development of the linguistic action in its chronological order (see Bergmann 2001, Bredel & Pieper 2015). Thus, the common understanding of the lessons’ matter is determined by prompts and questions of the teacher, contributions of the students, methodological accesses and other factors. This is followed by the reconstruction of the constitution of the matter and the (modelled) roles of the interactants of the classroom discussion.

Research question
The paper exemplarily focuses on the question of how the matter of poetic metaphor is constituted in classroom interaction in German literature classes in secondary education.

Discussion
Video sequences of two contrasting cases will be presented and discussed in detail. The questions of how the different reconstructions (based on cases) can be inserted into an overall picture and which role the preparing and post-processing interviews could play are to be discussed in plenary.

Keywords: understanding metaphor, literature classroom, classroom interaction, videography, sequential analysis

Bergmann, J. (2001). Das Konzept der Konversationsanalyse. [The concept of conversation analysis]. In K. Brinker (Ed.), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (S. 919-927). Berlin et al.: de Gruyter (= HSK 16, Bd. 2: Gesprächslinguistik).
Bredel, U. & Pieper, I. (2015). Integrative Deutschdidaktik. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Eco, U. (1985). Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Christmann, U. & Scheele, B. (2001). Kognitive Konstruktivität am Beispiel Ironie und Metapher [Cognitive constructivity. The case of irony and metaphor]. In N. Groeben (Ed.), Zur Programmatik einer sozialwissenschaftlichen Psychologie. Bd. 2: Objektwissenschaftliche Perspektiven. 1. Halbband: Sozialität, Geschlechtlichkeit, Erlebnisqualitäten, kognitive Konstruktivität (pp. 261-326). Münster: Aschendorff.
Lessing-Sattari, M. (2018). Zur Ausprägung und zum Zusammenspiel von Lehrerüberzeugungen zum literarischen Lesen im Deutschunterricht – Darstellung der dokumentarischen Rekonstruktion von domänenspezifischen Überzeugungen und erste Auswertungsergebnisse der Studie LiMet-L. [On the characterization and interaction of teachers’ beliefs on literary reading in German classrooms – presentation of the documentary reconstruction of domain-specific beliefs and first evaluation of results of the LiMet-L study]. Leseräume, 5, pp. 1-22.
Pieper, I. & Wieser, D. (2011). Forschungsüberblick: Empirische Studien zum Verstehen von Metaphern in literarischen Texten. [State of the art. Empirical studies regarding the understanding of metaphor in literary texts]. Didaktik Deutsch, 30, pp. 74-90.
Pieper, I. & Wieser, D. (2018). Poetologische Überzeugungen und literarisches Verstehen. [poetological beliefs and literary understanding]. Leseräume, 4, in preparation.
Peskin, J. (2010): The Development of Poetic Literacy during the School Years. Discourse Processes Jg. 47, 2, pp. 77-103.
Segal, A. & Lefstein, A. (2016). Exuberant, voiceless participation: an unintended consequence of dialogic sensibilities?, Contribution to a special issue on International Perspectives on Dialogic Theory and Practice, edited by Sue Brindley, Mary Juzwik, and Alison Whitehurst. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 16, pp. 1-19.
Steen, G. (1994). Understanding metaphor in literature. An empirical approach. London/New York: Longman.


Caroline Wittig (Germany)
TEACHING LITERATURE WITH COMICS – PERFORMATIVE PANELREADINGS IN THE PRIMARY SCHOOL
SIG Dialogic Teaching and Learning

Plenary

Friday, 09:30-12:30

Room LN 226

Chair: Gourvennec, Aslaug Fodstad

During the last years, multimodal stories such as comics and graphic novels have escaped from being trashy literature – their complex way of telling stories is explained several times in literary studies now. In contrast to this well-known field of how comics work, stands the unexplored field of how children read and understand comics. Additionally, teachers have very few information about how to use comics in literature education and, as a result, they do not often work with them in the classroom. Performative panel readings may be one way to include comics in school.
The qualitative-empirical study shall help to satisfy the need for research and focuses therefore on two purposes: First, to describe how children read and understand comics. This becomes visible, when they perform it as a scenic panel reading. In connection with the first purpose, the second aim is to show potentials of panel readings in the classroom for literary learning.
Data consists of video- and audiotapes in an intervention study in primary school. Children from a mixed-aged school class (grade one to four) performed in small groups a panel reading of 'Clay Giant’s Alive!' (Kuhl, 2015), a humoristic comic book about the golem. Therefore, the single pictures (panels) of the comic are shown one by one on a big screen, just like a film. In response to the panels, the children speak the different characters with roles distributed and set images and texts with their voice or simple instruments into sound. Panel readings change the narration form and are therefore kind of transformation processes (Dehn, 2014): As every medium tells with other story-telling resources, the children have to look very attentively to images and texts in the comic book. They have to choose elements they want to set into sound, and they have to find a solution for representing them. This complex process gives an insight into their subjective feelings, imaginations and understandings of the comic. By making texts and pictures audible, panel readings expand the performative potential of multimodal texts (Führer, 2017). As literary studies show, comics are not soundless and quiet, but have an acoustic side. You can find the acoustic side of comics in both, text and images: First, speech bubbles show spoken language that is close to conceptional orality (Koch & Oesterreicher, 1985). Second, onomatopoetic words represent different sounds in the story with typography and language. Third, even images represent sounds by showing noisy elements, actions, or spaces.
The comic book 'Clay giant’s Alive!' has been chosen for this panel reading performance. The story is a humoristic variant of Prague’s golem legend (including many intertextual and interpictorial references) that makes the mystical character of the golem subject of discussion.
I would like to show how children discuss and perform the panel reading. But writing the transcripts is very challenging – how to describe the children’s ‚play voices‘, while they read different characters, how to capture intonation and paraverbal aspects without being too subjective? In the audio-visual transcripts of their work, I want to find sequences with key incidents (Kroon & Sturm, 2007). They represent central elements in the comic and/or intensive interaction between the children about performing it.
The way of handling comics with panel readings in the classroom shall open new approaches to multimodal literature. I want to make visible, how children interpret the comic‘s discourse (text, images, typography) but also the comic‘s story (especially their understanding of the golem). Finally, I want to show potentials for literature education.

References:
Dehn, M. (2014): Visual Literacy, Imagination und Sprachbildung. In: J. Knopf, & U. Abraham (eds.) BilderBücher. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, pp. 125-134.

Führer, C. (2017): Reading Panels. Zum performativen Potential multimodaler Texte. Informationen zur Deutschdidaktik, 3, pp. 66-74.

Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. (1985): Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. In: F. von Gernert et al. (eds.): Romanistisches Jahrbuch. Berlin: De Gruyter (36), pp. 15–43.

Kroon, S. & Sturm, J. (2007): Key Incident Analysis and International Triangulation. In: W. Herrlitz, S. Ongstad, P.H. van de Ven (eds.): Research on mother tongue education in a comparative international perspective. Theoretical and methodological issues. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi, pp. 99-118.

Kuhl, Anke (2015): Lehmriese lebt! Berlin: Reprodukt.
Lösener, H. (2010): Ist das literarische Lesen eine Kompetenz? Überlegungen zu einem kompetenzorientierten Lesemodell. In: H. von Laer (ed.): Was sollen unsere Kinder lernen? Zur politischen Diskussion nach den PISA-Studien. Berlin: LIT Verlag, pp. 41-56.