Listening to the oracle. Results from a hybrid Delphi procedure on revitalizing the literary history classroom

1. What are the most important learning objectives in secondary education for literary history?

2. How can these objectives be achieved in secondary education?

3. How can students be more motived for literary history in secondary education?

In the second round the acquired design principles will be supplemented by other principles that will be derived from a literature study. These design principles will be sent in a questionnaire to a wider panel of 30 experts, who will prioritize the design principles based on criteria of relevance, feasibility and effectiveness.
Results of the final output after the two Delphi rounds will be discussed during the round table. These results will indicate which design principles are paramount for developing a model lesson series for the literary history classroom.
Symposium on literary history (1/2): Empirical studies in teaching literary history

Dirk van der Meulen
Abstract: Organizers: Jörn Brüggemann and Dirk van der Meulen.
The pedagogy of literary history in secondary education is a domain of research that has been seriously neglected in social studies in the past decades (Bonset & Braaksma, 2008; Van der Meulen, 2015; in preparation). This is a missed opportunity because literary history can help students achieve important learning objectives specifically for historical literature (and history), such as historical consciousness, historical thinking, historical reasoning, and gaining respect for historical actors in other periods and contexts of our civilization.

This symposium brings together recent, international studies from England and Germany that aim to enhance the learning of historical literature through various interventions. The first contribution by Fontich reports an innovative lesson series on the Spanish, romantic poem ‘La Pàtria’ (1833). The poem is explored in groups and this collaborative work results in an oral exposition on the poem and, subsequently, material is written by students for the final product: a video report.

Meier and colleagues aim in the second contribution at testing the effects of the methods of rational-analytic (RA) and action- and production-oriented (AP) tasks on understanding literature. The effects of these tasks were studied on three German, literary texts (two epic texts and one poem) in a group of German secondary students. Results showed that students working with the RA-tasks performed better on form-related literary understanding, whereas students working with AP-tasks scored better on situational interest and situational empathy.

Finally, Frederking and Brüggemann report on a research design and findings from the research project ‘Aesthetic Communication in literature classes' (ÄSKIL). They have made an attempt to model theoretically and empirically different learning-settings (teacher-centred versus pupil-centred) on the poem “Aus!” (1930) bei Kurt Tucholsky and to investigate them systematically.

• 
  Xavier Fontich
  
• 
  Many studies have brought evidence of epistemic strength of writing. However, writing to learn History of Literature (HL) is still an approach scarcely explored, despite classroom practice mainly based in rote learning and knowledge-telling use of writing, which results in a poor understanding.
  
• 
  We present an action-research intervention that intends to make it overlap both writing and learning processes through different problem-proposal-result cycles. Teacher’s notes and students’ outcomes serve now to describe and interpret the whole experience, in the form of a case study and through the lens of qualitative research.
  
• 
  The intervention takes place in a natural setting (ten 50-minute sessions in Subject Catalan at secondary level, with thirty 15/16 year-old pupils, in Spain). It develops in three-cycles. Cycle-1: (a) proposal: to approach HL chronology through a cultural perspective (reading a seminal Romantic poem) and to adopt a knowledge-transforming approach to writing based in synthesizing source texts; (b) results: while the poem allows interpretative discussion on literary periods, students fail in writing clear texts, which mimic structure and phraseology of source texts. Cycle-2: (a) proposal: to amplify source texts to push students into paraphrasing information anew; (b) results: unstructured texts with a lack of hierarchy in the information. Cycle-3: (a) proposal: to identify two addressees, five-graders (10/11 years old) and teachers other than theirs; to adapt the texts to the five-graders after exploring previous knowledge and basic grammar features of five-grader books, with a final synthesis in the form of a poster for an oral exposition; to write a video script (e.g. http://leer.es/web/leer/-/historia-de-la-literatura-1-explicacion-de-la-propuesta, English subtitles available).
  
• 
  Albeit some problems in all writing outcomes, Cycle-1&2 texts compare poorly with those of Cycle-3, which embrace less information but expose it in a much more structured way, using a wider repertoire of grammar tools and specific terminology. This suggests a better understanding of the HL content. The experience shows that writing-for-learning has only been set off in Cycle-3, where a repertoire of different actions (grammar observation, small group writing, synthesizing, poster elaboration, etc.) has been triggered. We consider that focusing on the addressee has been the reason of this, shifting from a sole content perspective on writing to a linguistic-communicative one. This seems to resonate with sociocultural research which highlights the effects of the addressee upon the writing process. This also suggests that action-research procedure, albeit conceived as a bottom-up approach to theory building, ought to take into account a communicative framework when introducing writing for learning.
  
• 
  Christel Meier & Sofie Henschel & Thorsten Roick
  
• 
  In educational research two different types of tasks for fostering the understanding of literature are discussed. Rational-analytic tasks (RA) reflect explicit learning that is often teacher-centred, deductive and knowledge-based. Action-and production-oriented tasks (AP) are based on implicit learning that is student-centered, inductive, less dependent on prior knowledge, and aims to engage the reader emotionally and motivationally by aesthetic experiences (Haas, et al. 1994). Although these methods are widely discussed in literary didactics, little is known about their effects on understanding literature.
  
• 
  In our experimental study we investigated short-term effects of these tasks on content- and form-related understanding of literary texts, motivational, and affective factors. Overall, 226 9th graders from lower school tracks were randomly assigned to one of three groups within each class. After presenting each text (contemporary epic and lyric texts), students completed RA or AP tasks followed by a test of literary text comprehension (Frederking, et al. 2012). Students in the control condition performed the reading test without tasks.
  
• 
  First, we applied an analysis of variance that revealed no group differences in content-related understanding of literary texts (ɳ²=.01, p=.26). However, students with RA tasks achieved better performances in form-related literary text comprehension than students with AP tasks or in the control group (ɳ²=.08, p<.01). A t-Test was used to compare both experimental groups showing that AP students reported a higher situational interest in the tasks (d=0.45, p<.01). Additionally, an ANOVA of repeated measures revealed no main group effect (η²<.01, p=.70) but an interaction effect (η²=.03, p=.02), indicating that the situational empathy slightly increased during the intervention in the AP group and slightly decreased in the RA group.
  
• 
  Although this study does not primarily focus on teaching literary history it could serve as a model for investigating effects of different tasks on learning outcomes in the literary history classroom.
  
• 
  Volker Frederking & Jörn Brüggemann
  
• 
  Since the eighties of the last century literature-historical aspects unfortunately have become specialist discourse within literature education. Only bit by bit they are increasingly getting attention again. Because of a lack of reliable test instruments, the educational challenges have until now, however, hardly been empirically investigated. Special desiderata exist in relation to the question whether and to what extent the acquisition of historical context knowledge helps or hinders a) literary understanding and b) subject-specific motivation and willingness.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  In our talk we will first present how different learning-settings have been examined in the context of a videotaped comparative study with experimental and control groups (N = 700 schoolgirls and schoolboys in 34 high school classes of 10th grade interpreting a text of the historical canon). All pupils read and discussed a poem called "Aus!" (1930) by Kurt Tucholsky. In the second step, significant findings should be presented (as well in terms of cognitive as of motivational effects), demonstrating the resilience of the research design. In the second step, significant findings should be presented (as well in terms of cognitive as of motivational effects), demonstrating the resilience of the research design. Finally, we will outline how the research design can be used for the research of more desiderata in the field of historical literature education.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  The research framework and findings are from the research project ‘Aesthetic Communication in literature classes' (ÄSKIL) which has been sponsored by the Friedrich Foundation. Here we have made the attempt to model theoretically and empirically different learning-settings and to investigate them systematically with quantitative and qualitative methods. Type A follows the idea of teacher-centred learning-settings and schema-based knowledge acquisition to educate adolescents in the practice of text interpretation. In this context, the need for (scaffolded) instruction by learning tasks and the (partial) steering by professional teachers is accepted in the knowledge that the aspired autonomy of interpretation is in tension to the guarantee of an adequate understanding levels and the mediation of knowledge assets. The second learning-setting, type B, however, follows the idea of pupil-centred learning-settings with the aim to strengthen the personal dimension of literary understanding as well as the increase of motivation and the expansion of specialized willingness. The influence of Type A and B on literary literacy was assessed in a multi-matrix-design using IRT-models. The statistical analyses were conducted with ConQuest and Mplus 7.1.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  References
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Volker Frederking/Volker Gerner/Jörn Brüggemann/Christian Albrecht/Sofie Henschel/Thorsten Roick/Christel Meier/Adelheid Rieder (2013). Literarästhetische Kommunikation im Deutschunterricht. In: Becker-Mrotzek, Michael/Schramm, Karen/Thürmann, Eike/Vollmer, Helmut J. (Hrsg.): Sprache im Fach – Sprachlichkeit und fachliches Lernen. Münster: Waxmann 2013, S. 131-147.
  
• 
  
  

The second contribution by Farkas introduces Quikscan, an online method that can be used to quickly read, summarize and understanding difficult historical texts that beginning readers cannot understand without the proper aid. Since students lack exactly such a competence of historical reading, Quikscan provides a scaffolded reading environment that helps students to read and interpret historical texts in an effective and easier way, avoiding the traditional reading experience of ‘old, dull and boring’ books.

• 
  Dirk van der Meulen
  
• 
  In this study, think-aloud protocols were analyzed of Dutch secondary students (10th and 12th grade; novice readers) and university students (semi-experts) while reading four, short literary-historical texts. We examined which literary reading activities could occur within and between the groups and whether the presented order/chronology of the texts and the type of literary text influenced reading processes.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  16 Dutch students (8 males and 8 females) participated, belonging to three groups: i) four 10th grade, ii) four 12th grade and iii) six university BA level students reading Dutch. All students were selected for their good reading skills and knowledge of history. Each student read four historical literary stories on paper under think aloud conditions. Students’ responses were transcribed, segmented and coded. A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to test for positive and negative correlations between the reading activities. A multiple analysis of variance (Manova) was conducted to examine the effect of the type of text, the presented order of texts and the differences in reading activities between the groups.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  The following reading activities were observed in the protocols: Retelling, Making inferences, Detecting problems, Asking questions, Making associations, Analyzing, Evaluative responses, Emotional responses, Responding metacognitively and Other Activity. Furthermore, strong correlations were observed between the reading activities, for instance a negative correlation between making associations and retelling. Moreover, significant differences between the groups were observed: for instance, Group 3 (the academic students) retold significantly less than Group 1 and 2 (the secondary students). Finally, the interaction between the factors group and presented chronology of the text showed a significant effect on the reading strategies Analyzing, Responding metacognitively, and Evaluating. In addition, the separate factor of the chronology of text affects Retelling, Analyzing, Evaluating, Detecting Problems, Making associations and Asking Questions.
  
• 
  These results suggest a development in critical reading skill between the groups of novices and the group of semi-experts. Educational implications are discussed.
  
• 
  Matthias Hirsch
  
• 
  Based on the hypothesis from the „Call for contributions“, according to which “historical knowledge might not be helpful with regard to the development of literary competence, which might be impeded by an overdose of context knowledge”, it is argued that the subject-specific ‘Competence of historical reading’ does not hinder the development of a literary competence. It rather (1) functions as a method of interlocking between the literary content of an opus and historical knowledge connected to it, (2) takes the text as a basis for a possible impulse for generating and further exploring necessary context knowledge, and (3) further supports breaking the boundaries of the fictitious/fictional worlds of literary works by providing students with insights into their conditionality.
  
• 
  The ‘Competence of historical reading’ is understood as a theoretical construct describing a domain-specific way of reading, which does not primarily originate from the quality of historical texts but puts a focus on a historical way of receiving a broad variety of different kinds of texts (HUMMELSBERGER, 2003). The presenter suggests dividing this competence into two hierarchically structured sub-levels, which are the mode of historical reading and the concrete historical reading operations conducted. Hereby, the mode functions as an element of initiating and controlling the respective reading operations, two of which, for instance, are the identification of concrete historical facts represented in the text on the hand, and of interpretations and contextualizations on the other. Due to the concentration on historical ways of reception, this conceptualization includes the possibility of reading literary texts historically and, thus, the partial treatment of literary texts as historical sources.
  
• 
  Furthermore, a close relationship of literary and historical texts (WHITE, 1986; RÜSEN, 2013) and the respective domain-specific ways of dealing with them (FREDERKING et al., 2011, MEIER et al. 2012) – for instance, the identification of represented norms and values within a text is crucial for both domains – provides students with an easy access to a different way of reading literature. Nevertheless, both ways of handling literature do not compete with each other. The results of these different kinds of analyses can support each other in achieving a more profound understanding of a literary text.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Keywords: Historical Reading; Literary Competence; Relationship; Theory.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  References:
  
• 
  Frederking, Volker; Meier, Christel; Brüggemann, Jörn; Gerner, Volker und Friedrich, Marcus. Literarästhetische Verstehenskompetenz – theoretische Modellierung und empirische Erforschung. In: Zeitschrift für Germanistik XXI (2011), S. 131–144.
  
• 
  Hummelsberger, Siegfried. ‚Sachtext-Leser’ oder‚ Sach-Bearbeiter’? Wie sachdienlich ist die Rede von Sachtexten in eigener Sache?. In: Abraham, Ulf; Bremerich-Vos, Albert; Frederking, Volker und Wieler, Petra (Hrsg.): Deutschdidaktik und Deutschunterricht nach PISA. Freiburg im Breisgau 2003, S. 330-346.
  
• 
  Meier, Christel; Henschel, Sofie; Roick, Thorsten und Frederking, Volker. Literästhetische Textverstehenskompetenz und fachliches Wissen. Möglichkeiten und Probleme domänenspezifischer Kompetenzförderung. In: Pieper, Irene (Hrsg.): Fachliches Wissen und literarisches Verstehen. Studien zu einer brisanten Relation. Frankfurt am Main 2012, S. 237–258.
  
• 
  Rüsen, Jörn. Historik. Theorie der Geschichtswissenschaft. Köln 2013.
  
• 
  White, Hayden. Auch Klio dichtet – oder die Fiktion der Faktischen. Studien zur Tropologie des historischen Diskurses. Stuttgart 1986.
  
• 
  David K. Farkas
  
• 
  In this presentation Quikscan is introduced as an online method that can be used to quickly read, summarize and understanding difficult historical texts that beginning readers cannot understand without the proper aid. Since students lack exactly such a competence of historical reading, Quikscan provides a scaffolded reading environment that helps students to read and interpret historical texts in an effective and easier way, avoiding the traditional reading experience of ‘old, dull and boring’ books.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  QuikScan holds promise as a means to make widely accessible literary texts that today’s students find
  
• 
  both challenging to read and “old, dull, and boring.” When a student understands the gist of each section of a text, reading and comprehending that section is much easier and less frustrating. Traditional alternatives are a critical introduction or annotations explaining specific stumbling blocks, but these do not fulfill the role of systematic summarization closely integrated with the full text. Freed from having to explain the literal meaning of texts, instructors can make more meaningful contributions in class.
  
• 
  
  

Bonset, H. (2010). Deel1: Nederlands in het voorgezet en hoger onderwijs: Hoe sluit dat aan? [Part 1: Dutch in secondary and higher education: How does it match?] Levende Talen Magazine, 97(3), 16-20.

Nederlandse Taalunie (2011). Ze kunnen niet meer spellen. [They can no longer spell.]. Spellingsrapport Nederlandse Taalunie.

Wallace, D. L., Hayes, J. R., Hatch, J. A., Miller, W., Moser, G., & Silk, C. M. (1996). Better Revision in Eight Minutes ? Prompting First-Year College Writers to Revise Globally. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 682–688.