Developing Symbolic Interpretation Through Literary Argumentation

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 93-132

  Sosa, Teresa ^a   Hall, Allison H ^a   Goldman, Susan R ^a   Lee, Carol D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84958214449     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2015.1124040     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. D.E.Alvermann,, J.P.Young,, D.Weaver,, K.A.Hinchman,, D.W.Moore,, S.F.Phelps,, … P.Zalewski, (1996). Middle and high school students’ perceptions of how they experience text–based discussions: A multicase study. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 244–267. doi:10.1598/RRQ.31.3.2
2. R.C.Anderson,, C.Chinn,, M.Waggoner,, & K.Nguyen, (1998). Intellectually stimulating story discussions. In J.Osborn & E.Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all (pp. 170–196). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
3. A.N.Applebee,, R.Burroughs,, & A.S.Stevens, (2000). Creating continuity and coherence in high school literature curricula. Research in the Teaching of English, 34, 396–429.
4. A.N.Applebee,, J.A.Langer,, M.Nystrand,, & A.Gamoran, (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685–730. doi:10.3102/00028312040003685
5. D.Appleman, (2000). Critical encounters in high school English: Teaching literary theory to adolescents. New York, NY: Teachers College Press and National Council of Teachers of English.
6. R.B.Bain, (2005). “They thought the world was flat?” Applying the principles of how people learn in teaching high school history. In M.S. Donovan & J.D.Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 179–214). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
7. S.Barab, (2006). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for the learning scientist. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
8. L.Billings, (1999). Discussion in the high school classroom: An examination of sociolinguistic roles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
9. D.Bloome,, S.P.Carter,, B.M.Christian,, S.Otto,, & N.Shuart-Faris, (2004). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. J.D.Bransford,, A.L.Brown,, & R.R.Cocking, (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
11. G.Brooks, (1963). Selected poems. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
12. A.L.Brown, (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
13. A.L.Brown,, & J.C.Campione, (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K.McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.
14. A.R.Cavagnetto, (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80, 336–371. doi:10.3102/0034654310376953
15. C.B.Cazden, (2001). The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
16. C.Chinn,, & R.C.Anderson, (1998). The structure of discussions intended to promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315–368.
17. C.A.Chinn,, R.C.Anderson,, & M.A.Waggoner, (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411. doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.4.3
18. S.Cisneros, (1991). Four skinny trees. In The house on Mango Street (p. 74). New York, NY: Vintage Books.
19. M.Commeyras, (1995). What can we learn from students’ questions? Theory Into Practice, 34, 101–106. doi:10.1080/00405849509543666
20. S.De La Paz,, & M.K.Felton, (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 174–192. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001
21. M.S.Donovan,, & J.D.Bransford, (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
22. R.Driver,, P.Newton,, & J.Osborne, (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
23. E.A.Earthman, (1992). Creating the virtual work: Readers’ processes in understanding literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(4), 351–384.
24. S.R.Goldman, (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N.Shuart-Ferris & D.M.Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 313–347). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
25. S.R.Goldman,, & D.M.Bloome, (2005). Learning to construct and integrate. In A.F.Healy (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications: Festshrift in honor of Lyle Bourne, Walter Kintsch, and Thomas Landauer (pp. 169–182). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
26. S.R.Goldman,, M.A.Britt,, W.Brown,, G.Cribb,, M.George,, C.Greenleaf,, … Project READI. (2015). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework of core processes and constructs. Manuscript submitted for publication.
27. S.R.Goldman,, K.McCarthy,, & C.Burkett, (2015). Interpretive inferences in literature. In E.O’Brien, A.Cook, & R.Lorch (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 386–415). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
28. B.Graves,, & C.H.Frederiksen, (1996). A cognitive study of literary expertise. In R.J.Kruez & M.S.MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 397–418). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
29. C.Greenleaf,, R.Schoenbach,, C.Cziko,, & F.Mueller, (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 79–130. doi:10.17763/haer.71.1.q811712577334038
30. J.T.Guthrie,, W.Schafer,, Y.Y.Wang,, & P.Afflerbach, (1995). Relationships of instruction to amount of reading: An exploration of social, cognitive, and instructional connections. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 8–25. doi:10.2307/747742
31. G.Hillocks, (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English/ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.
32. G.Hillocks, (2011). Teaching argument writing, grades 6-12: Supporting claims with relevant evidence and clear reasoning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
33. G.Hillocks,, & L.H.Ludlow, (1984). A taxonomy of skills in reading and interpreting fiction. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 7–24. doi:10.3102/00028312021001007
34. P.N.Johnson-Laird, (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness (Vol. 6). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. W.Kintsch, (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
36. W.Kintsch, (1994). The psychology of discourse processing. In M.A.Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 721–739). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
37. W.Kintsch, (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38. J.Krajcik,, K.L.McNeill,, & B.J.Reiser, (2008). Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92, 1–32. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
39. M.Lampert, (2003). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40. J.A.Langer, (2011a). Envisioning knowledge: Building literacy in the academic disciplines. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
41. J.A.Langer, (2011b). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
42. C.D.Lee, (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 608–631. doi:10.2307/748192
43. C.D.Lee, (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 97–141. doi:10.3102/00028312038001097
44. C.D.Lee, (2005). Taking culture into account: Intervention research based on current views of cognition and learning. In J.King (Ed.), Black education: A transformative research and action agenda for the new century (pp. 73–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum and American Educational Research Association.
45. C.D.Lee, (2006). “Every good-bye ain’t gone”: Analyzing the cultural underpinnings of classroom talk. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 305–327. doi:10.1080/09518390600696729
46. C.D.Lee, (2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
47. C.D.Lee, (2011). Education and the study of literature. Scientific Study of Literature, 1, 49–58. doi:10.1075/ssol
48. C.D.Lee,, S.W.Briner,, S.Levine,, C.Burkett,, K.M.McCarthy,, M.P.Sullivan,, … J.P.Magliano, (2015). Developmental trends in literary reasoning. Unpublished manuscript.
49. C.D.Lee,, & S.R.Goldman, (2015). Assessing literary reasoning: Text and task complexities. Theory Into Practice, 54, 213–227. doi:10.1080/00405841.2015.1044369
50. C.D.Lee,, S.R.Goldman,, S.Levine,, & J.Magliano, (2016). Epistemic cognition in literary reasoning. In J.A.Greene, W.A.Sandoval, & I.Braten (Eds.), The handbook of epistemic cognition. New York, NY: Routledge.
51. C.D.Lee,, & A.Spratley, (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
52. R.Lehrer,, & L.Schauble, (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
53. L.S.Levstik,, & K.C.Barton, (2011). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and middle schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
54. J.Libman, (2004). An immigrant class: Oral histories from Chicago’s newest immigrants. Chicago, IL: Flying Kite.
55. M.C.Linn,, & B.Eylon, (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.
56. S.J.Magnusson,, & A.S.Palincsar, (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S.M.Carver & D.Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 151–194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
57. J.Marshall,, P.Smagorinsky,, & M.W.Smith, (1995). The language of interpretation. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
58. K.L.McNeill,, & D.S.Pimentel, (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203–229.
59. N.Mercer,, R.Wegerif,, & L.Dawes, (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111. doi:10.1080/0141192990250107
60. S.Michaels,, C.O’Connor,, & L.B.Resnick, (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297. doi:10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1
61. E.B.Moje,, K.M.Ciechanowski,, K.McIntosh,, K.Kramer,, L.Ellis,, R.Carrillo,, & T.Collazo, (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 38–70. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4
62. P.K.Murphy,, I.A.Wilkinson,, A.O.Soter,, M.N.Hennessey,, & J.F.Alexander, (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740–764.
63. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009a). Achievement gaps: How Black and White students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2009-455). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
64. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009b). NAEP 2008 trends in academic progress (NCES 2009–479). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
65. M.K.Ness, (2008). Supporting secondary readers: When teachers provide the “what,” not the “how.” American Secondary Education, 37, 80–95.
66. M.K.Ness, (2009). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content area classrooms: Teacher use of and attitudes towards reading comprehension instruction. Reading Horizons, 49(2), 143–166.
67. M.Nystrand,, & A.Gamoran, (1991). Student engagement: When recitation becomes conversation. In H.Waxman & H.Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 257–276). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
68. J.E.Olshavsky, (1976). Reading as problem solving: An investigation of strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 12, 654–674. doi:10.2307/747446
69. J.Osborne, (2010, April 23). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466. doi:10.1126/science.1183944
70. J.Osborne,, S.Erduran,, & S.Simon, (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
71. H.Pashler,, P.M.Bain,, B.A.Bottge,, A.Graesser,, K.Koedinger,, M.McDaniel,, & J.Metcalfe, (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning. IES Practice Guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research.
72. J.Peskin, (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 235–263. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1603_1
73. M.Pressley, (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction. In C.Collins Block & M.Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research based practices (pp. 11–27). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
74. P.J.Rabinowitz, (1987). Before reading: Narrative conventions and the politics of interpretation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
75. D.N.Rapp,, H.Komeda,, & S.R.Hinze, (2011). Vivifications of literary investigation. Scientific Study of Literature, 1, 123–135. doi:10.1075/ssol
76. A.Reisman, (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 86–112. doi:10.1080/07370008.2011.634081
77. L.B.Resnick,, S.Michaels,, & C.O’Connor, (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In R.Sternberg & D.Preiss (Eds.), From genes to context: New discoveries about learning from educational research and their applications (pp. 163–194). New York, NY: Springer.
78. A.Reznitskaya,, R.C.Anderson,, B.McNurlen,, K.Nguyen-Jahiel,, A.Archodidou,, & S.-Y.Kim, (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–175. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651596
79. W.A.Sandoval,, & K.A.Millwood, (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23–55. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
80. E.Santiago, (1993). When I was Puerto Rican. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
81. R.Schoenbach,, C.Greenleaf,, & L.Murphy, (2012). Reading for understanding: How reading apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
82. R.Scholes, (1985). Textual power, literary theory and the teaching of English. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
83. P.E.Shrout,, & J.L.Fleiss, (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
84. S.Simon,, & K.Richardson, (2009). Argumentation in school science: Breaking the tradition of authoritative exposition through a pedagogy that promotes discussion and reasoning. Argumentation, 23, 469–493.
85. P.Smagorinsky,, T.McCann,, & S.Kern, (1987). Explorations: Introductory activities for literature and composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
86. M.W.Smith, (1989). Teaching the interpretation of irony in poetry. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 254–272.
87. M.W.Smith, (1991). Understanding unreliable narrators: Reading between the lines in the literature classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
88. M.W.Smith,, & G.Hillocks, (1988). Sensible sequencing: Developing knowledge about literature text by text. The English Journal, 77(6), 44–49. doi:10.2307/818613
89. A.Tan, (1989). Two kinds. In The joy luck club (pp. 132–148). New York, NY: Putnam.
90. P.van den Broek, (1996). Causal inferences in the comprehension of literary texts. In R.J.Kreuz & M.S.MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 179–200). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
91. T.A.van Dijk,, & W.Kintsch, (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
92. B.VanSledright, (2002). Confronting history’s interpretive paradox while teaching fifth graders to investigate the past. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 1089–1115. doi:10.3102/000283120390041089
93. D.Vipond,, & R.Hunt, (1984). Point-driven understanding: Pragmatic and cognitive dimensions of literary reading. Poetics, 13, 261–277. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(84)90005-6
94. M.Waggoner,, C.Chinn,, H.Yi,, & R.C.Anderson, (1995). Collaborative reasoning about stories. Language Arts, 72, 582–589.
95. A.Walker, (1982). The Color Purple. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
96. J.E.Warren, (2011). “Generic” and “specific” expertise in English: An expert/expert study in poetry interpretation and academic argument. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 349–374. doi:10.1080/07370008.2011.607929
97. G.Wells, (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue, and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50, 244–274. doi:10.1159/000106414
98. G.Wells,, & R.M.Arauz, (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 379–428. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3
99. M.K.Wolf,, A.C.Crosson,, & L.B.Resnick, (2005). Classroom talk for rigorous reading comprehension instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 27–53. doi:10.1080/02702710490897518
100. C.M.Zeitz, (1994). Expert-novice differences in memory, abstraction, and reasoning in the domain of literature. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 277–312. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1204_1