In:Scientific Approaches to Literature in Learning Environments
Edited by Michael Burke, Olivia Fialho and Sonia Zyngier
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 24] 2016
► pp. 39–56
Chapter 3. Authorizing the reader in the classroom
Published online: 22 July 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.24.03mia
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.24.03mia
This chapter describes the project approach (Katz & Chard, 2000). In-depth learning through projects involves actively relating the new to the familiar through a three phase process. In Phase 1, the recall of significant aspects of a literary reading can be facilitated by the sharing of personal experiences of the text. This leads to appreciation of the relevance of these experiences, perhaps as topics in their own lives. In discussion, or Phase 2, questions are raised and researched, where new understanding emerges. In Phase 3, the new information is combined into a group response. When students learn collaboratively through the project approach, they typically report deeper levels of personal involvement and satisfaction as well as greater understanding and depth of knowledge than when asked to learn by other means.
Keywords: autonomy, learning, literature, project approach, students
References (22)
Barrows, H.S., & Tamblin, R.M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York, NY: Springer.
Boud, D. (1988). Moving towards autonomy. In D. Boud (Ed.), Developing student autonomy in learning (2nd ed.; pp. 17-39). Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.
Coleridge, S.T. (1983). J. Engell & W.J. Bate (Eds.), Biographia literaria. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1817.)
Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In Third yearbook of the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Katz, L., & Chard, S. (1989). Engaging children’s minds: The Project Approach (1st ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Knowles, M. (1988). Preface to Boud (1988; pp. 4-6).
Miall, D.S. (1993). Constructing the self: Emotion and literary response. In D. Bogdan & S.B. Straw, Constructive reading: Teaching beyond communication (pp. 63-81). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
. (1996). Empowering the reader: Literary response and classroom learning. In R.J. Kreuz & S. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 463-478). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
. (2016). Literariness. In R. Jones (Ed.), Routledge handbook of language and creativity (pp. 191-205). London: Routledge.
Miall, D.S., & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding: Defamiliarization, and Affect: Response to Literary Stories. Poetics, 22, 389-407.
. (1999). What is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading. Discourse Processes, 28(2, 121.
Nell, V. (1988). Lost in a book: The psychology of reading for pleasure. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
O’Faoláin, S. (1980-1982). The trout. In The collected short stories of Seán O’Faoláin, Vol. 1 (pp. 383-386). London: Constable.
Plowden Committee Report. (1967). Children and their primary schools. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
Reichle, S. (2009). Cognitive principles, critical practice: Reading literature at university. Vienna: University of Vienna Press.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.