Moving Beyond Interpretive Monism: A Disciplinary Heuristic to Bridge Literary Theory and Literacy Theory
Abstract
In this essay, authors Todd Reynolds, Leslie S. Rush, Jodi P. Lampi, and Jodi Patrick Holschuh provide a disciplinary heuristic that bridges literary and literacy theories. The secondary English language arts (ELA) classroom is situated at the intersection between literary theory and literacy theory, where too often literary theory does not include pedagogical practices and literacy theory does not take disciplinary differences into account. Reynolds and coauthors propose an English Language Arts heuristic for disciplinary literacy to guide teachers toward embracing student-led interpretations. They explore the connections among the Common Core State Standards, New Criticism, and the ELA classroom and focus on the prevalence of interpretive monism, which is the belief that only one interpretation is appropriate for students when reading a literary text. The essay explicates a heuristic for ELA literacy that centers on students actively creating interpretations of and transforming literary texts. By embracing this heuristic, the authors assert, teachers can focus on student-led interpretations of literary texts and thus empower their students.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Students' efferent stance can enable them to adopt particular, specified interpretations of literary texts.
“and to adopt particular, specified interpretations of literary texts (Reynolds et al. 2021)”
From The Impact of a Dialogic Intervention on a Chinese Rural Teacher and Students' Stances Towards Texts (2025) · cites this paper as Reynolds et al. 2021
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Impact of a Dialogic Intervention on a Chinese Rural Teacher and Students' Stances Towards Texts
Zhong, Y., Davies, M., & Wilson, A. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.12816 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- REYNOLDS, T., RUSH, L. S., LAMPI, J. P., & HOLSCHUH, J. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Wyoming (US)
- Northern Illinois University (US)
- Texas State University (US)
- Venue
- Harvard Educational Review
- Publisher
- Harvard Education Publishing Group
- Published
- 2021
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 382-401
- ISSN
- 0017-8055 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-5045
- OpenAlex
- W3201387366
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 19.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Harvard Educational Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literacy, Media, and Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Linguistics and Education Research
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Philosophies and Pedagogies
- Keywords
- literary theory, literacy theory, English language arts, disciplinary literacy, high school English teaching, Common Core State Standards, New Criticism, literary interpretation, student empowerment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review