CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Linguistics and Education ResearchEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEducational Philosophies and Pedagogies

Instructive Dialogues on Literary Texts: A Framework for Dialogic Teaching promoting High-level Comprehension in the Literature Classroom

Open access
Magirius, Marco, Steinmetz, Michael, Scherf, Daniel·2023·L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature
DOI 10.21248/l1esll.2023.23.2.584
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In our conceptual paper, we propose the framework Instructive Dialogues on Literary Texts. We describe how teachers can identify questions about the literary text which are worthy of clarification and central in such dialogues. The worthiness of questions depends on three criteria: A question worthy of clarification has to be testable based on the literary text and either disputable—i.e., it elicits multiple answers—or urgent—i.e., there is a students’ urge to clarify—or both. We are going to derive these concepts from the characteristics of literary texts, particularly from their ambiguity and polyvalence, and relate our framework to existing concepts of educational dialogue in literature classes. Moreover, we systematize teacher moves by applying notions of task research to whole-class dialogues. With these verbal moves, teachers can help their students to (collaboratively) interpret literary texts. Setting out our framework, we contribute to domain-specific concretizations of instructional quality and scaffolding. Furthermore, we propose a domain-specific definition of high-level comprehension.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21248/l1esll.2023.23.2.584

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Despite the IRE/IRF format being efficient for students to learn factual knowledge and basic skills, it restricts students' opportunities to engage in elaborating, adding complexity, and going beyond the given.

    “Despite the IRE/IRF format of discussion being efficient for students to learn factual knowledge and basic skills (Cheng et al. 2015), it restricts students' opportunities to get involved in processes of 'elaborating, adding complexity, and going beyond the given' (Magirius, Steinmetz, and Scherf 2023, 2).”

    From The Impact of a Dialogic Intervention on a Chinese Rural Teacher and Students' Stances Towards Texts (2025) · cites this paper as Magirius, Steinmetz, and Scherf 2023

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Birkmeyer, J. (2010). Kritische Literaturdidaktik heute. Kontexte einer zu aktualisierenden Theorie [Critical literature education Today. Contexts of a theory in need of updating]. In Baum, M., & Bönnighausen, M. (Eds.), Kulturtheoretische Kontexte für die Literaturdidaktik (pp. 63-78). Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Hohengehren.
  2. Danneberg, L. (1990). Interpretation: Kontextbildung und Kontextverwendung [Interpretation: Establishing and using contexts]. SPIEL 9(1), 90-130.
  3. Eco, U. (2008). Streit der Interpretationen [Dispute between interpretations]. In Kindt, T. & Köppe, T. (Eds.), Moderne Interpretationstheorien. Ein Reader (pp. 102-129). Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  4. Harwart, M., Sander, J., & Scherf, D. (2020). Adaptives Lehrerhandeln. Zu Modellierung, Nachweis und Wirkung eines potenziellen Qualitätsaspekts gesprächsförmigen Literaturunterrichts [Adaptive teacher moves. Conceptualizing, evidence and effect of a potential quality aspect of conversations in the literature classroom]. In: Heizmann, F., Mayer, J., & Steinbrenner, M. (Eds.), Das Literarische Unterrichtsgespräch. Didaktische Reflexionen und empirische Rekonstruktionen (pp. 255-276).
  5. Harwart, M., & Scherf, D. (2018). "Vielleicht muss man aber auch so damit leben können und es aushalten." Zur Bedeutung des Lehrerhandelns in schulischen ästhetischen Rezeptionsprozessen ["Maybe one just has to able to endure that". The role of teacher moves in aesthetic reception in school] In: Scherf, D., & Bertschi-Kaufmann, A. (Eds.), Ästhetische Rezeptionsprozesse aus didaktischer Perspektive (pp. 149-163). Weinheim, Germany: Juventa.
  6. Härle, G., & Steinbrenner, M. (Eds.) (2004). Kein endgültiges Wort. Die Wiederentdeckung des Gesprächs im Literaturunterricht [No final word. The rediscovery of conversations in literature classes]. Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider Hohengehren.
  7. Heins, J. (2017): Lenkungsgrade im Literaturunterricht. Zum Einfluss stark und gering lenkender Aufgabensets auf das Textverstehen [Levels of guidance in literature education. The influence of highly and minimally guiding sets of tasks on text comprehension]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer
  8. Jannidis, F., Lauer, G., Martínez, M., & Winko, S. (Eds.), Regeln der Bedeutung. Zur Theorie der Bedeutung literarischer Texte (pp. 305-328). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
  9. Klausnitzer, R. (2015). Wie lernt man, was geht? Konstitutive und regulative Regeln in Interpretationsge- meinschaften [How to learn what is allowed? Constitutive and regulative rules in interpretive communities]. In Lessing-Sattari, M., Löhden, M., Meissner, A., & Wieser, D. (Eds.), Interpretationskulturen. Literaturdidaktik und Literaturwissenschaft im Dialog über Theorie und Praxis des Interpretierens (pp. 151-181). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Lang.
  10. McGinley, W., Kamberelis, G., Welker, E., Kelly, M., & Swafford, J. (2017). Roles of affect and imagination in reading and responding to literature: Perspectives and possibilities. Journal of Curriculum Theoriz- ing, 32(1), 67-85.
  11. Kim, M.-Y., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and re- constructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 70-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003. · DOI
  12. Magirius, M., Scherf, D., & Steinmetz, M. (2021). Lernunterstützung im Literaturgespräch. Modellierung qualitätsvollen Gesprächshandelns von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern [Support in conversations about literature. Conceptualizing of high-quality teacher moves]. Leseräume, 7(8), 1-21.
  13. Matuschek, S. (2013). Was heißt: "Literatur lesen lernen"? [What does: "Learning to read literature" mean?]. In Feilke, H., Köster, J., & Steinmetz, M. (Eds.), Textkompetenzen in der Sekundarstufe II (pp. 63-73). Stuttgart, Germany: Fillibach bei Klett.
  14. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
  15. Nystrand, M. (1997). Dialogic Instruction: When Recitation Becomes Conversation. In: Gamoran, A., Ka- chur, R., & Prendergast, C. (Eds.): Opening Dialogue. Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning (pp. 1-29). New York: Teachers College Press.
  16. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1997). The Big Picture: Language and Learning in Hundreds of English Les- son. In: Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (Eds.): Opening Dialogue. Understanding the Dy- namics of Language and Learning (pp. 30-74). New York: Teachers College Press.
  17. Steinmetz, M. (2019). Verstehensunterstützende Aufgaben im Literaturunterricht [Supportive tasks in the literature classroom]. In: Bräuer, C., & Kernen, N. (Eds.), Aufgaben-und Lernkultur im Deutschunterricht (pp. 83-106). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
  18. Steinmetz, M. (2020). Verstehenssupport im Literaturunterricht [Supporting comprehension in the literature classroom]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
  19. Zabka, T. (2006). Typische Operationen literarischen Verstehens. Zu Martin Luthers ‚Vom Raben und Fuchs' (5./6. Schuljahr) [Typical operations when understanding literare texts. About Martin Luther's "Vom Raben und Fuchs" (classes 5/6)]. In Kammler, C. (Ed.), Standards im Literaturunterricht (pp. 80- 101). Seelze, Germany: Kallmeyer.
  20. Zabka, T. (2012). Analyserituale und Lehrerüberzeugungen. Theoretische Untersuchung vermuteter Zusammenhänge [Rituals of analyses and beliefs of teachers. Theoretical explorations of assumed interrelationships]. In Pieper, I., & Wieser, D. (Eds.), Fachliches Wissen und literarisches Verstehen. Studien zu einer brisanten Relation (pp. 35-52). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
  21. Zabka, T. (2015). Konversation oder Interpretation? Überlegungen zum Gespräch im Literaturunterricht [Conversation or interpretation? Reflections on conversations in literature classes]. Leseräume, 2(1), 169-187.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Magirius, M., Steinmetz, M., & Scherf, D.
Affiliations
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • University of Education Weingarten (DE)
ORCID
Steinmetz, Michael
Venue
L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature
Publisher
University Library J. C. Senckenberg
Published
2023-12-29
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
1-27
ISSN
  • 1567-6617 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1731
DOI
10.21248/l1esll.2023.23.2.584
OpenAlex
W4390400946
Cited by
5
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
FWCI
13.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Publication Server of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (Goethe University Frankfurt) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Linguistics and Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Philosophies and Pedagogies
Keywords
literary interpretation, teacher questioning, teacher moves, scaffolding, teaching quality, literature teaching

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