Literature education as a school for thinking Students’ learning experiences in secondary literature education

Critical thinking and cognitive well-being are commonly associated to tendencies that do not come natu-rally to humans: inhibition of automatized cognitive processing (de-automatization) and thoughtful (re)construction of meaning. A previous study showed that students’ growth in literary interpretation skills can be partly explained by skills and dispositions related to de-automatization and (re)construction. The present study aims to identify students’ learning experiences of de-automatization and (re)construc-tion during lessons in literary fiction. We selected 21 students (grade 10-12, mean age 17,2) of whom 15 students had shown growth in literary understanding (Growth group) and 6 had not (No-growth group). We conducted stimulated recall interviews focused on learning experiences during four months of a spe-cific literature course, using students’ literature portfolio as stimulus. All interviews were fully transcribed. First, segments containing learning experiences with de-automatization and/or (re)construction were se-lected. To chart the nature of de-automatization and (re)construction experiences each segment was then coded bottom-up, iteratively and axially. Findings indicate three types of de-automatization (questioning, interpretation awareness and delay), and three types of (re)construction (reasoning, considering alterna-tives and concluding), with participants in the No-growth group recalling significantly less experiences of questioning, delay and reasoning than students in the Growth-group. Thus, the specific literature educa-tion under study potentially offered students experiences that might stimulate their tendency to engage in de-automatized (re)construction of meaning.