In this first chapter, I have introduced the frames and central outsets of the study, and the challenges this may imply for literature education. I have presented two central outsets of the study, positioned it in the research area of literature education by presenting some gaps in and requirements in the field, and reviewed previous research on students’ transmediation of literature, particularly digital video designing in response to literature. Thus, I have presented the rationale for this study. Following this, I have presented the purpose and research questions and provided initial positioning both theoretically and methodologically.
Chapter 2 is the first of two establishing the theoretical framework for the study. In this chapter, I theoretically position the study within a performative approach to reading and teaching literature. This includes defining terms such as text and reader, definitions and positioning regarding literary interpretation, and reviewing the scholarly debate on why literature should be read and taught, and what this debate has brought forth regarding literature education in a Nordic context. In this chapter I also present and discuss the concept of transmediation and how it offers an opportunity to examine how the students explore and negotiate the literary text throughout the whole process from poem to final digital video.
Chapter 3 serves as the second chapter establishing the theoretical framework. Here I present and discuss social semiotic theory of multimodality and how it is adopted theoretically in this study, including a discussion on multimodal designing as a meaning-making process and the kineikonic mode as a “grammar” for the
moving image. The chapter also introduces the metafunctions of text and strata of text production, which are further elaborated in the analytical framework presented in Chapter 4.
In Chapter 4 I position the study ontologically and epistemologically and discuss considerations regarding methodology and research design. Much consideration is given to the processing of data and proceedings in analysis to illuminate the process step by step and show how several rounds of analysis have been conducted. In this chapter I also discuss the trustworthiness and ethical considerations of the study in order to describe the research process as transparently as possible.
Chapter 5 presents the findings of the analyses of the students’
videomaking process and the digital video. In Chapter 6 the analyses are discussed in relation the theoretical framework and previous research; the chapter also provides a critical evalutation of the methods used. Finally, in Chapter 7 I present conclusions, discuss insights and interpretations, and consider the contributions and possible implications of the study.
2 LITERATURE READING AND TEACHING:
THEORETICAL POSITIONING
This chapter is the first of two establishing the theoretical framework of the study. It deals with theoretical views on reading and teaching of literature. Initially, I begin by introducing a performative approach to literature reading (2.1.) and in line with this approach define the terms text and reader (2.2), which are central for any study on the reading and teaching of literature. Following these definitions, I theoretically position literary interpretation (2.3), and review the scholarly debate on the rationales for reading and teaching literature in school on literature education in a Nordic context (2.4). This review also serves as a contextual positioning within a Nordic context. Finally, I discuss the concept of transmediation (2.5) and how it offers an opportunity to examine how the literary text is explored and negotiated throughout the process of digital video designing in response to literature – a transmediation process.
2.1 A performative approach
The term performativity is used and developed in several research disciplines and is anchored in theories developed by John L. Austins, Michel Foucault and Judith Butler (Hermansson & Rudeke, 2007; see also Hall, 2000). Characteristic of performativity is the emphasis on active, ongoing processes; focus is not on fixed, final results but on
social practices that actively create gender, sexuality, culture, ethnicity, and other social categories (Rørbech & Hetmar, 2012;
Rosenberg, 2005). Performativity in this study is not grounded in theories such as Austin’s theory of speech acts and performative utterances or Butler’s theories developed in relation to gender constructions as an act or performance (see Hall, 2000). Instead, the study adopts the notion of performativity in relation to literature reading and teaching – and thus literature education. According to such a performative approach, meanings, interpretations, texts, identities, and cultures are continuously constructed and transformed in social groups and communities; it is something one does or negotiates, not something that is. This is further defined throughout this chapter.
Considering readings and meanings of texts as part of cultural and social interaction enables the possibility of multiple meanings and multiple constructions of the text. A performative approach to literature education is acknowledged from different perspectives (see e.g. Meyer & Rørbech, 2008; Rørbech, 2013; 2016; Rørbech &
Hetmar, 2012). Rørbech and Hetmar (2012) discuss, with reference to classrooms examples, how meaning, culture, and identity are constructed in the interactions during literature lessons. By studying how the students position themselves – and are offered to be positioned – they discuss examples of how culture and identity are constructed, negotiated, and explored. During a discussion about gender, war, and sex related to a literary text, the teacher asks the students in the classroom: “Are there any Muslim girls here?” There is no reaction from the students. Rørbech and Hetmar stress that this does not necessarily mean that there are no Muslim girls in the classroom, but viewed from a performative approach, no student in this particular situation wishes to position herself within the category
“Muslim girl”.
Such a view of constructing and negotiating culture, identity, and meaning is a central shift in perception and understanding within contemporary ideas of literature education. From a performative approach, culture or meaning is not inherent in the text or as a part of the readers’ ethical, social, or cultural background, and the reading
is not a result of the readers’ cultural or social background or heritage (Rørbech & Hetmar, 2012). Instead, “cultural heritage” or “social heritage” is seen as a potential for cultural and social remaking: texts offer voices, perspectives, and meanings to create and negotiate new meanings (see also Smidt, 2011). This study approaches the students’
negotiations of how to represent their interpretation of a poem as crucial part to their attempt to make meaning with it. In line with this approach, interpretation is seen as a meaning-making process that is highly dependent on the circumstances, people, and semiotic resources available at that particular moment; interpretation of the poetic text is performed and negotiated.