Abstract, In this study we examined how good and weak students of literature interact with short literary stories. We focused on differences in the use of cognitive and affective reading activities, and in the extent to which good and weak students adapt their activities to (parts of) the story they are reading.
19 Dutch tenth-grade students from 8 classes participated in the study, of whom 10 were known to be good students of literature and 9 were known as weak literature students. Each student read five literary stories under think aloud conditions. The stories were presented segment by segment on a computer screen. Students’ responses were transcribed, segmented and coded. Analysis of variance was applied to the data to test the differences between good and weak students.
Results show that good students were more evaluative and emotional in their responses to the stories than were their weaker peers. Moreover, they appeared to be more sensitive to differences between stories than were weak students. Implications for further research and for literature teaching are outlined.

L’objectif de cette recherche est d’analyser l’approche de textes littéraires par les lecteurs débutants, forts et faibles en littérature. Nous nous sommes concentrés sur les différences concernant d’une part l’emploi d’activités cognitives et affectives et d’autre part la mesure où les lecteurs forts et faibles adaptent leurs stratégies au texte, intégral ou partiel, qu’ils sont en train de lire.
19 lycéens néerlandais, tirés de 8 classes, ont participé à la recherche; 10 d’entre eux étant reconnus ‘forts’ en littérature et 9 ‘faibles’. Chaque élève a lu 5 textes littéraires en formulant à haute voix ses pensées, les textes littéraires étant présentés en fragments à l’écran d’ordinateur. Les pensées ainsi formulées ont été transcrites, segmentées et codées. Nous avons évalué les différences entre élèves forts et élèves faibles en appliquant la méthode d’analyse statistique.
La recherche a avéré que l’évaluation des textes littéraires faite par les élèves forts a été plus élaborée que celle faites par élèves faibles. Par rapport aux élèves faibles, les élèves forts se sont montrés plus sensibles aux différences entre les textes littéraires. A la fin de l’article nous montrons les conséquences pour des recherches ultérieures et pour l’enseignement littéraire.

Key words: Literature teaching, Literary understanding, Reader response, Reading strategies.

References
Abdolah, K. (1995). En toen waren wij aan de beurt. De meisjes en de partizanen [And then it was our turn. In The girls and the partisans] (pp. 7-11). Breda: De Geus.
Ainley, M., Hillman, K., & Hidi, S. (2002). Gender and interest processes in response to literary texts: Situational and individual interest. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 411-428.
Alexander, P.A. (2000). Toward a model of academic development: Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 3, 28-44.
Andringa, E. (1995a). Ontwikkelingen in het omgaan met literaire complexiteit [Developments in dealing with literary complexity]. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 20(3), 271-284.
Andringa, E. (1995b). Strategieën bij het lezen van literatuur [Literary reading strategies]. Spiegel, 13(3), 7-33.
Andringa, E. (2000). “The Dialogic Imagination”; Literarische Komplexität und Lesekompetenz. In H. Witte, C. Garbe, K. Holle, et al. (Eds.), Deutschunterricht zwischen Kompetenzerwerb und Persönlichkeitsbildung (pp. 85-97).
Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH.
Applebee, A.N. & Purves, A.C. (1992). Literature and the English language arts. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of curriculum research (pp. 726-748). New York: MacMillan.
Braaksma, M.A.H., Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., & van Hout Wolters, B.H.A.M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 1-37.
Breetvelt, I., van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 103-123.
Britton, B.K., & Graesser, A.C. (Eds.). (1996). Models of understanding text. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crain-Thoreson, C., Lippman, M.Z., & McClendon-Magnuson, D. (1997). Windows on comprehension: Reading comprehension processes as revealed by two think-aloud procedures. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 579-591.
de Nooyer, M. (1984). De verjaardagskalender. In R.Anker, F.Pijlman, & J. Verhallen (Eds.), Ooitgedacht; Een groot aantal verhalen verzameld in een boek [The birthday calendar. In Never thought; A large number of stories in one book] (pp. 35-37). Zwolle: CPNB.
Earthman, E.A. (1992). Creating the virtual work: Readers’ processes in understanding literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(4), 351-384.
Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Revised edition). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Janssen, T. (1996). Asking for trouble: Teacher questions and assignments in the literature classroom. SPIEL: Siegener Periodicum zur Internationalen Empirischen Literaturwissenschaft, 15(1), 8-23.
Janssen, T. (1998). Literatuuronderwijs bij benadering. Een empirisch onderzoek naar de vormgeving en opbrengsten van het literatuuronderwijs Nederlands in de bovenbouw van het havo en vwo [Approaches to literature teaching; A study of the form and results of literary education in Dutch secondary schools]. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
Janssen, T. (2002). Instruction in self-questioning as a literary reading strategy: An exploration of empirical research. LI, Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 2(2), 95-120.
Kneepkens, E.W.E.M., & Zwaan, R.A. (1994). Emotions and literary text comprehension. Poetics, 23, 125-138.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I.L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271-299.
Levi, P. (1987). Het interview. Alle verhalen [The interview. In Collected stories] (pp. 677-678). Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.
Nooteboom, C. (1958). Hoela. De verliefde gevangene [Hullay. In The amorous prisoner] (pp. 45-47). Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers.
Peskin, J. (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study. Cognition and Instruction, 16(3), 235-263.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P.P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, M.W. (1991). Constructing meaning from text: An analysis of ninth-grade reader responses. Journal of Educational Research, 84(5), 263-271.
van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Vipond, D., & Hunt, R.A. (1984). Point-driven understanding: Pragmatic and cognitive dimensions of literary reading. Poetics, 13, 261-277.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V.J. Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winterson, J. (1998). The three friends. In The world and other places (pp. 47-51). New York: Vintage International.