CONSTRUCTIVISM IN LITERATURE EDUCATION: INTRODUC-

TION TO THE THEMATIC BINDER

MARCO MAGIRIUS

University of Hamburg, Germany

Abstract
Constructivist learning theories emphasize learning as a process of construction without externally pre-
determined results. Applied to literature education they have potential not only to foster literary learning
but to empower pupils to better understand themselves, their culture and society. Although this thematic
binder is predicated on the notion that teachers play a key role in successful school education, teachers
are of course part of a larger picture. While the introductory article focuses on the discourse of literature
education in Germany, the other texts in this collection give access to experiences about the demands
and limitations of constructivism in other political and cultural environments by comparing curricula, dis-
courses on literature education and teachers’ beliefs and practices in different countries. This is aimed at
avoiding harsh generalizations and premature judgments.

Keywords: literature education, constructivism, practices of teachers, beliefs of teachers

1
Magirius, M. (2018). Constructivism in literature education: Introduction to the thematic
binder. Editorial to Constructivism in Literature Education―A Thematic Binder Focusing
Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 18, 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.05.01
Corresponding author: Marco Magirius, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Education, Von-
Melle-Park 8, 20146, Hamburg. Email: marco.magirius@uni-hamburg.de
© 2018 International Association for Research in L1-Education.
2 M. MAGIRIUS

Constructivism in literature education is based on assumptions from several differ-

ent domains. The wide span of reference includes disciplines such as epistemology,
sociology, the psychology of learning as well as literary theory. The assumptions
made by these different disciplines are often wildly conflated and confused (Diesber-
gen, 2012, Law & Wong, 1995, Lebow, 1993, Reusser, 2006). The main aim of this
introduction is to clarify the central ideas of constructivism in order to relate them
to literature education. Instead of sharing normative statements about aims and
methods of literature education from my point of view, the selected articles of the
thematic binder will provide empirical evidence. Considering that these articles
cover teachers’ beliefs and practices outside Germany, this introduction concludes
by outlining German discourses on literature education.

1. FUNDAMENTAL TENETS OF CONSTRUCTIVISM

The claim of the observer-dependence of all knowledge is almost as old as philoso-

phy. Already Plato interpreted the pre-socratic Protagoras’ “Man is the measure of
all things” as a rejection of objective truth (Russell, 2004, 83). Since Plato, this basic
idea has emerged and resonated through various epistemologies such as Vico’s or
Kant’s. Since around 1990 the abundance of not only relativist but constructivist pub-
lications have risen enormously (Phillips, 1995, 5). What are their common tenets
besides the rejection of absolute truth? While (non-constructivist) cognitivism left
behaviorist theories behind by focusing on internal structures and processes, both
adhere to objectivism, i.e. the assumption of a “unique, independent reality existing
external” to the observer (Law & Wong, 1995, 78). For the behaviorist, the external
data act as stimuli. From the perspective of (non-constructivist) cognitivism, desira-
ble cognition reshapes and models reality as accurately as possible. For constructiv-
ists “external phenomena are meaningless unless they are perceived by the mind”
(Law & Wong, 1995, 80, cf. Schmidt, 1987, 14). Furthermore, cognition does not nec-
essarily represent the world outside the subject (Weinert, 1996, 3). Hence construc-
tivists do not ask what is perceived but how conditions led to the creation of the
observer’s reality. Although the observer is dependent from the outside, he con-
structs his reality autonomously, in the sense that all perception is self-description
of a mind (Schmidt, 1987, 16, Schwahl 2015,11). For this purpose, the “information-
ally closed” “organism” is only able to use “building blocks which it has gleaned
through some process of abstraction from the domain of his own experience” (Gla-
serfeld, 1990, 1). These experiences are shaped and stabilized via socialization
(Schmidt, 1987, 35, Schwahl, 2015, 12).
All of this holds for every construction including constructivism itself. Nobody is
able to tell whether constructivism is true, i.e. it describes ontic reality (Schmidt,
1987, 41, Rusch, 1988, 383). We can only say a construction seems valid to us and
we should do that if any predictions resulting from it prove their value to us (Luh-
mann, 1992, 97). This fundamental conception of knowledge as observer-dependent
 CONSTRUCTIVISM IN LITERATURE EDUCATION 3

results in the constructivists’ interest in the differences within the multitude of idio-
syncratic constructions (Pörksen, 2015, 13).

2. VARIANTS OF CONSTRUCTIVISM

To delineate different variants of constructivism beyond this core notion, Phillips

(1995) suggests a classification along two axes which is quite common for introduc-
tory articles and can also be found in Diesbergen (2012) and Reusser (2006). Such
classifications inevitably entail some simplification. It is worth noting that I am sim-
plifying in order to establish common ground and not to create artificial arguments,
which are legitimately criticized by constructivists (Schmidt, 2015) as well as by their
opponents (Boghossian and Gabriel, 2013).

2.1 ‘knowledge is made’ versus ‘knowledge is discovered’

The first axis is the more crucial one, since it intersects with one of the aforemen-
tioned basic tenets. It is conceived by Phillips (1995) as a continuum between ‘new
knowledge is made’ and ‘new knowledge is discovered’. At one end of the continuum
is a naïve or, less pejoratively, direct realism. According to this conviction, “nature
serves as ‘instructor’ or as a sort of template” that observers “copy or absorb” (ibid.,
7). At the other end of the continuum stand radical constructivism and solipsism.
Radical constructivists like Glaserfeld and Maturana think not only that all knowledge
is “influenced chiefly” by the observers (ibid.) but also that there is no reason to pre-
suppose the existence of entities outside the observer’s perception (Schmidt, 2015,
577). In contrast to some variants of solipsism, radical constructivists do not deny
the existence of an external realm of nature (ibid.). They simply see no reason [and
possibility] to consider it.
Before exploring the impact of such conceptions on educational discourses, at
least one case should be added in the middle of the continuum. Popper’s views of
theories as tentative “creations by the human intellect” which can be falsified by
nature (“man proposes, nature disposes”) involve both poles of the spectrum (Phil-
lips, 1995, 9). Such views can be compared to a mild constructivist position, stressing
the interaction of both internal cognition and external data (Law & Wong, 1995, 80).
Of course, this continuum is only an attempt to conceptualize a very difficult episte-
mological problem and many thinkers are difficult to place securely on this contin-
uum. For example, where to put Locke who thinks that ontic entities are “causally
responsible for producing our knowledge” but, on the other hand, notes that our
mind has the ability to relate perceived ideas (Phillips, 1995)? And where is Des-
cartes, whose ‘cogito ergo sum’ thinks of himself as part of an ontic reality (Gla-
serfeld, 1990, 4)? Obviously, his thoughts are incompatible with radical constructiv-
ism. A radical constructivist version of his ‘cogito ergo sum’ would be “by distinguish-
ing, I create myself as an observer” (ibid.).
4 M. MAGIRIUS

How do such epistemological endeavors actually translate into discourses on ed-

ucation? ‘New knowledge is made’ versus ‘new knowledge is discovered’ corre-
sponds loosely to ‘learning as recording’ versus ‘learning as interpreting’ (Law &
Wong, 1995, 83). Correspondingly, the role of the teacher becomes either ‘pre-
senter’ or ‘facilitator’. In the first case, fixed knowledge is transmitted to the learner
via instruction. Hence, we speak of instructionist (Winkler, 2011) or transmissive ap-
proaches to teaching (Voss et al., 2011, 238). In the second case, as there can be no
direct access to the internal structures of learners (Reusser 2006, 154), learning is
active and thus knowledge must be constructed by the learners themselves (Mai-
wald, 2010, 83). This ideally avoids inert knowledge and happens in immersive learn-
ing settings, where the individuals develop transferable problem-solving skills
(Reusser, 2006, 154). Such positions oppose an alienating, impersonal imposition of
knowledge and harmonizes well not only with the individualism of contemporary
western societies (ibid. 156) but also with recent competence-oriented theories and
policies (Schwahl, 2015. 27, 31).
However, these positions raise questions regarding the importance of domain-
specific (declarative and procedural) knowledge. A moderate epistemological view
like ’knowledge-based constructivism’ (Reinmann & Mandl, 2006, 683) offers an-
swers. According to this view, knowledge is constructed by the individual learner but
he or she can only succeed if sufficient prior knowledge is available. This prior
knowledge can be transmitted via instruction (ibid.). Domain-specific examples for
moderate constructivism will be presented in section 4.
It needs to be stressed that the opposition of educational instructionism versus
educational constructivism does not follow analytically from epistemological con-
structivism. From the epistemological viewpoint all learning involves construct-
ing―even the mere reception of instructions (Diesbergen, 2012). The epistemologi-
cal paradigm is employed to provide a general framework of orientation.

2.2 Individual versus social constructivism

The second axis is closer to education and pedagogy, since the most important rep-
resentatives of both poles are philosophers of education. Piaget tends to be con-
cerned “with how the individual learner” uses his “own cognitive apparatus” (Phil-
lips, 1995, 7). Despite the fact that his description of learning as processes of assim-
ilation, accommodation and equilibration presupposes external resources, he de-
picts the child, according to Phillips (ibid.), as a “lone, inventive scientist”. Vygotsky,
by contrast, is usually related to social constructivism, since he emphasizes construc-
tion via social interactions and negotiations (Diesbergen, 2012, 54, Reusser 2006,
155).
This often seen “polarisation of Piaget and Vygotsky” is not without issues. Piaget
himself pointed out that the individual and the social needs to be valued equally and
Vygotsky thinks of the two in terms of a close, dialectical interaction (Liu and Mat-
thews, 2005, 389, 392). Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, the radical
 CONSTRUCTIVISM IN LITERATURE EDUCATION 5

epistemological constructivists explicitly adopt a dialectical stance to individual and

social constructivism. However, in educational articles the polarization of social and
individual constructivism appears quite frequently. Educationalists affiliated with in-
dividual constructivism like Bruner propose “learner-centered and discovery-ori-
ented learning processes” (ibid., 388). Social constructivism prescribes “context-
bound” learning settings (ibid.), where knowledge and methods of inquiry are nego-
tiated within peers and “collective cultural practices and values” are assimilated by
the individual (ibid., 392).
Although (or due to the fact that) this axis lacks analytical precision, it will be
useful to describe the discourse on literature education.

3. CONSTRUCTIVISM IN LITERARY THEORY

Constructivist literary theories apply epistemological constructivism quite directly to

describe the act of interpreting literature. The interpreter is understood as an infor-
mationally closed observer. When interpreting or even when merely reading
(Scheffer, 1993, 141), he or she autonomously constructs knowledge about the liter-
ary text (and through this process, of the text itself). Constructivists call this
knowledge an interpretation. He or she may share this understanding of a text in an
interpretative community. If the interpreter is successful, the newly constructed
knowledge of readings of the literary text will prove to be ‘viable’ (ibid., 144). But
even in the case of his or her success, no interpreter can claim to have access to a
perfect interpretation. There is no absolute, authoritative interpretation which could
be considered ‘ontic’ but only a social consensus over the range of interpretations
(ibid., 145) established by mutual observation/interpretation of observers/interpret-
ers (Luhmann, 1992, 97).
Constructivist literary theories, therefore, combine individual and social con-
structivism. For example, there is Scheffer (1992), who thinks that a text is only an
impulse for the interpreter to utilize and add to his or her biography (“Lebensro-
man”) when constructing meaning. The literary text itself is ’mute’ (ibid., 39) and has
no meaning (Rusch, 1988, 394), like meaningless nature in epistemological construc-
tivism. Since every meaning is attached to the literary text by the reader, the inquiry
into texts mainly results in propositions about the characteristics of the reader and
not about the text (Scheffer, 1992, 39). Again, epistemological notions are applied
directly to the realm of literary studies, in this case Maturana’s (1980, 39) “the logic
of the description is the logic of the describing (living) system (and his cognitive do-
main)”. Every time we describe something, we describe only ourselves, since the de-
notative function of language can only self-referentially map onto our cognition
(Schmidt, 1987, 31). Literary language, like all language, is therefore not a tool to
transmit information (ibid., 28, Scheffer 1993, 146, Rusch 1988, 392). Language is
merely a reservoir of expressions to construct viable and socially accepted realities
(Maiwald, 2010, 84).
6 M. MAGIRIUS

Such viability is essential for constructivist conceptions of interpreting. Construc-

tivist literary theories do not fall into a subjectivist, ontological solipsism (ibid., 89)
(but into an epistemological one [Schmidt, 1987, 35]). When the interpreter vali-
dates his or her readings within an interpretative community, this process is moder-
ated by semantic and contextual knowledge, which is shared by members of the par-
ticular interpretative community. Additionally, there are rules to prevent community
members from over-interpreting. These rules cannot be found in the text but only in
the discourse rules of the community (Scheffer 1993, 147). Here Scheffer’s concep-
tion resembles older well-known approaches like Fish’s (1980). The interpretative
community and therefore notions of social constructivism play a crucial role for the
process of interpreting.
This is even more true for the position of Schmidt (1991). Instead of considering
interpreting literary texts as a central activity of literary studies, Schmidt demands
to empirically describe actions like literary criticism, production and distribution of
literature. Linked actions form ‘literary processes’, which are all part of the system
of literature (Schmidt, 1987, 66). This system is interwoven with other social systems
of society. Therefore, Schmidt’s ‘Empirical Literature Studies’ utilize methods of the
social sciences (ibid.), not only aiming at description but at optimizing literary pro-
cesses (Rusch, 1988, 391).
Both of them, Scheffer and Schmidt, employ systems theory―like Luhmann’s
(2002)―to generalize concepts of informationally closed psychic systems to infor-
mationally closed (= autopoietic) social systems without necessarily following all of
Luhmann’s abstractions (Maiwald, 2010, 81). In the case of Scheffer’s constructivist
literary theory, these social systems are thought of as consisting of individual sub-
jects and not only as sequences of communicative acts (Luhmann) (ibid., 87) or in-
teractions of symbols (poststructuralists like Derrida) (Scheffer 1993, 152). Another
important distinction has to be made from the other major branch of reader-orien-
tation, namely the reception theory for example of Iser (1994). The significant differ-
ence according to Scheffer (1992) lies in the concept of the reader. The reader of the
reception theory is implicit within the literary text (ibid., 28). For radical constructiv-
ists the situation is inverted. Speaking about reception-theoretical gaps in the text
which the reader has to fill does not make sense from a constructivist standpoint. As
already noted, inside an interpretative community there is no shared text which
serves as an objective and ultimate authority to falsify interpretations (ibid., 39).
Such radical views, corresponding to the ’knowledge is made’ pole of the axis in
2.1., are not compatible with Eco (2008), who takes a more moderate stance. He
applies Popper’s falsification principle on interpreting literature and claims that
there is no way to validate interpretations. It is only possible to falsify them utilizing
the internal consistency of the literary text. Constructivists would accuse Eco of re-
ferring to the literary text as an ontic entity. Another example of the middle camp of
the first axis is Zabka (1999) who explicitly reflects on such accusations and the role
of the shared text within interpretative communities. He claims that all members of
an interpretative community defend their own subjective interpretations and
 CONSTRUCTIVISM IN LITERATURE EDUCATION 7

evaluate other interpretations based on their fit to the shared literary text. He calls
meaning which is attached to this shared text ’objective’. Zabka (ibid., 9) does not
consider objective characteristics of the text as ontic. They are as constructed as sub-
jective meaning. Consistent interpretations which fit a subjective reading of a text
are called ’plausible’ (ibid., 10). If the subjectively constructed interpretations are
additionally compatible with the historical (and also constructed) origin of the text,
the interpretation qualifies as ’appropriate’ (ibid.). Zabka shows that it is possible to
speak about objective characteristics of the literary text without violating the funda-
mental tenets of constructivism.

4. CONSTRUCTIVISM IN GERMAN LITERATURE EDUCATION

Many scholars throughout the history of the German discussions on literature edu-
cation criticized the interpretation of literature in schools which applies fixed cate-
gories to the text and results in a clear solution coinciding with the teacher’s inter-
pretation (Hiecke, 1982 [1842], Havenstein, 1925, Kreft, 1977, Zabka, 2012). There-
fore, and of course due to the intrinsic polyvalence of literature (Scheffer, 1993, 149),
it is not surprising that constructivism fell on fertile ground. The impact of reader-
oriented positions of literary theory on the German discourse on literature education
flourished especially in the nineties when academic pedagogy proposed learner-ori-
ented, hands-on practices (Haas, Menzel & Spinner, 1994) like theatrical plays (Schel-
ler, 2004) or creative/literary writing (Waldmann, 2004, Abraham & Brendel-Per-
pina, 2015). All of these methods enable learners to find their own approaches to
the literary text and to reflect on their appropriateness. Moreover, pupils might even
reach a deeper level of understanding when producing art or stepping into the role
of a literary figure in a play. From a constructivist perspective, these methods might
induce first-hand experiences of observer-dependent interpretations (as well as ex-
amples of constructive perception itself [Schwahl, 2015, 44]), and subsequently re-
flections on the relation of the viability of their interpretations to institutional con-
ventions (Maiwald, 2010, 91). In order to reach such goals, Schwahl (2015, 60) rec-
ommends that the teacher makes explicit that his or her interpretations are only one
possible, fallible reading among others. Creating an environment where teachers
and pupils meet on equal terms to openly exchange readings of literary texts was
prominently put forward by the Heidelberg group and their concept of literary con-
versations, in which the teacher does not necessarily have the final word (Härle &
Steinbrenner, 2014, Härle 2004). Such positions obviously comply with constructivist
notions as presented in sections 3 and 4. In fact constructivist scholars of literary
theory like Schmidt (1988, 69) and Rusch (1988, 388) explicitly urge literature teach-
ers to depart from claiming to have the best interpretation, which would only cut off
literary communication (Maiwald, 2010, 88).
However, the depth and theoretical consistency of the methodological proposals
mentioned above varied quite heavily, especially among constructivist imports from
literary theory (Kämper-van den Boogaart, 2007). Some conflated reception theory
8 M. MAGIRIUS

with constructivism. Furthermore, while newer articles discuss the social and cultural
aspects (Abraham, 2015, 2016) of literature education (and writing as social prac-
tice), in particular older ones one-sidedly excluded social constructivism (Maiwald,
2010, 91).
Additionally, positions which are linked to moderate ’knowledge-based construc-
tivism’ by Steinmetz (2018) note that too much learner-orientation can have coun-
ter-intentional effects. Insisting on autonomous choices regarding the learners’ ap-
proaches to the literary texts might result in arbitrariness of understanding (Köster,
2010), counterproductive reductions of complexity (Winkler, 2010) or overexagger-
ated demands on pupils (Steinmetz, 2013). Therefore, these authors among others
suggest supporting elements in interpretation tasks by providing, for example, infor-
mation on context (Stark, 2016, 2012), interpretation hypotheses or hints about crit-
ical elements of the literary text (Möbius & Steinmetz, 2016).
Empirical studies of German teachers and student teachers showed that most of
the participating L1-teachers (Winkler, 2011), in-service practical student teachers
(Wieser, 2008) as well as L1-teacher-training students at university (Magirius, 2018)
reject instructionist views and ex-cathedra teaching. Recent inquiries of actual class-
room practices apply the concept of cognitive activation to literature education
(Winkler, 2017, Kernen, 2018). Tasks which prompt learners to relate their beliefs,
emotions and knowledge to characteristics of the literary text are considered as po-
tentially activating (Winkler, 2017, 84, Winkler, 2015, Winkler and Steinmetz, 2016).
Suggesting interplay of internal and external resources as desirable classroom activ-
ity is again a moderately constructivist position.

5. OVERVIEW ON THE TEXTS OF THE READER

I will finish by briefly introducing the articles in this collection. The first article lays a
theoretical foundation for the following empirical ones.
1) Witte and Sâmihaian (2013) investigated “paradigmatic tendencies of the
literature teaching curricula between grades 7 and 12 of five countries
(Czech Republic, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Romania) and three
German states (Bavaria, Lower Saxony, Thuringia)”. They familiarize the
reader with paradigms of literature education, concretize them and report
that the investigated curricula mostly correspond to a framework which re-
sulted from the “shared pedagogical content knowledge of teachers and ex-
perts in six countries”. Furthermore, they “draw attention” to the domi-
nance of the ”linguistic paradigm”, which emphasizes discursive analysis of
the formal aspects of the text, where the teacher acts as an “expert” reader.
Constructivist teaching seems to be institutionally hampered and a connec-
tion of the literary text to the perspective of young readers is not necessarily
established.
2) That is unfortunate, since “literary fiction can be a vehicle for gaining insight
into themselves and others” even when pupils are no ’bookworms’ as
 CONSTRUCTIVISM IN LITERATURE EDUCATION 9

Schrijvers, Janssen, Fialho and Rijlaarsdam (2016) premise in their insightful

empirical inquiry. They showed that Dutch pupils reported experiences of
personal and social learning, especially when their teachers’ beliefs indicate
constructivist notions like fostering classroom interaction and supporting
autonomy.
3) Should we conclude from this that constructivist teaching approaches are
superior in principle? Penne and Skarstein (2015) reveal with three qualita-
tive studies that in Scandinavian lower-secondary classrooms liberal, indi-
vidual-oriented cultures can paradoxically lead to more inequality. While
successful learners who know how to act as independent pupils seem to
benefit from autonomy, learners without this precondition seem to fall
even further behind in literary learning.
4) Even though the Israeli curriculum was created in a “constructivist spirit”,
literature teachers are concerned by the vast amount of obligatory literary
texts which are very remote from the learner’s horizon. Despite that con-
cern, Elkad-Lehman and Gilat (2010), conducting a mixed-methods study,
show that Israeli teachers with constructivist beliefs report surprisingly
transmission-based, “conservative teaching behavior”.
5) The thematic binder ends with a work by Doecke, Gill, Ilesca and Ven (2009).
They discuss the lesson plans of an accomplished Australian teacher and her
reflections with a “critical friend”. The teacher succeeds in establishing lit-
erary understanding, interpretative depth and cognitive activation. This
case is special, as she works at an elite private school, where pupils can
choose to study ’literature’ in addition to regular ’English’ classes with a
“stronger emphasis on language for communication purposes”. But her be-
liefs and practices are compatible with a moderate social constructivism.
She broadens the constructivist perspective of this collection by appealing
to theories of literature and literary language inspired by Bakhtin in order
to blur the boundaries between the text and the pupils’ life.

REFERENCES
Abraham, U. (2015). Literarisches Lernen in kulturwissenschaftlicher Sicht [Literary learning as seen from
the viewpoint of cultural studies]. Leseräume, 2(1), 6-15.
Abraham, U. (2016). The difficulty in competence-oriented approaches to teaching reading and writing
of thinking of ‘performance’ in communal terms. Changing English, 23(3), 209-226.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2016.1203619
Abraham, U. & Brendel-Perpina, I. (2015). Literarisches Schreiben im Deutschunterricht. Produktionsori-
entierte Literaturpädagogik in der Aus- und Weiterbildung [Literary writing in German studies. Pro-
ductive literary pedagogy in preservive and inservice teacher training]. Seelze, Germany: Kallmeyer
bei Klett.
Boghossian, P. & Gabriel, M. (2013). Angst vor der Wahrheit: Ein Plädoyer gegen Relativismus und Kon-
struktivismus [Fear of knowledge: against relativism and constructivism (original title)]. Berlin, Ger-
many: Suhrkamp.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
10 M. MAGIRIUS

Diesbergen, C. (2012). Wann ist eine Lernaufgabe konstruktivistisch? Zum Umgang mit den Bezeichnun-
gen ‚konstruktivistisch‘ und ‚Konstruktivismus‘ im lehr-lerntheoretischen Kontext [When can a lear-
ning task be called constructivistic? How the terms „constructivist“ and „constructivism“ are han-
dled in educational research contexts]. In Keller, U. (Ed.), Aufgabenkulturen. Fachliche Lernprozesse
herausfordern, begleiten, reflektieren. Seelze, Germany: Klett bei Kallmeyer.
Doecke, B., Gill, P., Illesca, B., & Ven, P. V. (2009). The literature classroom: Spaces for dialogue. L1-Edu-
cational Studies in Language and Literature, 9(1), 5-33. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-
2009.09.01.03
Eco, U. (2008). Streit der Interpretationen [Dispute between interpretations]. In Kindt, T. & Köppe, T.
(Ed.), Moderne Interpretationstheorien. Ein Reader (pp. 102-129). Göttingen, Germany: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht.
Elkad-Lehman, I., & Gilat, I. (2010). Coming closer to literature: Learning and instruction in a constructiv-
ist spirit. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature,10(3), 1-25.
https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2010.10.03.02
Fish, S. E. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Glaserfeld, E. v. (1990). Distinguishing the observer: An attempt at interpreting Maturana. In V. Riegas &
C. Vetter (Ed.), Zur Biologie der Kognition (pp. 281–295). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
Haas, G., Menzel, W., & Spinner, K. (1994). Handlungs- und produktions-orientierter Literaturunterricht
[Hands-on methods in literature classes]. Praxis Deutsch, 21 (123), 17–25.
Härle, G. & Steinbrenner M. (Eds.) (2014). Kein endgültiges Wort. Die Wiederentdeckung des Gesprächs
im Literaturunterricht. [No final word. The rediscovery of literary conversations in literature classes]
Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider.
Härle, G. (2004). Literarische Gespräche im Unterricht. Versuch einer Positionsbestimmung. [Literary
conversation in literature classes. An attempt of establishing a position]. In G. Härle & B. Rank
(Eds.), Wege zum Lesen und zur Literatur (pp. 137-168). Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider.
Havenstein, M. (1925). Die Dichtung in der Schule [Poetry in school]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Dies-
terweg.
Hiecke, R. (1982[1842]). Der deutsche Unterricht auf deutschen Gymnasien [German classes at German
gymnasiums]. Leipzig, Germany: Verlag von E. Eisenach
Iser, W. (1994). Der implizite Leser: Kommunikationsformen des Romans von Bunyan bis Beckett [The
implied reader: patterns of communication in prose fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (original title)].
Paderborn, Germany: W. Fink.
Kernen, N. (2018). Cognitive activation in the literature classroom―project part within TAMoLi. Poster
at SIG ROLE 2018 Research Seminar Interaction in the Literature Classroom.
Kämper-van den Boogaart, M. (2007). Draußen und drinnen. Zur Rezeption neuer Literaturtheorien in
Didaktik und Schule [Inside and outside. About the reception of literary theory in pedagogy and
school]. In G. Czech (Ed.), ’Geteilter’ deutscher Himmel? Zum Literaturunterricht in Deutschland in
Ost und West von 1945 bis zur Gegenwart (299-314). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Köster, J. (2010): Literatur und Leben―aus der Perspektive des schulischen Gebrauchs von Literatur [Li-
terature and life―from the perspective of schoolish approaches to literature] . In A. Löck & J. Urbich
(Eds.), Der Begriff der Literatur. Transdisziplinäre Perspektiven (pp. 327-343). Berlin, Germany: de
Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110225488.327
Kreft, J. (1977). Grundprobleme der Literaturdidaktik: Eine Fachdidaktik im Konzept sozialer und individu-
eller Entwicklung und Geschichte [Fundamental issues of literature education with concepts of
social and individual development and history]. Heidelberg, Germany: Quelle und Meyer.
Law, L. C. & Wong, K. M. (1995). Implications and problems of constructivism for instructional design.
Chinese University Education Journal, 23(2), 73-104.
Lebow, D. (2015). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new
mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3),4-16.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02297354
Liu, C. H. & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examine. Inter-
national Education Journal, 6(3), 386-399
 CONSTRUCTIVISM IN LITERATURE EDUCATION 11

Luhmann, N. (1992). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft [The science of society]. Frankfurt am Main, Ger-
many: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, N. (2002). Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie [Social systems. Oulining a
general theory]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
Magirius, M. (2018). Überzeugungen Deutschstudierender zu akademischem und schulischem Interpre-
tieren [Beliefs of German L1-teacher training students on interpreting literature]. In D. Wieser & H.
Feilke (Eds.), Kulturen des Deutschunterrichts―Kulturelles Lernen im Deutschunterricht (pp. 269–
289). Stuttgart, Germany: Fillibach bei Klett.
Maiwald, K. (2010). Was leistet(e) der Konstruktivismus für eine theoretische Verortung der Literaturdi-
daktik? [What does constructivism contribute to theoretical assessments of literature education?]
In M. Baum & M. Bönnighausen (Eds.), Kulturtheoretische Kontexte für die Literaturdidaktik (pp. 79-
96). Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schneider.
Maturana, H. R. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordecht, The Nether-
lands: D. Reidel Publishing.
Möbius, T. & Steinmetz, M. (2016). Literarisches Verstehen unterstützen. Wege zum literarischen Lese-
modus [Supporting literary understanding. Ways towards literary reading]. Fördermagazin
Sekundarstufe Deutsch, 38(4), 5-9.
Penne, S., & Skarstein, D. (2015). The L1 subject in a world of increasing individualism. Democratic para-
doxes in Norwegian L1 classrooms. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 15, 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.17239/l1esll-2015.15.01.04
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Re-
searcher, 24(7), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177059
Pörksen, B. (2015). Schlüsselwerke des Konstruktivismus. Eine Einführung [Key works of constructivism.
An introduction]. In B. Pörksen (Ed.), Schlüsselwerke des Konstruktivismus (pp. 3-18). Wiesbaden,
Germany: Springer Fachmedien.
Reinmann, G. & Mandl, H. (2006). Unterrichten und Lernumgebungen gestalten [Teaching and creating
learning environments]. In A. Krapp & B. Weidenmann (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie. Ein Lehr-
buch (pp. 611–658). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
Reusser, K. (2006). Konstruktivismus―vom epistemologischen Leitbegriff zur Erneuerung der didakti-
schen Kultur [Constructivism―from an epistemologically central concept to a culture of pedagogy].
In M. Baer, M. Fuchs, P. Füglister, K. Reusser, & H. Wyss (Eds.), Didaktik auf psychologischer Grund-
lage: Von Hans Aeblis kognitionspsychologischer Didaktik zur modernen Lehr- und Lernforschung
(pp. 151-168). Bern, Switzerland: h.e.p.
Rusch, G. (1988). Autopoiesis, Literatur, Wissenschaft. Was die Kognitionstheorie für die Literaturwis-
senschaft besagt [Autopoiesis, literature and science. What cognition theory tells us about literature
studies]. In S. J. Schmidt (Ed.), Der Diskurs des radikalen Konstruktivismus (pp. 374-400), Frankfurt
am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
Russell, B. (2004). History of Western philosophy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Scheffer, B. (1992). Interpretation und Lebensroman. Zu einer konstruktivistischen Literaturtheorie [In-
terpretation and “life novels”. Towards a constructivist literarary theory]. Frankfurt am Main, Ger-
many: Suhrkamp.
Scheffer, B. (1993). Interpretation und Blamage. ‚Vor dem Gesetz‘―Präampeln aus konstruktivistischer
Sicht [interpretation and disgrace. ‚Vor dem Gesetz‘―preambles from a constructivist perspective .
In K.M. Bogdal (Ed.), Neue Literaturtheorien in der Praxis (pp. 140-157). Opladen, Germany: West-
deutscher Verlag.
Scheller, I. (2004). Szenische Interpretation: Theorie und Praxis eines handlungs- und erfahrungsbezoge-
nen Literaturunterrichts in Sekundarstufe I und II [Theatrical role plays: theorie and practice of hand-
on and experiential methods for literature classes in secondary education]. Seelze, Germany: Kall-
meyer.
Schmidt, S. J. (1987). Der Radikale Konstruktivismus: Ein neues Paradigma im interdisziplinären Diskurs
[Radical constructivism: a new paradigm in interdisciplinary discourse]. In S.J. Schmidt (Ed.), Der Dis-
kurs des radikalen Konstruktivismus (pp. 11-89), Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
12 M. MAGIRIUS

Schmidt, S. J. (1991). Grundriß der empirischen Literaturwissenschaft: Der gesellschaftliche Handlungsbe-

reich Literatur [Outlining empirical literature studies: the social field of literature]. Frankfurt am
Main, Germany: Suhrkamp
Schmidt, S. J. (2015): Ein Diskurs, keine Lehre. Zur Ideengeschichte des Konstruktivismus―ein Nachwort
in programmatischer Absicht [A discourse and not a doctrine. About the history of constructivist no-
tions―a programmatic epilogue]. In B. Pörksen (Ed.), Schlüsselwerke es Konstruktivismus (pp. 573-
579). Wiesbaden, Germany: Spinger Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19975-7_33
Schrijvers, M., Janssen, T., Fialho, O., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2016). The impact of literature education on stu-
dents’ perceptions of self and others: Exploring personal and social learning experiences in relation
to teacher approach. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature,16-17, 1-37.
https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2016.16.04.01
Schwahl, M. (2015). Konstruktivismus im Literaturunterricht: Grundlagen und Unterrichtsbeispiele für die
Sekundarstufen I und II [Constructivism in literature classes: fundamentals and examples for se-
condary education]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-
05286-2
Stark, T. (2012). Frühling 1946. Gedichtinterpretation mit dem Schwerpunkt einer komplexen Kontextu-
alisierung [Spring 1946. Interpretation of a poem focusing a complex contextualization]. Praxis
Deutsch, 39(234), 98-106.
Stark, T. (2016). Zur Verwendung von Kontextwissen beim Interpretieren [The usage of contextual
knowledge for interpreting]. In T. Möbius & M. Steinmetz (Eds.), Wissen und literarisches Lernen.
Grundlegende theoretische und didaktische Aspekte (pp. 87-94). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter
Lang.
Steinmetz, M. (2013). Der überforderte Abiturient im Fach Deutsch: Eine qualitativ-empirische Studie zur
Realisierbarkeit von Bildungsstandards [Overstrained candidates for Abitur. A qualitative study on
the realizability of educational standards]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00425-5
Steinmetz, M. (2018). Verstehenssupport im Literaturunterricht. Theoretische und empirische Fundie-
rung einer literaturdidaktischen Aufgabenorientierung. [Supporting understanding in literature clas-
ses. A theoretical and empirical foundation of task orientation in literature education]. Habilitation
thesis. Submitted to the Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen.
Voss, T., Kleickmann, T., Kunter, M., & Hachfeld, A. (2011). Überzeugungen von Mathematiklehrkräften
[Beliefs of mathematics teachers]. In J. Baumert, M. Kunter., W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M.
Neubrand (Eds.), Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Ergebnisse des Forschungsprogramms
COACTIV (pp. 235-258). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Waldmann, G. (2004). Produktiver Umgang mit Literatur im Unterricht: Grundriss einer produktiven Her-
meneutik; Theorie, Didaktik, Verfahren, Modelle [Productive approaches in literature classes. Outlin-
ing productive hermeneutics: theory, didactics, methods, models]. Baltmannsweiler, Germany:
Schneider.
Weinert, F. E. (1996). Für und wider die ’neuen Lerntheorien’ als Grundlagen pädagogisch-psychologi-
scher Forschung [For and against new learning theories as fundamentals for research in psychology
and pedagogy]. Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie, 10(1), 1-12.
Wieser, D. (2008). Literaturunterricht aus Sicht der Lehrenden. Eine qualitative Interviewstudie [Litera-
ture classes from the viewpoint of teachers. A qualitative interview study]. Wiesbaden, Germany:
VS Research.
Winkler, I. (2010). Lernaufgaben im Literaturunterricht [Learning tasks in literature classes]. In W.
Meints, S. Peters, S. Schlump, S. Schmit, & H. Kiper (Eds.), Lernaufgaben und Lernmaterialien im
kompetenzorientierten Unterricht (pp. 103-113). Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.
Winkler, I. (2011). Aufgabenpräferenzen für den Literaturunterricht―Eine Erhebung unter Deutschlehr-
kräften [Task preferences for literature classes―A study on German L1-teachers]. Berlin, Germany:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92698-8
Winkler, I. (2015). ‚Subjektive Involviertheit und genaue Wahrnehmung miteinander ins Spiel bringen‘.
Überlegungen zur Spezifikation eines zentralen Konzepts für den Literaturunterricht [Relating the
pupils‘ beliefs, emotions and knowledge to observing characteristics of the literary text. Reflections
on the specification of a central concept of literature education]. Leseräume, 2(1), 155–168.
 CONSTRUCTIVISM IN LITERATURE EDUCATION 13

Winkler, I. (2017). Potenzial zu kognitiver Aktivierung im Literaturunterricht. Fachspezifische Profilierung

eines prominenten Konstrukts der Unterrichtsforschung [Potential of cognitive activation in litera-
ture classes. A domain-specific specification]. Didaktik Deutsch, 22(43), 78-97.
Winkler, I. & Steinmetz, M. (2016). Zum Spannungsverhältnis von deutschdidaktischen Fragestellungen
und empirischen Erkenntnismöglichkeiten am Beispiel des Projekts KoALa [The tension between do-
main-specific, educational research questions and empirical methods exemplified with the project
KoALa]. In M. Krelle & W. Senn (Eds.), Qualitäten von Deutschunterricht (pp. 37-56). Stuttgart, Ger-
many: Fillibach bei Klett.
Witte, T., & Sâmihăian, S. (2013). Is Europe open to a student-oriented framework for literature? A com-
parative analysis of the formal literature curriculum in six European countries. L1-Educational Stud-
ies in Language and Literature,13, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2013.01.02
Zabka, T. (1999). Subjektive und objektive Bedeutung. Vorschläge zur Vermeidung eines konstruktivisti-
schen Irrtums in der Literaturdidaktik [Subjective and objective meaning. Proposals for avoiding a
constructivist fallacy in literature education] Didaktik Deutsch 4(7), 4-23.
Zabka, T. (2012). Analyserituale und Lehrerüberzeugungen. Theoretische Untersuchung vermuteter Zu-
sammenhänge [Rituals and beliefs of teachers: theoretical inquriy of suspected interrelationships]. In
I. Pieper & D. Wieser (Eds.), Fachliches Wissen und literarisches Verstehen. Studien zu einer brisanten
Relation (pp. 35-52), Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.