Interpretive Responses in Reading History and Biology: An Exploratory Study

EXPLORES GROUP AND individual interpretive processes of 12 highly verbal sixth-grade pupils in reading two equated passages from history and biology. Two intensive recorded interview sessions were conducted individually with each subject. In each session, the subject provided his retrospective interpretive verbalizations to one of the passages. Verbalizations contained free responses which were given by the readers during or after reading the passage and controlled responses which were stimulated by specific questions on the passage. Historical and biological questions were also equated in type and difficulty and covered three levels and eight behavioral aspects of interpretation. Subjects' free responses were categorized according to a devised framework and compared qualitatively and quantitatively by using the Wilcoxson Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks test. Controlled responses were scored and compared as classified by levels and behavioral aspects of interpretation. Specialized vocabularies in social studies and science and attitudes toward the two disciplines were related to the subjects' interpretive responses by means of multiple and partial coefficients of correlation. The data revealed that, in interpreting historical and biological materials, readers use several identifiable processes: They reproduce; inquire; judge rationally; react emotionally; appreciate; associate; and illuminate by comparing, justifying, following sequence, expanding, summarizing, and generalizing. In reading history, they generate more emotive reactions, elicit more rational evaluations, and recap what is read in brief resumes; in reading biology, they draw more scientific associations and make illuminations through more expansions, illustrations, and reconstructions of sensory images. While they are more careful in grasping the literal meaning of biological materials, readers tend to draw more inferences and implications from historical materials. Specialized vocabulary tends to have negative relationship with inquiry responses, but positive relationship with association responses. In contrast, attitude toward the subject matter has