“Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

“Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson first appeared in the Journal of Reading, Vol. 17, No. 2, in November 1973, published by Wiley on behalf of the International Reading Association. In this seminal article, Thompson argues for the importance of explicit instruction in literary devices—such as plot, character, theme, figurative language, and tone—as essential tools for enhancing students’ interpretive skills in literature. His study, conducted with ninth-grade students, compared traditional theme-based discussions to an experimental method incorporating targeted explanations and practice exercises on literary devices. Thompson’s findings suggest that while instructional methods alone may not significantly impact interpretive abilities, a skilled teacher can make a marked difference in student outcomes. This work emphasizes the potential of structured literary device instruction to deepen students’ engagement with texts, advocating for a balanced approach that combines thematic discussion with analytical skills in literary education.

Summary of “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

• Purpose of the Study: Richard F. Thompson’s article explores the hypothesis that teaching literary devices directly enhances students’ ability to interpret literature. This stems from prior research indicating that authors often embed specific literary devices, expecting readers to understand them for full comprehension (Thompson, 1973, p. 113).
• Methodology of Instructional Comparison: The study compared two instructional approaches: a traditional, theme-centered method and an experimental approach that incorporated explicit teaching of literary devices like plot, character, theme, figurative language, and tone. Thompson selected these devices based on their fundamental role in understanding fiction, as emphasized by literary critics and educators such as Brooks and Warren (1947) and Danziger and Johnson (1961) (Thompson, 1973, p. 114).
• Sample and Testing: The experiment involved ninth-grade students from varying achievement levels. Their interpretive skills were evaluated using the Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED), chosen for its reliability and established use in literature comprehension studies (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
• Instructional Treatments and Exercises: For experimental instruction, Thompson implemented discussions, written exercises, and detailed explanations on interpreting specific devices. This method encouraged students to delve into plot events, character motivations, underlying figurative meanings, and overall tone (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
• Analysis and Findings: Using an ANOVA analysis, Thompson discovered no statistically significant difference in interpretive skills between students who received experimental instruction and those in the control group. Rather, the effectiveness was notably linked to the teacher’s instructional quality, suggesting that skilled teaching, rather than method, may be more critical for literature interpretation improvement (Thompson, 1973, p. 116).
• Implications and Conclusions: Thompson’s study indicates that while literary devices are essential for deeper understanding, the role of a highly skilled teacher can substantially influence student outcomes. This challenges the notion that instructional methods alone can markedly enhance literary interpretation skills, underscoring the importance of teaching quality in literature education (Thompson, 1973, p. 117).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

Literary Term/Concept	Definition	Role in Thompson’s Study
Plot	The sequence of events in a story that form the main structure.	Analyzed as a fundamental device for understanding narratives; students practiced identifying main events to interpret literature better (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Character	The individuals in a narrative, whose traits, motivations, and development contribute to the story.	Studied as a key device; students examined character traits and motivations to enhance comprehension of literary themes (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Theme	The underlying message or central idea conveyed by the author.	Emphasized in both instructional methods; students discussed themes to connect literature to their own experiences (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Figurative Language	Non-literal language, such as metaphor, simile, and symbolism, used to create deeper meaning.	Taught in the experimental method to help students interpret underlying meanings beyond literal text (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Tone	The author’s attitude or emotional quality expressed in the writing.	Considered essential for interpretation; students learned to discern tone as part of their analysis of literary passages (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Interpretation	The process of deriving meaning, mood, or effect from a text based on its literary elements.	The primary skill measured; defined as determining the author’s implied meanings, ideas, and moods within a text (Thompson, 1973, p. 114).
Literary Device	Techniques used by writers to enhance storytelling, such as symbolism, imagery, and irony.	Central to the hypothesis that teaching these devices improves interpretative skills (Thompson, 1973, p. 113).
Instructional Methodology	Teaching strategies used to facilitate literary comprehension, including thematic and device-based approaches.	Compared traditional thematic instruction with device-based methods to assess the impact on student interpretation (Thompson, 1973, p. 113-114).
Experiment Design	The structure of the study, including pretests, posttests, and control/experimental groups.	Involved a factorial design to control for variables, emphasizing the importance of consistent methodology in educational research (Thompson, 1973, p. 116).
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)	A statistical method used to determine if there are significant differences between groups.	Applied to test the effectiveness of instructional methods, showing no significant difference in outcomes between methods (Thompson, 1973, p. 116).

Contribution of “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Reader-Response Theory: Thompson’s study emphasizes that literary devices are crucial for readers to make meaningful interpretations of texts. In line with reader-response theory, which posits that readers actively construct meaning from their interactions with a text, Thompson argues that teaching literary devices such as plot, character, and tone enables students to engage more deeply with literature by guiding them in decoding an author’s intent and themes (Thompson, 1973, p. 113-115). By training students to recognize these devices, Thompson contributes to the reader-response theory by advocating a structured method to empower readers as active participants in the meaning-making process.
2. Formalist Literary Theory: Rooted in formalism, Thompson’s emphasis on literary devices as fundamental to understanding fiction reflects the formalist view that a text’s structure, language, and elements form the basis of its meaning. Formalists like Brooks and Warren (referenced by Thompson) argue that analyzing these components is essential for a comprehensive interpretation (Brooks and Warren, 1947; Thompson, 1973, p. 114). Thompson’s research reinforces this perspective by hypothesizing that literary devices provide the framework through which students can systematically interpret a text’s underlying meanings, thus aligning with formalist principles that prioritize intrinsic textual elements over external context.
3. Educational Theory in Literature: Thompson’s study advances educational theories on literature instruction by empirically testing how instructional methods impact students’ interpretative skills. His findings—that a teacher’s skill may outweigh the specific method in enhancing comprehension—add nuance to the debate on educational approaches in literature. He questions the effectiveness of method-centered teaching and instead highlights the importance of teacher quality, suggesting that pedagogy must balance method with teacher expertise (Thompson, 1973, p. 117). This insight resonates with constructivist education theories, which emphasize that skilled educators guide students to build knowledge actively rather than passively receiving information.

Examples of Critiques Through “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

Literary Work	Literary Device	Example of Critique Using Thompson’s Approach
“The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald	Theme, Tone	Through the lens of theme and tone, students explore the disillusionment and decay underlying the American Dream in the Jazz Age. By focusing on Fitzgerald’s critical tone and recurring theme of lost idealism, students interpret how the author critiques materialism and the moral decline of society (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
“To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee	Character, Figurative Language	Using character and figurative language, students analyze Atticus Finch’s moral integrity and Scout’s coming-of-age journey. By examining Lee’s nuanced language in describing racial tensions and justice, students gain a deeper understanding of the characters’ motivations and the broader social issues they reflect (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
“The Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger	Plot, Tone	Applying plot and tone, students interpret Holden Caulfield’s journey as an exploration of adolescence and alienation. Through discussions on Salinger’s melancholic tone and Holden’s erratic experiences, students grasp the thematic emphasis on personal identity and societal disillusionment (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen	Character, Theme	Using character analysis and theme, students explore Elizabeth Bennet’s evolving perception of Darcy and the theme of social class. This approach highlights Austen’s critique of class and gender expectations, as students evaluate character motivations and transformations as central to the social commentary (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).

Criticism Against “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

• Limited Impact of Literary Device Instruction: Thompson’s study concludes that instruction in literary devices does not significantly improve students’ interpretive skills compared to traditional methods. Critics may argue that this finding undermines the article’s premise that teaching literary devices enhances comprehension, suggesting a need to reconsider the value of device-based instruction in isolation (Thompson, 1973, p. 117).
• Teacher Effectiveness Overshadowing Methodology: The study reveals that teacher quality had a more substantial effect on student interpretation than the specific instructional method. This finding could lead to criticism that the study’s focus on instructional methods is less relevant if teacher proficiency plays a more significant role in learning outcomes, possibly limiting the article’s contributions to pedagogical theory (Thompson, 1973, p. 116-117).
• Small Sample Size and Generalizability: With only four ninth-grade classes from a single junior high school, the sample size may be too small to generalize findings to broader educational settings. Critics may argue that the study’s conclusions are limited and may not apply to diverse educational contexts or age groups, reducing its impact in the field of educational research (Thompson, 1973, p. 114-115).
• Lack of Consideration for Socio-Cultural Context: Thompson’s focus on formal literary devices overlooks the socio-cultural dimensions of literature. Critics might argue that this approach neglects how students’ backgrounds and identities can influence their interpretation, and that incorporating socio-cultural analysis could provide a more holistic educational approach to literature (Thompson, 1973, p. 113-115).
• Reliance on Standardized Testing for Interpretation Assessment: The study uses the Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) to measure students’ interpretive skills, which could be critiqued for failing to capture the depth and nuance of literary interpretation. Standardized tests may not fully assess students’ abilities to engage with complex themes or ideas, potentially limiting the study’s conclusions on interpretive skill development (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).

Representative Quotations from “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“It was hypothesized that students would learn to interpret literature better if they had explanations and practice in interpreting literary devices.” (p. 113)	Thompson sets the foundation of his study, suggesting that teaching literary devices explicitly would enhance students’ ability to interpret texts more deeply and accurately.
“Authors use literary devices and expect their readers to be familiar with the devices if they are to understand what they are reading.” (p. 113)	This underscores Thompson’s belief in the inherent connection between literary devices and understanding, highlighting that authors assume a level of reader familiarity with these devices to convey complex ideas.
“Interpreting literature in this study meant determining the meanings, ideas, moods, or effects an author has expressed or implied within a particular piece of literature.” (p. 114)	Thompson clarifies what he means by “interpretation,” framing it as a comprehensive engagement with a text’s meaning, tone, and authorial intent, which serves as the study’s metric for success in teaching literary devices.
“The experimental instruction involved explanation and written practice exercises in interpreting the literary devices of plot, character, theme, figurative language, and tone.” (p. 115)	Here, Thompson outlines the experimental approach, which incorporated hands-on practice with specific literary devices, reinforcing the idea that structured exercises help students engage with texts more analytically.
“The practice periods for these exercises were short, about twenty minutes. And ample time was allowed to check the students’ responses to the exercises and to discuss any problems they encountered.” (p. 115)	This shows Thompson’s consideration of both instructional design and student support, as he ensures students have adequate time for feedback and clarification, which is critical in skill development.
“Neither instructional method was strong enough to dominate the other in the statistical test of their main effects or their effects on the three levels.” (p. 116)	Thompson reflects on the findings, acknowledging that neither the experimental nor the control method led to significantly better results, suggesting that the method alone may not be the defining factor in interpretive skill development.
“A superior teacher had more effect on improving students’ ability to interpret literature than either of the two instructional methods.” (p. 117)	Thompson reveals a key insight from his study: that teacher effectiveness plays a larger role in student success than the specific instructional method, suggesting the importance of skilled teaching in literature education.
“Consequently, the addition of explanations and written practice in interpreting literary devices to class discussions of themes… has no significant effect on ninth grade students’ ability to interpret literature.” (p. 117)	This conclusion challenges the initial hypothesis, indicating that explicit teaching of literary devices may not significantly enhance students’ interpretive skills, thereby questioning the utility of device-focused instruction in isolation.
“The relative differences existing among the classes and levels after the experiment could be accounted for by differences prior to the experiment.” (p. 117)	Thompson points to pre-existing differences in student ability as a factor in interpretive skill variance, suggesting that individual learning abilities may influence interpretative outcomes more than instructional strategies alone.
“The skills were reviewed according to a schedule that allowed for increased intervals between the initial instruction in the use of a device and review practices.” (p. 115)	This highlights Thompson’s structured approach to skill retention, suggesting a spaced repetition model, which is a pedagogically effective strategy for ensuring long-term retention of analytical skills in literature.

Suggested Readings: “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

1. Thompson, Richard F. “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature.” Journal of Reading, vol. 17, no. 2, 1973, pp. 113–18. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40016540. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.
2. Kovalcik, Beth, and Janine L. Certo. “The Poetry Café Is Open! Teaching Literary Devices of Sound in Poetry Writing.” The Reading Teacher, vol. 61, no. 1, 2007, pp. 89–93. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204555. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.
3. Dallacqua, Ashley K. “Exploring Literary Devices in Graphic Novels.” Language Arts, vol. 89, no. 6, 2012, pp. 365–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41804360. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.
4. Lenters, Kimberly, and Kimberley Grant. “Feedback Loops: Assembling Student Editors, Stories, and Devices for Multimodal Peer Feedback.” Language Arts, vol. 93, no. 3, 2016, pp. 185–99. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24577565. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.