| Abstract: | In light of the hard times in which literary education has been finding itself, this paper evaluates the merits of two instructional interventions. It describes an experiment which contrasts interpretive and experiential approaches to reading carried out with 17 Comparative Literature Canadian university students. Two different sets of pre‐reading and reading instructions were prepared. The group working under the control condition followed a set of ‘interpretive instructions’ while the one working under the experimental condition followed ‘experiential instructions’. Participants in both conditions completed four measures: three questionnaires and a response essay. Video‐recording of small group discussions also occurred. Intervention effects were evaluated statistically. No differences were found in any of the measurements except for story‐driven reading, in which the control group scored higher than the experimental one. This means that participants preferred to focus on the plot or story‐line and showed interest for action and compelling conclusions. The video recording, however, indicated higher voluntary participation in the experimental condition. As regards class assessment, the results were rather contradictory and unexpected, leading to the conclusion that interpretation and experiencing may not present us with an either‐or situation but may most productively be regarded as complementary. Ultimately, this study advances the debate on the need to examine instructional interventions in literature classes empirically. |
