Journal £>f Educational Psychology Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2000,\fol.92,No. 1,96-106 0022-0663/00/$5.00 DOT: 10.1037//0022-0663.92.1.96

Reader Beliefs and Meaning Construction in Narrative Text

Gregory Schraw
University of Nebraska—Lincoln

This research examined how transmission and transaction beliefs about reading affect
comprehension, engagement, and holistic understanding of narrative text. Transaction beliefs,
which emphasize reader-generated meaning, were related positively to the type and number of
reader responses as well as to the sophistication of one's holistic interpretation. Transmission
beliefs, which emphasize understanding the author's intended meaning, were unrelated to all
outcome measures. Transmission and transaction beliefs were unrelated to each other. These
findings support the view that transaction beliefs facilitate meaning construction of narrative
text, whereas transmission beliefs do not.

Skilled readers use a number of strategies to construct
meaning from text (Kintsch, 1998). These include lower
order decoding skills such as lexical retrieval as well as
higher order comprehension skills such as identifying main
ideas and drawing inferences. Skilled readers also invoke a
variety of beliefs about the reading processes that affect their
conceptual understanding of the text (Dole & Sinatra, 1994;
Garner & Alexander, 1994; Mathewson, 1994). These
include beliefs about reading self-efficacy (Schunk & Zim-
merman, 1997; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1995), the
credibility of the author's message (Dole & Sinatra, 3994),
personal ideologies (Bogdan, 1990; Thomson, 1993; Wade,
Thompson, & Watkins, 1994), and beliefs about the meaning
construction process (Schraw & Bruning, 1996; Winehurg,
1991).
The purpose of the present research is to explore how
different types of beliefs affect meaning construction when
reading a highly interpretable narrative text. Beliefs about
the reader's role in meaning construction may be especially
important when reading narrative texts because they are
more open to interpretation than are expository texts (Zwann,
1994). This study examines the contribution of transmission
and transaction beliefs to three aspects of reading comprehen-
sion, including understanding main ideas, generating per-
sonal responses to the text, and constructing a holistic
interpretation of the text's meaning.
Transaction and Transmission Beliefs
About Text Meaning
Readers hold different beliefs about the meaning construc-
tion processes that affect their understanding (Alexander &
Dochy, 1994; Chambliss, 1994; Straw & Sadowy, 1990). For
example, Wineburg (1991) reported that professional histori-
ans differed from high school students on several dimen-
sions of text understanding. Historians read texts from a
I thank Roger Bruning for his helpful comments on an earlier
version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Gregory Schraw, Department of Educational Psychology, 309
Bancroft Hall, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-
0345. Electronic mail may be sent to gschraw@unl.edu.
more critical perspective in which they actively questioned
and transformed text, whereas high school students inter-
ested in history read from a less critical perspective without
seriously questioning the legitimacy of text assertions.
Wade, Thompson, and Watkins (1994) reported similar
findings in which expert historians understood episodes
from the Public Broadcasting System series The Civil War in
a much more sophisticated fashion than novices. Experts
invoked different beliefs about the events contained in the
video compared with nonhistorians. Experts also tended to
be more critical and presented more counterexplanations to
the theories discussed in the video.
Schraw and Bruning (1996) distinguished between trans-
mission and transaction beliefs about reading. Transmission
beliefs emphasize understanding the author's intended mean-
ing; transaction beliefs emphasize the role of constructing
meaning on the basis of the reader's goals and purposes for
reading. According to Bogdan and Straw (1990), the trans-
mission model views reading as a conduit in which informa-
tion flows in a bottom-up and linear direction from the
author to the reader (Hunt, 1990; Straw, 1990). Meaning is
conveyed directly to the reader by means of the author's
ideas stated explicitly in the text. Transmission reading is
reconstructive rather than constructive because meaning
flows directly from author to reader without changes in
meaning.
In contrast, the transaction model is based on the assump-
tion that a text means different things to different readers
regardless of what the author intended. The transaction
model views reading as a dynamic system (Straw, 1990;
Tompkins, 1980) or a reciprocal network among the reader,
text, and author (Rosenblatt, 1994). Information flows
interactively to and from the reader. Meaning does not exist
in either the text or author per se but is constructed uniquely
by each reader, depending on his or her specific goals and
intentions. Transaction reading is constructive rather than
reconstructive because meaning is created by the reader
(Harste, Burke, & Woodward, 1994).
The two aforementioned models suggest that transmission
and transaction beliefs make different contributions to
reading. Transmission beliefs may increase memory for

96
 READER BELIEFS
important information or salient events in the text given the
reader's focus on the author's intended message. Transmis-
sion beliefs may also promote the construction of an
interpretation directly consistent with the text's main ideas.
In contrast, transaction beliefs may have little impact on
memory for factual information yet promote the construc-
tion of a variety of interpretations, especially those that
diverge from the text's main ideas but are based on the
reader's own beliefs and expectations. Transaction beliefs
may also promote personal responses and affective engage-
ment compared with transmission beliefs (Farrell & Squire,
1990; Rosenblatt, 1994).
Overview of the Present Research
The purpose of the present research is to examine how
transmission and transaction beliefs affect meaning construc-
tion when reading a narrative text. Understanding the
contribution of each type of belief is important because there
currently are no empirical data that address how different
beliefs are related to reader responses and the construction
of a holistic text interpretation in a highly interpretable text.
Most previous research has focused on the role of inference-
making strategies in expository texts (Garner & Hansis,
1994; Graesser, Singer, &Trabasso, 1994; Hartman, 1995).
Several studies have considered the relationship between
prior knowledge and the construction of higher level text
interpretations such as a situation model (Kintsch, 1998;
Zwann & Radvansky, 1998). Others have compared expert
and novice readers' constructive strategies when reading
historical texts (Wade etal., 1994; Wineburg, 1991). None of
these studies used narrative text or explicitly controlled for
reader beliefs.
The present research is the first to explicitly examine the
relationship between beliefs about reading and the meaning
construction process in a narrative text. A recent study by
Schraw and Bruning (1996) examined the relationship
between transmission and transaction beliefs and preposi-
tional recall in an expository text. Transaction beliefs were
related positively to recall, whereas transmission beliefs
were related negatively to recall. The present study extends
this finding by examining a variety of reader responses and
the extent to which readers construct a holistic interpretation
of a narrative text. College students were asked to read a
1,000-word narrative text, complete a 20-item multiple-
choice test of main ideas, and write a two-page interpretative
essay in which they described what they thought the story
meant and how it made them feel (see the Method section for
further details). I selected a narrative text that was amenable
to a variety of interpretations to maximize the role of
transaction beliefs in reading. An informationally dense
expository text may minimize the effect that transaction
beliefs have on reader response and higher order construc-
tive processes.
Transmission and transaction beliefs were measured with
the 16-item Reader Belief Inventory (RBI) developed by
Schraw and Bruning (1996). This instrument includes two
subscales, one of which measures transmission beliefs (e.g.,
"When I read, I try to carry away exactly what the author
97
meant"), and one that measures transaction beliefs (e.g., "I
like to interpret what I read in my own unique way"; see
Appendix A). Interpretative responses were coded into 13
subcategories compiled from previous research reported by
Many and Cox (1992) and Schraw (1997). The 13 subcatego-
ries were subsumed within three broader categories, which
are described in greater detail in the Method section. The
thematic response category included statements about the
themes and overall main ideas discussed in the story.
Critical responses included statements about the author's
intention or the text's clarity, such as whether the text was
clear, well written, and achieved its goals. Personal re-
sponses included statements about personal reactions to the
story, such as interest, engagement, and the extent to which
the reader related information in the story to his or her life.
The holistic interpretation was scored on a 9-level scale
(described in Schraw, 1997) that ranged from no interpreta-
tion to an explicit interpretation supported by events from
the text and the reader's personal life.
Research Questions
I focused on four research questions that examine the
relationship among reader beliefs and several measures of
understanding:
1. Is there a statistical relationship between the transmis-
sion and transaction scales included in the RBI?
2. Are transmission and transaction beliefs related to
multiple-choice test performance?
3. Are transmission and transaction beliefs related to
individual interpretative responses?
4. Are transmission and transaction beliefs related to
holistic text interpretations?
My first question is whether there is a statistical relation-
ship between the transmission and transaction scales in-
cluded in the RBI. This question provides a replication of the
findings by Schraw and Bruning (1996) who reported no
correlation between the two scales. Replicating this finding
is important for both theoretical and practical reasons. From
a theoretical perspective, a close replication indicates that
the instrument is reliable across samples and supports the
view that transmission and transaction beliefs are indepen-
dent (i.e., uncorrelated). Independent scales suggest that
readers maintain separate transmission and transaction be-
liefs and that each have a unique effect on reading. Thus,
readers hold separate beliefs about the role of the author's
intended meaning that are independent of beliefs about the
reader's constructive role in meaning making.
From a practical perspective, separate scales allow re-
searchers to create four mutually exclusive categories con-
sisting of high-transmission-high-transaction, high-transmis-
sion-low-transaction, low-transmission-high-transaction, and
low-transmission-low-trans action readers. Of special inter-
est is whether high-transmission-high-transaction readers
differ from low-transmission-high-transaction readers. The
former may adopt different reading strategies given that they
believe it is important to understand the author's intended
message as well as their own constructed meaning. A
comparison of multiple-choice test scores, interpretative
98 SCHRAW
responses, and holistic interpretation scores across these
four possible groups enables one to isolate the unique
contribution of transmission and transaction beliefs (i.e.,
their main effects) as well as their interaction. I predicted
that transmission beliefs would be independent of transac-
tion beliefs, supporting a two-factor model. This finding
would replicate Schraw and Bruning (1996).
My second research question is whether transmission and
transaction beliefs are related to multiple-choice test perfor-
mance. There are no current studies that address this
question. Reader response theories (Rosenblatt, 1994) gener-
ally predict that transaction beliefs should be related posi-
tively to text understanding. Thus, one would expect transac-
tion beliefs to improve recognition of main ideas. However,
it also is possible that transmission beliefs improve recogni-
tion by focusing readers' attention on the text's main ideas.
Thus, I expected both types of beliefs to be related positively
to recognition of main ideas.
My third research question is whether transmission and
transaction beliefs are related to individual interpretative
responses. I predicted that transaction beliefs are related
positively to the thematic, critical, and personal responses,
whereas transmission beliefs are not related to these re-
sponses. This prediction is in line with claims from the
reader response literature (Farrell & Squire, 1990; Many &
Cox, 1992; Rosenblatt, 1994; Tompkins, 1980). Specifically,
I predicted that transaction beliefs would increase sophisti-
cated thematic responses such as generating hypotheses and
thematic statements. In addition, I expected an increase in
the total number and variety of personal responses such as
interest, affective engagement, empathy, and relating text
events to personal life.
My fourth research question is whether transmission and
transaction beliefs are related to holistic text interpretations.
To answer this question, each response was assigned to one
of nine mutually exclusive, interpretative categories. I
predicted that transaction beliefs would be related positively
to these nine levels of interpretation. This prediction is based
on the assumption that transaction beliefs encourage readers
to construct a unique interpretation of the text by using main
ideas found in the text along with their own prior knowledge
and expectations (Farrell & Squire, 1990). Transacting with
text should lead to deeper processing as well as to a broader
synthesis of text themes (Rosenblatt, 1994). In contrast,
transmission beliefs should focus one's attention on main
ideas rather than constructing one's own interpretation of the
text. Presumably, transmission beliefs also limit the number
and type of personal responses to a text.
Method
Participants
Two hundred forty-seven undergraduates from a large midwest-
era university participated as part of their regular coursework. All
participants were enrolled in sections of an introductory educa-
tional psychology class and participated outside of their regularly
scheduled class in partial completion of a course research
requirement.
Materials
The target materials consisted of (a) the RBI, (b) an 870-word
story titled The Book ofSand by Borges (1969/1977), (c) a 20-item
multiple-choice recognition test covering main ideas included in
the story, and (d) a response booklet in which each participant
wrote a two-page reaction to the text. The RBI consists of a 16-item
questionnaire developed by Schraw and Bruning (1996) in which
individuals indicated on a 5-point Likert scale the degree to which
they agreed or disagreed with each statement about the text (see
Appendix A). This instrument identified the relative strength of
transmission (e.g., "Good readers remember most of what they
read verbatim") and transaction (e.g., "I enjoy interpreting what I
read in a personal way") beliefs.
The text consisted of the narrative story The Book of Sand
(Borges, 1969/1977). Although the story contains an easy-to-
follow surface plot, it also contains a number of richly symbolic
interpretations beyond its explicit storyline. This story was selected
because it is brief yet compelling, invites a number of parallel
interpretations beyond its surface meaning, contains a great deal of
imagery, and evokes a feeling of mystery and moral ambiguity that
was likely to elicit a wide variety of interpretative responses. (The
Book of Sand is available from Gregory Schraw.)
The recognition test included 20 four-option multiple-choice
questions that address main ideas from the story (see Appendix B).
The 20 items used on this test were selected from a pool of 35 items
that were normed with 15 additional participants. All final test
items were answered correctly by no more than 90% and no less
than 50% of test takers. The overall success rate on the test was
roughly 75%. Coefficient alpha for the test was .86.
Written responses were completed after the multiple-choice test.
Individuals were given brief instructions asking them to describe
what they thought the story meant and what kinds of personal
thoughts and feelings it evoked in them (see Appendix C).
Responses were grouped into three response categories: thematic,
critical, and personal. Thirteen subcategories (5 under thematic, 3
under critical, and 5 under personal responses) were identified in
part on the basis of a content analysis of randomly selected
protocols (Weber, 1985) and similar categories proposed by Many
and Wiseman (1992) and Schraw and Bruning (1996). The
thematic responses category includes retellings, text-based elabora-
tions, interpretation of symbols, generated hypotheses and explana-
tions, and thematic statements (see Appendix D). The critical
responses category includes statements pertaining to the author's
purpose or intention, critical analysis of text ideas, and critical
analysis of text structure. The personal responses category includes
statements pertaining to engagement and interest, cognitive reac-
tions, affective reactions, or events or characters in the text, and
statements relating events in the text to one's personal experiences.
I (along with a trained research assistant) scored each written
protocol using the criteria in Appendix D. These protocols served
twb purposes. One purpose was to quantify the type and number of
reader responses. These responses were placed into one of the 13
mutually exclusive subcategories described previously. The two
judges scored each protocol together. Initial agreement was approxi-
mately 86%. All disputes were settled in conference by discussing
the response in the context of the entire essay. Approximately 1%
of the statements were eliminated during scoring because of a lack
of agreement between the judges. Approximately 4% of the
comments were not scored because they were irrelevant to the
essay, redundant, or rhetorical in nature.
The second purpose of the written protocols was to measure the
degree to which readers constructed a holistic text interpretation.
Criteria for this measure were adapted from Schraw (1997) who
developed a 9-level scale to assess overall interpretative meaning.
 READER BEUEFS
The purpose of the holistic text interpretation score was to measure
meaning construction beyond the level of individual main ideas
and, in particular, whether readers possess an integrated understand-
ing of die text. This measure is important because previous studies
have relied on objective measures of understanding, such as recall
and multiple-choice tests, that measure understanding at the
macropropositional text level rather than at the higher level of a
situation model (Kintsch, 1998; Zwann, 1994). In the present case,
the holistic text interpretation score was used to measure one's
overall constructed interpretation of the text.
The nine levels of the holistic interpretation score are shown in
Appendix E. Scores ranged from 0, which corresponded to no
holistic interpretation, to 8, which corresponded to an integrated
interpretation in which the reader stated at least one main theme,
supported that theme in detail, and related it to his or her personal
life.
Each protocol was assigned to one of nine mutually exclusive
levels of increasing sophistication. Level 0 consisted of nonthe-
matic responses, such as repeating main ideas or information stated
in the text, or comments related to writing the essay. None of the
essays provided any information regarding an overall theme or text
interpretation, nor did they include personal reactions related to the
text or nonthematic elaborations of the text. Level 1 consisted of
personal reactions and opinions without any text-based elabora-
tions, interpretation of symbols, or thematic inferences. These
essays essentially offered personal opinions about the text without
stating a main theme. Level 2 included text elaborations without
clarification of symbols or themes. Text elaborations consisted of
inferences that were based on information in the text {e.g.,
"Someone else will come along someday and find the book in the
library"). Level 3 consisted of explicit interpretations of symbols
or events in the text without mention of interpretive themes (e.g.,
"The weight of The Book of Sand symbolizes our guilt in life").
Level 4 was characterized by the interpretation of one or more
theme fragments (i.e., partial themes consistent with the text that
were not fully elaborated). For example:
I think the story is about how we as a society all get wrapped
up in things. Sometimes we put all of our energy on one thing
and forget about others.
Level 4 represented an important transition point because readers
went beyond personal opinions, elaborations, and the interpretation
of isolated symbols to explicitly state a theme.
Level 5 consisted of one or more detailed themes (i.e., interpreta-
tion of individual thematic events or episodes without interrelating
them into a coherent holistic interpretation). The following ex-
ample illustrates an explicit detailed theme:
I think the story is saying that we should take things at face
value and no more. Perhaps the narrator should have looked at
the book carefully and then left it alone. She was told that one
could never find the same illustration twice, but didn't believe
it. She let the book consume her.
Level 6 represented a basic holistic model, which includes an
explicit theme or integration of one or more main themes without
extensive justification of that theme. For example:
I believe the meaning deals with priorities. The woman is well
educated and independent. But once The Book of Sand entered
her life, everything changed. She became involved with a
mystery she simply could not explain, let alone understand.
Part of being is a natural curiosity and desire to comprehend
what we do not understand. Though this is true, we must not
allow this to take over our lives. Finding answers to the
unexplainable is important, but if we lose sight of what is real,
we may lose our bearings.
99
Level 7 represented an elaborated holistic model, which includes a
comprehensive interpretation or comparison of one or more themes
with detailed justification of those themes, as the following excerpt
illustrates:
This story shows how easy it is to become obsessed with
finding answers to things we don't understand. There are so
many things that we can't understand that it is difficult to
admit not being able to figure them out. At certain times man
will be defeated in his quest for knowledge. This doesn't mean
we should give up easily, however. An example would be the
search for answers about God. We can always try to I earn
more about the existence of God, but we also know that there
are many things that we will never fully understand until the
end of time. But we must keep trying. Trying to learn more
about something that challenges us can only help, whether you
reach your final answer or not.
Level 8 consisted of an integrated holistic model, which relates an
elaborated holistic model to personal experiences or philosophy, or
to another text. The following excerpt provides an example of
relating an interpretation to one's philosophy:
It was obvious that The Book of Sand had already drained the
salesman's life and he wanted to get rid of it. The narrator
made the mistake of trading for it because he lost his Bible and
pension (i.e., a symbol of eternal life) for something that
would ultimately consume him. I find a sharp contrast
between the Bible and The Book of Sand that is very
important The Book of Sand makes no sense and is a heavy
burden, and ultimately drives yoa insane. The Bible, on the
other hand, is eternal truth, has a first and a last page, has a
message of hope that relieves you of your burdens, and shows
you the way to eternal life. The narrator would have been
much better off reading one of his Bibles than the "holy"
Book of Sand. But he didn't understand that eternal life comes
from living, not what we own,
I (along with the same trained research assistant who helped score
the written protocols) scored each essay by assigning it to one of
the nine levels of holistic interpretation. There was 92% initial
agreement. The remaining 8% of the protocols were discussed and
assigned to a level that the research assistant and I agreed on. It is
worth noting that we never differed by more than one level, with
one exception. In this case, we initially assigned the essay to Levels
6 and 8, respectively. After discussion, we reassigned the essay to
Level 7.
Procedure
Individuals participated in groups of 10 to 25 and received
identical instructions. I conducted all sessions. There were no time
limits on any of the experimental tasks.
Participants were told they would be reading a text to evaluate
various aspects of its organization and structure. Each individual
received a packet that included the experimental materials de-
scribed previously. Individuals were instructed to complete the RBI
by indicating on a 5-point scale the extent to which they agreed
with each of the 16 statements. Completion of the RBI required
approximately 3 to 5 min. Next, the participants read a typed,
double-spaced copy of the story as carefully as possible. Individu-
als also were informed that they could reread the text and mark or
underline their copy if they chose to. There were no time limits
during this phase. The approximate completion time of this stage
was 5 to 10 min.
Next, participants completed the 20-item multiple-choice test
without looking back at the story. The average completion time was
approximately 10 min. This test was followed by the written essay
100 SCHRAW

response. Each response booklet contained cover instructions (see Table 1

Appendix C) and two pages of lined paper. The average completion Means and Standard Deviations for Multiple-Choice Tests
time for this phase of the study was approximately 15 to 20 min.
Following this phase, all participants were debriefed. Transaction beliefs
All participants completed trie experimental tasks in the same Low High
order. Materials were not counterbalanced, owing to the logical Transmission
order in which tasks needed to be completed. For example, the RBI beliefs M SD n M SD n
was given prior to reading to avoid confounding due to the Low .76 .12 58 .75 .11 68
experimental text. The multiple-choice test was completed prior to High .74 .14 88 .78 .13 33
the essay to avoid rehearsal and elaboration effects. Because all
participants completed the multiple-choice test under the same
conditions, there is no reason to believe it differentially affected
essay performance. sion scales were used as blocking variables, whereas all
other variables in the study were used as outcome measures.
Scoring
Multiple-Choice Test Performance
The RBI and multiple-choice test were scored objectively. I
(along with the trained research assistant) scored the essays as Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for the
described previously. multiple-choice recognition test. Neither the main effects for
the transaction and transmission variables nor their interac-
tion reached significance. Participants in all four groups
Results were equally able to read and understand main ideas from
the text, regardless of transmission and transaction beliefs.
Four separate analyses were performed. The first exam-
One possible explanation is that understanding main ideas is
ined the factor structure and internal consistency of the RBI.
necessary, regardless of one's beliefs about the locus of
The second investigated the relationship between reader
meaning. Most college readers presumably possess the skills
beliefs and multiple-choice test performance. The third
and make the effort to understand main ideas in an auto-
examined the relationship between reader beliefs and the 13
mated fashion (McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch,
personal response categories. The fourth considered the
1996).
extent to which reader beliefs are related to holistic text
interpretations. All statistical significance tests are reported
atp < .05. Personal Responses
Several analyses were performed on the 13 response
Factor Analyses of the RBI categories. The first was a 2 X 2 X 3 analysis of variance
(ANOVA), with transaction and transmission scores as
The RBI was analyzed using a principal-axis factor between-subject variables and the mean of responses in the
analysis with a varimax rotation. Two factors emerged that thematic, critical, and personal responses as a three-level
accounted for 71 % of the sample variation in the instrument. within-subject variable. Table 2 shows the means and
The factors, in order of variance explained, were transaction standard deviations associated with this analysis. The main
beliefs (X = 2,068, variance explained = 38%) and transmis- effect for the transaction variable reached significance, F(l,
sion beliefs (\ = 1.906, variance explained = 33%). Indi- 243) = 9.06, MSE = 2.85. Individuals high on the transac-
vidual loadings are given in Appendix A. tion scale generated more responses (M = 3.31, SD — 2.11)
The transaction and transmission scales were orthogonal across the 13 categories than those low on the transaction
(i.e., uncorrelated), suggesting that beliefs on one scale were scale {M = 2.94, SD — 1.83). The repeated measures main
uncorrelated with beliefs on the other scale. This enabled me
to create composite scores for each scale by summing into a
single score the ratings of variables that loaded in excess of Table 2
.40 on that scale. Each scale included six items; thus, each Means and Standard Deviations for Thematic, Critical,
composite score ranged from 0 to 30. The internal consisten- and Personal Responses
cies (Cronbach's alphas) of the transaction and transmission
scales were .81 and ,78, respectively. These findings closely Transaction beliefs
replicate the factor structure and reliabilities reported by Low High
Schraw and Bruning (1996).
beliefs M SD n M SD n
Composite scores for each of the 30-point transaction and
transmission scales were dichotomized on the basis of the Low 58 68
mean of each scale from the present sample and were used to Thematic 3.01 2.58 3.48 2.29
Critical 0.82 0.96 1.01 0.90
create a 2 X 2 grouping matrix in which each individual was Personal 4,87 1.74 5.35 2.12
placed into one of four mutually exclusive categories: high High 88 33
transaction-high transmission, high transaction-low trans- Thematic 2.76 2.02 4.06 4.04
mission, low transaction-high transmission, and low transac- Critical 0.71 0.84 0.94 1.00
Personal 5.44 1.86 5.18 1.60
tion-high transmission. Thus, the transaction and transmis-
 READER BELIEFS 101

effect for the three category types (i.e., thematic, critical, and measures ANOVA was performed on the five thematic
personal) also reached significance, F(2, 486) = 251.73, responses. There was a significant main effect for the
MSE = 4.08. A comparison of the three means, using transaction scale, F(\, 243) = 6.35, MSE = 1.32, in which
Fischer's procedure (Levin, Serlin, & Seaman, 1994), re- the high-transaction readers (M = .76, SD = .71) outscored
vealed that more personal responses (M = 5.25, SD = 1.77) the low-transaction readers (Af = .58, SD — .77). There also
were generated than thematic (Af = 3.19, SD = 2.63) or was a significant repeated measures main effect for the five
critical responses (M = .85, SD = .94). Readers spontane- thematic response categories, F(4, 972) = 143.50, MSE =
ously generated significantly more personal responses than .67. A post hoc test using Tukey's Honestly Significant
other categories and generated few critical responses. This Difference Test (HSD) revealed that elaborations (M = 1.87,
may be due to the fact that essay instructions (shown in SD = 1.83) were recalled significantly more than the remain-
Appendix C) encouraged participants to focus on thematic ing four categories. No other effects reached significance.
and personal responses. None of the other main effects or High-transaction readers produced more thematic re-
interactions reached significance. sponses. This was true especially of thematic inferences,
Separate analyses were performed on the thematic, criti- which were generated three times more frequently in the
cal, and personal response categories to examine individual high-transaction group (M = .61, SD = .11) than in the
responses in more detail. Means and standard deviations for low-transaction group (Af=.18, SD = .40). Generating
all 13 categories are shown in Table 3. A 2 X 2 X 5 repeated significantly more themes should be an important indicator
of holistic understanding (Graesser et al., 1994).
An analysis of critical responses showed a significant
Table 3 main effect for the transaction variable, F(l, 243) = 3.23,
Means and Standard Deviations for the MSE - .21, in which the high-transaction readers (M = .33,
13 Response Categories SD = ,56) outscored the low-transaction readers (M = .25,
Transaction beliefs SD = .43). There also was a significant repeated measures
main effect for the three critical response categories, F(2,
Low High 486) = 49.64, MSE = .28. A post hoc test using Tukey's
Transmission
beliefs M SD n M SD n HSD revealed that text-structure responses (M — .59,
SD = .77) were produced significantly more than author-
Low 58 68
purpose ( M = . 1 7 , SD = .35) or text-idea responses
Thematic responses
Retellings 0.44 0.94 0.26 0.70 (M = .09, SD = .27).
Elaborations 1.62 1.37 1.97 1.43 A significant two-way interaction also occurred between
Symbols 0.22 0.49 0.26 0.46 the transaction and transmission variables, F(2,486) = 4.86,
Hypotheses 0.52 0.63 0.44 0.58 MSE — .28. The high-transaction-low-transmission group
Themes 0.20 0.49 0.55 0.72
Critical responses (M = .34, SD = .53) generated significantly more responses
Author's purpose 0.14 0.35 0.13 0.34 than the low-transaction-high-transmission group (Af = .24,
Text ideas 0.12 0.33 0.10 0.30 SD — .47) but did not differ from the high-transaction-high-
Text structure 0.57 0.75 0.78 0.87 transmission (M = .31, SD = .54) or low-transaction-low-
Personal responses transmission groups (Af = .28, SD = .45). High-transaction-
Interest 1.01 0.58 1.18 0.69
Cognitive response 3.63 1.48 3.87 1.56 low-transmission readers were most apt to produce critical
Affective response 0.14 0.57 0.10 0.39 responses, supporting my claim that transaction beliefs are
Events 0.05 0.22 0.05 0.12 related positively to text understanding of narrative text as
Relate to life 0.03 0.18 0.19 0.60 well as findings reported by Wineburg (1991) and Wade et
High 88 33
al. (1994).
Thematic responses
Retellings 0.22 0.63 0.66 1.33 In contrast, an analysis of personal responses failed to
Elaborations 1.96 1.53 1.85 1.91 reveal significant differences, with the exception of a
Symbols 0.13 0.40 0.27 0.51 repeated measures main effect for the five personal re-
Hypotheses 0.30 0.48 0.61 0.70 sponses categories, F(4, 972) = 882.16, MSE = .64.
Themes 0.15 0.39 0.67 0.99
Critical responses Tukey's HSD revealed that cognitive responses (M = 3.83,
Author's purpose 0.16 0.37 0.36 0.70 SD = 3.75) were generated significantly more often than
Text ideas 0.04 0.20 0.12 0.33 interest responses (Af = 1.13, SD — 1.15), which were gen-
Text structure 0.51 0.71 0.45 0.66 erated significantly more often than affective responses
Personal responses
Interest 1.17 0.48 1.18 0.39 (Af = .10, SD = .10), responses relating text to personal life
Cognitive response 3.98 1.80 3.76 1.28 (M = .11, SD = .11), or responses relating to events de-
Affective response 0.06 0.23 0.12 0.33 scribed in the text (M = .06, SD = .07).
Events 0.13 0.40 0.08 0.17 The main effects for the transaction and transmission
Relate to life 0.11 0.32 0.09 0.29
variables did not reach significance in the analysis of
Note. Scores in each category, summed across participants, range personal responses. This finding was unexpected given the
as follows: retellings, 0-4; elaborations, 0-7; symbols, 0-3; assumption that transactional reading should increase per-
hypotheses, 0-2; themes, 0-5; author's purpose, 0-2; text ideas,
0-3; text structure, 0-3; interest, 0-5; cognitive responses, 0-8; sonal engagement and empathy. One possibility is that The
affectiveresponses,0-3; events, 0-2; and relate to life, 0-2. Book of Sand was interesting enough to engage most
102
readers, regardless of the strength of transaction and transmis-
sion beliefs. A second possibility is that some participants
felt uncomfortable or unable to respond to a highly interpre-
tative text on relatively short notice. An alternative explana-
tion is that transaction beliefs have no impact on personal
responses, a view that is strongly at odds with current reader
response theory (Rosenblatt, 1994; Squire, 1994; Tompkins,
1980). Further research is needed to replicate this effect and
to determine whether transaction beliefs are less important
than thought.
Holistic Text Interpretations
Overall understanding of the text was assessed using a
9-level holistic interpretation score. Means and standard
deviations are shown in Table 4. A 2 X 2 ANOVA, with the
transmission and transaction scales as between-subject inde-
pendent variables, revealed a significant main effect for the
transaction scale, F(l, 243) = 5.99, MSE = 1.95. High-
transaction readers generated more sophisticated holistic
interpretations {M — 3.00, SD = 1.64) compared with low-
transaction readers (Af = 2.51, SD = 1.18). No other effects
reached significance.
The frequency of each of the nine levels of holistic
interpretation for high- and low-transaction readers are
presented in Table 5. Low-transaction readers consistently
scored at Levels 0 through 3, whereas high-transaction
readers were more frequently in the Level 4 to Level 7 range.
None of the readers scored at Level 8. Summarizing the data
in Table 5, low-transaction readers were twice as likely as
high-transaction readers to generate low-level holistic inter-
pretations, whereas high-transaction readers were three
times more likely to generate higher level interpretations.
Regardless of their beliefs, however, few readers produced
sophisticated holistic interpretations. It is not clear whether
this was due to the inherent difficulty of interpreting a text or
to limitations imposed by the experiment itself.
Discussion
The purpose of this research was to explore the relation-
ship between adults' beliefs about the meaning construction
process and the construction of text meaning when reading a
highly interpretable narrative text. This question is impor-
tant for two reasons. One is to test the claim endorsed by
reading response theorists (Farrell & Squire, 1990; Rosen-
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations for
Holistic Interpretation Scores
TYansaction beliefs
Low High
Transmission
beliefs M SD n M SD n reading outcomes differently.
Low 58 68
2.65 1.43 3.02 1.67
High 88 33
2.40 1.01 2.98 1.63
SCHRAW
Table 5
Response Frequencies Among the Nine Levels
of Holistic Interpretation
Level of holistic interpretation
Transaction
belief 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Low 15 64 30 25 4 8 0 0
OO
High 14 22 21 11 15 14 3 1
blatt, 1994; Tompkins, 1980) that transaction beliefs pro-
mote higher level meaning construction, particularly when
reading a highly interpretable narrative text. This assertion
has not been tested directly. A second reason is to gain a
better understanding of the interpretative strategies (e.g.,
thematic inferences) readers use when constructing meaning
from a narrative text.
I distinguished between transmission and transaction
beliefs. The transmission model views reading as a process
of transmitting meaning from the author to the reader's
memory. The transaction model views reading as a process
that emphasizes a reciprocal transaction among the reader,
text, and author. On this view, readers construct meaning on
the basis of information in the text, perceived authorial
intent, and, most important, their own individual goals and
knowledge.
My general hypothesis was that readers characterized by
strong transaction beliefs construct more sophisticated mean-
ings than those characterized by strong transmission beliefs.
I used this hypothesis to address the following four research
questions:
1. Is there a statistical relationship between the transmis-
sion and transaction scales included in the RBI?
2. Are transmission and transaction beliefs related to
multiple-choice test performance?
3. Are transmission and transaction beliefs related to
individual interpretative responses?
4. Are transmission and transaction beliefs related to
holistic text interpretations?
The first question examined the relationship between the
two hypothesized scales. An exploratory factor analysis
reported two uncorrelated (i.e., orthogonal) factors that were
internally consistent and explained a meaningful proportion
of sample variation. This finding replicates that of Schraw
and Bruning (1996) who reported two uncorrelated factors
similar to those observed here and is consistent with claims
made by reader response theorists (Bogdan & Straw, 1990;
Tompkins, 1980). I concluded that the transmission and
transaction scales constitute separate beliefs about the
reading process; that is, readers hold beliefs about the
importance of the author's intended meaning that are
independent of their beliefs about the reader's role in
meaning construction. Each of these beliefs may affect
My second research question examined whether recogni-
tion test performance for main ideas differed among these
four groups. Schraw and Bruning (1996) reported signifi-
cantly higher recall for both text propositions and proposi-
 READER BELIEFS
tional modifiers among high-transaction readers. However,
there were no recognition test differences in the present
study. One explanation is that the present sample included a
large number of skilled college readers who are adept at
identifying main ideas, perhaps in an automated fashion.
Beliefs in general, and transaction beliefs in particular, may
not affect automated comprehension skills such as under-
standing main ideas (Graesser et al., 1994; Kintsch, 1998).
McNamara et al. (1996), for example, found that the benefits
of active processing are gained primarily at the global level
of comprehension (e.g., holistic interpretations) rather than
at surface (e.g., phonological access) or text-based (e.g.,
main ideas) levels.
My third question addressed whether transmission and
transaction beliefs are related to individual interpretative
responses. I predicted that transaction beliefs would increase
the number of thematic, critical, and personal responses that
were generated in readers' essays. Thematic and critical
responses increased significantly, whereas personal re-
sponses did not. High-transaction readers generated three
times more thematic inferences than low-transaction read-
ers. In the critical response category, an interaction was
observed between the transmission and transaction variables
in the expected direction. High-transaction-low-transmis-
sion readers generated more critical responses than did
low-transaction-high-transmission readers. These findings
are of special importance because they reveal that transac-
tion beliefs may enhance the meaning construction process
in narrative text by increasing the type and amount of
thematic and critical engagement. Traditionally, reader re-
sponse theorists have argued that transaction beliefs increase
personal engagement and responses, especially when relat-
ing text information to one's personal life and empathizing
with characters. Surprisingly, these effects were not ob-
served in the present study. One explanation is that The Book
of Sand invoked spontaneous interest and engagement in a
majority of readers, thereby minimizing the effects of strong
transaction beliefs. The data in Table 3, however, do not
strongly support this view, as few readers generated affective
responses of related text information to their personal lives.
An alternative explanation is that The Book of Sand includes
content and themes that were difficult for readers to relate to
personally. One possibility is that the dark overtones of the
story discouraged personal involvement without affecting
critical responses to the text or thematic responses geared
toward understanding. Future research is needed in which
The Book of Sand is compared with another text that is easier
for readers to engage in personally. Such a study would help
determine whether the relative lack of personal engagement
in the present study was due to the story itself or to reader
characteristics.
My fourth question addressed whether transmission and
transaction beliefs are related to holistic text interpretations.
High-transaction readers constructed higher level holistic
interpretations than did low-transaction readers. This finding
is consistent with reader response theories and suggests that
transaction beliefs may have their greatest influence on
higher level meaning construction aspects of reading. Table
5 reveals that the majority of readers scoring at Level 4 or
103
higher were high-transaction readers. Unfortunately, fewer
than 20% of all readers scored at Level 4 or above, and only
4 readers (i.e., less than 2%) scored at Level 6 or above.
Most readers failed to generate a coherent thematic sum-
mary of the story at all (i.e., scored lower than Level 4). One
possible reason is that interpreting an abstract, symbolic
narrative story is a difficult task. A second reason is that
readers were given approximately 20 rain to do so, preclud-
ing the opportunity to discuss and reflect on the story's
possible meanings. Overall, the present results indicate that
it is those with strong transaction beliefs who primarily are
willing or able to construct a sophisticated holistic interpre-
tation of a text.
These findings lead to two main conclusions. The first is
that adult readers hold separate beliefs (i.e., transmission
and transaction) that affect their reading in different ways.
Transaction beliefs were related to several measures of
constructed meaning, namely, thematic responses, critical
responses, and holistic interpretations. In contrast, transmis-
sion beliefs were unrelated to all outcome measures in this
study, with one exception: Transmission and transaction
beliefs interacted in the analysis of critical responses. In this
case, transmission beliefs had a negative impact on re-
sponses.
A second conclusion is that transaction beliefs are related
to deeper processing in the form of thematic and critical
responses and to the construction of higher level holistic
interpretations in narrative text. Deeper constructive process-
ing is consistent with reader response theories (Rosenblatt,
1994; Squire, 1994; Tompkins, 1980) as well as psychologi-
cal text-processing theories (Graesser et al., 1994; Kintsch,
1998). In contrast, neither transmission nor transaction
beliefs were related to recognition test performance, which
is thought to measure text-based comprehension rather than
higher level construction of the text's holistic meaning
(McNamara et al., 1996).
The present findings support the idea that transaction
beliefs are related to the meaning construction process when
reading a highly interpretable narrative text. This claim is
consistent with response theory (Rosenblatt, 1994; Tomp-
kins, 1980) and previous empirical findings that demon-
strated a relationship between transaction beliefs and recall
of text information (Schraw & Bruning, 1996). Transmis-
sion beliefs, even when they are strong, have little effect on
reading outcomes. Although four distinct configurations
were possible in the present study (i.e., high or low on the
transmission and transaction scales), the important distinc-
tion appears to be whether a reader endorses strong transac-
tion beliefs. Those with strong transaction beliefs generate
more responses and construct more sophisticated holistic
interpretations, regardless of their transmission beliefs.
The present results shed new light on the relationship
between reader beliefs and understanding narrative text.
Transaction beliefs appear to facilitate higher level meaning
construction more than transmission beliefs. However, these
findings may not apply to the meaning construction process
when reading expository texts. Future research should
compare meaning construction strategies across a variety of
texts that differ by genre, content, and difficulty.
104 SCHRAW
The present findings should be tempered as well, given
that most of the analyses reported relatively small effect
sizes, usually .30 or below. Effect sizes in this range should
be interpreted with caution because they suggest that other
variables may explain significant proportions of variance in
outcome measures (Cohen, 1992). It appears that transaction
beliefs make a significant yet modest contribution to the
meaning construction process. Although not examined here,
it is possible that transaction beliefs also interact with other
beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy) or prior knowledge.
References
Alexander, P. A., & Dochy, F. J. R. C. (1994). Adults' views about
knowing and believing. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.),
Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 223-244).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bogdan, D. (1990). In and out of love with literature. In D. Bogdan
& S. Straw (Eds.), Beyond communication: Reading comprehen-
sion and criticism (pp. 109-138). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bogdan, D., & Straw, S. (Eds.) (1990). Beyond communication;
Reading comprehension and criticism. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-
mann.
Borges, J. L. (1977). The book of sand. (N. T. Di Giovanni, Trans.).
New York: E. P. Dutton. (Original work published 1969)
Chambliss, M. (1994). Why do readers fail to change their beliefs
after reading persuasive text? In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander
(Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 75-89).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
155-159.
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. A. (1994). Social psychology research on
beliefs and attitudes: Implications for research on learning from
text. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text
and instruction with text (pp. 245-265). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
FarreU, E. J., & Squire, J. R. (Eds.). (1990). Transactions with
literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1994). Beliefs about text and
instruction with text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garner, R., & Hansis, R. (1994). Literacy practices outside of
school: Adults' beliefs and their response to "street texts." In R.
Gamer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and
instruction with text (pp. 57-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A. C , Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing
inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological
Review, 101, 1-25.
Harste, J. C , Burke, C. L., & Woodward, V. A. (1994). Children's
language and world: Initial encounters with print. In R. B.
Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models
and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 48-69). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual
links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading
Research Quarterly, 30, 520-561.
Hunt, R. A. (1990). The parallel socialization of reading research
and literary theory. In D. Bogdan & S. Straw (Eds.), Beyond
communication: Reading comprehension and criticism (pp.
91-105). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, J. R., Serlin, R. C , & Seaman, M. A. (1994). A controlled,
powerful multiple-comparison strategy for several situations.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 153-179.
Many, J., & Cox, C. (1992). Reader stance and literary understand-
ing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Many, J. E., & Wiseman, D. L. (1992). The effect of teaching
approach on third-grade students' response to literature. Journal
of Reading Behavior. 24, 265-288.
Mathewson, G. C. (1994). Model of attitude influence upon reading
and learning to read. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H.
Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th
ed., pp. 1131-1161). Newark, DE: International Reading Asso-
ciation.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. BM & Kintsch, W.
(1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text
coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding
in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and
writing. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.),
Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp.
1057-1091). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Schraw, G. (1997). Situational interest in literary text. Contempo-
rary Educational Psychology, 22, 436-456.
Schraw, G., & Bruning, R. (1996). Readers' implicit models of
reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 290-305.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Developing self-
effkacious readers and writers: The role of social and self-
regulatory processes. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated
instruction (pp. 34-50). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Shell, D. F, Murphy, C , & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy,
attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and
writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differ-
ences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386-398.
Squire, J. R. (1994). Research in reader response, naturally
interdisciplinary. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer
(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp.
637-652). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Straw, S. (1990). Challenging communication. In D. Bogdan & S.
Straw (Eds.), Beyond communication: Reading comprehension
and criticism (pp. 67-90). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Straw, S., & Sadowy, P. (1990). Dynamics of communication. In D.
Bogdan & S. Straw (Eds.), Beyond communication: Reading
comprehension and criticism (pp. 21-48). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Thomson, J. (1993). Helping students control texts: Contemporary
literary theory into classroom practice. In S. Straw & D. Bogdan
(Eds.), Constructive reading: Teaching beyond communication
(pp. 130-154). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Tompkins, J. P. (Ed.). (1980). Reader-response criticism: From
formalism to post-structuralism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
Press.
Wade, S. E., Thompson, A., & Watkins, W. (1994). The role of
belief systems in authors' and readers' constructions of text. In R.
Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and
instruction with text (pp. 265-294). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on
the breach between school and academy. American Educational
Research Journal, 28, 495-520.
Zwann, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text
comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 20, 920-933.
Zwann, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in
language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin,
123, 162-185.
 READER BELIEFS 105

Appendix A

Reader Belief Inventory

1. Good readers remember most of what they read verbatim (DNL)
2. I like the fact that two people can read the same book and
disagree about what it means (TA; .42)
3. The main purpose of reading is to understand what the author
says (TM; .52)
4.1 like to make judgments about the author's writing style when
I read (DNL)
5. When I read, I try to carry away exactly what the author meant
(TM;.6O)
6.1 often have strong emotional responses to what I read (TA; .52)
7. I like poetry more than technical text because it is more
expressive (DNL)
8. People should agree on what a book means (TM; .45)
9. When I read, I like to imagine I am living through the
experience too (TA; .58)
10. I enjoy interpreting what I read in a personal way
(TA; .64)
11. Reading for pleasure is the best kind of reading (TA; .46)
12.1 like books where you know exactly what the author means
(TM; .50)
13.1 enjoy sharing the thoughts and reactions of characters in a
book with others (TA; .55)
14. When I read, I focus on what the author says is important
(TM;56)
15. Most books mean exactly what they say (TM; .51)
16. When I read, I focus more on how I feel about the
information than on what I learn (DNL)
Note. Numbers in parentheses indicate factor loadings. DNL -
item did not load in excess of .40 on a factor; TA = transaction
beliefs; TM = transmission beliefs.

Appendix B

Sample Test Questions

The salesman introduced The Book of Sand as a The salesman indicated
a) encyclopedia a) the book was printed before the 19th century
b) holy book* b) the book was printed in the 19th century
c) "curiosity" c) the book was printed in the 20th century
d) sacred text d) he did not know when the book was printed*
Note. Asterisks indicate correct responses.

Appendix C

Instructions for Essay

Each time a person reads a story, he or she has some kind of
personal reaction to it. In this part, we want you to describe your
personal response to the story The Book of Sand. First we want you
to reread the story. Next we want you to write a two-page description of
your response. Please try to describe (a) what you think the story
means and (b) what kind of thoughts and emotions it evoked in you.
Don't worry about whether your response is correct or not; there are
norightor wrong answers. Please be informal; we are most interested in
what you experienced when you read the story. Everything you write is
completely anonymous, so don't worry about being candid.

{Appendixes continue)
106 SCHRAW

Appendix D

Thirteen Response Subcategories

Thematic Responses 8. Critical analysis of text structure: Statements pertaining to the

1. Retellings: Reiterating information included in the text
2. Text-based elaborations: Elaboration of information stated in
text
3. Interpretation of symbols: Assigning a symbolic meaning to a
character or event in the text
4. Generate hypotheses and explanations: Providing a coherent
rationale for information and themes mentioned in text
5. Thematic statements: Statements pertaining to major themes
included the text
Critical Responses
6. Author's purpose and intention: Statements about the author's
purpose or presumed intentions for writing the text
7. Critical analysis of text ideas: Statements critiquing informa-
tion included in the text, but especially its clarity, descriptiveness,
and overall effectiveness
organization and coherence of the text
Personal Responses
9. Engagement and interest: Statements pertaining to engage-
ment, interest, liking, or curiosity about the text
10. Cognitive reactions: Statements pertaining to the reader's
thoughts and intellectual reactions to the text
11. Affective reactions: Statements pertaining to emotional
reactions or feelings created by the text
12. Relate to events or characters: Statements in which the reader
attempts to understand or empathize with events or characters in
the text
13. Relate to personal experiences: Statements in which the
reader relates information in the text to his or her own personal
experiences

Appendix E

Nine Levels of Holistic Interpretation

0 = Unwilling or unable to interpret text at any level
1 = Personal reactions and opinions without any text-based
elaborations, interpretation of symbols, or thematic inferences
2 = Text retelling and elaborations only, without clarification of
symbols or themes
3 = Interpretation of symbols, events, or characters only, but no
thematic interpretation
4 = Interpretation of one or more theme fragments (i.e., partial
themes consistent with the text)
5 = Interpretation of one or more detailed themes (i.e., interpre-
tation of individual thematic events or episodes without interrelat-
ing them into a coherent thematic model)
6 = Basic model (i.e., clear presentation of a main theme or
integration of one or more main themes without explicit justifica-
tion of that theme)
7 = Elaborated model (i.e., comprehensive interpretation or
comparison of one or more interpretations; includes some explicit
justification of themes)
8 = Integrated model (i.e., relates elaborated interpretative model
to personal experiences or philosophy, or to another text)
Received November 3,1998
Revision received May 27,1999
Accepted May 27, 1999