The open work and the closing reading

The tension between openness and ambiguity in literature and readers’ expectation of coherence and consistency (i.e., their ‘desire for closure’) may present a pedagogical dilemma in literature classrooms. While prior research has identified an educational potential of using open works to de-automatize students’ thinking, encourage tolerance for ambiguity, and shape literary awareness, empirically-based knowledge of such classroom practice is scarce. The present study examined the interaction between structured openness of literary texts and readers’ ‘desire for closure’ in the context of literature discussions in lower secondary school. Drawing on videotaped whole-class discussions about narratively complex short stories in an ongoing intervention to support quality of literature discussions, we identified six different closing mechanisms used by either the teacher or the students: 1) Forcing a one-sided interpretation; 2) Inferring new context, not given by the text, to embed already preferred interpretations; 3) Magnifying peripheral details to support interpretations; 4) Staying on the surface – concentrating on the empirically verifiable and determinate; 5) Skipping between inquiries instead of developing lines of thought; and 6) Encouraging readers to connect fictive elements to their own lives. Based on the analysis, we discuss how interactional closure of literary openness in the classroom context relates to principal educational ideals of promoting clarity, comprehension, and coherence.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature
Published
2025-04-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21248/l1esll.2025.25.1.782
Primary Topic
Data Analysis and Archiving
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The open work and the closing reading

Maritha Johansson, Margrethe Sønneland, Michael Tengberg
L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature
Data Analysis and Archiving
article

The open work and the closing reading

Maritha Johansson, Margrethe Sønneland, Michael Tengberg
article en

Abstract

The tension between openness and ambiguity in literature and readers’ expectation of coherence and consistency (i.e., their ‘desire for closure’) may present a pedagogical dilemma in literature classrooms. While prior research has identified an educational potential of using open works to de-automatize students’ thinking, encourage tolerance for ambiguity, and shape literary awareness, empirically-based knowledge of such classroom practice is scarce. The present study examined the interaction between structured openness of literary texts and readers’ ‘desire for closure’ in the context of literature discussions in lower secondary school. Drawing on videotaped whole-class discussions about narratively complex short stories in an ongoing intervention to support quality of literature discussions, we identified six different closing mechanisms used by either the teacher or the students: 1) Forcing a one-sided interpretation; 2) Inferring new context, not given by the text, to embed already preferred interpretations; 3) Magnifying peripheral details to support interpretations; 4) Staying on the surface – concentrating on the empirically verifiable and determinate; 5) Skipping between inquiries instead of developing lines of thought; and 6) Encouraging readers to connect fictive elements to their own lives. Based on the analysis, we discuss how interactional closure of literary openness in the classroom context relates to principal educational ideals of promoting clarity, comprehension, and coherence.

L1 Educational Studies in Language and LiteratureVol. 25(1)
Linköping University (SE), Karlstad University (SE), University of Stavanger (NO)
Skolforskningsinstitutet
Openalex Percentile: Top 90%
Data Analysis and Archiving
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.