東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

The epistemology of literary inquiry...

Hollrah, Matthew.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

The epistemology of literary inquiry: Towards a "foundherentist" pedagogy of literature.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The epistemology of literary inquiry: Towards a "foundherentist" pedagogy of literature./
作者:	Hollrah, Matthew.
面頁冊數:	247 p.
附註:	Adviser: Frank Farmer.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International66-12A.
標題:	Education, Language and Literature. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3203272
ISBN:	9780542487927

The epistemology of literary inquiry: Towards a "foundherentist" pedagogy of literature.
Hollrah, Matthew.

The epistemology of literary inquiry: Towards a "foundherentist" pedagogy of literature. - 247 p.

Adviser: Frank Farmer.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Kansas, 2006.

'The Epistemology of Literary Inquiry: Towards a "Foundherentist" Pedagogy of Literature' addresses several problems in teaching literary interpretation to undergraduates. The primary problem I identify is the problem of how to teach students not simply to apply literary theory to texts, but to know what counts as evidence in developing justified beliefs about what literary texts can mean. There are many important spokes that extend from this central problem. One related problem is the problem of anti-foundationalism, which has become widely accepted in English as an alternative to foundationalist ways of knowing. I argue that anti-foundationalism disallows us to teach literary interpretation as a form of inquiry because it views any guiding principles of inquiry, any epistemological grounds for practice, and any theoretical approach to interpreting as misguided attempts at an absolutism that controls what we do. While I am not positing a theory of literary inquiry that makes a return to absolutes, I criticize the anti-foundationalist stance because having no grounds to practice, no guiding principles, and no way of determining when one interpretation is better than another undermines teaching and undermines students abilities to form justified beliefs about texts. What I offer, then, is one possible way of solving the foundationalism vs. anti-foundationalism problem as it relates to teaching students to be better interpreters. My argument depends greatly upon Susan Haack's epistemological theory called 'foundherentism'; that she developed as an alternative to either foundationalism or its most popular competitor, coherentism, which is a kind of anti-foundationalism. I believe foundherentism is an excellent model of inquiry and is highly adaptable to teaching inquiry in literature courses.

ISBN: 9780542487927Subjects--Topical Terms:

1018115
Education, Language and Literature.

The epistemology of literary inquiry: Towards a "foundherentist" pedagogy of literature.
LDR:02725nam 2200289 a 45 001 965211
005 20110906
008 110906s2006 eng d
020 $a 9780542487927
035 $a (UnM)AAI3203272
035 $a AAI3203272
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Hollrah, Matthew. $3 1287992
245 1 4 $a The epistemology of literary inquiry: Towards a "foundherentist" pedagogy of literature.
300 $a 247 p.
500 $a Adviser: Frank Farmer.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-12, Section: A, page: 4378.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Kansas, 2006.
520 $a 'The Epistemology of Literary Inquiry: Towards a "Foundherentist" Pedagogy of Literature' addresses several problems in teaching literary interpretation to undergraduates. The primary problem I identify is the problem of how to teach students not simply to apply literary theory to texts, but to know what counts as evidence in developing justified beliefs about what literary texts can mean. There are many important spokes that extend from this central problem. One related problem is the problem of anti-foundationalism, which has become widely accepted in English as an alternative to foundationalist ways of knowing. I argue that anti-foundationalism disallows us to teach literary interpretation as a form of inquiry because it views any guiding principles of inquiry, any epistemological grounds for practice, and any theoretical approach to interpreting as misguided attempts at an absolutism that controls what we do. While I am not positing a theory of literary inquiry that makes a return to absolutes, I criticize the anti-foundationalist stance because having no grounds to practice, no guiding principles, and no way of determining when one interpretation is better than another undermines teaching and undermines students abilities to form justified beliefs about texts. What I offer, then, is one possible way of solving the foundationalism vs. anti-foundationalism problem as it relates to teaching students to be better interpreters. My argument depends greatly upon Susan Haack's epistemological theory called 'foundherentism'; that she developed as an alternative to either foundationalism or its most popular competitor, coherentism, which is a kind of anti-foundationalism. I believe foundherentism is an excellent model of inquiry and is highly adaptable to teaching inquiry in literature courses.
590 $a School code: 0099.
650 4 $a Education, Language and Literature. $3 1018115
650 4 $a Literature, General. $3 1018152
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 516511
690 $a 0279
690 $a 0401
690 $a 0422
710 2 0 $a University of Kansas. $3 626626
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 66-12A.
790 $a 0099
790 1 0 $a Farmer, Frank, $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2006
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3203272