In my university’s e-learning forum, I am the incarnation of the model student.
If the system asks for analysis, I provide it.
If the tutor demands citations, I provide them in full APA Style 7th edition format, even going so far as to cite a YouTube video without an academic reference supplied by the tutor herself. ◉_◉
In a sense, I am practising malicious compliance: absolute obedience in pursuit of the system’s administrative desires. I can give the bureaucracy of the university exactly what it wants so that my grade remains safe and its assessment rubric is satisfied.
But let us be honest, there is a price to be paid for that kind of compliance.
The story began with last week’s Session 2 discussion forum prompt. Students were asked to analyse a case study using Smith’s (1987) theory of reading comprehension, which appears in the module on page 1.3. Yes, the question specifically asked us to provide a specific reference as well.
It felt almost like a little jab at me, after I had previously answered questions without explicitly providing references in academic format.
At the time, I thought that using the specific terminology found in the textbook, combined with the context that I was a student answering a question based on the module, should have been enough for a lecturer, tutor, or fellow student to understand that my sentence was a synthesis of my own thinking and the information available in the module.
Eventually, however, I realised that references in an academic context serve a more important function than mere formality. References make the origin of a claim transparent, allowing readers to verify it and judge it for themselves.
So, in the Session 2 forum, I obediently presented the answer the prompt requested. I explained how reading is divided into literal comprehension, interpretation, critical reading, and finally its highest level: creative reading. The tutor must have smiled with satisfaction at such a thoroughly textbook answer.
Behind the scenes, however, my head was already noisy with a series of conceptual questions that seemed to point toward a different view of the model presented in the module.
I realised that if I recklessly poured every question and logical gap I found into the discussion forum, the system might not recognise it as a “discussion”. Because, despite the label “discussion forum”, what I have seen so far resembles a one-way question-and-answer exchange: the tutor presents a problem, the student answers, and then the answer is evaluated by the tutor.
But this remains an assumption based on my subjective experience. I actually do not know whether there is some ideal form of discussion that would work for me in this e-learning forum.
Rather than turning the forum answer into an arena for dismantling theoretical assumptions that I have not even finished mapping out myself, I decided to separate the two things. The forum answer would remain faithful to the framework I was asked to use. The questions that emerged after reading that framework, meanwhile, seemed better suited to growing into a piece of writing of their own.
When the Boundary Between Literal and Interpretive Reading Becomes Blurred
First, I need to quote the specific passage from the textbook that I am questioning, while also showing where it differs from my intuitive understanding.
“In both oral and written forms. Within comprehension, there are elements of purpose, attitude, and response that can represent an understanding of the message being conveyed. Smith in Solkhan (1987) divides reading comprehension into four categories: (a) literal reading comprehension, (b) interpretive reading, (c) critical reading, and (d) creative reading.” (Santoso et al., 2024, p. 1.3)
The passage shows that the textbook categorises reading comprehension into four forms based on Smith as cited in Solkhan (1987).
However, I still find the boundary between literal comprehension and interpretation unclear. For example, when a reader understands the meaning of a word based on its lexical meaning or dictionary definition, is that process always considered literal comprehension? Or, when a reader determines the meaning of a word from the context in which it is used, has the process already become interpretation?
I also do not know how Smith himself described each category; my comments are based only on the explanation provided in the textbook.
“Literal comprehension is the simplest or most basic comprehension skill because it requires only a small amount of thinking. This skill involves finding the meaning of words and sentences directly within the context or according to what is written.” (Santoso et al., 2024, p. 1.3)
“Interpretive reading is a reading activity that requires the ability to understand more than what is stated in the passage. This category of comprehension involves more extensive thinking, namely the ability to identify ideas and meanings that are not explicitly stated in the text…” (Santoso et al., 2024, p. 1.3)
From this explanation, I still cannot find a clear operational boundary between literal comprehension and interpretation. Are the two intended to be mutually exclusive categories, or is literal comprehension also part of the interpretive process?
Intuitively, when I read, I experience the process of understanding a text as something that tends to be interpretive. If I merely read a text without connecting it to knowledge or experience that I already possess, I would actually question whether the process could be called comprehension at all. If literal comprehension means understanding a text “as it is”, then to what extent can the process still be called comprehension, given that the reader still has to assign meaning to the linguistic symbols they encounter?
For example, consider the sentence, “I want an apple.” When a reader understands this sentence, do they not have to connect the symbols “I”, “want”, and “apple” with knowledge they already possess? The word “apple”, for instance, would not automatically carry the same meaning for someone who had never learned that a particular object is called by that word. Even for a reader who already knows the meaning of “apple”, context can still play a role in determining what meaning is intended.
If so, can the process of connecting linguistic symbols with the knowledge already possessed by the reader still be categorised as literal comprehension, or has that process already become a form of interpretation?
When Creative Reading Is Placed at the Peak
“Creative reading is the reading skill that exists at the highest level. In addition to possessing the abilities of a reader, namely literal comprehension, interpretation, and critical thinking, readers at this level are also able to apply ideas found in a text or reading to new situations… and are able to extend the concepts contained in the text they have read.” (Santoso et al., 2024, p. 1.3)
If creative reading, as described in the quotation above, requires an understanding of literal information, interpretation of textual meaning, and critical evaluation of the ideas within it, does the relationship among these four forms of comprehension really have to be understood as hierarchical and linear?
Or could the four be understood as abilities that interact with one another and do not necessarily occur in sequence? This question arises because creative reading does not seem to be merely the end result of literal comprehension, interpretation, and critical thinking. The creative process itself can also generate new connections or ideas that then help the reader build interpretations and understanding of the text from the very beginning.
This question then made me curious about the concept of creativity beyond the context of the reading-skills classification in the textbook. If creativity involves forming new connections between ideas, perhaps it is worth looking at how creativity itself has been described in cognitive psychology.
Around 1960, psychologist Sarnoff Mednick developed the idea that creativity is closely related to the ability to form associations between elements that were previously separate. The idea was later summarised by Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow.
“The idea is simple and powerful: creativity is associative memory working exceptionally well.” (Kahneman, 2011)
Mednick also developed the Remote Associates Test (RAT), which was designed to test the ability to find relationships between words or concepts that do not appear to be directly related.
If Mednick’s idea is used as a starting point, another question emerges: is creativity really a skill that is hierarchically “higher” than literal comprehension, interpretation, and critical thinking, or is creativity instead one of the cognitive processes that can operate throughout the process of understanding and processing information?
Intuitively, I tend to experience comprehension as an associative process. When I read something, I do not merely receive information as it is. I automatically connect it with the knowledge, experiences, concepts, and relationships among ideas that already exist in my mind. In this sense, association does not seem to appear only when someone reaches the stage of “creative reading”. Association is already at work from the moment a person begins constructing an understanding of information.
If so, what exactly is being ordered by the hierarchy in which “creative reading” is placed at the top? Is it the difficulty of the reading task, the depth of comprehension, the complexity of the cognitive process, or the type of output produced by the reader?
To me, that question is more fundamental than simply determining whether one category belongs above another. If these processes can influence one another and occur simultaneously, then a hierarchical representation may only describe the level of demand involved in a particular reading activity, rather than a fixed sequence of cognitive processes occurring inside the reader’s brain.
In fact, taking this model of reading comprehension apart opens far too many cognitive rabbit holes that I have not yet fully mapped out. There are so many conceptual gaps that are challenging to deconstruct, especially within my own understanding.
Still, I think this piece is already long enough. I will let the remaining unanswered questions settle for now, perhaps becoming fuel for future essays. For the moment, my sarcastic compliance in the university discussion forum feels sufficiently complete.
Bye.
References:
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Gramedia Pustaka Utama. (Indonesian translation)
- Santoso, A., Setiawati, L., & Hasanudin, C. (2024). Bahasa Indonesia. Universitas Terbuka.