Diagnosing Causes of Pre-Service Literature Teachers’ Misconceptions on the Narrator and Focalizer Using a Two-Tier Test

Abstract

Constructivism proposes that learners construct concepts based on prior knowledge and experiences. Numerous factors may lead to inadequate or improper concept construction, leading to misconceptions. This study provides a foundation for discussing literary misconceptions using discussions with 47 pre-service literature teachers on the origins of diverse misconceptions regarding the narrator and focalizer. The participants identified the narrator and focalizer in two fictional narratives and elucidated each concept. Thus, the causes and aspects of the misconceptions were identified. Misconceptions about the narrator and focalizer were found to involve four factors: over-contextualization of everyday experiences, misunderstanding of terms, transfer of misconceptions in textbooks, and miscategorization of prior knowledge. The transfer of misconceptions and miscategorization had the largest impact. Moreover, the aspects of misconceptions differed for each cause. Over-contextualization led to equating the narrator with the focalizer, and the transfer of misconceptions led to equating the narrator with the author. Miscategorization resulted in miscategorizing the narrator and focalizer as subordinate concepts of speech representation and point of view. Misunderstanding of terms interacted with other causes, leading to equating the narrator with the focalizer, as well as misclassifying them as speech representation. Based on these results, methods to overcome literary misconceptions at the curriculum, class, and teacher education levels were suggested.

1. Introduction

At the center of the recent educational movement are criticisms of the subject-based curriculum system and efforts to modify it into a competency-based curriculum. In this paradigm shift, the goal of education lies in what learners know how to do, not simply what they know [1]. The important point is that even if the curriculum changes from subject-based to competency-based, an important goal of education is still for learners to understand concepts correctly [2]. Competency does not replace or exclude concepts. Although acquiring concepts alone does not make one an educated person, it is difficult to obtain the abilities and qualities of an educated person without acquiring concepts [3].

The primary task of concept learning is selecting which concepts to teach. However, identifying the learner’s level of understanding of the concept is as important as selecting it. From a constructivist perspective, a concept is incomplete in itself; it is constructed. A concept does not first exist outside the learner and then transition inside. Rather, learners construct concepts based on their prior knowledge and experiences. The problem in this process is misconception. That is, due to various causes, learners may erroneously construct the concepts they must learn, hindering their intellectual growth and further learning. Therefore, misconceptions are an important problem whose solution should be prioritized by curricula seeking effective concept learning [4].

Previous studies on misconception have focused primarily on science and mathematics education. Based on the self-consciousness of knowledge education, these studies have long discussed the occurrence of and solutions to misconceptions, the core of education content. Studies for these subjects are achieving significant results in teaching strategies to address misconceptions, which include the first stage of misconception typology, the second stage of analyzing the origins of diverse misconceptions, and the third stage of resolving the misconception. In contrast, interest in misconceptions is relatively low in language, literature, history, social, and geography education. For these subjects, most discussions are still at the level of the typology of learners’ major misconceptions related to the core concepts of each subject [5].

In literary education, research on misconceptions is now in its initial stage. Only recently have scholars published a paper addressing the need for research on literary misconceptions [6]. To stimulate research on literary misconceptions, in addition to their typology, the origins of diverse misconceptions must be analyzed. This is because the origins of diverse misconceptions must first be identified to devise methods to overcome them, i.e., change the concept.

Based on these problems, this study analyzes the causes of secondary school pre-service literature teachers’ misconceptions regarding the narrator and focalizer, a typical concept taught in literature classes in South Korea. The specific research questions are as follows.

• What are the origins of pre-service literature teachers’ misconceptions regarding the narrator and focalizer?
• What misconceptions regarding the narrator and focalizer arise from each cause?

This analysis of the origins of diverse misconceptions will provide a basis for devising teaching strategies to resolve them and improve the literary education curriculum. Furthermore, since this is the first study to approach literary misconceptions in terms of the narrator and focalizer, it can promote interest in this area and contribute to stimulating further research. Finally, by targeting the misconceptions of pre-service literature teachers, this study will help with implementing learner-oriented teacher education.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Meaning of Misconception and Research Necessity

In concept learning, numerous terms are used to indicate a learner’s erroneous understanding of something. These include alternative conception, spontaneous reasoning, misconception, naive conception, and misunderstanding. The most widely used of these terms is misconception.

To understand misconceptions, it is important to note that the term “conception” is used rather than “concept.” “Concept” refers to the social and objective knowledge created by the agreement of the academic community, whereas “conception” refers to a mental representation in an individual’s cognitive structure. Therefore, “conception” emphasizes the process by which individuals construct a concept in their cognitive structure. The learner’s conception can be considered appropriate if it reaches the level of the concept, and if not, the learner’s understanding is inappropriate. There are two types of inappropriate conceptions: preconceptions and misconceptions. Both terms fall under personal and subjective knowledge. The former refers to learners’ preconceived notions constructed from their pre-learning everyday experiences, while the latter refers to conceptions in the learner’s cognitive structure that do not match the concept or comprise only parts of the concept after learning.

In brief, misconceptions signify knowledge in the learner’s cognitive structure that does not match or only partially matches the concept of the academic community. When applied to literary education, literary misconceptions can be defined as knowledge in the learner’s cognitive structure that does not match or only partially matches the literary concept even after learning.

A point to note is the prejudice against literary concepts. Interest in misconceptions is low in literary education because of the prejudice that literary concepts are more unscientific than scientific. Due to the interpretive nature of literary concepts, it is difficult to establish objective and universal concepts, unlike research in science and mathematics. Subsequently, literary study is open-ended and controversial about concepts. However, the concepts of all subjects possess some logical and interpretive nature, albeit varying in degree. In science education, misconceptions are defined based on “concepts agreed upon by the scientific community,” which itself acknowledges the interpretive nature of concepts [7]. Literary concepts such as character, event, narrator, focalizer, rhythm, imagery, allegory, and irony are knowledge agreed upon by the literary community through research and discussion. Moreover, these literary concepts constitute the main contents taught in literary education. Hence, as in science education, misconceptions in literature must also be explored to investigate the knowledge of literature learners and improve concept learning.

2.2. Origins of Diverse Misconceptions

Misconceptions do not occur accidentally. Rather, their occurrence is causal and complex. Therefore, one of the topics of misconception research is the analysis of their origins. The origins of diverse misconceptions must be identified in order to devise methods to eliminate the cause or correct the misconception. Identification of their origins also facilitates effective learning and teaching environment design to prevent misconceptions from occurring.

There are two main discussions on the causes of misconceptions. One involves the factors contributing to misconceptions, and the other involves the mechanisms by which misconceptions occur. The former has identified factors affecting the formation of misconceptions at various levels, including everyday life, the classroom, media environment, and peer groups. Among these, the most discussed factors include everyday experiences, language used, and textbooks [8].

The relationship between everyday life and misconceptions relates to the notion that knowledge is an abstraction of concrete objects or phenomena. Misconceptions are likely to occur when knowledge that is intuitively understood in everyday life does not reflect the content of the concept. The relationship between the language used and misconceptions relates to the notion that concepts are represented by terms. A term is created to reveal the typical attributes of a concept. However, a term cannot represent all the characteristics of a concept; compared to the concept, it is incomplete and opaque. This causes learners to misunderstand the meaning of the concept when approaching it through a term. The relationship between textbooks and misconceptions relates to the notion that a textbook represents terms, explanations, activities, etc., related to the concept through language. Learners in a classroom understand the concepts described in the textbook through the teacher’s act of teaching. If the textbook contains any misconceptions, they are likely to be transferred to the learner. Even if the textbook describes the concept accurately, the learner may understand it incompletely if the explanation is difficult, abstract, or not detailed.

An important goal of Korean literary education is for learners to deepen their understanding of literary concepts, and in particular, the complexity of these concepts. In the process, they often form misconceptions with various factors. Everyday experiences, language used, and textbooks can be regarded as important factors that form misconceptions in concept learning in literary education as well. When learning concepts frequently used in everyday life, such as storytelling, symbolism, metaphors, and protagonists, the learner’s everyday experiences become either a basis for properly understanding the literary concept or a factor that leads to misconceptions. Discussions in literary education have often involved the notion that textbook explanations of the narrator, character types, plot, etc., are inaccurate. In particular, in the sense that literary education is a subject that teaches “language arts,” i.e., literature, through “language,” close analysis is required of the effects of the language used, i.e., the terms used to describe the concept, on the formation of misconceptions.

However, these factors in themselves do not cause misconceptions to form. In the learning process, a concept is not complete in itself; it is constructed. In other words, the occurrence of misconceptions relates deeply to how the learner constructs the concept using these factors. The mechanism is as important as the factors in the formation of misconceptions. The mechanisms by which misconceptions occur are largely based on two theories: p-prime theory and categorization theory.

P-prime theory explains how everyday experiences are involved in the formation of misconceptions. It states that learners intuitively construct knowledge through everyday experiences, which is referred to as p-prime. Misconceptions occur when learners do not apply p-prime in the proper context [9]. For example, a learner may construct the p-prime that “force causes objects to move” through his or her everyday experiences of pushing objects. However, this knowledge may lead the learner to think, “To keep moving the object, I must keep applying force,” which is a misconception. Without distinguishing between contexts with and without friction, the learner forms this judgment in the former context. P-prime theory has the advantage of explaining in detail the formation of misconceptions by conceptualizing the relationship between the factor of everyday experiences and the occurrence of misconceptions. The learner’s p-prime can serve as either a misconception or a suitable resource for learning a concept depending on the context in which it occurs. If the p-prime causes a misconception, then the solution is to recontextualize the p-prime.

Categorization theory explains how the learners’ prior knowledge is involved in the formation of misconceptions [10]. A concept does not exist by itself. Rather, it exists as part of a knowledge category. Misconceptions occur when the learner does not properly understand the category of the concept to be learned. For example, consider a learner that is trying to categorize whales while learning about vertebrates. It would be the learner’s misconception to classify whales as fish and think that they breathe through gills based on their appearance. This is the process of judging fish as a different category from mammals and understanding fish through the characteristics of that category. Categorization theory has the advantage of explaining the relationship between prior knowledge and misconceptions through the principle of categorization. Learners utilize the concepts they have already learned, i.e., prior knowledge, to understand the concepts they are currently learning. Here, a misconception may occur if the prior knowledge is improperly used. To correct this misconception, the learners must re-categorize it while properly understanding the relationship between their prior knowledge and the concept to be learned.

In concept learning in literary education, the p-prime and categorization theories are useful for explaining the mechanisms by which misconceptions occur. For example, to understand the concept of the narrator and focalizer, a learner may recall his or her own storytelling experience. Depending on the appropriateness of the contextualization, this experience can either support or impede learning. Additionally, to understand the narrator and focalizer, the learner may refer to prior knowledge such as “telling and showing” or “types of perspectives” as a representation of dialogue. In this case as well, depending on the appropriateness of the categorization, the prior knowledge can either contribute to learning the concept or lead to a misconception.

2.3. Meaning and Educational Context of the Narrator and Focalizer

In literary theory, the narrator is the person who tells the story in the narrative. The story, which consists of characters, events, and background, corresponds to the content of the narrative. Strictly speaking, the person who tells the story is not the author. Rather, the author creates a representative to tell the story, which is the narrator [11]. A reader hears a voice that talks about the story while reading a text, and that voice belongs to the narrator. The narrator is important because the story may be conveyed differently depending on the narrator. The credibility of the narrator or their intellectual and moral characteristics determine the rhetorical effect of the work, thus greatly affecting the reader’s understanding of the narrative [12]. In the history of narrative theory, the narrator has been regarded as essential and the only tool of narrative mediation. This indicates that the distinction between the narrator and focalizer was not perceived before Genette proposed the concept of focalization.

The focalizer is “the position or quality of consciousness through which we ‘see’ events in the narrative [13].” G. Genette first presented the issue of the focalizer, raising the criticism that previous studies concentrated on the narrator while overlooking the fact that the mediation of the story is related to “who is speaking” and “who is viewing” [14]. Narrators can describe what they see, but they can also describe what others see. The focalizer might be a character or a narrator. In the focalization, “see” has a perceptual facet, a psychological facet, and an ideological facet beyond the physical vision. In other words, “who sees?” indicates “Who perceives, conceives, assumes, understands, desires, remembers, and dreams?” and so on. The focalizer allows the reader to view an event from the perspective of a specific character, allowing the reader to sympathize naturally with that character’s situation. Hence, one method to understand the meaning of the narrative deeply is to analyze the mediation of the story while focusing on the focalizer.

In this regard, the “see” of the focalizer and the “speak” of the narrator have cognitive, emotional, and ideological dimensions beyond sensory dimensions such as vision or hearing. Given that these two are separate in principle but combined depending on the literary work, they should be considered important in exploring narrative communication. Diversity in the combinations of the narrator’s speaking and the focalizer’s seeing reinforces or transfers the social relationship and power structure between characters in the form of representation.

In education in Korea, the concepts of the narrator and focalizer are taught within the Korean language subject. The achievement standard for the 2015 revised curriculum currently being implemented is as follows: “(9kor05-04) the learner should receive literary works with a focus on the perspective of the viewer or speaker in the literary work [15].” In the 2015 revised curriculum, the first through third years of middle school are expected to attain this achievement standard. The concept of the narrator has long been taught from the fourth curriculum, while the concept of the focalizer was introduced in the 2015 revised curriculum.

It is worth noting that the Korean curriculum uses the terms “speaker” and “viewer” rather than “narrator” and “focalizer.” This is based on the question that Genette raised to distinguish between the narrator and focalizer: “who is speaking” and “who is viewing.” Genette assumed the typical attributes of the narrator and focalizer as telling and viewing, respectively. The Korean curriculum states that “narrator” and “focalizer” are unfamiliar and difficult terms for middle school learners and suggests “speaker” and “viewer,” which contain intuitive and everyday words, as the terms for the narrator and focalizer, respectively.

In the context of literary education, narrator and focalizer are concepts that are difficult for learners to understand. It is difficult for a learner to perceive the narrator when reading a novel. In particular, the more novels that minimize the narrator’s involvement and exposure, the more the reader is immersed in the story layer rather than at the narration layer. The reader must consciously focus their attention to identify the narrator. In addition, various terms such as point of view, teller, voice, and perspective have been used with regard to the narrator throughout the history of literary education, which hinders the learner’s understanding of the narrator and creates an obstacle to learning.

However, unlike narrators, as a focalizer is a new concept in narrative theory, it is unfamiliar to teachers as well as learners. Just as narrative theorists before Genette did not distinguish between who speaks and who sees, the task of identifying who speaks and who sees in the mediation of the story is an unfamiliar and difficult one. One difficulty in understanding the concept is the misunderstanding caused by the term “viewer” itself, which has replaced “focalizer” in the curriculum to promote a more intuitive understanding.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants

The participants in this study comprised 47 undergraduate students from Kangwon National University. Most of the participants desire to become literature teachers in public or private secondary schools after graduation. The College of Education of Kangwon National University, which is located in Gangwon-do, South Korea, admits students with relatively high academic achievements. The participants had received basic instruction about narrators from the previous curriculum (2011 revised) in middle school, learned about the concepts of the narrator and focalizer in the first semester of 2018 in the Literary Education major, and responded to a descriptive survey in the second semester of 2018 in the Literature Theory major. Before taking the survey, the participants were informed that their participation in the study was voluntary, that participation would not affect their grade, that their participation would be anonymous, that codes would be assigned for identification, and that the results of the descriptive survey would be treated as confidential and used only for research purposes. The participants’ consent was then obtained. The “Instructions and Consent Form for Research Participants” was provided for this purpose. The participants’ backgrounds and educational experiences vary. However, as their backgrounds are irrelevant to the research objectives, no personal data was collected.

3.2. Research Instrument

The content of the concept questionnaire was based on the achievement standard related to the narrator and focalizer in the 2015 revised Korean curriculum. The questionnaire was based on a two-tier test approach, which is widely utilized in misconception research to identify the learners’ misconceptions. The questionnaire was broadly divided into first (Question 1) and second tiers (Question 2). Question 1 identified whether the pre-service teacher had a misconception and, if so, its aspects: “Using (Text 1) and (Text 2), explain the meaning and characteristics of concepts ⓐ and ⓑ of (Material).” (Text 1) is an excerpt from the Korean novelist Lee Hyo-seok’s “When Buckwheat Flowers Bloom.” In (Text 1), the narrator is someone outside of the story, who explains the conflict between Dong-i and Heo Saengwon. This narrator sets Heo Saengwon up as the focalizer and makes the readers view their conflict from the perspective of Heo Saengwon. As a result, the readers sympathize naturally with Heo Saengwon’s situation. (Text 2) is an excerpt from the Korean novelist Eun Hee Kyung’s “Great and Special Lovers.” In (Text 2), the narrator is someone outside of the story, who tells the conflict between man and woman. This narrator sets both of them up as the focalizer and makes the reader view their conflict from each perspective. As a result, the readers judge the lovers critically while maintaining a sense of balance. The sentence presented in (Material) was one of the achievement standards of the 2015 revised curriculum: “the learner should receive literary works with a focus on the perspective of the ⓐviewer or ⓑspeaker in the literary work.” ⓐ is the term in the curriculum for “focalizer” corresponding to the learner’s level, and ⓑ is the same for “narrator.” (Question 2) was used to identify the causes of misconceptions: “Describe any difficulties you have in learning, understanding, and explaining concepts ⓐ and ⓑ.” In addition to showing any correct or incorrect knowledge of the learners by revealing their understanding of the concept, this question also revealed the difficulties they experienced in understanding it. Therefore, this question provided clues to infer the causes of misconceptions. The Korean questionnaire that was administered to the learners is presented in Appendix A, and the English translation is presented in Appendix B.

3.3. Research Process and Analysis Method

The study began on September 10, 2018, by asking participants to complete the concept questionnaire. Each participant was given 30 min and asked to return the questionnaire to the researcher when they believed their answer was complete. The data produced from the above research procedure were assigned to the classification symbols shown in

Table 1. Research data and classification symbols.

Content		Subject	Classification Symbol
Question 1	A Misconceptions of pre-service teachers and their aspects	47 participants	A-Serial number
Question 2	B Report difficulties in understanding, learning, and explaining the concepts		B-Serial number

and cited.

The researchers collated the concept questionnaires collected from the participants, reviewed their responses to Question 1, and selected the misconceptions (

Table 2. Results of misconception identification.

Concept	No Misconception	Has Misconception	Sum
Narrator	17	30	47
Focalizer	25	22	47

). Overall, misconceptions were identified in 58.5% of the responses. There were differences in prevalence according to the concept. Misconceptions were identified in 63.8% and 46.8% of the responses for the concept of narrator and focalizer, respectively.

Subsequently, four categories were created to analyze the causes of misconceptions systematically in the responses with the misconceptions (

Table 3. Origins of diverse misconceptions and their meanings.

Origins of Diverse Misconceptions	Code	Meaning
Over-contextualization of everyday experiences	O1	The learner overuses knowledge obtained from everyday experiences in inappropriate contexts to understand concepts. For example, learners may misidentify the narrator and focalizer based on their own experiences with storytelling, or may not perceive their differences.
Misunderstanding of terms	O2	The learner understands the meaning of concepts with an arbitrary understanding of its terms. For example, the learner may understand the term “viewer,” which is used in the curriculum for “focalizer,” as “characters who see something with their eyes.” This is due to the learner’s arbitrary interpretation of the viewer’s “see.”
Transfer of misconceptions from textbooks	O3	The learner understands concepts with the belief that the misconception presented in the textbook is correct. For example, the learner may describe a third-person point of view as the point of view of narrators who speak outside the work. This is because the textbook’s misconception of the third-person point of view was transferred to the learner.
Miscategorization due to prior knowledge	O4	The learner misunderstands the category of the concept to be learned due to their misunderstanding of the relationship between their prior knowledge and the concept to be learned. For example, the learner may equate the distinction between the narrator and focalizer with the distinction between points of view. The distinction between the narrator and focalizer and the distinction between points of view are at different levels. However, the learner establishes their prior knowledge of point of view as the parent category and places the concepts of the narrator and focalizer under it.

).

The categories in Table 3 were derived using grounded theory, though previous studies on the causes of misconceptions were referenced. Although grounded theory begins from data, the researcher’s interpretive framework is used to create categories that can appropriately describe the data [16]. These created categories are not finalized by themselves. The researchers must continuously examine whether the categories are appropriate for understanding the data and complement them when necessary. Using this methodology, the researchers analyzed and classified the misconceptions and their causes several times to create four categories.

However, even if researchers repeatedly perform strict analysis and self-examination, they are limited by subjectivity. To address this limitation, the researchers conducted an expert opinion survey to verify whether the identification of misconceptions and the categories of the causes listed in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively, were appropriate and whether there were any other categories. The expert group comprised six members: five professors and researchers who teach and research literary education and one professor who is an expert in misconception research. The researchers informed this group of the purpose and method of the study via e-mail, obtained consent, sent the questionnaires, and obtained their responses. All experts who received the questionnaire confirmed that all the misconceptions identified in Table 2 were appropriate. The researchers then collected their opinions on whether the analysis of the origins of diverse misconceptions presented in Table 3 was appropriate, and whether there were any other categories. Most of the experts concurred with the analysis and categories of this study. However, [A-5] responded, “The characters in a novel speak with other characters and view events. Here, the character speaking is the ‘speaker’ and the character viewing the event is the ‘viewer.’” In this regard, the researchers considered the origin of the misconception as O4. However, the experts suggested that “Learners may misunderstand the meaning of ‘speak’ from the term ‘speaker’ of the narrator curriculum, and misunderstand all agents of a conversation as the ‘speaker.’” Accordingly, the cause of this case was modified to O2. Through this process, the classification of the causes of misconceptions listed in Table 3 was completed.

4. Results

4.1. Prevalence of Misconceptions by Cause

The misconceptions identified in the responses appeared in various forms. Essentially, one cause formed one misconception. However, two or more causes formed more than one misconception in many cases. As such, the sum of the responses containing misconceptions for each cause exceeded the total number of misconceptions. For the data analysis, this study examined the number of responses containing misconceptions by cause and divided this by the total number of misconceptions by concept, obtaining both the ratio and number of cases.

Table 4. Prevalence of misconceptions by cause.

Concept	Total Number of Misconceptions	Prevalence (Number of Responses) of Misconceptions by Cause
		O1	O2	O3	O4
Narrator	30	10%(3)	33.3%(10)	66.7%(20)	43.3%(13)
Focalizer	22	13.6%(3)	40.9%(9)	0%(0)	59.1%(13)

shows the results.

For the concept of narrator, misconceptions were identified in 30 of the 47 responses, with 46 misconception causes. O3 showed the highest prevalence, followed by O4. The third-highest prevalence was O2, followed by O1. For the concept of focalizer, misconceptions were identified in 22 of the 47 responses, with 26 misconception causes. O4 showed the highest prevalence. This was followed by O2 and O1, while O3, the transfer of misconceptions from textbooks, did not occur at all.

The cause that differed the most in the misconceptions of the narrator and focalizer was O3. Although O3 was the highest among the causes of narrator misconceptions, this cause was not observed at all among the causes of focalizer misconceptions. Analysis of this difference will provide information to help resolve issues in concept learning for the narrator, as well as prevent the formation of misconceptions through the same cause when learning about the focalizer.

Meanwhile, the other causes of misconceptions had a similar rate of occurrence for both concepts. O4 showed the highest prevalence, followed by O2 and O1. These results indicate what needs to be considered to prevent misconceptions when designing lessons on literary concepts, including those of the narrator and focalizer. In particular, the high prevalence of O4 suggests the importance of helping learners properly understand the relationship between prior knowledge and the concept to be learned when learning literary concepts. Even if learners properly understand their prior knowledge, they may misunderstand the concept they are currently learning if they do not perceive the similarities and differences between the two concepts.

4.2. Analysis of the Origins of Diverse Misconceptions

4.2.1. Over-Contextualization of Everyday Experiences

Learners learn and construct concepts through various experiences. These include experiences in school, where learners interact with teachers and their fellow learners, and experiences in their daily lives, where they interact with others and their environment. While intuitively analyzing their everyday experiences, learners construct personal knowledge on their own or utilize their everyday experiences as clues to understand the concepts to be learned [17]. Everyday experiences are one of the resources that learners use to learn a concept meaningfully.

It is worth noting that these everyday experiences can cause misconceptions. To understand the concept to be learned, learners recall their related everyday experiences. However, learners become confused when they discover gaps between this concept and their everyday experience. In relation to (Question 2), some participants who had misconceptions noted that it is difficult to understand the narrator and focalizer properly due to inconsistencies with their everyday experiences.

Table 5. Cases of O1.

Code

Example Responses to (Question 2)

O1

[B-10] We usually equate the viewer and the speaker in terms of the character who witnesses an event and speaks about it. For that reason, it was difficult to understand the difference between these two concepts when learning about the viewer and the speaker. It is still difficult to distinguish these two concepts. [B-25] The concept honestly seemed very easy to me if I only heard the words “speaker” and “viewer.” However, even after the explanation of the concepts, it was difficult to understand the difference between them. I could not shake the thought, “Is the person viewing the event, not the same person who will speak about it soon?” [B-27] I see the speaker and viewer as different concepts. When we tell a story, however, it is difficult to understand why the speaker and viewer are divided.

shows representative cases of O1. The participants either do not understand how the narrator and focalizer differ ([B-14], [B-25]), or know that there is a difference, but do not understand why the narrator and focalizer are divided in the course of the story ([B-27]). These difficulties originate from the participants’ experiences with storytelling. We have abundant storytelling experience in recounting characters or events from our daily lives. In these experiences, we recount through someone’s voice (narrator) what was seen from someone’s perspective (focalizer). The issue here, however, is that based on their experiences in storytelling, learners may misunderstand that the “person who viewed the event” is the same as the “person who speaks about the event.” Generally, when “I” recount my experience, i.e., when storytelling from the first-person point of view, the person who sees, perceives and feels the event (focalizer) is the same as the person who talks about the event (narrator). However, when “I” recount someone else’s experience, i.e., when storytelling from the third-person point of view, the narrator and focalizer differ. Therefore, the first-person narrative situation is an inappropriate basis for understanding the difference between the narrator and focalizer. In the process of understanding these concepts, however, the learners over-contextualized the first-person narrative situation, which dominates their own storytelling experiences. This resulted in cognitive confusion.

Learners who over-contextualize their first-person point of view storytelling experiences do not perceive the difference between the narrator and focalizer or apply them incorrectly to the work.

Table 6. Misconceptions due to O1 and their aspects.

Code

Example Responses to (Question 1)

O1

[A-10] The speaker refers to who is narrating from a certain person’s perspective in the text. The speaker in <Text 1> is clear. Heo Saengwon is established as the speaker, and he describes his thoughts about Chungju-zib and Dong-i from his perspective. [A-25] The speaker and viewer refer to who is speaking through a certain person’s eyes. [A-27] The viewer refers to who is conveying the story through a certain person’s eyes. In <Text 2>, a war of nerves between a man and a woman is conveyed through the eyes of someone outside the story. That person is the viewer.

shows representative aspects of the misconceptions caused by O1. In [A-25], the participant defines both the narrator and focalizer with the same meaning. This learner does not understand the difference in meaning between the narrator and focalizer in the sense that the narrator is related to the act of speaking, and the focalizer is related to the act of seeing. In [A-10], the participant defines the narrator in relation to “a certain person’s perspective”; the participant confuses the meaning of the narrator and focalizer in the sense that the perspective here is close to the focalizer. The participant also misunderstood Heo Saengwon as the narrator in their analysis of <Text 1>. While the participant in [A-27] defined the focalizer properly, they did not properly apply the concept of focalizer to their analysis of the text. In their analysis of <Text 2>, they misunderstood the third-person point of view narrator, “someone outside the story,” as the focalizer.

According to the P-prime theory, learners intuitively construct knowledge through everyday experiences, and misconceptions occur when learners do not apply everyday experiences in the proper context [9]. Learners’ everyday experiences with storytelling can become origins of diverse misconceptions. However, as their everyday experiences are a useful resource for learning, it is inadvisable to exclude them from the classroom when teaching literary concepts [18]. Therefore, to change the concept [19], i.e., overcome the misconception and modify their understanding to the correct concept, the learner’s experiences with storytelling must be recontextualized so that they contribute to the learner’s understanding of the narrator and focalizer. Specifically, everyday experiences that learners focus on are often first-person narrative situations. However, because the narrator and focalizer are the same in a first-person narrative situation, this is inappropriate for understanding the difference between the narrator and focalizer. Therefore, teachers must guide the learners to recall experiences of different narrative situations or compare different narrative situations. Learners can more easily understand the difference between the narrator and focalizer by recalling a third-person narrative situation from their own storytelling experiences that distinguish the narrator and focalizer, or by comparing first- and third-person narrative situations.

4.2.2. Misunderstanding of Terms

One of the first things that learners encounter when learning a concept is its terms. Terms refer to words used to represent a concept. Terms are designed to accurately express the typical attributes of the concept or reveal marked points that distinguish the concept from others. In this sense, terms are a useful resource for learners to reference when learning concepts. Hence, by paying attention to its terms, learners can understand the attributes of the concept and identify its differences with other concepts.

Terms, however, do not represent the concept perfectly. Terms are partial, and their meanings vary according to the concept. Therefore, terms also act as a factor that leads to misconceptions. Learners may become confused by terms with similar meanings or arbitrarily understand the meaning of the term used to represent the concept. In relation to (Question 2), some participants who had misconceptions noted that it is difficult to understand the meaning of the terms for the concept accurately.

As mentioned above, the terms narrator and focalizer in narrative theory were replaced with the terms speaker and viewer, respectively, in the 2015 revised Korean curriculum. The Korean education community judged that the terms speaker and viewer better reveal the typical attributes of the concepts of narrator and focalizer, respectively, and that learners would feel familiar with and intuitively understand them.

The issue, however, is that some learners who understand the concepts of the narrator and focalizer based on terms arbitrarily interpret the meaning of the terms.

Table 7. Cases of O2.

Code

Example Responses to (Question 2)

O2

[B-5] “Speak” and “view” in “speaker” and “viewer” are easy terms. The characters in a novel speak with other characters and view events. The character speaking is the speaker, and the character viewing the event is the viewer. However, I am not sure if that is really the case. [B-6] The speaker is related to telling, and the viewer is related to showing. However, I cannot clearly understand how these concepts differ from similar terms such as point of view, person, voice, narrator, and focalizer. [B-29] When I learned the term “speaker,” I thought it was the same as the person telling the story, i.e., the narrator. However, when I learned the term “viewer,” I could not really guess the meaning. “Sees” seems to differ from what characters or the narrator sees, but I am not sure what it means exactly.

shows representative cases of O2. In [B-5], the participant thinks that speak and view are easy words to understand. This statement, however, is a judgment that does not consider the context of the narrative in which these terms are used. Moreover, this judgment can lead to an improper understanding of the narrator’s “speak” and the focalizer’s “see.” This participant also claims that the terms are easy to understand, but is uncertain of their understanding of the concepts based on them (“I am not sure if that is really the case”). In [B-6], the participant points out how many terms learned in literary education share similar words, and noted that it was difficult to learn the concepts of the narrator and focalizer because the differences between the terms are unclear. Meanwhile, in [B-29], the participant faced difficulties because “focalizer” is an unfamiliar term. This participant noted that although they know the focalizer’s “see” differs from the character’s “see” at the story level and the narrator’s “see” at the narrative level, they do not know the exact meaning.

Learners who do not understand or misunderstand the meaning of the terms confuse the narrator and focalizer with other literary concepts based on the direction of their arbitrary understanding. This characteristic differentiates it from O1 in that O1 is only associated with the misconception of equating the narrator with the focalizer.

Table 8. Misconceptions due to O2 and their aspects.

Code

Example Responses to (Question 1)

O2

[A-5] The characters in a novel speak with other characters and view events. The character speaking is the speaker, and the character viewing the event is the viewer. [A-6] The speaker is a narrative technique in which the narrator directly reveals the characters and events. The viewer is a narrative technique that indirectly reveals the personalities and psychology of the characters and information about the events. [A-29] The narrator is a person who speaks about characters or events through a certain person’s eyes. The narrator is the viewer and the speaker.

shows representative cases of misconceptions due to O2. In [A-5], the participant confuses the narrator with characters who speak about events and the focalizer with characters who view events. The learner misunderstands the narrator’s “telling” at the narrative level and the focalizer’s “viewing” at the text level as actions of the story level to which characters belong. In [A-6], the participant understands that the narrator and focalizer, directly and indirectly, reveal the personalities of the characters or the information of the events. In this misunderstanding, the narrator is confused with telling, a type of speech representation, and the focalizer, with showing, another type of speech representation. In [A-29], the participant perceives both the viewer and speaker as components of the narrator and equates the narrator and focalizer.

Which term is appropriate is not excluded from discussions about the narrator and focalizer. In narrative theory, the terms narrative and focalization are used the most. However, terms such as point of view, perspective, vision, prism, slant, and filter are used competitively depending on the researcher. As a result, research of the narrator and focalizer inevitably begins a discussion about identifying which terms to use and why [20,21].

Therefore, changing the terms “speaker” and “viewer” in the curriculum back to “narrator” and “focalizer” or different terms will not necessarily prevent misunderstanding the terms. No term can perfectly represent a concept; learners can always misunderstand its meaning if it is represented by language. To correct learners’ misconceptions arising from misunderstandings of the terms, textbooks and teachers must first clearly explain what the terms represent. It is necessary to emphasize that the role of the narrator is to convey the characters and events of the story in the narrative, as well as that the terms “narrator” and “speaker” have the same meaning in this context.

One method to avoid misunderstandings is to explain the differences and relationships with other terms. This is because when “narrator” was replaced with “speaker” in the curriculum, the narrator’s act of speaking was judged as a marked characteristic that distinguishes the narrator from other concepts. The important point is that the narrator’s “telling” is an act at the narrative level distinct from the characters’ “telling.” If the learners can identify the difference by comparing the narrator’s “telling” and the characters’ “telling,” they can better understand the narrator’s “telling,” i.e., the characteristics of the speaker. This is also the case when learning the concept of the focalizer, which is represented by the term “viewer.” The teacher should emphasize to the learner that unlike the characters at the story level and the narrator at the narrative level, the focalizer is at the text level and that the focalizer’s “see” has perceptual, psychological, and ideological facets that go beyond mere physical vision.

4.2.3. Transfer of Misconceptions from Textbooks

Textbooks are one of the most important resources in concept learning. A textbook is a teaching material that concretely and systematically implements the contents of the curriculum for learning. Textbooks on concept learning act as guidelines for learners and teachers in that they present not only the terms and definitions of concepts, but also explanations, learning activities, and assessment items.

However, the problem is that textbooks frequently contain misconceptions, in addition to scientific concepts. Textbooks are a part of the pedagogical change process of academic discourse-curriculum-textbook-classroom, a conversion process in which concepts can be damaged or misunderstood. In relation to (Question 2), some participants who had misconceptions had suspicions about the explanations presented in the textbooks.

Table 9. Cases of O3.

Code

Example Responses to (Question 2)

O3

[B-3] The speaker of <Text 1> and <Text 2> is a narrator from the omniscient author’s point of view that talks about events, the behavior of characters, and even their psychology from outside the work. However, can the narrator be outside the work? Because the narrator is the writer, he can be outside the work. According to my professor, however, the narrator is an element in the work. I do not understand the textbook’s explanation very well.

shows cases of misconceptions due to O3. Representative misconceptions in Korean language textbooks and literature textbooks include the explanation that a narrator with an “omniscient author’s point of view” is the same as the author, and that a narrator with a “third-person point of view” is outside the work, while setting the criterion for point of view as inside and outside the work. In [B-3], the participant had suspicions about the explanation in the textbook. The participant found it contradictory that the textbook describes a narrator with an omniscient author’s point of view to be outside the work even though the narrator is an element in the work. However, the participant was uncertain of their judgment. While they acknowledged that the explanation in the textbook might be a misconception, they were confused as to whether that judgment itself was appropriate.

The participant’s confusion relates to the nature of textbooks as a factor in misconceptions. In class, textbooks are perceived as “guidelines to teach and learn” and “guidelines to accurately explain the learning content.” Consequently, learners strongly tend to accept the terms, definitions, and explanations of concepts presented in the textbook as entirely correct. Furthermore, even when learners perceive illogical definitions or inappropriate explanations in textbooks, they hesitate to judge them as misconceptions. Among the responses to (Question 2), only [B-3] questioned the explanation of the textbook. Due to their prejudice that the textbook represents absolute truth, the participant, in this case, was not convinced that the explanation in the textbook was a misconception.

Misconceptions in textbooks, such as that of the narrator, are characterized by being transferred to many learners based on the educational content presented in curricula and textbooks over long periods. As examined above, misconceptions due to O3 showed the highest prevalence among misconceptions of the speaker. Many learners who do not perceive a misconception in a textbook as a problem mistake the misconception as a scientific concept and later reproduce the misconception.

Table 10. Misconceptions due to O3 and their aspects.

Code	Example Responses to (Question 1)
O3	[A-33] The speakers of <Text 1> and <Text 2> are both the authors. [A-30] The speaker of <Text 1> talks about characters and events from outside the work as if staring directly at them. [A-3] The speaker of <Text 1> and <Text 2> is a narrator from the omniscient author’s point of view that talks about events, the behavior of characters, and even their psychology from outside the work.

shows representative cases of misconceptions due to O3 and their aspects. There are two main types of misconceptions due to O3. One ([A-33]) is the participant’s perception of the narrator as the writer based on the textbook’s explanation of the omniscient author’s point of view. The other ([A-30]) is the participant’s explanation of the third-person narrator’s location as “outside the work” based on the textbook’s explanation of the third-person narrator. There is a third type as well that combines these two. In this, the narrator is described as the “author” who is “outside the work.”

In most classes, since many learners learn the concept from one textbook, the misconceptions of the textbook are transferred powerfully and widely to the learners. To control this transfer of misconceptions, the teacher needs to perceive the misconceptions of the textbook and intervene. Misconceptions in textbooks are not directly transferred to learners. Rather, they are taught through the teacher’s class. Therefore, teachers should keep in mind that the textbooks might contain misconceptions and verify whether there are any misconceptions about the educational content to be taught.

Of course, it is difficult for teachers to verify individually whether there are misconceptions about the educational content. This is especially so if the textbook’s misconception is based on a misconception of the academic community, such as the misconception of the narrator. Therefore, a fundamental measure for this verification task is to build a database of misconceptions in the form of a handbook through collaboration between the education and academic communities. The textbooks currently in print by numerous publishers contain various misconceptions, a situation that requires systematic investigation and analysis by academic and expert groups. This task should include diachronic analysis, i.e., analysis of when the textbooks’ misconceptions first appeared and how they were mistaken to be correct. Presenting these investigation and analysis results to teachers, learners, and even publishers in the form of a handbook can not only effectively prevent the transfer of misconceptions in textbooks to learners, but also help reduce misconceptions in the textbooks themselves.

4.2.4. Miscategorization Due to Prior Knowledge

One resource that learners value for understanding concepts is prior knowledge. In teaching and learning, the concepts of subjects are hierarchized in accordance with their difficulty, and learners learn the concepts in order, from easy to difficult. Prior knowledge here refers to knowledge that has already been learned that is highly related to the content to be learned. Generally, learners with more abundant prior knowledge are more likely to succeed in concept learning. In learning, prior knowledge is a resource that promotes inference and understanding and serves as a source of confidence. The less prior knowledge learners have, the more passive they are in learning, and the more difficulty they experience in understanding.

However, prior knowledge does not always positively affect concept learning. Learners who are overconfident in or blinded by their prior knowledge are passive in learning new concepts. Prior knowledge can cause misconceptions. In relation to (Question 2), participants who had misconceptions noted the unfamiliarity of the concept or difficulties in learning while failing to understand the difference between the concept to be learned and their prior knowledge properly.

Table 11. Cases of O4.

Code

Example Responses to (Question 2)

O4

[B-8] I learned about the speaker and viewer as “telling” and “showing” in high school, so it was not difficult to understand these concepts. It was good to have another opportunity to learn them. [B-16] It is difficult to distinguish the speaker and viewer from the point of view. After thinking about it, learning about the point of view in middle school was not this difficult. I was able to understand the first-person point of view and third-person point of view based on person intuitively. [B-42] Viewer and speaker are subordinate concepts of point of view. However, the terms are unfamiliar. I am more familiar with the “first-person central point of view” and “third-person objective point of view.”

shows representative cases of O4. The participants in Table 11 mentioned telling and showing, which are speech representation types, as well as point of view and its different forms, which is prior knowledge related to the narrator and focalizer. The participants attempted to understand the concepts of narrator and focalizer in relation to their prior knowledge. However, they did not properly apply the prior knowledge, and it instead caused their misconceptions. In [B-8], the participant is confident that understanding the concepts of narrator and focalizer is not difficult. This confidence, however, is inappropriate because the learner misunderstands their prior knowledge of telling and showing as the narrator (speaker) and focalizer (viewer). In [B-16] and [B-42], each participant reports their difficulties in understanding the concepts of the narrator and focalizer in relation to the point of view. These participants easily learned point of view and its types and are still familiar with them. However, they confessed that the terms “speaker” and “viewer” were unfamiliar and that it was difficult to understand clearly how they related to the point of view.

This confusion arose because the learners could not properly subsume narrator and focalizer in their prior knowledge. According to Ausubel [22], meaningful learning is determined based on whether the prior knowledge properly subsumes the concepts to be learned. Subsumption, in this context, means to harmonize or integrate the concepts to be learned with existing concepts. Its types include superordinate subsumption, subordinate subsumption, and combination subsumption. To learn a concept meaningfully, learners must subsume it in a manner consistent with its relationship to their prior knowledge. As prior knowledge, such as point of view and showing and telling (mentioned in Table 11), is related to the narrator’s “telling” method or person, they are subordinate concepts of the narrator. If the prior knowledge is a subordinate concept, then the concept to be learned must be subsumed to the superordinate concept. Learners must infer the nature and characteristics of the concept to be learned while integrating their prior knowledge. However, in Table 11, the participants perceive their prior knowledge as the superordinate concept and subordinately subsume the narrator and focalizer.

The learners who miscategorized the concept to be learned due to their prior knowledge showed the misconception that the narrator and focalizer are a type of point of view or speech representation.

Table 12. Misconceptions due to O4 and their aspects.

Code

Example Responses to (Question 1)

O4

[A-8] “Speaker” is a narrative technique in which the narrator directly reveals the personalities and psychology of the characters, information of the events, etc. Because it is a direct narrative technique in which the narrator intervenes between the reader and the characters, the distance between the characters and the reader increases, whereas the distance between the narrator and the reader decreases. [A-8] “Viewer” is a technique that indirectly implies the personalities and psychology of the characters and information of the events through “dialogue” and “actions.” Through dialogue and description, the distance between the characters and reader decreases, while the distance between the narrator and characters and narrator and reader increases. [A-16] The speaker is the omniscient author’s point of view, and the viewer is the first-person central point of view. The viewer of <Text 1> is the first-person central point of view in that the character Heo Saengwon speaks primarily about his own psychology. The speaker of <Text 2> is the omniscient author’s point of view in that the narrator outside the work describes in detail the psychology of two characters. [A-42] The viewer, the person who directly sees the characters or events, can be called the first-person central point of view. The speaker, the person who observes and conveys characters and events, can be called the third-person objective point of view.

shows representative cases of misconceptions due to O4 and their aspects. There are two main types of misconceptions due to O4. One is to set the prior knowledge of speech representation as a superordinate concept and subordinately subsume the narrator and focalizer. [A-8] is a representative example. This participant defines the narrator (speaker) according to the concept of telling, and the focalizer (viewer) according to the definition of showing. The learner sets the narrator and focalizer as a subordinate category of speech representation. However, the distinction between the narrator and focalizer is irrelevant to speech representation and cannot be equated with the distinction between telling and showing. This type of misconception is characterized by the relevance of the “misunderstanding of the terms.” Speaker and viewer, terms in the curriculum, are concepts that are different from telling and showing, which are two types of speech representation; however, they are terminologically very similar. This is the basis for the learner subordinately subsuming the narrator and focalizer in speech representation.

The other is to set the prior knowledge of point of view as a superordinate concept and subordinately subsume the narrator and focalizer, as in [A-16] and [A-42]. The concept of point of view concerns “how and where the speaker speaks;” the first-person point of view and third-person point of view are distinguished based on the “where,” and the external approach that describes only the character’s outer appearance and the internal approach that describes in detail the character’s psychology are distinguished based on the “how.” Four types of point of view can be derived by combining the classifications according to these criteria: the first-person central point of view, first-person peripheral point of view, third-person omniscient point of view, and third-person objective point of view.

Some of the participants confused the concepts of narrator and focalizer with one of these four types of point of view. In [A-16], the participant regards the narrator as the omniscient author’s point of view and the focalizer as the first-person central point of view. In [A-42], the participant describes the focalizer as the first-person central point of view and the narrator as the third-person objective point of view. Point of view is a structural attribute of the narrator. Therefore, the narrator, as a subordinate category of point of view is a misconception in which prior knowledge is used incorrectly.

The category’s location serves as a basis for inferring the characteristics of the concept. Incorrectly identifying the category of the concept, therefore, adversely affects further learning of other concepts. To correct this misconception arising from the miscategorization of prior knowledge, first, the learner must perceive that they incorrectly identified the category of the concept to be learned. Second, the learner must newly identify the category of the concept to be learned.

In this respect, using metacognition helps learners identify misconceptions while being critical of their cognition [23]. Metacognition refers to cognition of cognition; that is, the learners reflect on and identify their own level of understanding and state of learning. As in the examples of Table 11, learners feel negative emotions such as unfamiliarity and awkwardness when subsuming the narrator and focalizer into prior knowledge. These emotions, psychological clues that the learners are experiencing cognitive conflicts, can be utilized as an opportunity for learners to reflect on their level of understanding. Teachers must, therefore, provide activities for learners with misconceptions to record their thoughts and emotions while focusing on their own response.

After identifying their misconceptions, a graphic organizer can be provided to help learners newly identify the relationship with their prior knowledge. An organizer is information or a material that provides a medium between the learners’ prior knowledge and the concept to be learned. A graphic organizer combines text and pictures to present the elements and structure of the concept visually [24]. Narrator, focalizer, telling, showing, point of view, etc., are all elements that systematically constitute the narrative. Figure 1 presents the relationship between these concepts through a graphic organizer.

Figure 1 can be provided as a completed organizer for presentation purposes or as a learner-generated organizer for learners to fill in the blanks. These organizers explicitly show the misunderstandings of learners who have misconceptions due to O4 regarding the relationship between prior knowledge (telling and showing, point of view) and the concepts to be learned (narrator and focalizer), and can help re-categorize their misconceptions to promote a proper understanding of the locations of the narrator and focalizer and their characteristics.

5. Discussion

This study collected data on the misconceptions of the narrator and focalizer from undergraduate students at the College of Education aspiring to become secondary school literature teachers, and identified the origins of diverse misconceptions and the aspects of the misconceptions for each cause. The findings indicated that 63.8% of the participants had a misconception about the narrator, and 46.8% had a misconception about the focalizer. Furthermore, the occurrence of misconceptions was found to involve four factors: over-contextualization of everyday experiences (O1), misunderstanding of terms (O2), transfer of misconceptions in textbooks (O3), and miscategorization of prior knowledge (O4). Among these, the causes with the largest impact on the misconceptions of the narrator and focalizer were O3 and O4. Moreover, the aspects of the misconceptions differed for each cause. In this section, we discuss the implications of these results regarding overcoming literary misconceptions at different levels of literary education.

5.1. Overcoming Literary Misconceptions in the Curriculum and Textbooks

The most important implication of these results is that they provide evidence for criticizing how the concepts of the narrator and focalizer are presented in the curriculum and textbooks. In the context of intervening in the misconceptions of literary concepts, textbooks and the curriculum play a role. O3 showed the highest prevalence for narrator misconceptions, while the most prevalent cause of focalizer misconceptions was O2. The curriculum and textbooks are important for learners when they need to refer to various materials in the process of constructing concepts. Even if the textbook describes the concept accurately, the learner may understand it incompletely if the explanation is difficult, abstract, or not detailed. Therefore, the impact on learners’ formation of misconceptions should be considered when selecting terms for literary concepts in the curriculum or presenting terms and definitions of literary concepts in textbooks.

In relation to this, narrator and focalizer as concepts were newly proposed as educational content in the 2015 revised Korean curriculum. Additionally, considering the level of the learner, the terms “narrator” and “focalizer” were replaced with “speaker” and “viewer.” These changes to the curriculum are judgments and measures that consider the learner’s level and the effectiveness of learning. The appropriateness of these judgments and measures, however, should be assessed through research and discussion. The findings of this study are the first to demonstrate that the measure to present both the narrator and focalizer together and change their terms in the curriculum led to various misconceptions in learners. These misconceptions are an important problem that must be resolved for meaningful concept learning. Further discussion is therefore needed on whether to cover the concepts of the narrator and focalizer together or separately in the curriculum, as well as which terms to use for the narrator and focalizer. In addition, when revising the curriculum, its contents should be corrected or supplemented, considering predictions for the possibility of misconceptions and their consequences.

Additionally, this study’s findings confirmed the strong influence of the misconceptions in textbooks on the formation of misconceptions in learners. The majority of learners accept the misconceptions in textbooks as correct without any cognitive conflict. Moreover, since teachers perceive textbooks as guidelines and manuals for teaching, they are unlikely to detect misconceptions. Therefore, it is important to continuously examine and correct misconceptions at various stages in the development, testing, and use of textbooks. In Korea, particularly, textbooks are assessed and published in accordance with the testing system. Once this system is acknowledged, consideration can be given to strengthening the review of textbook misconceptions in the testing process and directing corrections to the cases found. Moreover, after developing textbooks, academic and expert groups can systematically investigate and analyze literary misconceptions, summarize their findings in the form of a handbook, and share them with teachers, learners, and publishers to minimize misconceptions.

5.2. Class Design for Overcoming Literary Misconceptions

Everyday experiences and prior knowledge are two causes of misconceptions about the narrator and focalizer. Some of the participants could not distinguish between the narrator and focalizer due to the over-contextualization of their everyday experiences related to storytelling. Others improperly applied their prior knowledge of speech representation, point of view, etc., and misunderstood the narrator and focalizer as subordinate concepts of their prior knowledge. Everyday experiences and prior knowledge alone do not cause misconceptions. On the contrary, these elements are an important resource for meaningful concept learning. However, when learning concepts, misconceptions can occur if the learner over-contextualizes their everyday experiences or improperly subsumes the concepts into prior knowledge.

Teachers should, therefore, identify the learners’ everyday experiences and prior knowledge in advance and design the class for learners to understand the relationship between these resources and the concepts to be learned properly. For example, if the learner contextualizes an everyday experience in which it is difficult to distinguish the narrator and focalizer, the teacher can construct and present activities to recall and contextualize storytelling experiences of a third-person narrative situation in which the narrator and focalizer are distinct, that is, recontextualization activities. Furthermore, if the learner over-categorizes the narrator and focalizer as subordinate concepts of point of view or speech representation, the teacher can present metacognitive questions and comparison activities focusing on the learner’s responses to promote cognitive conflict. Teachers can also construct and present graphic organizers as exploratory activities to help learners properly subsume the concept to be learned into their prior knowledge. Learner-generated graphic organizers for the narrative structure have learners infer the answers by filling in the blanks based on the overall structure. This type of organizer helps learners identify the locations of the narrator, focalizer, point of view, speech representation, etc., and independently explore the characteristics of the narrator and focalizer.

5.3. Literary Misconceptions as the Content of Teacher Education

The participants in this study were undergraduate students majoring in literary education at the College of Education. They are both learners of literary concepts and future literary teachers who will teach these concepts in the classroom. Their expertise must include knowledge of literary concepts in addition to sensitivity to misconceptions. However, there are thus far few cases presenting literary misconceptions in teacher education as educational content. This lack of interest in literary misconceptions likely originates from the traditional perception of teachers as the authority and expert of knowledge. Literary teacher education also focuses on teaching pre-service teachers sophisticated curriculum knowledge and dynamic and contested theories. At the same time, it is important to note that pre-service teachers and teachers both construct knowledge and can, therefore, become a party to misconceptions.

Therefore, it is undesirable to regard literary misconceptions as only a failure of literary education and an object to be eliminated. On the contrary, although misconceptions are the product of learning, they can serve as a starting point of exploration. Based on their learning of misconceptions, undergraduate students may ask the following as pre-service teachers: “What do I need to know?” “What do I not know or misunderstand?” or “How should I change my misconceptions?” These questions deepen and lead to the question, “How should I teach literary concepts to prevent or address learners’ misconceptions?” The process of obtaining answers to these questions should be the content of literary teacher education. A literary teacher is a reflective practitioner who enables learners to feel responsible for their knowledge of literature and also reflect on and change their own knowledge.

5.4. Limitations of the Present Study

As exploratory research has just begun on literary misconceptions, there are no discussions thus far on the origins of diverse misconceptions. In this respect, this study can spark academic interest in literary misconceptions and provide insights, methodologies, and analytical results for subsequent studies to reference. Due to the small sample size in this study, however, the generalization of its findings is limited. In particular, as this study targeted undergraduate students at a single Korean university, the range of participants must be expanded to various countries and regions. Another limitation originates from the selection of only the narrator and focalizer to examine the causes of literary misconceptions. This study analyzed the causes of literary misconceptions, focusing on the narrator and focalizer. Narrator and focalizer are representative literary concepts that have long been taught in literary education. However, further studies are required to explain literary misconceptions in general. This involves collecting data on other literary concepts such as rhythm, irony, satire, imagery, and metaphors and analyzing their causes. Finally, various tests must be utilized to analyze the causes of literary misconceptions comprehensively. This study’s questionnaire was configured based on two-tier tests. In the current initial stage where the results of misconception research have not been accumulated, this tool is useful for securing various statements of misconceptions by enabling learners to describe their knowledge of concepts and difficulties encountered when learning them. However, as they are subjective descriptive questions, this tool is unsuitable for large-scale research. Therefore, subsequent studies should utilize multiple-choice tests to collect data on literary misconceptions at larger scales and produce more precise results.