Learners’ Use of Efferent, Aesthetic and Critical Stances When Reading a Novel
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v6n1.74Abstract
Recent studies have suggested that literature components benefit students in language acquisition and reading in general, yet reading for enjoyment is arguable since most of the students admit reading is done for examination purposes. Regardless of the reading purpose, adoption of efferent, aesthetic and critical stances is vital and believed to influence the reading process. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the perceived and actual reading stances among learners when they read a novel. A total of 484 students from twelve non-residential secondary schools situated in Kuantan participated in this study. Employing a mixed method design, both quantitative and qualitative research approaches were utilised. The instruments used to collect the data were a set of questionnaire and student’s written responses. Although the findings from the questionnaire and written responses suggested that the learners employed all the three stances namely efferent, aesthetic and critical stances, there was the tendency for the students to adopt more of the efferent stance than the aesthetic and critical stances. Overall, the adoption of the efferent stance indicates that the students tend to closely and narrowly process the novel in terms of the story line narrated by the writer rather than adopting aesthetic and critical stances through interacting with the plot and characters and relating these elements with their experience and viewpoints.
References
Bushman, J. H., & Bushman, K. P. 1997. Using Young Adult Literature in the English Classroom. Upper Saddle, New Jersey: Merill, Prentice Hill.
Carter, R., & Long, M. N. 1991. Teaching Literature: Longman Handbooks for language Teachers. Edinburgh Gate: Longman.
Chi, Feng-ming. 2009. Reader Stance and a Focus on Gender Differences. English Language Teaching. 2(4): 82-90.
Clark, C., & Rumbold, K. 2006. Reading for Pleasure: A Research Overview. National Literacy Trust. (November), 35.
Collie, J. & Slater, S. 1990. Literature in the Language Classroom: A Resource Book of Ideas and Activities. Cambridge: CUP, 6-7.
Djikic, M., Oatley, K., & Moldoveanu, M. C. 2013. Reading Other Minds: Effects of Literature on Empathy. Scientific Study of Literature. 3(1): 28-47
Erkaya, O. R. 2005. Benefits of Using Short Stories in EFL Context. Asian EFL Journal. 8: 1.
Galda, L., & Liang, L. A. 2003. Theory and Research into Practice: Literature as Experience or Looking for Facts: Stance in the Classroom. Reading Research Quarterly. 38(2): 268-275.
Hunt, L., & Huffman, L. E. 2017. Developing a Critical Stance Toward Reading, Writing, Journal of Reading. 37(2): 114-122.
Khairul Husna Abdul Kadir, Tengku Nor Rizan Tengku Mohamad Maasum & Ravichandran Vendagasamy. 2012. Transactional Reader Response and Foregrounding Theories in ESL Classroom. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 69(Iceepsy): 1684-1692.
Langer. 1994. A Response-based Approach to Teaching Literature. Language Arts. 71: 203-21.
Langer, J. 2001. Beating the Odd: Teaching Middle and High School Students to Read and Write Well. American Educational Research Journal. 38(4): 837-880.
Many, J. E. 1990. The Effect of Reader Stance on Students' Personal Understanding of Literature. National Reading Conference Yearbook. 39: 51-63.
Many, J., & Cox, C. 1992. Reader Stance and Literary Understanding: Exploring the Theories, Research, and Practice. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McKay, S. 1982. Literature in the ESL Classroom. Tesol Quarterly. 16(4): 529-536.
McRae, J. 1991. Literature with a Small L. Basingstoke: MEP Macmillan.
Mikkonen, J. 2015. On Studying the Cognitive Value of Literature. The Journal of Aesthetic and Art Criticism. 73(3): 273-282.
Mukundan, J. 2006. ELT Materials: Do Policy and Implementation Reflect Pedagogic Sense. Focus on ELT Materials Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia. 40-51.
Nor Hashimah Isa & Che Ton Mahmud. 2012. Literary Texts for Malaysian Secondary Schools: Needs Versus Policy. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2(7): 76-86.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Galda, L. 1993. Ten Years After: A Reexamination of Symbolic Play and Literacy Research. Reading Research Quarterly. 28: 162175. doi:10.2307/747887.
Pitchford, Dean. 2009. Captain Nobody. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
Pressley, M. 2000. What Should Comprehension Instruction be the Instruction of? M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.). Handbook of Reading Research: Volume III Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum. 545-561.
Probst, R. E. 2004. Response and Analysis: Teaching Literature In Secondary School. 2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Rashid, Radzuwan Ab., Vethamani, Malachi Edwin, Rahman, Shireena Basree Abdul. 2010. Approaches Employed by Teachers in Teaching Literature to Less Proficient Students in Form 1 and Form 2. English Language Teaching. 3(4): 87-99.
Rosenblatt, L. M. 1994. The Reader, The Text, The Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. 1995. Literature as Exploration. New York, Modern Language Association of America.
Rastall, P. 2006. Language as Communication, Pattern and Information. Lans Linguistique. 42(1): 19-36.
Scherff, L. 2012. This Project Has Personally Affected Me . Developing a Critical Stance in Preservice English Teachers. Journal of Literacy Research. 44(2): 200-236.
Siti Norliana Ghazali, Roszainora Setia, Muthusamy, C., & Kamaruzaman Jusoff. 2009. ESL Students ’ Attitude Towards Texts and Teaching Methods used in Literature Classes. English Language Teaching. 2(4): 51-56.
Spires, H. A., Johnston, L. H. & Huffman, L. E. 1993. Developing a Critical Stance Toward Text Through Reading, Writing and Speaking. Journal of Reading. 37(2): 114-122.
Tina Abdullah, Mohammad Hassan Zakaria, Fauziah Ismail, Wan Fara Adlina Wan Mansor & Marzilah Abdul Aziz. 2007. A New Teaching Model To Teach Literature for the TESl Pre-Training Service Programme in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Satu Model Pengajaran Baru Untuk Program Latihan Pra-Perguruan Tesl Di Universiti Teknologi Malaysia). Unpublished Research Report.
Valerio, A. 2013. Translation and Ideology: A Critical Reading. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. (70): 986-996.
Vethamani, M. E., & Nair, P. 2007. Using Analogy as a Scaffolding Tool for Facilitating the Comprehension of Literary Texts. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research. 3(3): 1511-8002.
Vijayarajoo, A. R. & Samuel, M. 2013. Reader-response Pedagogy and Changes in Student Stances in Literary Texts. The English Teacher. XLII(3): 174-186.
Vipond, D., & Hunt, R. A. 1984. Point-Driven Understanding: Pragmatic and Cognitive Dimensions of Literary Reading. Poetics. 13(13): 261-277.
_____. 2003. Curriculum Specifications for the English Language for Form 5. Ministry of Education of Malaysia. Curriculum Development Centre.
_____. 2015. Circular, Number 4; Text Conversion, Ministry of Education, Malaysia.
_____. 2006. English Language Syllabus for Elective Subjects Literature for Form 4. Ministry of Education, Malaysia.
_____. 2012. The Role Of Literature in The Malaysian English Language Classroom. MELTA Roundtable. MELTA.
