The application of reader-response theory to teach symbolism in literature class for EFL students

Putri Rindu Kinasih

Abstract


For years, scholars believed one effective approach that can be used in teaching literature in EFL context is reader-response approach yet very limited study can be found about the application of reader-response theory in teaching symbolism. Whereas, symbolism is considered as the most important elements of serious imaginative literature which provide rich sources of insight. The problem is, deciding exactly what is represented by a symbol is not an easy thing to do, though the general meaning is clear because a symbol most commonly represents something unnamed. This research aimed to find out the application of reader-response theory in teaching symbolism. This research observed 16 participants majoring in English Literature program. Within four weeks, the participants were asked to read selected poems and short stories and asked to write a reflective writing as a response. Then, the writings were assessed by using critical thinking rubric. From this research, it can be drawn that the participants’ score of symbolism interpretation were increasing by the end of the research. In other word, reader-response theory is beneficial to the improvement of students’ inadequacies in studying symbolism and offers potential benefits to solve problems in literature discussion such as low self-confidence and fear of stating out different interpretations. By the end of the research, the participants are more accustomed to express various ideas and more motivated to explore more supporting sentences to strengthen their ideas.


Keywords


reader-response, symbolism, literature, reflective writing

Full Text:

PDF

References


Barron, C. N. (2015). Developing an assessment program to measure critical thinking: A case study at a small, online college. In S. Wisdom, & L. Leavitt (Eds.), Handbook of reserach on advancing critical thinking in higher education (pp. 121-). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.

Basthomi, Y. (2001). Prose fiction in class: A retrospective. BAHASA DAN SENI , 29 (Edisi Khusus), 396-406.

Basthomi, Y. (2003). Theoretical views underlying the selection of classroom activities: Paying attention to the classroom of english literature in EFL context. TEFLIN Journal , XIV (2), 279-291.

Beach, R., & Marshall, J. D. (1991). Teaching literature in the secondary school. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

Bressler, C. E. (1994). Literary criticism: An introduction to theory and practice. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International.

Bruns, C. V. (2011). Why literature: The value of literary reading and what it means for teaching. New York: The Continum International Publishing Group.

Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Devine, J. (1984). ESL readers' internalized models of the reading process. In J. Devine, J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem, & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), TESOL '83. The question of control (pp. 95-108). Washington DC: TESOL.

Febriani, R. B. (2019). The students' reflective writing manifestation of reader-response literary analysis. EDULITE Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture , 4 (1), 35-44.

Gale. (2016). A study guide for Franz Kafka's "Hunger Artist". Michigan: GALE-Cengage Learning.

Given, L. M. (2008). Introduction. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. xxix-xxxii). California: SAGE Pulications, Inc.

Hargreaves, R. A., & Robins, P. (1981). A prose course for advance level english in east africa. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers Ltd.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education , 11 (1), 33-49.

Herlina, N. (2016). Teaching literature through poetry: A shifting reading orientation from efferent to aesthetic. EDULITE Journal of English Education, Literature, and Culture , 1 (2), 225-238.

Iskhak, Saleh, M., Sofwan, A., & Hartono, R. (2017). Investigating the effect of reader response journals on the quality of teacher trainees' responses to literary works. Theory and Practice in Language Studies , 7 (10), 831-840.

Langer, J. A. (1994). A response-based approach to reading literature. Language Arts , 71 (3), 203-211.

Lau, J. Y. (2011). Critical thinking and creativity: Think more, Think Better. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

Mays, K. J. (2017). The norton introduction to literature. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

McMahan, E., Funk, R., Day, S. X., & Coleman, L. (2017). Literature and the writing process (Eleventh ed.). New York: Pearson education, Inc.

Moon, J. A. (2006). Learning Journals: A handbook for reflective practice and professional development. Oxon: Routledge.

New York Board of Education. (1931). Syllabus of minima in modern foreign language. New York: Board of Education of New York.

Orr, D. (2015). The road not taken: Finding America in the poem everyone loves and almost everyone gets wrong. New York: Penguin Press.

Robb, L. (2014). Vocabulary is comprehension: Getting to the root of text complexity. California: Corwin Literacy-SAGE Publicatios Ltd.

Robson, M. (2020). Introduction. In M. Robson (Ed.), What is literature: a critical anthology (pp. 1-7). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1988). Writing and reading: The transactional theory. Cambridge: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.

Shen, F.-Y. (2001). Coordinating Aesthetic stance and Efferent reading in Poetry. College English: Issue and Trends , 3.

Spiegel, D. L. (1998). Reader response approaches and the growth of readers. Language Arts , 76 (1), 41-48.

Trisnawati, R. K. (2009). Implementing reader-response theory: An alternative way of teaching literature reserach report on the reading of Booker T. Washington's Up from Slavery. Journal ofEnglisfmnd Education , 3 (1), 1-14.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33474/j-reall.v1i2.6757

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Journal of Research on English and Language Learning (J-REaLL) is indexed by

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License