In this section, the major findings would be summarized and analyzed in accordance with the four research questions proposed in Chapter One.
1. What is EFL senior high school students’ perception of the content of textbooks and literary works?
In terms of students’ perception of the content of textbooks and literary works, the study found that students favored literary works more than the textbook. Firstly, the results from the survey indicate that students showed more preference for the selected simplified literature than for the content of textbooks. After the experiment, many of them reported that they wanted to read more of this kind of literary works.
Also, in both the pre-instructional questionnaire and the post-instructional questionnaires, students held consistent and positive opinions that literary works enhanced their interest in reading English books, their knowledge of western culture
79
and their English language competence before and after the study. In this study, the instruction of literature creates a meaningful context that is replete with authentic language and interesting characters; thus, designing lessons around the reading of literature provides students with a wide range of dialogues, vocabulary and linguistic knowledge. In addition to strengthening students’ language skills, literature also develops students’ imagination, awakes their cultural awareness, and encourages them to think critically about themes and characters. The findings in this study lend further support to the contention that literature is a viable resource for senior high school students (Auerbach, 1993; Bagherkazemi & Alemi, 2010; Van, 2009).
2. What is the difficulty EFL senior high school students encounter when reading literary works?
Despite the fact that the students considered reading literary works enjoyable and pleasurable, they did encounter difficulty in their reading, and the cardinal difficulty students mentioned in this study is the immense unfamiliar words. In most textbooks and magazines used in senior high school, there are often more than thirty new words for an article of 500 running words. The abundant unknown words make it almost impossible for students to read the article fluently and to understand it with ease.
Moreover, much of the lecturing time is spent teaching those new words and explaining the meaning of the article, which discourages students to read
independently. In fact, this kind of instruction makes students become passive learners who just try to memorize what they are taught. On the other hand, the present study proves that graded readers with controlled structure and lexis triggered students’
motivation and interest to read fluently, independently and confidently. The simple reading material helped students take an active role in their reading. Thus, it is
80
essential to select material that is easy, interesting and within students’ linguistic level so that they can read within their comfort zone. This finding is consistent with many researchers’ contention that the reading materials have to be within the students’
reading competence to encourage them to develop their intrinsic motivation to be independent and confident readers. (Day & Bamford, 2002; Hill, 2002; Nation, 2007, 2009; Walker, 1997)
3. How do EFL senior high school students respond to the reader response approach on literature instruction?
In terms of students’ opinions of the reader response approach, most of them claimed that they liked learning literature using this approach. Firstly, this approach could satisfy their aspiration to acquire enjoyment and entertainment in reading English books. In the traditional language classroom where the teacher dominates the teaching, the major focus is on vocabulary and grammar knowledge; little attention is given to students’ desire for pleasurable learning. The present study shows that the student-centered reader response approach could satisfy students’ desire to learn with enjoyment.
Next, students expressed their strong fondness of the response-based tasks and activities in the post-instructional questionnaire and the interview alike. Of the four activities-- the pre-class worksheet, role paly, discussion and response journals, they favored the role play the most, followed by the discussion. The reasons are that these activities helped them know that different readers could interpret the same stories differently, and they became more involved in the stories when doing the discussion or negotiation, as well as when watching the role play. Students also liked the response journal because they could recall their past experience and reflect on the
81
change of their interpretation of the stories after the instruction. Lastly, although students showed less preference for the pre-class worksheet as it was time-consuming, they still agreed that the pre-class worksheet helped them read the text more in detail to have better understanding of the stories. However, some students worried that this approach would put off the normal syllabus and the teacher would rush to finish the scheduled syllabus and this might influence their scores in the monthly exam. So although they loved using the reader response approach to study literature, they preferred to do it after school or during the summer school.
In addition, this study also shows that the reader response approach facilitated students to become more reflective thinkers because they began to make personal connections between the text and their lives. In all response-based tasks, students were encouraged to draw on their personal experiences, opinions, and feelings to interpret the texts and to negotiate the meaning with their peers. In fact, students were reading reflectively and analytically to create different interpretation of the text when reading the text or interacting with their peers. This makes reading become a dynamic and aesthetic process in which they can (1) foster a sense of open-mindedness to construct meaning from text in terms of their own ideas, interests and experiences (Beach, 1993; McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004), (2) constantly reflect on their responses to the text when negotiating the text with their peers or when doing the response journal (Ali, 1993), and (3) accept multiple interpretations rather than just one correct interpretation (Iser, 1978; Rosenblatt, 1978). In other words, in addition to deciphering the assertions that the printed words point to, when students engaged in the response-based activities, they also centered their attention on what they were living through during their relationship with the text and their interaction with their peers. Furthermore, as students negotiated with their classmates to create meaning of
82
the texts and reflected on their opinions and interpretations, they also developed personal growth. Also, students reported that the teacher’s nonjudgmental, but encouraging responses to their journal encouraged and triggered them to express and explore more of their opinions and feelings. On the contrary, if the teacher gave little feedback or corrected their linguistic errors, they would prefer to write less to avoid making mistakes. This result is consonant with the contention of many researchers that what students expected from the teacher was not linguistic knowledge, but
support and encouragement for more exploration of aesthetic meanings (Berger, 1993;
Carlisle, 2000; Hancock, 1993; Simpson, 1986).
As for the classroom atmosphere, students claimed that the reader response approach created a harmonious environment where they could interact with their classmates to discuss, negotiate, and create their interpretation of the text. Moreover, in the discussion and negotiation of meaning, they reread the stories, reflected their opinions and interpretations. Sometimes they were even shocked by their classmates’
creativity and different interpretations.
In a word, students favored the reader response approach because it could satisfy their aspiration for pleasure reading, develop their analytical and reflective thinking, promote personal growth, as well as create a harmonious and interactive learning atmosphere. According to the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English, in addition to fostering students’ language ability, another major goal of English teaching is to develop students’ critical and reflective thinking. From the results of this study, it can be implied that the reading of literary works using reader response approach is an effective teaching approach to create an interactive and communicative learning environment to nurture students’ reflective thinking and develop their in-depth analytical skills.
83
4. What improvement do EFL senior high school students make in their language skills when reading literature via the reader response approach?
As for the improvement of language skills, most students agreed that their reading ability has improved. One of the main reasons is that they had to read one story book within six weeks. This is equal to what they read for one semester.
Moreover, they also had to read a lot in the response-based activities, including the pre-class worksheet and the response journal. According to the results mentioned above, many students reported that they understood the stories and attained enjoyment and pleasure in their reading. Comprehension of the stories encourages students to read confidently on their own, so their reading ability improved.
In addition, more than half of the students considered they had made
improvement in the speaking ability. In the role play and the discussion, students were encouraged to discuss and exchange their opinions in English and were required to present their opinions and drama in English. This created opportunities for them to practice speaking English. Senior high school students seldom had opportunities to express their opinions in the traditional teacher-centered and grammar-focused classroom. In this study, the reader response approach provided them with
opportunities to speak out their opinions in English; therefore, more than half of them thought they had improved their speaking ability even the study spanned only six weeks.
Regarding listening and writing abilities, less than half of the students thought they had improved these two skills. In this study, although students had to write down their opinions in the pre-class worksheet and the response journal, they sometimes used pictures or Chinglish (Chinese English) because they couldn’t express their opinions in English fluently. In fact, they didn’t have much confidence in their writing
84
ability. As for the listening ability, since the students were used to having the teacher teach in English, not many of them considered their listening ability improved in the reader response approach
To sum up, simplified literary works appeal to students as they are easy to
understand and it arouses students’ interest and motivation to read English books. This study also demonstrates that the reader response approach can satisfy students’
expectation to get enjoyment in reading English books and develop students’
reflective thinking and personal growth when reading literary works. As for students’
performance of the four language skills, a lot of improvement was made in the
reading and speaking abilities, but not much in the other two skills. However, students show concern that teaching literature using reader response approach may influence their scheduled syllabus and their scores in the monthly exam, so they preferred to have this kind of activities after school or during the summer school.