CONTENTS
Approval Page
Declaration
Acknowledgement
Preface
Contents
Abstract
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study –1 1.2 Research Questions –3 1.3 Purpose of the Study –3
1.4 Significance of the Research –4 1.5 Scope of the Research –4 1.6 Defnition of Key Terms –5 1.7 Organization of the Thesis –7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Teaching Strategies –9
2.1.1 Teaching Stages –10
2.1.1.1 Stage I: Pre-instructon –11
2.1.1.2 Stage II: Instruction –11
2.1.1.3 Stage III: Evaluation and Follow-up –12
2.1.2 Teaching Principles –13
2.2.1 Literature –15
2.2.2 Teaching Poetry –17
2.2.3 Teaching Prose –21
2.2.4 Teaching Drama –25
2.3 Problem in Literature Teaching –28
2.4 The Previous Research —30
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Site and Participants of the Study –38
3.2 Research Design –38
3.3 Data Collection Technique –40
3.3.1 Observation –40
3.3.2 Interview –40
3.3.3 Document Analysis –41
3.4 Data Analysis Technique –42
CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Observation Data –44
4.1.1 Strategies of Teaching English Literature at an Islamic University –45
4.1.1.2 Pre-instruction –46
4.1.1.3 Instruction Stage –47
4.1.2 Difficulty in Literature Teaching –57
4.1.3 Solution to the Problems –62
4.2 Interview Data –65
4.2.1 Strategies of Teaching English Literature at an Islamic University –66
4.2.2 Difficulty in Literature Teaching –71
4.2.3 Solution to the Problem –73
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion –78
5.2 Suggestion and Implication –80
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter consists of background to the study, research questions,
purpose of the research, significance of the research, scope of the research,
definition of key terms, and organization of the thesis.
1.1 Background to the Study
Literature has been a subject at schools in many countries and offered since
primary education. In the context of Indonesia, literature teaching is often
practiced along with language teaching, such as ethnic language, Indonesian, or
English. Purves, Roger and Soter (1990) state that as a body of knowledge
literature is considered important and keeps knowledge itself, practice and choice,
which has complex interrelationship. Therefore, it is essential to discuss
significance of literature in the process of literature teaching.
There are several reasons why literature should be taught and learnt.
Macmillan (2004) says that literature has several functions. First, literature allows
learners to live thousands of lives in a short time and gains experience from each
of them. Second, literature is also considered to offer them insight, which they
apply in their life. Such experience gives them insight and feeling for other
people’s mind that will be perceived as humanistic effect because it relates to
emotion rather than logic. Moreover, literature can give them some experience in
In Indonesia, as stated by Suyono (2005), the aim of language and literature
teaching is that students are able to read, write, listen to, speak proficiently and
love to do literary appreciation. This aim, however, has still not been achieved by
students. In other words, they still have some problems to master literary
competence. At an Islamic University, where this study was conducted, the
literature teaching has still been unsuccessful to achieve the goal. In this matter,
the weakness of literature teaching is caused by several problems faced not only
by lecturers but also by students themselves. Commonly some problems have
similarity as some previous research findings, which have been found in the
literature teaching (Parkinson and Thomas, 2005; Fogal, 2009; Amer, 2006;
Timuchin, 2008; Maryanah, 2007). However, others are different based on the
lecturers and students’ specific problems of Islamic University of Bandung.
Based on the description above, this study attempts to explore or investigate
the literature teaching occurring at Islamic University of Bandung covering aims
of the literature teaching, materials given to learners, literature teaching technique
and approach, and teaching literature evaluation. Also, it attempts to find out
some problems, particularly in the teaching context of EFL literature in the
research site. Although literature has been taught and learnt for years, there has
been limited research concerning with the literature teaching, effectiveness of the
study of literature, the appropriate materials with suitable techniques and
approaches applied by the lecturers, and assessment to evaluate the literature
teaching. By such reason, this research was conducted in the narrow context—the
1.2 Research Questions
Issue being addressed is on lecturers’ strategies in the teaching of English
literature at the English Literature Department of an Islamic University in
Bandung. The writer expects to solve them through the following questions:
1. How is English literature taught at an Islamic University in Bandung?
2. What difficulty (if any) do the lecturers face in the teaching of English
literature?
3. How do the lecturers solve the problems?
1.3 Purpose of the Research
The writer has curiosity about the English literature lecturers’ strategy in the
teaching of English literature and is eager to present a study on the teaching
methodology. To be clearer, objective of the study consists of main objective and
specific objective.
The main objective of this research is to explore methods of teaching
English literature conducted by the lecturers at the English Literature Department
of an Islamic University in Bandung. Meanwhile, the specific objectives are:
1. to investigate or explore the teaching of English literature at an Islamic
University in Bandung,
2. to identify problems faced by the lecturers in the teaching of English literature,
and
1.4 Significance of the Research
By conducting this research, it has some significance for the academic
world. The most significant is that such a study can give positive input to both
English literature lecturers at the English Literature Department in learning and
teaching activity and the writer self. Given those inputs, it is expected that they
are increasingly aware of their weaknesses in teaching-learning process, so that
they eventually are able to enhance or improve technique and method of teaching
the English literature. That is why the writer really looks forward that this
research is so significant and useful to improvement of the matters related to the
teaching methodology that is paid less attention during this time. Latter on, in
perspective of education practice, such a research may give benefit in the
framework of improvement of literature teaching in the classroom. In addition, it
is also expected that this research is useful for the English literature learners to
improve their writing and reading proficiency because indirectly the lecturers still
portray an important role of how learning-teaching activity may harvest success,
either for the lecturers or for the students.
1.5 Scope of the Research
This research restricts itself on methodological problems around teaching of
English literature. The problem is expanded toward broader ways in perspective
of applied linguistics. Nevertheless, it still focuses more on practice of teaching
the literature in the classrooms, in which the lecturers may interact with the
students in the teaching-learning activity. This study focuses more on all domain
Indonesia. That is why this research is concern with the lecturers’ strategies of
the English literature teaching in the classrooms. Furthermore, the research
problem is limited on practices of teaching the English literature conducted by six
literature lecturers. And this study finally discusses up broader things in terms of
literary teaching methodology.
1.6 Definition of Key Terms
1. Methodology:
- the study of the practices and procedures used in teaching, and the
principles and beliefs that underlie them (Richards et al, 1992:228)
- pedagogical practices in general (including theoretical underpinnings
and related research). Whatever considerations are involved in “how
to teach” are methodological (Brown, 2001:15)
2. Approach:
- the set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of language,
learning and teaching (Anthony, 1972)
- the theoretical foundation upon which any systematic method is based
(Paulston & Bruder, 1976)
3. Method:
- refering to the procedures of language teaching, to an “overall plan for
the orderly presentation of language material, no part of which
contradicts, and all of which is based upon, the selected approach
- an overall plan for systematic presentation of language based upon a
selected approach (Anthony, 1976)
4. Technique:
- the actual classroom behavior of the specific strategies which the
lecturers select to achieve their objectives (Paulston &Bruder, 1976)
- the specific activities manifested in the classroom that were consistent
with a method and therefore were in harmony with an approach as
well (Anthony, 1976)
5. Teaching:
- the simulation, guidance, direction and encouragement of learning
(Burton inWahab, 2007)
- teaching is an art, not a science—you must throw your heart into it,
realize that it cannot all be done by formulas, or you will spoil your
work, and your pupils, and yourself (Hihget, 1977).
6. Strategy:
- patterns of teacher behavior that are recurrent, applicable to various
subject matters, characteristics of more than one teacher, and relevant
to learning (Ebel, 1975:1)
- ... a repertoire of teaching skills and behavior in a word, strategies
...(Gilstrap & Martin)
7. Literature:
- literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the
- perhaps something is literary because the text is the kind of writing we
like to read; it’s a highly valued kind of writing. In this case, anything
can be literature, and anything can stop being literature. The important
implication is that we don’t get to decide what is literature because our
parents, lecturers, exams, textbooks, etc. define that for us. We are
trained to value the kind of writing that they value. This doesn’t mean
that we are empty vessels with no ability to think for ourselves.
However, our “personal” values and criteria are not personal, but
social. These social institutions provide us with a range of
possibilities, and social values are notoriously difficult to change
(Eagleton).
1.7 Organization of the Thesis
This thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapter one is introduction,
describes background of the study, the research questions, purpose of the
research, scope of the research, definition of key terms, and organization of the
thesis. Chapter two reviews the literature around the teaching methodology,
especially teaching of English literature genres. Theoretically it talks about
teaching of English literature as second or foreign language—how the teaching of
literature is developed in the developing country. Chapter three is the research
methodology. It depicts methods on how this research is conducted—in terms of
research design, research site, data collection technique, data analysis technique,
and population and sample. Chapter four is discussion and findings. It analyzes
the research findings can be got. The last chapter, chapter five, is conclusion and
suggestion. It makes up an extract of discussion on the research data, and
suggestion provides concessions to develop the next research.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter elaborates ways of collecting data at the research site through
observation, interview, and documentary review. These techniques are quite
appropriate with the qualitative study to gain essential information relevant with
the topic. The starting point for this section considers the research site and
participant of the study, data collection techniques and data analysis techniques.
3.1 Research Site and Participants of the Study
This research is conducted at the English Literature Department of Adab and
Humanities Faculty of Sunan Gunung Djati State Islamic University. Participants
of the research are seven lecturers of the English Literature Department of Adab
and Humanities Faculty. They teach the literature genres. Two of the seven
lecturers graduated from the Master Program (one person graduating from
Indonesia University of Education and another one from State University of
Malang, whereas the rest is still graduate of the strata one. All of them acts as
informants—respondents giving any information on reserach data so needed by
the researcher. All of the participants are the researcher’s colleague.
3.2 Research Design
This study is an exploratory research—investigating the literature teaching
strategies conducted by the lecturers in the classroom. The method applied in this
description of phenomena that occur naturally without the intervention of an
experiment or an artificially contrived treatment (Seliger, 1989:116). In other
words, the descriptive method describes the processes in a research by depicting
the data extracted from some of the supporting resources. The approach in
qualitative method in this research is developed in pursuance of research data
collected in the research setting.
Next, this study discusses the literature teaching strategies—all the behavior
of the lecturers when teaching of the literature genres in the classroom was
conducted. In this case, the study focuses more on the teaching strategies
implemented by the lecturers in the classrooms.
Population of this research is seven lecturers that teach English literature at
Adab and Humanities faculty. Overall characteristics of the population got
attention and interest as to obtain accurate data. subject and object, in this case,
getting involved in conducting the research were understood as deep as possible in
research implementation, so that anything supporting answer of the research
question was absolutely be considered to make the research findings grounded.
Furthermore, sampling technique was operated at non-probability sampling—in
short, it is surfeited sampling or so-called cencus, it is a technique of determining
sample if all member of population is used to be sample (Sugiyono, 2007:124).
Such a sampling technique is based on a reason that sum of population members
is relatively little—or less than thirty persons. In this matter, there are only seven
lecturers teaching English literature at the English Literature Department.
3.3. Data Collection Technique
This section clarifies the data collection techniques applied in this study.
The research data, in this case, were collected through:
3.3.1 Observation
The observation done in this research is non participant observation. It
means that the observer just sat and paid attention on how the lecturer
teaches English literature. The observation was conducted during two
months: from October to November in 2010. This step was done by firstly
attending the lecturing conducted by the lecturer. Secondly, the researcher,
in the classroom, sat on the chair paying attention on how the lecturer taught
the students the literature genre (poetry). Thirdly, during in the classroom,
all activity of teaching-learning on the poetry from the beginning to the end
was noted and also understood as the primary research data by which the
research questions could be solved. This observation was conducted to
some lecturers teaching the literature genres. Next, field notes as a result of
direct observation in the classrooms were considered as primary data to
process in the data analysis.
3.3.2 Interview
This interview was done to seven respondents by proposing a number
of questions to them. It was conducted as an instrument for collecting the
data and aimed at gaining the information missed in the observation and
checking the consistency between what the respondents had done in the
more valid data gained from the respondents (see Alwasilah, 2003). The
semi-structured interview was done in order to make the respondents free to
respond or answer all questions the research proposed. The respondents
whom the researcher interviewed are seven lecturers: DN, HA, N, LA, PP,
DP and PSF. They were selected based on their involvement and their role
as the lecturers of the English literature. The data resulted in the interview
are secondary data, function to make the observation data completed.
Next, the interviewed was administered in the researcher’s room, so
that the respondents could answer all of the proposed questions and feel
safe. It had been conducted twice, namely on 8th September 2010 at ten o’
clock to the lecturer, DN and on 9th September 2010 to the three
respondents: PP, DP, and PSF at one o’ clock p.m. Each respondent spent
more than an hour in the process of interviewing. The researcher, during the
interview, provided the tape-recorder to record what they said in terms of
the literature teaching strategies.
The information or data that had been gained through the interview are
expected to be more accurate—they become in-depth information (see
Alwasilah, 2002:154), so that such data are more credible in perspective of
validity and reliability. However, interviewing activity was surely relied on
the interview guide.
3.3.3 Document Analysis
The research data, collected from documentation, were obtained from
documents dealing with the curriculum, syllabus, lesson units, and
lecturers’notes (during in the classroom) were evidence for developing of
the data analysis. Such data adpoted from documents are natural because
they emerged in the context and at the same time explain the context itself
(see Guba & Lincoln, 1981). Also, this document analysis is considered as
an important thing in this study, as Marriam (1988:115) suggests that the
documentary material could be be as data which did not much differ from
using interviews or observation.
This document analysis is aimed at finding whether or not there was
consistence between the syllabus demand and implementation of the
literature teaching. The content of the syllabi, in the syllabus analysis, was
identified. In other words, it was learnt to see the strength and weakness of
the syllabi. This document analysis helped reinforce the data collected
through the interview and observation. In addition, the data were also
gained from the visual images—they are in the shape of photographs, art
objects, film, computer softwares (if any), and the like. This activity of data
collection was surely conducted by taking pictures or photograph, or
anything relating to visualization to the research object and subject.
3.4 Data Analysis Technique
After the data were collected through the three techniques above, they were
analyzed through some steps. First, the data taken from the direct observation
were encoded. In other words, the data were given characteristics or labeled—so
data. Second, the data, after the coding, were identified by purpose to yield the
authentic or primary data, so that the problem-solution was accurately found.
Third, the identified data were categorized into the central themes, as suggested
by Van Lier (1988) relevant to the research questions. And the fourth, the
observation data were interpreted by the researcher, then its result was attached on
the theory of literature teaching.
Fifth, the interview data was transcribed to see what the respondents said.
Then, they were encoded and labeled to make them be easy to understand. Sixth,
the data were classified into some patterns or the central themes, so that what the
respondents said could be easily compared with the theory says. And the last the
data were interpreted based on the researcher’s knowledge-base and were
correlated with the theory of literature teaching constructed in chapter two.
Next, the data taken from the document were considered as a secondary
data. However, they were checked and at the same time analyzed through
selecting the academic archives in terms of the literature genres teaching, such as
the syllabus of poetry, prose, drama, and the like. They, after that, were also
interpreted as to see combination between what the respondent had done in the
classrooms and what the syllabi demand. In actuality there is no “right way” to
analyze the data (see Cresswell, 1994, Tesch, 1990).
Concluding Remark
This chapter has presented the research methodology applied in this study.
It has elaborated the ways the researcher did in the techniques of data collection
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusion
The data collected from the both direct observation and interview indicate
that the English literature teaching at the research site is partly relevant with the
the literature teaching theory proposed by Moody (1971), Taba (2005), Beach and
Marshall (1991), Leslie Stratta (in Endaswara, 2005), and Badazewski (2002).
Nevertheless, the practice of literature teaching conducted by the lecturers has not
been able to accomodate the existing theory around the literature teaching. It
means that the lecturers only implement conventional ways of teaching procedure,
not overall the phases they conducted. Concerning the materials given to the
students, the lecturers still refer to teaching orientation than learning one. In the
other words, the literature teaching approach, model, methods are still expocitory
or information model, not touching the students-centered learning. In this case,
the lecturer still applied the limited and ineffecient techniques—the method is still
restricted to the lecturing, not empowering the students’ capability.
In terms of the problems in the literature teaching, the six problems of the
literature teaching proposed by Thomas and Parkinson (2005) are proven—those
problems are found in the observation and interview data. They are odd and
difficult language, imbalance between four integrated skills, imbalance between
the lecturers’ knowledge and the students’ one, lack of the functional authenticity,
and no sequencing and no staging posts. The other problems are limited resources
The solutions to the problems are also found in the observation and
inetrview data. There are thirteen solutions or ways to overcome the difficulty in
the literature teaching. Finally, regarding to the solutions, some activities to solve
the problems are conducted by the lecturer below:
a. Inviting the students to read the literary works that are easily understood;
b. Continuously motivating the students to study hard;
c. The students are given many assignments in order to learn at home;
d. Making the students aware that the learning is crucial;
e. Providing the learning facilities for them;
f. Assigning them take-home assignment;
g. Directing the students to think critically and logically;
h. Attempting to discuss the students’ problem with the lecturers;
i. Inviting the students to discuss the learning materials at outdoor or outbound
place;
j. Conducting conference with the students; discussing with our colleages to
share experience;
k. Conducting discussion with the colleagues to share experience of the
literature teaching;
l. Asking the students to discuss, exchange the book, novel, poems, or plays;
and
5.2 Suggestion and Implication
First of all, it is stated that the aims of literature teaching is just to transfer
knowledge and comprehension about English literary works to the students.
Actually this is inconsistent with the theory of the literature teaching proposed by
Moody, Taba, Beach and Marshall, Leslie Stratta, and Badazweski (2002). The
literature teaching should promote individuality, understanding, the cultural
values. Therefore, the policy maker of the institution should construct an
appropriate literature curriculum in order to expand both the lecturers and the
students’ knowledge and experience.
Secondly, concerning the problems of literature teaching in its application
and implementation, the institution is greatly expected to provide satisfying and
comprtable facilities, including sufficient classrooms, teaching-learning media,
books, the other sources, so that the both lecturers and the students are easier to
access any informations, especailly about academic informations. Next,
obligation to read the literary works should be pressed on either the lecturers or
the students. This obligation should be obeyed by the students in order that they
can love the literature. The reading activity should be begun from simple literary
works to the complex ones.
Further research should eventually be conducted in the other context and
levels of education by purpose to appreciate the literary works, so that the students
would have good communication in English, either spoken or written form.
Likewise, the teaching of English in the research site should focus more on the
suggested that the principles of literature teaching strategies should be applied
more comprehensively to anable the students to develop their imaginative
capacity. Hence, the literary appreciation at any educational institution will be
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agathocleous, Tanya and Dean, Ann C. 2003. Teaching Literature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Akhmadi, Muksin. 1989. Strategi Belajar-Mengajar: Keterampilan Berbahasa dan Apresiasi Sastra. Malang: YA3.
Alwasilah, Chaedar. 2000. Perspektif Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Indonesia dalam Konteks Persaingan Global. Bandung: Andira.
...2006. Pengajaran Berbasis Sastra. Pikiran Rakyat. Edisi Rabu 7 Desember.
...2002. Pokonya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar merancang Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Gramedia.
Bain, Carl E., et al., 1973, The Norton Introduction to Literature, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., U.S.A.
Beach. In press. The creative Development of Reading: using autobiographical Experiences to Interpret literature. Cited in farel. 1990. Transaction with Literature. U.S.A.
Beach and Marshall. 1991. Teaching Literature in the Secondary School. London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Brumfit C.J. 1983. Teaching Literature Overseas: Language-Based Approach. Oxford: Pergamon Press in Association with the British Council.
………….1991. Assessment in the Teaching of Literature. London: Modern English Publications in Association with the British Council.
Chamber, Ellie and Gregory Marshall. 2006. Teaching and Learning English Literature. London: SAGE Publications.
Cresswell, J.W. 1994. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Tradition. London: SAGE Publication.
Daniels, Harvey and Steineke, Nancy. 2004. Mini-lessons for Literature Circles. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Dawson. Catherine. 2009. Introduction to Research Methods. U.K.: Howtobooks, Inc.
Dawson, Darelyn and Fitzgerald, Lee. Literature Circles: Reading in Action. Australia: Center for Information Studies.
Dominowski, Roger L. 2002. Teaching Undergraduates. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Eaglestone, Robert. 2003. Doing English: A Guide for Literature Students. London and New York: Routledge.
Emilia, Emi. 2008. Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta
Endraswara, Suwardi. 2005. Metode dan Teori Pengajaran Sastra. Yogyakarta: Buana Pustaka.
Farrel and Squire. 1990. Transaction with Literature. The United States of America: The National Council of All English Teachers.
Furqon and Emilia, Emi. 2010. Penelitian Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif (Beberapa Isu Kritis). Bandung: Sekolah Pascasarjana UPI.
Gamble, Nikki and Yates, Sally. 2002. Exploring Children Literature: Teaching the Language and Reading of Fiction. London: PCP.
Hakes, Belinda. 2008. When Critical Thinking Met English Literature. Oxford: Howtobooks.
Harmer, J. 2000. The Practice of English Teaching. England: Longman.
Howes, Alan B. 2005. Teaching Literature to Adolescents. London: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Ismail, Taufik. 1999. Pengajaran Sastra yang Efektif dan Efesien. Yogyakarta: Balai Bahasa.
Joyce, Bruce and Weil, Marshall. 2000. Models of Teaching. U.S.A: Pearson Education Company.
Lang and Evans. 2006. Models, Strategies, and Methods for Effective Teaching. New York: Pearson Education, Ltd.
Littlewood, William T. 2003. Literature in the School Foreign Language Course. Hongkong: Oxford University Press.
Loban, et al. 2005. Teaching Language and Literature. New York: Brace and World, Inc.
Lubis, Mochtar, 1997, Sastra dan Tekniknya. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
Marsh, Nicholas. 2002. How to Begin Studying English Literature. New York: Palgrave.
Marshall and Rossman. 2006. Designing Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications.
Maryanah, Imas. 2007. The Teaching of Literature Using Reader-Respond Approach. Unpublished Thesis. SPS UPI Bandung.
Mckay, Sandra. 2009. Teaching of Literature with Special Reference to Developing Countries. London: Longman.
Moody, H.L.B., 1979. The Teaching of Literature. London: Longman Group, Ltd.
Musthafa, Bachrudin. 2008. Teori dan Praktek Sastra dalam Penelitian dan Pengajaran. Jakarta: New Concept English Education Centre in Collaboration with Indonesia University of Education.
Parkinson and Thomas. 2004. Teaching Literature in a Second Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Paulston and Bruder. 1976. Teaching English as a Second Language: Technique and Procedures. Canada: Little, Brown and Company, Ltd.
Picken, Jonathan D. 2007. Literature, Metaphor, and the Foreign Language Learner. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rodger, Alex. 2008. Teaching Literature Overseas. New York: Pergamon Press.
Rodreguez and Badaczewski. 2006. A Guide Book for Teaching Literature. Boston-London Sidney: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Russell Reaske, Christopher, 1966, How to Analyze Poetry, Monarch Press, U.S.A.
Saxby, M. and Hoogstad. 1991. Teaching Literature to Adolescents. Australia: National Library Australia.
Sudjana, Nana. 2009. Dasar-dasar Proses Belajar-Mengajar. Bandung: Sinar Baru Algensindo.
Seliger, Herbert, 1989, Second Language Research Method, Oxford University Press, New York.
Selden, Raman, 1996, A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory (Transl. Dr. Rachmat Djoko Pradopo), Gadjah Mada University Press, Yogyakarta.
Sayuti, Suminto. 1985. Puisi dan Pengajarannya. Semarang: IKIP Semarang Press.
Smith, Frank. 1985. Essays into Literacy: Selected Papers and Some Afterthoughts. London: Portsmouth Heinaemann Educational Books.
Segers, Rien T. 2000. Evaluasi Teks Sastra (Transl. Prof. Dr. Suminto A. Sayuti). Yogyakarta: Adicita Karya Nusa.
Selden, Raman, 1989, Literary Theory: Practice and Pedagogy, Kentucky University Press, Great Britain.
Sumara, Dennis J. 2008. Why Reading Literature in School Still Matters: Imagination, Interpretation, Insight. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wahab, Abdul Azis. 2007. Metode dan Model-model Mengajar. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Walshe R.D. 1983. Teaching Literature. Australia: Primary English Teaching Association and English Teachers’ Assosiation of N.S.W.
Wardani, IGK. 1981. Pengajaran Sastra. Makalah Penlok Tahap II PPPG, Depdikbud.
Woolf, Judith. 2005. Writing about Literature. London and New York: Routledge.
http://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1352&bih=538&q=l
ecturers%27+strategyinteachingEFLLiterature+PDF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFLliterature
http://www.kalipedia.com/kalipediamedia/literature
http://www.frieze.com/org/frieze/literature
http://www.academi.edu.amazonaws.com/32469/literatura
