ClaSsroom of English Literature in EFL Context

Theoretical Views Underlying the Selection of Classroom Activities: Paying Attention to the ClaSsroom of English Literature in EFL Context

Ynzid

Basthomi

State Universiry of Malang

Abstract: This essay reviews literatwe on the theoretical views un- derlying the selection of activities for classrooms of English literature teaching in EFL ^context. The review include: 1) literary criticisms, 2) constructivism, and 3) research on students' perceptions of classroom activities. One literary criticisnl reader-response, is beheld to pose a

similar spirit to that of the constructivist mode of teaching. Both reader-responde and constluctivist teaching perspectives require the teaching of English literaturc to focus on the students. This requires

gving attention to

tle

students' ideology, horizon of expectation, and 1'ma'lumat sabiqoh" lbacki'round knowledge) in order to sihnte the students to actively ^generate their own meanings, understanding or knowledge of given literary works offered ^{as class} materials. Since the students' ^personal ideology, horizon

of

expectation' and rna'lutnat sabiqoh are irf,luenced or the socio-culture undergirding every stu- dent, the teaching of English literahrre ^needs to take into account zuch socio-cultural properties. Another point reviewed is the students' per- ceptions of classroom activities. Consideration of combining the top- down mode of thinking, as offered by

tle

reader-response and con- structivism, and bofiom-up mode of thinking, as offered by research on students' perceptions of classroom activities, constitute the ending part ofthis ^essay.

Key words: EFL, reader-response, constmctivism

tj1

279

280 TE\ILIN Jounnl, l/oltunc 'Yll/, ^{Nuntlrct' 2,} tlugust 200-I

Research on teaching ^has overlooked the teaching of literature. Thc Handbook of ^Research

oi

Teaching did not contain the topic of ^research on trr, rcaching of literature until its fourth edition ^was published in 2001

lcrorr-*,

^ZOiOfy. Even when the significance of subject-specific ^studies

"u*.

to the fore, people tended to fuil to notice ^the teaching of literature (Grossman, 2001).

In

her writing on ^research on the teaching

of

(English) literature'

Grorr*uo

(2001) Jxhaustively i'ciuded sub-topics such as an account

of

literary theories,'approaches to teaching literature, literature curriculum, aod teachers of literiture. Ho'ever,

it

is ^apparent that Grossman's discus- sion is confined to ^{the teerching} of literature of English ^as a first language

(L1).shedoesnottouchuponthesphereofErrglishasasecondlanguage

instl

nor on English as a foreign ^language

(EFL) ITt.it

conceivable'

io, G.orr*uo

^{is concerned}

withliie

^{teaching of} English literature in the

united ^States. Accordingly, it,is safe to assurne

it

is significant to pay at- tentiontotheteachingofEnglishliteratureinEFLsettings.

Basthomi (2000j revieried tv-,enty-four English literature-related the- ses written

in

1990-2000 by first-degree ^sfirdents at the English Depart- ment, universitas Negeri Malaag, ^{East Java,} Indonesia. The stud-ents were thoseundertaking theiStream ofbnglish Education. The review f,ound that

,ftfr"rgt

the malority were wrjften

in

the light of psychology, including .C""uiiorrut pry"t otogy, none

of

thern was devoted

to

the teaching

of irgfitft

fitrrature io

fFi

otu*.ooms. ^Even though the writers were those urri.rtut iog English Education, particularly

for

the

purpo:: of

teaching

fnffirU

in-the Indonesian context, one

of EFL

settings (Debyasuvarn,

tlt't;,

^all of them were ^devoted to the ^analysis of English

liqTry

works as the'objects of study. This ^bears a similartoken as observed by Gross- man (2001).

brorr**',

(2001) point on people's negligenc,e of

-ressarch on

lit-

erature teaching ^seems io ^{be true} with the teaching of English literature in EFL settings. ,{ccordingly, it cails for mindful attention. Attempts to ^shed light on

th!

practice ofleaching English literature in EFL classrooms ^ne- cJssitate a review of hor,v literary

ctiti"it*t

^have, hitherto, had implica- tions for ^{the teaching} of English iiterature, particularly, for teachers' ^deci-

sion on choosing ^and setting classroom activities'

I ozid, ^'l ltcoratical l/ictt,:; I lrule rtaying thc Selection o.[(llassrcom Z8l

LITERARY CRITICISI\,IS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS F'OR ENGLISH LITERATURE TEACHING

Abrams (1981) classifies literary cnticisms into four categories:

l)

mimetic criticism, 2) pragmatic criticism, 3) expressive criticism, and 4) objective criticisrn. Abrams ftrrther explains that mimetic criticism deems literary work as an imitation of the world, including human

life;

repre- sentational truth

is

the criterion applied to the literary work. Pragmatic criticism considers literary work as a means to secure particular effects on readers (aud"ience); success

in

attaining

the

effects

is

the norm

for

a

"good" literary work. Expressive criticism views literary criticism as an expression ofthe author's sNate of rnind; adequacy of the expression is the norm for a good literary work. Objective criticism sees literary work as a self-sufficient object which

is

free

from its

aut}or; any literary work should be approached as an independent object which has self-intrinsic adequacy.

Modern literary criticisms (including those of English) have tended to leave mimetic criticism and favoured pragmatic, expressive, and objec- tive criticisms (Pradopo, 1995). Aminuddin (1990) puts, when discussing literary work, that as a form of communication, the very nature of literary work requires three main components:

l)

author,

2)

objective entity

of

linguistic properties, and 3) reader (audience); as such, the orientation

of

modern literary criticisms is of these three kinds, that which gives an em- phasis on: the author, the literary work as an object, or the reader (Pra- dopo, 1995).

These three kinds of criticism have informed the practice of English literature teaching

in

classrooms.

In

his reflection on English literature classrooms

in

Javanese settings, Basthorni (2001) observes that ^teachers have a strong authority to ^push that their understanding of literary work is

"the same" as what the author of the given literary work has intended to mean. Sfudents do not possess any space to roam about the possible multi- significance or meaning the liierary work might pose. This kind of prac- tice is seemingly thc manifestation of the literary criticism which gives an emphasis on the author. a literary criticism which strives to find what the authors of literary works wish to mean in their works, Consequently, the teachers who hold this typc of criticism are bound to struggle

in

leading the students by their nosc to comply with what the writers mean (as the

$&'

\

282 T'EF'I'lN 'loumal, ^l'itluntc '\ll'', Nunrlttt' ),

"1uyu";t )00'l

teachers understand

it) in their

literary works. This suggcsts that such teachers overlook the notion that students have their own world: world view, background knowledge, schemata, ideology, and expggtations (An- Nabhany, l9S7; Butler, t98+; Cook, ^1994; Freund, ^1987; Horton' L979^

Iser, 1992; Jeffries, 2001; Semino, 1995)'

' Miali

(1996) shows that English literature teaching (in Canada) has been tainbd with the practrce tliat students are to memorise a gfeat ^num- ber

of

literary terms.

In

othei words, English literature classrooms ^are places for the,teachers to check their students' ability to labelthe proper- iies

of

^literary works using the literary terms. Seemingly,

this kind of

practice is irformed by the objective criticism; literary work is ^deemed to iruo, ^u self-suffrcient itructure or properties which can be "incised" using the .'kniveS"

of

literary terms.

tri

suctr an "OperatiOn", Students' mental engagement is bound

tt

be neglected.

lt

is understandable, therefore' that fvfiafi(1996) found a number of his students made complaints

of

such a way oi literature teaching and adrnitted not to ^be fond of English literaturo due to such a

fpe

^of teaching practices.

The role

oithe

students in the classrooms rvhere emphases are given to the literary ^{works and} the authors seems to be neglected, students ^are to conform to ^certain "norms." Tliis tlpe of ^practice is challenged by the ^no- iions implicated by literary criticisms which grant the ^readers key roles in attaining ^meanings or significance of literary works ^(Barth91, .1992; Cor-

"or- dEu*r,

^{i98T; Wofft, 1993).} This kind of literary criticism is what is referred to as reader-response (Corcoran

&

Evans, ^1987;

Elliot.

^1990;

Freund, 1987: Gilbert,

lgt7;

Hirvela, ^1996).

Miall

(1996) points out that conferring students as readers with ^roles in gaining significance of literary works is

i

crucial factor in the atternpt to empower the students' The posi-

tion

the reader-response holds

in

empowering sfudents, as

to

^generate their ornn meanings

or

significancc

of

literary works, ^seems

to

bear a similar token to

thit

of the constructivist ^mode of ^teaching. This point ^is worth reviewing.

CONSTRUCTIVISTTEACI{ING,ANDREADER.-RESPONSnCRITICISM

Constructivism coloured

the

twentieth

century

(Vadeboncoeur, lgg1). Particularly, it was central in the educational ^arena from

tle

^1980s

to

1990s (MacKinnon

&

Scarf-Seattet, ^1997). Constructivist teaching ^is

I uztd, 'l'ltaorati<:ol lt'iL:yt:; I lnderktying lhc Sclectitn <y''(llu.s.sroon 2113

derived from constructivism, which,

in

its own right, has emerged as a concept

of

knowledge and learning (Jaworski, 1993; Matthews 2002).

Vadcboncoeur (1997) and Jaworski (1993) rernind us that people engag-

ing

in

educational enterprise intelpret constructivism

in

different ways.

Vadeboncoeur (1997) makes a distinction between two rnajor views

of

constructivism as adapted

for

educational purposes: Piagetian and Vy- gotskyan. Whilst the forrner puts an emphasis on developing individual cognitive properties. the iafter ernphasises social transformation; Piagetian views cognitive development as progressing from ihe individual to the so-

cial, whereas Vygotskyan from the social

to

the individual. For Piaget {1943/1968), "[t]he self ^{is at the center} of reality." On the other hand, Vy- gotsky (1978, p. 57) observcs that the child's development exists in trryo planes;

it

exists in the social plane.

in

the first place, and then moves to the psychological one. For Piaget, knorvledge construction takes place via

"action _{on the} world

of

objeits", u,hereas

for

Vygotsky,

it

happens via

"interactian

in the

social

world"

_[emphasis

original]

(Vadeboncoeur, 1997,p.27).

It

has been indicated above that the constructivist view ^has a similar concept to that of reader-response in giving a significant role to the read- ers (including students) to ^generate meanings of literary works ^(objects

of

study)

A

similar notion in that the existing dichotomy of constructivism, namely, personal and socio-cultural alignment,

is

also dernonstrated by reader-response theory. On the one hand, reader-response

is

inclined to grant an emphasis to individual differences in the meaning-rnaking of

lit-

erary works ^(e.g., Bleich, 1978) and, on the other hand, reader-response is

coloured with the understanding that rneaning-making is affected and ef- fected by socio-cultural factors (e.g., Bakhtin,

I98l)

or interpretive com- munities (Fish, 1980).

A

Jordanian scholar. An-Nabhany (1957),

who

refers

to

Islamic teachings, comes up with a seenringly combination of Piagetian and Vy- gotskyan constructivist views, He observes that "aql", which contains the notions of knowledge, understanding, and significance or meaning, results from processes involving sirnultaneously the following elements: "waqi"

(object,

world), "ihsas"

(sensing),

"dimagh"

(rnind),

and

"ma'lumat sabiqoh" (background knor,vledge). As ^is the central case in the discussion

of

the distinction between the Piagetian and Vygotskyan constmctivist

&*

284 !'El"t'lN Jrnrnol, ^I/oluntc .\'ll:, Nuulttt' ), tlugtst )()0'i

views, An-Nabhany (1957) ^viervs tliat ma'lumat sabiqoh is ^{posscssed by} or inherent in every normal individual. In this ^sense, individuality is ^cctt- tral and, accordingiy, this view ^seerns to align to the Piagetian view' Yet, he observes ttrat thls individual property is influenced by external ^factors (e.g., parents, society).

In

this sensc, he seems

to

align wrth Vygotsky'

'itIr"'e*t"ntal

f,actors are dominant particularly ^{when an} individual is not yet,,baligh,, (religiously mature, morg or less 12 years old for rnale and 9

yea.r foJf"mate). As an individual ^comes

ta

"bali?h", s/he is deemed to irurr" u greater active role

in

negotiating

with

the externai factors ^(A'n- Nabhani, lg57). As ma'lwmat sabiqoh is focal ^and subject to manipula- tion, the role

of

education creeps

in

right here: manipulating ma'lumat sabiqoh.In this very ^process

of

education, constructivism ^comes

in

with the spirit to engage the students in the endeavour to generate understand- ings, meaning.,

-

^{knowledge of} objects (e.g., literary works) bv activat-

in!

stuOents' ms'lumst ^{sabiqcih, be}

it

individual (Piagetian) and/or socio- criltural (Vygotskyan) in nature. This is also the spirit of reader-response when

it

is biought into the classrooms of literature (Corcoran

&

^Evans,

1987;

Miall,

1996).

Articulating von Glasersfeld's idea, Jaworski (1993) puts forward two principles the constructivist view bears:

l)

knowledge

is

sonnething

whicir learners actively construct and 2) the learners' experience

of

the world is responsibls

for

the hrodification and adaptation

of

their knowl- edge. In the attempts to bring these principles into the classrooms, other poisible factors attributable to the fcrrnation of constn'rctivist ^classrooms need to be taken into account. Ricirardson (1997, p. 9) observes two fuc- tors which play significant ^roles in affecting the extenl to

yhlch

^{the con-} structivist view is accommodatecl in teachers' approaches:

l)

the extent to which the socio-cultural ^aspect is accepted as "integral to the individual leaming/development process" and 2) nature

of

subject matter. The first point iJcentral in the discusdion of the difference ^between Piagetian ^and Vygotskyan constructivist views ^as briefly discussed above, whereas the second point needs more discu'ssion.

The present essay is dealing with English literature which is ^substan-

tially

different from mathematics. Mathematics allows correct

or

wrong judgement, for it employs discrete symbols which make such a judgement porlriUl.. However, literature reading allows

a

substantially interpretive

Yazid,'l'ltcorati<nl l'ie'w.s (lrulcrla,yirrg _tha Selcction o! ('kr:t.srcom 2t5

mode of understanding, which, to a large extent, is dependent on individ- ual as well as socio-cultural ideas, concepts, and significance (meanings) (Richardson, 1,997). Accordingly, there is a probability that the students

do nothing wrong in terms of their

understanding

or

^meaning

/significance-making

of

literary r,r,orks. Therefore, literature teaching al- lows no

"eitier

or" judgement on the part of the teachers when judging their students' meaning-making

of

literary works. Since the process

of

meaning-making is dependent on individual students' ms'htmat sabiqoh (An-Nabhany, 1957)i

or

liorizon

of

expectation (Iser, 1992)

or

ideology (Butler, 1984) which is socio-culturally shaped or affected, central in the teaching of English literature classrooms is the consideration of the socio- cultural group to which tiie students belong.

In their reoent study

of

one intact class in the English Deparhnent, Universitas Ncgeri Malang, East Java, Indonesia, Basthomi,

Amri,

and subagyo (forthcoming) found that most of the students referred to Islamic ideology in evaluating and giving meanings to Hardy's novel, Tess of the d'urbervilles. This finding was derived from the students' essay reflecting their (free) personal responses

to

the novel as part of the materials

in

a Prose Fiction class. This finding endorses Butler's ⁽¹⁹⁸⁴⁾ proposition that readers bring to the fore their own ideology so as to be confronted and ne- gotiated with that present (or (un)consciously presented by the author) in the literary works. The finding sLrpported the researchers' presumptions;

the researchers expected (simply on the basis of intuition) that as the ma-

jority

_{of the} sfudents were Moslenls. most of them would refer to Islamic icleology. ln this sense, the studcnts' ideology seerns to be shaped by the prevailing ideologicai notions embraced

by

the communities.

In

other words, the individual students' ideology is shaped by the socio-cultural factors. This point,

in tum,

atfests Fish's (1980) notion

of

interpretive communities.

i

Reade.*espons"

I @

-..-;,1

English lirerarureTcacher

I +--

Teacher-delennined Class- roorn Aclivities

Y

Figure 1. Teacher's Assu mption-bnsed Classroom Activities

*

286 ^TEITLIN Jounnl, ^l/olunt': '\'11", Nrrurltcr' )' /rr14ust 2003

Reader.responseandtheconstru0tivistviewseemtobethcorcticalin nature ^and works in a top-down way, the view is what ^seerns

to

inform teachers. As

specificifii"iift

the English literature ^teachers, this view ^is

.,'p"''iur"forthet"u"h*,,,ou,un.'ption,ofwfratconstitutesplausible

;;;lt;t

literature

"f""ttoo*

acti'ities ^{(see Figure} 1); reader-response ^and

tn.?nrt*"tivist

^{spirits seem to guarantee}

Ait it

^{engages the students in}

il; ;;;;;t. ^or

^mo*reage prodLrition, which'

in

turn' warranF that ^the students

will

develop

.Jf-"tion"t,

autonomy' and a high quality

of

^en-

g"g.*io ⁱⁿ

^the classroorn leaming ^procoss' However' ^such an assump- tion rnight ^need for cioss-checks. Iivestigations of what the ^students like aboutclassroomactivitiescalproviclepronrisingmeasurementtoolsto seeiftheteachers,assunlptionsabouttl,'eengaging"classroomactir,ities, u.propugutadbyreader-'.*poo*"andtheconstructivistviews'aroaccu-

rate.

LEARNERS'PERCEPTIONSoTCLASSR0OFITaACHING-LEARNING ACTIV-ITMS

Barkhuizen(199s)arrdSpratt(1999.2001)renrindusoftheimpor- tance

of

^finding

^out

^{what students}

like

regarding classroom teaching-

leaming activities, which ^are, more rather than less' ^dependent on ^teach-

"rJ Li*"_day

decisions. This tends to be ^so pafricularly.

in

the Javanese context,

for

Javanes;";;1"G, ^ro the Asian cultures which,

in

terms

of

education,

u* ^u..ord.d

^by

ilorverde*'

^anc!

Miller

⁽¹⁹⁹⁵⁾

^with

^{the fol-}

;;.id

characterisri.r,

.l

^{ihe teocher should be granted high respect, b)}

theteachershouldbeconsideredurquestionable,c)thefamilyandpres-

suretoexcelare,tua.nt,,motivatiorrs,d)silenceandeffacementareof potiti".

"ufue, ^{and e)}

group orientation is highly desirable' . ^.

Apparently,

tht ;"iti

^{of departure of}

^tie

^{research in this area is that}

if

^sttrdents like, enjol', or ^prefer .lu,,,oo,l, activities, their leaming wilt

!e

effective. It follows ^ifrat in order to secure the preference on the part of the students, they ^need

to

be involved

in

^dcciding

^the "l-"::l?"1

^activities

(Barkhuizen, 1998;

$t",''

^1999, 2001)' Barkhuizen (1993) investigated ifr-. prrrrprions ^of

'nijh

school dnglisir ^as a second language (ESL) stu- dents in the ^South

Afr"on

^context. There were 600 ^students participating in the study. Th"

J4,

^{b;nd

^o't

^{that the learners'} perceptions frequently

;|,f,;*d

^tireir tea"hers. For instance, the teachers often ^assumed that the

I azid,'l'lwtrcticol Vicu,.v (/ntlarlaying, _lha Selection of (lhssroon ₂₈₇

Communicative Language Teaching

(CLT)

method was promising and they set activities

of cLT

spirit, accordingly. Yet, the study discovered that the students showed resistance to such activities and were inclined to opt for more traditional (as opposed to CLT) classroom activities.

Spratt (1999) conducted a sirnilar study in Hong Kong. Slightly dif- ferent from Barkhuizen's

(l99tl)

_ivhich was not intentionally set to com- pare students' and teachers' activity preferences, Spratt's study was set to map students' activity preferences onto those of their teachers. The study found out that the teachers' accuracy in predicting their students' prefer- ences for classroom activities conrprised 54o/o

of

activrties. The study dis- covered no clear pattoni of accuracy in tenns of the kinds of activity (e.g., speaking or writing) and types of activity (traditional or CLT).

Another part of Spratt's study rvas reported in 200i. This study star- tled the researcher in that "'doing _project

work"'

and "'watching myself on video"' were rated mediuni

(p 96)

The different aspect of the study, cornpared

to

the previous ones. included the comparisons

of

the study with the preceding pieces

of

research b-v other researchers. These com- parisons did but yield a more vivid picture that different group of students studying in different cultural settir-rgs posed different preferences.

These three pieces of research inclicate that teachers' perceptions

of

promising and engaging ctrassroorns activities, which rnight often be de- rived from certain theoreticai perspectives, such as reader-response and constructivism, do not necessarily correspond to those

of

their learners.

The sfudies also suggest tlmt str-rdents

of a

certain socio-cultural back- ground might have classroonr activities preferences which are different from those of another socio-c,-rltural background.

It

follows that any claim about engaging classroom activities made on the basis of the currently de- sirable reader-response (in the parlicular realm of literature teachingi and constructivist perspectives need atrcmpts for an improvement. Endeavours to attain such a betterment can be done by investigating the learners' pref- erences

for

classroom activities. This is particularly crucial in the sphere

of

(English) literature tcaching, for. thus far, literary criticisms often act solely to inspire how English literature teachers set expectations and the activities

their

students are

to

go through (Basthomi, 2001; Grossman, 2001). This

kind of

teaching practice needs rethinking; teacher-student negotiation concerning classroonr activities is desirable (see Figure 2).

*

288 \'Lltl,lN.tounkil, ^{l ttlunt'} .\ll

,

Nrtttrltu' ), ''lrrgttsl )00'l

Negotiated Cl:rssroom Activities

ffi I

Classroorn

Activities

I

Figure 2. Teacher-student Negatia tcd Classroom'dctivities

CONCLUSION

Classroom activities

for

English literature teaching seem

to

^have

been made rich rvith the information from literary criticisms (Basthomi, 2001; Grossman, 2001). Howevcr, ^one

t\pe of

literary criticism, ^reader- response, seems

to be

more prornising than others

for

^{the purpose}

of

teacnittg. This is due to its vierv r,vhich accords ^readers, including ^students, with ^a Jgnificant ^role in the process of ^meaning or significance.making

of

literary

iorks.

This view, which ^emanates frorn literary tradition (Cor- coran

&

Evans, ^{1987), seems} to correspond with the constructivist view

of

teaching, which originates from ciifferent theoretical tradition' The con- structivist ^mode of teaching has the root in constructivist theory of knowl- edge and learning (Jaworski, 1993: Maithervs, 2002)' Hand

in

^hand,

,.u*d*r-."rponse and constructivist ^nrodes of teaching might inform ^Eng- lish literature ^teachers of classroom actrvities in which their ^{students are} to get involved. In this ^sense, lhe enterprise works in a top-down manner.

This might ^pose deficiency ^ancl, accordingly, ^needs to be furnished with ^a bottom-up ^mode of thinking, rvhich ^{can be secured} by investigating what the students like of their English literature ^classroom activities. This point comes from the learner-centred language teaching

'tradition"

(e'g', Nu- nan, 1988). Studies in this last point (e.g., Barkhuizen, ^1998; Spratt, ^1999, 20ot) suggest that ^decision making regarding designing classroom activi- ties needi-to involve ^students

in

order to promote students' ^engagement

l'azid,'l'hcoratical tr,it:u,s (lrrtlcrlaytng _the Selection of Classroont 2g9

and enthusiasm

in

learning. These studies also suggest that students

of

cerlain cultural group might have certain tendency regarding their prefer- ences for classroorn activities. Since EFL students are likely to have cer- tain cultural background (e.g., Jai,anese), decision

on the

selection

of

classroom activities for the purpose of Errglish literature teaching need to be informed with results

of

investigaiions on the students' perceptions

of

classrooms activities.

However, there seems to be a lack of research of this type regarding English literature classrooms in EFL context. Probably" referring to Java- nese EFL settings (whicir might also apply'to other EFL settings), English literature is often taught by teachers who have been frained with literary criticisms rather than rvith English education

or

applied linguistics. The training

of

literary criticisms probably plays a great role

in

inspiring the teachers of what their students need to do. and in informing their decision concerning their classroom activities they set

for

their students.

If

this proves accurate, the crucial rmrnediate future agendum of research in this area would be to furd out what tlie stLrdents

of

English literature in EFL settings

like

about their classroom activities. Another

tlpe of

future re- search might investigate the kinds of training English literature teachers in the EFL context have received; Grossrnan (2001) points out that Engrish literature teachers are often those trained lvrth literary criticisms. Focus on comparing the English literatr-rrc performances and attitudes

of

^students

who are and are not involved in classroorn activity decisic'n-making rnight also be ofinterest for other ftrturc research.

R.EFERENCNS

Abrams, M. H. 1981. ,1 glossary o.f literar.v terms (46 Edn). New york: _Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Aminuddin (1990). Sekitar nnsalah sa,stra; Beberapa prinsip dan model pengembangannya. Malutg: Yayasan Asih Asah Asuh Malang.

An-Nabhany , ^T . 1957 . Nidzttntul Islanr. Al _Quds: Al Urnmah.

Bakhti4 IU.

M.

L981. The dialogir: imaginatictn: Four essays qf M.M.Bakhtin

(C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trals.). Austin, TX: Univcrsity of Texas press.

Barkhuizerl G. P. 1998. Discovering learners' perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in a South African context. TESOL ]UARTER- 1Y.32 (t).85-108

290 '[EFI'\N.tountal, l/olunrc,YII', NuntItt't ^2,

"1ug'u'sI 200-l

Barthes, R. 1992. 'The _death of tlte autltor" image, music, text(s. ^{Heath, Trans.}

& ^{Ed.). In. P. Rice ard P. Waugh (Ects'),} Modern literary ^theory: A reader (2"dEdn.) (pp. l14-118). London: Edr'vard Arnold'

Basthorni,

v.

iooo. ^{Tinjauarr tentang skripsi} sastra malrasiswa jurusan sastra Ing- gris Fakultas Sastra Universitas Negeri Malang ^t,ahun 1990.2aa0" Forllm

Pene litian Ke pendi dikatt, L2 (2), I49- 159'

Basthomi, Y. 2001. Prose fiction in ^class: A retrospective. BAIMS.4 DAN ^SENI, 29 @disi Khusus). ^396-406.

Basthorni, Y., Amri, M. N{., and subagyo, K. P. (forthcoming). Tanggapan maha- siswa terhadap Tess of the cl'(lrberuiltes, novel karya Thomas Hardy. Re- search report

ifl

preparation. Malang: I-embaga Fenelitian universitas Negeri lr4alarg.

Bleich,

d.

^tSfS. Suiiecttve criticistn. Baltinrore: John Hopkins Universiqr ^Press.

Butler,

c.

19s4. Interpretalion, tlecr.tnslruction, and ideologt. oxford: ^clarendon

Press.

cook, G. ^{1994. Discourse and} literature. oxford: o>trord universiff ^Press.

corcoraq 8., and Evans, E. ^(1987). Infroduction. In B. corcoran and E. Evans (Eds"), Readers, texts, antl teachers (pp

l4).

^{Milton Keynes: Open Univer-}

sity Press.

Debyaswarn, M. L. B. 1981. Will EITL succeed where ESL and EFL failed? In L' -

E. Smittr ^(Ed.), Engtish.for cntss-arlfural communication _@p. 83-93). Lon- don:Macmillan.

Elliot, R. 1990. Encouraging readcr-response to literahre in ESL situation.

EZI

Journal, 44 (3), l9l-198.

Fistr, s. 1980. 1s there a text in thts class? ^T'he authority of interpretive communi- lies. Cambridge, MA: Haward t-Iniversify ^Press.

Florverdew, J., and Milier,

L.

^1995. On thc notion of culture

in

L2 lechrres' TESOL QUARTERLY, ^?.9 Q), ^{34s-3't3 .}

Freun4

B.

tSSl . The retunt of ^the reatler: Reader response criticism.I-ondon:

Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Gilbe4 P. ^{1987. Post} reader-respouse: The deeonstructive critique. In B. ^Cor-

coran and E. Evans @ds.), ^Reacters, terts, and ieachers (1ry. 234'250). Mil-

ton Keynes: Open Universitt' Press.

Grossman, p,

f.

ZOOf . Research

cl

tlte teaclilng of literature: Finding a place. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Hanclbortk ^oJ research on teaching (4* Edn') $p' ^a16-

432). Washingtoq DC: Arnericat Eclucational Research Association.

Hirvela,

A.

^tqCg. Reader-response theory a'd ELT. ELT Journal, 50 (2), 127-

r34.

Horton" s. R. 1979. Interpreting interpreting. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University ^Press.

l rrzitl.'l lrr:ttrrtirnl _{I icv.r} Ilttdcrla.yirtl4 iln: Selection of (lkusnxtnt ₂₉₁

lser,

w.

1992. The reading proccss. A pheuornenological approach. In. p. Rice and P. Waugh (Eds.), A,Iodern ljterar.v theory: A reader (2'd Edn.) (pp. 7V- 83). London: Edward Arnold.

Jaworski. B. 1993" Constructivisnt _and teaching: The socio-cultural context. Re- trieved October 22, 2002. fro'r http. lAwvw. grout. demon. co. uk/ Bar_

bara/chreods.htrn

Jeffries,

L.

2001. Schenra afiinnation and wirite Asparagus: cuttural multilin-

_

^gualisrn arnong readers ofiexts. r,angttage and Literature, l0 (4), 32s-343, MacKinnoq A., and scarf-seatter.

c

1997 constructivism: contra*ctions and

confusions

in

teacher education.

hr v.

Riclurdson @d.), constructivist teacher education: Builrting nev Lrncler,rtandings (ytp.3s-55). London: The Falmer Press.

Matthews, M. R. (2002). constnrctivism and science education:

A

fi:rther ap- praisal. Journal ofScience Erhtcatio, and rechnology,

ll

(2),121-134.

Miall, D. s. ^(1996). Enrporuering tke rt:*der. Ablex: Abilx publishing coryora- tion.

Nuna& D. (1988). T'he learner-centrecl curricwrum. cambridge: carnbridge

tlni

versity Press.

Piage!, I. (1943/1968). The rnentat clevelopmenr of the child (A. Tenzer, Trans.).

In Six philosophical srudies (pp. 3-76). New york: _Vintage.

Pradopo, R. D. (1995) . Beberapa lcot'i ,sa,rtra, metade kritik, dan penerapcmnya.

Yogyakarta: Pustaka ^pela jar.

fuchardson, v. (i997). coustiuctivisf. teacldng and teacher education: Theor_v and practice. In V. Rjchardson (Ed.). (,tonstructivist teacher education: Aui&ing

new understandings (pp. 3-la). London: TheFalrnerFress.

senrino,,E. (1995). scherna theory arrci dre zuralysis of text worlds rnpoetry. Lan- gtage and Literature.4 (2), 79-108.

spratt, M. ^(1999). Hcw good arc we at knorving what leamers like? system,27 (2), 141-155.

Spratl M. (2001). 'fhe _vaiue of fincling out what classroom activities students ltke. RELC Journal, 32 (2). 80-l 03.

vadetrcncoeur, _J. A. ^(1997). chilcl dq,elopnr€nt and the purpose of education: A historical context lor constructivisrri iu teacher eduCation. In V. Richardson (Ed.), con,strucrirtist tectclter eth.rcariott; Buirding new understandings $tp.

15-37). London: 'I'he Fahner prcss.

vygotsky, L. s. (1978). a,:[ind in societv; T'he development of higher psychotagi- cal processes. Cambridge, MA; Harv'ard University ^press.

woltr, J. (1993). The sot:ial procluction

ofart

(2"d edn.;. Houndmills, Basing- stoke, Hampshire and London: Macnrillan ^press Ltd.