Using reader response strategy and affective learning domain in teaching literature to enhance critical thinking
Glen Welle Anne Suarez & Cecilia Diva
Abstract
Reading comprehension has been a perennial problem for Filipino students which was reflected in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and in San Bartolome Integrated High School’s Secondary Reading Inventory (SRI) which showed that 281 out of 920 students were at the frustration level of reading. The strategy used by the teacher and reading interest of the students affect students’ learning. This experimental study aimed to find out the effect of Reader Response Strategy in teaching literature and affective learning domain on the level of critical thinking competence among grade 11 senior high school students at San Bartolome Integrated High School for school year 2019-2020. Forty (40) randomly selected grade 11 students served as respondents. Researcher-made 40-item pre-test and posttest on critical thinking competence, and as affective learning inventory were used as instruments. The respondents perceived that the first three levels of affective learning domain namely receiving, responding and valuing are evident in them. They are unsure of their perception of their organizing domain. They do not perceive characterizing is in their system. The respondents showed improvement in three out of four critical thinking competencies namely defining, classifying and drawing conclusions after exposure to Reader Response Strategy. However, there was no improvement in the respondents’ skills in finding relationships. There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ critical thinking competencies and their affective learning domain. It is recommended that Reader Response Strategy may be adopted for a longer period of time to ensure positive results in learners’ overall reading comprehension skills.
Keywords
reader response strategy, critical thinking, reading comprehension, affective learning
Author information & Contribution
Glen Welle Anne Suarez. Corresponding Author. Teacher 3, San Bartolome National High School, DepEd-San Pablo City, Philippines
Cecilia Diva. Associate Professor 2, College of Teacher Education, Laguna State Polytechnic University, Philippines
Disclosure statement
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
AI Declaration
Notes
Acknowledgement
References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional Interventions Affecting Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions: A Stage 1 Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326084
Baful, R. D., & Derequito, C. M. (2022). English Language Apprehension and the Reading-Writing Competence of Students. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, 9(2), 6782-6801.
Bombio, W., & Del Rosario, A. L. (2022). English Language Proficiency and Geometric Proof Skills of Students. International Journal of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, 2(2), 29-47.
Boyd, B. L., Dooley, K. E., & Felton, S. (2006). Measuring Learning In The Affective Domain Using Reflective Writing About A Virtual International Agriculture Experience. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(3), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.03024
Brabham, E. G., & Villaume, S. K. (2000). Continuing Conversations about Literature Circles. Reading Teacher, 54(3), 278–280.
Carlisle, A. (2000). Reading logs: an application of reader-response theory in ELT. ELT Journal, 54(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.1.12
Cushing, I. (2018). ‘Suddenly, I am part of the poem’: texts as worlds, reader-response and grammar in teaching poetry. English in Education, 52(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2018.1414398
Graves, M. F., Juel, C. F., Graves, B. B., & Dewitz, P. F. (2011). Teaching Reading in the 21st Century: Motivating All Learners (5th ed.). Pearson.
Gonzalez, I., & Courtland, M. (2010). The Reader Response Approach in Modern Language Acquisition. 7.
Grauer, B. L. (2014). Secondary science teachers’ use of the affective domain in science education. Kansas State Univerisity.
Graves, M. F., Juel, C. F., Graves, B. B., & Dewitz, P. F. (2011). Teaching Reading in the 21st Century: Motivating All Learners (5th ed.). Pearson.
Hitchcock, D. (2017). On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking (Argumentation Library) (3rd ed.). Springer.
Hove, G. (2011). Developing Critical Thinking Skills in the High School English Classroom. University of Wisconsin-Stout.
Hutton, E. B. (2018). Textual Transactions: Recontextualizing Louise Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory for the College Writing Classroom. The University of Michigan.
Iskhak. (2015). The Application of Reader-response Theory in Enhancing Student Teachers’ Affective and Linguistic Growth: A Classroom Action Research in EFL Teacher Education in Indonesia. Galuh University, Ciamis, West Java, Indonesia.
Iskhak, I., Mujiyanto, J., & Hartono, R. (2020). A Review on Reader Response Approach to Teaching Literature at EFL Contexts. English Language Teaching, 13(7), 118. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n7p118
Khatib, S. (2011). Applying the Reader-response Approach in Teaching English Short Stories to EFL Students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.1.151-159
Kirk, K. (2019). Student Motivations and Attitudes: The Role of the Affective Domain in Geoscience Learning. https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/affective/intro.html
Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Abridgied). Allyn & Bacon.
Kuboja, J. (2016). Teachers’ Assessment of the Integration of Affective Domain In Community-Based Secondary Schools in Tanzania: Toward Holistic Learning. University of Eastern Africa, Baraton.
Larson, L. C. (2009). Reader Response Meets New Literacies: Empowering Readers in Online Learning Communities. The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.8.2
Leung, W.-C. (2002). Competency based medical training: Review. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 325(7366), 693–696.
Louie, B. (2005). Development of Empathetic Responses With Multicultural Literature. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(7), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.48.7.3
Lynch, D. R., Russell, J. S., Evans, J. C., & Sutterer, K. G. (2009). Beyond the Cognitive: The Affective Domain, Values, and the Achievement of the Vision. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 135(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2009)135:1(47)
Micklich, D. L. (2012). The Effect of Affective Domain Characteristics on Behavioral or Psychomotor Outcomes. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 39.
Panofsky, C. P. (2001). Literacy and feeling: Toward a new synthesis ( and C. U. G. Moorman, W. Trathen, R. Culatta, L. Pacifici, B. Schlagal, P. Schram (Ed.); 21st ed.). Yearbook of the American Reading Forum.
Peralta-Nash, C., & Dutch, J. A. (2000). Literature Circles: Creating an Environment for Choice. Primary Voices K-6, 8(4), 29–37.
Pope, J., & Round, J. (2015). Children’s Responses to Heroism in Roald Dahl’s Matilda. Children’s Literature in Education, 46(3), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-014-9233-z
Smagorinsky, P. (2001). If Meaning Is Constructed, What Is It Made From? Toward a Cultural Theory of Reading. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 133–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071001133
Spirovska, E. (2019). Reader-Response Theory and Approach: Application, Values and Significance for Students in Literature Courses. SEEU Review, 14(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.2478/seeur-2019-0003
Thayer-Bacon, B. (2000). Constructive Thinking versus Critical Thinking: A Classroom Comparison. The Journal of the Canadian Philosophy of Education Society, 13(1).
Tucker, L. P. (2000). Liberating Students through Reader-Response Pedagogy in the Introductory Literature Course. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 28(2), 199–206.
van der Hoeven Kraft, K. J., Srogi, L., Husman, J., Semken, S., & Fuhrman, M. (2011). Engaging Students to Learn Through the Affective Domain: A new Framework for Teaching in the Geosciences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 59(2), 71–84.
Wade, J., Wolanin, N., & McGaughey, T. (2015). A Study of Critical Thinking Skills in the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme. https://www.ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-research/myp/myp-critical-thinking-report.pdf
Woodruff, A., & Griffin, R. (2017). Reader response in secondary settings: Increasing comprehension through meaningful interactions with literary texts. Journal of Literacy Education, 5.
Cite this article:
Suarez, G. & Diva, C. (2022). Using reader response strategy and affective learning domain in teaching literature to enhance critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 3(4), 61-82. https://doi.org/10.53378/352938
License:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) International License.
Find this article in:
Most read articles
- Social media usage and the academic performance of Filipino junior high school students
- Exploring the factors influencing commuters’ satisfaction and the use of public utility buses in Quezon City, Philippines
- A narrative exploration of romantic experiences and ideal relationship standards among Filipino Gen Z
- Students’ exposure to social media and their radical involvement on the societal issues in the Philippines
- ChatGPT integration significantly boosts personalized learning outcomes: A Philippine study
- Tiktok made me book it: The impact of Tiktok on tourism destination selection of generation Z and millennials in Manila
- Senior high school students’ awareness and literacy on computer software applications
- Self-perception of ABM students towards their academic, social and emotional college preparedness
- Enhancing financial literacy among Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program beneficiaries
- Emotional intelligence and leadership efficacy of university student leaders