A Call to Integrate Visible Thinking Routines with a Reader Response Approach to Teaching Literature in English Language Education
Main Article Content
Abstract
Thinking is greatly valued across many educational contexts and in Malaysia, the development of critical thinking, reasoning, creative thinking, and innovative thinking is strongly featured in the Malaysian Education Blueprint (MEB). While there is a prominent focus on the development of thinking skills within the blueprint, thinking skills are rather weakly embedded in classroom practice, particularly in the teaching of literature in English. It is within this context that we call for the integration of Visible Thinking (VT) Routines through a reader response informed approach to the teaching of literature in English. We believe that utilising VT Routines can enhance critical engagement with literary texts and promote deep learning experiences for students. In this conceptual paper, we present how selected VT Routines can be used to support the development of two important dimensions of a reader response approach which are: (a) transacting with texts; and (b) developing criticality. We provide specific examples of how these routines can be used and illustrate what learning gains may be expected. By using VT Routines, English language teachers are provided with a systematic way to engage with a reader response approach to teaching literature in English. By using structures, routines, probing questions, and documentation, English language teachers can create opportunities for students to transact with texts and to develop criticality. Students’ thinking is made more visible and this inadvertently leads to better thinking and learning experiences for students.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Ab Rashid, R., Vethamani, M. E., & Basree Abdul Rahman, S. (2010). Approaches employed by teachers in teaching literature to less proficient students in Form 1 and Form 2. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p87
Abdul Aziz @Ahmad, A., Ismail, F., Ibrahim, N. M., & Samat, N. A. (2017). Investigating the implementation of higher order thinking skills in Malaysian classrooms: Insights from L2 teaching practices. Sains Humanika, 9(4–2), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.11113/sh.v9n4-2.1361
Affendi, F. R., & Aziz, A. A. (2020). Systematic review: The challenges and approaches in the teaching of English literature in enhancing English proficiency. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 9(1), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v9-i1/7136
Couch, J. (2017). On the borders of pedagogy: Implementing a critical pedagogy for students on the Thai Burma border. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 57(1), 126–146.
Dajani, M. M. Y. (2016). Using thinking routines as a pedagogy for teaching English as a Second Language in Palestine. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5590/jerap.2016.06.1.01
Dass, L. C., Hay, T., & Harun, Z. H. (2021). Project Zero: A framework for innovative pedagogy in the teaching of English in Malaysia? Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 18(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.52696/bqug1201
Elliot, R. (1990). Encouraging reader-response to literature in ESL situations. ELT Journal, 44(3), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.3.191
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, London: Continuum.
Gholam, A. (2019). Visual thinking routines: Classroom snapshots. Athens Journal of Education, 6(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.6-1-4
Hager, P., & Holland, S. (2006). Graduate attributes, learning and employability. Springer.
Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2016). Project Zero’s thinking routine toolbox. http://www.pz.harvard.edu/thinking-routines
Hashim, H., & Abdul Talib, M. A. (2019). The learning of English literature in Malaysia: A review of literature. Sección General, 4(17), 68–74.
Hooper, T. (2015). Improving academic writing through thinking routines. Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review, 20, 47–63.
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
Iskhak, I., Saleh, M., Sofwan, A., & Hartono, R. (2017). Investigating the effects of reader response journals on the quality of teacher trainees’ responses to literary works. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(10), 831. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0710.02
Joseph Jeyaraj, J., & Wald, N. (2020). Students’ reflections on barriers to promoting higher education’s social purposes in the classroom. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(8), 976–991. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1625320
Kaur, S. (2013). Critical literacy practices of English major in a tertiary institution. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 13(2), 21–39.
Kunjanman, S., & Aziz, A. A. (2021). Reader-response theory: A systematic literature review. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 6(4), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v6i4.747
Lei, Y., & Joseph Jeyaraj, J. (2023). Developing critical thinking in EFL through visible thinking routines : Experiences of teachers in a Chinese international school. International Journal of English Language Education, 11(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v11i1.20894
Lewis, C. (2000). Critical issues: Limits of identification: The personal, pleasurable, and critical in reader response. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(2), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960009548076
Manurung, M. R., Masitoh, S., & Arianto, F. (2022). How thinking routines enhance critical thinking of elementary students. IJORER : International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 3(6), 640–650. https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v3i6.260
Mart, C. T. (2019). Reader-response theory and literature discussions: A springboard for exploring literary texts. New Educational Review, 56(2), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2019.56.2.06
Mendelowitz, B. (2017). Conceptualising and enacting the critical imagination through a critical writing pedagogy. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 16(2), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-08-2016-0102
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia education blueprint 2013–2025 (Preschool to Post-Secondary). Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2017). Standards-Based English Language Curriculum (SBELC). Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Phonekeo, S. (2020). Implementing a culture of thinking in Lao EFL pre-service teacher education: A case of reading. Victoria University of Wellington.
Phonekeo, S., & Macalister, J. (2021). Reading performance and perceptions of Lao EFL pre-service teachers following a culture of thinking implementation. Reading in a Foreign Language, 33(1), 55–77.
Pinedo, R., García, N., & Cañas, M. (2018). Thinking routines across different subjects and educational levels [Paper presentation]. INTED2018 Conference, 5577–5580. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2018.1317
Puteh-Behak, F., Darmi, R., & Mohamed, Y. (2015). Implementation of a western-based multiliteracies pedagogy in Malaysia: A socio-cultural perspective. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 15(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501-01
Ramos-Vallecillo, N., Murillo-Ligorred, V., & Lozano-Blasco, R. (2024). University students’ achievement of meaningful learning through participation in thinking routines. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(4), 1012–1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14040066
Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating cultures of thinking: The 8 forces we must master to truly transform our school. Jossey-Bass.
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding and independence for all learners. Jossey-Bass.
Ritchhart, R., Turner, T., & Hadar, L. (2009). Uncovering students’ thinking about thinking using concept maps. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9040-x
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press.
Salmon, A. K. (2008). Young English language learners making thinking and language visible. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 10, 126–141. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085.101
Scott, L. M. (1994). The bridge from text to mind: Adapting reader-response theory to consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 461. https://doi.org/10.1086/209411
Sepulveda Larraguibel, Y., & Venegas-Muggli, J. I. (2019). Effects of using thinking routines on the academic results of Business students at a Chilean tertiary education institution. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 17(4), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12191
Sii, L. M. L., & Chen, S. E. (2016). Types of English literature teaching approaches preferred by teachers in secondary schools in Miri, Sarawak. International Journal of Language Education and Applied Linguistics, 04, 1–14. http://ijleal.ump.edu.my/
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
Suliman, A., Yunus, M. M., & Mohd Nor, M. Y. (2019). Scrutinising the preferences in literature approaches and activities: From the lenses of ESL teachers. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 25(2), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2019-2502-03
Tishman, S., & Palmer, P. (2005). Visible thinking. https://pz.harvard.edu/resources/visible-thinking-article
Utami, E., Zaim, M., & Rozimela, Y. (2014). The effect of reader response strategy and students’ reading interest toward students’ reading comprehension of narrative text at Grade X SMA 2 Kota Bengkulu. Journal English Language Teaching (ELT), 2(1), 60–70.
Vijayarajoo, A. R., & Samuel, M. (2013). Reader-response pedagogy and changes in student stances in literary texts. The English Teacher, 42(3), 174–186. http://www.melta.org.my/ET/2013/109 Angeline.pdf
Wolberg, R. I., & Goff, A. (2012). Thinking routines. Journal of Museum Education, 37(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2012.11510718
Woodruff, A. H., & Griffin, R. A. (2017). Reader response in secondary settings: Increasing comprehension through meaningful interactions with literary texts. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 5(2), 108–116.
Xu, J. (2024). Developing emotional intelligence in children through dialogic reading, self-made books, and visible thinking routines. Early Childhood Education Journal, 52(7), 1693–1705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01520-9