ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
The primary aim of the study was to assess the instructional practices employed by teachers in classroom instruction in teaching of literature. In order to enhance, develop and explore in-depth the utilization of approaches and activities in teaching, three models for teaching literature were incorporated in the study. They are (1) The Cultural Model, (2) The Language Model, and (3) The Personal Growth Model. Six approaches and activities in the teaching of literature were listed as indicators investigated during the study; language based, paraphrastic, information-based, personal response, moral-philosophical, and stylistic. Findings indicated, firstly, that there was an inconsistency in the utilization of approaches and activities during teaching. Secondly, students dependency on the development of portfolio was the major contribution towards students’ moderate development in learning. Thirdly, the instructional practices employed were mainly focusing on technical components of reading, writing, listening, and speaking as opposed to the teaching of literature.
Malaysia Ministry of Education (2001). Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan: Matlamat dan Misi (National Philosophy: Goal and mission). Putrajaya, Malaysia: Curriculum Development Centre.
Malaysia Ministry of Education. (2003). KBSM English Language Curriculum Specifications. Kuala Lumpur.
Malaysia Ministry of Education. (2009). Curriculum specifications for the literature component in the English language curriculum for secondary schools. Kuala Lumpur.
Cheng, KKY. (2008). Issues in the teaching and learning of children’s literature in Malaysia. k@ta, (2002), 112–125. Retrieved from http://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/ing/article/viewArticle/1 6693
Protherough, R. (1983). Developing Response to Fiction. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Carter, R. & Long, M. (1991). Teaching literature. Longman.
Hwang, D. & Embi, M. A. (2007). Approaches employed by secondary school teachers to teaching the literature. Jurnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan, Vol. 22, 1–23.
Maley, A. & Duff, A. (1990). Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosli, T. (1995). Teaching literature in ESL the Malaysian context. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Pertanian Malaysia.
McRae, J. (1991). Literature with a small l. Basingstoke: MEP Macmillan.
Ganakumaran (2003). Literature programmes in Malaysian schools: A historical overview. In G. S. (Ed.), Teaching of literature in ESL/EFL contexts. (27–48). Petaling Jaya: Sasbadi Sdn. Bhd.
Vethamani, M. E. (2003). New English’s New Literatures in English: Challenges for ELT Practitioners. In S. . In Ganakumaran (Ed.), Teaching Literature in ESL and EFL Contexts. Petaling Jaya: Sasbadi Sdn. Bhd.
Simpson, P. (2004) Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students, London: Routledge.
Lazar, G. (1993). Literature and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R. & McRae, J. (eds.). (1996). Language, literature and the learner. London: Longman.
Spada, N. & Frohlich, M. (1995a). Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observation Scheme. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.
In-Text Citation: (Mustakim, Lebar & Minghat, 2018)
To Cite this Article: Mustakim, S. S., Lebar, O., Minghat, A. D. (2018). Instructional Practices in the Teaching of Literature: What Matters? International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(8), 205–219.
Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode