April 2007 Volume 3 Issue 1
Article 4.
PDF File
April 2007 home

Article Title
  Strategic Needs of ESL Students in Developing
their Literary Competence

 Authors
Katayoon Afzali & Mohammad Hassan Tahririan

Bios:
Katayoon Afzali is an instructor at Sheikhbahaee University and a Ph.D student at Isfahan University in Iran teaching reading, writing, short story, translation, and conversation with research interests in contrastive rhetoric, genre analysis, reading literature, pragmatics, discourse analysis. E-mail: katayoonafzali@yahoo.com

Abstract

Considering the inefficiency of Iranian ESL students in coping with literary texts, the researchers have designed this research in order to spot their likely strategic deficiencies. For this purpose, the questionnaire designed by Miall & Kuiken (1995) to elicit literary  strategic needs of students was employed and adapted to the goals of the research. The results indicated that ESL students are aware of the significance of the role of insight, empathy, imagery vividness and concern with the author in dealing with literary texts only hypothetically. Nevertheless, they are significant shortcomings in the application of their tacit knowledge practically while reading literary texts.

Key Words: literary  strategic needs of students, a bottom-up model, top-down bias, literary competence

1. Introduction

Since literary texts are extensively susceptible to misunderstanding and misinterpretation, the majority of students face frustration and disappointment while encountering them. These inadequacies may be ascribed to the significant local and global deviations of literary texts from non-literary ones since as Coleridge (1983:11) asserts the goal of literature is to cope with the “automatic nature of normal, every day perception” (Miall & Kuiken, 1994, p.8).

            Due to the local and global discrepancies between reading literary and non-literary texts, hosts of models proposed for reading non-literary texts have proved inadequate vis-à-vis reading literature (Miall & Kuiken, 1994; Norris, 1994). For instance, Kintch (1988) proposes a bottom-up model, i. e., a construction-integration model in reaction to top-down approaches to reading. According to this model, throughout the construction system a number of 'potentially relevant elements' are generated; however, the integration system verifies appropriate elements and rejects inappropriate ones. Nevertheless, literary texts due to some specific stylistic features often trigger less 'immediate' and rampant meanings. Consequently, this process of defamiliarization requires personal engagement and emotions in a way that is not a feature of non-literary texts (Miall & Kuiken, 1994).

            Contrary to Kintch (1988), Eskey (1988) traces the drawbacks of reading literature in paying too much attention to culture-specific assumptions or subject-matter schema. Instead, he contends that much of the second language reading literature is mainly oriented towards top-down bias. Eskey and Grabe (1988) adopt a reading model which involves both top-down and bottom-up strategies.

            Culler's (1981) notion of literary competence also attests to the difference between reading literary and non-literary texts. He recommends that in reading literature the focus should be shifted from the text to the reader. Culler (1981) argues that similar to linguistic competence literary, competence incorporates the organized implicit knowledge of readers as well as rules governing the kind of interpretation one might make of a literary text.  

            Viewing all these facts, it is implied that comprehending belletristic texts involves something more than mere linguistic competence and in case there is no cooperation on the part of reader, no meaning can be made out of such texts (Widdowson; 1984). Short and Candlin's (1991) needs analysis in this realm reveals that students should be made sensitive to the processes involved in reading literary texts.

            Miall and Kuiken's (1994) assert that the majority of readers, despite being aware that they are reading literary texts, struggle to comprehend the text using prototypic concepts, thus causing the text to remain within the existing domain of their comprehension. This study intends to analyse the likely strategic deficiencies of some students. To serve this purpose, the questionnaire designed by Miall and Kuiken (1995) which aspires to elicit some of the processes involved in reading literary texts was employed.  

2. Literature Review

            Numerous studies have been conducted to pinpoint the various needs of different students on different courses. Short and Candlin (1981) investigated the needs of literature teachers. They concluded that, first of all, the teachers should concentrate on texts and link literature and language together. The teachers should be made sensitive to the processes involved in reading and ultimately the course should relate the development of an integrated language and literature curriculum at the school level with that of the post school tertiary institutions.

            Bosher and Smalkoski (2002) conducted a needs analysis on the Minneapolis campus of the College of St. Catherine to discover academic failure of many of the ESL students enrolled in the associate science degree of a nursing program. The results indicated that communicating with clients and colleagues in the clinical setting is the major linguistic deficiency of these students. Accordingly, the content of the course was divided into four sections: assertiveness skills, therapeutic communication, information-gathering techniques and the role of culture in health–care communication. The course has proved very successful in helping students learn how to communicate more effectively in clinical settings.  

            Crosling and Ward (2002) assessed oral communication skills in an undergraduate business and commerce curriculum. The results revealed that undergraduate experience in exclusive formal presentation is inadequate preparation for oral communication in the workplace since most workplace oral communication is informal in nature.

            The main problems of 80 freshman tourism students were investigated by Garcia Laborda (2002). To mention only a few aspects of this research, the students acknowledged their limited communicative and academic skills in language. The same study also looked to see whether the teaching procedures and methodology known by the students are optimal for teaching English to students of tourism, and what elements should be emphasized in the instruction. Most of the participants believed that private schools offer far better language instruction than their public counterparts. To them, their high school books deal more with the urgency to pass the university entrance examination than with their language needs. Generally speaking, their attitude toward textbooks for tourism was rather positive, but they criticized the contents (Welcome, Cambridge University Press) as being very challenging.

            Evidently, the analysis of the surface forms of language needs has been placed in the spotlight to the exclusion of analyzing the underlying processes of learning. However, a genuinely substantial approach to ESP must be based on an understanding of the processes of language learning, and cognitive skills should be an explicit part of the syllabus (Hutchinson and Waters, 1987; Robinson, 1991). Additionally, since as Cook (1991) asserts the study of literary English is rarely adjusted to the foreign students' needs, the current study intends to identify some of the students' strategic needs while reading belletristic texts.  

3. The Study

3. 1. Method & Materials

Hutchinson and Waters (1987) lend credence to employing questionnaires by stating that a need does not exist separate from a person. It is the people who make images of their needs on the basis of information related to themselves and their environment. Adopting this stance, the researchers in this current study have focused on the questionnaire designed by Miall and Kuiken (1995) to evaluate aspects of literary response. This questionnaire was originally divided into seven sections: insight, empathy, imagery vividness, leisure escape, concern with author, story-driven reading and rejection of literary values. The total number of statements developed under these headings was 68. The subjects were supposed to write their opinions about each statement.

However, due to Miall and Kuiken's (1995) detailed analysis of literary aspects and the closed-format of the questionnaire, the researchers decided to tailor the questions so that they could serve the purpose of the research. This stemmed from the fact that open format questions are appropriate for eliciting subjective data or when the range of responses is not restricted. The major advantage of an open format questionnaire is that the responses have more variety and more genuinely reveal the opinions of the subjects. This enhances the probability of receiving unexpected and insightful suggestions. Therefore, ten open-format questions were devised so that they could elicit information concerning the students' awareness of the importance of insight, empathy, imagery vividness and concern with the author (the five items mentioned in Miall and Kuiken's (1995) questionnaire) while dealing with literary texts. Four open-format questions were formulated under the rubric of insight, one under empathy, three for assessing imagery vividness and two for concern with the author.

            Before starting the research, this questionnaire was piloted among five students. The possibility existed that the students attest to the truth of the questions theoretically, while the major goal of this research was to locate their likely drawbacks in practice. To diminish the risk of the occurrence of such an event, the researcher reminded the students that they should answer the questions honestly since their responses would have no effect on their final exam grade. It was also explained that this research planned to clarify their shortcomings and drawbacks in reading literary texts.

 3. 2. Participants

            The respondents to the questionnaire were 55 male and female sophomores studying at Sheikhbahaiee University in Iran who had enrolled in the course "reading simple prose texts" in the spring semester of 2003-2004. This course is mainly concerned with reading literary texts.

4. Findings

            As mentioned above, each of the terms -  insight, empathy, imagery vividness and concern with the author - were subdivided into a number of questions. Each will be subsequently addressed separately.

4. 1. Insight

            In the beginning section under the umbrella term ‘insight’ the first question asked was: “When you read literature, what kind of relationship do you notice between reading literature and your real life?”

            The subjects can be divided into three groups in answering this question: One group frankly claimed that they are unable to perceive any relationship between literature and life. The second category alleged that their understanding of the text is proportionate to the topic of the text, culture, and their experience and background knowledge. Finally, the remaining subjects asserted that they deal with modern texts better than archaic ones.
 
            “How can literature help you to understand the lives of people that differ from you? Cite an example.” This was the second question asked under the heading ‘insight’. The analysis of the data revealed that the students attest to the fact that literature can help them in understanding the lives of different people; however, the majority avoided citing examples. Some of them contended that the characters in short stories differ from characters in real life.

            The third question was posed to assess the insight of the respondents: “In what way literature enables you to understand people whom you would probably disregard in normal life? Elaborate by citing an example.” A number of respondents mentioned that they had not paid any attention to this point. Conversely, another group vouched for the impact of literature on life by explaining that literature can create the opportunity of becoming familiar with different people with whom they may not find any chance to encounter in real life. Several others maintain that the characters in the stories do not seem tangible to them. One of the students related "I can gain experience by reading literature. If I meet a person similar to the character in the story, I can understand him/her."

            Another area investigated for estimating the insight gained by students incorporated the question: “When (under what circumstances) do you understand a literary text better? Give examples.” In this respect a number of contradictory findings was observed. Participants ascribed their understanding to factors like the consistency of their cultural, religious and personal experience with the intended text. Others specified their understanding to when they encountered a similar character in real life. Familiarity with the author's style and the topic element were other determining components stated by participants. The participants elaborated that when the topic is social and related to real life situation, the text is more comprehensible. Contrary to the first group, another group stated that the texts which expose them to new aspects of life are more understandable, since it arouses their curiosity and presents them with more incentive to read. To some subjects, interest in the topic can also impinge on the intelligibility of literary texts.

            A great number of students attributed their deficiency in understanding literary texts to their insufficient vocabulary repertoire. Another group of respondents declared that they understand literature provided that the teacher explains and discusses it. One of the respondents stated: “I don't understand literature, even Persian literature. I only memorize the teacher's illustration to pass the course.” It is necessary to mention that almost all the respondents had avoided citing examples.

4. 2. Empathy

            The second section of the questionnaire was intended to extract the extent the subjects have developed the ability to empathize with the characters of literary texts. The question asked was: “How do you treat the persons and places described in a novel, short story or drama? To what extent can you visualize the people and places described?”

            The analysis of responses indicated diverse features which, according to subjects, can contribute to their visualization of the people and places depicted in literary texts. These factors incorporated the explicitness of the author's description of those characters and places, consistency of the character's culture with the subjects' culture and familiarity with the type of character in real life. In contrast to the last group, some linked their powers of imagination to the novelty and strangeness of people and places and commented that these two features motivate them to continue reading.

            Another category of participants frankly pointed out that they are unable to visualize the characters and places in literary texts. One of the subjects noted: “I always believe that all the characters in the stories are only fictitious and are nonexistent in the real world and all of their actions are exclusively for the sake of concocting fiction.” Ultimately one of the respondents asserted that he is able to imagine the characters in short stories and novels but not the characters in dramas.

4. 3. Imagery vividness

            Three questions were posed to evaluate the participants’ ability to ascertain the vividness of imagery, the first of which was: “How important are dialogues in a novel, short story or drama?” In answer to this question, many students explained that a story consists of relationships and dialogues make that relationship possible. They verified the significance of dialogues theoretically, but as they themselves stated, they lacked the ability to recognize the significance of dialogues in practice. One of the students pointed out: “I think dialogues are very important, but it is usually difficult for me to find out the purpose of a dialogue.”

            Another group claimed that they understand narratives better than dialogues. The third category declared that they are totally ignorant of the importance of dialogues. One of them wrote down: “I don't understand the importance of dialogues. I think in many dialogues nothing is transmitted.” Another respondent complained: “Sometimes the dialogues in stories seem very strange and I usually don't understand them. I think it may be because of difference in foreign culture and our way of thinking.” For another group, dialogues seem more tangible than when the author explains about the characters and scenes.  

            The second question on the same topic of imagery vividness was: “How can the tone of speech in a dialogue in a short story, novel or drama be inferred? Cite examples.” Many students acknowledged that they face problems in recognizing the tone of the literary texts. The second type of students were aware of the way that tone can be inferred and stated this can be achieved by concentrating on word choice; however, they pointed out that they are unable to pinpoint the tone of a text themselves. The following comments show some contradictory points noted by some of the subjects: “I can understand tone in drama but not in poems and stories.” Another student's idea stood in contrast with the previous one: “I can't understand tone in a text, but in poems it is easier.”  

            The last question under the rubric imagery vividness was: “To what extent are you able to perceive the relationship of the colors and smells to the feelings?” The majority responded: “When the author describes bright color and nice smells, I discover that the person and the place are happy and by describing black colors and bad smells I discover that places and persons are unhappy.”  Some of the participants explained their understanding of this relationship to when they know the symbol and associations of that color; however, in the majority of cases, they lack such information. Another group of respondents claimed they were aware of the importance of the relationship of the colors and smells to the feelings in literary texts; nevertheless, they also admitted that they are unable to detect this relationship.   

4. 4. Concern with the author

            The last segment of questionnaire was planned to elicit information regarding the students' awareness of the importance of the author's role in understanding literary texts. This section was titled ‘Concern with the author.’ The first question posed under this heading was: “Explain the importance of the author's style in understanding literary texts by giving examples.”

            The analysis of the responses revealed that the majority of the students are aware of the importance of the style, yet they are ignorant how style can be deduced. A number of subjects restricted their understanding to when the style of the text is simple. In brief, nearly all the students admitted their inadequacy in distinguishing the style of the texts.

            The second question under the same heading was: “What is the contribution of an author's distinctive theme to understanding a literary text?” Nearly all the participants deemed the role of the author's distinctive theme in understanding literary texts as significant; nevertheless, they had also declared that because of their modicum knowledge in this respect, they are unable to disclose the contribution of an author's distinctive theme to understanding literary texts.  

5. Discussion

            Clearly, the majority of the answers illuminated the fact that although the subjects may be able to express the significance of each of the elements theoretically, they acknowledge their inadequacy in applying their tacit knowledge in encountering literary texts. These inadequacies may be traced back to literature classes and the way that literature teachers manage such classes. Since as Zafeiriadou (2001) notes that the capacity that literary texts possess for the students' analytical capability development seem to be downgraded or totally overlooked.  

As was observed, for each of the questions in the questionnaire sundry answers were proposed by the subjects. Factors like topic, culture, background knowledge and experience were considered substantial in comprehending literary texts by the subjects each of which will be taken up consecutively.

Regarding the relationship between reading literary texts and external reality, it is noteworthy that despite subjects’ awareness of this fact, they commented that they usually ignore this point while reading literature. Literary texts are contingent on real life situations for their interpretation and this contingency is quite complicated. The readers of such texts should recreate the reality existing in literary texts using evidence from the language of the text and from their own knowledge of the world. This point makes reading literary texts distinctive from reading informational texts (Littlewood, 1976). Ipso facto, it seems absolutely necessary for the teachers to raise the students’ consciousness about this fact in teaching literature. What teachers can perform in this respect is to urge learners to associate the passage to their own life experiences (Norris, 1994; Wei, 1999). Additionally, they should conduct sufficient pre-reading activities (Byrne, 2004).

Culture was another element which the subjects saw as crucial in reading literature. This gap can again be filled by the literature teacher who should be aware that different cultures value different things; consequently, attention needs to be paid to the selection of material which on the one hand is representative of different traditions, discourse types, and authors, and on the other hand is also valued by the readers (Brumfit & Carter, 1991; Icöz, 1999). Unless the teacher provides the students with everyday cultural background, it is unlikely that they can fully appreciate literature (O'Sullivan, 1991).

The majority of subjects confirmed the perception that literature can provide them with insights into the lives of other people; however, almost all of them had avoided citing examples, indicating that they themselves may have problems in understanding the characters. Actually, they did display some awareness of this impact, yet they are probably negligent to the fact that this potentiality should be activated pending reading literature.

The answers proposed for the third and the fourth questions were quite diverse. For one group of respondents, characters do not seem to be tangible; to another, only characters that they have encountered in real life are understandable. This may stem from the fact that the meaning of a literary work lies in each individual’s reading of it. A literary text normally elicits various responses and each reader has the freedom to assess the coherence of the writer’s work and interpret it according to their own experiences and attitude to the world (Mürdöch, 1992).

Many subjects commented that only when the teacher gives an explanation could the meaning of the literary text become clear to them. This shortcoming once again may be traced back to teachers who rely entirely on a lecture-style lesson which fails to provide opportunities for students to interact with the teacher, with the text and with one another. In order to foster students’ response and interaction, teachers must have a deep knowledge of the students’ reading processes and comprehension of texts (Norris, 1994). Teachers can also address this problem by using group work and extracting the students' knowledge and experience. This enables the students to acquire confidence and provide their own responses, consequently becoming less dependent on their teachers’ explanation (Collie & Slater, 1987; Norris, 1994).

The subjects’ assertion that insufficient vocabulary makes their reading of literature problematic probably has its origins in the literature class. In such classes, the students are usually asked to work diligently on vocabulary learning, translation and endless written exercises without feeling any advancement in dominating language and with almost no opportunity to express themselves (Norris, 1994).

The subjects’ lack of awareness of the fact that imagination can be advantageous in improving their comprehension of literature may also have its roots in the lecture-based method of teaching literature. In these classes, students as passive readers play no important role in imaginative recreation of texts. Overcoming this hurdle involves teaching strategies that stimulate students to develop a feeling for language and respond to it (O'Sullivan, 1991; Norris, 1994). As Long (1986: 42) acknowledges, “the teaching of literature is an arid business unless there is a response and even negative response can create an interesting classroom situation.”

 Considering the importance of understanding dialogues, many respondents complained that dialogues are usually vague in literary texts. This vagueness of literary texts is viewed by Widdowson (1983) as an asset. In this respect, literature can provide the learners with an opportunity to use knowledge of language for the interpretation of discourse. In order to do so,  students have to vacillate in, across and outside the text hunting for hints which help them to make sense of the text. This shortcoming among students in recognizing the tone can again be removed in the literature class. Teaching reading strategies in literature classes plays a crucial part in the development of literary competence (Brumfit & Carter, 1991). Moreover, it should be noted that despite the fact that readers construct the meaning of any text, their interpretation is restricted within the boundaries laid down by the authors (Paran, 1998).

The modicum knowledge of subjects concerning the relationship between the colors and smells to the feeling may be attributable to their lack of cultural information since the use of figurative language in literary texts is culture-bound. They have their roots in fundamental presuppositions and the cultural heritage of the indigenous community. Colors and their associations are one representative of cultural elements. Consequently, in teaching literature it is the task of teachers to sensitize the learners to these cultural features (Byrne, 2004).

The insufficiency of the participants in paying attention to the style of texts is also likely to indicate another drawback of literature classes. It is the literature teachers’ responsibility to assist the students in developing their literary competence by bringing their attention to the types of styles, forms, conventions and symbolization (Brumfit & Carter, 1991).

In the long run, it is implied that to comprehend literary texts students need to understand how authors employ literary conventions to communicate their intentions. Therefore, it is the business of literature teachers to formulate these communicative conventions and teach students the strategies employed by proficient readers (Wilhelm, 1992). Literature teachers should be aware that in the same way that there are rules and principles in spoken discourse, literature also, as a communicative medium, is framed by the expectations and standards which constitute an important element in the communication between writer and reader. In this sense, the literature teacher can play a pivotal role in assisting the students to acquire prerequisite literary competence (Brumfit & Carter, 1991). Teaching strategies that improve the readers’ awareness of how they should approach the reading of a literary text have usually proved to be useful (Isenberg, 1990).

References

Boscher, S. & Smalkoski, K. (2002). From needs analysis to curriculum
development: designing a course in healthcare communication for ..............immigrant students in USA. ESP, 21, 59-79. 

Brumfit, C. J. & Carter, R. A. (1991). Literature & language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. 

Byrne, K. (2004). Using authentic literary text with advanced learners, Retrieved   
October 5, 2006.
www.developingteachers.com/articles _ tchtraining/aulitlp1_ Kathy.htm.
  
Coleridge, S. T. (1983). Biographia literaria, 2 vols. J. Engell & W. J. Bate (Eds.).
(p.11). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.          

Collie, J.  & Slater, S. (1987). Literature in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Cook, G. (1991). Texts, Extracts & stylistic texture. In C. J. Brumfit & R. A
Carter (Eds.) Literature & language teaching. (pp. 150-166). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Crosling, G. & Ward, I. (2002). Oral communication: the work place needs and uses
of business graduate employees. ESP, 21, 41-57.

Culler, J. (1981). The pursuit of signs: semiotics, literature, deconstruction. London:  Routledge.

Eskey, D. (1988). Holding in the bottom: An interactive approach to the
Language problems of second language readers. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D.
Eskey (Eds.), (pp.93-99 ) Interactive approaches to second language reading.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eskey, D. & Grabe, W. (1988). Interactive models for second language reading:
Perspectives on instruction. In P. Carrell, J. Devine & D. Eskey (Eds.),
(pp.223-238 ).Interactive approaches to second language reading.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Garcia Laborda, J. (2002). Incidental aspects in teaching ESP for turismo in Spain
The turismo learner: analysis & research, Retrieved March 2, 2003
www.esp-world. Info/Articles_3/ESP%20 for %20Turismo %20 in %20 
Spain.htm.

Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Icöz, N. (1992). Teaching literature: why, what & how. English Teaching Forum, 36
(3), 10-11.

Isenberg, N. (1990). Literary competence: the Efl reader & the role of the teacher.
ELT Journal, 44 (3), 181-190.

Kintch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A
Construction- Integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.

Littlewood, W. T. (1976). Literary & informational texts in language teaching. Praxis
1: 19-26.

Long, M. N. (1986). A feeling for language: The multiple values of teaching
literature. In C. J. Brumfit & R. A. Carter (Eds.), (pp.42-59)  Literature and
language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Miall, D. S. & Kuiken, D. (1994). Beyond text theory understanding literary response.  Discourse processes, 17, 337-352.

Miall, D. S. & Kuiken, D. (1995). Aspects of literary response: A new questionnaire.
Research in the teaching of English, 29, 37-58.

Miall, D. S. & Kuiken, D. (1998). Shifting perspectives: Reader's feelings and literary
Response. Retrieved May 30, 2004 www.ualberta.ca.

Mürdöch, H. J. (1992). The neglected text – a fresh look at teaching literature. English Teaching Forum, 30 (1), 2-9.

Norris, R. (1994). Getting students more personally involved: An alternative to the
Yakudoku – and lecture-dominated methods of teaching literature & reading.
Fukuoka women's junior college studies. 48, 25-38.

O'Sullivan, R. (1991). Literature in the language classroom. The English teacher,
Retrieved October 5, 2004 www. melta. Org. my/ ET/1991/ main6.html.

Paran, A, (1998). Helping learners to create and own literary meaning in the ELT
Classroom. Retrieved October 21, 2004
http: // www.rdg.ac.uk/ app_ling/helping.htm.

Robinson, P. (1991). ESP Today: A practitioners'  Guide. England: Prentice Hall.

Short, M. H. & Candlin, C. N. (1991). Teaching study skills for English literature. In
C. J. Brumfit & R. A. Carter. Literature & language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Wei, S. (1999). Literature teaching, English Teaching Forum (July- September).
37(3).25-27.

Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Talking shop in ELT Journal. 37 (1), 30-6.

Wilhelm, J. (1992). Literary theorists, Hear my cry, English Journal. 81(7),50-56.

Zafeiriadou, N. (2001). On literature in the EFL classroom,
Retrieved October 5, 2006
http:// www.developingteachers.com/ articles_ tchtraining/ lit1_nelly.htm.