ABSTRACT: This research was intended to explore how students make meaning whenever they read a literary text. It employed a qualitative method to find out how students responded to literary text in meaning making, type of responses produced by students after reading a literary text, and condition where students produced those responses. It was a case study involving seven students who were taking a course of Prose and their teacher. Classroom observation, questionnaire, and interview served as the data collection method. The result of this research indicated that students responded to literary text in making meaning through multiple reading with different purposes ranging from reading for gaining general idea, reading for learning from the text to reading for searching information. In addition, the way students read a literary text was through the continuum from aesthetic reading to efferent reading. The process of making meaning was demonstrated by most students through questioning about text itself and bringing the text to their lives. Students posed questions dealing with the element of story. Responses that students produced after reading a literary text was different, vary from restatement, associative, figurative, and emotional responses. Based on these findings, it is recommended for teachers that they should be explicit in stating their expectation on what students should achieve. Meanwhile, although students themselves who provide and choose literary text, they should select literary text based on their reading skills, in case of choosing the easy ones.

KEY WORDS: Meaning, reader response, literary text, aesthetic reading, efferent reading, and interaction of students and teachers in the classroom.

About the Author: Yayu Heryatun, M.Pd. is a Lecturer at the English Department IAIN (Institut Agama Islam Negeri or State Islamic Religion Institute) “Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin” in Banten, Indonesia. For academic purposes, the author is able to be contacted via her e-mail at: yayuheryatun@yahoo.com

How to cite this article? Heryatun, Yayu. (2013). “How Students Make Meaning from Literary Text?” in EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Vol.6(1) August, pp.43-54. Bandung, Indonesia: Minda Masagi Press owned by ASPENSI in Bandung, West Java; and FKIP UMP in Purwokerto, Central Java, ISSN 1979-7877.

Chronicle of the article: Accepted (June 15, 2013); Revised (July 17, 2013); and Published (August 17, 2013).

Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. (2001). Language, Culture, and Education: A Portrait of Contemporary Indonesia. Bandung: C.V. Andira.

Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. (2002). Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.

Beach, R.W. & J.D. Marshall. (1991). Teaching Literature in the Secondary School. USA: Harcout Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Bleich, D. (1975). Reading and Feeling: An Introduction to Subjective Criticism. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Carell, P.L. & J.C. Eisterhold. (1988). “Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy” in P.L. Carell et al. [eds]. Interactive Approach to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corcoran, B. (1987). “Teacher Create Readers” in B. Corcoran & E. Emrys [eds]. Readers, Texts, Teachers. England: Open University Press.

Cox, C. (1999). Teaching Language Art: A Student and Response-Centered Classroom. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cox, C. & L. Many. (1992). “Toward an Understanding of the Aesthetic Response to Literature” in Language Arts, Vol.69 [January], pp.28-33.

Galda, L. & R. Beach. (2001). “Response to Literature as a Cultural Activity” in Reading Research Quarterly, published by International Reading Association, pp.64-75.

Grabe, W. & F.L. Stoller. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. London: Pearson Education.

Hancock, M.R. (1992). ”Literature Response Journals: Insights Beyond the Printed Page” in Language Arts, Vol.69.

Interview with R#1 (Respondent 1) in Banten, Indonesia: 6 October 2012.

Interview with R#2 (Respondent 2) in Banten, Indonesia: 7 October 2012.

Interview with R#3 (Respondent 3) in Banten, Indonesia: 8 October 2012.

Interview with R#4 (Respondent 4) in Banten, Indonesia: 9 October 2012.

Interview with R#5 (Respondent 5) in Banten, Indonesia: 10 October 2012.

Interview with R#6 (Respondent 6) in Banten, Indonesia: 11 October 2012.

Interview with R#7 (Respondent 7) in Banten, Indonesia: 12 October 2012.

Iser, Wolfgang. (1998). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Langan, J. (2002a). Reading and Study Skills. Boston: Mc Graw Hill.

Langan, J. (2002b). “Meaning Making in Literature” available in www.learner.org/chance/libraries/makingmeaning/about/project.html [accessed in Banten, Indonesia: March 1, 2013].

Langer, J. (1994). “A New Look at Literature Instruction” in ERIC Digest.

Marshall, J. et al. (1995). The Language of Interpretation: Pattern of Discourse in Discussion of Literature. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Meriam, S.B. (1991). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.

Noorman, Safrina. (2003). ”Bukan Sekedar Respon: Memupuk Kesadaran Kritis Melalui Pendekatan Respon Pembaca” in C.A. Alwasilah & H. Abdullah [eds]. Revitalisasi Pendidikan Bahasa. Bandung: STBA-Yapari Press, pp.263-375.

Palmer, F. (1992). Literature and Moral Understanding: A Philosophical Essays on Ethics, Aesthetics, Education, and Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Pope, M.C. & A. Woodlief. (2007). “The Rereading/Rewriting Process: Theory and Collaborative on Line Pedagogy” available in http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/home/theory.htm [accessed in Banten, Indonesia: April 6, 2013].

Probst, R.E. (1990). ”Literature as Exploration and the Classroom” in E.J. Farrell & J.R. Squire [eds]. Transaction with Literature: A Fifty Years Perspective. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Probst, R.E. (1998). Response and Analysis Teaching Literature in Junior and Senior High School. Prosmouth: Heinemann Education Books, Inc.

Purves, C.A. et al. (1990a). How Porcupines Make Love II: Teaching Response-Centered Literature Curriculum. New York: Longman.

Purves, C.A. et al. (1990b). “Can Literature be Rescued from Reading?” in E.J. Farrell & J.R. Squire [eds]. Transaction with Literature: A Fifty Years Perspective. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Purves, C.A. (1993). ”Toward a Re-Evalution of Reader Response and School Literature” in Language Art, Vol.70 [September].

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The Reader the Text the Poem. USA: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1991). ”Literature — S.O.S.” in Language Art, Vol.68 [October].

Spiegel, D.L. (1998). ”Reader Response Approaches and the Growth of Readers” in Language Arts, Vol.76.

Swope, J.W. & E.H. Thompson. (1986). “Three R’s for Critical Thinking about Literature: Reading, Riting, and Responding” in J. Golub [ed]. Activities to Promote Critical Thinking. USA: National Council of Teachers of English.