Assessing the "Literature in Action" Component: Challenges and Preferences Among Secondary School ESL Learners

The implementation of the Literature in Action (LiA) component within Malaysian secondary education is purposefully done to promote a holistic language learning. However, there still exists structural classroom challenges among the students. This study aims to investigate the operational realities and challenges, and the pedagogical preferences of secondary school ESL learners. Utilizing a mixed-method design, quantitative survey data (N = 10) and qualitative semi-instructed interview were employed to gather insights from Form Three learners across varied proficiency levels. The findings revealed the exact split in regards to learners’ difficulties, in which half of the students struggled with the literature component due to vocabulary deficit and unclear teacher instructions. Furthermore, it is also revealed that the students prefer linear literary texts compared to dense poetry or short story formats. A notable gap also exists between the current classroom teaching methods and the desired ones where students favored visual tools and reading comprehension tasks to be included in the literature classroom. Ultimately, integrating authentic learners’ preferences in the curriculum is essential to transform literature components into an engaging L2 acquisition process.

: Literature In Action, ESL Literature Pedagogy, Learners Perceptions, Instructional Barriers, Language Acquisition

1. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 22(3), 763–774. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Amri, Z. N. E. Z. (2025). English language literature component: Students' perspective and attitude towards Malaysian literary texts. The MELTA Journals (Malaysian Journal of ELT Research), 21(1), 45–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Amri, Z. N. E. Z., & Uri, N. F. M. (2025). English Language Literature Component: Students’ Perspective and Attitude Towards Malaysian Literary Texts. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 22(1), 46-61. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Carter, R., & Long, M. N. (1991). Teaching literature. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Choi, H., Lim, J., & Kim, S. (2024). Managing cognitive load through visual sequencing and scaffolding in second language acquisition. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 16(6), 1102–1115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chung, L. Y., & Ngui, K. T. (2025). Addressing monotony in the secondary ESL classroom: Active learning vs. passive transcription practices. Journal of Language and Communication, 12(1), 34–51. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Engku, E. A., Zaim, M., & Harun, H. (2020). Genre preferences and reading engagement among secondary ESL learners. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(5), 412–425. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? Experimenting with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Harwati Hashim, & Mohamad Asyraf Abd Talib. (2019). Secondary school students’ perceptions on the use of literature component in English language classroom. Creative Education, 10(12), 2815–2825. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hossain, M. A. (2024). Plot dynamics and cross-cultural engagement: Utilizing adventure fiction in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 14(2), 205–222. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Jain, S., Dubey, S., & Jain, S. (2016). Designing and validation of questionnaire. International Dental & Medical Journal of Advanced Research, 2, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Janssen, G., Ohta, R., Lee, J., & Suhan, M. (2023). Program evaluation and triangulation: What three data sets show about how participants respond to the course teaching Academic English with the TOEFL iBT® Test. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 37, 266-291. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2023.37.15 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Karnine, S. M. B. B. V. K. S. V., Preece, A. S. D., Ahmad, I. B. S., & Muhammad, S. S. B. (2022). A Study on Difficulties Encountered and Perception by English as Second Language (ESL) Learners in Malaysian University Examination Test (MUET). Proceedings of International Academic Symposium of Social Science 2022, 82(1), 1-11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lazar, G. (1993). Literature and language teaching: A guide for teachers and trainers. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Nadesan, N. K., & Md. Shah, P. (2020). Non-Linguistic Challenges Faced by Malaysian Students in Enhancing Speaking Skills. Creative Education, 11, 1988-2001. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Nawi, N. S. M. (2023). The challenges in the teaching of English literature: A systematic review. Journal of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development, 9(2), 112–129. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Nawi, N. S. M. & Nor, N. A. A. M. (2023). The Challenges in the Teaching of English Literature: A Systematic Review. Journal of English Language and Pedagogy (JOURNEY), 6(1): 130–147. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Putra, E., & Yanto, M. (2025). Classroom management: Boosting student success—A meta-analysis review. Cogent Education, 12(1), Article 2458630. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2025.2458630 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Rezeq, M., Al-Bakri, S., & Al-Khasawneh, F. (2018). Linguistic barriers and cultural detachment in ESL literature classrooms. Asian EFL Journal, 20(4), 88–103. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Sahib, S. M., & Stapa, M. B. (2022). Contextual guessing and narrative predictability in L2 prose reading. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 22(3), 145–162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Siti Aqilah Abdul Rahim, & Azlina Abdul Aziz. (2024). Reconciling active learning mandates with examination pressures in Malaysian secondary schools. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 115–140. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Sivapalan, S. (2008). The incorporation of literature in the English language program: Learner interest and perception. Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Tajik, E., & Tajik, F. (2024). A Comprehensive Examination of the Potential Application of Chat GPT in Higher Education Institutions. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4699304 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Talif, R. (1991). Teaching literature in ESL in a Malaysian context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nottingham. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ukat, A., & Ismail, L. (2022). The impact of baseline language proficiency on literature appreciation in rural Malaysian secondary schools. Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies, 4(1), 1–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S., & Young, T. (2018). Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), Article 148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Vimal, R., & Pillai, K. S. (2024). Introspective baselines and student selfhood: Evaluating extrinsic motivation mechanics versus textual engagement in ESL classrooms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 14(3), 717–725. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Zaini, M. A., Hashim, N., & Yusoff, M. (2024). Intercultural worldviews and cognitive gains: Assessing the operational realities of the secondary school ESL literature component. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 20(2), 89–104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Culture: The (In) Human Engagement with Nature
• Identity Crisis in Orhan Pamuk’s The Black Book: A Critical Interpretation
• Metaphor in Pop-Up Swahili Sayings: Is it a New Meaning or a New Idea?
• Racial Identity and Ecological Belonging in Toni Morrison’s Beloved: A Study through Social Identity Theory and Eco-Race Theory
• The Role of Non-Human Agency in Contemporary Literature: A Posthumanist Analysis