The Aesthetic Transaction in L2 Literary Reading: Self-Involvement and Literary Judgment among Malaysian Student Teachers

Authors

Kamsilawati Kamlun

Universiti Malaysia Sabah (Malaysia)

Wardatul Akmam Din

Universiti Malaysia Sabah (Malaysia)

Suyansah Swanto

Universiti Malaysia Sabah (Malaysia)

Article Information

DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS.2026.1026EDU0029

Subject Category: Education

Volume/Issue: 10/26 | Page No: 386-397

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2025-12-17

Accepted: 2025-12-24

Published: 2026-01-15

Abstract

This study examines the aesthetic transaction between Malaysian TESL student teachers (N=20) and English literary texts, focusing on self-involvement and literary judgment as manifestations of aesthetic reading. Grounded in Rosenblatt's transactional theory, the research employed a mixed-methods approach combining the Literary Response Questionnaire (LRQ) with qualitative analysis of written responses to a culturally resonant Malaysian short story. Findings revealed that student teachers demonstrated strong aesthetic reading orientations, with Literary Judgment (28%) and Self-Involvement (19%) emerging as significant response types. Literary Judgment responses showed participants' capacity to recognise and appreciate stylistic features, particularly foregrounded language devices. Self-Involvement responses reflected emotional projection and personal connections, drawing on culturally familiar themes, especially family relationships and loss. The study validates the importance of culturally resonant texts in L2 literature pedagogy and highlights the pedagogical value of validating both evaluative and emotional reading responses in TESL teacher education.

Keywords

aesthetic reading, transactional theory, reader response

Downloads

References

1. Anderson, Richard C., and P. David Pearson. (1984). "A Schema-Theoretic View of Basic Processes in Reading Comprehension." In Handbook of Reading Research, edited by P. David Pearson, 255-291. New York: Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Beach, Richard. (1993). A Teacher's Introduction to Reader-Response Theories. Urbana: NCTE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Carlisle, Anne. (2000). "Reading Logs: An Application of Reader-Response Theory in ELT." ELT Journal 54 (1): 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.1.12 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ganakumaran, Subramaniam, Shahizah Ismail Hamdan, Koo Yew Lie, and Hazita Azman. (2003). Language and Literature: A Malaysian Perspective. Petaling Jaya: Sasbadi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Gopal, Manimaran, and Kwan Wei Lee. (2023). "Reader Response Pedagogy in Malaysian TESL Contexts: A Systematic Review." Asian Journal of University Education 19 (2): 234-249. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Green, Melanie C., and Timothy C. Brock. (2000). "The Role of Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (5): 701-721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Grossman, Pamela L. (1991). The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hanauer, David I. (2001). "The Task of Poetry Reading and Second Language Learning." Applied Linguistics 22 (3): 295-323. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.3.295 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Harfitt, Gary J., and Samuel K. W. Chu. (2011). "An Examination of Hong Kong Trainee Teachers' Perceptions of Reader Response Pedagogy." Journal of Education for Teaching 37 (1): 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2011.538274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2017). English Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Larsen, Steen Folke, János László, and Uffe Seilman. (1991). "Personal Remindings While Reading Literature." TEXT 11 (3): 411-429. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. (1994). "Foregrounding, Defamiliarization, and Affect: Response to Literary Stories." Poetics 22 (5): 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94)00011-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. (1995). "Aspects of Literary Response: A New Questionnaire." Research in the Teaching of English 29 (1): 37-58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Peskin, Joan. (1998). "Constructing Meaning When Reading Poetry: An Expert-Novice Study." Cognition and Instruction 16 (3): 235-263. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1603_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Rosenblatt, Louise M. (1978). The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Rosenblatt, Louise M. 2013 [1994]. "The Transactional Theory of Reading and Writing." In Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 6th ed., edited by Donna E. Alvermann, Norman J. Unrau, and Robert B. Ruddell, 1057-1092. Newark: International Reading Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Rosli Talif. (1995). Teaching Literature in ESL: The Malaysian Context. Serdang: Penerbit Universiti Pertanian Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sadoski, Mark, Ernest T. Goetz, and Maximo Rodriguez. (2000). "Engaging Texts: Effects of Concreteness on Comprehensibility, Interest, and Recall in Four Text Types." Journal of Educational Psychology 92 (1): 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.85 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Sigvardsson, Anna. (2020). "Teaching Poetry in Teacher Education: Student Teachers' Conceptions of Poetry and Poetry Teaching." Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 64 (2): 165-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1514545 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Sipe, Lawrence R. (2008). Storytime: Young Children's Literary Understanding in the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Vethamani, Malachi Edwin, and Ganakumaran K. Subramaniam Nair. (2009). "Engaging Students in Literature Circles: Cultivating Response and Developing English Language Skills." English Teaching: Practice and Critique 8 (3): 87-102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles