





































Putri Anggraeni, et al / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

32 

 

 
ELT FORUM 13(1) (2024) 

 

Journal of English Language Teaching 

 
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt 

 

 

Literature-based instruction and language learner autonomy: A case study of a 

tertiary EFL reading course 

 

Xiaomei Sun1, Wuwei Ye2, Xinyi Li1 
 

1China Foreign Affairs University, China 
2University of Exeter, England 
3Ankang University, China 

 

Article Info 
________________ 
Article History: 
Received 1 January 
2024 

Approved on 11 March 
2024 
Published on 31 March 
2024 

________________ 
Keywords: Literature-
based instruction; 
language learner 
autonomy; intensive 
reading; extensive 
reading; EFL teaching 
____________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract 
___________________________________________________________________ 
This qualitative case study aims to investigate pedagogical strategies for developing 

language learner autonomy through scrutinising a literature-based EFL reading 

course carried out in a tertiary institution in China. To achieve triangulation, data 
were collected from multiple sources, including two diagnostic surveys, post-course 

feedback interviews, student artefacts, teacher’s reflective journal, and related 
teaching materials. In data analysis, triangulation was accomplished by involving 

and integrating multiple investigators’ perspectives – three researchers collaborated 
in analysing data collected from student feedback interviews. Findings of this study 

could be classified into three categories. Regarding second language acquisition 

(SLA), results from the surveys and interviews indicate a comprehensive 
improvement in learners’ L2 competence, in addition to their cognitive and 

motivational enhancement. With regard to literature-based instruction, evidence 
from this study contributes to a deepened and enriched understanding of the 

comprehensive approach to L2 literature and scaffolded extensive reading. For 
developing language learner autonomy, this study provides a three-dimensional 

modal with pedagogical implications for literature-based instruction, from the 

perspectives of teaching content, methodological approaches, and ideological 
orientation.

  
Correspondence Address: p-ISSN 2252-6706 | e-ISSN 2721-4532 

24 Zhanlanguan Rd, Xicheng District  

Beijing, China, 100044  

E-mail: sunxiaomei@cfau.edu.cn   

http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1333515478&1&&
http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1576658845&1&&
mailto:sunxiaomei@cfau.edu.cn


Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

33 

 

INTRODUCTION 

in L2 instruction, either with intensive reading or extensive reading approach. As Bland (2020) put 

it, “deep reading of literature can promote all aspects of cognition and engagement with text, 

including emotion, empathy, ethics, knowledge of the world, ideology and social justice issues” (p. 

73). While the benefits of integrating literature into L2 pedagogy have been well investigated and 

widely discussed, challenges involved in its implementation still remain a focused research topic that 

deserves close scrutiny and in-depth discussion. Specifically, the complexity of this pedagogy 

(Zengin et al., 2019) and teachers’ lack of relevant training (Saka, 2018) highlight the challenges, 

therefore calling for intensive investigation and research in this field. Based on previous scholarship, 

the comprehensive approach to L2 literature (Bloemert et al., 2016; Bloemert et al., 2019) and 

scaffolded extensive reading strategies (Sun, 2022a, 2022b) provide pedagogical guidance for L2 

literature-based instruction, respectively offering content-focused approaches and methodological 

strategies. 

Language learner autonomy, or ‘a teaching/learning dynamic in which learners plan, 

implement, monitor and evaluate their own learning’ (Little, 2022, p. 64), merits L2 teachers’ 

attention for the purpose of achieving language learners’ sustainable development. The existing body 

of literature foregrounds teachers’ roles in strategy training (Aryanjam et al., 2021), learner 

empowerment (West, 2018), and peer collaboration (Tseng et al., 2020) in the development of 

language learner autonomy. Drawing on the accumulated evidence from previous studies and 

discussion, along with the findings from the English as a foreign language (EFL) reading course 

under focus, the current study aims to delve into pedagogical details and formulate some principles 

for L2 practitioners to implement literature-based instruction with the vision of enhancing language 

learner autonomy. 

 

Literature review 

L2 literature‐based instruction 

The legitimacy of using literature in L2 pedagogical practice has long been discussed and widely 

accepted. In a broad sense, scholarship in this respect could be classified into two groups: what to 

teach (content-focused) and how to teach it (methodology-focused), as outlined and detailed in the 

following two parts. 

With regard to teaching content and objectives, literature-based instruction has gone through 

three major stages (not linearly developed, though): language-based approach, literature as content, 

and literature for personal enrichment and development (Lazar, 1993). Respectively, each stage 

focuses on language learning, literary elements (e.g., literary genres and devices), and learners’ 

cognitive, affective, and psychological development (Hall, 2005/2015). When communicative 

approach gained popularity in L2 pedagogy in the 1980s and 1990s, literature was given extra 

attention as authentic reading materials. In the past two decades, new dimensions have been added 

to the focus of literature-based instruction, including critical thinking and culture-related competence 

(e.g., cultural competence, critical cultural literacy, and intercultural communicative competence) 

(Bland, 2013; Bobkina & Stefanova, 2016; Serafini, 2005; Xia, 2019). From reader’s perspective, 

Freebody and Luke (2003) identified four roles that might provide reference for L2 teachers to 

design literature-based activities: code-breaker – using bottom-up strategies to decode the text; text 

participant – using top-down approaches to interpret the text; text user – using the text with 

awareness of its social and cultural functions; text analyst – critiquing the text with awareness of its 

discoursal and ideological implications and novel interpretation of the reader (Burns & Siegel, 2018). 

Careful reading of these four roles, however, reveals overlapping between the categories, for 

example, the difficulty in differentiating reader as text participant and text analyst. In a more 

practical and easy-to-follow way, Bloemert and colleagues (2016, 2019) put forward a 

comprehensive approach to L2 literature, based on Lazar’s (1993) three basic approaches and 

Paran’s (2008) four-quadrant model for L2 literature teaching. This comprehensive approach 

includes: text approach – focusing on literary discourse, genres and related terminologies; context 

approach – locating literature in particular sociocultural and historical contexts; reader approach – 

encouraging readers’ unique interpretations of the text and critical thinking; language approach – 

using literature as a repertoire of authentic texts for language acquisition. These four approaches, 

according to evidence from some recent studies, were not given equal attention in L2 classrooms. 

For instance, language-based approach, compared with the other parallel approaches, was 

extensively and predominantly used in various L2 teaching contexts (Bloemert, et al., 2016; Cheung 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

34 

 

& Hennebry-Leung, 2020; Luukka, 2019; Tsang et al., 2020). This phenomenon poses a question: by 

what means could practitioners help L2 learners approach literature in a more comprehensive and 

balanced way? 

The question raised above leads the discussion to the methodological dimension. To begin 

with, intensive reading (IR) and extensive reading (ER) are two basic approaches that teachers adopt 

when dealing with L2 reading materials, including literary works. IR aims at detailed 

comprehension of short texts, with special focus on the linguistic and content study, while ER 

involves reading a substantial body of texts for the main purpose of reading for pleasure (Broughton, 

1978; Krashen, 1993). In a succinct way, Widdowson (1978) applied two terms – language usage 

and language use – to differentiate IR and ER. In IR, texts are used to study the system or 

components of a language, while in ER texts are explored for real-world communicative purposes in 

forms of intrapersonal and interpersonal activities. Regarding SLA, while IR is oriented towards the 

improvement of language accuracy and reading skills, ER is conducive to language fluency and 

provides opportunities to practise the skills (Anderson, 2008; Grabe, 2009; Hedge, 2000). Therefore, 

it is preferable to integrate IR and ER into L2 literature-based instruction to enhance learners’ all-

around language capabilities. Advocacy of such integration takes different terminological forms, 

such as, blended extensive and intensive reading (Day, 2015) and ER as literature (Waring & 

Mclean, 2015). Under such general guidance and drawing on empirical evidence from multiple case 

studies, Sun (2022b) put forward the notion of scaffolded extensive reading (SER) which emphasises 

teachers’ scaffolding and facilitation when promoting students’ extensive reading of engaging 

materials for the main purpose of L2 acquisition. Teacher scaffolding could take the form of giving 

guidance on selecting reading materials and reading strategies, initiating or organising collective 

activities, or monitoring and supervising students’ reading activities (Sun, 2022a). SER bears 

features of three pedagogical approaches in a non-linear but systematic manner: IR instruction, 

shared-reading, and ER instruction (see details in the three-stage model for scaffolded extensive 

reading, Sun, 2022b, p. 19). It is legitimate to say that if SER is effectively implemented, the actual 

integration of IR and ER has high chances of benefitting L2 learners in a more comprehensive 

manner. 

In view of the values of the comprehensive approach (content reference) and SER approach 

(methodological reference), the investigated first-year English major reading course was designed on 

the two pedagogical bases. Results of this study may provide further empirical evidence of effective 

strategies for literature-based instruction in L2 classrooms. 

 

Language learner autonomy 

L2 literature reading is related to language learner autonomy in that classroom instructions are 

important for students to engage with literary works, but far from sufficient. It is more likely that 

through igniting learners’ enthusiasm for reading, or the development of learner autonomy, L2 

learners benefit from reading literature in a more profound and far-reaching sense. In other words, if 

teachers have the awareness of improving language learner autonomy, their implementation of 

literature-based instruction has higher chances of effecting changes in L2 learners. 

In a seminal report, Holec (1981) defined autonomy as ‘the ability to take charge of one’s own 

learning’ (p. 3). In more detail, Dickinson (1987) theorised autonomy as learners’ taking 

responsibility for making decisions about their study and abiding by those decisions in actual 

learning. According to Dickinson (1993), autonomous learners often possess the following 

capabilities: understanding what is being taught; formulating learning objectives; employing 

appropriate learning strategies; identifying strategies unsuitable for them; monitoring and assessing 

their learning. Corroborating the emphasis on appropriately adopting strategies, Cotterall (1995) 

construed learner autonomy as ‘the ability to use a set of tactics for taking control of their learning’ 

(p. 195). Based on such propositions, it is assumed that L2 practitioners need to equip students with 

essential strategies for processing/interpreting literary works when delivering literature-based 

instruction. However, what are the essential strategies and how to teach the strategies in a systematic 

way still remain unresolved questions.  

Another element of learner autonomy that merits practitioners’ attention is the social 

dimension (Little, 1999). In an educational context, the exercise and development of individual 

learners’ autonomy depend on and contribute to other learners’ autonomy (Little et al., 2017). To 

put it another way, language learner autonomy is not an individual construct; it is a product of a 

‘social-interactive learning environment’ (Little, 2022, p. 70). This presupposition mirrors the 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

35 

 

understanding that ‘a greater capacity for autonomous self-regulation’ is correlated to ‘deeper 

relatedness to others’ (Deci & Flaste, 1996, p. 6). From teacher’s perspective, it is almost equated to 

stating that learner autonomy is a socially-situated construct in which learners and teachers 

cooperate to achieve shared goals (Zhong, 2021). This ‘collaborative and mutually supportive nature 

of the autonomous learning environment’ (Little, 2022, p. 70) calls for teachers’ full awareness of the 

interdependence in the cultivation of learner autonomy, and they need to involve learners as 

agentive partners who are engaged with the planning, implementing, and evaluating learning 

activities (Little, 1995). The topic under discussion went even further when Little (1995) built the 

link between learner autonomy and teacher autonomy, and Benson (2008) came up with classroom 

autonomy which encouraged teachers to deploy the ‘usable’ construct to help learners develop 

autonomy without challenging institutional conventions. 

To investigate effective and comprehensive methodological approaches to L2 literature-based 

instruction, with the view of developing language learner autonomy, this study aims to answer the 

following two research questions: 

1. What are the strategies for implementing literature-based instruction with the intention of  

fostering autonomous language learners in a tertiary EFL teaching context? 

2. How do students respond to and evaluate the literature-based instruction?  

 

METHODS 

Research context 

The reading course under focus was intended for first-year English majors in a public university in 

China. Different from other parallel classes that used textbooks for the intensive reading course, the 

participating class (an experimental class) took this compulsory course aimed at enhancing L2 

capabilities through reading classic works (mainly comprised of but not confined to literary works). 

The teacher – the principal investigator of the study – taught this year-long course and designed the 

second-semester syllabus (the first-semester syllabus was co-designed by her and another teacher). 

The current study examined this year-long course, with intense focus on the second semester. 

To understand student needs and expectations of the course, a diagnostic survey was 

conducted one week before the first semester started. The teacher drew on the results of the survey 

to design the formative assessment, which took up 40% of the final mark of this course. Similarly, 

at the end of the first semester, another diagnostic survey was carried out, and results were used to 

make amendments to the formative assessment and syllabus design in the second semester. At the 

end of the school year, individual interviews with each student were conducted to obtain students’ 

detailed feedback and suggestions for this course (see details in Table 1). 

 

Table 1. Pedagogical process and formative assessment of the course 

Time Task Function 

Pre-course Survey 1 Diagnostic 

Semester 1 (14 

weeks) 

Participation in class (10%); presentation (10%); drama 

performance (10%); reading journal (10%) 
Formative 

Mid-course Survey 2 Diagnostic 

Semester 2 (15 
weeks) 

Reading marathon (10%); play adaptation and performance (20%); 
reading journal (10%) 

Formative 

End-course Feedback interview Evaluative 

 

In the second semester, the teacher incorporated four reading themes in the syllabus, 

respectively the American Dream, education & society, family & marriage, and science & future. 

Under each theme, materials were selected on twofold principles: textbook articles took up 

approximately 50% of the reading materials to ensure average learners’ confidence in the reading; 

supplementary materials were ‘classic’ to satisfy advanced learners’ need of reading something 

challenging and profound (results from the diagnostic surveys). It is important to add that when 

reading articles from the textbook, students were instructed to selectively do the vocabulary and 

grammar exercises of the unit. The teacher provided answers to the exercises and offered help to 

any unsolved questions (in class for common questions, otherwise after class). 

 

 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

36 

 

Respondents 

Student participants were 20 English major freshmen, including 14 females (70%) and 6 males 

(30%). With reference to CEFR, their English competence was generally between B2 to C1 (Council 

of Europe, 2001). They came from different parts of China, with a range of secondary educational 

backgrounds (students from major cities or English experimental schools generally had a higher level 

of EFL proficiency). For example, in the mid-course survey, a few students expressed difficulties 

they encountered in understanding supplementary materials, while some reported that they did not 

find the materials challenging. Students’ different educational backgrounds also led to varied 

perceptions and expectations of the course. Those from exam-oriented teaching environments had 

high expectations of language-focus approach whereas those who had been accustomed to 

communicative language teaching were open to a wider range of pedagogical approaches (results 

from the diagnostic surveys). 

 

Data collection procedures  

To construct a holistic picture of  the bounded system under discussion, data were collected from 

multiple sources (Creswell, 2013), including two diagnostic surveys (see Appendix A & B), semi-

structured one-on-one interviews (see Appendix C), students’ artefacts (reading journals, 

presentations, and classroom learning outcomes), teachers’ reflective journal, and various types of  

teaching materials (see Table 2). The two surveys were conducted online, respectively to identify 

students’ needs regarding the course and to collect students’ mid-course feedback for the 

improvement of  the syllabus design. The post-course interviews were carried out for the main 

purpose of  gaining detailed feedback for further enhancement of  the course.  

 

Table 2. Data collection instruments 

Instrument Time Participants 
Relation to research 

questions (RQ) 

Survey 1 Pre-course  17 students RQ 2 

Survey 2 Mid-course  20 students RQ 2 

Interview Post-course 20 students RQ 2 

Ss’ artefacts Semester 2 20 students RQ 1 & 2 

T’s reflective journal A school year The teacher RQ 1 

Teaching materials A school year The teacher RQ 1 

 

Since the surveys were carried out on a voluntary basis, 17 out of 20 students in the class 

participated in the first survey; all the 20 students participated in the second one. Questions in the 

two surveys were open-ended questions to enrich the data (Do ̈rnyei & Taguchi, 2010). The semi-

structured one-on-one interviews were conducted by two assistant researchers both of whom 

obtained a degree of Masters of Science (MSc) in Education from a UK university. Each assistant 

researcher interviewed ten students in Chinese, and each interview lasted around 20 minutes. To 

achieve anonymity and enable students to express their feedback and evaluation of the  course 

freely, two assistant researchers did not know students’ names. Participants were coded as S1 -S20 

for data storage and analysis. From the second week of the course, students wrote and submitted a 

reading journal entry at the end of each week. In Semester 1, they could write anything (without 

word limit) about what they read in class or outside class. In Semester 2, they were encouraged to 

write about The Great Gatsby – the novel selected for the reading marathon programme (see 

details in the first section of Findings). Teaching materials included the syllabus, teaching plans, 

slides used in class, and selected reading materials. 

 

Data analysis  

While the principal researcher took charge of  analysing other sources of  data, the three researchers 

collaborated and shouldered different responsibilities in analysing the interview data. First, two 

assistant researchers transcribed the ten interviews they conducted with individual students. In this 

process, they familiarised themselves with the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Following that, they 

coded the transcripts by identifying initial codes and emergent themes. In the meantime, the 

principal researcher coded all the 20 interview transcripts following the same procedures. They 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

37 

 

created initial codes (i.e., key words that represent or summarise important information from the 

data) by doing “line-by-line coding” to avoid preoccupations with the interpretation (Gibbs, 2007, p. 

52). Then, the three researchers shared their coding results: they compared the emergent themes they 

had identified, discussed the discrepancies, and sought solutions to integrate related ones and re-

examined inconsistent ones (Brantlinger et al., 2005). The final themes they conflated include: 
perceived benefits of  this course; difficulties students encountered; suggestions for further improvement; teacher 

scaffolding and its effects; strategies for learner autonomy development. 

 

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 

Two surveys to identify student needs and feedback on the course 

The first survey was conducted one week before the school year started. To learn about student 

needs and expectations regarding this course, a link to an electronic survey with six open-ended 

questions (see Appendix A) was sent to the WeChat group – a virtual space for posting notice and 

sharing learning materials within the class. Seventeen students responded to the survey, and the 

results were summarised as follows. Regarding reading materials, respectively ten and eight students 

showed interest in reading novels and short stories, two in drama/theatre scripts, one in comics. 

With regard to ways of communication about the reading, 12 students demonstrated preference for 

group discussion, four for presentation, and four for keeping reading journals. One student gave 

specific reasons for keeping a reading journal: ‘I think it can help improve our writing ability’. 

Another explained the reason for favouring group discussion: ‘It may improve our spoken English’. 

Interestingly, one student expressed ‘No presentation’ without giving any explanation. Regarding 

potential difficulties in reading, more than half of the respondents considered a limited vocabulary as 

the biggest obstacle to EFL reading, followed by difficulties in understanding long and complicated 

sentences, and a slow reading speed (see details in Figure 1). 

 

 

Figure 1. Difficulties in EFL reading students envisioned in Survey 1 

 

Based on the results of  Survey 1, the teacher made several adjustments to the course design. 

Catering to most students’ favoured ways of  communication about the reading, four categories of  

formative assessment were set up – participation in class; presentation about classic literary works; 

drama performance; keeping a reading journal. Concerning the selection of  reading materials, 

Semester 1 syllabus included excerpts from novels (e.g., The Call of  the Wild by Jack London), short 

stories (mainly from the textbook), and a play – Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw. To tackle the 

vocabulary challenge perceived by some students, vocabulary and grammar exercises from seven 

units of  the textbook were periodically assigned as optional homework after reading the article of  

that unit. In doing so, the teacher intended to give students the autonomy to make decisions on what 

exercises to do, judging by their English capacity and varied weaknesses and strengths.  The teacher 

provided answers to the exercises after learning the unit. Students could send unsolved questions to 

the course representative who collected and forwarded the questions to the teacher. In class, the 

teacher would explain some common questions. However, in effect, only one or two students raised 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

38 

 

questions concerning the exercises. In the reflective journal, the teacher noted down her uncertainty 

about the way of  addressing vocabulary and the action she took to seek student feedback: 

 

I asked the course representative today about how students perceived the way of  dealing with 

vocabulary and grammar in the textbook, and why few students asked questions. The 

representative replied: ‘With the keys you provide for us, we can solve the problems by 

ourselves.’ This response erased my worries, so I decide to continue doing so.  (October-6th 

Journal entry) 

 

The second dialogic survey was conducted at the end of Semester 1 with the main purpose 

of improving the syllabus and pedagogical approaches in Semester 2 (see survey questions in 

Appendix B). In general, students gave quite positive comments on the course and expressed 

satisfaction with the overall design. Thirteen out of 20 respondents used terms such as ‘interesting’ 

and ‘a rich variety of’ to describe reading materials selected by the teacher. Six  students explicitly 

expressed their fondness for the activities the teacher organised in and out of class. One said: 

‘Teacher helped us understand the text by adopting many different types of novel activities’; 

another said: ‘I like the freedom we are granted – the opportunities to freely express our opinions’. 

Again, students showed varied attitudes towards presentation: one expressed liking; one dislike; 

another one said ‘no more presentations’. In comparison, drama appreciation and performance 

were better received by students. One suggested: ‘I expect more chances of drama performance. If 

possible, give more credits to it in formative assessment.’ When it comes to difficulties in reading, 

12 students revealed that weakness in vocabulary and reading strategies hindered their reading 

comprehension and speed. 

Responding to student needs and suggestions expressed in Survey 2, the teacher drew up 

the syllabus for Semester 2. Compared with the previous one, this syllabus retained the diversity of 

reading materials and collective activities. Presentation was removed from formative assessment, 

giving more credits to drama adaptation and performance (as a student suggested), which took up 

20%, along with keeping a reading journal (10%), and the reading marathon programme (10%). 

Also at students’ suggestions, pre-reading questions were incorporated into reading activities. 

Likewise, the teacher attached more emphasis to giving guidance on word-attack strategies and 

sentence-analysis skills. For example, in the first session of Semester 2, the teacher firstly 

introduced IR and ER as two approaches to processing texts for different reading purposes . 

 

Two teaching designs reflective of the comprehensive approach and SER 

As aforementioned, design of the course was influenced by the comprehensive approach to L2 

literature and scaffolded extensive reading (SER), as elucidated in Literature Review. To 

demonstrate and interrogate the influence of theory on practice, and provide some insight into a 

more profound interpretation of the theory, two teaching designs implemented in Semester 2 are to 

be introduced and analysed. 

 

The reading marathon programme 

This programme started from the outset of Semester 2, lasting 14 weeks. The novel selected for the 

reading programme was The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Drawing on the three stages of 

SER, this programme comprised three major procedures (see Figure 2). At the beginning of each 

lesson, five students took turns to read aloud one page to the peer audience. Before the reading, they 

created and shared three pre-reading tasks based on the content of the page they were to read. By 

each Sunday, students completed and shared their reading journal entries about this novel. In the 

journal entry, students could respond to three pre-reading tasks created by peers or write anything 

concerning the sections of the novel they read that week. 

In a general sense, teacher scaffolding took the form of designing the mechanism of this 

reading programme. Under each procedure, students took responsibility for creating specific tasks 

and making decisions on what to read closely and write about in the journal entry. Applying the 

comprehensive approach to gauge this programme, we may find that the first and second pre -

reading tasks, respectively selecting 3-5 words for further study and extracting one difficult 

sentence for deeper understanding, were reflective of language approach; the third task – raising 

one authentic question for in-depth discussion – mirrored reader approach. When the reading 

programme drew to a close (students had completed reading aloud the novel in class), the teacher 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

39 

 

used two sessions to have an overall discussion of the novel and main characters. Discussion 

topics included the historical background (e.g., The Jazz Age, Prohibition on alcoholic beverages, 

New Woman/flapper etc.), the American Dream in relation to the novel, ‘new money’ and ‘old 

money’. In the second session, students presented character analysis in groups, followed by the 

teacher’s summarisation of features of each main character. 

 

 

Figure 2. Reading marathon procedures 

 

A comparative reading design 

Inspired by one student’s suggestion proposed in Survey 2 – ‘I hope this course could incorporate 

more elements about domestic and foreign countries’, under the theme of Family & Marriage, the 

teacher selected excerpts from two books – Tuesdays with Morrie by Mitch Albom and The 

Importance of Living by Yutang Lin – for comparative reading. ‘Comparative’ could be interpreted 

in two ways: comparison between two influential (Chinese & American) authors’ views on marriage 

and family; comparison between two reading partners (see detailed instructions for this activity in 

Figure 3). 

 

 

Figure 3. A slide of instructions for the comparative reading 

 

This reading activity commenced with teacher’s introduction to the two authors, some 

social backgrounds and literary features of the two books, the main character of Tuesdays with 

Morrie (particularly the disease he suffered from – ALS). Then, students started in-class reading, 

following the procedures presented in Figure 3. After the first session, students created mind maps 

with their reading partners (see one example in Figure 4). In the second session, each pair 

demonstrated their viewpoints with the assistance of their mind maps. The final step was teacher’s 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

40 

 

summarisation – giving comments on students’ mind maps and presentations, followed by several 

points that the teacher regarded as important from her perspective as a reader. For example, she 

reminded the students that The Importance of Living was created in 1937, thus the traditional 

lifestyle and ideological patterns portrayed in the book could be dramatically different from the 

current situation in China. 

 

 

Figure 4. A mind map created by a pair of reading partners 

 

A closer examination of this comparative reading design could lead to the conclusion that 

the comprehensive approach to L2 literature was embodied in different procedures of the activity 

(see details in Figure 5). However, due to the limited class time left for the teacher, the language 

approach – some vivid expressions from Tuesdays with Morrie – were not fully explained. The 

slide created for that purpose was displayed to students without fulfilling teacher’s intention: to 

draw students’ attention to the linguistic features of the text in addition to understanding the 

content. 

This unintended omission of language approach resonated with one of the teacher’s 

reflective journal entries: 

 

After observing one teacher’s IR lesson today, I thought quite a lot: this teacher attached great 

importance to the basics, particularly vocabulary learning strategies and acquisition. In 

comparison, the course I’m teaching is more like literature appreciation – to get students 

immersed in it, to feel it, but not very helpful for their vocabulary acquisition. (April-10th 

Journal entry) 

 

This inward reflection revealed the teacher’s realisation that the comprehensive approach 

was adopted in an imbalanced manner in her teaching practice, which assumably could help her 

make adjustments to future designs. 

 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

41 

 

 

Figure 5. Application of the comprehensive approach to the comparative reading design 

 

Students’ feedback regarding this course 

Upon the completion of this course, each student anonymously made their comments with 

constructive suggestions in the feedback interviews (see questions in Appendix C). 

The majority of students claimed that taking this course enabled them to improve not only 

their reading abilities, including reading efficiency and text analysis ability, but also their overall 

English competence, including speaking and writing (see details in Table 3). Seventeen out of 20 

students expressed that their reading strategies had been enhanced to different degrees due to 

teacher’s instructions and guidance, such as their ability to analyse characters, appreciate 

important details, and sort out inner logic of the text. Critical thinking ability was regarded by 

80% of the students as improved owing to various analytical activities. Sixty percent of the 

students perceived enhancement in their peer collaboration ability, and the same percentage of 

students perceived improvement in their cultural awareness. 

 

Table 3. Improvements students perceived as a result of taking this course 

Perceived improvement Total instances (n=20) Percentage (%) 

Reading strategies 17 85 

Critical thinking ability 16 80 

Peer collaboration ability 12 60 

Cultural awareness 12 60 

Oral English capacity 10 50 

Reading efficiency 8 40 

 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

42 

 

Some students explicitly gave credit to teacher scaffolding in respects such as providing 

guidance on reading strategies and organising various collective activities. S6 detailed as follows: 

‘The reading course was outlined based on different themes, and the selected literature was 

located in particular sociocultural and historical contexts, which is better than studying the 

literature in isolation’. Regarding the benefits of participating in collective activities, S5 said: 

‘Discussions with classmates enriched and deepened my thoughts.’ Among al l the activities held 

in class, Reading Marathon was regarded as the most rewarding. S19 commented: ‘Reading 

Marathon literally helped me a lot with my expression and pronunciation problems.’ Another 

popular activity was drama performance to which students attributed various improvements in L2 

acquisition. For instance, one shared in excitement: 

 

Through adapting and rehearsing the play, we gained a deeper understanding of  the text. It 

improved not only our English ability, but also our creativity, particularly when we worked on 

the adaptation of  the play. We couldn’t help but feel the charm of  drama when we put on the 

performance. (S4, Feedback interview) 

 

Regarding reading materials, most of the students expressed interest in the teacher-selected 

literary works. In effect, results indicate that student satisfaction with the selected reading 

materials was the main reason for most of them to do extensive reading after class. Quite a few 

students mentioned that this course provided them with precious opportunities to read classic 

literature and have a deeper understanding of foreign cultures. This course also helped some 

learners form a good reading habit. For example, S9 conveyed that through keeping the reading 

journal, he had developed a habit of doing extracurricular reading on a regular basis. Interestingly, 

a few students claimed that they were motivated to finish the reading assignments because they 

liked the teacher, as S12 said: ‘I’m really lucky and happy to meet our teacher, which is one of my 

achievements in this course’. 

 

Discussion 

Benefits and challenges of implementing the comprehensive approach 

Results of the current study, particularly students’ feedback from the post-course interviews, 

manifested multi-faceted benefits of the comprehensive approach to L2 literature that Bloemert and 

colleagues (2016, 2019) synthesised and promoted. These benefits were of three general levels 

featuring different dimensions: social, cultural, and historical dimensions (Bland, 2020); cognitive, 

affective, motivational, and aesthetic dimensions (European Commission, 2012); language 

acquisition dimensions (Hall, 2005/2015). At the socio-cultural level, in Survey 2 and post-course 

interviews, more than half of the students expressed their improvement in cultural awareness. 

Regarding cognitive development, 80% of the students believed their critical thinking was honed 

through participating in various activities. The results corroborate Naji et al.’s (2019) findings 

concerning the benefits of literature-based instruction on learners’ multiliteracy skills and higher-

level thinking skills. Some students in the present study claimed positive changes in their attitudes 

towards EFL reading; this affective factor in turn boosted their language learning motivation. 

Furthermore, many a few students mentioned that their aesthetic appreciation of classic literary 

works had been enhanced. Finally yet importantly, almost all the students gave positive feedback on 

the effects of this course on their EFL competence, especially the enhancement of reading strategies 

and reading efficiency. 

One major challenge to the implementation of the comprehensive approach is teachers’ 

holistic view and relatively equal weight given to each sub-approach: text, context, reader, and 

language approaches (Bloemert, et al., 2016. Bloemert, et al., 2019). A number of studies have 

gleaned evidence showing that in many L2 teaching contexts, language approach, compared with 

the other three approaches, was given disproportionately predominant emphasis (Cheung & 

Hennebry-Leung, 2020; Luukka, 2019; Tsang et al., 2020). In the current study, the situation 

seemed to develop in a reverse direction: the teacher allocated vocabulary and grammar exercises 

as optional assignments with the view of giving students autonomy to make decisions based on 

their language competence. However, student feedback indicated that teacher’s  intention of 

fostering learner autonomy was not well fulfilled – some students explicitly expressed the 

expectation of gaining more instruction and supervision on vocabulary and grammar learning. 

Student needs in this aspect could be spelled out in two ways. First, most of the students had been 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

43 

 

receiving exam-oriented education, particularly in their secondary schooling. Thus, they expected 

continuity of this teaching mode in their tertiary education. Second, before designing this course, 

the teacher had learned about the predominance of language approach in various teaching 

contexts, therefore purposefully avoiding it in her teaching. At a later stage, she realised and 

reflected upon this imbalance in her literature-based instruction (see the April-10th Journal entry 

in Findings section). Presumably, such reflections could help the teacher make some adjustments 

to the composition of the course in future design and implementation. This finding confirms the 

existing literature with evidence that a balanced way of implementing the comprehensive 

approach is considerably difficult in teaching practice. Nevertheless, reflective teaching and 

periodic student need analysis, as adopted in the current study, may contribute to a sensibly -

proportioned L2 literature instruction. 

 

Literature-based instruction and language learner autonomy 

In the present study, the L2 practitioner demonstrated awareness of fostering language learner 

autonomy in the pedagogical design and practice. As noted in the previous section, the self-study 

mode of processing vocabulary and grammar exercises revealed teacher’s intention of developing 

learner autonomy, although not fully effective. With closer observation and analysis, we are able to 

find other strategies adopted for cultivating language learner autonomy in the course under study. 

Mirroring Little’s (2022) notion that autonomy is a product of  social-interactive learning 

environment, various forms of  collective activities were carried out in the investigated course. These 

activities not only boosted learners’ motivation for further and extensive reading after class, but also 

enhanced peer collaboration capabilities and their enthusiasm for the course and EFL learning, as 

evidenced in the feedback interviews. This adds to Tseng et al.’s (2020) finding that well-designed 

peer collaboration helped enhance learner autonomy and elevate learners’ motivational levels in L2 

learning. Another element of  learner autonomy that Little (1995) emphasised is involving learners as 

agentive partners who shoulder the responsibility of  designing, implementing, and assessing learning 

activities. In this course, two diagnostic surveys and one evaluative interview were conducted with 

each student to engage them in the design and continuous improvement of  the course. Such teaching 

practice corroborates the advocacy of  empowering students through offering them chances to make 

decisions on their learning (West, 2018). Also, this study gleaned evidence indicating that providing 

students with various platforms and chances to voice their opinions from their unique perspectives 

helped enhance learner autonomy, because the confidence gained in the process served as incentive 

for students to further and deeper engage with the learning. This finding affirms the effectiveness of  
hermeneutic pedagogy that allows learners to fully express and share their views, which could improve 

L2 learners’ self-esteem and effect positive motivational changes (Nguyen, 2016). In line with Chen’s 

(2022) finding that in a student-centred environment, teacher played a significant role in learner 

autonomy building, this study adds to that with evidence indicating that fondness for the teacher 

improved learner autonomy – students wanted to learn just because they liked the teacher. More 

importantly, teacher’s role in training reading strategies was highly valued in literature-based 

instruction, as shown in the present study. This mirrors the finding of  another study: systematic 

instruction of  strategies was important for developing language learner autonomy (Aryanjam et al., 

2021). The course under discussion demonstrated one of  its weaknesses in this respect, which 

explained why some students hoped for more guidance on reading strategies, such as word-attack 

strategies and long-sentence analysis strategies. 

Drawing on the findings of the current study, and integrating the content, methodological, 

and ideological dimensions of language learner autonomy building, a three-dimensional model is 

constructed as reference for L2 practitioners of literature-based instruction (see Figure 6). With 

respect to teaching content, systematic instruction of strategies for L2 literature reading is of 

supreme importance. Regarding teaching methodology, organising various types of collective (in -

class and out-of-class) activities is beneficial for learners’ motivational and affective development. 

At the ideological level, teachers should have the awareness of empowering learners by proving 

opportunities for them to participate in the pedagogical design, voice opinions, and make 

decisions for their learning. The three dimensions should be interactively integrated to create 

better chances for the development of language learner autonomy. 

 

 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

44 

 

 

Figure 6. A three-dimensional model for language learner autonomy development 

 

An expanded interpretation of scaffolded extensive reading 

In tandem with the proposition of the three-dimensional model for developing language learner 

autonomy, the concept of SER can be expanded to afford more pedagogical functionalities. First, at 

the macro level, scaffolding in literature-based instruction necessitates teachers’ awareness of the 

reciprocal relationships between language, culture, and literature. Accordingly in IR instruction, 

teachers will employ varied approaches that feed on the links and better the instruction. In the 

current study, students perceived significant changes in their cultural awareness due to teacher’s 

culturally-enriching instruction. This finding confirms the result of another case study carried out in 

a similar teaching context (Nguyen, 2016). 

The expansion of the concept takes another two directions – sequential flexibility and 
interpretation possibility. Reading Marathon serves as a good example to elucidate sequential 

flexibility of the concept. Inspired by the three stages of SER – IR instruction; shared reading; ER 

instruction (Sun, 2022b) – this reading programme followed a similar pattern, with some 

adjustments to the order of procedures (see Figure 2).  To be precise, rather than rigidly taking the 

three steps, this programme placed IR instruction (i.e., analysis of themes and ch aracters of the 

novel) at the end of the programme, which was valued as helpful by students in the feedback 

interview. The sequential flexibility in teaching procedures broadens the understanding of SER. 

Moreover, interpretation possibility in SER empowers practitioners to interpret key 

elements of the concept with a certain degree of autonomy. Two examples from the course are 

presented as follows. Different from the conventional understanding that teacher delivers IR 

instruction, in the course under study, it was the teacher and students who collaboratively fulfilled 

this task. That is, the teacher outlined the structure of pre-reading tasks and students took turns 

(one person one page) to create specific tasks which their peers might respond to in the post-

reading activity. Another example was the wider interpretation of shared reading, originally 

interpreted as reading activities that allow for communication and collaboration between learners, 

or between teacher and learners (Sun, 2022b). In the reading marathon programme, shared 

reading took the main form of students’ taking turns to read aloud to the peer audience in class, 

which was perceived by students as an effective way to enhance their English pronunciation and 

confidence as English majors. 

 

CONCLUSION 

This study scrutinises a first-year English major reading course to seek for strategies for improving 

language learner autonomy in literature-based instruction. Influenced by the comprehensive 

approach to L2 literature and scaffolded extensive reading strategies, the course under study was 

perceived as helpful for EFL learners to gain a wide range of achievements, including deepened and 

widened understanding of socio-cultural background knowledge concerning the literary works, and 

correspondingly improved cultural competence. Students also revealed progress in cognitive, 

motivational, and aesthetic dimensions, in addition to enhancement in L2 acquisition. While giving 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

45 

 

credit to the two sets of guidance (the comprehensive approach and SER), this study provides 

evidence to better or enrich them. Regarding the comprehensive approach to L2 literature, results of 

this study indicate that reflective teaching and regular student need collection and analysis 

contribute to a balanced implementation of the four sub-approaches. Concerning SER, this study 

highlights its two features – sequential flexibility and interpretation possibility – respectively adding 

variation to the chronical order of activities and nuances in the interpretation of key elements. 

The most important pedagogical implication of the study lies in the practical guidance it 

offers for developing language learner autonomy, particularly when implementing literature -based 

instruction. The three-dimensional model that combines content, methodological and ideological 

considerations, serves as the foundation of the pedagogical guidance, that is, focusing on strategy 

training, offering a variety of collective activities, and empowering students through offering 

opportunities for them to engage with activity design and make decisions that suit their learning 

profile and language competence.  

 Limitation of the study could be the double status of the principal researcher – also the 

teacher of the course. However, triangulation achieved through having two assistant researchers 

could mitigate the potential biases in analysing data. It is hoped that future research in this field 

could testify the feasibility of the three-dimensional model for cultivating learner autonomy in 

different contexts of literature-based instruction. 

 

FUNDING STATEMENT 

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article. 

 

REFERENCES 

Anderson, N. J., & Nunan, D. (2008). Practical English language teaching: Reading. McGraw-Hill 

ESL/ELT. 

Aryanjam, L., Rashtchi, M., & Maftoon, P. (2021). Boosting reading achievement by employing 

learner autonomy curriculum: Effects of  strategy instruction. Iranian Journal of  English for 

Academic Purposes, 10(3), 51-70. 

Benson, P. (2008). Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy. in T. Lamb, & H. Reinders 

(Eds.). Learner, teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses, 15-32. John Benjamins 

Publishing. 

Bland, J. (2013). Introduction. in J. Bland & C. Lu ̈tge (Eds.). Children’s literature in second language 

education, 1-11. Bloomsbury Academic. 

Bland, J. (2020). Using literature for intercultural learning in English language education. in M. 

Dybedahl, & R. Lund (Eds.). Teaching and learning English interculturally, 69-89. Cappelen 

Damm Akademisk. 

Bloemert, J., Jansen, E., & van de Grift, W. (2016). Exploring EFL literature approaches in Dutch 

secondary education. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(2), 169-188. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2015.1136324 

Bloemert, J., Paran, A., Jansen, E., & van de Grift, W. (2019). Students’ perspective on the benefits 

of  EFL literature education. The Language Learning Journal, 47(3), 371-384. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1298149 

Bobkina, J., & Stefanova, S. (2016). Literature and critical literacy pedagogy in the EFL classroom: 

Towards a model of teaching critical thinking skills. Studies in Second Language Learning and 

Teaching, 6(4), 677-696. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.4.6 

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies 

in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195-207. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205 

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in 

Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage. 

Broughton. (1978). Teaching English as a foreign language (2nd ed.). Routledge & K. Paul. 

Burns, A. & Siegel, J. (2018). Teaching the four language skills: Themes and issues. in A. Burns & J. 

Siegel (Eds.). International perspectives on teaching the four skills in ELT: Listening, speaking, reading, 

writing, 1-17. Springer International Publishing.  

Carcary, M. (2020). The research audit trail: Methodological guidance for application in practice. 

Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 18(2), 166-177. 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

46 

 

http://dx.doi.org/10.34190/JBRM.18.2.008 

Cheung, A., & Hennebry-Leung, M. (2020). Exploring an ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices of  

teaching literary texts: A case study in Hong Kong. Language Teaching Research, 1-26. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168820933447 

Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2), 195–205. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00008-8 

Council of  Europe (2001). Common European framework of  reference for language: Learning, teaching, 

assessment. Language Policy Unit. 

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design (3rd ed.). Sage. 

Day, R. R. (2015). Extending extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 294-301. 

Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1996). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. Penguin. 

Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge University Press. 

Dickinson, L. (1993). Talking shop: Aspects of  autonomous learning. ELT Journal, 47(4), 330–336. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/47.4.330 

Do ̈rnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, 

administration, and processing (2nd ed.). Routledge. 

European Commission (2012). EU high level group of  experts on literacy report. Retrieved from 

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10061875/1/HLGL-final-report_en.pdf 

Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (2003). Literacy as engaging with new forms of  life: The four roles model. 

in G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.). The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., 51–66). Pearson. 

Gibbs, G. (2007). Analysing qualitative data. Sage. 

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University 

Press. 

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford University Press. 

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning (first published in 1979, Strasbourg: Council 

of  Europe). Pergamon. 

Krashen, S. (1993). The power of  reading: Insights from the research. Libraries Unlimited, Inc. 

Lazar, G. (1993). Literature and language teaching: A guide for teachers and trainers. Cambridge University 

Press. 

Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of  learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. 

System, 23(2), 175-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00006-6 

Little, D. (1999). Developing learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: A social-

interactive view of  learning and three fundamental pedagogical principles. Revista Canaria de 

Estudios Ingleses, 38, 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000488 

Little, D. (2022). Language learner autonomy: Rethinking language teaching. Language Teaching, 

55(1), 64–73.  

Little, D., Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. (2017). Language learner autonomy: What, why and how. 

Second Language Acquisition, 4(1), 1-21. 

Luukka, E. (2019). Selection, frequency, and functions of  literary texts in Finnish general upper-

secondary EFL education. Scandinavian Journal of  Educational Research, 63(2), 198-213. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1336476 

Mackay, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum 

Associates. 

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. (2016). What is qualitative research?’ in S. Merriam & E. Tisdell (Eds.). 

Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, 3-21. Jossey-Bass. 

Naji, J., Subramaniam, G., & White, G. (2019). New approaches to literature for language learning. 

Springer. 

Nguyen, H. T. T. (2016). How does an interactive approach to literary texts work in an English as a 

foreign language context? Learners’ perspectives in close-up. Innovation in Language Learning and 

Teaching, 10(3), 171-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.932361 

Oppermann. (2000). Triangulation – A methodological discussion. The International Journal of  

Tourism Research, 2(2), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-

1970(200003/04)2:2<141::AID-JTR217>3.0.CO;2-U 

Paran, A. (2008), The role of  literature in instructed foreign language learning and teaching: An 

evidence- based survey. Language Teaching, 41(4), 465 – 496. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026144480800520X 

Serafini, F. (2005), Voices in the park, voices in the classroom: Readers responding to postmodern 



Xiaomei Sun, Wuwei Ye, & Xinyi Li | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

47 

 

picture books. Reading, Research and Instruction, 44(3), 47–65. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070509558431 

Sun, X. (2022a). Scaffolded extensive reading: A case study of  an extensive reading programme. 

Education, 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2022.2119092 

Sun, X. (2022b). Scaffolded extensive reading: A concept drawn from two EFL reading 

programmes. Language Teaching Research, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221141297  

Thomas, G. (2016). How to do your case study (2nd ed.). Sage. 

Tsang, A., Paran, A., & Lau, W. W. (2020). The language and non-language benefits of  literature in 

foreign language education: An exploratory study of  learners’ views. Language Teaching Research, 

1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168820972345 

Tseng, W. T., Liou, H. J., & Chu, H. C. (2020). Vocabulary learning in virtual environments: 

Learner autonomy and collaboration. System, 88, 1-17. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102190 

Waring, R., & McLean, S. (2015). Exploration of  the core and variable dimensions of  extensive 

reading research and pedagogy. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(1), 160-167. 

West, G. B. (2018). Reading communities: Developing autonomy in an ESL academic reading 

course. in A. Burns & J. Siegel (Eds.). International perspectives on teaching the four skills in ELT: 

Listening, speaking, reading, writing, 167-178. Springer. 

Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press. 

Xia, H. (2019). Study on the cultivation of  students’ critical thinking in senior high school English extensive 

reading teaching – Take senior two students in XF high school for example (Master’s dissertation). 

Gannan Normal University. 

Zengin, B., Başal, A. & Yükselir, C. (2019). Investigation into the perceptions of  English teachers 

and instructors on the use of  literature in English language teaching. The Reading Matrix: An 

International Online Journal, 19(1), 155-166 

Zhong, D. Q. M. (2021). Fostering group autonomy through collaborative learning in an online 

environment. Sisal Journal, 12(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.37237/120106 

 
 


