Home⇛Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives⇛vol. 4 no. 4 (2026)

A Comparative Analysis of Approaches to Improving Students’ Literary Interpretation Skills and Engagement

Apple Valerie B. Tamparong | Maria Chona Z. Futalan | Teofan C. Gallosa

Discipline: English studies (non-specific)

 

Abstract:

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the Biographical, Structuralist, and Reader-Response Approaches in enhancing Grade 10 students' literary interpretation skills and engagement. A quasi-experimental pretest– posttest non-equivalent groups design was used. The participants were 124 Grade 10 students from a DepEd high school in Valencia, Negros Oriental, who were divided into three instructional groups through a one-stage cluster sampling. A validated essay assessment measuring thematic analysis, character insight, and affective interpretation, along with a questionnaire evaluating cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement, were administered. The data were analyzed using percentages, means, standard deviations, t-tests, analysis of variance, and Pearson’s r. Initial pretest results showed that students across all groups were generally at the “Developing” level in literary interpretation, indicating moderate skill in analyzing themes, interpreting characters, and forming emotional connections with texts. After the intervention, posttest results demonstrated improvement across all groups, with the Structuralism Approach earning the highest scores in all areas. Additionally, all three methods promoted student engagement, with Structuralism consistently leading in engagement levels. Overall, the findings showed a statistically significant increase in literary interpretation skills from pretest to posttest across all groups. The higher posttest scores suggest that while all three approaches were effective, the Structuralism Approach had the most substantial impact on students’ literary interpretation skills and engagement.



References:

  1. Abrams, M.H. (1999). A glossary of literary terms (7th ed.). Heinle & Heinle.
  2. Ahern, S. (2024). Affect theory and literary criticism. Emotion Review, 16(2), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739241231934
  3. Barry, P. (1995). Beginning theory: An introduction to literary and cultural theory. Manchester University Press.
  4. Bist, R.B., & Kandel, R.K. (2024). Reader Response Approach for enhancing literary comprehension in an EFL context. International Journal of Educational Reform, 33(1), 1–20.
  5. Bråten, I., Latini, N., & Haverkamp, Y. (2022). Predictors and outcomes of behavioral engagement in the context of text comprehension: When quantity means quality. Reading and Writing, 35, 687–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10205-x
  6. Cao, F., Zhang, L., & Xin, X. (2025). Reading engagement and its influence on comprehension in digital contexts: Evidence from international assessments. Reading Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.584
  7. Carter, A., Dixon, D., & Li, X. (2024). Literary discussions in the modern classroom: Online and in-person implementation strategies. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 8(1), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.532
  8. Cartoneros, J., & Galvez, L. (2023). Literary SOS: The interventions of teachers to struggling readers. Universal International Journal of Research, 5(1), 1–10. https://uijrt.com/articles/v5/i1/UIJRTV5I10002.pdf
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
  10. Culler, J. (1975). Structuralist poetics: Structuralism, linguistics and the study of literature. Cornell University Press.
  11. Dera, J. (2025). Students’ perceptions of the benefits of literary reading in school and leisure contexts. Education Sciences, 15(5), 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050580
  12. Dera, J. (2025). ‘Why do we actually have to read all these books for school?’: Assessing literature teachers’ legitimations of literary reading towards students in upper-secondary education. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 25(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.21248/l1esll.2025.25.1.741
  13. de Saussure, F. (1916/2011). Course in General Linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). Columbia University Press. (Original Work Published 1916).
  14. de Saussure, F. (1974). Course in General Linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). McGraw-Hill. (Original Work Published 1916).
  15. Duarte, A., Beecher Martins, C., Marques, M., & Mesquita, F. (2018). Deepening the analysis of literary texts among university students using close reading and writing: A pilot study. Anglo Saxonica, 3(15), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.5334/as.25
  16. Eagleton, T. (1996). Literary theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). University of Minnesota Press.
  17. Foucault, M., Taylor, S., & Schroeder, J. (2019). Structuralism and literary analysis. Critical Inquiry, 45(2), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1086/700991
  18. Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  19. Gomes, S., Costa, L., Martinho, C., Dias, J., & Xexéo, G. (2023). Modeling students’ behavioral engagement through different in-class behavior styles. International Journal of STEM Education, 10, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00407-w
  20. Grønli, K.M., Walgermo, B.R., McTigue, E., & Uppstad, P.H. (2024). Teachers’ feedback on oral reading: A critical review of its effects and the use of theory in research. Educational Psychology Review, 36, Article 121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09957-z
  21. Hua, L., Zhang, Z., & Wang, H. (2025). How social–emotional learning promotes reading achievement? A systematic review of mechanisms and instructional design. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1631429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1631429
  22. Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  23. Kumar, A. (2025). The role of Reader-Response Theory in understanding the reception and interpretation of contemporary young adult literature. International Journal of Future Multidisciplinary Research, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i01.37630
  24. Lopes, L. (2025). Biographical criticism: A methodological path for self-writing films. ARACÊ, 7(3), 12298–12311. https://doi.org/10.56238/arev7n3-124
  25. McDowall, S. (2022). Reading deeply: Interpreting literary texts in primary and intermediate school. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.18296/set.0216
  26. McGeown, S., & Smith, K. (2023). Reading engagement matters! A new scale to measure and support children's engagement with books. The Reading Teacher. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2267
  27. Pacalioga, B., & Tagaylo, C. (2025). Biographical analysis of Edgar Allan Poe’s “Annabel Lee.” Asian Journal of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, 8(2), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajl2c/2025/v8i2241
  28. Puspitasari, A.A. (2021). The expectation problems of main characters in Andersen’s selected short stories [Undergraduate thesis, Universitas Hasanuddin]. Hasanuddin University. https://repository.unhas.ac.id/id/eprint/17416/
  29. Rachmad, Y.E. (2022). Educational engagement theory. Lüneburger Heide Buch Internationaler Verlag. https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/kgtcx
  30. Rajatman, & Syamsi, K. (2025). Improving the ability to read biographical texts through a student process approach. Journal of Humanities and Social Studies, 9(2), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.33751/jhss.v9i2.93
  31. Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579– 595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690
  32. Robertson, S., Borchardt, J., & Geye, T. (2025). Exploring structured reading groups: Case studies on classroom conversation and engagement. Smart Learning Environments, 12, Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-025-00408-y
  33. Rosales, M.J., & Sarce, J.P. (2023). The Philippines literary classroom: On teaching multicultural literature. Multicultural Education, 30(1), 12–19. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1403104.pdf
  34. Rosenblatt, L.M. (1938). Literature as exploration. D. Appleton-Century.
  35. Shalev, M., & Gidalevich, S. (2024). Social emotional learning in teacher education: Biographical narrative as a method for professional development. Education Sciences, 14(8), Article 821. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080821
  36. Spirovska, E. (2019). Reader-response theory and approach: Application, values and significance for students in literature courses. South East European University Review, 14(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2478/seeur-2019-0003
  37. Sun, Y., Xu, H., & Liu, X. (2021). Cognitive strategies in reading comprehension: Effects on performance and engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 53(2), 207–231.
  38. Tomas, M.J., Villaros, E., & Galman, S.M. (2021). The perceived challenges in reading of learners: Basis for school reading programs. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 9(5), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.95009

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic