Learning Management Process for English Literature Courses at the Higher Education Level in Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The objective of this research was to study the learning management process in English Literature courses at the tertiary education level in Thailand. The participants in this project consisted of twenty-five English Literature instructors from Thai autonomous and public universities. Data were collected through individual interviews. The interview questions were designed based on the four elements of subject matter curriculum design by Zais. Content analysis was employed for data analysis, using student-instructor continuum from Mackh, focusing on learner roles, learning activities, and instructor roles as a framework to explore the instructors’ learning management process. The results suggest that English Literature courses are aligned with several learning theories. The learner roles align most closely with Behaviorism and Constructivism theories (28.8% each), followed by Cognitive theory (25.8%). Regarding learning activities, the two most prevalent alignments were with Behaviorism theory (36.1%) and Constructivism theory (28.9%), while the third most common alignment was with Cognitive theory (21.7%). In the aspect of instructor roles, the most prevalent alignment of instructor roles is with Constructivism theory (31.7%), followed by Behaviorism theory (24.4%), and Adult Learning theory (22%). It can be summarized that the learning management process in English literature courses aligns most closely with the constructivist learning theory. However, it remains flexible, varying with instructor and learner diversity, while considering equality and student participation.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The contents and data in published articles in the Journal of Education and Innovative Learning are considered the ideas and responsibility of the author(s). The Editorial team does not necessarily agree with any ideas or hold mutual responsibility of them. Plagiarism is not permitted, even for academic purposes. However, proper citation must be given whenever referencing the articles.
References
Aljohani, M. (2017). Principles of “constructivism” in foreign language teaching. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, 7(1), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5836/2017.01.013
Alshammari, H. A., Ahmed, E. A., & Shouk, M. A. A. (2020). Challenges to Studying English Literature by the Saudi Undergraduate EFL Students as Perceived by Instructors. English Language Teaching, 13(3), 8-19. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n3p8
Altemueller, L., & Lindquist, C. (2017). Flipped classroom instruction for inclusive learning. British Journal of Special Education, 44(3), 341-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12177
Bada, S. O. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-05616670
Beavis, C. (2009). The place of literature in the English curriculum: continuity and change. In C. Durrant, & K. Starr (Eds.), English for a New Millenium: Leading Change (71-86). Wakefield Press. https://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30090219
Beers, K., & Probst, R. E. (2011). Literature as a 21st-century skill. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 26(2), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.9707/2168-149X.1792
Borna, M., & Fouladchang, M. (2018). The motivational outcomes of connectivism theory in EFL. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 8(2), 101-112. https://doi.org/10.26655/mjltm.2018.2.8
Brau, B., Fox, N., & Robinson, E. (2018). Behaviorism. In R. Kimmons, & S. Caskurlu (Eds.), The students’ guide to learning design and research. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/studentguide/behaviorism
Chantanurak, N. (2022, October 23). Andragogy. Medium. inatnun.medium.com/andragogy-dc2e5fc48684 [in Thai]
Choo, S. S. (2011). On Literature's use(ful/less)ness: Reconceptualizing literature education in the age of globalisation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 47-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.524715
Clark, K. R. (2018). Learning theories: behaviorism. Radiologic technology, 90(2), 172-175. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328939806_Learning_Theories_Behaviorism
Eppard, J., & Rochdi, A. (2017). A Framework for Flipped Learning. In I. A. Sanchez, & P. Isaías (Eds.), 13th International Conference Mobile Learning 2017 (33-40). International Association for the Development of the Information Society. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED579204.pdf
Erkaya, O. R. (2005). Benefits of Using Short Stories in the EFL Context. Asian EFL Journal, 8, ED490771. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED490771
Gow, H. B. (1989). The True Purpose of Education. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(7), 545-546. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ385320
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Cambridge.
Kropf, D. C. (2013). Connectivism: 21st Century's New Learning Theory. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 16(2), 13-24. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1017519.pdf
Mackh, B. M. (2018). Higher education by design: Best practices for curricular planning and instruction. Routledge.
Mandler, G. (2002). Origins of the cognitive (r)evolution. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 38(4), 339-353. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.10066
McGilly, K. (Ed.). (1994). Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. MIT Press.
Merriam, S. B. (Ed.). (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. The New Update on Adult Learning Theory, (3-15). Jossey-bass.
Morson, G. S. (2015, July-August). Why college kids are avoiding the study of literature. Commentary. https://www.commentary.org/articles/gary-morson/why-college-kids-are-avoiding-the-study-of-literature
Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (1999). Constructivism in classroom: Theory into practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009419914289
Nurhuda, A., Al Khoiron, M. F., Azami, Y. S. I., & Ni’mah, S. J. (2023). Constructivism Learning Theory in Education: Characteristics, Steps and Learning Models. Research in Education and Rehabilitation, 6(2), 234-242. https://rer.ba/index.php/rer/article/view/152
Panich, V. (2017). Methods for fostering student learning in the 21st century. Walailak Journal of Learning Innovations, 1(2), 3-14. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jliwu/article/view/95054 [in Thai]
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). https://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/connectivism.pdf
Siripattanakunkajorn, S. (2012). The 21st Century Learning. The NAS Magazine: King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, 2(1), 12-20. [in Thai]
Sozudogru, O., Altinay, M., Dagli, G., Altinay, Z., & Altinay, F. (2019). Examination of connectivist theory in English language learning: The role of online social networking tool. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 36(4), 354-363. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-02-2019-0018
Spencer, J. (2019). Vintage innovation: Leveraging retro tools and classic ideas to design deeper learning experiences. Blend Education.
Sriwisan, S., & Kaowiwattanakul, S. (2021). Using literature circles to improve multicultural competence of university students. Rajabhat Maha Sarakham University Journal, 15(1), 67-77. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/rmuj/article/view/250830
Storm, A. (2023, May 12). How to use cognitive learning theory. Thinkific. https://www.thinkific.com/blog/cognitive-learning-theory
Wadsworth, B. (2004). Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive and Affective Development: Foundations of Constructivism. Longman Publishing.
World Economic Forum. (2023, May). Future of Jobs Report 2023. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2023.pdf
Zais, R. (1976). Curriculum: Principles and foundations. Crowell Harper & Row.
Zajda, J. (Ed.). (2021). Constructivist learning theory and creating effective learning environments. In Globalisation and Education Reforms. Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research (25, 35-50). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71575-5_3
