Students’ literary literacy across cognitive processes in reading A.A. Navis’ short story Robohnya Surau Kami
Abstract views: 19
,
PDF downloads: 12
Abstract
Students' ability to interpret implicit meanings, symbolism, and social criticism in literary texts remains limited, despite these competencies being fundamental to literary literacy and higher-order reading comprehension. Existing studies have predominantly assessed general reading proficiency, with relatively little attention to the cognitive processes underlying literary reading. This study aims to examine students' literary reading abilities based on cognitive processes and identify their levels of literary literacy through their responses to A.A. Navis's short story Robohnya Surau Kami. The study is grounded in the cognitive reading process framework and Kintsch's Construction–Integration Model, which conceptualizes reading comprehension as the dynamic construction of meaning through interactions among textual information, prior knowledge, and inferential reasoning. Employing a quantitative descriptive design, the study involved 31 Indonesian senior high school students who completed a multiple-choice literary literacy test measuring six cognitive processes: searching for information, understanding, analyzing, inferring, synthesizing, and evaluating. Descriptive statistical analysis revealed an overall mean score of 67.08, indicating a moderate level of literary reading ability. Students demonstrated the strongest performance in synthesizing and evaluating but showed the weakest performance in inferential reasoning, highlighting difficulties in constructing implicit meanings. Literary literacy levels ranged from basic comprehension to advanced evaluative reading, with most students clustered at the understanding and analytical levels. These findings suggest that literary literacy develops through non-linear cognitive processes shaped by the semantic complexity and interpretive demands of literary texts, underscoring the need for explicit instructional support to strengthen students' inferential and interpretive reading skills.
Downloads
References
Afflerbach, P., Cho, B. Y., & Kim, J. Y. (2015). Conceptualizing and assessing higher-order thinking in reading. Theory into Practice, 54(3), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.1044367
Beach, R., Appleman, D., Hynds, S., & Wilhelm, J. (2011). Teaching Literature to Adolescents. Routledge.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human science. Routledge.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2014). Children’s comprehension problem in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective. The Guilford Press.
Cappelleri, J. C., Jason Lundy, J., & Hays, R. D. (2014). Overview of classical test theory and item response theory for the quantitative assessment of items in developing patient-reported outcomes measures. Clinical Therapeutics, 36(5), 648–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.04.006
Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Palincsar, A. S., Afflerbach, P., Kendeou, P., Biancarosa, G., Higgs, J., Fitzgerald, M. S., & Berman, A. I. (2020). How the reading for understanding initiative’s research complicates the simple view of reading invoked in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.343
DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2022). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
Duke, N. K., Ward, A. E., & Pearson, P. D. (2021). The science of reading comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 74(6), 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1993
Elleman, A. M., & Oslund, E. L. (2019). Reading comprehension research: Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218816339
Gani, R., Ramadhanti, D., & Tatalia, R. G. (2025a). Hubungan kesadaran metakognitif dengan kemampuan memahami nilai-nilai yang terkandung dalam teks hikayat. Jurnal Kepemimpinan dan Pengurusan Sekolah, 10(3), 1084–1095. https://doi.org/10.34125/jkps.v10i3.800
Gani, R., Ramadhanti, D., & Tatalia, R. G. (2025b). Refleksi diri dalam pemahaman sastra: Analisis tingkat kesadaran metakognitif siswa terhadap nilai-nilai yang terkandung dalam teks hikayat. Komposisi: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, Sastra, dan Seni, (2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.24036/komposisi.v26i2.134018
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564
Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2004). Constuct-Irrelevant variance in high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2004.tb00149.x
Hudha, R. R. (2019). Literasi membaca era digital sesuai standar PISA (Programme for International Student Assesment). CV. Pustaka Media Guru.
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. In Science (Vol. 342). American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239918
Kim, Y. S. G. (2015). Developmental, component-based model of reading fluency: An investigation of predictors of word-reading fluency, text-reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.107
Kintsch, W. (2013). Revisiting the construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In D. E. Alvermann & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 807–839). https://doi.org/10.1598/0710.32
Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: Ruling out individual differences and examining Outcomes. Communications, 34(4), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1515/COMM.2009.025
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2019). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation - Advances in Research and Theory, 70, 297–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equityin Education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730
Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.05.001
Quaigrain, K., & Arhin, A. K. (2017). Using reliability and item analysis to evaluate a teacher-developed test in educational measurement and evaluation. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1301013
Rafitri, S., Ramadhanti, D., & Helda, T. (2024). Analisis faktor-faktor penurunan literasi membaca siswa SMK Negeri 1 Hiliran Gumanti. Jurnal Review Pendidikan dan Pengajaran, 7(4), 13014–13023. https://doi.org/10.31004/jrpp.v7i4.34312
Ramadhanti, D. (2020). Proses psikologis-kognitif mahasiswa dalam menulis (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Negeri Malang). https://repository.um.ac.id/391621/
Ramadhanti, D., Yanda, D. P., & Nofriadi, R. (2026). Students’ metacognition growth in reading: The effectiveness of flipped metacognitive strategy. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 15(1), 751–759. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v15i1.26824
Rupp, A. A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23(4), 441–474. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt337oa
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND Corporation.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Ghancaran: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia uses an Open Access Policy under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Authors publishing in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Ghancaran Journal holds the copyright and grants the journal rights for first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a
The work is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License which allows others to share, copy, and redistribute the material in any media or format and adapt, remix, change, and develop the material even for commercial purposes, as long as it is stated credit and license derivative works under similar terms. - Authors may make additional contractual arrangements for non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published work version.
- Authors are permitted to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their websites) before and during submission, as doing so may lead to productive exchange.
