Belen D. Calingacion

Literature Alive: A Performative Approach in Teaching Literature

INTRODUCTION

            The search for more effective ways of enhancing academic learning environment and improving instruction is the focus of many studies.  The interest lies on discovering new, if not better alternatives to traditional approaches in fostering learning and education.

            This study in particular attempts to explore the use of performance/ming arts specifically for literary instruction or the study of literature. It was Allan Tate who said that “… literature as part of the arts is something which many can live without but without which they cannot live well as man.”  Literature enriches human existence for it enables us to enter into varied experiences.  At the same time, “it has the power to extend or `amplify’ experience, to affect or enhance our awareness of life (Gieger, 1972).”  Stating the value of literary study, Garcia and Barranco (1980) write:

Perhaps the best way to understand human nature fully and to know a nation completely, short of going into a formal study of psychology, sociology and history is to study literature.  Through literature we learn the innermost feelings and thoughts of people – the truest and most real part of themselves.  Thus we gain an understanding not only of others, but more importantly of ourselves and of life itself.

            While the study of literature is a valuable and rewarding endeavor, most students have not acquired a taste for works of literature.  According to Agudo (1981) “the halls of the academe present a grim picture” where we see a “proliferation of fractionalized studies none of which seem to succeed in making our youth lovers of literature.”  Dimalanta (1981) likewise observes that the biggest problem of literature teachers especially in Philippine literature is proper motivation of students.

            A lack of inclination towards literature maybe attributed to the Filipinos’ seemingly lack of interest in reading books.  Avena (1986) notes that Filipinos are “non-reading” people.

. . . our educational system may be said to have failed in a more basic function: that of making Filipino readers of books.  The fact is, it has not even made us newspaper readers.

            In another article, Gamalinda (1989) attests to the same observation, commenting that Filipinos have “neither the time nor penny for serious literature.”  Also, the present generation has been raised in film and television, and the infringement of these various media has distracted attention away from reading

. . . though the best educated of all generations the world has ever seen (or so those who have educated it modestly persist in claiming) care less about books than about films, less about reason than about feeling, less about words than about images…

Such be the case, our increasing audio-visual and non-literate age requires better strategies to encourage the students’ positive response towards literature.

            Within the academic learning environment, there are various modes of presenting literature.  Silent reading, the use of instructional resources or visual aids, radio, television, storytelling, dramatization through acting scenes and oral interpretation are some of the many methods that have helped illumine literature and cultivate sensitivity to and appreciation of literature and literary values.

            In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the communicative and pedagogical value of the art of oral performance especially in literary instruction.  Kougl (1984) citing the importance of the performing arts, says:

(This) rich potential of poetic experiences is shared through performance.  When it comes to the arts, it is the poetic triumvirate of literature, theatre, and oral interpretation that the field of speech communication is concerned with. . . their separate boundaries merge in our discipline because theatre and oral interpretation perform literary text.  These arts provide a process through which each of us may come to a new understanding about self, others and what it is to be fully human.

The goals of literary instruction include helping students to increase their abilities to understand literary work and to develop in them the love and appreciation of good literature.  This objective may be achieved through the oral approach in presenting literature.  Teaching literature through performance can be an effective means “to help students build bridges of understanding between the vicarious experience of literature and their own real-life experiences (Jeffrey, 1976).”  Performed literature may well be thought of as the means to literary understanding and appreciation.

            As Babcock (1915) contends:

All literature was produced to be voiced and heard, just as well as music finds the end of its production for hearing ears.  Interpretation means oral translation – histrionically it indicates a transition from the dead printed or written form into a living, breathing experience; this experience impresses itself upon the life of both listener and interpreter producing results very close to the impression of real experience.

            Lazaro (1985) suggests a similar notion, as he describes the performing of literature as “… the two-edged sword thrusting into life one blade as sharp as the other in critically cutting and projectively voicing the facts and acts of life.”  For Lazaro, what makes the performance of literature distinct and unique is the participation and `eventual fusion’ of text-author, performer and listener,

. . . its essence lying not in the printed word itself but in the expression of oralizing it in stirring up the meaning of the literature, for somebody who is listening creatively and imaginatively…

Similarly, Jarvis (1960) explains the difference of experience between oral presentation of literature and silent reading:

Let us approach an answer to the question through an analogy of music.  The great conductor, Arturo Toscanini, had a phenomenal ability to perceive imaginatively the actual timbres of the orchestra, yet it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that he derived a richer pleasure from conducting a fine orchestra in the performance of a great symphony than from silent study of the score.  It goes without saying that most of us have considerably less understanding and enjoyment when we look at musical notes on a page than when we hear them interpreted skillfully by master musicians.  It is our thesis that compared with silent reading, most people realize remarkably greater rewards in understanding and enjoyment from an intelligent, imaginative oral presentation of a lyric poem, a dramatic selection, or a prose passage.

Pooley (1956) further attests to the need for the oral or performed approach to communicate literature.  He says:

Literature has to get under the hide to be truly experienced and appreciated, and for those of tough hide, silent study of the printed page is rarely enough.

Many other scholars could be cited whose claims support the effectiveness of the oral approach in literary study (Runchy 1931; Booth 1936; Heening 1936; Lynch 1942; Geiger 1962; Coger 1963, 1967; Post 1968; Beloof 1969; Bacon 1971, 1976; Sloan 1971; Lee 1971).

            While the claims indicating the efficacy of the oral approach are many, frequency of its use remains low visa-a-vis the traditional methods that rely on the lecture and printed word.  Legaspi (1982) for instance, found out in a study conducted among secondary schools of Metro Manila that oral interpretation is not sufficiently utilized whether in curricular or extra-curricular activities.  This same study cites an earlier survey done by Lazaro (1981) aimed at assessing the status of oral interpretation in elementary schools in Metro Manila.  The results of Lazaro’s study reveal that oral interpretation is employed in classes by ninety-percent (90%) of the elementary schools surveyed but the use of oral interpretation was limited mostly to storytelling, choric and poetry reading.  No local studies can be found on the extent of the use of oral interpretation and other performed approaches to the study of literature among literature teachers in the college level.  However, an informal interview done by this writer with some literature teachers in the tertiary level confirms as similar observation as that of Legaspi (1982).

            It seems that in the Philippines, literature teachers still rely on the traditional approaches.  Silent reading, for instance, is still the most predominant method of instruction.  It is used not only for its conveniences – demanding less time and effort – but also because there are others who perceive in it an advantage over the oral presentation.  As Horowitz and Berkowitz (1967) say:

. . . it seems other things being equal, that reading should maintain a distinct advantage over listening in the acquisition of cognitive material.

            Reading through a written text allows time to be spent on points that the reader’s feel important and even a review of the information which is not possible through the oral mode.

            In the face of ambivalent perceptions of advantages attributed to the silent and oral modes of studying literature, the potential advantages of other alternative non-traditional techniques await to be explored. Two of these are the acting presentation and the Chamber Theatre.  The following discussion points out the similarities and differences of the two.  The Chamber Theatre was developed by Dr. Robert Breen of Northwestern University almost three decades ago; Chamber Theatre stages narrative fiction as it was written.  This special presentational form maintains the narrator and other structural features unique to its genre.

            As Bacon (1972) defines it:

Chamber Theatre is a hybrid form.  It is a method of staging prose fiction, retaining the text of the story on stage.  It is not a dramatization, not a stage adaptation of prose fiction.  It keeps the narrative form, the narrator, the past tense in which most fiction are written.

Breen explains that the techniques of Chamber Theatre:

. . . were devised to present the novel, or narrative fiction on the stage so that the dramatic action would unfold with the full and vivid immediacy, as it does in the play but at the same time allowing the sensibility of the narrator or the central intelligence in the form of a character to so condition our view of the action that we who listen and watch would receive a highly organized and unified impression of it (Lee, p. 230).

The Chamber Theatre then is “a technique for presenting narrative fiction in such a way that it takes full advantage of all theatrical devices without sacrificing the narrative elements of the literature (Breen, 1978).”  Although Chamber Theatre adopts some techniques of play production, it is a form of oral interpretation.  The Chamber Theatre approach maintains the integrity of the narrative prose fiction.  It does not seek to alter fiction; it is aimed at featuring the narrative prose fiction in a theatrical experience.  Breen (1978) says that,

Chamber Theatre is not interested in the problems of transforming fiction into drama; it resists the temptation to delete narrative description and rewrite summaries as dialogue.  No effort is made in Chamber Theatre to eliminate the narrative point of view which characterizes fiction; indeed the storyteller’s angle of vision is emphasized through physical representation on the stage.

            Like Chamber Theatre, the acting presentation¹ shows the story through a dynamic physicalization of characters and actions on the stage.  However, Chamber Theatre and the conventional play form differ in many ways:

1.      The materials used.  Chamber Theatre uses prose fiction as written while a play production uses a dramatic material written fully in dialogue form (Agudo, 1981).  It can be said that the acting presentation transforms the story into a play to be staged while Chamber Theatre stages the story.  Thus, Chamber Theatre calls for a script arrangement of the narrative selection while an acting presentation calls for a transformation of the narrative selection into a play script.

2.      The performance style.  In general, Chamber Theatre maintains a non-illusionistic style of performance.  In a play each performer strives for explicit representation of a character while in Chamber Theatre the performer is an actor-narrator fulfilling the dual purpose of storyteller and a character in the story (Agudo, 1981).  Chamber Theatre exhibits the same simultaneity and immediacy found in a play as it also presents the novel or story’s unique contribution to storytelling – the technique of exploring motivation at the moment of action.  The rigidity of the dramatic form prevents direct contact with the audience.  Unless in the unusual expressionistic medium, thoughts of the characters and motivation of the action are excluded from the matter of the play (Weisman, 1952).  In Chamber Theatre the audience is informed on what the character is thinking and how he feels at the same time (Breen, 1978).  A character may speak to another as in a play, but may speak about himself in a third person reporting to the audience what is in his own mind and heart (Breen, 1969).

3.      The staging conventions.  The narrative voice and associated point of view comprise the two intrinsic characteristics of a narrative prose fiction, thus, Chamber Theatre has developed the convention of physically presenting the narrator – employing a free-ranging narrator or multiple narrators – as it endeavors to retain the narrative passages and to illustrate the various aspects of point of view function (McCloud, 1975).  In conventional play there is only one point of view – that of the audience (Breen, 1969).  The Chamber Theatre,

then, is narrator-centered while the conventional play is character-centered.  The Chamber Theatre also employs the convention of off and on-stage focus.  Off-stage refers to a performance convention which imaginarily `places’ the characters and events of the literature out in the audience while on-stage focus refers to performance convention which places the characters and events of literature in the acting area or in front of the audience (McCloud, 1975).  Conventional play is representational as all events happen on the stage or in the acting area (Agudo, 1981).  Another convention that Chamber Theater observes is the simultaneous description by a narrator of staged actions – the show and tell technique.  Conventional play on the other hand, shows the staged actions only. 

4.      The use of stage devices.  Costumes, scenery, properties, lighting, make-up and sound may be used in Chamber Theatre just as in a play if one wishes but such stage devices may be dispensed with or in most practices may be kept to a minimum.  This is because Chamber Theatre works on the premise that the words or descriptive passages in the literature – especially a well-written story – can be relied upon to fulfill the same if not surpass effects achieved through the use of stage devices (Breen, 1969).

            The perceived advantage of the Chamber Theater over the acting presentation, therefore, lies in its ability to facilitate exposition and significance by its principle of retaining the structural feature of the narrative genre.  McCloud (1975) points to its unique pedagogic ability which is to function as a critical tool in illuminating prose forms.

            Breen contends that,

Chamber Theatre is an excellent way of teaching and understanding the complex issues involved in perspective within prose fiction (Bacon, 1972).

Maclay (1971) also asserts that Chamber Theatre “allows the means of demonstrating the multiple complexities and levels of a story’s point of view.”

            Furthermore, Breen believes that the Chamber Theatre may be “entertaining” and “theatrically exciting.”  Also, according to McCloud (1975) it provides a unique aesthetic experience to its viewers compared to the common experience of a conventional play form.  He explains:

The assumption is that form and content in aesthetic experience are inextricable.  Presumably the Chamber Theatre director, by preserving the “narrative form” in his production, is also preserving the “content” of the material to a degree that would be impossible if he were to adapt the material into traditional dramatic form.  By altering the “form” he would necessarily alter the “content.” . . .  The interrelationship of content and form is fundamental to literary aesthetics and illustrates the goal of Chamber Theatre, which is to provide a unique aesthetic experience by preserving the narrative form through correspondence of staging techniques.

            While it is a common belief that theatrical and interpretative experiences have positive effects, there is a lack of empirical evidence to prove such contention.  As Kougl puts it:

What exactly is it that we know?  Is this knowledge demonstrable to others?  Is the lack of demonstration of substantive effects partially responsible for Brockett’s view of theatre as existing on the “outer edges of respectability?” or Beloof’s view of oral interpretation as less than a dynamic force in literary education?

            How do modes of presentation of literature affect knowledge and appreciation? Researches have indeed been done in communication particularly on the effects of mode of presentation on comprehension.  Learning or acquisition of knowledge is presumed to occur depending upon the individual’s cognitive capacity to retain, understand and interpret communicated message.  This is generally termed as comprehension.  To maximize learning, therefore, is to aim at optimal comprehension.  Considerable evidence indicates that the modes of presentation do influence comprehension performance.  The findings, however, tend to show a wide range of disparity.  The pedagogical question raised in the study, therefore, is the possibility of utilizing specifically the interpretative and performance arts to aid student’s comprehension of literature. The following hypotheses were examined:

H1.1: Literal comprehension is greatest for subjects who read to themselves compared to those who watched the Chamber Theatre and the acting presentation

H1.2: However, inferential comprehension is greatest for subjects who watched the Chamber Theatre presentation compared to those who read silently and to those who watched the acting presentation

H1.3: Comprehension, in general, is highest for those who read silently.

            Aesthetic response is also an important communication variable. Lindauer (1973) as cited by Rowe (1975) points out “how aesthetics deals not only with the interrelationships between the arts and society but also with the practical -- art appreciation and education -- and the applied – advertising and propaganda.”  Rowe (1975) also stresses the need to consider aesthetic response of the listener and its relationship to attitude change, comprehension and other variables in communication studies concerned with persuasion and learning situations.

            The inherent controversial nature of “aesthetics” probably makes the justification and operationalization of aesthetic appreciation more complex.  In his study, Rowe (1975) cites Gary Cronkhite’s (1970) definition of aesthetics.  Cronkhite views aesthetics as:

. . .  the study of the appractical characteristics of the phenomena insofar as those characteristics produce covert intentive responses. . .   By appractical I mean characteristics which do not contribute to the practicality or impracticality of the phenomena under consideration. . .   By intentive response I mean a response that is intent, attentive, involved, and if you will, emphatic.  It may be a response of pleasure and disgust.

Harrison (1948) describes aesthetic experience as:

. . .  that experience that is enjoyable, striking and worthy of an immediate judgement of liking and disliking.  Valuable in itself alone, the aesthetic experience needs no utilitarian purposes nor logical reason for impressing, no criterion beyond itself whereby it is judged. . .

            The concept of aesthetic appreciation itself has been investigated by many researchers.  Despite the varying criteria for judgment, there seems to be a widespread tendency for agreement.  According to Dunitz (1976) experimenters have called for analysis of varying criteria in mind in assessing aesthetic value and they include: liking, beauty, pleasingness, aesthetic design, value, merit, emotional expression, religious feeling, representational accuracy, symbolic expression, atmospheric expression and mental imagery.  In her study, Dunitz closely identifies aesthetic appreciation with liking.  Her reason is that “anytime you ask a lay person to judge the value of an aesthetic work, a large part of that is determined by his or her liking.”  Charlton (1983) also relates aesthetic response to liking.

            In the light of the preceding information, the term aesthetic appreciation will also be closely identified with liking in this study.  The liking factor applies in so far as the subject allows it to affect his aesthetic judgment based on his general reaction to the literary selection as presented in different modes.

            While it is true that one can appreciate a literary piece by silently reading it, it is assumed that the oral-physical modes of presentation may have a perceived advantage . McCloud (1975) argues that Chamber Theatre provides a unique aesthetic experience to its viewers compared to a common conventional play form. Thus, the following hypotheses were examined:

            H2.1: Aesthetic appreciation is higher for those who watched the Chamber Theatre presentation compare to those who watched acting presentation.

            H2.2: Aesthetic appreciation is lowest for those who read silently compared to those who watched the two oral physical modes.

            Since comprehension and aesthetic appreciation may be affected by the modes of presenting the literature, it is logical to assume that perhaps, a relationship exists between the two.  Rowe (1975) predicted a correlation between comprehension and aesthetic appreciation scores based upon the relationship between cognitive and affective behavior.  Rokeach (1960) and Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia (1964) were cited to support his contention.  Rokeach (1960) states that:

In all cases of enjoyment or its opposite is the affective counterpart of a belief organization and can be thought of as being in one-to-one relation (isomorphic) with it.  Thus, our cognitive approach is as much concerned with affection as with cognition (Rowe, p. 30).

Just as Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia (1964) conclude:

The two domains (cognitive and affective) are tightly intertwined.  In each affective behavior lies a cognitive-behavior counterpart of some kind and vice versa.  An objective in one domain has a counterpart in the opposite domain, though often we do not take cognizance of it.  There is some correlation between Taxonomy level of an affective objective and its cognitive counterpart.  Each domain is sometimes used as a means to the other, though the more common route is from cognitive to the affective (Rowe, p. 30).

Dunitz (1976) also predicted a positive correlation between comprehension , explaining that “the more information the subject can internalize, the more information they will have from which to make aesthetic judgments.” Therefore, the third research hypothesis was posited:

H3: There is a significant positive correlation between comprehension and aesthetic appreciation.

            This investigation will have important implications in pedagogy for it will serve as an important impetus for the use of non-traditional approaches for improvement of literary instruction as well as enhancement of the learning environment.

            This study is undertaken to contribute to the sparse empirical and experimental researches in oral interpretation and performance.  Answers to the question raised in this investigation will have important implication not only for communication theory studies but more so, for communication studies as a whole.  While a number of studies have been done in communication in general, there is a dearth of empirical and experimental investigation in oral interpretation and performance arts especially concerning viewing effects and experience.  As Kougl (1984) asserts:

If we had more research demonstrating actual effects, perhaps we would be able to convince administrators and the general public that oral interpretation and theater belong in the curriculum.

METHODS:

Subjects:

            The subjects of the study consisted of 186 students in the college level enrolled in an introduction to literature courses in a university and a college located in a large metropolitan area. Majority of the subjects were in the sophomore level (62%), with some freshmen (19%), juniors (13%) and a few seniors (6%). About 63% of the subjects were females and 37% males. 

Procedures:

The subjects were randomly assigned by intact classes to each of the three treatment conditions.  One group was administered the silent reading treatment; another group watched the Chamber Theatre presentation; the third group watched the acting presentation.  The tests were administered right after exposure to the different treatment conditions.

            A comprehension test consisting of 23, four alternative multiple choice items and one essay question was administered right after Ss exposure to different treatment conditions. A Semantic Differential from consisting of six sets of bipolar adjective s with a 7-point scale each was administered to measure Ss aesthetic appreciation. An information questionnaire was administered to get the personal data of the respondents.

Testing for the silent reading treatment condition was done in the classes during normally scheduled class hours to maintain a natural classroom atmosphere. Their respective teachers administered the treatment and testing with the researcher acting as proctor.  Prior to the experiment, the teachers were given a briefing to insure comparability to treatment and testing conditions.

            The two live presentations were staged in an intimate, laboratory-type theater, using theater devices as demanded by the material. Control of live presentations was facilitated in the following ways: 1) The same performers were used for both the acting presentation and the Chamber Theatre presentation.  2) Both presentations were directed by the researcher herself 3) Both presentations were provided with theater techniques or devices such as set, costumes, lighting, and sound as demanded by the scripts.

            Testing was done in the theater itself immediately after exposure to each of the live presentations.

Stimulus

            The literary selection  selected for this study was “May Day Eve” written by Nick Joaquin, an eminent contemporary Filipino writer.

            This particular selection was chosen for the following reasons:

1.      As a short story, it is a unit that can easily be handled within the experimental period.  The reading time was approximately 35 minutes while the 2 aural-physical presentations were approximately 45 minutes each.

2.      It has already been written into a play or stage version.

3.      It is a type of literature that “works” well in Chamber Theatre (See House, 1975 in Chapter II)³

            The printed text of the literary selection was used as stimulus for the silent reading treatment.  For the Chamber Theatre presentation, a script arrangement was done by the researcher. For the acting presentation, a stage adaptation of Alberto S. Florentino, a noted Filipino playwright was used.  However, a slight revision was done to insure comparability of the script to the original text.⁴

Measurement Instruments

A Comprehension test composing of twenty-three, four-alternative multiple choice items and one essay question was used. The scoring of the essay was adopted from Goldstein (1952). Randomly selected response sheets were ranked by 3 judges, all of whom were literature teachers. The mean rankings were translated into scale values as basis for ranking (scoring) the response of the subjects, the test were scored and computed. For inferential comprehension, correct answers to numbers 1-15 of the test were scored and computed. For inferential comprehension, correct answers of numbers 16-23 of the test, plus the points of essay question were scored and computed. The general comprehension scores were obtained by adding the scores of the literal and the inferential comprehension.⁵

The Semantic Differential Form used to measure aesthetic appreciation of respondents consisted of 6 sets of bipolar adjective scales (e.g. boring-interesting), each rated on a 7-point scale. The Semantic Differential form was successfully employed in several studies (e.g. Smith, 1961, Brooks and Wulftange, 1964; Frandsen, Rockey and Klienau, 1965; With, 1966; Rowe, 1975; Dunitz, 1976) and has been found valid and reliable. For the test, the space closest to the negative adjective was assigned the value of 1 and the space closest to the positive adjective was assigned the value of 7. A mark in the middle space indicates a neutral position with respect to the item.

            The data collected were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the differences among the treatment groups. Duncan’s multiple range test (Steel and Torie, 1981) was applied to all significant results to determine differences of performance among individual groups. The Pearson  Product-Moment Coefficient of Correlation (r) was used to determine the correlation between  comprehension and aesthetic appreciation. Confidence level was set at .05 level.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The Effects of the Modes of Presentation on Comprehension

            The effects of the three modes of presentation namely:  the acting presentation, Chamber Theatre and silent reading on the three levels of comprehension (literal comprehension, inferential comprehension and general comprehension) were tested.  The results presented in Table 1 showed that in all the three levels of comprehension the group exposed to the acting presentation obtained the highest mean score followed by those exposed to the Chamber Theatre presentation.  The lowest mean score was obtained by those students exposed to silent reading. 

Table 1: Mean Scores of Comprehension

            Results of the ANOVA on the scores from the comprehension tests yielded significant results in two levels of comprehension.  The differences revealed a significant main effect (p < .05) for the mode of presentation on the literal and general comprehension.  (Tables 2.1 and 2.3).  No significant effect was found for inferential comprehension.  (Refer to Table 2.2).

Table 2.1 ANOVA for the Sub-Variable Literal Comprehension

*Significant at 0.05 level

Table 2.2 ANOVA for the Sub-Variable Inferential Comprehension

Table 2.3 ANOVA for the Variable General Comprehension

*Significant at 0.05 level

            The Duncan’s multiple range test is significant on all effects.  ( Table 3.1).  The tendencies toward significance were in the following direction:  literal comprehension was greater for those exposed to acting presentation than those exposed to the Chamber Theatre and silent reading.  Exposure to Chamber Theatre facilitated literal comprehension greater than silent reading.  The largest difference in literal comprehension scores was between acting presentation and silent reading.  The results reflected that acting presentation best facilitated literal comprehension, followed by Chamber Theatre presentation, with silent reading, last.

Table 3.1 Comparison of the Literal Comprehension of Subjects Exposed to the Different Modes of Presentation based in Duncan’s Multiple Range Test

Table 3.2 Comparison of the General Comprehension of Subjects Exposed to the Different Modes of Presentation based in Duncan’s Multiple Range Test

            As far as general comprehension is concerned, the results were consistent as that of literal comprehension.  (Refer to Table 3.2).  General comprehension was greater for those exposed to acting presentation than those exposed to the Chamber Theatre presentation and silent reading.  Exposure to Chamber Theatre facilitated general comprehension.  Results indicated that acting presentation best facilitated general comprehension followed by the Chamber Theatre presentation, with silent reading, last. With these findings Hypothesis 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 were not supported

Modes of Presentation and their Effects on Aesthetic Appreciation

            The effect of the modes of presentation on aesthetic appreciation was also tested in this study.  The results showed that those exposed to the acting presentation obtained the highest aesthetic appreciation scores followed by those exposed to the Chamber Theatre presentation.  The lowest aesthetic appreciation scores were obtained by those exposed to the silent reading.  The results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Mean Scores of Aesthetic Appreciation

The analysis of variance on the aesthetic appreciation scores yielded significant results (p  <  .05).  (Refer to Table 5).

Table 5 ANOVA for the Variable Aesthetic Appreciation

*Significant at 0.05 level

            The Duncan’s multiple-range test is significant only in terms of the difference of aesthetic appreciation scores between acting presentation and silent reading.  Acting presentation and Chamber Theatre are not significantly different while Chamber Theatre is also not significantly different from silent reading.  The results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Comparison of the Aesthetic Appreciation of Subjects Exposed to the Different Modes of Presentation based in Duncan’s Multiple Range Test

            Hypothesis 2.1 predicted that those exposed to Chamber Theatre would have a higher aesthetic appreciation scores compared to hose exposed to acting presentation. However, this hypothesis was rejected. Acting presentation was found to be more aesthetically pleasing compared to Chamber Theatre.  Hypothesis 2.2 was confirmed. Aesthetic appreciation was lowest in silent reading compared to the two oral-physical modes.

            Hypothesis 3 predicted that comprehension would positively correlate with aesthetic appreciation. The Pearson-Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation used to determine the relationship of the two variables showed the existence of a very low positive relationship, but the degree of relationship (r-0.04) is not significant  at .05 level.

DISCUSSION

            Exploration of the role of the interpretive and performance arts in the academe through an experimental investigation is timely. The potential of the performing arts as a pedagogical tool cannot be overemphasized. While no one could firmly guarantee learning outcomes due to the complexities of the learning milieu, it is still the responsibility of educators to provide the best possible learning opportunities. The man goal of the present study was to examine the effects on the comprehension and aesthetic appreciation of narrative literature using two creative modes, specifically Chamber Theatre and acting, as compared to silent reading. This study also investigated the relationship of comprehension to aesthetic appreciation.

            The results support the idea that creative presentation of literature, as opposed to just reading it silently, does increase comprehension. It was assumed that silent reading of literature will facilitate better achievement in comprehension since it allows subjects to spend more time in points he feels important and, even refer back to pertinent information.  However, the results of the experiment show that the oral-physical creative presentation of the literature through acting and Chamber Theatre facilitated comprehension in the literal level or the recall of information and details explicit in the literary selection.  This was also true with comprehension in general.  For while it was predicted that silent reading exposure would yield the highest general comprehension scores, the results again show that acting presentation followed by Chamber Theatre yielded higher scores.  However, in terms of inferential comprehension, the results showed no significance which proves that ability for understanding, interpretation and discovery of meanings of a literary selection requires more than just exposure to literature no matter what mode is used.  It requires, perhaps, the presence and guidance of a teacher to facilitate study; discussion and analysis of the literary materials.

            These findings are in agreement with Beardsley (1949), Goldstein (1952), and Collins (1964) who hold that combined auditory and visual presentation of literature offers an advantage over just, say, the visual mode alone such as the silent reading of a literary material.  Moreover, the findings proved similar to that of Maberry (1975) that showed that a live, creative, audio-visual presentation is an effective tool for better comprehension of literature.

            Contrary to the findings of House (1977) which showed the relative superiority of Chamber Theatre over acting presentation in terms of comprehension of literature, this study shows that acting presentation was the more effective mode.  This may be so because the Filipino students are more familiar with the conventional play form of presentation than the Chamber Theatre.  Furthermore, the narrative aspect unique to the Chamber Theatre presentation may have affected their concentration and consequently their comprehension.  As Leonor Orosa Goquingco, a noted artist and art critic observes after viewing the Chamber Theatre presentation,

.  . . the narrative portion tended to hold the production up, instead of pushing it along graphically, forcefully, inexorably (Goquingco).

The Chamber Theatre techniques which operates on the Brecthian epic theater approach creates a degree of distancing or `alienation’ effect through the narrative portion. This may have affected the respondents’ concentration.  The acting presentation on the other hand allows the viewers a continuous suspension of disbelief because of its realistic approach – an approach more common and familiar to the experience of students. Again, the unfamiliarity of the respondents to the Chamber Theatre technique may have influenced their aesthetic response.  Souriau (1955) believes that the –

. . . subjects pleasant or unpleasant impression has aesthetic significance only in relation to a stimulus (or analogous stimuli) more or less familiar to him.

What is clear however, is that the performance arts such as acting presentation and Chamber Theatre can indeed facilitate comprehension better than just silent reading of literary materials.

            In comparing the effects of the different modes of presentation on aesthetic appreciation, a significant difference was found between acting presentation and silent reading only.  The higher aesthetic response to acting presentation is consistent with the results of Witt’s (1966) study which showed that acting production was better appreciated though the difference was not statistically significant compared to the aesthetic appreciation generated by silent reading and Reader’s Theatre.

            The effect of Chamber Theatre and acting presentation was not significantly different from each other – this means that the aesthetic response to Chamber Theatre was not significantly more intense compared to the response to the acting presentation, and vice versa.  The similarities in acting response evoked by the Chamber Theatre and acting presentation may be attributed to the use of the stage, live actors, and other theatrical elements.  Although Chamber Theatre evoked a higher level of appreciation compared the silent reading mode, the difference between the effect of the two modes is not statistically significant.  This may be so because Chamber Theatre, although it physicalizes and creatively renders the story on stage just like acting presentation, also retains the narrative element because it uses the actual text of the story as originally written.  Thus, the narrative nature in Chamber Theatre may have stood out and placed it in the same class as the silent reading.  Hence, the findings of this study might be taken as an indication that Chamber Theatre has succeeded in fusing the two elements – the narrative aspect of the story and the dramatic elements of the drama.  As the program notes

It (Chamber Theatre) uses the narrative form while it borrows from the dramatic form.  Its transformation from a prose form involves `recognition of a story’s dramatic and narrative elements…’

            Nonetheless, the present study has shown that performance/ming arts can be an effective means to enhance appreciation of literature.

            As predicted, aesthetic appreciation scores is lowest for silent reading.  The relative abstractness of a literary material being read silently would have less impact upon the student’s aesthetic sensibilities compared to a more concrete experience when that same material is viewed through a dynamic, multi-dimensional presentation with the added verbal and non-verbal cues.

            It was hypothesized that there would be a significant positive relationship between these two variables, comprehension and aesthetic appreciation.  It was presumed that one facilitates the other such that the higher the aesthetic appreciation the higher the comprehension.  This was not confirmed in this study.  No significant positive relationship was found.  Previous studies that looked into the relationship between comprehension and aesthetic appreciation came out with mixed and contradictory findings.  Dunitz (1977) confirmed a low but significant positive relationship between the two variables while an earlier study by Rowe (1975) yielded a slightly negative relationship.  One possible explanation for this seeming lack of relationship between comprehension and aesthetic appreciation for this present investigation is that the emotional or psychological impact in the subjects as expressed by their aesthetic appreciation to the stimulus might have clouded the cognitive or mental aspect.  The interaction between the mental (cognitive) and the emotional (affective) may produce an imbalance (e.g. a more intense aesthetic response may have distracted the audience from the message of the literature being conveyed).  Further research in this area should be done to be able to make definitive conclusions.

            The results support the idea that creative presentation of literature, as opposed to just reading it silently, could increase comprehension.  The findings are consistent with those of other theorists who believe in the relative superiority of multi-channel communication as opposed to a single channel in terms of fostering learning efficiency.  However, for a deeper understanding and interpretation of meaning in literature, there is still a need for students to be guided accordingly through analysis and discussion by the teacher.  This shows that nothing can replace a teacher.  It is the teacher’s expertise that students draw to broaden their own knowledge, and refine their perceptions in the subtleties inherent in a literary piece.  The teacher synthesizes into one full scope the impressions and insights about life as gleaned from literature.

            The findings in the study in the area of aesthetic appreciation also support the notion that mode of presentation effects aesthetic appreciation of literature.  Silent reading of literature, does not have the same impact as that of performance.  It is not enough for students to just read literature; in order to appreciate it, they need to experience it through some form of creative presentation.

            It is reasonable to believe that the students of today who are raised on T.V. and film would naturally prefer the creative, multi-dimensional presentation than mere reading of the written text.  If teachers have to be effective then they have to be adaptive, resourceful and flexible to cope with the problem and as such have to search for alternative media that would come close to the experience of the students of today.  The performing arts such as acting presentation can well be utilized to survive the competition of television and film.  But the presentation of literature may not have to be limited to acting alone or dramatized play scenes in all-dialogue form, it may also include Chamber Theatre which makes possible the staging of literature in its original narrative form.

            It must, however, be emphasized that the use of this multi-media presentation should not take the students away from the books, nor diminish their desire to read literature, or for that matter to take the place of reading completely.  The multi-media presentation should serve as an attractive device to make students read other literary gems.

            The results of the study also point to the direction of multi-disciplinary efforts in the teaching of literature.  For example, the teacher of literature can venture into cooperative production between teachers of oral interpretation and theater.

Recommendations

            Given the limitations of this study, further research is needed to determine whether the results of this study could be generalized to other college population.  It would be interesting to find out whether the audience response may be affected by individual characteristics and background of different colleges and universities.  A larger sampling representing varied backgrounds and characteristics might reveal other insights into the study.

            Also, testing the hypotheses among respondents coming from actual voluntary audience might reveal other evidences in this area.  Moreover, further research should attempt to discover other factors besides the mode of presentation such as difficulty and interest levels of literary materials and even the language used. 

            Research of this kind should not also be confined to the academe.  The benefits of multi-dimensional methods such as the creative arts should be extended beyond the boundaries of the classroom.  It would be interesting to find out the desirability of the different modes of presentation for special groups, or among adult population (for example, human resource development training of industrial workers, employees, management staff and others).

NOTES

¹Acting or Acting presentation is used interchangeably with the term conventional play form as previous studies (Witt, 1966; House, 1977).

² Comprehension refers in the broadest sense to recall of information, ability to understand, ability to interpret and ability to discover meaning. Two levels of comprehension based on the test formulation by George Hillocks, Jr. and Larry H. Ludlow on “Taxonomy of Skills in Reading and Interpreting Fiction.”  American Research Journal, Vol. 21 (Spring 1984) No. 1, p. 7-24. were measured: literal comprehension – recall of information and details explicit in the literary section and inferential comprehension – ability to understand, to interpret and to discover meanings of a literary selection. 

³ House noted that certain types of literature such as those that “allow time to speed up, slow down, or flashback works best through Chamber Theatre.” The literary selection used as stimulus for the experiment is an example of this type of selection.

⁴ The play was taken from Alberto Florentino’s From Book to Stage, a collection of plays adapted from short stories.

⁵ The semantic differential scale used for this study was evolved in the following manner:

A series of seventeen bipolar adjective scales were borrowed from Rowe (1975) who used them in a pilot study he conducted for his research.  The scales included 15 intentional scales and 2 extensional scales which Rowe selected at random from Smith and Nichols (1973).  The 15 intentional scales were: boring-interesting, good bad, beautiful-ugly, successful-unsuccessful, important-unimportant, useful-useless, painful-pleasurable, worthless-valuable, meaningless-meaningful, unpleasant-pleasant, exciting-unexciting, calm-agitated, graceful-awkward, cautious-rash, tense-relaxed.  The 2 extensional scales were:  changeable-stable, and formal-informal.  Then fifty-eight selected experts – teachers of literature, oral interpretation, theatre, drama and humanities – were asked to validate the instrument by choosing the scales that would have applicability to the Filipino point of view.  Forty-six (79%) responses were obtained.  The scales which registered high percentage (over 50%) or majority agreement among experts were finally selected for use in this study.  They were: boring-interesting, beautiful-ugly, painful-pleasurable, valuable-worthless, meaningless-meaningful, exciting-unexciting. A try-out was conducted to confirm applicability and understandability of scales. One concept, that of painful, in the painful-pleasurable dichotomy, was changed because it was observed that the term “painful” was dissonant to some respondents.  Thus, the term was changed to unpleasant to comprise the unpleasant-pleasurable dichotomy.   

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agudo, Nick. (1981). The Act of Oral Interpretation and Acting. Sangguni.

Babcock, Maud May. (1915). Teaching Intrepretation. Quarterly Journal.

Bacon, Wallace A. (1972). The Art of Interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Bellof, Robert (1966). The Performing Voice in Literature. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Breen, Robert. (1978). Chamber Theatre. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall Inc.

Charlton, Williams (1983). Aesthetic Reasons. British Journal of Aesthetics.

            Coger, Leslie Irene and White, Melvin (1967). Readers Theatre Handbook. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foreman and Company.

            Collins, Ray E. (1964). A Study of Oral Reading and Silent Reading Comprehension. Western Speech. Vol. 28 (Fall 1964) 4, p. 217-221.

            Cronkhite, Gary. (1970). The Place of Aesthetics and Perception in Paradigm of Interpretation.  Western Speech. Vol. 34 (1970) p. 274-287.

            Dunitz, Carol Ann (1976). An Analysis of Effects of Varying the Modes of Prose Presentation on Comprehension and Aesthetic Presentation. Unpublished dissertation Wayne State University.

            Florentino, Alberto S. (1973). From Book to Stage. National Book Store.

            Geiger, Don (1972). Poetry as Awareness of What? Studies in Interpretation. Amsterdam:Rodopi NV.

            Goldstein, Bernard J. (1969). The Comprehension of Poetry from Recordings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.

            Hollocks, George Jr. and Ludlow, Larry (1984). A Taxonomy of Skills in Reading and Interpreting Fiction. American Educational Research Journal , 21, 7-24

            Horowitz, Milton W. and Berkowitz, Alan (1967). Listening and Reading, Speaking and Writing: An Experimental Investigation of Differential Acquisition and Reproduction of Memory. Perceptual Motor Skills ,  24, 209-215.

            House, Sandra Kay (1977). Effectiveness of Chamber Theatre Compared to Acting for the Understanding of Literature. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tulsa.

            Jeffrey, Philip Rienstra (1976), The Teaching of Literature Through Performance.  Communication Education, 25, 132-137.

            Lazaro, Patricio B. In Paciat Guevarra Keeping the Flame Alive : Essays in the Humanities. A Diamond Jubilee Publication University of the Philippines.

            Lee, Charlotte (1965). Oral Interpretaton. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company.

            Legaspi, Diane Deborah K (1982). An Oral Interpretation Handbook for Secondary School Teachers of Philippine Literature in English. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, University of the Philippines.

            Maberry, David (1975). A Comparison of the Three Techniques of  Teaching Literature: Silent Reading, Solo Performance, and Readers Theatre. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Texas University,

            Maclay, Joanna H. (1972). The Interpreter and Modern Fiction: Problems of Point of View and Structural Tensiveness. In Esther Doyle  and Virginia Hating Floyd (Eds.), Studies In Interpretation (pp. 155-169). Amsterdam: Rodopi NV.

            Mc Cloud, George Edward (1975). Plot as a Staging Determinant for Chamber Theatre. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

            Pooley, Robert (1956). The English Teachers’ Preparation in Speech. English Journal, 45, p. 186.

            Rokeach M. (1960). The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books.

            Rowe, Wayne David. (1975). An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Preferred Sensory Modality, Mode of Presentation, and Level of Difficulty Upon the Comprehension and Aesthetic Appreciation of Literature. Unpublished doctoral disseratation, University of Southern California.

            Smith, Raymond G. (1969). A Semantic Differential for Theatre Concepts, Speech Monographs, 28, pp. 1-8.

            Souriau, Etienne. (1955). A General Methodology for the Scientific Study of Aesthetic Appreciation. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 14, pp. 1-18.

            Steele, Robert C.D. and Torrie, James H. (1960). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: Mc Graw Hill Book Co., Inc.

            Witt, Daniel. (1966). Audience Response to Acting, Readers Theatre and Silent Reading of Realistic and Anti-Realistic Drama. Western Journal, 30, pp. 123-129

©Belen D. Calingacion, 2002