Conventional Critical Reading Practices and 21st Century Learner Preference


  •  Anealka Aziz    
  •  Tuan Sarifah Aini Syed Ahmad    
  •  Roslina Abdul Aziz    
  •  Suryani Awang    
  •  Siti Nurshafezan Ahmad    
  •  Nurul Afifah Azlan    

Abstract

Today’s generations of learners possess learning preferences that differ from previous generations: active, independent and team player. The acquisition of critical reading skills in the 21st century demands learners to take active roles. However, conventional practices of teaching and learning critical reading are still taking precedence in the changing world and may not work well with learning preferences of today’s learners. Thus, this systematic literature review aims to explore the extent of the disparity of traditional practices and learning styles of the current generation by identifying the occurrence of conventional practices, distinguishing today’s learner preferences, and determining whether conventional methods of teaching critical reading align with the learning styles of students today. Past literature on teaching critical reading was selected, underwent a screening process based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, then synthesised and integrated. The results revealed that conventional methods of teaching critical reading remained prominent, producing a clear pattern of misalignment between old and new practices in teaching and learning critical reading skills. The disconnection between conventional practices and today's learning preferences suggests the need to adopt more innovative models for teaching critical reading and to enhance teacher training in innovative critical literacy to align with 21st century learning.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • ISSN(Print): 1916-4742
  • ISSN(Online): 1916-4750
  • Started: 2008
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

Citation Metrics (for informational purposes only; sourced from Google Scholar as of May 2026):

1. Citations (May 2026): 112462

2. h-index (May 2026): 145

3. i10-index (February 2025): 1811

*Note: Citation metrics vary significantly across indexing platforms. These figures are provided transparently and should not be used for cross-database comparisons. For methodological details, please refer to the official  Google Scholar Metrics documentation.

Contact