For this week’s e-discussion, I’m opening two free-for-all forums to start encouraging intergroup dialogue and solidarity. Enter this one or the other (or both, if you wish). But do two things first:
1) Read the book chapter by Michael Smith & Jeffrey Wilhelm (2010) titled “Teaching so it matters.” (This was referred to in Chin Ee’s lecture.)
2) Read the article by Alex Kendall (2008) titled “Playing and resisting: Rethinking young people’s reading cultures.” (This is the new reading that will be covered in Warren’s lecture next Monday.)
The aim of these readings is to provide you with a conceptual vocabulary and theoretical handle to grip and pry apart the rich ideas and experiences you’ve all been sharing. So once you’ve read them, start posting your responses to this provocation:
Kendall (2008) argues that students’ reading choices are never value-free. A corollary to this is that teachers’ reading choices are inescapably value-laden. Looking at your own and others’ reading recommendations in last week’s online posts/discussion, ask yourself and each other:
What are your implicit criteria for selecting or valorizing certain texts in the literature classroom? TG2 mentioned, for instance, the criterion of “literary merit” on Monday, but “What makes a text literary?” and “What is Literature/literature” are the essential questions that we started with in our first week’s lecture and tutorial. For another example, I heard some of us talking about “age-appropriate” texts in terms of their moral-ethical themes, but what makes reading a literature text “ethical” whatever the presumed age of your readers? You may want to refer to (a) Terry Eagleton’s cultural materialist analysis in his introduction to Literary Theory (one of our readings in the first week) and (b) Wayne Booth’s liberal-humanist discussion of the ethical possibilities of literature pedagogy (also a reading from our first week) to clarify your thoughts on this issue. Think also about how different critical theories provide ways of complicating the ethical import of different texts (e.g., some “innocent” children’s stories can be made risky/risqué through psychoanalytic, feminist, and queer readings). Concomitantly, would the deliberate privileging of certain critical theories reflect a discriminatory "othering"approach to literary interpretation in the Singapore classroom?
I'll start on this, in the hope that kind souls will join in on the discussion too.
ReplyDeleteGoing off on last week’s posts, it appears that we privilege merit and relevance as key criteria in choosing literature texts: merit, as gauged by textual sophistication; and relevance, as measured by the propriety of ethical issues for the students.
Assuming the validity of Kendall and Eagleton’s assertions, however, our “autonomous” criteria of merit and relevance are essentially tied to extrinsic social climates. Specifically, Kendall refers to Bourdieu’s habitus, while Eagleton expounds upon the cultural-materialist viewpoint of literature as symptom—and cause—of group dominance. When we label a text as sophisticated or ethically appropriate, we buy into discourses of legitimacy that are sustained by prevailing powers. Our “autonomous” choice of texts, then, reflect and perpetuate the dominance of certain groups—be it literary publishers, the MOE or White People (I use the term “white” very loosely here).
The more troubling contention, perhaps, is that we ourselves are exercising social dominance when choosing literature texts. The possibility of teachers constituting a certain social class is, after all, very real—how often have we been told that we are the top five, ten, whatever, percent of the population? In the vein of Bourdieu and Eagleton then, we impose our class distinctions unto our definitions of merit and ethics, to create the kind of reader and person that we ourselves are or hope to be. For instance, some of us may impose a middle-class, English-educated and Christian disposition through choosing “high-brow”, conservative texts like Vaughan. The question here is if such choices reinforce middle-class authority, in real socio-economic terms (you must pass this exam on Vaughan to succeed), and symbolic sense (it is right to study Vaughan, rather than Rowling).
Relatedly, habitus also influences one’s critical lens, to complicate the ethical import of different texts. To a feminist, Snow White (the Disney version) is a weak character that depends on hypermasculine men (dwarves); to a Marxist, Snow White is part of the bourgeoisie that exploits the proletarian dwarves. Either interpretation complicates the ethical import of the text: does Snow White valorize weak women, and does it reiterate the triumph of the bourgeoisie? The privileging of feminist readings is further problematic for its promotion of self-othering; both second-wave and third-wave feminists inadvertently demand a form of self-discrimination, albeit for different ends.
I suppose that my main takeaway from this provocation is that we make social statements whenever we teach, and that we need to be aware of our own habitus, and its impact on our own critical interpretations.
* If you are a fan (or in need of snooze reading), this exchange between Bordieu and Eagleton may be of interest.
And of course.. the link is cut off.
Deletehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/52279702/Bourdieu-and-Eagleton-Doxa-and-Common-Life
Thank you for the link to the interview, Evelyn! Both Bourdieu and Eagleton are writers/thinkers I admire. I like how both claim that "ideology" cannot simply be used to point to a kind of "false consciousness" that the ignorant masses are stricken with. Ideology is something most of us do with calculated consciousness anyway, even though we may not be willing to call our beliefs "ideological." For example, consider km's question: "but why is it that we're reinforcing dominant discourses, and telling students that they need to be competent in these areas, these practices, these ways of reading, to be able to break into the right circles or get to the right places?" Why? Because some of us simply believe that it is right and will defend the need to abide by these dominant discourses, whether or not we're siding with the dominant interests of dominant groups. In your words, we make "social statements" every time we teach, and it's not as if being free of "false consciousness" can make our statements any less social and political in their import.
DeleteOf course, The Freirean side of me says that we should help our students break out of these dominant discourses, question them, challenge them, and transform them in the name of justice and equity. But the other more poststructuralist side of me says that by challenging one hegemonic ideology, i might be at risk of imposing another equally oppressive ideological belief. So whose ideology is "truer"? Whose is "morally superior"?
Is there a space in a normative enterprise like EDUCATION for "undecidable" answers that don't take sides? Can we say, with Hamlet, that "Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so?"
'we impose our class distinctions unto our definitions of merit and ethics, to create the kind of reader and person that we ourselves are or hope to be' - I completely agree. While we are placed in the role of educators who are meant to mould the future of our nation, I wonder if at NIE, it is ingrained in us a need to shape malleable others into the homogenous citizens that Singapore needs. Before the 'Renaissance City' vision, we didn't need students to be such critical thinkers. Now, in keeping with a need to literally make culture, we challenge students with 'unseen' to assess their creative thinking skills. So, really, are we just trained to help students unlearn whatever it is they pick up in their real lives, so we can all stick with some top-down curriculum? Or worse still, do we pretend to be some arbiters of taste and class and we impose these values on unsuspecting students that we only end up alienating because nothing that we're saying is relevant enough?
ReplyDeleteWhy otherwise would we consider some literature low-brow, and attempt to influence students for the 'better'? Why do we abide by some canon that is created by a group of scholars/officials and then advertise these canonised books as the be-all and end-all of good literature? I mean, that's why book prizes exist right? Man Booker, Pulitzer Prize.. they apparently reward the 'finest in fiction' but who says so? Just because you're an academic (which, granted, means you have grappled with that particular area of study for some time), doesn't mean you get to crown the best in such a vast and subjective subject. Or is it that the taste of the well-educated, Westernised liberals prevails? What kind of ideology is at play here? And anyway, who chooses the judging committees for these prizes? Okay I'm exaggerating - maybe it isn't all such a big conspiracy theory. But I think there's a huge amount of responsibility involved in our performances as teachers that merits consideration. Why do we validate certain behaviours and ways of thinking and condemn others? I get that it's linked to Bourdieu's habitus, but why is it that we're reinforcing dominant discourses, and telling students that they need to be competent in these areas, these practices, these ways of reading, to be able to break into the right circles or get to the right places?
Who are we to tell students that Twilight is stupid, and that it should be a book for beginners in lit before moving onto serious, better stuff? Who are we to discount the immediate relevance and possibilities presented in magazine articles (Kendall) that allow readers to imagine new ways of being in the world (paraphrased from something Loh wrote)? I mean, even Jeanette Winterson used to write columns in the newspapers. If literature claims to reaffirm the reader's life, if it promises to provide a space for the reader to play with identity, whether it is to reject or to accept the roles tried out, then why are we as teachers limiting the range of roles for students?
I get that we need to develop and enhance students' abilities to look at a text and evaluate the literary techniques used. That's one way in which literary merit can be defined right? By an author's use of some established techniques, and what that does for a reader. That's more text-based, and in a way, a fairer method than most.
contd
ReplyDeleteOkay I think I've run out of steam, and also that I've waffled on a bit too much. But to answer the provocation about the implicit criteria for selecting and valorising certain texts.. I guess it's a call for us to reexamine our own ideas about lit, and our own beliefs and values. What is the political aspect of the text I choose to examine with my students?
As an aside: Today, while at dinner with my cousin (who has two secondary school-going kids), she exclaimed passionately that she would never let her children read anything by local writers. Possibly borne out of a view that West is always best, it makes me wonder how much of a post-colonial island we are, and how sneakily and overwhelmingly the Western culture and media has crept into our lives.
What a barren wasteland. I shall stay here and make it my home.
ReplyDeleteI can't help but feel that this question is a trap. If I say, here, my implicit criteria for valorizing The Picture of Dorian Gray in the classroom is because I think it's brilliant. It's also provocative, beautifully written, intoxicates the reader with Dorian Gray's struggle between bottling the transcience of youth and his inevitable struggle into moral decay... You're probably going to point at Kendall's reading (2008) and say, Pfft, look, you're basing your choices on what YOU want them to read, we should totally let them read Twilight because we need to take an "'inexpert' look at the 'illegitimate' fields that define and protect our 'expert' identities" (Kendall, 2008, again).
This argument is just potentially circular. Of course I choose what I want them to read! How would I know what the students want to read if they haven't even read it yet. I can give them a romance novel and they will still hate it for the mere fact that it was something given to them by a person of authority, ie, me. The best I can do as a teacher is to pick a book that I feel might potentially interest the students, and hope for the best. And I'm not going to pick Dostoevsky or Cormac McCarthy or Kafka or Proust.
This doesn't mean that I disagree with Kendall. Sure, I think it's great that he's suggesting that we "move away from text-centred teaching about reading towards something like post-structuralist understandings" that enables a "wider definition of 'text' and what it means to 'read' text". I agree with him so hard I might have to physically stop myself from nodding violently in assent. But this just means that I respect what the students read and I can attribute value to their reading habits. This doesn't mean I have to change my choices in creating the best book list in the world for them. Oh look, you cry, what do you mean by "best"? You're doing it again, that subtle condescension!
And thus, this argument will never end.
Fear not Shao, tis wasteland is barren no longer <3
DeleteJust my 2cents (might not even be worth that much) worth~ At the end of the day, we are sadly subjected to the whims of the greater powers that be, the set booklist for the O levels will never be of our choosing (unless we evolve into one of those greater powers) I took a look at the recent booklist and I confess the only title that even looks vaguely familiar was Animal Farm. I fondly recall my secondary school literature days which involved 'I'm the King of the Castle' which I hated to death (in retrospect I still do), and upon discussion with friends from other schools, realized that the alternatives were not any better. In a case where it's more a matter of which book they hate less as opposed to which ones they like more, maybe finding something that would potentially interest them might prove trying. On that account would you think that maybe "literary merit" (aka the book with more bits to pull about and write essays on) would be a suitable factor to take into account when tearing into the new greater-powers-that-be approved booklist?
I love reading your comments <3
MOE's literature curriculum of recommended texts are centred around the themes and writing styles relevant for the purposes of examination. I feel that they do not directly betray this presence of “othering discourses”, rather they have a richness that novels and magazines do not necessarily possess.
ReplyDeleteMy follow-up question would be, are we then here to teach literature for the final purpose of scoring in examinations? Or are we facilitators that pique their interest so that students may go forth into the world knowing that the wonderful avenue of literature does actually exist? Could it be a balanced approached? I hardly think that it is possible. What will be have remained would be people already who have their mind set on literature, and those sitting on the fence might just fall onto the other side.
As I mentioned earlier, the richness in the classics bring forth many topics, be it controversial or not, that are distinct and have relevance in the teaching of literature. However, the resistance of the inclusion of alternative genres might stem from an elitist point of view of those that are have been academically trained in the study of literature. Would one be happy if someone were to score an A due to their discussion of Twilight as opposed to say maybe an essay of how The Time Machine expresses specific anxieties about degeneration in the 1890s? A teacher could try to model students with respect to what texts they think are “good books” in contrast to a teacher allowing students to read “low-brow and throw away” texts and see what meaning can they derive from them with respect to critical literacy theories of course.
Should we as teachers impose our own beliefs and ideology on our students? Do we really know what’s best for the students? I think we’d better, but to what extent should their freedom of reading literature be confined to? Do we impart our pearls of literary knowledge, or should we impart our love for the subject? Maybe when a teacher, in his or her school, after much observation of the culture and the students, can create a reading profile which best suits to cultivate and to educate.
Stepping stones are as important as the final destination. As a teacher-to-be, my idealistic wish is that if my impact on students cannot manifest into a direct translation of good grades, that at least they would leave with an inquisitive mind towards literature and hopefully develop a love for reading in the future. At least that’s how I came to study English at the university level.
Best Regards,
Ben
Who can actually say that they are without prejudices or ideology? The world is full of deluded people in their tinted shades -- but so what if we are all biased? At the end of the day, it is what the individual takes out of the text that really matters to them. If a text doesn't "speak" or echo in someone, then it is not that the text is flawed, but how the reader chooses to interpret it -- and it doesn't mean that the reader is flawed as well (I didn't enjoy Catcher in the Rye, but whatever lah, I'm sure people have their own reasons for loving that book). To quote Eagleton, he says "All literary works, in other words, are 'rewritten', if only unconsciously, by the societies which read them; indeed there is no reading of a work which is not also a 're-writing'". We can choose to teach our students different critical theories and different ways of reading, but ultimately, certain theories will stick to them because it is more 'meaningful' to them.
ReplyDeleteIn the Singaporean classroom, I'd like for Singaporean prose/poetry to be taught, because if we don't get our students to look into local texts, who will? (I'm not disputing the fact that some are just cringe-worthy, but then again, in every basket there is bound to be some bad apple, no?) But of course we have to balance it out by bringing in larger/ global discourses and provide students with as much exposure as we can give (I'm speaking as though time is not a factor)... In Kendall's article, there is a quote by Beetham arguing "that the magazine genre has always offered possibilities for imagining new desires". I guess this can be applied to any literary text/form. We teach, so that our students may find pleasure in the text, and ultimately come to identify with, or make their own meaning from it.
A move from Eurocentrism.Yes, agree with you Pris that not all works of Literature have to come from lands far far away. Students find great difficulty as they plough through their readings of Shakespeare and other notable authors that hail from the West, unable to relate their daily lives to such works. Who are we to judge a student who chooses to pick up locally written works. How often do we actually commend our students for at least lifting something off that dusty bookshelf? Literature has to be embraced, not dissected by our constant emphasis on how we answer and prepare for exam questions.
DeleteI think the fact that some magazines and some books like Twilight have such a huge following shows that they are valuable. Here, I equate value to INFLUENCE. Whether or not they are on MOE's most wanted list, sorry, I mean recommended list, do not change this fact that they have a huge influence on society. There are merits in magazines: Gauntlett, cited in Kendall's research: "they enjoy the magazines, and may at times learn bits and pieces- ideas how to look or behave, as well as straightforward information about health, popular culture or social issues". There is also merit in Twilight and other texts not in the MOE list.
ReplyDeleteHowever, because they are not on the curriculum, not "consecrated" (Bourdieu), they are deemed as inferior: "the educational system defines non-curricula culture (la culture 'libre'), negatively at least, by delimiting, within dominant culture, the area of what it puts into its syllabuses...Thus consumption of and association of oneself with 'consecrated' texts yields a profit of distinction: "the more legitimate a given area, the more necessary and 'profitable' it is to be competent in it and the more damaging and 'costly' to be incompetent (Bourdieu, 1992).
What makes a text literary? It would be how it reflects and teaches about society. There are texts not in the curriculum that fulfills this. What I want to say is that if there is to be a set text lists for the ease of structure and planning curriculum, the criteria for selecting texts into such a list be more flexible and objective rather than stagnate on what it has always been.
On the issue of how certain critical theories can be made risky because of its ethical implications, I think it is precisely why these texts should be discussed in the classroom. Because ethical questions are like what Smith & Wilhelm termed "essential questions". Ordering our choice of texts and our discussions on these texts on essential questions that pertain to real life is what makes learning alive. Why would a student be interested to know more about the possible homosexual relationship between Antonio and Bassanio in Merchant of Venice? Unless we relate that to homosexual issues in the world they live in, the friends they have, the people they know? Then, there is a desire, a stirring to want to know more because they have an essential question that needs answering.
I agree with Pris that we can't claim to be without ideological bias, and I think that it is important that we realise that we inevitably valorise certain readings/ texts. As Horkheimer says, 'the facts which our senses present to us are socially preformed in two ways: through the historical character of the object perceived and through the historical character of the perceiving organ. Both are not simply natural; they are shaped by human activity, and yet the individual perceives himself as receptive and passive in the act of perception'. Even as we criticise the social production of the text, we have to keep in mind that as critics, we are ourselves shaped by our position in society, and that our definition of 'merit' is therefore equally subjective.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I prefer texts which write against the grain, and which attempt to 'sublimate' and transcend, rather than reiterate the existing cultural hegemony. Yet, I am leery of drawing too distinct a line between high/ mass culture, because both are ultimately subject to the same capitalistic forces. Which I suppose means that I have no answer to the question, but isn't it always the case these days?
The fact is: education is loaded with biases of class, socio-economic status and hegemonic ideals. As much as we say we want to break away from this dominant discourse and teach something different, we are imposing our own ideals on students. So let's break away from this discussion and look at how to tackle this dilemma.
ReplyDeleteTo me, education should not be a one-way street where students learn from teachers. The teacher too should learn as much as she can from students. After all, students read books that they are interested in or can relate to even if it lacks literary "finesse". Instead of regarding them as "unskilled readers" (Kendall, 2008), I would try reading these books they prefer regardless if it's Twilight/Manga/Hunger Games. This is so that I can draw parallels between the characters/plot/themes that the students are familiar with and those that I want to/ have to teach. I call it striking a balance.
Yes, Machiavelli's books is more sophisticated, mature, worldly than something like Twilight but if a teacher wants to stubbornly focus only on what she/he thinks is "good" literature, we are bound to lose our Literature students for sure.
As long as you see merit in it, it is of literary merit. For example, is this post of mine of literary merit? Is it worth your glazing your eyes over? I don't know; you tell me. After all, the author's word dies with the publication of the text; after that it is the reader who passes judgement on it however he deems fit. Every individual viewing this post can typecast it into whatever literary category you deem fit: excellent / expedient / excrement.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, chances are, you will get classes of students whose reading habits are vastly dissimilar in terms of frequency/familiarity (ranging from "Cher, I love reading! I read every day!" to "Cher, what is this thing you call a 'book' ah."), difficulty (some Sec 3 kids I was teaching previously were still reading Russell Lee) and genre (sci-fi, romance, historical, whatever; I have seen Sec 3 boys enjoy reading Sophie Kinsella). In this kind of environment, how do you happily choose a text that everyone will happily read? Surely there will be a lack of consensus. We're all just different like that.
I was forced to do The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas in Sec 1. I hated the text. It was an ugly textbook-looking book, with an ugly book design of men in a boat, depicted in an ugly oil painting style. The synopsis at the back of the book turned me off. I couldn't understand the stupid text. I couldn't understand how it was relevant to my life or why I had to plow my eyes through such a torturous book. So I didn't read it. Refused to. Until my classmates started reading it, and started discussing it, and talking about how stupid Mercedes was to have married Fernand, and how crazily lucky Dantes was to have encountered Faria in prison, and how such luck doesn't happen in real life. We talked about the hapless characters like they were our friends and censured the evildoers like they were our sworn enemies. We suddenly became quite excited about the story, but our enthusiasm was stemmed by this uninspiring teacher who wanted only to teach us plot structure and characterisation. I don't really remember what we did in Lit class in Sec 1 other than seeing our teacher draw that plot structure diagram on the board all the time. I dreaded Lit class in Sec 1.
I look back now and I think what a pity it was that we weren't given the opportunity to discuss the text in class. It was all very transactional; the teacher was this vessel of knowledge pouring what she knew into our empty brains. She might have single-handedly killed most of my classmates' desire to read. So I cannot agree more with Smith & Wilhelm (2010) when they advocate teaching by meaningful-making. Perhaps it is through discussion and feeling like they have contributed a worthy idea of their own that links with the text and life in general that students will find merit in the text.
Sharifah
As I was picking up my second Hunger Games today, I was wondering if I am going down the "trashy literature" path because I really enjoyed the first (although there were a couple of grammatical/ typos in the book *ahem) and was almost desperate to finish this second one. I can't be absolutely sure, but I observed that these are the books that our students are reading out of class. Not Shakespeare or George Orwell.
ReplyDeleteAmidst all the talk about how we should elevate the status of Literature in school, I can't help but wonder if we, the teachers can truly make that change. I understand that some of us are very selective of the kind of writings that can be labeled good Literature. But where do we draw the line? For me, I believe that reading is something pleasurable and stimulating. I don't think that it is ever possible for us to come to agree on the rubrics of what makes something high Literature and what makes it trashy writing.
At the end of the day, would I bring The Hunger Games into my class? After all, it is a dystopian text not toooooooo far away from 1984, right? I haven't decided. Perhaps they need to fix the grammar and the typos before I can make up my mind.
When thinking about books and the implicit criteria that educators have to consider for selecting texts in the lit classroom, one thing that always comes to my mind is the question of how can we, as educators, provide a better, more critical approach of the text. I think it comes with our responsibility as a Literature teacher; we are to teach students the truth about texts: that all writing is an affective art form, the manifestation of a voice meant to move the readers in a premeditated way. Without critical analysis or critical interpretation of text, our students will be at risk of turning into passive voyeurs and missing the best part of Literature, which is their right to penetrate into themselves as they penetrate into the text, so that at the end of the lessons they can finally do some introspection: where has the text taken me?
ReplyDeleteSo to choose Twilight for students is to summon up grander courage to tackle the critical analysis part of the lesson. How do we facilitate the discussions on themes and concerns surrounding Twilight? Another consideration: do we want our students to graduate from secondary school equipped with the knowledge and comprehensive articulation of the best works of English Literature or do we want them to specifically master the ways of negotiating their own evaluative stance to substantiate their depth of expression for (pls don’t poke me to death for saying this) the-so-called “low brow” lit? (And how do we prepare our 13-16 year olds for such journey?) It is always a bigger challenge to go against the norm; in addition to the fact that time is always an issue for everyone.
And as for now, partly bcos Im a little in a funk these days, I honestly confess that Id skip Twilight and go for Bram Stoker’s Dracula, instead.
To put this provocation into perspective, let me relate something from my contract teaching days. I walked into class one day and I saw one of my students reading A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess.
ReplyDeleteI kid you not. Some of his classmates were running around the class happily kicking a soccer ball around, and on a normal day, he would have been part of that group. But on that day, he was reading A Clockwork Orange.
I asked him why. He told me that he found the book interesting. I asked him if he would read it if it was his Literature text. What he said next shocked me.
"I wouldn't. I prefer to discover a book on my own instead of having the teacher go through everything in class. That just spoils it for me." (Of course he said it more casually, with Singlish thrown in...)
Isn't this a timely reminder of how we, as teachers, might be destroying our students' love of reading?
Their experience of discovering for themselves what meaning a book holds, by forcing them to see things from our viewpoint, instead of theirs?
By selecting the texts for them, instead of giving them a choice in what they want to read, and study, for their Literature classes?
Chin Ee showed us a list of books prescribed for the O Levels in last week's lecture. The way I see it (and the way I remember it), the books are always chosen for the students, and they do not have any say at all. Which means that a class who would rather study Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart ends up studying (and suffering) through Pearl S Buck's The Good Earth.
And how was The Good Earth chosen? Probably out of a combination of teachers' opinions of "literary merit", the ease/difficulty of how The Good Earth can be taught as compared to Things Fall Apart, and other pedagogical or personal considerations.
Don't get me wrong - I accept that in school, we, as teachers, should have an influence on what our students read. I also accept that there are syllabus aims to take into consideration. But we should always be guiding, and not dictating what they read.
I am all for giving our students a choice, both in what they want to study as their class texts (bearing in mind the rather limited choices that the syllabus affords us), and their own choice of reading material.
After all, if our students prefer Gaiman to Golding, and Pratchett to Pushkin, who are we to dictate what is "high" and what is "low" in literary value? Reading is personal - we read what we want to, not what we have to. (In most cases...)
We are here to guide them, not to make decisions on their behalf. And in the present situation, where students have to be pushed to read, we should not be discouraging them by passing value judgements on their personal choices.
Therefore, my criteria for selecting a text for use in the classroom is simple. The students should be able to choose the texts. They should be able to identify with the texts. They should be able to appreciate the text fully, as the author intended it to be.
They should also be able to contribute their own opinions of the text instead of having their opinions moulded and forced upon them.
A student may value Cosmopolitan to Chaucer. She may be able to relate what she reads in Cosmo to something in her literature text. Is Cosmo still "low" in literary value? Or has it helped to boost her literary understanding? Food for thought.
What are your implicit criteria for selecting or valorizing certain texts in the literature classroom? ~ Gosh I'm so far from the top I need to retype the question for my own reference. Hurray I am not posting at 7am before class for once :)
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the brilliant responses above...I can understand why this place is as Shao so eloquently puts it "a barren wasteland" everything I want to say, thought I would say, never expected to say has all been said :(
I noticed that many of my fellow (borrowing the term from Shao) comrades in education, in responding to this prompt have taken into account issues like how they can teach the text, what can the students get out of it and relevance. The first thought that came to mind when I read the provocation 1 was...who cares what we think, at the end of the day, as fledgling trainee teachers fresh out of NIE, we have no say in the texts that we would like to explore with our students (the official ones at least) The list is compiled by the greater-powers-to-be over at Buona Vista and the actual books decided upon by our HODs, more often then not based oh how well they think we can teach it (and ultimately score at the O levels) While that might seem like an overtly pessimistic view, I believe there is some measure of truth in it. At the end of the day, I think, at least in regards to literary texts that we teach in school, the question is not so much what, but how.
Critical theories are wonderful wonderful things. Up till today, I still hold an unspeakable hatred for 'I'm the King of the Castle', and it was only through a Queer reading of the text (hormonal teenaged boys stalking one another, how exciting!) introduced by a friend (if only my teacher thought of it that way) that stopped me from ripping the text apart. My point is, we really don't have a choice in the selection or the valorizing of texts in the literature classroom, so the next best thing, is to introduce them in a way that can help broaden the minds of our young learners and ignite their interests (going on a really Shao tangent here)
That and as Andrew and Shao and shndz (whoever that may be) have pointed out, many a time, the very fact that we "teach" a text is reason enough for out students to turn their noses down at it. So at the risk of turning their wrath upon the innocent plays of Shakespeare and the guiltless poetry of Sylvia Plath (who I love and respect deeply), I would rather keep such works out of the classroom until my students become more receptive to the idea that these 'literary acclaimed works' have more value to them then just a nobel medal or original manuscripts from a couple of thousands.
On the other end of the spectrum, as Kendall has so kindly pointed out in his research, there similarly there is value in other forms of less recognized texts, like teenage magazine, spongebob squarepants novelizations and god forbid...twilight. While I may not approve of sparkly vampires, I am sure that there are values and merit to be found in the simple straight forward language and themes of eternal love found in the book. While I may judge the book and Stephanie Myer, I will not judge my students for reading it and neither will I discourage them from reading it because they have (somehow) managed to find value in it.
Bottom line is, at the end of the day, I believe my job as a teacher is to expose to them as many literary works as possible (so I guess this can be counted as my criteria for pimping texts?) , and let them decide for themselves where they can find value in reading.
I hope I didn't confused anyone...cause I just confused myself writing that D:
Wait, why does one even ask what our criteria is in selecting texts for the classroom? It's not our choice is it?
ReplyDeleteProbably not off to a stellar start here, but I make this point only because my student once did. She asked me, why she had to read Animal Farm for literature. Of course a child of the late 90s isn't going to find the Russian Revolution particularly relevant. But she makes a valid point in asking why. I decided to reply, I don't know, I didn't choose it. To which she said, so who does?
It is a good question. Who chooses what is literature fit for the classroom and what isn't? Not the teachers themselves apparently. It is difficult to approach the class without selection bias I suppose, and the weird things is students can tell if the teacher personally thinks the book is crap. They too will take it as a cue that it isn't worth reading.
So the question is, can you make a book you personally dislike work in the classroom? I actually think it's possible. What one student finds enjoyable another may think is turd. My solution to that is, teach critical theory. Nothing wrong with exposing a student to that early. While some of it may be a bit deep, I think teaching them the basics on how to evaluate a text will go much further than just shoving a prescribed text down their throats. My point here is to teach them how to read, not teach them what to read.