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:
To what extent does MOE’s literature curriculum (including the lists of recommended texts for different streams and levels) betray the presence of “othering discourses” that see young adult readers as “‘passive,’ ‘uncritical’ consumers of ‘low-brow,’ ‘throw-away’ texts” (Kendall, 2008, p. 123)? Some of you, for instance, defended your choice of texts like Twilight by appealing to the general relevance of films and pop-cultural texts in our lives and the lives of our students. So why are literature teachers and curriculum planners resistant to the inclusion of such “alternative” genres? How might your views on this matter be informed by writers like Eagleton, Booth, and, for that matter, critical theory?
'Throw-away' or 'low-brow' texts may make good/ pleasurable reading for some but they may not offer the 'text-richness' literature teachers are looking for. Because the teaching of Literature as purported by the Literature in English Syllabus, 1999 requires students to explore “areas of human concern” amongst its many other aims, teachers and curriculum planners tend to gravitate towards certain literary texts that readily offer opportunities to explore text functionalities and the creation of adequate “space(s) for conversation about self and self in relation to the world” (Loh, 2009).
ReplyDeleteGiven the restrictions (time and examination requirements, eg. 1 prose + 1 drama),educators want to ‘maximise’ their options by choosing texts they think can best fulfil the above objectives.
This does not necessarily mean that those ‘throw-away’ or ‘low-brow’ texts have no place in literature classrooms. They may be included in reading clusters for students to explore themes (eg. Twillight may be included in a reading list that has love as its theme along with other middle-brow literature and classics). Or, we can use Booth’s suggestion 2 or 4 in The Ethics of Teaching Literature (Booth, 1998) to use these texts for other teachable purposes. At the very least, these texts may serve as reading triggers for the ‘main’ readings.
The resistance not to include these ‘low-brow’ texts stems not so much because teachers (well, at least for some) find them to be of poor literary merit, but because they offer few opportunities for what Larger (1995) describes as “scene(s) for us to explore both ourselves and others, to define and redefine who we are, who we might become, and how the world might be”. Such is the ‘burden’ of Literature. It is this 'burden' that governs text choice.
As for me, I hope to use a variety of texts(and even art, photographs and songs) in my classrooms. Just because these texts are not used for examinations, it does not mean that they cannot serve the other aims of teaching literature eg. Appreciation and Creativity (after all, the Critical Thinking and Understanding components would be dealt with when teaching the approved curriculum texts).
Firhana Alsagoff
HI Firhana, I agree with you that given the time restrictions it does not mean that these " low-brow" texts will have no place in the classrooms. We should embrace these " low-brow" texts together with the students in meaning making and for teachable moments.
DeleteI question the classification of texts as either "low brow" or "throw away". Perhaps it is a malady of our time that we do such violence to texts like Twilight, Hunger Games, and so on. What is worth noting is that the works that we consider classics today, the works we consider as good literature today, are texts that have been banned and condemned in their time. For example, we have Flaubert's Madame Bovary, Twain's Huckleberry Finn, DeFoe's Moll Flanders, and maybe something even more recent, Rushdie's Satanic Verses. In the eyes of the authorities that shut them down, they are considered "low brow" and "throw away".
ReplyDeleteTherefore I do not think that we should move so quickly to judge any text. Who are we to cast the first stone? Rather, I propose that we should, with the literary theories that we are armed with, look at every text, whatever they may be, through the lens of theory, to appreciate, quite simply, a storyline, a piece of writing, that someone has created.
While I understand that there is a proliferation of publications now, given the advances in technology and, quite simply, the increase in the number of people in this bloody world we are in, we have to remember that the texts of the past that REMAIN today, have, evidently, resisted the workings and erosion of time. The fact is this: classic works of literature will resist the test of time. Therefore, I think it is unnecessary for literature teachers to resist the inclusion of works that are consider "low brow" and "throw away". We might be wrong in viewing them as such. Heck, we might be right anyway as well. But opportunity has to be given to these texts (see them as human beings; they have feelings), and if they are good, they will remain. If they are bad... Well, tant pis.
It is still a judgment at the end that is passed, and the sentence will be its disappearance from the literature syllabus. At the very least we allow ourselves the opportunity to find out whether it is worth or not. Moreover, it should serve us well too, in the sense that if we are able to determine for sure, after STUDYING such texts, what is BAD literature, for sure we will be able (I think, I hope, I believe), to appreciate better literature that is GOOD.
Wen Rui,
DeleteI like your timely reminder that some of the classics/ high-brow literary texts today were once considered to be throw-away texts.
And, yes, judgement is still passed in the end. All materials that teachers select/ do not select are value-laden.
Deeba and I would love to 'provoke' the rest of the class with some of the points you mentioned this Monday.
Firhana
Putting aside the controversial issues of which texts are considered trashy or worthy, who does the branding and the grounds on which the 'who" makes his judgement, Kendall's emphasis of the importance of the 'why' and the 'how', instead of the 'what' of young people's reading culture came across as extremely insightful to me.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to culturally 'illegitimate' texts like magazines, tabloids etc, most adults and educators would cringe at the fact that these texts dominate the reading diet of youngsters. Why? The 'what', a.k.a the content of these texts are deemed as academically worthless and even morally and emotionally 'poisonous' with social media being the antagonist, corrupting the minds of the unperceptive(widely assumed) young readers. However, are they really passive recipients? Why do they read such texts and how do they read them?
As a future educator, I feel that it is more important to equip our students with the capacity to evaluate their 'why's of reading a text and hone their 'how's of being a critical reader. Young popular fiction can become excellent materials for teaching Literature, whether as a stepping platform to more inaccesible texts or as an opportunity to address issues close to their hearts and teaching them the skill of perceptive reading. We do not want to make our students think they should abstain from reading any type of text but to make them confident of handling any text without becoming easily brainwashed victims of anything they read.
When it comes to curriculum planning, the width, depth and relevance of exploration possibilities(teaching points ) of a text should be the deciding factors of text choice, and not solely based on whether the text is of 'alternative' genre or not.
I'll end off my post of humble opinions with a quote by Bean(1999) which resonates with me: ‘until we bridge the gap by tapping the multiple literacies in adolescent lives, we will continue to see adolescents develop a disinterested cognitive view of in-school literacy functions and a more enthusiastic view of out-of-school discourse functions’’.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Dawn,
DeleteThe 'how' and 'why' are very philosophical questions. Your confident exclamation that they are more important than the 'what' is defintely something to think about and offers ground for more discussion. Deeba and I would love to use this as Provocation 3 on Monday.
I also like your suggestion of using young popular fiction as a stepping platform to more inaccessible texts. It sounds like something I would do.
Firhana
‘ Low-brow’ or ‘ High-brow’ are terms that have been “ bestowed” by literature teachers and curriculum planners. It boils down to the question of practicality, is this text worthy to be read? This point was elucidated in Bourdieu’s (1992,p.86) argument where he stated “consecrated text yields a profit of distinction” In the instance when teachers and curriculum planners deem a text like Twilight to be not a “legitimate” text, it is not necessary and “ profitable” to read it.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason, which explains why teachers are so resistant to these “low-brow” texts, is they view students as “ passive” and “ uncritical” reader. Thus, we are so caught up with students getting the wrong message and values from the text. I am not advocating for the stance that we should do without censorship in the domain of text selection. In Kendall ‘s ( 2008) research, students enjoyed the magazine, but at the same time they were aware that they are not to be taken literally even though they are interesting. Teachers should learn to let go of their prejudices against the “ low-brow” texts and recognise the fact that these “ low-brow” texts can have a role in our schools. As Bean(1999,p.442) states that we should learn to value the fact that adolescents read magazines “ just for fun” , if we as educators fail to see this point, students will be segregated from the school culture. Kendall ( 2008) suggests that we should move away from the cul-de-sac debates about different readers have different preferences. We should learn to embrace their readings, however “ low-brow” it seems to you and explore the different literacies rather than just giving them one literacy. I agree with Firhana that we might not have the time to do it in Literature classes, however it definitely has a place in school. At Saint Anthony’s Convent, the EL department uses a thematic approach for their reading program, there will be certain weeks where students are allowed to bring in “ low-brow” materials such as comics and magazines. A literature teacher embodies the essence of open-mindedness and creativity, if we can help students to see “ literature” from something which is not “ legitimately literature” , we have found the entry point for this subject.
Yes, I agree. It is important to find an effective entry point for this dying subject. Why is it that in lesson planning we try our best not to start in a conventional manner with Chapter 1, but when it comes to choosing books that may 'make or break' a student's interest, we always resort to using traditional texts? Where's the interesting entry point?
DeleteDawn, your claim "that it is more important to equip our students with the capacity to evaluate their 'why's of reading a text and hone their 'how's of being a critical reader" (where text includes "low-brow" pop-culture) resonates with much of the research and advocacy literature on Media Studies. As you know, media studies involves developing students' ability to critical analyze, evaluate, and critique media texts and their discourses. The rationale - harking back to Marshall McLuhan - is that contemporary culture is saturated with messages promulgated by a ubiquitous capitalist-driven media machinery, and the best thing we can do for our kids is to arm them with the critical apparatus that will help them navigate the perils and promises of this mass-mediated cultural universe.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone think that Literature education ought to be united with the aims and methods of Media Studies (which is offered in some polytechnics, or is it also offered at A-level)? After all, aren't the skills taught similar? ...
Penny, i resonate with your assertion: "Teachers should learn to let go of their prejudices against the 'low-brow' texts and recognise the fact that these 'low-brow' texts can have a role in our schools." The onus, i suppose, is on you all - the younger generation of teachers - to teach the prejudiced teachers that literature can be taught using "low-brow" texts. But what role exactly do these texts play? Are they to be used merely as means to an end - that is, to help students appreciate the "high culture" of the Leavisian "great tradition"? Or should they be studied as literary texts in their own right? If the latter, what critical theories are presupposed in the analysis of non-traditional, non-literary texts?
- warren
Hi Warren.
Delete"Does anyone think that Literature education ought to be united with the aims and methods of Media Studies (which is offered in some polytechnics, or is it also offered at A-level)? After all, aren't the skills taught similar? ..."
YES.
One of my takeaways from my Comms major is this - "that language and other forms of representation, including images, do not simply reflect the world they describe; rather they construct particular ways of thinking about the world we live in" (Alan McKee).
In this sense, we approach a Lit text and a Media "text" in the same way, don't we? We attempt to find out the inherent meaning that a text holds, bearing in mind the authorial intent behind the text, and bringing in whatever knowledge we have to aid our interpretations and analyses. (Text-Reader-Author vs. Text-Viewer-Author!)
To bring in an example, it would be like reading Shakespeare's King Lear and trying to uncover Shakespeare's intent in making Lear's character go absolutely barmy, and watching Akira Kurosawa's Ran (based on King Lear) and trying to make sense of Kurosawa's intent in creating the scene where we see Hidetora (Lear's counterpart) wandering in the wilderness. We'll probably use the same techniques we use in Lit to make sense of its media counterpart!
Just my 2 cents. Cheers.
Reading the comments thus far, it reminds me of David Hume's Of Pride and Humility, in which he writes, "No quality of human nature is more remarkable, both in itself and in its consequences, than that propensity we have to sympathize with others, and to receive by communication their inclinations and sentiments, however different from, or even contrary to our own. This is not only conspicuous in children, who implicitly embrace every opinion propos’d to them; but also in men of the greatest judgment and understanding, who find it very difficult to follow their own reason or inclination, in opposition to that of their friends and daily companions." Such is the position we teachers will find ourselves in when we decide to put in or remove certain texts from our curriculum/lesson planning. But what's significant here, I think, is to never forget why we're doing it. We're doing it to teach our children something.
ReplyDeleteLike Penny and Firhana, I believe that we could include 'low-brow' or popular texts (Twillight etc.), but only when we are certain of the frameworks through which we'd like to approach them i.e. we are certain we know the reasons why and for what reason we're bringing in these texts (or any other 'high-brow' texts for that matter) into the classroom. In fact, if I were to bring in Twillight, I would bring in Anne Rice and Stoker into the classroom as well for the sake of comparison and continuity. It'll be a point of entry for 'richer' texts, perhaps, or for a particular trope of writing: the vampire story, which to different authors are lens for different issues.
Hi Fizah,
DeleteI love the quote you used.
Deeba and I would like to 'provoke' our classmates with your suggestion that we should put away our prejudices and focus instead on "we're going to teach our children something". Or, what about bringing texts with little 'teaching' value in the classroom simply for appreciation?
I think most of us have written to suggest that some popular texts may be used as stepping stones to more "middle-brow/ high-brow" texts. Warren then offered another provocation: Are there any other ways these texts may be used, other than to justify a "means to an end"?
Firhana.
I very much like the idea of pairing up twilight with dracula. Reading twilight as a text that is in communication with Dracula says something about the human psyche, that we humans continue to be fascinated with the vampire myth. I think it's clear which critical theory we can use here...This would be a fascinating topic to consider at the H3 literature level, because the resultant discussion will be ideological and cultural rather than thematic, which would lie beyond the scope of secondary lit education. At higher levels, literature becomes more a sociological and psychological study; twilight is an artifact of today's society and it is its cultural value that interests me more than the soppy love triangle between a girl, a vampire and a werewolf. Thing is, I don't see how I can get secondary students to the level of thinking about social and cultural concerns across a couple of centuries when I have a syllabus to teach and limited time to do it. At the end of the day, I'm going to have to tell students that the reason why we're not doing twilight in class is because there is BETTER literature out there in terms of plot and subject matter.
DeleteHi Priya
DeleteI love the idea of pairing an "othered" text with a "legitimate" one. We can feature the best of both worlds, while going into a in-depth discussion on themes, values, etc. I believe this can even be implemented in the secondary level.
I am of the opinion that some amount of censorship is definitely required when it comes to choosing a text to be taught in schools. This is not because I believe that students are not critical readers but because there are only two texts that the teacher can choose to teach in class. So the aim must be to maximise the objectives that is to help “explore areas of human concern, thus leading to a
ReplyDeletegreater understanding of themselves and others”( MOE Literature syllabus, 1999) through these texts.
However, I also believe that the very act of classifying a text is flawed because what one person may find a “low-brow” text, I may find worthy of being taught in schools. So, here again comes in the question of perspective. In the same way a text that may be considered very rich, literally may not appeal to the students and even if it is taught in class will not achieve the objective of Literature learning.
Another objective of literature teaching should be that the students “enjoy the reading of literature and appreciate its contribution to aesthetic and imaginative growth”(MOE Literature Syllabus, 1999). So the choice of the text should be based on the student profile as well. If as per the teacher the text will be able to generate an interest in literature and does not deal with the things that the students can not at all relate to their lives then such a text should make its way into the syllabus. In my belief it would be unwise to include a text that is so rich in literary values that it does not make any sense to the students.
Thus, the teacher must be able to negotiate a compromise between texts that would interest the students and texts that would benefit them to grow aesthetically.
Rachna,
DeleteYour closing statement:
"..teacher must be able to negotiate a compromise between texts that interest the students and texts that would benefit them to grow aesthetically"
is provocative! We'd love to use this as a discussion point on Monday.
Firhana
After reading what Wen Rui has written about how certain literary books have surpassed time and transcended from being mere ‘throw-away texts’ into what we consider to be high-brow masterpieces. I can’t help but wonder if the ‘trashy’ articles that we read today (such as Twilight or tabloids) might one day be elevated to the same status as these great classics too?
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that the reason why books such as Twilight are so popular with youths is because of its linear style of writing, coupled by the fact that these texts are highly relatable to the lives of our teens. The central tenor of Twilight pivots around notions of budding romance, isolation, supernaturalism and good versus evil concepts which probes at the interest of our students, because it cultivates a ‘flow’ between the narrative and the reader. Stemming from the same tangent as Firhana, Penny and Hafizah, I would only integrate popular fiction into the existing literary framework if I am fully convinced that there are certain values/qualities which are crucial enough for me to explore (in greater details) with my students.
Other than that, books such as Twilight might also serve as an excellent starting point to critically engage our student’s schemas, before we could introduce them to other noteworthy texts such as Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, etc. By superimposing the mythical rivalry between the werewolves and vampires from Meyer’s text to Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, we could help students to better comprehend that writers sometimes rely on similar themes and techniques to captivate their reader’s imagination. Furthermore, the manner in which Edward Cullen and Jacob Black competes with one another for the affections of Bella Swan, is also closely mapped to Romeo and Paris’ battle for Juliet’s hand in marriage. Hence, this proves that contemporary texts with similar story-plot (as certain classics) can certainly prove to be useful in fostering stronger cognitive retention amongst our pupils as well.
As Rachna had blatantly explained, one’s perception of any given text is essentially flawed as we are constantly appraising a book based on how much it aligns with our own value system, since ‘one man’s meat [is bound to] be another’s poison’. Therefore, how do we imbue our students with a passion to read literature and ‘appreciate its contribution to aesthetic and imaginative growth’? (MOE Literature Syllabus, 1999) The answer is simple! All we have to do is, to try and establish a lucid connection between the classics and its modern counterparts, so that students could see the relevance of reading an otherwise archaic text type.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo label something as 'low-brow' and 'throw-away' is already to pass judgement on a text based on its potential (or assumed lack thereof) value and its relevance and applicability to the lesson/ class/ subject. The selection and delivery of materials in the classroom reflects our personal prejudices and preferences, inadvertently revealing our philosophy towards lit education. However, I feel that considering the personality, preference and ability of each class is of pertinence in determining which texts to introduce.
ReplyDeleteI taught a DSA sports class, and was surprised to find a student reading Paulo Coelho under his desk. It was difficult to suppress my surprise and joy (over his 1. choice of text and 2. desire to read), which I masked under a veneer of mock anger for being inattentive in class. The boy is a shy, introverted Malaysian scholar who occasionally has violent, aggressive outbursts upon confrontation. He never pays attention, and is highly distractable. Everyday I confiscate one of his books only to find that he has managed to repossess it by the end of my lesson. I noticed that he was not very selective in his choice of texts; I definitely wasn't expecting him to read Dickens, but he often read random things like the Twilight series. Before the holidays, I gave him my library of Paulo Coelho books. I didn't have deliberate intentions, but realised on hindsight that I was trying to influence his book choices.
To be able to determine if something is of 'literary worth' is only possible if you understand the mechanics of what makes a text aesthetic in the first place. In an lit class, I would naturally want to bring in 'litty-er' texts. Ideally, if students are widely exposed to a multiplicity of texts, they are able to juxtapose the language, style, delivery, theme, ideology between texts and make discerning choices on their own. They would naturally be sensitive to linguistic nuances/ literary aesthetics and develop their own reading preferences. (and hopefully come to the realisation that some novels are more worth reading than others.)
“Art produces ugly things which frequently become more beautiful with time. Fashion, on the other hand, produces beautiful things which always become ugly with time.”
-Jean Cocteau
I suppose with that perspective one can understand how icons like the Monster in Frankenstein still holds its appeal in the literary world today. Doubt I can say the same for Edward Cullen. (:
Hi Mindy,
DeleteThank you for sharing the anecdote of the Malaysian scholar.
The learner's profile is definitely something worth considering in the teacher's curriculum planning process. To what extent does this influence the process, we wonder. Deeba and I would like to use this as a point of discussion for Monday's class.
Firhana.
Literature teachers and curriculum planners often fall back on the canonical, or what Kendall (2008) refers to as the consecrated texts, wherein these texts are legitimized by years of literary studies and education. I think this is a recursive process and a patently political act. For example, the more people read Shakespeare, the more *more* people will read Shakespeare. Going back to Bourdieu’s (1992) notion of distinction, which is cited in Kendall (2008), these consecrated texts yield a profit of distinction, wherein the more legitimate a text is, the more costly it is to be incompetent in it. Therefore, the “othered” texts are seen as illegitimate, and by incorporating them into the otherwise pristine and legitimate syllabus is itself and act of bastardisation. This ties back to what is mentioned in Eagleton’s article, wherein literature is not an objective category, but what constitutes high-brow literature is a value-judgment that is closely tied to ideologies that serve to reaffirm and reproduce social power and stratification. In fact, this stratification can even be seen in schools already, where students who are weaker in English Language are often discouraged from (and in some cases not even given opportunities to) take Literature.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Smith and Wilhelm (2010), teaching should not be about coverage, and I agree with that for the most part. This means that literature teachers, even if they are indeed constrained by the syllabus, need not be myopic about what they can (or cannot) bring into the classroom. Once the teacher has formulated the essential question, (s)he can bring in other texts which are “othered”, like what Jeff did with his class when they were reading the Incredible Journey in the Smith and Wilhelm article. It is futile, in my opinion, to attempt to change the reading habits of learners, especially when their choices of reading material are not arbitrary; they are cognizant of the fact that these “othered” texts are frowned-upon, but they resist this ideology (sometimes subconsciously?) as these texts are relatable to them. Additionally, while it is not mentioned explicitly in the article, I think that these “othered” texts embody a certain covert prestige (as opposed to the overt prestige of the canonical texts) that is attractive to these teen readers. If that is correct, then all the more the intermingle of mainstream and “othered” texts should be incorporated into the classroom, rather than sticking with what is safe and well-trodden.
I am guilty of labelling "Twilight" as one of those not so "legitimate' texts but I am absolutely guilt-free when it comes to "controlling" what my students read. While it is sometimes difficult to not label texts or types of readings (like magazines, as stated in Kendall's article), especially so for many Literature teachers, or people who deem themselves as higher and mightier with their database of Literature texts, I personally reject this school of thought and sometimes laugh at how narrow-minded these supposedly broader-minded people could be.
ReplyDeleteIn schools, we have to adhere to the MOE syllabus and promote all the necessary readings that the students must go through in order to ace their examinations - that very act itself defines which texts are the "consecrated" ones and which texts help to "yield a profile of distinction" as mentioned by Kendall. But often, many Literature teachers go back to the staff room to complain to other Literature teachers about how weak this student is, how unbelievable that student is, without stopping to think. To make things worse, as mentioned in Angela's comment, students who are weaker in the English Language are often discouraged from taking Literature. For students who are already struggling with the language, isn't that another blow to say "hey you should seriously stop all associations with English and/or Literature yo" - how is that encouraging and how will that improve the situation?
Having said that, I am not saying that teachers should not "monitor" what the students are reading. We cannot really do that due to obvious reasons but there is a need to encourage students to read even beyond the "consecrated" texts if that is what makes them even read. Before teachers even introduce, or legitimise certain types of readings to the students, I personally feel that it is crucial that the teachers take careful note of their students' profile, level of maturity and their ability to discern and evaluate certain types of reading. While we allow students to flip through their magazines "Seventeen", "Cleo" yada yada in school, should we as teachers, try to conduct a lesson on the possible cultural meaning of magazines, or other "othered" texts per se to expose our students to another realm or perspective of what they currently read (with enjoyment)?
Whether it is Romeo and Juliet, Animal Farm, the Seventeen magazine, 8 Days or Xiaxue's blogposts, the definition of "valued purpose" is very much debatable. As a future Literature teacher, I need to constantly remind myself not to underestimate the students' efforts they have for reading. As Bean (1999) so wisely put, "students may choose to reject the official curriculum" if the school decides to under-value or totally disregard the students' current choice of readings. So instead of rejecting and resisting Twilight (argh), perhaps we should learn to appreciate the "multiple literacies" in their lives and make meaning out of their existing reading habits before nudging them forward for the "consecrated" texts put forward by the Ministry.
I found it rather difficult to decide if MOE's literature curriculum does betray the presence of "othering discourses" described by Alex Kendall, mainly because of how it's really subjective to say if a particular text is low-brow or not? Let's face it, one man's meat is another man's poison. Some may consider 'Twilight' to be the equivalent of literary excrement, but others may spend their entire lives deciding if they're Team Edward or Team Jacob.
ReplyDeleteBut assuming we can all agree that Twilight is low-brow and Shakespeare isn't, then it's really easy to explain why curriculum planners are resistant to the inclusion of texts like Twilight. Basically, people who are in the position to approve recommended texts are likely to be older and more inclined to go with tried and tested texts which come with traditional acclaim and a wide pool of teaching resources. Ceteris paribus, anything new and popular with young adults is most likely considered by them to be inferior from a literary point of view. Just think about the Grammys and the Oscars and consider how some people believe that contemporary popularity and artistic credibility seem to be mutually exclusive.
I found the Alex Kendall reading to be very interesting and relevant to this provocation. A part of the article reads: "In institutions young adult readers are rarely positioned as brokers of 'legitimate' capital in the sense that their preferred reading choices (which may indeed be 'profitable' and legitimate in the social and extra-curricular fields within which they participate) are rarely embraced by or positively presented through the values of the curriculum."
In other words, teachers have the tendency to dismiss the stuff that their students read in their free time, simply because they often turn out to be magazines or other material that has little to do with the syllabus. But can any text really be considered 'profitless' to read? I would like to believe that I'm the type of teacher who would rather see a student reading Twilight in the canteen that not reading anything at all. And there's also the sad fact that cool stuff tends to be cool precisely because of how it's got nothing to do with school.
Ultimately, I think Kendall raises a great point when he says that teachers should not control what their students read, but should work towards exploring with them the readings they produce and encounter, thereby encouraging them to reflect on their own reading practices.
Colin
The question you raised on whether can any text be considered 'profitless' to read is so thought-provoking. Firhana and I really hope to discuss this one. Thanks Colin for that nugget of wisdom!
DeleteWhy not Twilight if that is what the beginners enjoy?
ReplyDeleteWhen we claim that literary theories in Literature aid in deconstructing diverse forms of texts to emanate the multiple layers of meanings embedded in a seemingly simple plot and language,then why not use the same lens to help the students read critically,probe deeper into their own choice of text and make it a more transferable learning?
Also,as rightly pointed by Wen Rui,what may be a "shallow read" now can turn canonical when patronaged by time.
Also,what may be worthy of institutionalization for one,may not be for the other.So the differences in perspective remains.Nevertheless,we also need to give a thought to the kind of text that is popular among the learners so as to make learning enjoyable for them by incorporating at least one from such text choices in the syllabus.If by that we can contribute meaning to their learning then so be it.But ofcourse we are restrained by time and syllabus.Since there can only be one text per term,then may we compromise such that there remains a lack when it comes to the introduction of the literary canons?If it is a choice that is to be made between Shakespeare and Harry potter for the secondary level learners,I'd have to confess I'd force Shakespeare on them since their readiness to read their favorites will help take care of the "alternative" genre.
Hi Aish,
DeleteYour suggestion to 'force' students to read Shakespeare since "their readiness to read their favourites will help take care of the 'alternative genre'" is a practical approach and offers a 'solution' to this interesting debate.
It seems that many of us are not resistant to use a variety of texts in the classrooms. However, a fair share claim that we would use them mostly as a "means to an end", i.e, to introduce seemingly more inaccessbile texts. A lot of us have given reasons why we choose one text over the other (time, constraints of the syllabus framework) but you were able to (in Rachna's words)'negotiate a copromise' with your solution.
Deeba and I would like to use this 'compromise' to provoke TG1 during Monday's lecture.
Firhana
Great discussion going on. Here's a thought - when I thought at one neighbourhood school, I gave my sec 3s the chance to choose their text. the Curious incident of the Dog in the nighttime by Mark Haddon, then an O level text or Macbeth. I thought it would end up being Curious incident since 3/4 of the class were reading it and reporting to me about how much they enjoyed it. But the vote came down to Macbeth. Surprised, I asked why and they told me it was because Macbeth was a text they couldn't and probably would not read on their own while Curious incident they could and would. Moral of the story on light of this discussion? You decide.
ReplyDeleteI guess your move of letting them CHOOSE their text made a lot of difference. If you had introduced Macbeth and not given them the opportunity to explore (by giving them the freedom to choose), the resistance for Macbeth could possibly be more significant. Adolescents that age love choice, and love being given some autonomy in choosing what they want to read. Sometimes, it's not that they "hate" Shakespeare or whatever texts prescribed to them for the syllabus, but merely a rebellious act against what they have NOT CHOSEN. They do have a certain level of maturity to decide what is best for learning (in this case, Macbeth because they are aware that they will probably learn more from Macbeth than from Curious) - so it's really how the approach a teacher takes on the students' reading choice that matters.
DeleteDo pardon the rambling, hope I'm making sense.
You are, though I wasn't thinking of that when I posted in the middle of the night! I was thinking about how important it is to expect more from our students in terms of their ability to choose, and they do surprise sometimes. But you are right about choice, and I was fortunate to have a small class for them to have that choice. The next best choi, I suppose, would be for us to let the students know that we have taken their preferences, expectations and abilities into account, and using that choice to stretch their learning and thinking. The battle to learning to read is desire to read. That may be the first hurdle to overcome in any class. Once desire sets in, then everything else is much easier.
DeleteMOE’s literature curriculum (1999) encourages students to first and foremost “enjoy the reading of literature and appreciate its contribution to aesthetic and imaginative growth”. Most secondary school students are highly influenced by the popular culture when it comes to their choice of read. For example, Twilight, Hunger Games and Harry Potter are very popular amongst students. However, many literature teachers would not consider including such texts in the classroom, mainly because it may not be considered a critical literary text and may not carry as much value to it compared to canonical texts like Shakespeare that is highly used in the classroom. I think the issue is not about whether or a text is considered high-brow or low-brow, but rather how much students can gain from it. Texts like Harry Potter, maybe even more so than Shakespearean plays, can contribute to the aesthetic and imaginative growth, because it is set in an alternative society where magic makes the impossible possible. As literature teachers, we should avoid “othering” texts just because they are seen as an “alternative” genre. Giving students a voice and choice in what they learn can contribute to the enjoyment of reading and the appreciation for literature will follow suit.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that Lit texts must contribute to aesthetic and imaginative growth. Many "othered" texts fulfil this role better than the "legitimate" ones.
DeleteI must confess that I've previously found the notion of using texts like Twilight to be problematic. However, watching "Mona Lisa Smile" in its entirety (sparked by the brief segment that was shown in last week's lecture) made me re-evaluate my sentiments towards this week's topic.
ReplyDeleteThere is a scene in the movie that relates pertinently to this week's discussion.
Katherine Watson: There are seven law schools within 45 minutes of Philadelphia. You can study and get dinner on the table by 5:00.
Joan Brandwyn: It's too late.
Katherine Watson: No, some of them accept late admissions! Now, I was upset at first, I can tell you that. When Tommy came to me at the dance and told me he was accepted to Penn, I thought, 'Oh God, her fate is sealed! She's worked so hard, how can she throw it all away?' But then I realized you won't have to! You can bake your cake and eat it too! It's just wonderful!
Joan Brandwyn: We're married. We eloped over the weekend. Turned out he was petrified of a bit ceremony, so we did a sort of spur-of-the-moment thing. Very romantic.
[Katherine is stunned]
Joan Brandwyn: It was my choice, not to go. He would have supported it.
Katherine Watson: But you don't have to choose!
Joan Brandwyn: No, I have to. I want a home, I want a family! That's not something I'll sacrifice.
Katherine Watson: No one's asking you to sacrifice that, Joan. I just want you to understand that you can do both.
Joan Brandwyn: Do you think I'll wake up one morning and regret not being a lawyer?
Katherine Watson: Yes, I'm afraid that you will.
Joan Brandwyn: Not as much as I'd regret not having a family, not being there to raise them. I know exactly what I'm doing and it doesn't make me any less smart. This must seem terrible to you.
Katherine Watson: I didn't say that.
Joan Brandwyn: Sure you did. You always do. You stand in class and tell us to look beyond the image, but you don't. To you a housewife is someone who sold her soul for a center hall colonial. She has no depth, no intellect, no interests. You're the one who said I could do anything I wanted. This is what I want.
Miss Watson has been championing for Joan to break out of the molds that define stereotypical gender roles in the 1950/60s. Miss Watson, good intentions notwithstanding, believes that Joan will only be capable of being true to herself by completing law school. However, Joan, while understanding that she has the aptitude and ability to enter law school, intrinsically desires for nothing more than to be a good wife to her husband. This differs vastly from Miss Watson's notion of being true to oneself.
Which begs the question, how do we equip our students to be true to themselves, in relation to categorizing and segmenting Literature texts?
This is one of my all time favourite scene in any movie, in that it speaks to me in a very personal way. But to your question, Joshua, what does it mean to be true to oneself? And how do texts speak to us in different stages of our lives in that journey of searching? And students do read differently (think read reesponse) than us, just as how this scene in Mona Lisa may mean differently for us?
DeleteWe, as Literature teachers, possess the capacity, on some level, to define what texts should be constituted as acceptable and also, otherwise. Of course, as with all organizations globally, our ideals are always subjected to the approval of higher authorities. I guess that it is important to aware of the importance of student-centric learning (to tie-in with Chin Ee's post pertaining to choice); yes, it is important to allow our students to grapple with and understand the issues of what should constitute an appropriate text of the study of Literature; however, as evidently demonstrated in the movie by Miss Watson, Joan and law school, we should never impose our personal views/mandates/expectations, whether traditional or otherwise, on our students.
ReplyDeleteI am not proposing that students should reject every text that they deem as being unacceptable. That would be, at the very least, chauvinistic. What I think is important, is for students to be equipped with sound reasoning ability, to not only decide for themselves but also possess the appropriate social/academic manners, to engage with other points of view/perceptions, with respect.
This is, one of the many idiosyncrasies, that defines Literature from the other subjects.
Agree with Joshua on the point that we should possess the capacity to define what texts should be deemed acceptable but the reality with a system that does not allow for experimentation and creativity is a major stumbling block as Colin has pointed out. Teaching Lit through the exploration of a variety of texts is a great way to revive a dying art and using a text which appeals to our students may actually serve as a springboard in engaging with Shakespeare, who a great number find a daunting task. Hence in answering the question -why are literature teachers and curriculum planners resistant to the inclusion of such “alternative” genres? My guess is...fear. Fear to explore. Being afraid in not conforming to a rigid curriculum that doesn't allow for freedom of expression. A curriculum that emphasizes the need to be exam smart and how to answer the daunting LIT questions rather than allowing students to appreciate the value of the text they read. More than often, we are too quick to dismiss students' choices of readings and fail to impart interest. I agree with Kendal's reading that "In institutions young adult readers are rarely positioned as brokers of 'legitimate' capital in the sense that their preferred reading choices (which may indeed be 'profitable' and legitimate in the social and extra-curricular fields within which they participate) are rarely embraced by or positively presented through the values of the curriculum. I vividly recall a student of mine saying "What's the point of reading Catherine Lim's little Ironies? It's not gonna get me anywhere isn't it? I see Lit as pointless!" Ironically I noticed he had Mr Potter on his desk. Hence,I remarked "Which door do you think Harry's wand is going to open for you in future?" He left me red faced when he said, "It's for fun" which got me thinking that if a student enjoys reading fiction like that, wouldn't that allow them to enjoy Literature and not see it as pointless. Students hate Shakespeare and Catherine Lim's work becomes no different to it, hasn't it. Simply plain old boring and deemed as a laborious chore! Maybe Harry could indeed provide salvation...
DeleteIt's not just about fear... I believe the Literature culture in certain schools is such that creativity is always frowned upon. So even a feisty Lit teacher may not be able to make a difference in schools filled with statisticians and assessment-oriented heads.
DeleteSorry for the late post. This may be simplifying matters a wee bit but perhaps, what needs greater consideration instead of simply focusing on preserving the canon, is the academic ability of our students and based on that, pick initial literary materials as points of entry.
ReplyDeleteNot all 'low-brow' literature should be considered to be without value when it could possibly provide a point of entry into engaging students. Having said that, these materials should possess basic literary standards such as the use of good English etc. Besides, as Shah mentioned above, some of the literary texts that are included in the syllabus are really not very appealing and I suspect, are in the syllabus for the sake of fulfilling a particular requirement. I want my students to fall in love with reading and develop a taste for enjoying a piece of text and hopefully thereafter, learn to dissect and critically analyze its content and develop an opinion of their own. To do that, i first need to interest them in reading and if that requires me to use a text such as 'Twilight', I would. But, it should not be the centerpiece material. It should lead up to a more substantial text like what Priya mentioned - studying it alongside Dracula. Such texts could be used as comparisons alongside the main text.
Hi Minyi,
DeleteUsing students' academic ability is one way of choosing a text.
You also mentioned that you suspect that some literary texts are included in the syllabus simply because they have to fulfil a requirement. Deeba and I would love to use this provocative declaration for tomorrow's discussion.
Firhana & Deeba.
So late, but just a quick few notes. I don't think the syllabi allows our students to do Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Percy Jackson because it believes them to be readers of low-brow literature, or forced readers. I think it is just important to present lower secondary students with interesting and more accessible texts, especially since these students are new to the subject and we want them to love the subject through the lessons, and to do that, we have to pick texts that we can teach on a level that they would find non-threatening, and see as interesting. I remember doing Charlotte's Web when I was in secondary 1, back when I knew nothing about high or low brow literature, and coming away from those lessons with just this - that my Literature teacher does a mean Charlotte voice, and she made the text come alive for me, and made me want to identify with Charlotte and Fern. I guess if Percy Jackson and Dahl gets us in the door in this same manner, then why not? I'm all for it (all).
ReplyDeleteEsther,
DeleteFrom your post, we are going to use the provocation that:
Students have no idea what’s high-brow or low-brow. Effective teachers have the power to make students like a text.
Firhana & Deeba
I agree with Joshua and Andrea fully upon reading the articles. I feel that teachers should be allowed to choose what can fit the learning objectives of studying literature. I feel that Literature should appeal to students in some sense and be something they can approach with relative ease. If Literature offered to students is something that "turns them off", students will not be willing to do it beyond secondary two.
ReplyDeleteWhether we label books or authors as Literature or not should consider beyond what is canonical texts or not, the decision to choose should depend on how much literary skills we teach through the text. Literary skills that the MInistry of Education want to teach students include critical thinking, understanding structure of texts and appreciating literary value/theories. I think that choosing texts should be governed by how appropriate the language is for the audience. I mean appropriate by how much sexual, violent and political content is in these texts chosen for 13-16 year olds.
Ultimately, popular novels like Twilight can be used to lead students into main activities MOE demands their Teachers to do. We can always use other light hearted, interesting and relevant texts to help students understand the more dense and difficult texts.
I agree that it is important to choose appropriate content for our young readers. However, the question then arises of what constitutes an inappropriate text. What is too sexual or too political? Will our students agree with our judgements?
DeleteKendall is more optimistic that teens who read magazines are not "taken in" by what they read but are (at least they say so themselves) "Critical" and do not take these at face value. The older ones even think that they are mature and not so easily taken in by what is in the magazine unlike the younger ones.
ReplyDeleteI do think that this is a result of constant "nagging" by teachers/adults who are concerned by their reading habits. So it would seem that the "othering" of these "trashy" magazines actually work.
It is true that students can be pretty distressed at literature. I remembered being taking literature in secondary 3/4 because i did not do well for my streaming. Being from an English speaking family in a predominately chinese speaking background school, i was group with 20 other students who did not do well for their secondary 2 streaming. Since we did not do well, we were in the Arts stream. And yes you can imagine the difficulty the class had in grappling with Macbeth. I found it pretty interesting actually but i was the oddball and i guess you can imagine how they treated oddballs in "ah beng" classes =)
Sometimes it is not shakespeare's macbeth per se that is the problem but the low standards of the command of English. I would dearly love to read Tang poetry in original chinese but considering my poor skills, it would be a torture, particularly in an exam oriented classroom environment.
So yes i think that students with different levels of English ability should be assigned different texts. Those at a lower level of ability can move progressively higher. If they can understand only twilight, that could be a starting point. But i think they should graduate form twilight to read shakespeare.
I guess when it comes to choosing a text, many factors come into play. As teachers, we generally come from a perspective of knowing whats best. The use of canonical texts as well as 'alternative' genres stem from this perspective of knowing whats best. Do we necessarily? Is there really one way that is better than the other?
ReplyDeleteI guess one of the reasons why teachers are rather resistant to use 'alternative' genres in the teaching of literature is the backlash that comes from using a pop culture text to engage students in the study of Literature. Does it really serve its purpose, or is it merely a fad? Yet on the contrary, are we being prudish and resistant to change when we chose to stick to the traditional western canon of literary works?
What I'm saying is that, I still can't come to a conclusion for myself (hence I don't quite know what to post for this week's forum). As such, I've posted a few of the questions that have been swimming around in my mind. For now, I can only say that to bridge this divide is to make a very personal decision that is primarily swayed by your morality - what do you think works best for the students.
Yes, I've come one full circle without being conclusive at all and I apologise (:
Have a fruitful discussion, TG1!
I agree wholeheartedly with Nick. Coming from a non-English speaking family myself, it was popular teen fiction such as Sweet Valley, Ramona Quimby, Harry Potter and Sidney Sheldon that fostered my love for reading and the English language. I feel no shame in saying that I would gladly introduce these books to my students as a Literature teacher. The problem with Literature teachers and curriculum planners is that, we fail to recognise that the relationship between the reader and the text is complex and dynamic (Kendall, 2008) The text may be linear, but the meaning-making process by the reader never will be.
ReplyDeleteAs teachers, it is therefore important to give credit to this dynamism and acknowledge the fact that all readers are intelligent. Like how a Singaporean is able to switch effortlessly from English to Singlish and vice versa depending on the context of use, readers are also capable of switching between different levels of reading. It does not mean that a Harry Potter Fan will never be able to appreciate Henry James. However, if it is their choice not to read Henry James, then let's not force them to do it. Remember that passion should be ignited (not extinguished) to sustain life-long learning.
Ask yourselves these questions? Do you remember all the Literature texts you read in school? Did you like all of them? Did you fare better in exams when answering questions that were related to the texts you liked?