1) Description/Retrieval: Recall your own experiences as students of English Literature (in secondary school, junior college, university). What were the most memorable pedagogical approaches, strategies, or techniques (it may just have been ONE) that your teacher(s) employed to help you learn?
2) Analysis: Which learning theories (behaviorist, humanist, social constructivist, sociocultural theories) were implicit in this/these pedagogical approach(es) and technique(s)? (Refer to Warren's Lecture 5 slides or your Ed Psych course readings for a summary of these educational theories.)
3) Evaluation: On hindsight, was/were this/these pedagogical approach(es) and technique(s) effective in helping you appreciate Literature? Why (not)?
Readings
Heath, S. (2005) What no bedtime story means. In A. Duranti (ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 318-342). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
1) The most memorable pedagogical approach that I have ever experienced was when I was on an exchange program at the Sorbonne in Paris. I think it is worth highlighting the main difference in reading literature in Singapore and in France first. At NUS, one read, on average, 7 texts per module, and since one read an average of 3 literature modules per semester, one would effectively have to read 21 books per semester. At the Sorbonne, however, one read only 2 texts per module, and as a result of that, I read 5 literature modules there.
ReplyDeleteI think this allowed my professors at the Sorbonne to be able to focus on the text, giving them the luxury of time to focus on 1 text over a period of 2 to 3 months. The approach that they then took to teaching literature was essentially this: students were required to prepare certain passages for every class, and to share them with everyone. This sharing would be grounded in close-reading of the texts, highlighting the various literary techniques that have been used, and how certain theories can be employed to read the techniques and texts. My professors would then comment, and then continue the lecture or tutorial by reading their lectures to us. The structural approach to our learning was great, in my opinion. In fact, if there is anything that I have taken away from my time at the Sorbonne, it is quite simply that I have learnt how to read.
2) Probably humanist and social constructivist? Essentially my professors kept getting us involved in the learning process, and built on our contributions in class after we had presented.
3) I think that they were terribly effective. It has changed the way I read literature now, and I believe that it is by close reading, true, close reading, that I can truly appreciate any text.
Interesting, Wenrui! The rigors of close reading facilitated through seminar discussions led by exacting professors - that's probably the "default" model in most universities, especially if the class sizes are small. The profs assume that if everyone is working hard, doing the readings, competing AND cooperating with one another, then they'd somehow find their own ZPDs in the midst of it all. In other words, each individual finds a way of operating at that most generative zone of comfort+discomfort (do-able but highly challenging).
DeleteIt seems to be, though, that this social constructivist arrangements works best when the students are already self-motivated in this way - or at least previously socialized into being high-achieving students. So were you all a product of a behaviorist mode of learning in the past? Would a cultural-historical analysis of your previous learning activities throughout your schooling careers reveal how you'd all been enculturated into a particular habits of successful learning?
I suppose one reason why some universities (like yours) succeed so well at this is that they are highly selective and prestigious. Would these pedagogical techniques and principles apply to students in an average "neighborhood school" in Singapore?
My most memorable experience was doing a module called 'hybrid shakespeare: with and without chairs.' They got in a professional from the RSC to teach us and we had lessons in a black box rather than in the classroom. In this shared theatrical space, conventional hierarchies (teacher/student) are dismantled to be replaced with the idea, borrowed from the theatre rehearsal room, of the ensemble. We operated democratically as a group of collaborators to investigate Shakespeare’s texts on our feet, in three dimensions. ‘De-throning’ standard academic authority – the academic in the rehearsal room was an authority but not in authority – we worked through experiment, creative offer, and play, taking risks by establishing intellectual, physical, and creative trust. To give an example, we took a chunk of text and replaced each line with a single gesture. As we mutely moved our bodies, we physicalized the character's intentions and motivations, and in that way the character became organic. We would then do a close reading of the text and try and marry the two together. Hybrid Shakespeare was the perfect blend of the literary and the theatrical and students who chose this option for shakespeare studies did just as well as those who opted for the traditional, with chairs approach. Clearly this pedagogical approach is Vgotskian in origin, seeing as Vgotsky argues that human development (higher order functions) develop out of social interaction.
ReplyDeleteHi Priya, discovered this is my exploration today - http://www.wordforward.org/demystifying-shakespeare.html - would this workshop be similar to your RSC experience in bringing Shakespeare to life?
DeletePriya - i like the idea of Hybrid Shakespeare, which seems to be a conjoining of print-based close reading (a traditional literacy practice) and theater-based physicalizations of the text (a form of embodied, performance literacy, if you will). This focus on linking words of thought to the world of action seems analogous to the theory-practice nexus so central to teacher education efforts at NIE.
DeleteWould you (or anyone else here) say that the PGDE, with its dual focus on theory (think of the heavy readings we require for our course) and practice (think of "microteaching" and your eventual school practicum), offers a metonymic extension of "Hybrid Shakespeare"?
There is a sense, too, that this idea of "hybrid" marries the profane and the sacred, the quotidian and the lofty. Are teachers in the democratic business of turning "lofty" pedagogical theory into "everyday" classroom practices? Or is there something much deeper and more "sacred" in the art and science of teaching?
Wen Rui,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the Parisian socio-culture had anything to do with the decision to study only 2 texts per term?
What I mean is... because Parisians come from what Heath, 2005 calls members of the literate society, they can afford to do this? They probably had "bedtime stories" like Saint Exupery's The Little Prince read to them as young children and other habits/ values/ literacy events which help make this type of education possible. The average Singaporean student, however, is not exposed to the same "bedtime stories" (or, any for that matter) as the Parisian student. As such, his bibliography needs to be 'beefed up' by the time he reaches University (and hence, the introduction of 7 texts per module) just so that he is comparable to his Parisian counterpart?
I use my Parisian aunt (who is the equivalent to the heartlander Aunty if she were in Singapore) as an example. She had gone to more plays and art exhibitions than I had been when we spoke during my visit as an undergraduate. She represents the average Parisian (nowhere close to your Sorbonne classmates) who has access to many 'literacy events' (Heath, 2005) in her environment - an environment and a culture that makes the type of education you mentioned possible.
That said, it would be nice to explore texts in the way you described above. I have little doubt that it would be just as (if not more) effective. I thought I'd try to suggest reasons for the different approaches.
Firhana
1) Most of my literature teachers adopted the traditional approach of going through the text chapter by chapter in class. As the teacher spoke, students took notes. The ways in which they talked about the text were engaging but was not entirely memorable. It was actually an external vendor, Julia & Gabriel Speech and Drama Company, that conducted the most memorable lit lesson I've ever had. I was in secondary three that year and the text that we were studying was 'King of the Castle' by Susan Hill. Our instructor got us to sit in a circle and placed an empty box in the middle. We were told that we had to walk to the middle of the circle and to voice our opinions of each character and to support our stance. I thought this pedagogical strategy was great because it helped us to be more confident in terms of making our own opinions and by extension, helped in expressing ourselves in our essay-writing. At the same time, we were also exposed to what our classmates thought about the text and that expanded our perception of the various characters, which helped in giving more depth to our analyses of the characters.
ReplyDelete2) This exercise is definitely grounded in social constructivist theory since we were learning through our experience. Knowledge acquisition is both constructed and conditioned through the input of our classmates. As our ICT lecturer would say - we were learning by doing! By doing so, it helped me to remember the character traits better and I found myself going back to the memory of that class while writing my essay during the exam. It created new schema.
3) Yes, it definitely helped me. As mentioned above, I found myself being able to better remember characteristics about the character.
1) Like Minyi, most of my literature teachers went through the texts chapter by chapter, picking out themes and the like. Literature was never boring to me so I was fine with this approach. Most of my Lit teachers assessed us with a dramatization project for SAs. I remember having to, in our project groups, choose the part of the play we would reenact, choose and make our costumes, memorize our lines, practice, and finally showcase our performance to the class. One criteria was that we had to take the play out of Shakespeare's era. I remember we did the stabbing scene from Julius Caesar with J, B and A as Singaporean ah-bengs. At the end, we were asked by the members of the floor (and the teacher) why we decided to portray the character(s) in whichever way we had chosen. We had to back up our decisions. It was fun!
ReplyDelete2) I would say a mix of humanist, socio-constructivist and socio-cultural theories.
3) This technique was effective in helping us appreciate Lit simply because it gave us a lot of freedom and ownership when it came to our project. We had to do everything by ourselves and we had to know the text fairly well to understand those questions from the floor. Most importantly, we had to understand why the characters did what they did so that we could portray them. Having to bring the story into another era allowed us to exercise our creativity and see how the themes existed outside the story.
1) In secondary school, I remembered that lit lessons during lower sec involved the moving of chairs and tables. We always changed our seating arrangements and my teacher tried to encourage discussion through that. That was what I mainly remembered - a very informal setting. I can't remember the specifics of how she taught. Haha, but in JC, i remembered that it was mainly organized by themes. We read aloud a lot and discussed quotes; and drew from our personal experiences/ interpreted them accordingly.
ReplyDelete2) I think in lower secondary it's more a mix of socio-constructivist and socio-cultural theories since the students study a variety of material and not just one set text so there is it is less memory work and more reader response. There are many local poems/prose which the students will get to study. Thus, it's closer to home and from my contract teaching experience, the students were frequently asked to offer their two cents (since I can hardly remember anything from my sec school days I've to draw on contract teaching).
3) Contextualizing Literature will help students gain more appreciation for the subject. Changing up the seating arrangement will help create a less intimidating environment for discussion and will definitely help elicit more response from students.
Jillyan
I envy many of you here who have had wonderful experiences in your Lit classes in secondary school. Lit classes for me had little joy and they were seen as daunting lessons. I agree with Jillyan that seating arrangement could help in creating a less intimidating environment for discussion. We were still in our rows and isolated as the teacher picked on us for answers when discussing the text,ploughing from chapter to chapter. There was little if not no contextualization in Literature. Maybe this could have been the cause for many to seek refuge in the sciences as we saw little light in literature and a future in the Arts.
ReplyDeleteLiterature classes in secondary school were rather predictable. My teacher would randomly select students to read texts aloud, after which she would explicitly outline various themes and elaborate on them with text citations. But lessons were considerably less teacher-directed in junior college, where we were often given opportunities to express our thoughts, be it verbally during class discussions or through writing tasks. In other words, my teacher in junior college delivered lessons that gave a lot of room for reader-response and creative writing. Class debates about character motivation and textual themes also helped us to form opinions and articulate them accordingly.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of learning theories, most of what my junior college teacher did could be classified under the Humanist approach. For instance, the activities facilitated by my teacher in junior college arguably helped to build our self-efficacy and definitely emphasized literature’s links to our lives. She also respected our voice as students and gave us channels to reflect and express ourselves through writing. To a lesser extent, the Social Constructivist approach was used to, mainly due to the frequent discussions and debates that happened in class.
On hindsight, I would say that I’m thankful to my teacher in junior college for using a Humanist approach, particularly since I didn’t feel engaged during Literature lessons in secondary school. Being able to express my thoughts and opinions about characters and themes from texts made me appreciate Literature much more than I did before entering junior college, and I remember how my teacher always respected our views by giving us enough time to share our ideas with the rest of the class.
Colin
In secondary school, we focused on building literary foundations in textual and disciplinary terms. Before starting on The Merchant of Venice, for instance, we did group projects that helped to contextualised the Elizabethan era--its theatre, dress, social norms, politics, religion, etc. This was definitely important in setting the groundwork for reading Shakespeare. Journalling and media aids (film adaptations) were also significant tools in the Lit classroom. I also distinctly remember the Reduced Shakspeare Company, which the school brought in for their hysterical rendition of Hamlet. That injected so much life into the text, and introduced us to alternative interpretations of Shakespeare (http://www.reducedshakespeare.com/).
ReplyDeleteAnother memorable approach is, ironically, the tried-and-tested strategy of reading aloud, paired with classroom discussion. One of my JC lit tutors has the best storyteller's voice ever, and it was this that got us through Heart of Darkness. The rest of us participated when it came to poetry and plays--we'd have Singlish-sounding Duchesses of Malfi, just for kicks. We ourselves would recite the texts aloud when revising for the exams together--both words and underlying understandings were thus reiterated, with moments of new revelations. In hindsight, the reason why this worked was because reading aloud gave us time and space to relish the text. This was especially useful for rambly texts like Conrad's, or poetry and plays, which are meant to be read aloud in any case. I suppose the most simple tool is sometimes the most effective. (Of course, the context of self-motivated students is important.)
The above approaches are grounded in social constructivist and sociocultural learning theories. The building up of information with one another, and with the expert teacher clearly implies the presence of an active social learner. The recitation strategy may seem to invoke an element of behavioural learning, but this was something that we ourselves embarked on for the purposes of peer learning.
1) The odd thing about my experience of Literature in Secondary School was that my teachers (who were beginning teachers) led by example: I recall that they had to 'fight' for our projects to have a certain weightage in our CA marks so that all our efforts would not be 'wasted' and it sort of made us 'experience' standing up for our right to an argument or opinion. We even acted out R & J, choosing our own roles of character or director etc. and were given full autonomy in such projects despite the HOD/Principal's insistence that we shouldn't be given that much freedom. I think their actions influenced me much more than their lessons per se, which included a lot of close reading and the usual things.
ReplyDelete2) Modelling appeared to be what they were doing, whether intentionally or not, I'm not too sure.
3) Evaluation: It made me the critical thinker I am today. But again, I'm not too sure if they did such things it in such light i.e. to model critical thinking.
1) I wish I had a chance to do Lit like the way Wenrui (when in France) & Priya did. Most of the lessons did not help to internalise or engaged me with the text and their characters as much as I would, in Priya's words "the character became organic". The only memorable one I could think of was when we read Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness and watched it's movie equivalent "Apocalypse Now". I was INTRIGUED to see the parallels and that deepen my enjoyment and understanding of the text at the same go. Apart from that experience, the other times when I enjoy Lit in Uni (nothing memorable from secondary school for me really) was when we "tackle" the essay questions. It really made me dig deep into the text and when things "clicked" and I could support my arguments it was enjoyable too. I could still remember the essays I wrote 9 years ago in Uni but not much of the lessons. Because engagement for me took place with the text rather than in the lessons.
ReplyDelete2) I think it's got Humanist: because students like to "self-actualize" (Maslow), and I enjoyed those 'light bulb' moments when I see the parallels in "HOD" text and "Apocalypse Now".
I think there's also Socio-Cultural because both texts were in very different cultural contexts (Colonial Africa Vs US war in Vietnam) but yet surfaced the same issues about society (power/race).
I think the cultural-historical approach in Gutierrez's article that talks about the characteristics of people is dependent on culture and the characteristics of culture is dependent on people can be used to read HOD.
3) Yes, because it is dynamic and engaging through i) visual (see text comes 'alive' from print to screen), through ii) deeper understanding of the issues in the text when it happens in two different cultures.
In Singapore, I studied Literature only until Sec 2.It was not the pedagogical approaches that were used in class by my Lit teachers that were memorable. In fact, as Colin said it was downright predictable and boring(even though we read interesting texts such as Sing to the Dawn and Red Sky in the Morning)
ReplyDeleteHowever,the school's(Methodist Girls')efforts to help EVEN non-Lit students gain exposure to the subject were remarkable. We were brought to watch the West Side Story musical because the 'O' level students were studying Romeo & Juliet. Though it was irrelevant to non-Lit students, we were not left out as the school wanted to foster an appreciation for poetry, prose and drama. During our post-exam periods, the school would also invite visiting drama troupes from other countries to stage adaptations of famous plays, which taught me the meaning of multiple perspectives in literary analysis. As a student with limited Lit knowledge and background, I remember thinking to myself "Wow, I never knew R&J can ALSO be staged/interpreted like that!"
This form of experiential learning was based upon a combination of social constructivist and humanist theories, where students explored and constructed knowledge through exposure and experience(watching plays as a form of entertainment).
I believe the school's efforts to include everyone in the experiential process was noble and certainly helped to ignite enough interest and curiosity in me that I actually borrowed a copy of R&J from my classmate and attempted to read it! A great start wasn't it??
When I was in Secondary school, the most memorable lesson I had was when my Literature teacher brought us to watch a Shakespearean play after going through the book and movie. We were able to meet the cast after and I was able to understand and appreciate the roles and characters more in-depth.
ReplyDeleteFrom then on, I was more interested in literature, as I was more engaged with the text and appreciated the language. Bringing the text to life is a very good technique to employ for students to engage with the text.
The theory employed here is social cultural, as we engage by directly observing others in context of social interaction and other media influences. This works particularly well, because most of us in this day and age are exposed to a wide range of media, and medial influences our daily interactions, so employing this theory will make learning more natural and engaging.
The most memorable Literature class for me was in JC. My teacher was so eccentric and crazy and it was during a role play class that I saw his passion for the subject. He forced us to push our boundaries when we read our lines and strongly encouraged us to be really crazy with it. It was through this activity that we were able to engage with the characters and find out how these characters are really feeling and what were the authors intentions behind it.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the humanist theory is behind this pedagogical approach as the students have to use their own experiences to the character they are portraying and they are forced to find their own voice/response to the text.
I think that this approach that my teacher used was effective as I got to learn what each character was experiencing through my classmates. It was kind of like watching a play though amateur but it allowed us to individually assess each character and bring different perspectives to the characters throughout different personalities and backgrounds. This sparked my interest in Literature because my teacher made it relatable and accessible for us. This was effective for us at the JC level as we had more periods but for Secondary school students... Hmmm
In sec three I had a teacher that thought it was a good idea to paraphrase shakespeare into something more manageable. My class was a triple science class ( yes I know, ironies of ironies) and I suppose this was meant to make Shakespeare more accessible to these young scientist. (everyone's a scientist nowadays anyways...) I HATED THAT CLASS. Talk about taking the poetry out of Shakespeare.
ReplyDeleteI suppose bloom's taxonomy applies here. Clearly attempting to build the foundation of that pyramid since one cannot expect too much evaluative or creative thinking skills from scientists....
I suppose this is the reason I hate the "Shakespeare Made Easy" versions of Shakespeare's works and why I would NEVER apply this pedagogical approach (if it can even be called that) in class. =p
1) I just always liked literature, which meant that I pretty much took to everything in the classroom. Serious. I've never hated a lit lesson in my life. My 'defining' moment probably was in primary school, when my teacher lent me my first graphic novel...
ReplyDelete2) Analysis: Probably a mixture of humanist/ socio-constructivist. Though I think behind it all was always an element of changing our perceptions and challenging our views of the world.
3) Evaluation: I'm probably not the best person to ask! But not everybody in my classes liked Literature or took well to whatever approach was being practiced at the moment. I remember quite a lot of people griping about the chapter-by-chapter approach as well. Plus, most of us would do the reading in class rather than at home...
1) I read Lord of the Flies n secondary school, and my teacher took my class out of our classroom to the field, and basically made us sit in a circle on the grass, under the sweltering sun, to read the scenes in which the boys killed the sow out loud. Then she talked about the scene of the kill being like a rape, and oddly enough (but interestingly enough, or certainly so to my 16 year old self), about the possibility of pleasure in rape. I am still not sure how that exercise pertains to our understanding of the text, or if it helped me understand those scenes better at all - but it certainly left an impression on me.
ReplyDelete2) I think what my teacher did was basically to try to force us into the right frame of mind, i.e. to make it more possible for us to imagine ourselves as the boys, stuck somewhere out there in the wild, victim to the elements, and thrown together for escapades whether we liked it or not. I would say that her experiment in having us read scenes aloud in the field was somewhat modeled after the behaviorist structure - to basically have us understand and learn through crafting similar experiences, or scenarios for experience.
3)Evaluation: Quite frankly, I have no idea if her experiment worked! It certainly made for an interesting class, but I think what I took away from it are lessons she probably never intended - I doubt she wanted me to remember the feelings of awe and slightly impressed gobsmacked shock that she would introduce the topics of pleasure and rape to us, but hey, remember it I certainly do! So perhaps the experiment was a failure, insofar as it did not accomplish any of her teaching objectives?