Provocation 6
“As we attempt to analyze dialogue as a human phenomenon, we discover something which is the essence of dialogue itself: the word. But the word is more than just an instrument which makes dialogue possible; accordingly, we must seek its constitutive elements. Within the word we find two dimensions, reflection and action, in such radical interaction that if one is sacrificed – even in part –the other immediately suffers. There is no true word that is not at the same time a praxis. Thus, to speak a true word is to transform the world.” (Paulo Freire, 1970, p. 75)
How can we as Literature teachers empower our students to read and write the word/world?
Readings
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed[excerpts]. New York: Continuum.
Apple, M. (1992.) The text and cultural politics. Educational Researcher, 21(7), 4-12.
Liew, W. M. (2012). Valuing the value(s) of literature. Commentary, 21, 57-71. (This is just a quick-and-dirty summary of my take on critical pedagogy through literature. Take it or leave it..;-)
An Arnoldian perspective of literature focuses mainly on the teaching of profound text types which pivots around some of the ‘best works […] that the (western) civilisation had to offer’ (Arnold, 1882). However, most of these supposed high-brow literature might not exactly be applicable to our local student profile as many of them are not exposed to the likes of Chaucer, Keats, Shelley and Derrida in their daily context.
ReplyDeleteThus, it does not come as a surprise that many Singaporeans are endeavouring to pursue other fields of study (like Social Sciences, Business and Engineering) rather than focusing on Language Arts modules in NUS/NTU. To further exacerbate this situation, Poon (2007) argues that government schools are also encouraging students to pursue subjects that ‘they are more likely to [excel] in’ rather than attempting one which does not necessarily reap a desired outcome.
After reading Liew’s (2012) chapter on Valuing the Value(s) of Literature, I concur with his view that ‘the challenge for teachers, […] is to examine and affirm the pedagogical value of literature in relation to the material conditions that shape young people’s lives, aspirations and career pathways’. This is to say that, educators must choose relatable and youth-friendly articles that peak at the interest levels of our students before meaningful learning can take place. For, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that schemas are better elicited when the said subject is familiar to its intended audience.
Another factor which will help literature teachers to cultivate a class of intrinsically motivated students (who are able to infuse real world situations into their written essays), involves them becoming proactive learners who will not only analyse an article critically, but also learn to examine the text based on their own experiences of the central theme (Nussbaum, 1997). Gone are the days where educational institutes preferred rote-learning or didactic teaching as compared to, ‘Dialogic learning’ which asserts that knowledge is best retained through ‘participatory, communal, collaborative’ and self constructed meanings rather than having students to accept whatever is put forward by the teacher (Bruner, 1996).
In the rapidly evolving society that we live in, literature teachers can also empower pupils to read and write about the world by engaging them in ‘controversial issues [which] stimulate critical thinking and self-reflection’, since numerous studies have highlighted the benefits of classroom debates in crystallising key concepts that were explored within the classroom (Ehman, 1969; Johnson, Rogers & Smith, 2000). Therefore, one could argue that there are various methods to encourage students to establish a deeper interest about the world around us. However, one could only determine the most effective strategy through a process of trial and error as every individual’s teaching style differs from the other.
Liew (2012) talks about the need to reexamine English Language as a carrier of culture and ideology, not just a tool for communication, which I think is apt. I think it would actually be appropriate to highlight the role of the English Language teacher. Teaching our students to read and write the world, will first involve us equipping students with the tools to do so. And the most important tool, I argue, is the ability to formulate and articulate a response to the world.
ReplyDeleteFreire, for one, is concerned not only with a critical pedagogy, but a kind of education that brings about literate individuals who can then participate as active citizens. So if our students cannot even master the language, it will be difficult to 'enrage' and 'engage' (Liew 2012) them. bell hooks writes that we need to reclaim this language that is not our own, because language is also a place of struggle (hooks in Prentki & Preston, 2009). I agree that it is more necessary than ever to equip students with the ability to read and write the word, and therefore the world - 'our words [...] are an action, a resistance' (ibid).
We must bring about the understanding that, perhaps by using the language, we are reinforcing the dominant discourses prevalent today. But to also take it further and realise that it is only by fully grasping and reflecting on the language (and the system) that we can then subvert the hegemonic discourse. hooks arms herself with the language (and all the capital/ways of seeing and being in the world that come(s) with it) and writes from the margins, as a form of resistance and experimentation.
And then maybe that's where the Literature teacher steps in, to nurture this resistance, to facilitate a dialogue in the classroom that guides students in changing the world. Princeton in Avenue Q sings of his BA in English: 'I can't pay the bills yet, cos I have no skills yet [...] But somehow I can't shake, the feeling I might make, a difference to the human race'.
I suppose we have to support students in channelling this vague and maybe idealistic feeling of making a difference to a more concrete one. We need to engage students so they can make the link between the world of the text and the world that they live in, are a part of, and can change. Providing provocative questions like the ones Liew (2012) talks about will hopefully arouse debate and stimulate the students.
C'ont
DeleteI further propose diving into drama. Loh talked about Literature as a place for students to imagine new ways of being in the world, and drama will solidify that experience like no other. There was an interesting case of black teenagers from poorer neighbourhoods in London using drama to approach and dissect the experience of 'stop and search' by policemen. Police are free to stop and search anyone they deem suspicious, and most of these searches happen to black youth who may actually be innocent of any criminal activity whatsoever, or who are so fed up of this stereotyping that they decide to submit to it, and engage in criminal behaviour. They acted out various short scenes and analysed their own behaviour, the policemen's behaviour, as well as discussed the unfairness of the stereotyping and the assumptions that are made on both sides. They then re-tried the scenes, with alternate endings (kind of like Boal's Forum Theatre?) that allowed them to experiment in ways that they wouldn't be allowed to in real life.
To conclude, maybe that's where Warren's suggestion of a combined subject may come in? I think he talked about a new subject that encompassed media and Literature. I suppose we could even consider combining Literature with GP. Or even just combine the English Language and the Literature teacher. Because maybe it all boils down to examining and reflecting on ourselves, being able to describe ourselves and our ways of being in the world, and analysing the beliefs we subscribe to. And these texts (whether part of the canon, or the latest Kpop fad) are triggers and also modes of transportation that take us to these other, alternate places that we can consider and differentiate from our own reality?
Be the change you want to see – Gandhi
ReplyDeleteThis is my personal motto that I hope to incorporate into my personal teaching philosophy. Just stating one’s personal teaching philosophy is not enough to become the reflective teacher-practitioner, I now have to find the “how”(what type teaching pedagogies should I adopt?) to match the “who” (my learners). (Tan, et. al, 2009)
So “how” do I empower the “who”? Because I hope to be a social agent of change in the classroom to induce and/or facilitate learning in the classroom, I am in favour of Freire’s dialogic learning and Liew’s critical pedagogic approach to teaching Literature. This part was easy; the challenging bit is deciding how I should go about doing this [especially if the “what” (read: curriculum) has been decided for me].
Because I hope to create critical thinkers and creative problem solvers armed with 21st century competencies, I plan to develop teaching practices with the suggestions/ tips/ ideas in the likes of Smith & Willhelm’s Teaching So It Matters? (2010).
Framing essential questions for the facilitation of ‘good’ dialogue is an excellent tip. Personal inquiry and discovery will be areas I’d like to focus on. Activities such as open-ended projects, personal investigations and lively classroom discussions will take place alongside guided reading and focused tutoring (Tan, et. al, 2009). By having more student ownership of the learning events (Applebee, 1986), coupled with more ‘authentic’ tasks [e.g., getting students to interview the writer, meet the cast of a class excursion play, and even drawing connections to students’ home lives and deepening these experiences in the classroom (Dewey)], I hope that my teaching/ learning objectives would be met.
Too simplistic an approach? Especially in a class of 40 students from the “neighbourhood” school of which some grew up in a “no bedtime stories” home environment?
I will be the change that I want to see.
..tbc...
...con't..
ReplyDeleteEven if the “what” has been decided for my students and I, I can still add on to that “what”. I can read the “bedtime stories” for my students in the classroom. Who’s to say that I cannot share a poem in class for the sake of appreciating it? Who says I cannot pair “Twillight” with Romeo & Juliet (cringe, all you want, but I think that this type of comparing and contrasting of texts gives “attention to (the) social constructedness of language through reflective and reflexive engagement with the text(s)” (Shor, 1999 in Loh, 2009)? I want to create spaces for students to discuss and dialogue. I want them to see the connectedness of their ‘home life’ to that of the new texts that they have been introduced to.
According to Dewey, “education must not be a poor substitute for the genuine reality”. Because I subscribe to his belief, I hope to introduce to the students a variety of perspectives and hope that they experience what Loh calls “tension between the beliefs and perspectives they bring with them and those they meet in the text worlds”. Discussion topics like “Should maids get a day off?” will be asked when studying “The Boy with the Striped Pyjamas”. Showing a video footage of the recent bus accident involving a foreign bus driver and a Singaporean elderly would be used as a trigger for dialogue sessions in the Literature classroom.
If I can sum up how I’d like to empower my students to read and write the word, it would be this: I hope that through my teaching, a student would not give responses like the one below.
“This is not the first time it's a prc driver. Government really need to relook at the immigration policies again.” (actual FaceBook post)
Instead, I hope that my students will be able to “participate in the cut-and-thrust of public debates over sensitive issues” with intellect and ethics (Liew, 2012). I hope to empower them by influencing them to “think and act responsibly as social individuals, global citizens and human beings”. (Liew, 2012).
And now the sales pitch: I’d like to invite all course mates (and tutors?) to help me with a little project called ‘It Starts from My Backyard”. This project is a response to the recent Toy Yi & Woodlands residents’ unhappiness over eldercare facilities being built “in their backyards”. I hope you can help be agents of change by starting something positive in your very own backyard. Simply make a pledge to do something ‘nice’, record it and upload the video. It can be as simple as saying “Hi and Thank You” to our bus-drivers. Here’s the FaceBook link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/It-Starts-from-My-Backyard/134678313239234
Looking forward to seeing your video there! Be the change that you want to see – Ghandi.
PS: I hope to alert the press of this movement once we get some decent numbers from the FB link.
Firhana Alsagoff
This video (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/video/2012/apr/03/ian-mcewan-a-level-set-text-video?newsfeed=true ) on Ian Mcewan talking about how his son got a very low mark for an essay on his book “Enduring Love”, which is his A level set text, got me thinking. If a student does not do well in his essay despite receiving help from the author of the book himself, what does it all mean for Literature and Literature studies?
ReplyDeleteLiew (2012) argues that dialogic learning can communally and collaboratively construct meaning. He also highlights using critical pedagogy to strengthen democracy the classroom as avenue for political intervention. I agree to some extent but part of me thinks that this view, while justified, too extreme for me personally. It seems that there is a strong undercurrent (or assumption) that something is wrong with our society and some definite change needs to happen. I think the more pressing question is if the students are aware of these ideas and concerns at all. One of the problems that I think may arise is if pedagogy gets too critical, we may in turn breed a community of malcontents; it is dangerous to be too easily satisfied with the status quo, but at the same time, it is also all too easy to indiscriminately discontented. I advocate a more moderate version of critical pedagogy.
This is not to say that I disagree with Liew (2012). I agree that Literature has to be made relevant and to some extent, critical. Literature (as with all forms of art) is a way of expressing one’s beliefs and can be used to incite social change, to empower and emancipate shackled individuals. The onus is on the teacher to ask the relevant questions, like what Liew (2102) mentions, and to bridge the gap between fiction, the real-world and universal human concerns. After all, a literature class is the one time students and teachers get to talk, and we can engage in a dialogue about these prevailing issues. I think the concept of Wittgenstein’s notion of “language games” is applicable here. We make different moves – personal moves – when we use language (or the word) in the world; the recipient(s) (of our talk / writing) also make their moves in reply, and then we make ours again. This is when words have meaning. This constant move-making can be extended into other domains (e.g. when Catherine Lim writes anti-establishment non-fictional pieces, she makes her move in the language game, and reactions from her recipients form the next move, and so on.)
So going back to the video: it definitely does not mean that getting guidance from the author of the book will help the student write a good essay. It is important to have a personal voice, and not a voice that is but a mimicry of someone else’s opinions. That is how we play the game. To develop a personal voice, students and teachers need to talk, and keep talking. To do that, I think the most important step is to show the students that there is no right answer so long as they can justify their interpretations of any text. I was taught that in secondary school, and to date, I think I still subscribe to that. It is when students are second-guessing what the “correct” answer is that they effectively censor themselves. Admittedly, the teachers do the same thing (e.g. What is Cambridge looking for?). Thus, the first step would be to break free of these fetters and adopt an extreme post-structuralist view: any interpretation is possible. As teachers, we should not be close-minded because as we all know by now, teacher modeling is important. We do not want students to grow into provincial and parochial citizens in an otherwise cosmopolitan Singapore. They can be active social agents like the ones Freire (1970) advocates. Therefore, we should start by asking our students the essential questions, the relevant questions. That is how we start by being more inclusive and more critical, and perhaps that may in turn pave the road to change.
I think we can only try.
ReplyDeleteWith reference to Heraclitus, he notes that "logos" (which I do suppose to be what the "word" in our last provocation refers to), can never be fully apprehended by human beings, no matter how hard we try. Although there is still doubt as to what Heraclitus was referring to when he said that, I think that the application of this idea to our state is an appropriate one.
Inasmuch as we can try to empower our students to read and write the word/world, there is no real way in which we can do that for them. What is the word? What is the world? In fact, the latter is changing so much that we as teachers are teaching and readying students for a world where its future and development is unknown, let alone certain.
At best, even if we do succeed in empowering them to read and write the word/world, it will only be through jaundiced lens.
As Literature teachers, we can empower our students to participate in the word by making it accessible and relevant to them.
ReplyDeleteLiew (2012)mentioned that "a cardinal objective of Literature education is to promote critical and independent thinking" with the ambition (regardless if it is achievable or not in the context of Singapore) of penetrating "the fabrication of politics." While Liew (2012) rightly points out that Singaporeans are participating more actively in public debate as seen by the "surge of online activism during the General Elections in May 2011", there have also been reports that many young Singaporeans remain politically apathetic, suggesting that there is a need to look into the demographics of those who were involved in the online activism (Article: http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20110402-271495.html)
So how can we push our students in the direction of thinking about the status quo with the aim of getting them to question, if not challenge it, if our students do not really care what goes on? There is a need, as mentioned by Smith and Wilhelm (2010) to show a connection between the "schoolish and the toolish, between school and their lived experience in the world." As teachers, we need to not only make our students aware of the status quo and it's accompanying problems, we also need to make our students care enough about it to want to contribute to change. We have to make it relevant to them.
Taking it a step further. Since the word, according to Freire (1970)includes "two dimensions, reflection and action", it is not enough for teachers to sit in the classroom and engage in critical questioning (about the status quo and social problems) and encouraging reflection. Teachers also need to lead students in action or to show students the way, after all word without action is "changed into idle chatter, into verbalism" (Freire, 1970).
As Wen Rui has so aptly phrased it, we can only try to do this--but try we can. If reflection is pertinent to the process of reading and writing the word/world, it must be important to employ relevant texts as beacons (of Light?). So I echo Marli in highlighting the relevance of what we teach. One strategy that I can think of is to step away from the literature that we so love--be it Milton, Shakespeare or Baudelaire--and dive into material that better resonates with our students. I am returning to the much-treaded (and dreaded) realm of text choices, but this is undoubtedly one of the most fundamental choices that we can make.
ReplyDeleteIt is perhaps instructive to dwell on Freire's phrase of "emancipatory literacy", and to consider how "literacy programs [should be] rooted in an emancipatory ideology, where readers become 'subjects' rather than mere 'objects'". He suggests that the vernacular is crucial in this process, and that literature can only be emancipatory if it is conducted in the language of the people. Certainly, we are doing more of that in the classroom, with poems like Arthur Yap's "2 mothers in a h d b playground". What I would like to highlight, though, is that we often stop at the novelty of it all. Beyond considering the thematic aspects of Singlish-speaking tiger moms, there is a whole lot more that can and must be articulated. Furthermore, the use of vernacular is also limited to reading, but not writing in the literature classroom. This surely reduces students to objects, rather than subjects of Freire's preference.
With regards to questioning and pushing our students, I think structured, focused projects such as Firhana's "It starts from my backyard" are great starting points. Of course, the link between reading and writing, and between literature and the real world, has to be made explicit. This kind of scaffolding (hurrah Vygtosky) must be implemented for the tender young ones, who can reach great heights with assistance. The idea is to get them thinking and reflecting on current issues that are close to home, and to marry literature with local concerns, in the vein of liberal-humanist concerns.
One last thought: we harp on about inquiry-based learning in History, and there's no reason why this should not be extended to Literature. If we want our students to construct knowledge and "name their world", inquiries must rule our strategies. Onward, thinking subjects!
(Quotes from http://newlearningonline.com/literacies/chapter-6-critical-literacies/freire-and-macedo-on-emancipatory-literacy/)
At last having finished the accursed essay from another class that shall remained unnamed, here I am, with promises to keep and (figurative) miles to go before I sleep...
ReplyDeleteKudos for making me look up Praxis, a term that I had not encountered outside of role-playing games.
As I read Freire's comment, I am reminded of the scientists that sought to split the atom. The physical world was long known to be built upon the atom, called thus by the Greeks as they thought it indivisible. And Lo! the atom was split.
So Freire casts his gaze upon dialogue, finds within it the word, and seeks to split it to find its constitutive elements, even though he acknowledges that to do so would sacrifice either reflection or action.
I venture to suggest that like atomos, splitting logos is fraught with peril. The word gives shape to thought itself; without language and speech, it is hard to progress beyond the most concrete of thought-concepts. This is proven by research done on children who are born deaf and mute.
To address the question, what does it mean to write the word? What does it mean to read the world? I think as teachers we need not go far. Within every student is thought and emotion, reflection and potential for action; as the constitutive elements are there, teachers need only to give voice to the students' logoi.
A literary education is not simply the Arnoldian transmission of the accumulated knowledge of human nature and wisdom (though this is vitally important; ask the Inca how they got so easily tricked by Francisco Pizarro!). Ideally, a literary education uses the great works of the classical canon as models, the works of contemporary local writers as sources of identity, and encourages creation.
But this is no so in Singapore or much of the world for that matter. Creative writing belongs to EL, not Lit. This has always puzzled me.
So no, I don't actually have an answer to the questions that were stated rather sweepingly. We know how we can empower students, but their empowerment is subordinate to their training as future economic cogs.
How can we as Literature teachers empower our students to read and write the word/world?
ReplyDeleteI am not really a fan of using the big word - "world". What does it mean to read and write the world? As Literature teachers, yes probably we can empower our students to read and write the "word" which they are studying/will be studying/have studied, but the "world" seems like a bigger responsibility altogether. Perhaps we could substitute "world" with "broader perspective, broader world VIEWS etc"?
Having read the article, Liew (2012) mentioned that it is no longer possible for English teachers to regard the English Language as simply as tool of communication, and we need students to understand how the English Language operates through all kinds of texts ... as a carrier of culture, identity and ideology. Yes, this I agree, but while we no longer regard EL as SIMPLY a tool of communication, have we gone a little bit too far with not regarding it AT ALL as a tool of communication? Many students these days without that strong an affinity with the language are probably unable to churn out an essay which effectively expresses their thoughts because they haven't been taught to do so. And I'm talking about Literature students here. It is not just the society who perceives Literature as something airy fairy fluffy buffy, sometimes Literature teachers themselves are unable to conduct a lesson for a class of Literature students who are not yet very well-versed in expressing themselves.
Yes, I also agree with Tharman (2005) that we should not groom by merely providing facts, and I also do agree with questioning skills do stimulate critical thinking, self-reflection, promote productive conflict yada yada, but what frustrates me is that some teachers out there try to promote this even before equipping the poor students with any skills.
In my humble opinion, this questioning technique is probably applicable only to students of higher ability. It would be a futile attempt if one steps into a class with not much general knowledge, not much textbook knowledge, not much of knowledge in general and starts asking questions with totally obvious answers - do we consider that as purpose defeated?
I feel that as Literature teachers, even before we engage any fancy pedagogy in the classroom, it is imperative for us to understand what our students know. Questioning is a good idea, but that must come after understanding. Understanding need not include anything too critical, just understanding the basics is enough for effective questioning. To empower our students to read and write the word/world, shouldn't we be trying to trigger their interest first before anything else? And as Marli aptly put, we can do so by making it relevant and accessible to them. Understand what they know, what they want to know, and start building a unique pedagogy for each Literature class based on their ability and profile. We empower them with critical thinking skills only after they have gotten the basic facts right. With such skills, they are free to read and write the word/world.