When we talk about ”good writing” for the English Language paper (my CS2), it seems that the need to produce grammatically clean essays supersedes the demonstration of content knowledge. This is especially evident as schools come to terms with the EL Syllabus 2010, which introduces expository writing as a core skill in the free writing component.
In my practicum school, this quandary was often surfaced during standardisation meetings - while some teachers are of the belief that content mastery should be given the same importance as its articulation, others felt that the English Language subject should strive to produce error free sentences and syntaxes; flow and logic, as well as argumentative capacity were secondary concerns.
Cohen however points out that literary writing should be an articulation of 'interpretation' (p29) which he suggests, requires a 'statement of purpose'. Hence it is imperative in literary writing to demonstrate mastery of content, without which a meaningful interpretation would not be possible. If we were to adopt a solely utilitarian approach, the O-level marking guide for literature grades students on writing that has 'bearing' to the text; hence conversely emphasising the need for argumentative capacity.
Of course in a perfect world we would like students to combine both the interpretative skill with language ability, and I think this is where we as teachers come in. I have seen students who display sensitivity to the text and are able to demonstrate this verbally, but are unfortunately unable to produce sentences in writing that sufficiently appropriates these thoughts. It is in my opinion a teachable skill, but one that will only manifest itself through much practice and rigour.
Good writing in Literature is generally taken (in my school) to be writing which is clear and concise in making their argument. Grammar mastery is secondary to understanding of the text insofar as the points being made can be understood and demonstrate overall coherence. However, issues have arisen over interpretation and question-answering 'technique' during standardisation exercises, though the range of marks still often remain in the same band. My school is also trying to move towards differentiating the existing rubric for different secondary levels--what is therefore 'good' writing in Secondary 1 may not be the case in Secondary 4--based on the depth of understanding and ability to express a viewpoint on the text.
In English Language, the emphasis is equally on grammatical correctness and content in the classroom. However, in the existing examination rubric, grammar is the primary focus. The ability to organise and present information in a logical manner was of a lesser importance.
There are some problems seeing the requirements for Lit and Eng as being mutually exclusive. I shall only talk about two here, in the interest of brevity. The first has to do with the ability to read sensitively and respond to the nuances in the text. How does one do that exactly if one does not have the vocabulary to do so? Most of the Lit essays that I think deserve to pass do not go beyond the 13-15 range because the answers are simply banal. ‘Sophie is scared because David is a stranger’. No Sophie is not scared; she is hesitant, tentative, unwilling to put her trust in someone whom she knows nothing about. In fact she wants to play with David with every fibre of her being! The use of the word ‘scared’ here is practically tantamount to a misreading. In this case, being able to choose words that have the appropriate shade is necessary for good Literature and English writing. Imagine if you a will, a child with a limited vocab writing a formal letter of complaint: ‘Your service is horrible and I am very angry with what your waiter did to me’. This letter will naturally be far less successful (both in school and in life) than one that writes ‘My experience in your restaurant has been a disheartening one and it is my hope that you will take the appropriate steps to rectify the situation’.
The second point I want to talk about has to do with PEEP and its various permutations. As long as a Lit essay adheres to PEEP, it’s fine, we’re all ok. Hmmm. I’m now going to unexpectedly use a football metaphor. Manchester United, a team at the top of the table, will be far more successful at using the 4-4-2 formation than Blackpool FC would be when using the same formation. Manchester United, very simply, is a better team, with more skilled players who can create more advantages for themselves using the formation than Blackpool ever could. Similarly, a more thoughtful writer who can really understand and utilize the flow from Point to Evidence to Elaboration etc. will write a better essay than one who uses the structure in a clumsy and awkward manner. Just like in an argumentative essay for English, responses come across more convincingly if there is a logical sequence to them ideas that flow are also ideas that are developed and elaborated upon, making them well-fleshed out and substantial.
Indeed, we cannot judge a Lit essay in terms of its grammatical correctness, but I maintain that Literature assessment is a close cousin of English, particularly when it comes to the communication of ideas. It simply does not matter how good my students’ ideas in class are; if they cannot pen them down in an engaging and logical manner, their ideas do not count for anything. Doing so requires the dexterous use of language, ie English.
I do wonder…it is clear that Literature needs English. Does English need Literature?
I think setting the limiter "in literature" or "in english" forces my response in a direction that I honestly have no regard for. Perhaps we should examine "what is good writing" instead, whether it be for literature, english or even a blog post. I cannot help but feel like the manner in which we currently insist on structure and form skews our perception of writing itself. If we were to use this current lens to critique Derrida and Deleuze, would we be bold enough to conclude that their writing is then rubbish? And if our answer "of course not" then why do we still insist on these outmoded requirements?
I wonder if perhaps we should turn from looking at how people write, to how we judge writing. Move away from insisting on particular facets within an essay to giving teachers more leeway in accepting different styles of writing. That being said, of course the bedrock of any form of writing is that it is an attempt at communication, thus fundamentals like grammar, spelling, presentation of ideas and understanding its target audience, are all non-negotiable. The areas in which we can loosen our grip on is perhaps the structure and style in which we expect essays to be written. Even if an essay were to take on the style of simple musing, I don't see why it should be considered "unacademic" and "unacceptable" when Baudrillard and Spivak (and who would ever dare assault these two as "unacademic"?) write in in whatever fashion they fancy?
I want a Singaporean Spivak, I'd really love a Singaporean Derrida. So let's make room (PREPARE YE THE WAY I SAY) for the advent of these home grown writers.
Inasmuch as it is essential that students possess adequate understanding and appropriate analysis/interpretation of the text, writing essays in literature demands a degree of perceptiveness and the display of personal engagement of the reader with the text/ characters/ author.
What a person reads of a text says more about the reader than of the text in itself. Personal insight/ astuteness is certainly not necessitated in expository/ argumentative writing in English.
Cohen seems to emphasize the importance of 'theme idea'; perhaps what is elemental to good lit essay-writing is the unity of ideas- coming up with a central thesis based on the patterns identified in the process of interpretation. Organization and coherence is also critical to a good English Language essay, however the process of writing a lit essay appears to be of a more 'bottom-up' than 'top-down' approach.
Writing lit essays definitely demands flexibility, as the unseen component is a true test of the writer's ability to READ and offer practical criticism of the text (hopefully) without prior knowledge of the text beforehand.
As a student who formally studied literature only at the 'A' levels, I would say that the biggest challenge was to articulate opinions with clarity and simplicity.
English has little to do with it. Just as getting As in English didn't mean that I would have no problems articulating the rules of grammar, being able to read a novel/ write narrative essays did not translate to abilities in interpreting a text through writing. Wherein English Language demands the precision and exactness of words for the purposes of clarity in communication, Literature strives to explore the boundaries of words to encompass expression in aesthetic form. The correlation between English Lang and English Lit is complicated and complex, though admittedly a complementary one. They are both inter-dependent yet somewhat antithetical to each other at the same time- one can take things at a purely literal level; yet, once language is habitually read figuratively, reading superficially and 'at-the-surface' becomes somewhat impossible.
Perhaps to unify and organize thought to address the question with a personal, logical, and coherent argument without excessive rambling is the true test of a writer's ability to read.
I think good writing, as far as Literature is concerned, is writing centered and structured around a clear, cogent argument, with paragraphs of evidence and explanation to back up this argument. I know many schools have students introducing new ideas in every new paragraph, so that the essay comes up to perhaps three to four mini-arguments in individual paragraphs. The PEE/PEEL structure taught in secondary school also seems to work around this structure - my personal experience tells me that students have this method of introducing multiple mini-arguments easier to cope with, but I think that having a clear, overarching argument/thesis is best, and coaches students to develop their thinking on a more insightful level, and to better (and more intrinsically, hence, picking up the skill in the long term) organize their thoughts and expression.
The practise of good essay writing skills is a common struggle for most students who are pursuing Literature at an upper secondary level. The notion of having to furnish an academically sound argument and to structure one’s writing in a coherent manner proves to be the bane of many students’ existence. Most often than not, they are fully capable of vocalising their thoughts when asked to verbally explain questions that are posed in class. However, this same ability to think critically and produce spontaneous responses does not get translated into tangible products which showcase the vast amount of knowledge that has been retained from previous sessions.
Perhaps, the reason why a significant number of students are unable to transcribe their cognitive processors into words stems from the very fact that they have difficulty expressing personal opinions into plain, simple English. Thus, it might be a good idea for educators to incorporate key persuasive terms into their essay writing lessons to foster a deeper connection between pupils and the study of argumentative writing. Yes, I do understand that this proposition is a little unorthodox, and most lit majors might even cringe at the idea of amalgamating two distinct fields into one. But, without the necessary language skills to aid our students at producing essays which are acceptable for their ‘O’ Levels, how could we expect them to achieve greater heights in Pre-University?
According to the Band Descriptors for Set Text Questions (retrieved from 2014/2013, ‘O’ Level Literature Exam – SEAB) it’s stated that students must identify ‘discriminating selection of textual details’ by paying close attention to the ‘terms of the question’ and, displaying a ‘consistent viewpoint with appropriate substantiation.’ Even though, these factors should already be ingrained into our pupils (before they decide to embark on literature as an upper secondary subject). I have observed during my ESE and practicum experience that, quite a number of students are still weak at linking their initial points back to the essay question. Besides this, there are also those who could identify many pertinent points, but are either too lazy or wholly oblivious to the PEEL/PEEP format for essay writing.
I personally believe that the fundamental principle of justifying points with strong evidences/elaborations is what makes the crafting of literary passages such an arduous task for most secondary school pupils. Unlike, English compositional writings, where the main emphasis is placed upon the demonstration and mastery of effective grammatical and sentence syntax usage. Literary essay writing on the other hand encompasses many subtle aspects (such as the study of figurative language, literary devices, characterisations, themes, plot/sub-plot,) which makes it all the more challenging for budding writers who don’t possess the required schemas to procure commendable results. Therefore, I do agree with Priya’s notion that the assessment of literature is a ‘close cousin of English’. However, it would be impossible to juxtapose the assessment criterion of these subjects on an equal plane, since they are as dissimilar as say… apples and oranges.
Chapter 5 of Cohen’s work is devoted to “Organization”, of which is pivotal in English Lit and English Language. In fact, good organization helps to direct the flow of one’s essay, and the reader will be able to understand what one is trying to say, and the basis for one’s arguments in a quicker fashion. I feel that no matter which essay-based subject one is teaching, teachers would definitely try to teach students the structure of an essay, which essentially is organization, and this helps contribute to “good writing”.
However, I think one huge difference in both my CS is the point on analysis of content. In English Lang, students are not required to analyse an author’s intention or the techniques employed in a piece of comprehension, whereas Lit seems to make meaning of the text and to look at it both holistically and in depth. With specific reference to pg 53 of Cohen’s article, he compares the “superficial” student with the “perceptive” student, which I agree that we as Lit teachers are looking out for. I do push and remind my students to be creative and come out with an answer that is different from others, yet with justification from the text, as this will definitely set their answer apart from the rest of the level/class. Also, if we were to look at Band 1 of the band descriptors for Lit (2013-2014 ‘O’ level syllabus), students are required to produce a “sensitive and informed personal response”, as well as “demonstrate a freshness of insight”. However, insight is insight, you either have it or you don’t, and it is hard to train wannabe Lit students (sorry for lack of a better word) how to produce insight. I struggle teaching that as well, but I am also not sure if it can be taught…? Furthermore, like what Priya has mentioned, it is greatly beneficial if the student has a good vocabulary, so that it does not seem that his analysis is “oversimplified” (54). Language, if anything, helps to create an illusion of depth and understanding, which I feel may be pretty misleading at times.
With Esther, I agree that having good argumentative writing techniques like PEE/PEEL help organise students' thoughts, however, like Ian mentioned, it may encumber original insight into a text or a question. I believe that we need different processes for different things: PEE/L or whichever writing techniques and essentials for good writing, and critical thinking for good insight. Both, I think, are impossible to go on without. Certainly, in English exams too, structure and organisation in paragraphs are important aspects of writing, but so are creativity and insight.
During my Practicum, one of the biggest problems that students have in writing whether in English or in English Literature, which I notice, is the ability to come up with original and inventive ideas/POVs. PEE/L is easily replicable, but not critical thinking.
The first thought that I had was how my Lit CT told me that when they marked literature essays, they weren't marking for grammar, spelling, nor punctuation. What they looked out for was depth of analysis, how well the students have critiqued the text that they have at hand.
No doubt that such technicalities of the English language are necessary for the composition of a coherent and clear literature essay, I agree that at the secondary level, "good writing" is, quite simply, a good analysis of the text. What happens here is that "good writing" is really a reflection of a good mind, and whether it can be displayed clearly enough for everyone to read (So what happens to people with autism, unable to convey their thoughts to others because of their social impairment? But that's an argument for another day).
At the very least, I think that organisation can be introduced and forced upon students in their writing of essays, never mind bad grammar and spelling, that that sort of organisation will allow us teachers, in our marking, to see the proper flow of their thoughts.
These are some of my takeaways from the Literature seminar I attended yesterday.
1) Good writing in Literature offers personal responses that are sensitive, informed and explicit.
2)Good writing in Literature displays "freshness of insight", provides multiple perspectives and demonstrates critical understanding/appreciation of larger issues.
3)Assessment of good writing in Literature focuses on content rather than language. Language errors will not be penalised as long as they do not mar the clarity of expression.
This is contrary to writing in English where the application of correct language skills are the main focus of assessment. Also, writing in English rarely invites personal responses and does not provide much scope for students to discuss and analyse broader social/moral issues. During yesterday's workshop I also realised that assessment of writing in Literature seems to be less harsh and stringent than that of writing in English.
We took a look at an 'O' level sample script of a set text response based on The Crucible that SERIOUSLY went off tangent. The question asked whether Abigail's judgement of Elizabeth as "a cold snivelling woman" was fair. The student rambled on and on about women's insecurities in general. If I had been marking this script in school, I would have given it a single digit. However, to the shock of most of the teachers there, the trainer said it warranted a mark of between 12-14. It made me wonder whether Lit students who are unprepared for their exams might just be able to get away with 'anyhow whack only' writing.
Cohen mentions ‘misreading of details’ that jeapordizes a part of students’ essay, and this is something that has been greatly emphasized in my CS2 (Social Studies). Good writing for SS focuses on students’ ability to interpret and answer the question correctly, without merely regurgitating the facts that they have memorized. This echoes with Cohen’s view of good writing in which “details should be subordinated to the framework, used as evidence and materials to be analyzed”, instead of dominating the essay.
Good writing in Lit, I believe should focus on clarity and depth of expression. My experience of teaching Lang Arts made me realize that producing original views and opinions can be a real challenge for students who are still grappling with sentence structure. I very much agree with Fiza that PEEL is not critical thinking, but at least it seems to have provided some confidence to my sec one kids as they embark on their essay writing process.
There is some overlap as to what makes good writing in Literature and English Language (especially, expository essays?). Both require a clear statement of purpose, some good note-taking on the students’ part (eg. when they analyse key words in the question and the creation of essay outlines), brainstorming, outlining of essays, re-drafting and editing. In fact, some of the 5 steps to good literature writing bear some semblance to Seow’s process-writing (the Bible for our writing component in QCE520 during the first semester).
In good literature writing, Cohen recommends that the theme idea shaped in an orderly way – i.e. logically and effectively arranged. Next, the student must select representations from the book to support this general theme of idea. He must also expand and interpret the passages and details that he uses. He must avoid a series of sweeping statements - not merely creating categories - but sort details in each one….all of which are captured in the current rubrics Literature teachers use religiously when assessing students.
Yet, there is one part that is not so easy to assess. It is what Cohen calls “the mechanics of style”. Have you come across that essay that does not follow the PEEL structure, one that does not state theme idea in the first sentence of the first paragraph but reserves it for some other climatic position? You know it’s good writing but you cannot match the student’s essay neatly to any one “band” from the marking rubrics. And then, there’s one essay that would be riddled with grammatical mistakes but offers a great thematic idea and has just the right balance of generalisation and narrowness! You want to credit this student with a better grade but you cannot because you have to abide strictly to the marking rubrics.
As if those are not enough challenges for us to come up with a common checklist of what makes good literature writing, there’s the new Literature syllabus 2013 with its new KSD. How do I assess students’ dispositions in their writing?
Although there are similarities between assessing English composition and Literature essays, I think it’s easier to assess good writing in English Language rather because it is a skills-based subject.
The criteria for good writing in Literature is mostly concerned with content, argument and analysis. It is "higher order" and i feel that it is good to train students to think critically and form their own opinions as well as acknowledge other opinions. I agree with Joel's comment on Cohen's paper that 'it is imperative in literary writing to demonstrate mastery of content, without which a meaningful interpretation would not be possible.' I understand Deeba's concerns that students may think they can get away with writing nonsense but it should be made clear to students that they must always critically form their own opinions and acknowledge others which is not possible without mastery of content. Good writing in Literature must be holistically understand and critique texts.
Good writing in English Language is only slightly different as students final marks are often divided into two components: Language and Content. Content often takes up 15 marks and Language only 10 marks. To digress slightly, if Literature does not focus on Language and English focuses less on language, who is teaching our kids English Language? Back to the point, the new EL syllabus seeks to integrate some traditionally "literature" components such as opinion-questions and critique-questions. Good writing in English requires students to show both accuracy of language and mastery of content.
The difference is not that big when it comes to writing but teaching both subjects is starkly different.
In my school, good writing in literature was considered to be writing in which the student was clearly able to articulate what he or she wants to say. I taught at the secondary 2 level and the students followed the PEEL structure. What surfaced during the benchmarking sessions was the fact that the stress was not on providing evidence, but on the points and the elaboration. There was no under marking because of faulty grammar as long as the overall meaning of the sentence was conveyed in a coherent manner. The emphasis was on the point and how well the student is able to elaborate keeping in mind the main idea. As mentioned by Cohen ‘the theme idea’ was given much emphasis. Interpretation was also emphasised as students who could present creative viewpoints were encouraged. Cohen says that the ‘right words/syntax’ is supposed to be used; however this was not practiced in my school. The principles of teaching and learning literature as mapped out in the new 2013 syllabus, such as personal engagement and critical appreciation are not as important in my school as drawing meaningful connections, specifically using the PEEL technique.
I think good writing in Literature is one in which the student is able to communicate their analysis of the text effectively as well as being able to include their own personal response to the text coherently. This can be done through providing them with structures such as PEE/PEEL to guide their writing. However, I do agree with the others who have said that it stifles their creativity. It does bring to mind the ability of the students. At Marsiling Secondary, even when we allow them to write a personal response in whichever way they wanted, and these were sec 1s, they were unable to write an effective paragraph that was able to communicate what they wanted to say. Those that were able to, used the PEEL structure which the literature dept had not taught but the English and History teachers have. The students in that school were unable to even respond to the text or derive a theme from the text. With these basic Literary skills lacking, it became an even tougher job trying to get them to have good writing.
As for the structure for teaching Good writing in History, we use the PEEL structure too and students do really well for that. They are able to communicate their analysis effectively for History essays. I think that it is somehow easier to present a factual essay as compared to a Literature essay which requires one to have the ability to really work their personal response into the essay whereas for History, as long as they have the facts and the paragraph is organised in a coherent manner, the get the mark. One crucial thing that differs is the way good writing is marked in History and Literature. There is more room for creativity in good writing in Literature compared to History but are most students in the 'hood' able to be express their creativity in Literature though they lack language ability and most importantly the skills? That is the dilemma we face at Marsiling Sec.
Good writing in literature from a student’s point of view is being able to express your views in a coherent and convincing manner, using evidence to prove your point. I think that writing in literature requires students to think critically and come up with points that are relevant to the question. Although students are to think critically and organize their answers in a way that fully explains their reasoning with evidence, there is not as much room for creativity, compared to English language writing. In English Language, students are usually given a topic and students create their own narrative, story, description or arguments. Writing a good English essay requires more creativity than critical thinking, because you need to come up with ideas based on your own life experiences and exposure to certain topics. There is also no need to follow the PEEL format when it comes to English. The basic structure in a good essay is having an introduction/orientation, body and conclusion. Although literature essays require this format as well, there is a need to have evidence that is related to the text and a link at the end to tie up all your points of critical analysis.
A piece of good writing in my practicum school would mean being able to produce a thorough analysis in a PEEL essay. My CT placed a lot of emphasis on whether the relevance between the point, evidence and elaboration. Many students are not able to provide elaboration links back to their point. This is basically the criteria to assess good writing for students with average abilities in the Lower Secondary level. The teachers expect students with higher abilities to use the theme idea approach (Cohen, 1963) where students are expected to be able to “ develop a coherent and meaningful thesis” (Cohen, 1963) in the essay. In comparison to writing in English, students are expected to have a clear topic sentence in each paragraph followed by supporting details. This is similar to writing in PEEL as students are expected to support each point with a relevant piece of evidence. However, it seems that the teachers does not place too much emphasis on the transitions between paragraphs. Coehn ( 1963) states that the tie between paragraphs can be made by “ relating the topic sentence or the first few sentences at the beginning of each new paragraph to the preceding paragraph or to the theme idea” .
In TKGS, we were told to not mark students down for grammar and spelling in Literature tests/ exams as long as we can make out what they were trying to say. Thus, a piece of writing that conveys a relatively logical reasoning can be an example of good writing.
Despite having a whole-school PEEL approach, the Sec 2s were unable to comprehend the structure and their essays were a complete mess. I realised that they were unfamiliar with things like thesis statements and topic sentences because they were not exposed to argumentative essays.
To me, although it is true that following a structure may limit the students in terms of creativity in their writing, I think it is essential for them to first learn the basics of writing a coherent essay before venturing into creativity. In TKGS, we were told to not mark students down for grammar and spelling in Literature tests/ exams as long as we can make out what they were trying to say. Thus, a piece of writing that conveys a relatively logical reasoning can be an example of good writing.
Despite having a whole-school PEEL approach, the Sec 2s were unable to comprehend the structure and their essays were a complete mess. I realised that they were unfamiliar with things like thesis statements and topic sentences because they were not exposed to argumentative essays.
To me, although it is true that following a structure may limit the students in terms of creativity in their writing, I think it is essential for them to first learn the basics of writing a coherent essay before venturing into creativity. In TKGS, we were told to not mark students down for grammar and spelling in Literature tests/ exams as long as we can make out what they were trying to say. Thus, a piece of writing that conveys a relatively logical reasoning can be an example of good writing.
Despite having a whole-school PEEL approach, the Sec 2s were unable to comprehend the structure and their essays were a complete mess. I realised that they were unfamiliar with things like thesis statements and topic sentences because they were not exposed to argumentative essays.
To me, although it is true that following a structure may limit the students in terms of creativity in their writing, I think it is essential for them to first learn the basics of writing a coherent essay before venturing into creativity.
In arrangement to wage you with the highest storey of tableware in essay penning, ProfEssays.com employs only skilful donnish writers to use on your assigning. narrative essay thesis statement
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen we talk about ”good writing” for the English Language paper (my CS2), it seems that the need to produce grammatically clean essays supersedes the demonstration of content knowledge. This is especially evident as schools come to terms with the EL Syllabus 2010, which introduces expository writing as a core skill in the free writing component.
ReplyDeleteIn my practicum school, this quandary was often surfaced during standardisation meetings - while some teachers are of the belief that content mastery should be given the same importance as its articulation, others felt that the English Language subject should strive to produce error free sentences and syntaxes; flow and logic, as well as argumentative capacity were secondary concerns.
Cohen however points out that literary writing should be an articulation of 'interpretation' (p29) which he suggests, requires a 'statement of purpose'. Hence it is imperative in literary writing to demonstrate mastery of content, without which a meaningful interpretation would not be possible. If we were to adopt a solely utilitarian approach, the O-level marking guide for literature grades students on writing that has 'bearing' to the text; hence conversely emphasising the need for argumentative capacity.
Of course in a perfect world we would like students to combine both the interpretative skill with language ability, and I think this is where we as teachers come in. I have seen students who display sensitivity to the text and are able to demonstrate this verbally, but are unfortunately unable to produce sentences in writing that sufficiently appropriates these thoughts. It is in my opinion a teachable skill, but one that will only manifest itself through much practice and rigour.
Good writing in Literature is generally taken (in my school) to be writing which is clear and concise in making their argument. Grammar mastery is secondary to understanding of the text insofar as the points being made can be understood and demonstrate overall coherence. However, issues have arisen over interpretation and question-answering 'technique' during standardisation exercises, though the range of marks still often remain in the same band. My school is also trying to move towards differentiating the existing rubric for different secondary levels--what is therefore 'good' writing in Secondary 1 may not be the case in Secondary 4--based on the depth of understanding and ability to express a viewpoint on the text.
ReplyDeleteIn English Language, the emphasis is equally on grammatical correctness and content in the classroom. However, in the existing examination rubric, grammar is the primary focus. The ability to organise and present information in a logical manner was of a lesser importance.
ReplyDeleteThere are some problems seeing the requirements for Lit and Eng as being mutually exclusive. I shall only talk about two here, in the interest of brevity. The first has to do with the ability to read sensitively and respond to the nuances in the text. How does one do that exactly if one does not have the vocabulary to do so? Most of the Lit essays that I think deserve to pass do not go beyond the 13-15 range because the answers are simply banal. ‘Sophie is scared because David is a stranger’. No Sophie is not scared; she is hesitant, tentative, unwilling to put her trust in someone whom she knows nothing about. In fact she wants to play with David with every fibre of her being! The use of the word ‘scared’ here is practically tantamount to a misreading. In this case, being able to choose words that have the appropriate shade is necessary for good Literature and English writing. Imagine if you a will, a child with a limited vocab writing a formal letter of complaint: ‘Your service is horrible and I am very angry with what your waiter did to me’. This letter will naturally be far less successful (both in school and in life) than one that writes ‘My experience in your restaurant has been a disheartening one and it is my hope that you will take the appropriate steps to rectify the situation’.
The second point I want to talk about has to do with PEEP and its various permutations. As long as a Lit essay adheres to PEEP, it’s fine, we’re all ok. Hmmm. I’m now going to unexpectedly use a football metaphor. Manchester United, a team at the top of the table, will be far more successful at using the 4-4-2 formation than Blackpool FC would be when using the same formation. Manchester United, very simply, is a better team, with more skilled players who can create more advantages for themselves using the formation than Blackpool ever could. Similarly, a more thoughtful writer who can really understand and utilize the flow from Point to Evidence to Elaboration etc. will write a better essay than one who uses the structure in a clumsy and awkward manner. Just like in an argumentative essay for English, responses come across more convincingly if there is a logical sequence to them ideas that flow are also ideas that are developed and elaborated upon, making them well-fleshed out and substantial.
Indeed, we cannot judge a Lit essay in terms of its grammatical correctness, but I maintain that Literature assessment is a close cousin of English, particularly when it comes to the communication of ideas. It simply does not matter how good my students’ ideas in class are; if they cannot pen them down in an engaging and logical manner, their ideas do not count for anything. Doing so requires the dexterous use of language, ie English.
I do wonder…it is clear that Literature needs English. Does English need Literature?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think setting the limiter "in literature" or "in english" forces my response in a direction that I honestly have no regard for. Perhaps we should examine "what is good writing" instead, whether it be for literature, english or even a blog post. I cannot help but feel like the manner in which we currently insist on structure and form skews our perception of writing itself. If we were to use this current lens to critique Derrida and Deleuze, would we be bold enough to conclude that their writing is then rubbish? And if our answer "of course not" then why do we still insist on these outmoded requirements?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if perhaps we should turn from looking at how people write, to how we judge writing. Move away from insisting on particular facets within an essay to giving teachers more leeway in accepting different styles of writing. That being said, of course the bedrock of any form of writing is that it is an attempt at communication, thus fundamentals like grammar, spelling, presentation of ideas and understanding its target audience, are all non-negotiable. The areas in which we can loosen our grip on is perhaps the structure and style in which we expect essays to be written. Even if an essay were to take on the style of simple musing, I don't see why it should be considered "unacademic" and "unacceptable" when Baudrillard and Spivak (and who would ever dare assault these two as "unacademic"?) write in in whatever fashion they fancy?
I want a Singaporean Spivak, I'd really love a Singaporean Derrida. So let's make room (PREPARE YE THE WAY I SAY) for the advent of these home grown writers.
Inasmuch as it is essential that students possess adequate understanding and appropriate analysis/interpretation of the text, writing essays in literature demands a degree of perceptiveness and the display of personal engagement of the reader with the text/ characters/ author.
ReplyDeleteWhat a person reads of a text says more about the reader than of the text in itself. Personal insight/ astuteness is certainly not necessitated in expository/ argumentative writing in English.
Cohen seems to emphasize the importance of 'theme idea'; perhaps what is elemental to good lit essay-writing is the unity of ideas- coming up with a central thesis based on the patterns identified in the process of interpretation. Organization and coherence is also critical to a good English Language essay, however the process of writing a lit essay appears to be of a more 'bottom-up' than 'top-down' approach.
Writing lit essays definitely demands flexibility, as the unseen component is a true test of the writer's ability to READ and offer practical criticism of the text (hopefully) without prior knowledge of the text beforehand.
As a student who formally studied literature only at the 'A' levels, I would say that the biggest challenge was to articulate opinions with clarity and simplicity.
English has little to do with it. Just as getting As in English didn't mean that I would have no problems articulating the rules of grammar, being able to read a novel/ write narrative essays did not translate to abilities in interpreting a text through writing. Wherein English Language demands the precision and exactness of words for the purposes of clarity in communication, Literature strives to explore the boundaries of words to encompass expression in aesthetic form. The correlation between English Lang and English Lit is complicated and complex, though admittedly a complementary one. They are both inter-dependent yet somewhat antithetical to each other at the same time- one can take things at a purely literal level; yet, once language is habitually read figuratively, reading superficially and 'at-the-surface' becomes somewhat impossible.
Perhaps to unify and organize thought to address the question with a personal, logical, and coherent argument without excessive rambling is the true test of a writer's ability to read.
I think good writing, as far as Literature is concerned, is writing centered and structured around a clear, cogent argument, with paragraphs of evidence and explanation to back up this argument. I know many schools have students introducing new ideas in every new paragraph, so that the essay comes up to perhaps three to four mini-arguments in individual paragraphs. The PEE/PEEL structure taught in secondary school also seems to work around this structure - my personal experience tells me that students have this method of introducing multiple mini-arguments easier to cope with, but I think that having a clear, overarching argument/thesis is best, and coaches students to develop their thinking on a more insightful level, and to better (and more intrinsically, hence, picking up the skill in the long term) organize their thoughts and expression.
ReplyDeleteThe practise of good essay writing skills is a common struggle for most students who are pursuing Literature at an upper secondary level. The notion of having to furnish an academically sound argument and to structure one’s writing in a coherent manner proves to be the bane of many students’ existence. Most often than not, they are fully capable of vocalising their thoughts when asked to verbally explain questions that are posed in class. However, this same ability to think critically and produce spontaneous responses does not get translated into tangible products which showcase the vast amount of knowledge that has been retained from previous sessions.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, the reason why a significant number of students are unable to transcribe their cognitive processors into words stems from the very fact that they have difficulty expressing personal opinions into plain, simple English. Thus, it might be a good idea for educators to incorporate key persuasive terms into their essay writing lessons to foster a deeper connection between pupils and the study of argumentative writing. Yes, I do understand that this proposition is a little unorthodox, and most lit majors might even cringe at the idea of amalgamating two distinct fields into one. But, without the necessary language skills to aid our students at producing essays which are acceptable for their ‘O’ Levels, how could we expect them to achieve greater heights in Pre-University?
According to the Band Descriptors for Set Text Questions (retrieved from 2014/2013, ‘O’ Level Literature Exam – SEAB) it’s stated that students must identify ‘discriminating selection of textual details’ by paying close attention to the ‘terms of the question’ and, displaying a ‘consistent viewpoint with appropriate substantiation.’ Even though, these factors should already be ingrained into our pupils (before they decide to embark on literature as an upper secondary subject). I have observed during my ESE and practicum experience that, quite a number of students are still weak at linking their initial points back to the essay question. Besides this, there are also those who could identify many pertinent points, but are either too lazy or wholly oblivious to the PEEL/PEEP format for essay writing.
I personally believe that the fundamental principle of justifying points with strong evidences/elaborations is what makes the crafting of literary passages such an arduous task for most secondary school pupils. Unlike, English compositional writings, where the main emphasis is placed upon the demonstration and mastery of effective grammatical and sentence syntax usage. Literary essay writing on the other hand encompasses many subtle aspects (such as the study of figurative language, literary devices, characterisations, themes, plot/sub-plot,) which makes it all the more challenging for budding writers who don’t possess the required schemas to procure commendable results. Therefore, I do agree with Priya’s notion that the assessment of literature is a ‘close cousin of English’. However, it would be impossible to juxtapose the assessment criterion of these subjects on an equal plane, since they are as dissimilar as say… apples and oranges.
Chapter 5 of Cohen’s work is devoted to “Organization”, of which is pivotal in English Lit and English Language. In fact, good organization helps to direct the flow of one’s essay, and the reader will be able to understand what one is trying to say, and the basis for one’s arguments in a quicker fashion. I feel that no matter which essay-based subject one is teaching, teachers would definitely try to teach students the structure of an essay, which essentially is organization, and this helps contribute to “good writing”.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think one huge difference in both my CS is the point on analysis of content. In English Lang, students are not required to analyse an author’s intention or the techniques employed in a piece of comprehension, whereas Lit seems to make meaning of the text and to look at it both holistically and in depth. With specific reference to pg 53 of Cohen’s article, he compares the “superficial” student with the “perceptive” student, which I agree that we as Lit teachers are looking out for. I do push and remind my students to be creative and come out with an answer that is different from others, yet with justification from the text, as this will definitely set their answer apart from the rest of the level/class. Also, if we were to look at Band 1 of the band descriptors for Lit (2013-2014 ‘O’ level syllabus), students are required to produce a “sensitive and informed personal response”, as well as “demonstrate a freshness of insight”. However, insight is insight, you either have it or you don’t, and it is hard to train wannabe Lit students (sorry for lack of a better word) how to produce insight. I struggle teaching that as well, but I am also not sure if it can be taught…? Furthermore, like what Priya has mentioned, it is greatly beneficial if the student has a good vocabulary, so that it does not seem that his analysis is “oversimplified” (54). Language, if anything, helps to create an illusion of depth and understanding, which I feel may be pretty misleading at times.
With Esther, I agree that having good argumentative writing techniques like PEE/PEEL help organise students' thoughts, however, like Ian mentioned, it may encumber original insight into a text or a question. I believe that we need different processes for different things: PEE/L or whichever writing techniques and essentials for good writing, and critical thinking for good insight. Both, I think, are impossible to go on without. Certainly, in English exams too, structure and organisation in paragraphs are important aspects of writing, but so are creativity and insight.
ReplyDeleteDuring my Practicum, one of the biggest problems that students have in writing whether in English or in English Literature, which I notice, is the ability to come up with original and inventive ideas/POVs. PEE/L is easily replicable, but not critical thinking.
The first thought that I had was how my Lit CT told me that when they marked literature essays, they weren't marking for grammar, spelling, nor punctuation. What they looked out for was depth of analysis, how well the students have critiqued the text that they have at hand.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt that such technicalities of the English language are necessary for the composition of a coherent and clear literature essay, I agree that at the secondary level, "good writing" is, quite simply, a good analysis of the text. What happens here is that "good writing" is really a reflection of a good mind, and whether it can be displayed clearly enough for everyone to read (So what happens to people with autism, unable to convey their thoughts to others because of their social impairment? But that's an argument for another day).
At the very least, I think that organisation can be introduced and forced upon students in their writing of essays, never mind bad grammar and spelling, that that sort of organisation will allow us teachers, in our marking, to see the proper flow of their thoughts.
These are some of my takeaways from the Literature seminar I attended yesterday.
ReplyDelete1) Good writing in Literature offers personal responses that are sensitive, informed and explicit.
2)Good writing in Literature displays "freshness of insight", provides multiple perspectives and demonstrates critical understanding/appreciation of larger issues.
3)Assessment of good writing in Literature focuses on content rather than language. Language errors will not be penalised as long as they do not mar the clarity of expression.
This is contrary to writing in English where the application of correct language skills are the main focus of assessment. Also, writing in English rarely invites personal responses and does not provide much scope for students to discuss and analyse broader social/moral issues. During yesterday's workshop I also realised that assessment of writing in Literature seems to be less harsh and stringent than that of writing in English.
We took a look at an 'O' level sample script of a set text response based on The Crucible that SERIOUSLY went off tangent. The question asked whether Abigail's judgement of Elizabeth as "a cold snivelling woman" was fair. The student rambled on and on about women's insecurities in general. If I had been marking this script in school, I would have given it a single digit. However, to the shock of most of the teachers there, the trainer said it warranted a mark of between 12-14. It made me wonder whether Lit students who are unprepared for their exams might just be able to get away with 'anyhow whack only' writing.
Cohen mentions ‘misreading of details’ that jeapordizes a part of students’ essay, and this is something that has been greatly emphasized in my CS2 (Social Studies). Good writing for SS focuses on students’ ability to interpret and answer the question correctly, without merely regurgitating the facts that they have memorized. This echoes with Cohen’s view of good writing in which “details should be subordinated to the framework, used as evidence and materials to be analyzed”, instead of dominating the essay.
ReplyDeleteGood writing in Lit, I believe should focus on clarity and depth of expression. My experience of teaching Lang Arts made me realize that producing original views and opinions can be a real challenge for students who are still grappling with sentence structure. I very much agree with Fiza that PEEL is not critical thinking, but at least it seems to have provided some confidence to my sec one kids as they embark on their essay writing process.
There is some overlap as to what makes good writing in Literature and English Language (especially, expository essays?). Both require a clear statement of purpose, some good note-taking on the students’ part (eg. when they analyse key words in the question and the creation of essay outlines), brainstorming, outlining of essays, re-drafting and editing. In fact, some of the 5 steps to good literature writing bear some semblance to Seow’s process-writing (the Bible for our writing component in QCE520 during the first semester).
ReplyDeleteIn good literature writing, Cohen recommends that the theme idea shaped in an orderly way – i.e. logically and effectively arranged. Next, the student must select representations from the book to support this general theme of idea. He must also expand and interpret the passages and details that he uses. He must avoid a series of sweeping statements - not merely creating categories - but sort details in each one….all of which are captured in the current rubrics Literature teachers use religiously when assessing students.
Yet, there is one part that is not so easy to assess. It is what Cohen calls “the mechanics of style”. Have you come across that essay that does not follow the PEEL structure, one that does not state theme idea in the first sentence of the first paragraph but reserves it for some other climatic position? You know it’s good writing but you cannot match the student’s essay neatly to any one “band” from the marking rubrics. And then, there’s one essay that would be riddled with grammatical mistakes but offers a great thematic idea and has just the right balance of generalisation and narrowness! You want to credit this student with a better grade but you cannot because you have to abide strictly to the marking rubrics.
As if those are not enough challenges for us to come up with a common checklist of what makes good literature writing, there’s the new Literature syllabus 2013 with its new KSD. How do I assess students’ dispositions in their writing?
Although there are similarities between assessing English composition and Literature essays, I think it’s easier to assess good writing in English Language rather because it is a skills-based subject.
The criteria for good writing in Literature is mostly concerned with content, argument and analysis. It is "higher order" and i feel that it is good to train students to think critically and form their own opinions as well as acknowledge other opinions. I agree with Joel's comment on Cohen's paper that 'it is imperative in literary writing to demonstrate mastery of content, without which a meaningful interpretation would not be possible.' I understand Deeba's concerns that students may think they can get away with writing nonsense but it should be made clear to students that they must always critically form their own opinions and acknowledge others which is not possible without mastery of content. Good writing in Literature must be holistically understand and critique texts.
ReplyDeleteGood writing in English Language is only slightly different as students final marks are often divided into two components: Language and Content. Content often takes up 15 marks and Language only 10 marks. To digress slightly, if Literature does not focus on Language and English focuses less on language, who is teaching our kids English Language? Back to the point, the new EL syllabus seeks to integrate some traditionally "literature" components such as opinion-questions and critique-questions. Good writing in English requires students to show both accuracy of language and mastery of content.
The difference is not that big when it comes to writing but teaching both subjects is starkly different.
In my school, good writing in literature was considered to be writing in which the student was clearly able to articulate what he or she wants to say. I taught at the secondary 2 level and the students followed the PEEL structure. What surfaced during the benchmarking sessions was the fact that the stress was not on providing evidence, but on the points and the elaboration. There was no under marking because of faulty grammar as long as the overall meaning of the sentence was conveyed in a coherent manner. The emphasis was on the point and how well the student is able to elaborate keeping in mind the main idea. As mentioned by Cohen ‘the theme idea’ was given much emphasis.
ReplyDeleteInterpretation was also emphasised as students who could present creative viewpoints were encouraged. Cohen says that the ‘right words/syntax’ is supposed to be used; however this was not practiced in my school. The principles of teaching and learning literature as mapped out in the new 2013 syllabus, such as personal engagement and critical appreciation are not as important in my school as drawing meaningful connections, specifically using the PEEL technique.
I think good writing in Literature is one in which the student is able to communicate their analysis of the text effectively as well as being able to include their own personal response to the text coherently. This can be done through providing them with structures such as PEE/PEEL to guide their writing. However, I do agree with the others who have said that it stifles their creativity. It does bring to mind the ability of the students. At Marsiling Secondary, even when we allow them to write a personal response in whichever way they wanted, and these were sec 1s, they were unable to write an effective paragraph that was able to communicate what they wanted to say. Those that were able to, used the PEEL structure which the literature dept had not taught but the English and History teachers have. The students in that school were unable to even respond to the text or derive a theme from the text. With these basic Literary skills lacking, it became an even tougher job trying to get them to have good writing.
ReplyDeleteAs for the structure for teaching Good writing in History, we use the PEEL structure too and students do really well for that. They are able to communicate their analysis effectively for History essays. I think that it is somehow easier to present a factual essay as compared to a Literature essay which requires one to have the ability to really work their personal response into the essay whereas for History, as long as they have the facts and the paragraph is organised in a coherent manner, the get the mark. One crucial thing that differs is the way good writing is marked in History and Literature. There is more room for creativity in good writing in Literature compared to History but are most students in the 'hood' able to be express their creativity in Literature though they lack language ability and most importantly the skills? That is the dilemma we face at Marsiling Sec.
Good writing in literature from a student’s point of view is being able to express your views in a coherent and convincing manner, using evidence to prove your point. I think that writing in literature requires students to think critically and come up with points that are relevant to the question. Although students are to think critically and organize their answers in a way that fully explains their reasoning with evidence, there is not as much room for creativity, compared to English language writing. In English Language, students are usually given a topic and students create their own narrative, story, description or arguments. Writing a good English essay requires more creativity than critical thinking, because you need to come up with ideas based on your own life experiences and exposure to certain topics. There is also no need to follow the PEEL format when it comes to English. The basic structure in a good essay is having an introduction/orientation, body and conclusion. Although literature essays require this format as well, there is a need to have evidence that is related to the text and a link at the end to tie up all your points of critical analysis.
ReplyDeleteA piece of good writing in my practicum school would mean being able to produce a thorough analysis in a PEEL essay. My CT placed a lot of emphasis on whether the relevance between the point, evidence and elaboration. Many students are not able to provide elaboration links back to their point. This is basically the criteria to assess good writing for students with average abilities in the Lower Secondary level. The teachers expect students with higher abilities to use the theme idea approach (Cohen, 1963) where students are expected to be able to “ develop a coherent and meaningful thesis” (Cohen, 1963) in the essay.
ReplyDeleteIn comparison to writing in English, students are expected to have a clear topic sentence in each paragraph followed by supporting details. This is similar to writing in PEEL as students are expected to support each point with a relevant piece of evidence. However, it seems that the teachers does not place too much emphasis on the transitions between paragraphs. Coehn ( 1963) states that the tie between paragraphs can be made by “ relating the topic sentence or the first few sentences at the beginning of each new paragraph to the preceding paragraph or to the theme idea” .
In TKGS, we were told to not mark students down for grammar and spelling in Literature tests/ exams as long as we can make out what they were trying to say. Thus, a piece of writing that conveys a relatively logical reasoning can be an example of good writing.
ReplyDeleteDespite having a whole-school PEEL approach, the Sec 2s were unable to comprehend the structure and their essays were a complete mess. I realised that they were unfamiliar with things like thesis statements and topic sentences because they were not exposed to argumentative essays.
To me, although it is true that following a structure may limit the students in terms of creativity in their writing, I think it is essential for them to first learn the basics of writing a coherent essay before venturing into creativity. In TKGS, we were told to not mark students down for grammar and spelling in Literature tests/ exams as long as we can make out what they were trying to say. Thus, a piece of writing that conveys a relatively logical reasoning can be an example of good writing.
Despite having a whole-school PEEL approach, the Sec 2s were unable to comprehend the structure and their essays were a complete mess. I realised that they were unfamiliar with things like thesis statements and topic sentences because they were not exposed to argumentative essays.
To me, although it is true that following a structure may limit the students in terms of creativity in their writing, I think it is essential for them to first learn the basics of writing a coherent essay before venturing into creativity. In TKGS, we were told to not mark students down for grammar and spelling in Literature tests/ exams as long as we can make out what they were trying to say. Thus, a piece of writing that conveys a relatively logical reasoning can be an example of good writing.
Despite having a whole-school PEEL approach, the Sec 2s were unable to comprehend the structure and their essays were a complete mess. I realised that they were unfamiliar with things like thesis statements and topic sentences because they were not exposed to argumentative essays.
To me, although it is true that following a structure may limit the students in terms of creativity in their writing, I think it is essential for them to first learn the basics of writing a coherent essay before venturing into creativity.
In arrangement to wage you with the highest storey of tableware in essay penning, ProfEssays.com employs only skilful donnish writers to use on your assigning.
ReplyDeletenarrative essay thesis statement