Personally, "good writing" means making me stop and think - about life in general, my life, the ways of the world, people, differences, similarities etc.
"Good writing" in Literature (and here I assume you mean in school) to me is similar. What the student writes must make me stop and think about his or her thought process. Aligned with assessment and all that yada, it also means allowing me to make a judgement call on the progress the student has made in my class.
As brought up in our class discussion last week, there is much debate surrounding content verses grammatical prowess in the Literature classroom. It is my personal opinion that though we should not excessively penalize students with bad grammar when it comes to Literature, their points might be lost in a sea of grammatical errors. I feel that it is not our job to fish around and scrutinize their answer scripts with a fine-toothed comb searching for points that we can award marks to. It is my personal view that whilst it is fine to overlook a bad command of English from time to time if the student is able to bring his/her point across effectively, in the long-run it may cause more harm than good.
Difference between the criteria for "good writing" between Literature and English Language (as observed in school):
Literature - Teachers primarily target content, making sure that students know the poetic devices, plot points, characters etcetc.
English Language - Grammar is primarily targeted (when it comes to writing). Only when students are able to compose a piece of writing with little grammatical trouble do teachers go on to target content.
To me, clarity of thought is what determines good writing in both Literature and History. The flow of logical thought about a text or source reflects one's analytical skills, and produces the nuanced readings that we so value. Specifically, the LORMS (Level of Response Mark Scheme) in History corresponds to the PEE / PEEL assessment structure in Literature (strictly speaking, PEEL is a writing structure, but as we all know, it has taken over assessment as well). Both structures privilege (arguably) logical thought processes, and award students for constructing succinct arguments based on appropriate content.
The use of such structures, of course, inevitably leads to some restriction. While I hesitate to condemn all structures, the blanket use of LORMS or PEEL makes for some contrived answers at times, especially when questions are not set well. That said, the structures are not the crux of the issue--the (ab)use of these structures is.
Ultimately, I would say that it is harder to write well for Literature than History. Unlike historical analysis (at the O-Level stage anyway), literary analysis demands an element of holistic insight into texts. O-Level History is less demanding in that aspect, because it requires methodical, rather than original analysis. Furthermore, the craft of writing is also more important in Literature, not least because literary arguments tend to be more abstract, and hence difficult to articulate. Flourishes aside, a decent vocabulary and grasp of grammar rules are pivotal to good writing in Literature. An insufficient command of the language can and do compromise the best of arguments.
To determine good writing in literature or English in general is a very subjective issue to me. For me, it’s all about the reader’s response and expressing meaning. Hence, it is key for the writer to consider the audience/readers’ response on top of the context, culture and etc in his or her own written. I feel that a piece of written work, be it for English or Literature, has to have a focus, direction and purpose. Hence I would say that the criterion for writing literature and English isn't worlds apart. I have often asked students in the midst of their writing whether they know what they are writing about and a number of them simply remarked 'No'. Many students simply ramble on in their essays and it is common for teachers, marking the loads of essays, to see students writing off-point, lacking a specific purpose and direction. A good piece of writing in English should have both coherence and cohesion and this is where grammatical structures, lexical and content specific words embedded in the work enable the reader to make sense of the writer’s view or response to a particular issue or topic. Students far too often are concerned about meeting the word count for an assignment or essay, be it in their general English class or simply regurgitation of points from a set text in Literature essays. Dismissing it as a chore, some students show a lack of reflection and purpose in their writing. Others on the other hand wish to provide some form of argument which engages the reader into deeper thought. A good piece should encompass a deeper analysis of the content, conveying a reader’s response or perspective and fulfilling an engaging discussion into the topic concerned. Literary elements aside, it should somehow achieve a level of understanding for the reader and be engaging to some extent whereby the reader would ponder about the points/responses/views of the writer – whether it makes logical sense or raise the bar to uncover potential areas of discussion. On the whole, I don’t find writing good literature very different from how we write a normal English essay. Conventions used are very much similar in many aspects and to define ‘good’ is simply left for the reader to decide whether the writers have given it much thought in what they are trying to express.
In my opinion, good writing in Literature is determined by the ability to elaborate and justify points written for any given topic. In school, I always tell my students that there is probably no wrong answer in Literature as long as they are able to justify what they are writing. By justification, it means that students will have to quote meaningfully from their texts, elaborate on the quote and convince the readers why their points should be considered or agreed upon. I would even consider giving an A1 if they can convince me that Mr Bumble from Oliver Twist is actually a very nice dude, if they are able to cite textual evidences from the text and clearly reason out their argument.
Good writing in Literature is not just about being able to skilfully justify their arguments. There is also a need to be able to write clearly. Clarity in writing is perhaps not a skill for Literature, but one that is required for good writing in English Language. Good writing in English Language often revolves around the same few criteria of zero grammatical errors, sound sentence structures, sophistication in vocabulary and appropriate paragraphing skills, etc. The focus on writing for EL is usually on the language features before we look at the content per se.
For EL / Lit teachers, it is sometimes difficult for us to ignore the huge grammatical/spelling error in a Lit essay because we are so used to highlighting all these errors in their English compositions. Good writing in Literature somehow does not include grammatical-error-free essays because we have been taught that as long as their point is brought across clearly, one or two errors could be ignored and we shall not penalise them for that. Good writing in English comprises of the need to be error-free, and any gross grammatical error will result in a dip in the Language component score. This has always been the case since I was a student, and it is still the case today.
To me, I feel that there should not be such a difference in the marking criteria for both English, and English Literature. Both subjects are essentially testing the students on their language, and I do not see how good a piece of writing for Literature can be if grammatical and spelling errors are splattered all over that masterpiece.
Good writing, regardless of which subject we are concerned with, is subjective. However, personally speaking, good writing in literature means the ability to show deep personal engagement with the text the writer is asked to respond to. This means the ability to appreciate (and demonstrate one’s appreciation) the nuances, subtleties and complexities a piece of writing. Therefore, while I believe that students should not be penalized for grammatical oversights in literature, it is also clear to me that the ability to demonstrate one’s engagement with the text comes not only with practice but also with a certain grasp of English language (e.g. ability to describe certain feelings and concepts precisely, organizing one’s thoughts and argument coherently, etc.).
Conversely, in English Language, the level of deep personal engagement takes a backseat to the fundamentals of sound grammar and clear writing. For example, students are definitely penalized more when it comes to grammar and expression, rather than for the lack of originality in their narratives. This is, however, precisely (and maybe unfortunately?) the nature of English Language, which is why they are penalized; after all, students take the subject to learn to read, write, listen and speak the language accurately, and thus these errors cannot be overlooked.
What is good writing in literature? How are the criteria for “good writing” different and similar for your other core subject (CS)?
I think good writing in Literature is clear, critical and creative.
Clear: ideas are written in grammatically correct sentences, follow academic writing conventions such as quotations and paragraphing, and are well communicated, not confusing.
Critical: ideas consist of the writer's analysis and evaluation of certain topic or texts in the light of certain theme or theory. It should contain the writer's point of view. It should engage the reader's mind.
Creative: it entertains readers through twists in plot, humour, and literary devices.
For my other CS, English Language, clarity is the top most criteria as a significant weightage is given to accuracy in grammar. Being critical is less important. It is required only when writing expository essays and answering inferential comprehension questions. Creativity is also less important, given less weightage in essay writing than clarity.
What is good writing in literature? How are the criteria for “good writing” different and similar for your other core subject (CS)?
Generally speaking, I don't think the basic requirements of good writing in Literature differ that much from English (my other CS). During my practicum in RV, I was advised by both my English and Literature mentors to teach the PEEL writing technique to my students, which essentially requires them to back up main points with relevant elaboration and examples when writing essays. When teaching expository essays for English or advising my Literature students how to tackle theme-based essay questions, I found myself giving largely similar tips for both subjects.
Having said that, I think the definition of good writing in Literature is arguably more subjective. When students write Literature essays about novels, I expect them to not only refer to quotes and scenes from the text, but also be able to draw their own conclusions and make connections within and beyond the text. As such, I consider good writing in Literature as writing in a manner that effectively conveys one's observations and opinions about a text. Perfect language is not the defining criteria here, because I would be less critical of grammar/spelling mistakes when marking a Literature essay than marking an English essay.
I'm a creative writing major; I was taught that good writing was about emotion. It wasn't just enough that the language was important; it was about how we made the readers feel. Words carried meaning, and as such we needed to be very careful with how we used them. The wrong word could instil the wrong emotion, and the wrong emotion could lead to a distorted meaning of our work, and a distorted meaning of our work could result in a harsh critique of our skills, and a harsh critique ...
Well, you get the idea.
But, like many of my colleagues here, I do believe that to the definition of good writing - especially in a subject as fluid and dynamic as Literature - is subjective. What I might consider "good" writing may not be seen in the same way by others; I personally enjoy reading Literature essays written by students which show a strong, personal engagement (on their part) with the text. Yes, it would be wonderful if my students are able to not only understand what they have read but also provide intelligent insights into the deeper meaning of the text. However, I would also like to see a personal response included amidst the critical analysis; I want to know if my students were able to connect with the text - or if they hadn't, I want to see how they express their dislike or disregard.
So would grammar come into account here? To me, unless the grammar is really so atrocious that I'm unable to decipher the sentences from any angle whatsoever, it is not really an issue. As long as I can see at least some form of critical appreciation and/or personal response within the potential mass of writing, I would probably close one eye to the language mistakes.
That being said, I can’t be as lenient when it comes to assessing essays written for EL. As firm a believer as I am in the nurturing of innovation and creativity, EL is fundamentally about the proficiency of the language – of which grammar forms a huge component. Thus, similar to what many of my colleagues have mentioned already, unlike the assessment of Literature essays which can be very subjective, assessing EL writing is more about looking at its technical aspect rather than the content. A good piece of EL writing is defined by its clarity, so it becomes all about the mechanics: spelling, phrases, punctuation, vocabulary, sentence structures, etc. However much I would like to grade my students on the content – and very often have my students proven that their imaginations know no bounds – I am unfortunately bound by the very nature of the subject to judge them based on their mastery of language skills.
And to be honest, I guess mastery of the language would play a huge part when it comes to feeding into readers’ emotions. Because how will readers be able to invest themselves emotionally in a piece of writing unless it is so beautifully, perfectly written that they have no other choice but to get themselves involved? But then again, I would say this though: if the writers themselves have shared much of their personal thoughts and feelings within the written piece of work, sometimes it is enough to overwhelm the potential lack of grammatical correctness.
Cohen's article was an amusing tour of the common mistakes made by students of literature way back in the 1960s. I thought Cohen provides a good framework for students to analyse literary pieces and to avoid common pitfalls.
Good writing for literature should show a mature appreciation of the themes and how various literary techniques employed contribute to that theme. It seems to me an analystical/argumentative type of paper.
While grammar, style of expression are important, they are not the "meat and potatoes" of the literary piece. The analysis is. Starting an essay with "this essay intends to do the following" may be unfashionable but it gets the job done.
Nevertheless, the relationship between English Literature and English language is a symbiotic one. While a theoretical case can be made that one is not looking out for grammar or elegant prose, it is often persons who have a good command of the language who are able to appreciate the Literature text best. It is really difficult to appreciate English literature if one is struggling with understanding the meanings of words after every two or three sentences.
I for one would not be able to read "romance of the three kingdoms" or "journey to the West" in mandarin. But having read them in the English translation, i can appreciate very much the themes and the characters. I guess the concerns are universal but very often the barrier of poor language command is decisive.
Perhaps we should consider studying important literary texts in both languages. i.e Shakespeare/Journey to the West in both English and Mandarin/Malay/Tamil translation
After reading Cohen's "Writing About Literature", in which he gives a thorough breakdown of common mistakes made by students, I begin to wonder if Cohen's idea of good writing in Literature is possible at the secondary/jc level. Most students do not just make one of these mistakes Cohen speaks of but a combination of them.
Good writing is very subjective. I have come across teachers who want their students to write in a very structured manner. For example "Firstly... secondly... thirdly...in conlusion..." because this method of writing gets the idea across in the most straightforward way thus is preferred by markers. Then there are teachers who would frown upon that style of writing as "lacking flair or sophistication."
I think that good writing in Literature is one where the students are able to present original ideas, justified with evidence from the text. When marking the scripts of an entire class, more than half the students will give similar answers. The scripts that stand out are normally those who take on a very different viewpoint and yet are able to substantiate their points convincingly.
When marking Literature scripts, I would look out for (in order of importance) 1) content - ideas, analysis, personal response 2) organization 3) language. While language can greatly affect the first two components, I feel that it is important that I do not let the poor language colour my assessment of the answer. This is often very difficult because poor language can be tiresome to understand.
The emphasis is somewhat different when it comes to English, my other CS. Or in my case, GP. Like English, GP is a language-based subject so more attention is given to grammar, sentence structure and other language features. Despite this, the weightage for content is still higher than that of language.
I agree with my other classmates here that Literature writing places more emphasis on the content than language. It also depends what level and stream we are marking; we should expect upper secondary students to display a better grasp of the English Language! And in their case, good English should not be separate from good Literature writing.
When marking Secondary 1(NA) scripts, which mostly consists of short answer questions, I was told to try to ignore the sometimes poor grasp of language and to try to decipher the intended meaning of what the student has wrote. We ignore grammar and spelling mistakes, expression mistakes and try to mark students for their content. Thus, in Literature at its introductory levels, we test and ask for the students to display understanding and appreciation of the text. I would judge a piece of good literature writing at their level by how well they interpret a literature piece; instead of how well put together and coherently written it is.
Cohen talks about interpretative skills that has to be present in good literature writing; and I definitely agree. Good interpretative skills has to be displayed in Literature. On a higher level, students also have to substantially support their points with evidence and analysis. Therefore, argumentative skills also come into play.
For Literature at the upper secondary level, I would expect that students display a good grasp of the English Language. They have to support their writing with sufficient evidence from the text, and be able to analyze and explain their interpretation in a well-organized, coherent manner. At this level, grammar and spelling mistakes will not be tolerated.
Therefore, I believe that basis of good literature writing depends on the level/stream of students. We have to be somewhat forgiving and let go; look beyond the grammatical mistakes to uncover what students are meaning to say at the most basic level, and then progressively expect more of a balance between content and language as they advance.
As a marker, I consider writing good when it is 1) Clear; 2) Relevant; 3) Structured.
If the writer is able to demonstrate actual insight, then it crosses over from good writing to excellent.
Clear writing is writing that is to the point. Accordingly, it should be possible for a student with a generally poor command of English to be clear. I do not penalise students for grammatical mistakes, but there is a bigger problem if students choose the wrong word, conveying a different (and wrong) meaning altogether.
Relevant writing is writing that addresses and answers the question. In Literature essays, the weaker students are often tempted to lapse into narrative and excessive detail, to the point of irrelevance. I have found that students often fail to read questions carefully and go off on long bouts of rambling that are only tenuously connected to the question.
Structured writing is writing that is organised, paragraphed, and sign-posted. It may surprise, but I have marked essays that lacked any kind of paragraphing. Organisation to me does not necessarily mean following the PEEL (or PEE) format, but it should at least loosely follow it. Meaning, if the student chooses to make it PELE or EPEL or some other rearrangement of the order, or omits one part, I am not inclined to be strict as long as there is at least a point and explanation.
Sign-posting would mean words such as "Firstly", "Finally", as well as having a proper introduction and conclusion that introduce and summarise rather than being some kind of preamble.
The above three characteristics of clarity, relevance, and structure are what I would associate with good writing. Excellent writing calls for something more - insight.
Every so often, a student is able to make a point that is not immediately obvious and demonstrates real thinking or good observation, or even present a novel yet plausible alternative explanation.
Regarding the comparison with my other CS, which is History, I would say that good writing is not so different, except that in History, answers are a lot more about structure. Source-based questions on inference, comparison, reliability, etc. are actually quite rigid in what they require for the question to be answered.
Structured essay questions are somewhat more free-form, but even then, the marker has the LORMS, which attempt to clearly describe whether an answer is Level 1, 2, 3, etc. and even provide examples. I would say that in History, good writing is that which is structured according to what the questions demand, and that is also able to show insight. For example, students often fail to realise the difference between an inference and merely lifting a line from the source.
This is a difference that I sometimes wonder whether kids in their early teens are even mentally equipped to appreciate.
Thus, I would say in closing that it is "easier" to credit good writing in Literature than in History.
What is good writing in literature? How are the criteria for “good writing” different and similar for your other core subject (CS)?
I believe good writing in literature can be defined as writing that manages to communicate the writer's interpretation of the text. To do so, the writer needs to be able to clearly identify the features of the text that support what he is saying (eg a literary technique employed that reinforces the theme he has picked out), and make the necessary links between the text and his ideas. Some teachers look out for a student who can write with 'your own style', which seems to suggest the need for a certain sophistication in the use of language.
At the secondary level, however, I think EL expositions and literature essays both require an ability on the student's part to make connections in his writing. I've encouraged my Sec 1 students to think about PEEL to help shape their responses in the literature classroom (eg 'remember to pick out things from the text to support what you want to say!' and 'how does this connect to your real life?'), and Sec 3 students use PEEL as a basic skeleton to help them in writing paragraphs for their expositions.
The main difference lies in how EL expositions prioritise an accurate use of language more than a literature essay does. For the latter, as long as the language use does not hinder a reader's understanding, there will be no penalty even if there are mistakes. The focus is on what the student wants to say, and not so much how he says it.
However, I think literature essays that are more fluent and more sophisticated in use of language do tend to do better. The student has a wider vocabulary with which to describe his personal response, for example.
My take on what good writing in Literature should be is that it should most fundamentally be insightful. It should be more than just the obvious, it should be more than just the superficial, and it certainly must be more than a mere summary of the text. Insights can be gleaned through an understanding of how literary devices are used to attain certain effects, or an understanding of why a character may think one way but act another way, for example, depending on the leanings of the particular question.
From my experience during practicum, it seems that what students like to do is regurgitate what they literally read from the text, giving detailed summaries of the story instead of delving deeper into the themes or characters, for example. Answers like these signal to me their superficial understanding of the text, which is not what I am looking for in a good answer. PEEL or PEE helps students to excavate the deeper meaning of the text, but it is just one (quite structured, quite rigid) way of doing so. To me, as long as a student manages to communicate his point, capitalising on Literature jargon (just to show that he knows his stuff) and showing that there is some thought in his answer in the direction demanded by the question, he is on the right track. The better the insight ("OMG, I've never seen it that way before!"), the better the writing.
While good grammar is a plus, as it would certainly help students bring across their points more fluently (thus, efficiently, considering the limited duration of exam papers), and help make their writing easily comprehensible to readers and examiners, I would not say it is a definite predeterminer of a good piece of writing in Literature. As long as students' writing is comprehensible and there is evidence of exploration of thought that lives up to the basic demands of the essay question, in spite of less-than-perfect grammar, in spite of my being a grammar Nazi, a spelling Nazi, and a format Nazi, I would award at least a pass. I qualify this by emphasising that language is the vehicle by which the student delivers his answers in Literature; language is not what is being assessed.
This is not the case in marking writing for English Language, though. Good grammar, for one, would definitely take more priority, as proficiency in the language itself is what is being assessed. Organisation of the writing would also be more severely judged, simply because structure (of speeches, letters, expositions, for example) matters, as it is among what is taught in the language. To me, it is very apt that students' writings for English Literature and English Language are assessed differently, simply because different things are being assessed.
A good literature essay should, firstly, answer the question posed to the student. They have to understand that the purpose of writing such an essay is to demonstrate that they have understood the work that they have read. It should have a focus. It should be persuasive.
To write a persuasive essay, the student should have at least an acceptable command of English. While I do not disagree with some of my other classmates that instances of ungrammaticality can be overlooked, there should be a line drawn - if their lack of grammatical skills prevents them from presenting their argument in a convincing manner, they should be marked down. The teacher should not be reading their essay and trying to interpret what the student is writing. It should be clear and precise to be able to be persuasive.
The students to learn clarity in their writing and expressions. This helps them in not only literature, but in other aspects of life as well. I realize I sound like a robot, but to be able to write well is a valuable asset. True story. Over and out.
I think similarly to what most of the class think, good writing in literature is subjective. Thus, when grading, I feel that standardising and having a set rubrics to follow is a good way of toning down the subjectiveness of the marker.
During practicum I only taught Language Arts, and the criteria for “good writing” was similar because the teachers wanted students to follow through with their knowledge on both Literature as well as English essays. Like many of the class, I’m sure we were asked to internalise into students the PEEL format of writing points/paragraphs. PEEL does however have its limitations and I think in my practicum school, the idea was to give them a springboard for coherent and persuasive writing; and at the same time introduce to them the different variations the PEEL format can take on and how/where it is normally seen or used.
For Literature, I feel that good writing from a student (assuming a Literature essay test about a set Shakespeare play) would not only show off the student’s knowledge of the play, but his or her understanding of the 5 key elements of a play - Plot, Characterisation, Theme, Setting and Point of View. Not only must the student be able to identify these elements, the student must also be able to see how these elements interweave and are connected to one another in the play. Higher-level students will be able to writing convincingly and coherently on this link. Additionally, they can also input their own opinions and observations about the play which are relevant to the question. The usage of good English is a must for both the Literature and English components of Language Arts and the students are often reminded of it. Because the literature component of Language Arts is pitched at a higher level and also due to exam conditions (1 hour to write), language use is not a graded in Literature essays and the focus is instead on the content and depth of the essay.
As many of you have brought up, good writing in literature can be somewhat subjective. A piece of well written work in English, or History, may not necessarily be considered good writing in literature. In fact, I often have to switch 'styles' when marking History and Literature scripts.
Anyway, to answer the question, good writing (as determined by VS) seems to revolve around students trying to construct their ideas using the PEEL structure. Granted, this allows students to present their thoughts clearly, but ultimately results in identical, non-original scripts.
As most of our questions gravitate towards personal response, I find that it is sometimes better to allow our boys to answer the question as it is - a personal response. This way, our boys are given the luxury of personally responding to a question that is based on a given text. However, this is not to say that they should merely go off on their on tangent. It is still important to support their thoughts with evidence from the text as well as to write in a coherent manner. After all, PEEL isn't the only way to write a academic answer. What is meant as a scaffolding should not be allowed to limit the student.
How are the criteria for “good writing” different and similar for your other core subject (CS)?
Very obviously, the criteria for 'good writing' varies tremendously across the various CS. Just by examining the marking structure, Literature is often marked against a point based system whereby History is marked against the LORMS.
In History, one aims to reach for various 'levels' within the marking scheme through their critical argument of a certain hypothesis. I often find it clearer and more straightforward to mark such scripts. However, with LIterature focusing on personal response questions, marking based on the PEEL structure can result in rather subjective marking.
Yet it is important to note that they are not without their similarities. Both require the students to write with coherence, depth and flair. It is important to quote accurately from a give source to use as evidence for the argument. Students need to have a decent argument that is grounded and well explained. Grammatical errors would not lend well to a well written piece of work (although the Literature department does give concessions to China scholars which I personally feel is extremely unfair).
Read through everyone's comments before I finally did this and looks like there are lots of differing opinions on this topic.
Personally for me I agree with Rhun and Vincent in saying that I think clarity is one key element that must be present in 'good writing'. If the marker has to spend hours figuring out what the student is trying to convey in his answer then evidently that answer needs more work.
In geography, we place more emphasis in the content rather than the language, however, answers still need to be concise and to the point. A good answer in geography, depending on which paper, is based on the points student gives or by LORMS, both of which focus on the content of the answer. Similarly I feel for literature, as much as possible, we should try not to penalize students for bad language (as long as their point is clear enough for the marker to understand) and mark for points that are well argued and explained.
However for literature, a higher-level answer should have evidence of student interaction with the text. Geography is purely a knowledge-based paper, but for literature, there should be certain level of engagement between the student and the piece of work given shown through the student's own unique interpretation of the text.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePersonally, "good writing" means making me stop and think - about life in general, my life, the ways of the world, people, differences, similarities etc.
ReplyDelete"Good writing" in Literature (and here I assume you mean in school) to me is similar. What the student writes must make me stop and think about his or her thought process. Aligned with assessment and all that yada, it also means allowing me to make a judgement call on the progress the student has made in my class.
As brought up in our class discussion last week, there is much debate surrounding content verses grammatical prowess in the Literature classroom. It is my personal opinion that though we should not excessively penalize students with bad grammar when it comes to Literature, their points might be lost in a sea of grammatical errors. I feel that it is not our job to fish around and scrutinize their answer scripts with a fine-toothed comb searching for points that we can award marks to. It is my personal view that whilst it is fine to overlook a bad command of English from time to time if the student is able to bring his/her point across effectively, in the long-run it may cause more harm than good.
Difference between the criteria for "good writing" between Literature and English Language (as observed in school):
Literature - Teachers primarily target content, making sure that students know the poetic devices, plot points, characters etcetc.
English Language - Grammar is primarily targeted (when it comes to writing). Only when students are able to compose a piece of writing with little grammatical trouble do teachers go on to target content.
To me, clarity of thought is what determines good writing in both Literature and History. The flow of logical thought about a text or source reflects one's analytical skills, and produces the nuanced readings that we so value. Specifically, the LORMS (Level of Response Mark Scheme) in History corresponds to the PEE / PEEL assessment structure in Literature (strictly speaking, PEEL is a writing structure, but as we all know, it has taken over assessment as well). Both structures privilege (arguably) logical thought processes, and award students for constructing succinct arguments based on appropriate content.
ReplyDeleteThe use of such structures, of course, inevitably leads to some restriction. While I hesitate to condemn all structures, the blanket use of LORMS or PEEL makes for some contrived answers at times, especially when questions are not set well. That said, the structures are not the crux of the issue--the (ab)use of these structures is.
Ultimately, I would say that it is harder to write well for Literature than History. Unlike historical analysis (at the O-Level stage anyway), literary analysis demands an element of holistic insight into texts. O-Level History is less demanding in that aspect, because it requires methodical, rather than original analysis. Furthermore, the craft of writing is also more important in Literature, not least because literary arguments tend to be more abstract, and hence difficult to articulate. Flourishes aside, a decent vocabulary and grasp of grammar rules are pivotal to good writing in Literature. An insufficient command of the language can and do compromise the best of arguments.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo determine good writing in literature or English in general is a very subjective issue to me. For me, it’s all about the reader’s response and expressing meaning. Hence, it is key for the writer to consider the audience/readers’ response on top of the context, culture and etc in his or her own written. I feel that a piece of written work, be it for English or Literature, has to have a focus, direction and purpose. Hence I would say that the criterion for writing literature and English isn't worlds apart.
ReplyDeleteI have often asked students in the midst of their writing whether they know what they are writing about and a number of them simply remarked 'No'. Many students simply ramble on in their essays and it is common for teachers, marking the loads of essays, to see students writing off-point, lacking a specific purpose and direction. A good piece of writing in English should have both coherence and cohesion and this is where grammatical structures, lexical and content specific words embedded in the work enable the reader to make sense of the writer’s view or response to a particular issue or topic. Students far too often are concerned about meeting the word count for an assignment or essay, be it in their general English class or simply regurgitation of points from a set text in Literature essays. Dismissing it as a chore, some students show a lack of reflection and purpose in their writing. Others on the other hand wish to provide some form of argument which engages the reader into deeper thought. A good piece should encompass a deeper analysis of the content, conveying a reader’s response or perspective and fulfilling an engaging discussion into the topic concerned. Literary elements aside, it should somehow achieve a level of understanding for the reader and be engaging to some extent whereby the reader would ponder about the points/responses/views of the writer – whether it makes logical sense or raise the bar to uncover potential areas of discussion. On the whole, I don’t find writing good literature very different from how we write a normal English essay. Conventions used are very much similar in many aspects and to define ‘good’ is simply left for the reader to decide whether the writers have given it much thought in what they are trying to express.
In my opinion, good writing in Literature is determined by the ability to elaborate and justify points written for any given topic. In school, I always tell my students that there is probably no wrong answer in Literature as long as they are able to justify what they are writing. By justification, it means that students will have to quote meaningfully from their texts, elaborate on the quote and convince the readers why their points should be considered or agreed upon. I would even consider giving an A1 if they can convince me that Mr Bumble from Oliver Twist is actually a very nice dude, if they are able to cite textual evidences from the text and clearly reason out their argument.
ReplyDeleteGood writing in Literature is not just about being able to skilfully justify their arguments. There is also a need to be able to write clearly. Clarity in writing is perhaps not a skill for Literature, but one that is required for good writing in English Language. Good writing in English Language often revolves around the same few criteria of zero grammatical errors, sound sentence structures, sophistication in vocabulary and appropriate paragraphing skills, etc. The focus on writing for EL is usually on the language features before we look at the content per se.
For EL / Lit teachers, it is sometimes difficult for us to ignore the huge grammatical/spelling error in a Lit essay because we are so used to highlighting all these errors in their English compositions. Good writing in Literature somehow does not include grammatical-error-free essays because we have been taught that as long as their point is brought across clearly, one or two errors could be ignored and we shall not penalise them for that. Good writing in English comprises of the need to be error-free, and any gross grammatical error will result in a dip in the Language component score. This has always been the case since I was a student, and it is still the case today.
To me, I feel that there should not be such a difference in the marking criteria for both English, and English Literature. Both subjects are essentially testing the students on their language, and I do not see how good a piece of writing for Literature can be if grammatical and spelling errors are splattered all over that masterpiece.
Good writing, regardless of which subject we are concerned with, is subjective. However, personally speaking, good writing in literature means the ability to show deep personal engagement with the text the writer is asked to respond to. This means the ability to appreciate (and demonstrate one’s appreciation) the nuances, subtleties and complexities a piece of writing. Therefore, while I believe that students should not be penalized for grammatical oversights in literature, it is also clear to me that the ability to demonstrate one’s engagement with the text comes not only with practice but also with a certain grasp of English language (e.g. ability to describe certain feelings and concepts precisely, organizing one’s thoughts and argument coherently, etc.).
ReplyDeleteConversely, in English Language, the level of deep personal engagement takes a backseat to the fundamentals of sound grammar and clear writing. For example, students are definitely penalized more when it comes to grammar and expression, rather than for the lack of originality in their narratives. This is, however, precisely (and maybe unfortunately?) the nature of English Language, which is why they are penalized; after all, students take the subject to learn to read, write, listen and speak the language accurately, and thus these errors cannot be overlooked.
What is good writing in literature? How are the criteria for “good writing” different and similar for your other core subject (CS)?
ReplyDeleteI think good writing in Literature is clear, critical and creative.
Clear: ideas are written in grammatically correct sentences, follow academic writing conventions such as quotations and paragraphing, and are well communicated, not confusing.
Critical: ideas consist of the writer's analysis and evaluation of certain topic or texts in the light of certain theme or theory. It should contain the writer's point of view. It should engage the reader's mind.
Creative: it entertains readers through twists in plot, humour, and literary devices.
For my other CS, English Language, clarity is the top most criteria as a significant weightage is given to accuracy in grammar. Being critical is less important. It is required only when writing expository essays and answering inferential comprehension questions. Creativity is also less important, given less weightage in essay writing than clarity.
What is good writing in literature? How are the criteria for “good writing” different and similar for your other core subject (CS)?
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, I don't think the basic requirements of good writing in Literature differ that much from English (my other CS). During my practicum in RV, I was advised by both my English and Literature mentors to teach the PEEL writing technique to my students, which essentially requires them to back up main points with relevant elaboration and examples when writing essays. When teaching expository essays for English or advising my Literature students how to tackle theme-based essay questions, I found myself giving largely similar tips for both subjects.
Having said that, I think the definition of good writing in Literature is arguably more subjective. When students write Literature essays about novels, I expect them to not only refer to quotes and scenes from the text, but also be able to draw their own conclusions and make connections within and beyond the text. As such, I consider good writing in Literature as writing in a manner that effectively conveys one's observations and opinions about a text. Perfect language is not the defining criteria here, because I would be less critical of grammar/spelling mistakes when marking a Literature essay than marking an English essay.
What is good writing?
ReplyDeleteI'm a creative writing major; I was taught that good writing was about emotion. It wasn't just enough that the language was important; it was about how we made the readers feel. Words carried meaning, and as such we needed to be very careful with how we used them. The wrong word could instil the wrong emotion, and the wrong emotion could lead to a distorted meaning of our work, and a distorted meaning of our work could result in a harsh critique of our skills, and a harsh critique ...
Well, you get the idea.
But, like many of my colleagues here, I do believe that to the definition of good writing - especially in a subject as fluid and dynamic as Literature - is subjective. What I might consider "good" writing may not be seen in the same way by others; I personally enjoy reading Literature essays written by students which show a strong, personal engagement (on their part) with the text. Yes, it would be wonderful if my students are able to not only understand what they have read but also provide intelligent insights into the deeper meaning of the text. However, I would also like to see a personal response included amidst the critical analysis; I want to know if my students were able to connect with the text - or if they hadn't, I want to see how they express their dislike or disregard.
So would grammar come into account here? To me, unless the grammar is really so atrocious that I'm unable to decipher the sentences from any angle whatsoever, it is not really an issue. As long as I can see at least some form of critical appreciation and/or personal response within the potential mass of writing, I would probably close one eye to the language mistakes.
That being said, I can’t be as lenient when it comes to assessing essays written for EL. As firm a believer as I am in the nurturing of innovation and creativity, EL is fundamentally about the proficiency of the language – of which grammar forms a huge component. Thus, similar to what many of my colleagues have mentioned already, unlike the assessment of Literature essays which can be very subjective, assessing EL writing is more about looking at its technical aspect rather than the content. A good piece of EL writing is defined by its clarity, so it becomes all about the mechanics: spelling, phrases, punctuation, vocabulary, sentence structures, etc. However much I would like to grade my students on the content – and very often have my students proven that their imaginations know no bounds – I am unfortunately bound by the very nature of the subject to judge them based on their mastery of language skills.
And to be honest, I guess mastery of the language would play a huge part when it comes to feeding into readers’ emotions. Because how will readers be able to invest themselves emotionally in a piece of writing unless it is so beautifully, perfectly written that they have no other choice but to get themselves involved? But then again, I would say this though: if the writers themselves have shared much of their personal thoughts and feelings within the written piece of work, sometimes it is enough to overwhelm the potential lack of grammatical correctness.
Cohen's article was an amusing tour of the common mistakes made by students of literature way back in the 1960s. I thought Cohen provides a good framework for students to analyse literary pieces and to avoid common pitfalls.
ReplyDeleteGood writing for literature should show a mature appreciation of the themes and how various literary techniques employed contribute to that theme. It seems to me an analystical/argumentative type of paper.
While grammar, style of expression are important, they are not the "meat and potatoes" of the literary piece. The analysis is. Starting an essay with "this essay intends to do the following" may be unfashionable but it gets the job done.
Nevertheless, the relationship between English Literature and English language is a symbiotic one. While a theoretical case can be made that one is not looking out for grammar or elegant prose, it is often persons who have a good command of the language who are able to appreciate the Literature text best. It is really difficult to appreciate English literature if one is struggling with understanding the meanings of words after every two or three sentences.
I for one would not be able to read "romance of the three kingdoms" or "journey to the West" in mandarin. But having read them in the English translation, i can appreciate very much the themes and the characters. I guess the concerns are universal but very often the barrier of poor language command is decisive.
Perhaps we should consider studying important literary texts in both languages. i.e Shakespeare/Journey to the West in both English and Mandarin/Malay/Tamil translation
What is good writing in Literature?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Cohen's "Writing About Literature", in which he gives a thorough breakdown of common mistakes made by students, I begin to wonder if Cohen's idea of good writing in Literature is possible at the secondary/jc level. Most students do not just make one of these mistakes Cohen speaks of but a combination of them.
Good writing is very subjective. I have come across teachers who want their students to write in a very structured manner. For example "Firstly... secondly... thirdly...in conlusion..." because this method of writing gets the idea across in the most straightforward way thus is preferred by markers. Then there are teachers who would frown upon that style of writing as "lacking flair or sophistication."
I think that good writing in Literature is one where the students are able to present original ideas, justified with evidence from the text. When marking the scripts of an entire class, more than half the students will give similar answers. The scripts that stand out are normally those who take on a very different viewpoint and yet are able to substantiate their points convincingly.
When marking Literature scripts, I would look out for (in order of importance) 1) content - ideas, analysis, personal response 2) organization 3) language. While language can greatly affect the first two components, I feel that it is important that I do not let the poor language colour my assessment of the answer. This is often very difficult because poor language can be tiresome to understand.
The emphasis is somewhat different when it comes to English, my other CS. Or in my case, GP. Like English, GP is a language-based subject so more attention is given to grammar, sentence structure and other language features. Despite this, the weightage for content is still higher than that of language.
I agree with my other classmates here that Literature writing places more emphasis on the content than language. It also depends what level and stream we are marking; we should expect upper secondary students to display a better grasp of the English Language! And in their case, good English should not be separate from good Literature writing.
ReplyDeleteWhen marking Secondary 1(NA) scripts, which mostly consists of short answer questions, I was told to try to ignore the sometimes poor grasp of language and to try to decipher the intended meaning of what the student has wrote. We ignore grammar and spelling mistakes, expression mistakes and try to mark students for their content. Thus, in Literature at its introductory levels, we test and ask for the students to display understanding and appreciation of the text. I would judge a piece of good literature writing at their level by how well they interpret a literature piece; instead of how well put together and coherently written it is.
Cohen talks about interpretative skills that has to be present in good literature writing; and I definitely agree. Good interpretative skills has to be displayed in Literature. On a higher level, students also have to substantially support their points with evidence and analysis. Therefore, argumentative skills also come into play.
For Literature at the upper secondary level, I would expect that students display a good grasp of the English Language. They have to support their writing with sufficient evidence from the text, and be able to analyze and explain their interpretation in a well-organized, coherent manner. At this level, grammar and spelling mistakes will not be tolerated.
Therefore, I believe that basis of good literature writing depends on the level/stream of students. We have to be somewhat forgiving and let go; look beyond the grammatical mistakes to uncover what students are meaning to say at the most basic level, and then progressively expect more of a balance between content and language as they advance.
Jillyan
As a marker, I consider writing good when it is
ReplyDelete1) Clear;
2) Relevant;
3) Structured.
If the writer is able to demonstrate actual insight, then it crosses over from good writing to excellent.
Clear writing is writing that is to the point. Accordingly, it should be possible for a student with a generally poor command of English to be clear. I do not penalise students for grammatical mistakes, but there is a bigger problem if students choose the wrong word, conveying a different (and wrong) meaning altogether.
Relevant writing is writing that addresses and answers the question. In Literature essays, the weaker students are often tempted to lapse into narrative and excessive detail, to the point of irrelevance. I have found that students often fail to read questions carefully and go off on long bouts of rambling that are only tenuously connected to the question.
Structured writing is writing that is organised, paragraphed, and sign-posted. It may surprise, but I have marked essays that lacked any kind of paragraphing. Organisation to me does not necessarily mean following the PEEL (or PEE) format, but it should at least loosely follow it. Meaning, if the student chooses to make it PELE or EPEL or some other rearrangement of the order, or omits one part, I am not inclined to be strict as long as there is at least a point and explanation.
Sign-posting would mean words such as "Firstly", "Finally", as well as having a proper introduction and conclusion that introduce and summarise rather than being some kind of preamble.
The above three characteristics of clarity, relevance, and structure are what I would associate with good writing. Excellent writing calls for something more - insight.
Every so often, a student is able to make a point that is not immediately obvious and demonstrates real thinking or good observation, or even present a novel yet plausible alternative explanation.
Regarding the comparison with my other CS, which is History, I would say that good writing is not so different, except that in History, answers are a lot more about structure. Source-based questions on inference, comparison, reliability, etc. are actually quite rigid in what they require for the question to be answered.
Structured essay questions are somewhat more free-form, but even then, the marker has the LORMS, which attempt to clearly describe whether an answer is Level 1, 2, 3, etc. and even provide examples. I would say that in History, good writing is that which is structured according to what the questions demand, and that is also able to show insight. For example, students often fail to realise the difference between an inference and merely lifting a line from the source.
This is a difference that I sometimes wonder whether kids in their early teens are even mentally equipped to appreciate.
Thus, I would say in closing that it is "easier" to credit good writing in Literature than in History.
What is good writing in literature? How are the criteria for “good writing” different and similar for your other core subject (CS)?
ReplyDeleteI believe good writing in literature can be defined as writing that manages to communicate the writer's interpretation of the text. To do so, the writer needs to be able to clearly identify the features of the text that support what he is saying (eg a literary technique employed that reinforces the theme he has picked out), and make the necessary links between the text and his ideas. Some teachers look out for a student who can write with 'your own style', which seems to suggest the need for a certain sophistication in the use of language.
At the secondary level, however, I think EL expositions and literature essays both require an ability on the student's part to make connections in his writing. I've encouraged my Sec 1 students to think about PEEL to help shape their responses in the literature classroom (eg 'remember to pick out things from the text to support what you want to say!' and 'how does this connect to your real life?'), and Sec 3 students use PEEL as a basic skeleton to help them in writing paragraphs for their expositions.
The main difference lies in how EL expositions prioritise an accurate use of language more than a literature essay does. For the latter, as long as the language use does not hinder a reader's understanding, there will be no penalty even if there are mistakes. The focus is on what the student wants to say, and not so much how he says it.
However, I think literature essays that are more fluent and more sophisticated in use of language do tend to do better. The student has a wider vocabulary with which to describe his personal response, for example.
-km
My take on what good writing in Literature should be is that it should most fundamentally be insightful. It should be more than just the obvious, it should be more than just the superficial, and it certainly must be more than a mere summary of the text. Insights can be gleaned through an understanding of how literary devices are used to attain certain effects, or an understanding of why a character may think one way but act another way, for example, depending on the leanings of the particular question.
ReplyDeleteFrom my experience during practicum, it seems that what students like to do is regurgitate what they literally read from the text, giving detailed summaries of the story instead of delving deeper into the themes or characters, for example. Answers like these signal to me their superficial understanding of the text, which is not what I am looking for in a good answer. PEEL or PEE helps students to excavate the deeper meaning of the text, but it is just one (quite structured, quite rigid) way of doing so. To me, as long as a student manages to communicate his point, capitalising on Literature jargon (just to show that he knows his stuff) and showing that there is some thought in his answer in the direction demanded by the question, he is on the right track. The better the insight ("OMG, I've never seen it that way before!"), the better the writing.
While good grammar is a plus, as it would certainly help students bring across their points more fluently (thus, efficiently, considering the limited duration of exam papers), and help make their writing easily comprehensible to readers and examiners, I would not say it is a definite predeterminer of a good piece of writing in Literature. As long as students' writing is comprehensible and there is evidence of exploration of thought that lives up to the basic demands of the essay question, in spite of less-than-perfect grammar, in spite of my being a grammar Nazi, a spelling Nazi, and a format Nazi, I would award at least a pass. I qualify this by emphasising that language is the vehicle by which the student delivers his answers in Literature; language is not what is being assessed.
This is not the case in marking writing for English Language, though. Good grammar, for one, would definitely take more priority, as proficiency in the language itself is what is being assessed. Organisation of the writing would also be more severely judged, simply because structure (of speeches, letters, expositions, for example) matters, as it is among what is taught in the language. To me, it is very apt that students' writings for English Literature and English Language are assessed differently, simply because different things are being assessed.
Sharifah
ReplyDeleteA good literature essay should, firstly, answer the question posed to the student. They have to understand that the purpose of writing such an essay is to demonstrate that they have understood the work that they have read. It should have a focus. It should be persuasive.
To write a persuasive essay, the student should have at least an acceptable command of English. While I do not disagree with some of my other classmates that instances of ungrammaticality can be overlooked, there should be a line drawn - if their lack of grammatical skills prevents them from presenting their argument in a convincing manner, they should be marked down. The teacher should not be reading their essay and trying to interpret what the student is writing. It should be clear and precise to be able to be persuasive.
The students to learn clarity in their writing and expressions. This helps them in not only literature, but in other aspects of life as well. I realize I sound like a robot, but to be able to write well is a valuable asset. True story. Over and out.
I think similarly to what most of the class think, good writing in literature is subjective. Thus, when grading, I feel that standardising and having a set rubrics to follow is a good way of toning down the subjectiveness of the marker.
ReplyDeleteDuring practicum I only taught Language Arts, and the criteria for “good writing” was similar because the teachers wanted students to follow through with their knowledge on both Literature as well as English essays. Like many of the class, I’m sure we were asked to internalise into students the PEEL format of writing points/paragraphs. PEEL does however have its limitations and I think in my practicum school, the idea was to give them a springboard for coherent and persuasive writing; and at the same time introduce to them the different variations the PEEL format can take on and how/where it is normally seen or used.
For Literature, I feel that good writing from a student (assuming a Literature essay test about a set Shakespeare play) would not only show off the student’s knowledge of the play, but his or her understanding of the 5 key elements of a play - Plot, Characterisation, Theme, Setting and Point of View. Not only must the student be able to identify these elements, the student must also be able to see how these elements interweave and are connected to one another in the play. Higher-level students will be able to writing convincingly and coherently on this link. Additionally, they can also input their own opinions and observations about the play which are relevant to the question. The usage of good English is a must for both the Literature and English components of Language Arts and the students are often reminded of it. Because the literature component of Language Arts is pitched at a higher level and also due to exam conditions (1 hour to write), language use is not a graded in Literature essays and the focus is instead on the content and depth of the essay.
Ben
What is good writing in literature?
ReplyDeleteAs many of you have brought up, good writing in literature can be somewhat subjective. A piece of well written work in English, or History, may not necessarily be considered good writing in literature. In fact, I often have to switch 'styles' when marking History and Literature scripts.
Anyway, to answer the question, good writing (as determined by VS) seems to revolve around students trying to construct their ideas using the PEEL structure. Granted, this allows students to present their thoughts clearly, but ultimately results in identical, non-original scripts.
As most of our questions gravitate towards personal response, I find that it is sometimes better to allow our boys to answer the question as it is - a personal response. This way, our boys are given the luxury of personally responding to a question that is based on a given text. However, this is not to say that they should merely go off on their on tangent. It is still important to support their thoughts with evidence from the text as well as to write in a coherent manner. After all, PEEL isn't the only way to write a academic answer. What is meant as a scaffolding should not be allowed to limit the student.
How are the criteria for “good writing” different and similar for your other core subject (CS)?
Very obviously, the criteria for 'good writing' varies tremendously across the various CS. Just by examining the marking structure, Literature is often marked against a point based system whereby History is marked against the LORMS.
In History, one aims to reach for various 'levels' within the marking scheme through their critical argument of a certain hypothesis. I often find it clearer and more straightforward to mark such scripts. However, with LIterature focusing on personal response questions, marking based on the PEEL structure can result in rather subjective marking.
Yet it is important to note that they are not without their similarities. Both require the students to write with coherence, depth and flair. It is important to quote accurately from a give source to use as evidence for the argument. Students need to have a decent argument that is grounded and well explained. Grammatical errors would not lend well to a well written piece of work (although the Literature department does give concessions to China scholars which I personally feel is extremely unfair).
Whoops, epic epic late comment
ReplyDeleteRead through everyone's comments before I finally did this and looks like there are lots of differing opinions on this topic.
Personally for me I agree with Rhun and Vincent in saying that I think clarity is one key element that must be present in 'good writing'. If the marker has to spend hours figuring out what the student is trying to convey in his answer then evidently that answer needs more work.
In geography, we place more emphasis in the content rather than the language, however, answers still need to be concise and to the point. A good answer in geography, depending on which paper, is based on the points student gives or by LORMS, both of which focus on the content of the answer. Similarly I feel for literature, as much as possible, we should try not to penalize students for bad language (as long as their point is clear enough for the marker to understand) and mark for points that are well argued and explained.
However for literature, a higher-level answer should have evidence of student interaction with the text. Geography is purely a knowledge-based paper, but for literature, there should be certain level of engagement between the student and the piece of work given shown through the student's own unique interpretation of the text.