[etni] Re: Fwd: On Teaching Literature
- From: Hdar Yashar <hdarh5@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: David Lloyd <etni.list@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:18:59 +0200
With all due respect, this is a bit of a ramble, and for that reason, I
will only give a general answer...
I do not agree with most of what was said here. And I'm only coming forth
and saying this on the off-chance that someone from the Ministry happens
across this email. I wouldn't want them to think that this email is
representative of what all the English teachers out there.
I LOVE teaching HOTS. And I'm not going to go into a ramble of each and
every aspect of it and why/how I love it. Clearly after 40 years of
teaching, Stephen has his own style/method of teaching literature that
works for him. But that hardly means that the Ministry implemented method
isn't worth a darn. It's just different than what he's being doing for
perhaps too long.
Just my humble opinion,
-Hdar. :o)
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM, ETNI list <etni.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: ס××× <skbyk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: On Teaching Literature
>
> Kudos to Renee Wahl and to all the other teachers, who, over the
> years, have written about the almost innumerable faults of the present
> literature program. However, even if the âWhat HOTS/LOTS/MOTS did
> youuuuuuuuu use?â questions are dropped into the deep pit where they
> belong, there would still remain an enormous gap between what a
> literature program for EFL students should be and what the Ministry
> has created.
>
> The Ministryâs present approach to literature is to use the works as a
> variety-pack of advanced reading âcomprehensionâ passages accompanied
> by the often obfuscating HOTS exercises in misdirected pedagogy. At
> best, this is a real waste of the literary material â there are so
> many wonderfully badly-written and nearly totally incomprehensible
> academic articles that students could practice on (and should, since
> they may well be facing them in university) â and at worst, the
> process could âturn offâ even Native-speakers from ever wanting to
> read literature again. Not to mention the fact that, in addition to
> teacher and student work overload, the program, as currently
> conceived, isnât really succeeding in its presumably avowed goal of
> improving writing skills. Having students write seven or eight pieces
> while only carefully checking and correcting two really doesnât do
> much except offer an additional six possibilities for the students to
> continue the making their same mistakes and further entrenching bad
> habits. Better short assignments given to small sections of the
> classes at staggered intervals than making the students write, all at
> the same time, relatively long essays which are often so filled with
> mistakes that the corrective tasks become daunting, if not impossible.
> (I wonât even bother to speak about the issues connected to internet
> usage.)
>
> However, instead of merely caviling, I would like, instead, to offer a
> genuine rationale for studying literature:
>
> I donât think it can be disputed that the true purpose of studying
> literature is to learn to appreciate it; and not, as the Ministry
> seems to think, to merely âunderstandâ it as a vehicle for teaching
> analytical techniques and concepts that should have been taught, in
> Hebrew, in the fourth, fifth and sixth grades.
>
> To âappreciateâ: the which (to use an old-fashioned construct) means
> examining a work, not just for its story line or âcorrectâ moral
> implications or â Heaven help us â its âsuitabilityâ for a particular
> political program, but for how it is âput togetherâ as the artistâs
> exercise in linguistic proficiency and mastery. After all, when we
> examine great literature â and why, by the way, should we be offering
> our students anything but the very best? â what truly thrills us and
> helps us understand the meaning of literary greatness and genius is
> the discovery and exploration of how the writer â regardless of genre
> â uses and manipulates the language: not only to tell a story or
> express ideas, but to create images, elicit and involve our
> imaginations and evoke and control our emotions and reactions. In
> short, it is the process of teaching the appreciation of literature
> that focuses on and improves the studentsâ linguistic skills; even as
> it demonstrates the mastery, artistry and yes, the playfulness to be
> found â forgive the hyperbole â in that âwondrous thing that is
> language.â
>
> You want to teach literature? Then really examine it: What kind and
> level of language is the writer working in? Do the sentences have a
> rhythm even as prose? Are they imagistic and metaphoric or are they
> lacking in color? Are they structurally and syntactically
> straight-forward and clear, or are they complex and puzzling? Does,
> and if so, how does the authorâs use of language help us infer a
> different level of content? Does the level of language and vocabulary
> effect the presentation and development of the characters? Is our
> interest piqued from the outset? Are we surprised, intrigued,
> attracted, repelled, amused, moved, involved? Could we say the same
> thing differently (how? give an example) and would it be a gain or a
> lossâ¦and why?
>
> How does the opening paragraph, or the first stanza, or the first
> dialogue exchange prepare us for what comes next? What about the next
> paragraph/stanza/scene? Are there similarities to the first lines? If
> so, and we see that the writer consistently writes this way, could we
> call this the writerâs âstyleâ? (Patterns anyone? Comparisons and
> contrasts anyone?)
>
> Why do we laugh? Is it at the situation described, or at the words
> used to describe it? Does the writer use language ironically? Does the
> author reveal his/her attitude to the characters? Are we meant to
> laugh with or at the characters? Do we like them? Do they arouse our
> sympathy, compassion, contempt, etc.?
>
> Why is poetry considered by many to be the highest form of literature?
> What makes a piece of writing poetry? What are the differences between
> poetry and songâ¦between poetry and prose? Where is the music in
> poetry? What does rhyme do for us? Letâs see how easy or hard it is
> to write a coherent description or thought in rhymed couplets, or in
> an fixed pattern of a,b,a,b. (We could even try alliteration.) Letâs
> really apply our understanding of parts of speech and replace the
> nonsense words in âThe Jabberwocky â. How many different levels of
> meanings has the poet implied by his choice of words? How do the
> changes in standard sentence structure and syntax affect our
> understanding? etc., etc., etc., etcâ¦
>
> I have not attempted to organize or order the above questions
> coherently, but it should be obvious that these are some of the kinds
> of questions and explorations that raise and expand a studentâs level
> and mastery of the language; even as the search for answers can
> inspire appreciation and even awe. This is teaching language and
> language skills in context. This is what demands and trains
> recognition of patterns. This is what can provide recognition of the
> multiplicity of the different meanings of a wordâ¦and so on, and so
> forth.
>
> As to the matriculation exams, I contend that any student who learns
> to ask and answer even a portion of such questions will have no
> problem passing even the old-fashioned, one- exam-fits-all.
>
> True, not all students reach a level that can genuinely manage this,
> but thatâs even truer under the present system; which is trying to
> shove often overly-long works of rather mediocre literature down the
> studentsâ throats as if force-feeding geese; and aside from the fact
> that such forced-feeding has been rightfully deemed cruel and unusual
> punishment, itâs defeating its own purpose: because most of the works
> are simply too long or boring to sustain student interest.. This is
> particularly true for this generation of students; whose attention
> spans require, at least initially, much shorter âbytesâ. And itâs not
> as if there arenât great alternatives. If you really want to engage
> students in the issues of choice, instead of âTwo roads divergedâ¦â
> teach the same poetâs âFire and Iceâ. Itâs much more comprehendible,
> encompassable and accessible to the students; and offers a far wider
> and more interesting set of possible studies and comparisons than the
> present incumbent. And do get rid of those ridiculous biographical
> âbridgingâ questions. A work of art should stand on its own and the
> only time authorial biographical information has any
> analytical/critical validity is when it is needed to clarify otherwise
> unclear portions of the work; and if such clarification is necessary,
> then the work is clearly flawed and we shouldnât be teaching it in the
> first place.
>
> However, I am not entirely negative in regard of the literature
> program. I greatly support the HOTS program as an excellent method for
> teaching the basic approaches to literature to teachers who have no
> experience in the subject. However, the program really belongs in
> teaching seminaries and teacher improvement courses, not in EFL
> classrooms. The âPost-reading Activitiesâ carry more than a whiff of
> artificiality and misguided attempts to âlegislateâ student attitudes
> through rather elementary school-like âWhat I did in the Holidaysâ
> assignments; and the âReflections,â and âSummative Assessmentsâ are
> even more odiferous as circuitous but not very covert attempts to
> provide the Ministry with some kind of âfeel-goodâ self-justification
> for the HOTS program. If at all explored, the âreflectionsâ should be
> limited to the studentsâ opinions of the workâs application to human
> experiences as they understand them; and the self-congratulatory
> âSummativeâ assessments should be eliminated entirely.
>
> Finally, returning to the issue of the kinds of works we should be
> teaching, the key is certainly shortness and compactness, at least
> initially; and Iâm not sure that I wouldnât start formally teaching
> literature in the 9th grade by introducing different genres of short
> poems: perhaps starting with some nursery rhymes , which will provide
> them with a genuine connection to Anglo-Saxon culture and whose
> historical references will certainly intrigue them â and then moving
> on to Haikus that they can all write themselves (there are several
> very nice âwrite your own haikuâ programs on the internet). We might
> even let them discover that poetry can be fun and non-threatening:
> through Ogden Nash limericks and Lewis Carroll; and even Roald Dahlâs
> spoofs on Little Red Riding Hood and the Three Little Pigs; and, once
> having eliminated (or at least mitigated) their often negative
> attitudes to poetry, one could move on in the 10th grade to Whitman
> (Oh Captain, my captainâ¦), Frost (Fire and Ice), E. A. Robinson
> (Richard Cory) and even e.e.cummings (Spring is like a perhaps hand)
> and even one or two of the Sonnets (just to name a few of my own
> preferences).
>
> My experience has shown that once they can read, comprehend and
> appreciate poetry, confronting literary prose is a âcinchâ. But then,
> Iâve only been teaching literature for 40 years; and unlike the
> Ministry, what do I know?
>
> Stephen Byk
> **************************************
> ** Join ETNI on Facebook
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/31737970668/
> ** ETNI Blog and Poll
> http://ask-etni.blogspot.co.il/
> ** Etni homepage - http://www.etni.org
> ** post to ETNI List - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ** help - ask@xxxxxxxx
> ***************************************
>
>
**************************************
** Join ETNI on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/31737970668/
** ETNI Blog and Poll
http://ask-etni.blogspot.co.il/
** Etni homepage - http://www.etni.org
** post to ETNI List - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** help - ask@xxxxxxxx
***************************************
Other related posts: