[etni] Fwd: re: On Teaching Literature
- From: ETNI list <etni.list@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Etni <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:59:53 +0200
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ilana Rosansky <ilanar49@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: On Teaching Literature
Kol haKavod, Stephen Byk!! You have shared your heart on this one and
I sense real depth in your analysis... It ought to be required reading
in someone's teacher training course... to get teachers to really
think about the status quo and about the real joys of literature...
Kol haKavod!
Ilana
Stephen wrote:
> 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 ‘What HOTS/LOTS/MOTS did
> youuuuuuuuu use?’ 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 Ministry’s present approach to literature is to use the works as a
> variety-pack of advanced reading ‘comprehension’ passages accompanied
> by the often obfuscating HOTS exercises in misdirected pedagogy. At
> best, this is a real waste of the literary material – 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) – and at worst, the
> process could ‘turn off’ 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, isn’t 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 doesn’t 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 won’t 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 don’t 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 ‘understand’ 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 ‘appreciate’: the which (to use an old-fashioned construct) means
> examining a work, not just for its story line or ‘correct’ moral
> implications or – Heaven help us – its ‘suitability’ for a particular
> political program, but for how it is ‘put together’ as the artist’s
> exercise in linguistic proficiency and mastery. After all, when we
> examine great literature – and why, by the way, should we be offering
> our students anything but the very best? – what truly thrills us and
> helps us understand the meaning of literary greatness and genius is
> the discovery and exploration of how the writer – regardless of genre
> – 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 students’ linguistic skills; even as
> it demonstrates the mastery, artistry and yes, the playfulness to be
> found – forgive the hyperbole – in that ‘wondrous thing that is
> language.’
>
> 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 author’s 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
> loss…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 writer’s ‘style’? (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 song…between poetry and prose? Where is the music in
> poetry? What does rhyme do for us? Let’s 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.) Let’s
> really apply our understanding of parts of speech and replace the
> nonsense words in “The Jabberwocky ”. 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., etc…
>
> 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 student’s 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 word…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 that’s even truer under the present system; which is trying to
> shove often overly-long works of rather mediocre literature down the
> students’ throats as if force-feeding geese; and aside from the fact
> that such forced-feeding has been rightfully deemed cruel and unusual
> punishment, it’s 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 ‘bytes’. And it’s not
> as if there aren’t great alternatives. If you really want to engage
> students in the issues of choice, instead of “Two roads diverged…”
> teach the same poet’s “Fire and Ice”. It’s 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
> ‘bridging’ 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 shouldn’t 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 ‘Post-reading Activities’ carry more than a whiff of
> artificiality and misguided attempts to ‘legislate’ student attitudes
> through rather elementary school-like ‘What I did in the Holidays’
> assignments; and the ‘Reflections,’ and ‘Summative Assessments’ are
> even more odiferous as circuitous but not very covert attempts to
> provide the Ministry with some kind of ‘feel-good’ self-justification
> for the HOTS program. If at all explored, the ‘reflections’ should be
> limited to the students’ opinions of the work’s application to human
> experiences as they understand them; and the self-congratulatory
> ‘Summative’ 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 I’m not sure that I wouldn’t 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 – and then moving
> on to Haikus that they can all write themselves (there are several
> very nice ‘write your own haiku’ 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 Dahl’s
> 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 captain…), 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 ‘cinch’. But then,
> I’ve only been teaching literature for 40 years; and unlike the
> Ministry, what do I know?
**************************************
** 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: