Read:
(1) Booth (1998) The ethics of teaching literature
(2) Liew (2012) Valuing the value of lit
(3) Poon (2007) The politics of pragmatism
Post your thoughts on literature education as comments under this post. Please post by 5 Sept, Wednesday, before our tutorial on Thursday.
Hi All,
ReplyDeleteAmongst the three readings, I found myself identifying most with Poon and Liew, even if I do not necessarily disagree with Booth.
I do agree with Booth's stand that a teacher should find a middle ground between imposing her ethical and moral views upon her students and a hands-off approach in the misguided belief that literature should be analysed and appreciated for nothing else but its own artistic value. However, in my own teaching philosophy, I am less inclined to think about morals and ethics (per se) and my main concern personally is how I can use whatever subject I am teaching (literature or history) to promote critical thinking. It is my belief that the ethical dimension will fall into place when students are able to be critical thinkers. Booth's suggestion that teachers provide texts of differing ethical and moral subtexts to students seems like a good exemplification of Bakhtin's dialogic ideal of having the students arrive at an "internally persuasive discourse" based on the different "moral voices" that they absorb. Thus, I feel that Booth's suggestions will (taken as a whole) be a good way forward for Singapore's new generation of learners, in training critical thinkers who can go beyond responding to external ethical and moral stimuli (fear of punitive measures; acceptance of social norms) and towards forming their own set of core ethical beliefs.
Yet, Poon's and Liew's views resonate with me a lot more, with their stronger emphasis on the how literature is inextricably connected to power structures, society and civic engagement very closely aligned with my own philosophy on literature – that art can never be just for art's sake. Many students today fail to see the value of literature, and that will continue to be so until teachers find ways to help them draw connections between the texts they read and critique and the world in which they live in. To use a personal anecdote, I was quite surprised to hear that a friend read Philip Jeyaretnam's Abraham's Promise for her 'A' Levels at VJC. In my reading, I could immediately discern the overt references to and critique of the tensions during Operation Coldstore – one of those events frequently under-emphasised by state historians, yet my friend claims that they never engaged with the political and historical undertones (overtones, really). I found that regrettable, given that while engaging with weighty themes, it is also one of the most open to interpretation, being unpolemical with a constantly self-doubting omniscient narrator. Such a text would have been perfect for Poon and Liew's hope for more recognition of the social and political (i.e. "real") value of literature.
Nevertheless, I am unconvinced about the translatability of all these ideals. On one hand, teachers may loathe to try such approaches given that some students of lower ability may not have the motivation or maturity to fully comprehend the nuances of the themes involved. Yet on the flipside, students could be victim to a "Pygmalion Effect" of sorts, with teachers just sticking to the "safe" and "simple" things and being didactic rather than pushing their students because they assume that their students do not have the ability to grasp the concepts.
Ed
Hi Ed, what you point to is that there are different ways of "reading" any text and that really, in teaching literature, we are not just teaching books but ways of reading. It's like my son watching Disney and me watching Disney. We "read" it at different levels. About translation, at which stage and how? Can we teach critical readings using simple texts?
DeleteWhy Teach Literature?
ReplyDeleteThere are many reasons that literature should be continued to be taught in schools but I think Liew’s summary of the 3 rationales for literature sums the bulk of those reasons rather well. He explains that the educational responses for literature can be categorized as follows:
The traditional humanist view that literature provides access to ephemeral values and virtues such as beauty, love, wisdom and knowledge
The utilitarian view that literature offers practical skills that are imparted to its users which moreover can be transferred to other areas and fields of expertise
The critical view that literature actively shapes and mobilizes social change as it shapes political discourse and launches social ideologies that allows the formation of citizens who are socially and politically responsible and aware (11)
Liew demonstrates that students shouldn’t be dropping literature as a subject just because it is perceived as a subject that is “hard” to score in at the O’levels (Poon, 51). What schools and teachers should be doing is to encourage the instruction and learning of literature for the wide variety of skills, knowledge and content it offers. Sure teaching a student the atomic structure of this chemical or that compound is a useful thing to know when the exam is looming but can knowledge of that scientific formula ever come to the student’s aid when he/she is faced with questions of despair, sorrow, identity crisis and the host of other problems and challenges that all human beings in their formative years encounter? I really doubt it. Literature on the other hand provides the student access to a whole host and variety of writers, authors and a vast body of knowledge that provides if not answers then possible solutions and guiding questions that can enable one to answer the questions of identity, existence and other such life questions that the world presents to us constantly.
Far from the myopic view that literature should be dropped because it would affect a student’s exam grades, literature should instead be embraced for the other skills and advantages it provides beyond the classroom. It provides skills and knowledge that will not only develop a student academically but also create a student of literature who would be able to engage with “how texts and everyday textual and language practices materially construct social power and knowledge, cultural, gender and class identity” (as qtd. in Poon 58).
With such a host of skills and knowledge that learning literature provides to a student of literature, it is no longer a question of students pragmatically dropping literature so that they can succeed in their exams but rather a question of why would they drop it if they wish to succeed in life?
Many people "succeed" in life without studying literature :p how would you respond to that?
DeleteHi everyone, I took away 2 main thoughts from this week's readings:
ReplyDelete1) Helping students to recognise the politics of representation, i.e. "who has a voice, who speaks, who gets silenced and why" (Poon 57). I've been thinking about how to help students reach a level of critical consciousness (cf. Liew's emphasis on critical questioning too) about a text, and this idea of highlighting issues of representation stood out as a good entry point. I think Poon's schema is accessible for many secondary school students, as they would, with some guidance, be able to identify the speakers in a text, as well as the silenced ones. Getting them to consider the politics of representation would be a provocative next step to take. Some students might take to it more easily than others (because I think it requires a certain level of meta-cognition and distancing from the text?), but overall it would be a fruitful way of engaging with the text. I can also see the real world allusions that can be drawn, as we could get students to consider who are the speakers in society, and which are the parties that are silenced, and why. Although this sounds like it might tread on potentially dangerous ground, I think that with the right moderation and conversational guidelines, it will be a useful way of building critical consciousness in our students.
2) Using Literature lessons as a platform for students to learn how to engage with each other's opinions in a critical, yet constructive, manner (cf. Booth 52). This is linked to my earlier point on representations. Instead of asking students to consider fictional speaking subjects, it would be interesting to turn the tables on them and ask them to consider how they represent their views, how they respond to others' challenges to their views, and whether anyone in the class is unfortunately silenced when there is a tussle of opinions. I think that this approach will make Literature lessons more applicable to real life. While students may leave our classrooms forgetting everything we've taught them about Romeo and Juliet, if they have learnt how to treat other opinions with respect, while engaging critically and constructively with them, then I think that Literature has taught them something after all. In fact, this would be my response to Eagleton's question, when he asks whether reading Literature can bring about any real-world change. Not all our students will be politicians or major game-changers, but if they can take away some practical social and emotional competencies like these, then I think reading Literature would have helped to bring about some (tiny) social change.
I agree with Poon and Liew that literature cannot serve only a pragmatic aim, though, sadly, pragmatic arguments are often offered in defense of literature by its apologists. In place of a plainly pragmatic aim (e.g. "literature trains you to write well, so you can impress future employers"), Poon states a view through the quotation of Peim, who states that literature "engages questions about institutions and professional identities, about ideology and culture, and about sociology and the history of education, too" (qtd. in Poon, 58). Liew narrows down the scope and nature of this engagement when he claims that literature "[has] served covertly and combatively to counter the official accounts of truth purveyed by those in power" (8).
ReplyDeleteMuch as I identify with these sentiments, I question the applicability of their views in the MOE school system, which exists within the larger framework of a discourse of pragmatism that is deeply rooted in this society. We are, after all, part of an "ideological state apparatus" (Althusser), and mediate "the state's ideology of economic pragmatism" (Liew, 8) to varying degrees. I am also cautious not to have students misunderstand the value of literature as a check against hegemonic and official discourses. The study of literature is not a call to arms, nor an inciting of rebellion; it can however be an invitation to the reader to be conscious about the ideologies we labour under, to be conscious of what we do, and why we do what we do -- and most importantly, if we wish to continue doing so, and why. What is decided after that is the individual's prerogative. The critical thought process is key.
Perhaps a response to my own concern (admittedly a reaction that is itself governed by pragmatism) could be found in Booth's article. While I am suspicious of "teaching" morality/ethics, I do agree that texts, as distillations of lived experiences, provide a focal point to discuss issues of choice, which are inevitably related to issues of values. My personal opinion is that values should not be "taught" per se, but examined. If a student knows what he/she believes in (a question of self-awareness), and why (a question of reflection), and if he/she wishes to remain that way or change (a question or resolve), that is enough.
Sorry there is no "edit" option for my comment, so I will just have to add in this new comment that it is I, Damien.
ReplyDeleteThere are two phenomenons that are constantly referred to in these readings. First, there is the advent of the creative economy. Second, the issue of ethics in teaching arises. How do these two phenomenons affect the teaching of English Literature in Singapore?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Angelia Poon and Warren Mark Liew, due to globalization, Singapore could no longer just depend on a semiconductor industry. The world is no longer just trading physical goods, the exchange of information and culture becomes an important pillar in the new, creative economy. According to Poon, there is the emphasis on “the importance of a knowledge-based economy” and Singapore aiming to become a “global city with a cosmopolitan citizenry able to appreciate the arts and different forms of high culture” (52). In response to this shifting economic landscape, the Singapore education system, especially with the “Thinking School, Learning Nation” model, students have to move beyond “rote learning and memorization without understanding or deep learning” to become students with “[changed mindsets] and 'life-long skills'” (53). This matches the demand for “a flexible and creative workforce for the twenty-first century” (53). Liew also expressed that “creative” industries” actually “contribute up to 6% of GDP, making Singapore comparable to 'creative cities' like London [...]” (7-8). The creative economy is the way to go. Hence Poon and Liew argue that Literature as an academic subject becomes an important resource to contribute to the develop of this creative economy in Singapore.
Continuation:
ReplyDeleteSo how does Literature play a role in the advent of the creative economy? Currently in Singapore, “the view of literature [is] a skills-based rather than, so the taxonomic binary in Singapore goes, a content subject” (Poon 55). As creativity is interpreted in terms of producing “entrepreneurs and highly educated and mobile professionals” rather than artists, filmmakers or novelists, Literature is taught for its ability to equip students with high-level reading skills, such as New Criticism and Reader Response Theory, especially through the usage of the “unseen” (Poon 53). However, due to such emphasis, schools have seen “a persistent decline in the percentage of students opting to study [Literature] at O-level” (Poon 51). As Liew aptly describes, “Literature, it seems, is just another brand of 'high art' to be enjoyed by a literate/literary minority” (4). Therefore, “[b]ent on optimizing their academic results in the high-takes O-levels and A-level examinations, schools have learned to engineer their curricula in ways that channel students into the subjects they are more likely to score in” (4). Hence, while Literature does have a role in promoting these skills that will develop the creative workforce, but out of practicality, schools are having it removed so as to ensure their academic ranking will be high.
This is where the importance of ethics of teaching English Literature arises. Wayne C. Booth describes ethics in the following excerpt:
"The word “ethical” can perhaps shift us from judgments about specific commandments or codes toward joining Leonard's concern for the construction of a certain kind of person. Ethical thinking at its best has always pursued not literal “thou shalt nots” but a range of “virtues”, characteristic habits of behavioral considered admirable." (42)
With globalization and the rise of the creative economy, societies will become more plural. There will be more and more difference in the society we are living in. In fact, there will be many “others” that will enter into Singapore. Literature can function as a platform in “promoting moral growth, empathy and cultural understanding—all desirable attributes in a Singapore citizenry” (Poon 57). Especially with many foreign immigrants entering into Singapore's social landscape, xenophobia has been on the rise. Literature can serve as a platform to allow the student, the Self, to recognize that foreign immigrants are not people to be discriminated, but an “Other” to be cared for. Both Poon and Liew believe that Literature should also be taught through a cultural studies lens. Through cultural studies, Literature can give voice to “the disenfranchised in our society, including the poor, the homeless, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people, female victims of domestic violence, and migrant workers” (Liew 9). Literature hence serves to safeguard a nation's moral or political conscience.
Therefore, all three readings actually provide a perspective to the teaching of English Literature in Singapore schools. We not only see what is desired out of English Literature, for it to be a subject to develop ethical students, we can also see the reality of teaching Literature in schools, how it is mainly taught to provide a reading skill and nothing more.
Wee Kiat
How do we create spaces for these issues to surface in the classroom? Given the time constraints we have (70 mins a week for lower sec, 105 mins for upper sec), teachers often find themselves working towards the high stakes exams. Can we teach beyond the high stakes exams and still help students to score in the exams? If a student goes away critical, is it possible to score a B? And if s/he does, is that still successful teaching?
DeleteAccording to Poon's essay, she said that Literature teaching in Singapore still focuses on imparting values of National Education to our students. However, schools fail to see the value of Literature as a moralizing agent. They leave it to lessons such as Pastoral Care and Career Guidance (PCCG) and Civics and Moral Education (CME) that students do not take seriously. Through Literature, there is a possibility that the racial divide in schools, where Malay Muslim students tend to be separate from Chinese students, can be resolved. Also, if Literature becomes an avenue of moralizing our students, students will then see the intrinsic value of the subject, and they may be motivated to do well in the examinations. These may sound ideal, but I believe there is a possibility.
DeleteWhy teach Literature?
ReplyDeleteThe dwindling number of students offering literature at the pre-tertiary and tertiary levels is a statistical fact that cannot be ignored in both Poon and Liew’s articles. Their analyses of this worrying trend provide much food for thought but perhaps what is more important is to return to the main question at hand, “Why do we (still) teach Literature?”
A number of points from both Poon and Liew resonated with me – as of Booth’s as well, which I will elaborate upon later – the first being the necessity to promote (instil?) the habits of critical thinking and questioning in our students. Literature is a great tool to open students’ minds to the multiple possibilities and perspectives present in the world outside of their own, and texts are the conduit to that other world or being they might otherwise never have experienced. The quote by Nussbaum in Liew’s article (6) particularly struck me – for it is not just empathy that makes students in-depth readers of texts, but the ability to synthesize the reading experience with an awareness of real-world knowledge and applications that effectively transforms the static, solitary nature of reading to a dynamic, communal one where students come together (with their peers and teachers) to engage in a discussion that critically evaluates the sub/text and the world out of the text. For the nature of texts and of teaching Literature is precisely to draw students into “dialogue, discussion, and debate” (Liew 7) – by expecting students to formulate their opinions and become increasingly critical thinkers (and questioners), teachers, through the teaching of Literature, helps open students’ minds to other viewpoints/perspectives and adding more, disparate, voices to the landscape of thought and discourse.
This brings me to my next point of the notion of communicative rationality in Liew’s article (10), a theory first developed by the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, and intrinsically important to the study (and teaching) of Literature, for students learn that they are themselves situated in specific socio-cultural and historical contexts, subsequently deriving and engaging in reasoning processes from this particular standpoint. The issue of “critical reflexivity” (Liew 10) is crucial here for students do not just engage with their texts, but in the process of engagement, one engages with oneself, and the social and cultural milieu one is situated in, as well. As Poon rightly points out, a text cannot be taught in isolation, stripped of its cultural and historical context, for it is always “embedded in a network of discourses and circuits of institutional and cultural power” (Poon 57). This context is one in which the teacher and student ought to engage with – the ethics of reading and teaching Literature is one foregrounded in the awareness and acknowledgement of “[w]ho has a voice, who speaks, who gets silenced and why” (Poon 57) – questions of “why” that links back to the critical nature of Literature (a necessary trait for either a teacher or student as well).
I am admittedly intrigued by Booth’s formulation of an ethics of reading and of teaching Literature, especially with his emphasis on “shared encounters” and “spontaneous conversation” (53), for aligned with his argument of the fashioning of selves (a necessity for teachers to, in order for their students to model after), it acknowledges the creation of selves which are situated in a multiplicity of contexts – multiple selves of/for students who come from varied social and cultural backgrounds, who belong in various community circles – coming together to confer about not just the morality of stories, but igniting the spark to a dialogue across socio-historical differences.
(Blogspot does not allow me to publish beyond 4,097 characters... here is my final short paragraph.)
ReplyDeleteThe answer to the question “why teach Literature” is not just one, but multiple – and there are neither right nor wrong answers, but the ability to argue for one’s standpoint in a logical manner befitting the rational nature of the subject matter. And that is how to teach our students to be critical thinking beings, aware of their fallacies in thought and speech, through the Literature subject. (For the love of it.)
Teachers of literature in Singapore have several battles to fight. First, getting students to stop thinking that literature is ‘difficult’; second, to convince key personnel in the school that literature is a subject worth studying and three, to help students do well in literature.
ReplyDeleteThe first battle is postulated in Poon’s article when she points out that literature is “widely perceived as a difficult subject for an elite few” (1). Students think that literature consists of difficult language constructed by metaphors and synecdoche and what-have-yous, the classic canonical works of Shakespeare, Donne and Chaucer; that literature is inaccessible because they cannot relate to what they’re reading and is not immediately relevant to their lives. A common question would be, “What jobs can I do if I study literature?” (The answer of which is almost always “teacher” said with disdain). It is a problem because the effects of studying literature are organic and intangible – analytical and critical-thinking skills take time to develop and are not always examinable in the Singaporean examination format.
This leads to the second battle. In my experience, the principals are the ones who ultimately get to decide what subjects are being offered, and in my contract-teaching school, literature was offered only to students who were already almost guaranteed to pass it. There was a grand total of 7 candidates offered the subject at O levels. I think Booth’s suggestion to infuse ethics into literature make the studying of literature a lot more practical at school-level because of the emphasis on National Education, Asian Values and Character and Citizenship Education (CCE). His suggestion made me look at the study of literature in a new light. It also made me think about how potentially subversive literature might come to be viewed if ethics in literature were emphasized. However, Liew’s examples of some possible ways to study texts got me thinking that is it in fact, implementable, and necessary. There is much talk about Singaporeans being apathetic, but this could be a good way to introduce students to the issues that the world is facing and get them thinking critically again.
If we are able to successfully change the mindsets of students and key personnel in the school, I think the third battle is as good as won. When students are able to engage, learning takes place. Booth’s idea of having “shared encounters” through literature might just happen if it was taken more seriously.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(deleted previous comment because I realised my italics weren't showing)
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate that Liew and Poon, in some parts of their respective articles, address concerns related to “literature” as an academic discipline abstracted from specific social contexts, their concurrent interchangeable use of “English literature” and “literature” reminds me that “English literature” as an academic subject in Singapore still carries a certain amount of implicit socio-historical/socio-political baggage, even if this baggage no longer appears to be explicitly addressed as a chief concern within the curricular framework. Despite acknowledgement of the inherently politicised nature of “literature,” Poon and Liew have argued for most part in their articles as if the “literature” of which they write were not the socially-burdened “English literature” that we know. Poon and Liew do address very briefly the issues of “heritage and identity in relation to the type of texts to be studied” (Poon, 57) and the question of “[w]hose interests are served in the study of ‘English Literature’” (Liew, 10), but both of them approach the academic subject of “English literature” as if it were a fixed subject – as if the benefits to be reaped from the study of “literature” which they detail in their articles, are necessarily achieved through the study of “English literature” as it is currently found in the curriculum.
I feel I risk flogging a dead horse here, given that post-colonial hang-ups are probably no stranger to English literature majors hailing from former British colonies, and I might perhaps be overextending the line of argument a little, but I think that our easy interchanging of “literature” and “English literature” when referring to the academic subject officially designated “English literature” in Singapore might be considered particularly telling of our own (as a nation, or as a body of students/student teachers/teachers) engagement with this academic subject. Perhaps, then, resistance to taking up “English literature” as an examinable subject isn’t just because it’s ‘harder to score in’ than subjects such as the sciences or even geography (which is quite erroneously categorised as a humanities subject within the MOE system); even if students could see the value – any value, be it intellectual, pragmatic, or anything else as yet unaddressed – in “literature” as an academic discipline, is it possible that presenting this discipline as “English literature” might somehow be contributing to resistance to the examinable subject as a whole?
Just as a thought experiment – if we were to take Poon’s and Liew’s arguments for the teaching of “literature” to be generally defensible – what if we expanded the boundaries of the subject beyond cursory nods to “local literature” (usually in the form of a couple of Catherine Lim short stories and Kuo Pao Kun plays, perhaps a selection of Arthur Yap poems)? Obviously any choice would inevitably be politically informed, given how no individual can be apolitical, and such a proposal would be decried as nationalistic by some, and by others, as disadvantageous to those wishing to pursue (English, of course) literature overseas or at our local universities beyond the A levels. But purely as a thought experiment – to go to extremes, as it were, to see what might emerge – what if the “literature” taught in school were not “English literature” as we know it? If we are, as Liew and Booth claim, interested in the humanist project or even the more pragmatic one dependent on creative impulses, would any less be achieved with a “literature” curriculum which is not “English literature” as it currently stands? And if we claim that it must be “English literature” (again, as we know it), then are we perhaps being disingenuous in omitting the reference to “English literature” when we argue the merits of “literature” in the classroom?
Well, the syllabus is titled "Literature in English" - Does that make a difference? And I do take your point how we silence the "English" when we just say "Literature" in our classes. The disciplinary traditions we have been trained in certainly influence the way we think about the subject and as a teacher, we need to be aware of our own histories and what we bury to bring something to life.
DeleteThe IBDP has a world literature curriculum where they include translated texts and recent anthologies of Singapore Lit such as Edwin Thumboo's &Words include translated texts. Should we go in that direction? How can the 2013 syllabus move forward, beyond including Singaporean/Malaysian texts as options on the core list of set texts and piecemeal study in the unseen?
I think perhaps I was more interested in unpacking the assumptions behind the question, "Why teach literature?" Is the "literature" in question used in the more philosophical way which Liew, Poon and Booth seem to be using (with the emphasis on abstracted humanist or pragmatic ideals), or do we really mean "why teach the literature of the English language?" Alternatively, if we mean "why teach literature in the language of English," that too would have ramifications on our answer and what we think should be included in the syllabus/how the teaching of this subject should be approached in the classroom.
DeleteIn their articles, Liew and Poon have discussed some of the issues surrounding literature education in Singapore, namely, the reasons as to why literature is a “moribund subject” (Poon 51), why literature should continue to be taught in Singapore, and the reasons behind the structuring of curriculum and curriculum change that incorporates an unseen section into the syllabus.
ReplyDeleteThere is mention in both Liew’s and Poon’s articles of the mindset of Singaporean society, who view literature as “a difficult subject suitable for an elite few” (Poon 51), comparable to “a luxury good for those who can afford it” (Liew 4). This line of thinking is evident even in lower secondary classes, for example, in the school where I did my ESE in, students regard Literature as useless and impractical, and would rather use their time to study a science subject because it held better prospects for them. I agree with the way that Liew responded to this claim, providing “three kinds of educational responses: the humanist, the utilitarian, and the critical” (11), where these responses state the need for literature to continue to be taught in school. Even if the teenage student does not subscribe to these reasons at present, I believe that the exposure to literature as a subject and the development of “dialogic learning” and “dialogic critical thinking” through “dialogue, discussion, and debate” (Liew 7) in the classroom provides the individual student with the platform to further develop these skills, whether now or in the future.
On another note, I thought that Poon raised a pertinent point in her article:
But if preparing students to tackle the ‘unseen’ means that students are inevitably compelled to read a range of texts, it is important to note that these would mainly be short, self-contained poetic texts and extracts from prose works rather than long poems or complete prose texts. Thus the drawback here is that students study literature in a piecemeal fashion: the subject is served to them in sample doses which more often than not fails to add up to a rich and balanced literary diet. (55)
While the students may have read a wide variety of short texts, I think that they are shortchanged. The students may, as a result of their Unseen Exercises in school, believe that this piecemeal literary diet is all there is to literature. Although this can (easily?) be solved by encouraging students to explore other texts outside of the syllabus, the students could see this as either redundant or unnecessary, because they have already been exposed to a large variety of literary texts. This would be a possible mindset issue that teachers have to tackle. While this issue could be resolved on its own, that is, the student’s maturity level would guide him to respond to the teacher’s suggestion differently (some positively, others negatively), perhaps we could think about how we can respond to such issues that would most probably emerge in our journeys as teachers.
Why teach literature?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the articles by Warren Liew, Angelia Poon and Wayne Booth, it appears, and rightly so, that the biggest reason to teach literature is to teach students how and (more importantly) why to think critically. When Warren Liew mentioned the controversial General Elections of 2011 in Singapore, his comments mirrored my opinion that Singapore citizens are "eager to participate in the cut-and-thrust of public debate over sensitive issues" (Liew 12). At a time when our literature syllabus seems to have taken a backseat in the opinions of the powers to be, my opinion is that the events of our 2011 General Elections should have pointed Singaporeans to reconsider the importance of literature in our national curriculum. It appears that our citizenry has finally opened themselves up to an unprecedented level of critical thinking that will surely benefit Singapore's nation building and "Renaissance City" ambitions further.
Is it foolish for our education system to be so intertwined with government policy? Is it perhaps even a little scary (cf. Orwell's "1984") to think about how our education system goes through its various twists and turns with such close relation to "Singapore's needs for economic survival and progress"? (Poon 53) After all, literature is an arts subject, is it not? Shouldn't we all go through the process of exposing ourselves to the beauty of the written word in our education? To answer, I definitely agree to these sentiments to some degree. As literature students, I'm sure we all possess this romantic streak which we want to keep alive in future generations. As Terry Eagleton describes in his essay, there are two schools of thought when relating to the subject of literature. One sees literature as an art form while another sees it as a means of finding meaning in our lives. In the case of Singapore, since our citizenry is ready to open themselves up to thinking and reading critically, the role of literature as a means for students to learn how to think and view the world critically is more important than ever before.
If our youth today is increasingly apathetic and desensitized to the goings on in our world, we might potentially be raising a generation of ultra-pragmatists who can only exist in the pre-conventional level of Kohlberg’s model of moral development. How then, can our Renaissance City be achieved when all our young only strive to be Wall Street materialists? We need literature more than ever before to excite the senses of our students and to take them on flights of fancy that are so necessary in the lives of children and adolescents so that they emerge from the education system well-balanced individuals who not only are capable of independent thought but more significantly, adults that bother to think at all.
(I was planning to respond to all three articles but after a long rant on Liew's article, I find myself getting tired of my own opinions, so I sincerely apologize and I hope you guys can bear with my rant!)
ReplyDeleteIn Liew’s essay, he discusses three different responses to the teaching of Literature, namely the humanist, the utilitarian and the critical. As he concludes his essay, I get the sense that he is in support of the critical approach to teaching Literature, using it as a “process dedicated to helping our students think and act responsibly as social individuals, global citizens, and human beings”. While I agree that this approach seems the most sensible of the three approaches, I still feel that setting out to teach literature as a means of gearing our future generations into a particular type of people defeats the purpose of teaching literature in the first place.
Before I go into that, let me justify my support for the critical approach. As Liew claims, the traditional humanist view sees literature as “intrinsically valuable, embodying not only all that is human and humane, but also ‘the best that has been thought and said to the world’”. Even as a strong proponent of literature teaching, I feel that such a view is too idealistic, narrowing the definition of literature to something that can only tell us of what is supposedly good and true of the world. However, we all know that the judgment of “human and humane” is inherently subjective and can change across generations or even culture. Does this then mean that what one culture consider as literature is actually not literature in another? Do we then, for example, not see Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden” as literature, since its glorification of colonialism is, arguably, not human or humane?
Personally, I take offence at anyone’s proposal that literature should be “valued for the skills that it imparts, skills that are transferable to other wealth-generating fields of endeavor”. While I do not disagree that literature could impart valuable skills (such as analytical and critical thinking) to a student, reducing the value of literature to simply economics is, to me, downright distasteful. Living in a society as economically driven as Singapore, do we really have to ignore the beauty of literature and turn it into yet another economic resource? Is it really not enough for us to see art, for art's sake?
The critical view, with its focus on “shaping and mobilizing social change”, definitely has its limits. Growing up as (and away from) just another apathetic teenager in the political scene of Singapore has convinced me of the need to make the future generations much more socially aware than I had been, and if literature can be a means of activating the social consciousness of Singaporean teenagers, then to me, this is one additional benefit of teaching literature. However, to see literature as the vehicle to push for social change is to me, just another insult to what I view literature as.
Certainly, there can’t be just one purpose behind teaching literature, if it has to be justified at all. Literature is an encompassment of everything Liew discussed in his article, and more. Literature might not be all that is human and humane, but we sure can hope that by exposing students to viewpoints that go beyond their own little bubbled world called Singapore, they learn what it means to be human and humane. Literature should not be taught to give anyone an economic edge, but if it does achieve that end, it is just another upside to teaching literature. And, while we really should not set out to change the world by teaching literature, if it motivates the future generations to make a change in areas they view as necessary, I say good for them (and us as well).
But, if my teaching literature does not achieve any of these purposes, I still wouldn’t sweat it as well, for after all, what literature has taught me thus far is that the world is a much more beautiful place with the many different types of people around me, and their varying opinions and strengths.
Why teach Literature?
ReplyDeleteI think Liew’s article aptly sums up three key justifications as to why literature should be taught in our schools today. Firstly, it promotes humanist values; Liew suggests that the study of literature enlarges “students’ social and cultural awareness, in developing their capacity for imaginative empathy, and in cultivating a sense of civic duty” (Liew 2). This is echoed by Holden who states that arguments in favour of literature asserts its value as “a repository of humanistic and spiritual values which might resist the pragmatism and increasing materialism of everyday Singaporean life” in his article “The Great Literature Debate: Why Teach Literature in Singapore”(Holden 79).
Secondly, the utilitarian value of Literature makes studying it relevant in a society driven by the law of economic pragmatism. In order to engage effectively with the 21st century marketplace, students need to acquire a set of social and intellectual competencies that will help them to rise up to meet various challenges. The study of literature should be valued for its ability to encourage “higher order thinking skills, the kind of creative thinking necessary for Singapore’s future as an economically developed nation” (Holden 79). It would undoubtedly, through dialogic learning, hone students’ ability to analyze and respond critically. The skill of criticality will become a profit-making asset for them as they enter into other wealth-generating fields of endeavour, which is why the concept of “Teaching Schools, Learning Nations” was implemented in 2007.
Thirdly, Liew suggests that the study of Literature can actively shape and mobilized social change as the creativity that it produces “can be a tool of empowerment, a means of joining personal voice and political vision in an ethical enterprise of imaging a more just, inclusive, and feeling society” (Liew 9). He asks: “What social and political dividends can be reaped from these artistic products? What part should students and teachers play in capitalizing on the potential utility of these creations?” (Liew 9). It is true that “literature teachers can play a vital role in this change process by enacting critical pedagogical approaches” (Liew 11) but to what extent is this achievable in schools today?
Angela Poon’s article sheds some light on the declining importance of literature as an effective mode of study that cultivates individual criticality. She points to a major drawback of the currently examination syllabus which emphasizes on the “unseen” component. Students are served sample doses of poetry or prose for analysis; this exercise will no doubt help them to acquire skills of critical analysis of texts, but as the writing is abstracted from it historical context, the general mode of learning literature in Secondary schools are “less conducive to the development of ‘conversations’ where both teacher and students are actively engaged in the construction of meaning” (Poon 55). Angela Poon stresses that the unseen approach downplays if not obviates the need to teach students how to critically analyse texts in relations to their cultural and historical moment, which prevents the foregrounding of political and social issues such as the struggles over identity, race, class, gender and sexuality which is essential to develop a participative citizenry equipped with the means to create social and political change. Poon’s article complements Liew’s by identifying the challenges posed against the actualisation of Liew’s vision of how the study of literature can create a more involved citizenry in the political and social conditions in Singapore.
ReplyDeleteBooth’s article posits some possible techniques through which teachers can work towards inculcating greater critical awareness and sensitivity in their students. However, I am doubtful how his techniques, and all the suggestions made by Poon and Liew, can be actualised in our schools today. As a beginning teacher, I only have, within my scope of control, the classes I am assigned to take. It seems a colossal task to try and “change” the mindsets of my students, as well as their parents and other stakeholders in education, about the value of studying literature. I think Booth’s article really points out what is needed in our literature curriculum today. Apart from teaching our students about literary skills and content, what really sets the discipline of humanities apart is the transmission and inculcation of values and ethics, either that of the individual or societal. If the style of teaching literature or facilitation of literary discussion does not go beyond the level of rote learning literary devices and chapter-by-chapter synopsis analysis, I do not see how the study of literature can achieve its goals of creating a generation of thinkers. Even as a future literature teacher, if I am bored to tears observing the lessons of senior teachers (no offence!), I do not expected students to be enthralled by the depth and beauty of the literary. I believe in the value of studying literature, in moulding a generation of thinkers, but it requires a greater concerted effort by all stakeholders to bring this vision to pass.
Sometimes I wonder if I am going to become a literature teacher or a Civics and Citizenship Education teacher. Good moral values are increasingly superimposed upon and boldly integrated into the outcomes of learning literature, and I am not too sure whether I am entirely comfortable with it. I like the question that Liew throws to his students: Why are some Singaporean novels, plays, and poems not included in MOE’s approved Literature syllabi? Are certain novels too thought-provocative for the higher powers up there to be comfortable with? (Obviously.) How do we teach ‘creative thinking’ then? If good literature teaching ‘include[s] at least one powerful story that challenges current hot clichés’ (Booth 51), then teachers would have to tip-toe around the OB markers and ensure that whatever text we introduce should never contradict the ruling government’s doctrine.
ReplyDeleteThat is of course, somewhat overly pessimistic. To be fair, there is a gradual widening of boundaries. Eric Khoo’s 12 Storeys and Mee Pok Man seem to be ‘set texts’ for JC students. However, this begs the question of how teachers would use these films in their lessons. Would we skirt around political issues, or can we be comfortable with an open discussion in our classrooms and encourage students to speak out for or against a particular opinion? I believe this is a challenge that we as teachers face – the balance and struggle between our beliefs (for or against a particular subject) and MOE’s learning outcomes and OB markers in eliciting critical responses from the students.
While the statistics reflected in both Liew and Booth's articles paint a bleak outlook of literature as a academic subject in Singapore, I find it encouraging that both writers agree that Literature is much more than a subject in academia. In my opinion, Literature is more than a subject, an art, a skill, a philosophical umbrella, a term or what have you. While it might be futile to pinpoint the exact definition of what Literature is, it is worth considering what it does. To me, Literature simply empowers for reasons such as these: 1) it empowers one to "suspend his/her disbelief, whilst transporting him/her into a realm beyond reality" or to put it simply, meta-reality. 2) it empowers one to think between the lines and beyond what it written in the text 3) it empowers one to formulate his/her opinions based on his/her own interpretation on the text itself. i.e. critical thinking/analysis. And if i were to sum all these reasons up, Literature empowers one to operate beyond. Teaching Literature should never be about content, nor should it be about a skill but rather, it should be about empowering others to have views and opinions. To take that into context, while some may highlight the fact that MOE has been rather tight about the texts they approve (i.e, Liew: "Why are some Singaporean novels, plays, and poems not included in MOE’s approved Literature syllabi?"), I would like to contest that it does not matter. Whether the text displays good ethical or moral values or whether the text is politically "safe" does not matter if Literature is taught to empower because like it or not, an empowered reader/thinker will be able to think beyond the text and it's implications even if it is flagged as politically "safe", etc. As Nussbaum aptly puts it, our challenge as teachers of Literature is to "produce students who are truly Socratic" (Nussbaum qtd in Liew 6). Socratic thinkers will challenge and ask questions regardless of the text. If the issue lies not so much in teaching but rather empowering, i think that it is safe to say that the onus lies on teachers themselves to create an environment that is conducive for open discussion and debate. On a broader perspective, is the government ready to embrace a generation of citizens that are ready to challenge and critique every move, action and word?
ReplyDeleteIn Poon's essay, she mentions the then PM, Goh Chok Tong, launching the "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation" initiative, one of the objectives of this project being to inculcate "core values" into the Singapore citizenry. The whole project being an effort to enable Singaporeans to be competent in a fast changing global market. The TSLN initiative, thus in Booth's terms, is a capitalist effort that tries to shape it's citizen based on economic and market values rather than ethical values that should underlie education. If somebody, like the woman in Booth's essay asks this question, "What kind of person is TSLN designed to produce?" the answer would, "the kind who has mastered the 21st century core competencies and is a profitable entity in the 'knowledge-based economy' of today." In Liew's essay he delves into the subject of literature being a dying subject. Despite the Ministry of Education's official policy of making literature a vehicle of "aesthetic and imaginative growth", the ground reality is such that the constraints of an exam centric, economy-specific system does not allow for the blossoming of literature as a "serious" subject. As Liew remarks, it is not a "hard" subject even for humanities. He asks this question, "What is the market value of literature?"--a question that each student asks herself when preparing for exams. For most schools, English is quietly dropped in the Upper Secondary level, paving the way for much apathy towards the subject in the Lower-Sec level.
ReplyDeletePlato in his Republic mentions that for any republic to function effectively, education has to be holistic. It is not enough for leaders of the republic to be cunning policy-makers, but they must have a strong moral education so that they do not turn into tyrants. Plato was a strong proponent against "mimesis", and thus, one might suggest against the Arts altogether. However, in the Republic, Plato does allow that for education to be complete, a certain form of measured indulgence in the Arts became necessary. So, imitation that was value-laden, was seen as an appropriate part of education. From reading Ion, most readers conclude that Platonic philosophy completely disavows the idea of mimesis and the Arts. However, in The Republic, Plato elaborates on this idea, to include a more "ethical" stance.
The point therefore is, for education to be complete, there requires, a humanistic, ethical "core" (if I may use the word) that is not related to mercenary ends. The end of education, if education must have an end at all, should be in the building of a self that can carry the burden of its own identity, can realize the duties that are obligatory and necessary at a microcosmic level, at an individual level, beginning with an empathy with one's own self and then with one's immediate others and then spanning out to the community and nation at large.
The idea of National education then would not appear forced, for. once the values and ethics are in place, the individual can make connections and ideas with other related ideologies.
The exam pattern, stresses more on skills than on literature. Going back to the problem of literature being an unpopular subject, when literature becomes an endless set of drills and patterns to be picked up mechanically rather than through inquiry, as Booth suggests, it becomes a millstone, especially for students for whom Standard Singapore English, is essentially a second language. The colloquial jargon that they use is not enough to string together elegant sentences for exam purpose. They may know the right adjectives to describe a character, but they are unable to continuously produce the required language.
It is, like Booth's essay suggests, highly essential to get the students engaged in reading, before any skills CAN be developed.
Why teach Literature?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, why do we bother teaching a subject that is dying a slow death not just in Singapore, but around the world? Statistics in both Poon and Liew’s articles point out that the numbers of students who are taking literature as a subject have been decreasing over the years. And to be honest, I’m quite sure that some of these students are only learning it because they don’t know what else to do. The articles also confirm that literature is still seen as a ‘privileged’ subject, available only for the elite or at most, voracious readers. So why should we bother teaching it to all students?
The answer, to me, is simple. Literature teaches not just content alone, but it also equips us with thinking skills that will last a person’s lifetime. Students don’t just study Shakespeare’s tragedies; they also learn how to think critically about the texts that they’ve learnt, and this enables them to ask crucial questions in future. On a related note, Poon suggests that literature is considered as a subject that is “useful for enhancing creativity, a key ingredient for economic success in the knowledge economy of the twenty-first century” (Poon 51). While I am glad that it is now being ‘approved’ as a subject, I am slightly offended by how it is thought as “useful” in economic terms. I believe that literature is a subject that is meant to expand our mind and raise awareness about the environment, or the conditions that we’re living in. According to Liew, it is “actively shaping and mobilizing social change… integral in making responsive and responsible readers into agents of change” (Liew 11). I agree with his “critical” view, what the students really learn in literature lies not in what they’ve studied, but rather, how they are empowered with the knowledge to do something, and to affect the things that go on around them. I believe that if people see literature this way, as a holistic form of education rather than a dreary, text-based subject, perhaps more students would be inclined to learn the subject for its intangible enlightening process, rather than using it simply to fulfill curriculum requirements. And I think that, would make teaching literature a more gratifying experience.
However, if this is the desired outcome of teaching literature, then the syllabus has to be tweaked to suit such objectives. The 'unseen' section is not enough to provide a broad scope of learning for the students. Perhaps a different, wider range of texts other than the canon should be made mandatory for them to read and engage in critical thinking instead.
In their essays, Poon and Liew make a strong case for reconsidering the teaching of Literature in a different perspective, one that is more critical and takes into account the political and ethical structures surrounding the text.
ReplyDeleteThe critique on the 'unseen' text is particularly pertinent, in view of the new syllabus changes to the GCE 'O' Level English Language Curriculum. Literature has been always 'valued' for inculcating critical thinking and perception skills in students, and the latest move to include literary elements in the teaching of English Language reflects the desire to give the entire cohort the chance to acquire these skills. Students then take literature primarily as a focused textual study instead of a skills-centric one.
While this move does take Literature back to its roots by focusing on texts, it also constitutes a divorcing of literary technique away from the texts they are associated with. Instead of building interest in Literature, students will now see the Literature as unnecessary as they already have the desirable skill sets, not realizing that they must be acquired in context to truly be useful.
Perhaps we have forgotten what Literature really offers; that like it's counterpart, music, it offers nothing but pleasure to the reader and learners derived from texts that engage aesthetically, emotionally and intellectually. The skills so highly desired -- skills of critical reading and thinking -- are valuable but secondary, and come as a by-product of this engagement. With that in mind, perhaps we should stop worrying about what we can teach our students, and worry about how we can make literature a pleasurable experience for them, and the rest will come naturally.
-Jason Tan
WRT Poon.
ReplyDeleteWhile Poon did not focus on the unseen in her essay, I too find it the most interesting area of discussion. I appreciate Poon's arguments with regard to the unseen component's lack of consideration for contextual meaning and its interplay with text, I find myself supporting the unseen component nonetheless.
What the unseen component foregrounds is reader-response skills: the act of reading a text elicits self-knowledge. Every word, image, idea is connected, in our minds, with a vast array of emotions and information, and these associations are beyond the grasp of authorial intention and authorial context. It needs sensitivity not only to the forms and meaning of the text, but to self. I feel that the unseen helps a reader to enjoy any text, even without knowledge of the authorial context, because of the self-context that the reader brings.
This is not to say that authorial context is irrelevant; on the contrary it often adds layers of rich meaning when read alongside a text, especially when it differs from the reader's sociocultural context. William Carlos Williams' "The Red Wheelbarrow" is an excellent example of how additional understanding and meaning surfaces when considering the ideological context that the poet is writing from. (However, it is equally striking that the Imagist movement Williams and his poem belong to focuses on the context of the ordinary and universally accessible in order to convey absolute clarity; hence the reader's context would suffice in appreciating the poem.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWRT Booth.
ReplyDeleteI found his essay incredibly conflicted. Yet Booth is not to blame, because I fully appreciate the difficult situation all literature teachers experience - we are all too capable of critical thinking that it makes it hard to stand for any value or ethic unapologetically. Booth's argument seems to be, "The important thing is to be a critical thinker, to be able to access any text at 3 levels," and then in small font, "but please be moral after that, so that we will have more critically moral people."
Now I know he explicitly states that he foregrounds morality, but the reason why I say he shies from a discussion of "morality" is because he cannot, beyond a degree, propose moral values. He outlines those which appear more universal: do not treat the "other" with contempt; do not engage in deviant sadomasochistic sexuality (as seen from the books he finds objectionable). Yet even amongst the most critical of thinkers, there is a zone of morals which remains grey, which cannot be justified by any amount of critical thinking or even sensible, enlightened utilitarianism. A thought experiment: "Is premarital sex ok if we are both consensual, sterile (no baby), and STD-free, and will not be emotionally scarred by anything that follows?" In other words, if there is no pragmatic downside to the act, is it justifiable? A majority of Singaporean teachers would want to say, "No!" very badly. We want to believe it's more than the religious or cultural baggage we carry that makes us say so. And yet we can only appeal to tradition, intuition, or a moral authority such as God, all of which have little emphasis on critical thinking (when taken outside the theological framework).
Booth seems to be every bit moral in the traditional sense, and hopes to pass it on. Like us, he is stunted by the need to be perfectly rational and logical. For us, I would say, "Yes, I have heard that morality is a social construct. I cannot support all morals via rational thinking. But we've been given these values and intuition tells us that the majority of them will lead to good, in some undefinable yet tangible form. So let's run with them anyway."
With regards to the pedagogical approach of engaging students' interest however, Booth is clear and on rock-solid ground - no contest there. As to his perspective on teaching ethics, I fully agree that students will have to be critical about their values. But we need to know that being critical in this case is only being aware, and that there is much that critical thinking cannot do that the power of unapologetic faith in the value of morality can.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete