(
1. Describe the state of literature in your school - state how
many classes are taking pure and elective lit at upper sec, how many students
are there in each class, what texts are being used. Describe the state of lit
in your school - Are teachers passionate about lit? Does the principal
emphasize lit? how do the students perceive lit? What are the typical
approaches to teaching and assessment?
2. Refer to debates in the media last week (see ST report
"Big drop in number of students taking literature" on Feb 25 followed
by forum articles and Sunday Times report). Get involved in the discussion and
give your views on these matters e.g. what have you learnt from the discussion?
What troubles you about the discussion? What is your own opinion about the value
of lit or factors accounting for its decline based on what you’ve observed in
your own school?
In Pasir Ris Crest Secondary School (PRCS), Pure Literature is offered to most classes in Secondary 3 to Secondary 5. It is only this year did they offer Literature as an elective, paired with Social Studies, to help students fulfill their Combined Humanities requirement. Before 2013, Pure Literature was offered as a compulsory subject for all O-Level and N-Level students. In other words, even if a student is taking the Triple Science Subject combination, the student still has to take Literature, together with the Combined Humanities option. So in the beginning of this year, Pasir Ris Crest reviewed their subject combinations and decided that Pure Literature will still be made compulsory for selected classes, but not all classes will be forced to take Literature. In its place, Elective Literature will be offered together with Social Studies. According to Mrs. Woo, the current principal of PRCS, the decision to remove Literature as a compulsory subject is for students who want a Science/Mathematics-heavy subject combination to be able to specialize. In fact, students can still take Literature, should they be interested.
ReplyDeleteMoving away from broad observations, I will now discuss about my specific experiences of Literature Teaching in PRCS. My experiences are tied to specific teachers like Mrs. June Henry, Md. Norani and Mr. Shafie. Apparently, every week, the Subject Head, Mrs. June Henry (who happens to be my supervisor) will deploy Literature teachers to shadow different teachers for classroom observation. According to Mrs. Henry, she believes that classroom observations should not just be for teaching interns and practicum students. Rather, all teachers should go for regular lesson observations, so as to keep learning. Every week, there will also be a Literature Training Session, where different teachers will share interesting pedagogical techniques. Teachers will also share about their experiences in the classrooms and how they overcame these issues. In fact, every time when I am discussing my observations of a certain Literature lesson, we will end up discussing about how beautiful and lyrical the novel is. In other words, the Literature teachers really enjoy teaching the subject.
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the students, I can only speak with regards to the two Secondary Three classes I am teaching. In the Secondary Three Express class I am teaching, the students are really interested in the subject, except for maybe three or four students. Whenever we have discussions about the set text, they give very interesting insights to their observations. However, this class is very reactive and they give opinions without proper reflection. In the Secondary Three Normal (Academic) class that I am teaching, my sense is that they are very reflective and have a lot of insight into the set text. When the students were instructed to annotate their texts (an in-class assignment because the teacher was on leave), the students actually initiated discussions amongst themselves. However, what are some pedagogical techniques that teachers use in the classrooms? I notice that teachers here do a lot of think-pair-share and collaborative learning to get students thinking about ideas in the text. Teachers do not deliver answers to the students, rather the teachers push students to think about what they want students to consider with regards to the text.
From my experience in PRCS, the culture of English Literature is still vibrant besides the shift from compulsory Literature to Literature only being offered to a few classes. After reading Sunday’s article and listening to Mrs. Woo’s explanation the following Monday morning, I felt that the article was sensational and misguided. Literature cannot be confined to national examinations. Over here in PRCS, besides Literature lessons, all students have compulsory reading periods and compulsory writing periods. Students engage with stories and texts critically, whether or not they are taking Literature. Just because there is a drop in the number of students taking Literature in O-Levels, it does not indicate that Literature as a subject is slowly dying out. In fact in the Junior Colleges, Literature is still in demand. Literature is not dying and it does not require saving.
I've never wanted to do a QCR blogpost this badly.
ReplyDeleteIn Montfort Sec, there is only one class of pure lit in Sec 3 which I am taking (of which most students are disinterested and extremely hard to teach), and one in Sec 4.
One big reason for this I feel is the Language Arts programme, which disguises itself as being somewhat literary but is actually only English. On my part, I am now being made to teach more Lang Arts lessons than any other subject even when EL is not my CS. This is a direct result of MOE actually saying (calling my school, even) "Lang Arts is same as lit so I shall take Lang Arts".
The sooner the ministry stops fannying about with the Lang Arts idea, the better. Schools should either decide to offer or not offer literature at lower sec, and be done with it. For those of you who don't know, in Lang Arts what we do is we take a literary text (i'm doing Catherine Lim's Little Ironies) and then use it to do oral, listening, compre, grammar and vocab exercises. There is very rudimentary analysis to do with literature, such as analysing character by looking at the adjectives used to describe them, but that is pretty much the extent to it. If students do not like this, they will then naturally be not inclined to take lit at upper sec having been turned off the technical nature of "lit" (in disguise, I emphasise) in lower sec.
My Lang Arts CT is fairly passionate about lit, even wishing to trap me at Montfort so I can teach lower sec lit (jokingly I hope). Other than that, the fact that the school has decided to implement Lang Arts speaks volumes about how much it cares for literature.
Typical approaches to teaching and assessment: my horrid experience came when I was teaching that Sec 3 class "Lord of the Flies". Having planned a very interesting lesson (I feel), the students were completely disengaged and unable to take part in the game because most of them have not read the text. Consulting my CT after the lesson, she said that that's normal and to go in and do the text line-by-line with them. I am not sure if it's a case of the students truly not being able to be bothered, or if they've been brought up by teachers feeding them like this. If I were their teacher from the start, I will make sure that those who haven't read even the slightest bit assigned to them (one chapter, in this case) to get out of the class. Of course, such measures are not really feasible now that I'm stepping in mid-year, and also may not reflect so well on myself in terms of assessment for practicum.
I don't know if this will be constructive, but my gut reaction to the debate on literature going on in public discourse right now focuses on the ministry's inertia in promoting literature in any way more aggressive than its current anaemic form. Literature, if taught properly, teaches us to appreciate the beauty around us and take a stand (at least intellectually) against the ugliness that we see. In other words, it is a subject fundamentally based upon studying texts which question norms, structures and status quos, and which then compels the student to do the same.
DeleteSome may bandit around the lazy argument that "as a people we are not ready for that". Yet somehow I feel like we all know who exactly is not ready for that (if you know what i mean).
(this blog is now locked right??)
realised there were lots of holes in my post because it was basically an angry, frustrated rant. let me try to clarify certain things:
Delete1) Lang Arts is a problem because if people do not wish to take literature because it is "difficult", "hard to score in" and "contains uncertainty", Lang Arts makes it all worse because it adds to the problem of students not knowing if they'd like it or are cut out for it. This is perhaps why I am getting a lot of unmotivated Sec 3s, and only there being one class of Sec 3s. The less people take lit at lower sec, it follows quite logically I feel that the less people will take lit at upper sec and JC.
2) Lang Arts sends the message that lit is not important, and also reinforces the idea that it is difficult to score in (that being one big reason why some/many schools say they don't want to offer it). If that's the message from the top, parents are going to think twice before they let their kids do lit over history/geography.
3) at least if I'm just going to class to read the text line-by-line my lesson plans should be fairly easy to do
1. State of Literature: Literature at Edgefield Secondary School is provided as an elective subject. There are a total of 57 students taking Pure Literature with 3 groups of 7, 24 and 26 students in each respective group. The students are taking it as an 8th extra subject with 55 of the students in express stream and 2 in the normal academic stream.
ReplyDeleteThe timings for the classes are quite strange:
Group 1 has 3 periods on Monday and 1 period on Wednesday during curriculum hours.
Group 2 and 3 have a harder time of it with 4 periods (2 hours) from 1445-1645 on Monday for group 2 and Tuesday for group 3. The text that they are studying is William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.
I have not had any exposure to the lower secondary classes yet but my understanding is that they are currently studying Animal Farm.
The teacher, Ms Rosaline Chan, is a veteran with more than 30 years of teaching experience. But she is an adjunct teacher who teaches 3 out of 5 days each week. As a result of that, the classes have to be squashed together to accommodate the requirements of the teacher. I do not think it is her fault, rather it is the issue with the timetable schedules itself.
As you can imagine literature classes outside the curriculum hours can be quite onerous. Especially when one considers the fact that students have been studying since 8 in the morning all the way to the late afternoon. Nonetheless, the students do appear to be enthusiastic about the subject and while some complain that they had no choice but to take literature, they are still diligent with their work.
My CT, Ms Chan is really quite passionate about teaching literature. But the timetable and schedule is against her. I feel that it would be a lot better to have the literature classes divided into 2 sessions of an hour each instead of one whole chunk of two hours where the students have to struggle to stay awake and pay attention.
This necessitates a constant need to engage and keep them participating in the lessons so that students won’t drift off and fall asleep. In general the attitude that the school has adopted to literature is that it is an extra subject, not an essential one. But the fact that they are offering it to the upper secondary school levels does show that at least it is not replacing or removing it completely.
(cont...)
ReplyDeleteThe typical approach that my CT shared with me was to go through the text and then give butcher sheets (mah-jong paper) to jot down their ideas and create mindmaps related to critical issues contained within the text.
2. The point of literature: Reading the various debates in the past week with regard to the issue of the subject of literature in school and relating it to the current situation in my own practicum school, I would have to say that literature has gained the undeserved reputation for being an elitist subject that is only opened to the select elite few.
While the teachers at school are desperate to teach literature, there is very little support provided for the teaching of it. As can be seen from the elective nature of literature in my school, literature lessons have to contend with CCA activities after school. The fact that it is not given primacy highlights that while literature is a subject that can be taken up by students, it is not a subject that is as highly regarded.
One way to ameliorate this problem would be to focus on the skills that literature teaches that imparts student’s reading and learning skills that will allow them to apply their learning to a range of subjects beyond literature. Hopefully in this manner, students will be able to see the significance of literature. Edgefield is only 3 years old at this point. It is so new that there are no graduating o’level classes this year.
It is necessary to put into place a literary culture and education system that literature classes can use effectively to prolong and increase the importance of literature in the school.
My school unlike Edward's does not offer language arts and this is possibly a plus point for my situation. Because language arts is not available, students do not have the option to take a less watered down version of literature and must instead focus on a proper literature lesson.
I just conducted my first and second literature classes on Monday, 4th March and the students were quite interested and willing to learn despite the strange lesson hours. Literature for my school at least doesn't appear to be a dying subject yet but it is experiencing some hurdles and challenges.
State of Literature – ACS (Barker), made up of a majority of students from English speaking households has surprisingly been underperforming (academically) in Literature. This underperformance is attributed to both declining O Level grades from her students and a declining number of candidates taking O Level literature. Just last week, during department meeting, the HOD of English was voicing her concerns on the state of the subject. She shared that most of the top literature students in past Secondary 2 batches had opted for geography and history citing the following reasons:
ReplyDelete1. History and Social Studies uses similar skills and therefore, lesser work is need.
2. School has a good track record for Geography and History.
3. Students are more assured of getting distinctions in Geog and Hist as opposed to Literature albeit it being the subject they love most.
4. Herd Mentality – since their friends are taking non-lit subjects, they should follow suit.
From these reasons alone, one can conclude that Literature is dwindling because of the inherent fear of failure that students in this generation have. Much of this can be attributed to the meritocratic and pragmatic environment that our students have grown up in.
Apart from this, it was nice to see that the school has put in efforts to boost the image of subject and correct some of the misconceptions that students have towards the subject. These initiatives include:
1. Literary Arts Festival: held over two weeks, the festival features activities such as poetry slams, storytelling competition, book trail, workshop by Gwee Li Sui, author of Telltale: 11 Stories (an O Level text) and movie screenings of Boy in Striped PJs, Things Fall Apart, Knight’s Tale.
2. Having a consultation session with Secondary 2 students about their choices in the humanities subjects for O Levels.
Although these measures does not fully guarantee that more students will take on full literature as a subject, I truly believe that it is a good start towards creating more awareness and appreciation of the subject. Furthermore, despite having quite a handful of literature teachers, the HOD did mention that they need more literature teachers. Hopefully, this is them showing that they are ready to accept more labourers for an increase in candidature.
Importance of Literature – I share similar views with Dr Suzanne Choo about the values that Literature brings into the classroom and ultimately towards the entire citizenry of Singapore. Just recently, in one of the literature lessons that I had taught, I found myself in a healthy discussion with the class about some of the problems we face in today’s society such as: influx of foreign workers, gender inequality and so on. This discussion sparked off not because it was a pre-planned CCE topic that is imposed on by some CCE committee but rather, from a deeper exploration into the themes of Romeo and Juliet. It was something that a student from the class pointed out from the themes and that gave me an opportunity to get them to think about values and taking stand when they are torn apart by opposing ideas. Literature, I feel, is unique in this way as it has the ability to open up many healthy discussions about life and humanity - something that is really lacking in the humdrum of things.
1. Since I am doing my practicum at NJC and have the privilege of seeing the state of Literature in both the Secondary context and the Junior College one, I will take some time to talk about Literature in the two different sections of the school.
ReplyDeleteAs NJC offers a six-year IP program, the students from Years 1 to 4 (JH1-4) do not take literature in the traditional sense. Instead, what is offered to everyone is what we now know as Language Arts, a mix of english language and literature, and this subject is compulsory for all students in the JH levels. In the JH2 level, the students are currently doing Animal Farm (what a coincidence!) and will be moving on to Julius Caesar, I believe, in the next term. From what I understand, Language Arts in NJC is truly aimed at cultivating the linguistic sensitivity of students. For example, the JH2 students had, in the past week, just taken a test that pretty much requires them to compare 2 given passages from Animal Farm and close-read them. The school calls it rhetorical analysis but it really does seem more like literature than language (in the traditional sense) to me. The school also resists doing a line-by-line, chapter-by-chapter analysis of the book with the students, but assigns the text as holiday reading (with online quizzes). The curriculum actually requires students to have read the text beforehand and consists of many group activities and discussions, as well as more traditional assessments like the rhetorical analysis test they just took. From what I have seen, most students did read the text and for that I was quite pleasantly surprised.
Of course, the LA teachers in NJC are very passionate about literature. Most of us are literature-trained, and even those who are not seem to have grown to love and appreciate literature and the roles it plays in teaching language. Most of the students I've observed do like LA even though they deem it to be a difficult subject - many of them complain about failing, but they are still very conscientious and tries hard at it.
For LA in JH3 and JH4, the school is more concerned with preparing them for General Paper (GP), so a lot of classes are focused on writing skills and comprehension. Maybe the next term would have slightly more literature focus, but I am currently still rather unclear on that.
I have also noticed that for JH3 (and JH4, I believe the school offers something called advanced LA to students who have proved their worth. In the JH3 cohort, 12 students take advanced LA, which is a more in-depth module of literature. To my knowledge, they read Merchant of Venice this term, and one of their assignments was writing up a proper indictment. The module is very well prepared and since there are only 12 students, only 1 teacher teaches that module. I've heard that the school is very selective about who takes advanced LA, and the students must have shown great interest and flair for literature before they are granted access to the class.
As to whether the principal emphasizes literature, I really cannot be sure. It does seem like literature (as literature) is taken to be a very exclusive subject offered only to the best of the best (at least for the JHs), but since every student is exposed to literature through LA, I am inclined to believe that, as much as NJC is a science school, the value of literature is still recognized.
(continued)
DeleteAs for the JC section, there are only 4 classes of literature per level, on average, with about 15-20 students per class. The school does not offer H1 Literature, so all 60-80 per level of students read it at a H2 level. I have yet managed to find the chance to observe a JC literature class, but it does seem like the number of students choosing to read literature is on the decline. As one of the teachers rightly proclaimed today, we have to face the fact that, in NJC at least, literature is a supporting subject, not a core one. Despite that, though, I managed to find out that there is a slight increase in the number of students from last year's JH4 choosing to take literature in SH1 this year, so perhaps consistently exposing students to literature and cultivating their interest from young is a good strategy to promote literature!
2. Going into the discussion on literature's decline, I actually feel that it is quite unfair to discuss the value of literature by attaching some sort of tangible benefit students can reap to it (okay I know, pet peeve, I'm sorry). The thing is, I do agree that Literature promotes critical thinking, analytical skills and even, as Dr Suzanne Choo mentioned, Values, but I feel that this is the one subject we need to abstain from hard-selling to the pragmatists of this country who will, believe it or not, never buy the argument that literature is a valuable subject in its own rights. To be honest, I have qualms about teaching literature as an economical subject (someone suggested in the comments section of one of the forum articles that literature should be compulsory for all at O Levels). I think that in teaching literature as a MEANS of building creativity or teaching humanity, it actually loses its humanity because, then, the rat race for the best grades gets to it and we will soon develop a formulaic way to teach/learn literature. And that, to me, would be quite a pity.
Of course, it is not that I think grades are not important - I just want to hold on to the idealistic belief that grades CAN be secondary, just for a little while longer.
I do think that schools can act as a deterrence for students to take literature though. For example, in NJC right now (I hope I'm not wrong on this), all JH3 students are automatically enrolled for triple science unless they request to take advanced LA or advanced Humanities (or something). It isn't so much as the school is discouraging students from taking the subject but by making it something exclusive, I believe that students can and will be deterred from taking it.
I wish I could give some insights as to how we can turn the trend around, but other than hoping that schools would keep the option open for students, as well as giving them the right encouragement and exposure to the subject, I feel that the only other thing we can all hope for is that we, as a society, stop putting such emphasis on the number of A's we get. Maybe that will give our poor students some courage to give the subject a try instead of banking on the usual Maths and Sciences. :(
(I apologize for the length!)
I realized that I forgot to mention, with respect to part 1, that in the JH levels, emphasis is also given on the Arts, specifically performing drama. They learn beyond just acting, but also have lessons on staging, lighting, sound effects etc., and this week, the JH2s have a week off of lessons for a drama bump-in because they have a showcase on Friday! I guess this is an example of how the school promotes the Arts in general and not just literature! (:
DeleteAs compared to everyone else's posts, this is probably going to sound more like a rant and that's because the literature programme in Greendale Secondary is almost non-existent. There is only one girl taking Literature at upper secondary and that is because she retained. For lower secondary, the literature programme is combined with the music programme which means, as a literature teacher, I only have about 45 minutes with a class each week.The focus of this school is mainly on raising the standard of English of their students and literature is considered of secondary importance. Teachers who are lit-trained are delegated to teach English more than Literature (which puts me in an odd situation as English is not one of my CSes at all). Personally, I feel that there is a general resignation to the fact that neither the school nor the principal places importance on Literature and some of the literature teachers (there are only 4 in the school)are rather demoralized by this. This attitude and perception spills over to the way in which the scheme of work is designed.
ReplyDeleteIn Greendale, the lower secondary Literature curriculum does not follow MOE guidelines/ syllabus at all. They do not use any of the set texts. Because Literature is considered as less important (or at least harder for the students to grasp as a result of their low English language skills, the teachers are compelled to teach in a way that helps students do better in English than in Literature as a discipline. To complement the new and enhanced component of the English syllabus where students must learn to pick up on metaphors and similes (grpahic stimulus section I believe), the teachers teach the students the following literary devices through nursery rhymes, simple poems and pop songs: Metaphors, similes, alliterations, rhymes, onomatopoeia, personification and characterization. The end-product expected of the students at the end of the term is a performance of the poem that students compose in their group in a "Wax Lyrical Competition". Students will be taught elements of Music such as rhythm, beat and tempo, and will have to adapt their poems into a song. It is stated in the scheme of work that the objective of the Literature course is that students will be able to employ at least 3 literary devices in their poems and adapt a suitable tune to turn their poems into songs. This module will be closely tied to the new EL syllabus as the students will work on O Level Paper 1 and/or Paper 4 themes such as Friends and Family, Environment, School, Technology and Emotions.
Hopefully, by learning the essential literary devices, students will also be introduced to figurative language and the students can employ this skill to answer some EL Paper 2 questions as well.
I have been into several of the Secondary One classes and most of them do not really know what is Literature and dislike going for class because it is "so boring" to them. They enjoy the music component of the Literature & Music lesson because they can watch Youtube Videos and use their phones to play music. Truthfully, I am rather disappointed, considering this is going to be my final posting. There are plans to, if I pass my practicum and stay on in the school, transfer me completely to the Humanities Department to focus on teaching History and perhaps, Social Studies. Some of my closer colleagues see the current Literature programme as a good start, because apparently the syllabus was even worse the previous year. Students themselves have told me that their counterparts in other schools called them "noobs" at Literature because they are not exposed at all to a rigourous or coherent Literature curriculum at all.
ReplyDeleteWhat troubles me most about the recent discussion is that I am seeing its decline right before my eyes. Though I agree with the teachers that students in this school struggle with English language, there are pockets of them who are avid readers and have the capabilities to appreciate Literature as a subject and discipline. In my opinion,with relevance to the particular sitaution in my school, if Literature is not taught with purpose and direction to help students become better readers and writers through well-thought out, pedagogically-sound approaches, then might just as well eliminate Literature completely and focus on teaching English because teaching it in such a diluted form is really a waste of time. If the lessons do not provoke students to think more critically and deeply about issues that surfaces from texts, students might just as well be given more consultation time for English to brush up on Comprehension of Graphic Stimulus skills. Though I believe in the inherent value of Literature and studying it as a discipline, it is difficult to resist the macrostructure of the school and its power to make certain value judgements and decisions about what is worth studying and what they think their students are "capable" of handling.
* Apologies for the grammatical errors!
DeleteI have been assigned to teach Sec 2 level literature at ACS (Barker) and am unfortunately not too familiar with the number of students who opt to take pure lit at upper sec. I have a feeling that in this school, not many students DO go on to take Lit. This is a very strange phenomenon in my opinion as the Barker boys are some of the most well-spoken students I have ever come across! The boys almost always speak good English and usually converse with each other in English as well. With the standard of English that the boys possess, I find it so bizarre that these boys are not usually avid readers and mostly do not go on to take literature. Nonetheless, when I started here, I stepped into the midst of the English department organizing their annual "Literati" event to gather interest amongst the school population in literature through movie screenings, author talks, book trails and so forth. I suppose then the teachers are certainly passionate about the subject and it's not really a matter of ineffective teaching. The lessons are usually creative and engaging as well.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that the problem with the Barker boys is related to the problems raised in the recent debate. Unfortunately, the boys here are not taking literature because they believe that the subject is difficult to pass. The SES of the boys that come to this school usually indicates that they are often quite materialistic and have ambitions of making lots of money in the future. They are misled by society (and probably their parents) that literature is not going to get them the As they need to enter posh ivy league universities and it most certainly will not get them a big business type career that will earn them millions. So, even the boys who love literature and have great potential in it end up dropping it as they have been told that literature makes a good "hobby" but not an academic subject worth pursuing.
I feel that the misconceptions associated with the subject has done it a lot of harm and changing the minds of the public is important to ensure that literature does not completely die in the schools.
a friend of mine shared this article http://continentcontinent.cc/blog/2013/03/on-literature/ which i thought, is quite an interesting take on the whole literature debate. The article debunks current proponents of literature being a cultivator of moral values and skills on the premise that "to love literature is to be in love with the dead".
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel that the article is somewhat, trite. Do comment on what you all feel about this.
Hi everyone, my school, Shuqun Secondary School, was incidentally one of the schools mentioned in the article last Sunday. They did not used to have an Upper Sec Lit class for many years but recently re-opened an O-level Elective Lit class with 14 students this year. I'm fortunate enough to be given the chance to teach them this term. The article mentioned that previously there was no O-level Lit class because every year there were only 5 students who wanted to take the subject so the numbers were too few to form a class. The article also mentioned that we have a new principal who was trained in English and English Lit, and I think it's fair to say that the option of having O-level Lit (although it's not a 'pure' subject) can be attributed to him to some extent.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of time-tabling, the school does allocate formal curriculum time to the teaching of Literature. Lower Sec gets 1 hr of Lit a week, while the Upper Sec Elective Lit class gets 2 hours of Lit a week. Every class at Lower Sec has to do Lit, although I'm not sure whether this applies to the NA and NT streams. I have been assigned to teach a Sec 1 Express Lit class and so far they have been learning about poetry and poetic devices. Next term they will be working on plays, specifically one or two from the Stella Kon collection. As for the Upper Sec Lit class, they have been studying Lord of the Flies. They will be moving into an introduction to Unseen poetry next term.
Overall I think that Shuqun supports the teaching of Literature because time is allocated to it in the formal school curriculum and most Lower Sec students would have tasted a little bit of the subject by the time they decide on the Upper Sec subject combination. However, we still lack some of the other programmes or initiatives that could enhance or promote the Lit culture in the school. For instance, we do not have an ELDDS or drama club, and we do not really have reading festivals or other such activities. I'm not sure whether this is because the teachers are already over-stretched by the preparations for O-Level English, or whether there isn't a great interest in Literature among the students. (On a brighter note, though, last week during Assembly we had a group from The Necessary Stage come down to perform a short skit. Although the skit wasn't related to Lit in any way, I was still heartened by the fact that students are being exposed to Lit in some small way. At least they know what a play looks like now.)
Regarding the discussion on whether Lit is a dying subject in schools, I feel that it is quite an overblown and sensationalised matter. Lit has already been an unpopular subject since the 1990s, and I think we can't really do anything about the pragmatic nature of most Singaporeans. Even when I was a student in secondary school, I chose not to do pure Lit (although I did well in it in Sec 2) because I viewed Lit as quite a risky choice and Geog seemed like a more certain way of scoring an A. I did elective Lit at O-levels before choosing Lit in JC. I don't think that the number of students taking Lit at the O-levels is the definitive indicator of whether Lit is thriving in schools or not. There are students who may not choose to do it at O-levels but who may come back to it in their tertiary education, and there are students who simply enjoy the subject but may not feel passionate enough about it to want to pursue it at the O-levels. I see our role as simply sparking the students' interest in the subject and exposing them to a survey of what Lit is like. Ultimately it is up to them how far they would like to take their interest in the subject. I don't really think that we will see any reversal of the current trend anytime soon, but at least if we are able to bring up a generation of students who enjoy reading and/or the arts, who are able to think critically about a text and respond to a diversity of opinions etc, we have done our part as Lit educators.
ReplyDeleteMust say that reading through the other posts has been really enlightening. I share Andrea’s sentiments about being in a school where the Literature culture isn’t really a thriving one. In Bartley Secondary, they do not offer Literature at all for the upper secondary classes ie no candidates for either Pure or Elective Literature. For lower secondary students, they have one hour of Literature per week, and Literature is a non-examinable subject (unlike the other humanities, History and Geography).
When I asked why the school does not offer Literature for upper secondary classes, the response from my CT was that there are simply not enough Literature-trained teachers in the school. In fact, for the lower secondary Literature classes, the English Language teachers all take their classes for Literature lessons – and not all of the EL teachers are Literature-trained. This is also the reason why, in my CT’s words, many teachers struggled when the Language Arts program was first implemented. On paper (and on the school website), the lower secondary students ostensibly have a Language Arts program – in actuality, they have four periods of EL plus one period of Literature per week and these subjects now have distinct schemes of work (SOWs). Another reason why EL has been allotted so many periods is that teachers find it necessary to spend more time on the skills required by the new EL syllabus. For instance, my school just had their common test for EL and the results show that the students really need more help with the visual text component.
Text-wise, the Secondary Ones are studying Holes by Louis Sachar and Secondary Twos are doing Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson. I find that the texts are appropriate – themes are relatable, language not too complex. These texts were also chosen partly because there is a fair bit of teaching resources available online – suggested lesson plans, chapter summaries etc. But despite the relatively low level of complexity in terms of language and themes, the teachers cannot assume that students have read the stipulated chapters! A fair amount of curriculum time goes into checking that students have grasped the plot developments/ details of major events in the novels. A fair bit of time also goes into providing or eliciting language – adjectives to describe characters/ relationships/ setting. Students need to be equipped with the language to respond to the text.
Regarding the recent concerns over declining numbers of 'O' level candidates: I came across the article by Jane Ng ("Reigniting the Spark of Literature", 5 March 2013) in ST and was struck by how much influence Principals (seem to) have over their students' Literature careers.
DeleteThe writer notes that there are several common factors amongst schools which do offer 'O' level Literature - she notes that, "[f]irst, they have a principal who values the subject. Then, it helps to have a strong lower-secondary Literature programme to whet students' appetite, and passionate teachers who make the subject come alive."
She notes some examples of Principals who have significantly influenced Literature uptake rates - Pasir Ris Crest's ex-principal Dr James Ong made Literature compulsory for upper secondary students back in 2007; Principal of Shuqun Secondary, Mr Chia Hai Siang decides to offer Literature as an elective subject this year, despite a small class size of 14 students, as Shu May mentions also (:
I think that this move in Shuqun Secondary heartening, and that this is one possible direction for Bartley to take. After some interaction with the lower secondary students, I realize that there are a handful of individuals who are decent writers and do have an interest in Literature. It is a pity that there isnt an option to continue their study of Literature after secondary two.
It would be unfair of me to comment on what the school leaders could have done to encourage the study of Lit in upper secondary because I have not had the urm, audacity to interview them on this specific issue. It could have been the case that the school indeed faces a lack of Literature-trained teachers? I do wonder how Shuqun dealt with this manpower issue - how much of a logistical nightmare is it (in terms of timetable, deployment, exams) to start offering Literature after a hiatus? And how much support does MOE provide for school principals who wish to go in Shuqun's direction?
Apologies if I've gone off-tangent. I think that few would dispute the values-education aspect of Literature study. In theory, we would concur with views like those expressed in Dr Suzanne Choo's article in ST - I have yet to hear vehement, dismissive attitudes towards the study of Literature. So it does seem like we just need to have school leaders who believe strongly enough in the merits of Literature to make bold shifts - shifts that would not deny students the chance to study Literature in upper secondary levels if they wish to.
There is, very unfortunately, no “state of literature” in my school – the school has, a few years ago, decided to remove Literature as an O’ Level subject, and no one takes it in upper secondary now. As for the lower secondary students, they have literature lessons once a week, for an hour each time. Hence, my weekly teaching load looks something like this: 1 hour of literature, and 8 hours of English. I have not begun teaching literature yet, actually. However, teaching English (and planning the lessons) has taken up most of my time and a very, very big portion of my brain space. What with having to prevent fights in the classroom (and being informed by your CT that the fight DID take place, so no, you didn’t prevent it; and informed the next day that NO, the fight did not take place, so yes, you’d prevented it etc.) and facing confrontations by the perpetrators when you were just passing through the canteen… I am sorry if this post turns out to be somewhat of a rant, but I am as far from literature as I have ever been, and it is hard for me to think about it in a practical context right now (as opposed/compared to it being my lived reality for the past eleven years). But I cannot say I do not like the school. And I cannot say I do not like teaching these kids English. There is something strangely fascinating about the flexibility of language classes – or should I say literature, actually – its malleability allowing me to bring it into the classroom, under the guise of oral communication, summary writing etc.
ReplyDeleteOn a brighter note, as I’ve told Dr Loh, Mel, D etc, there are some teacher(s) who might be able to bring the subject back (the same teacher who abolished it years ago…). When I expressed interest, she seemed happy, if a little disinterested. Hopefully. And if I pass. (I might not.) I am not very sure how the principal views the subject – he seems a very humorous man, but that’s almost all I know about him.
I actually view the ongoing debate with a very detached air though my mom was going on and on about it (trying to wrest me from my state of depression probably, by pointing out the sheer number of souls going through the same tragedy [of not being able to Teach Literature]). I agree with some of the points made – mostly prevailing trends of the other humanities subjects being chosen over lit, the preconceptions of lit being “difficult to score in”, abstract, non-practical etc; and disagree with others – such as that it’s “useless” etc. However, these past two weeks of living with its absence, non-existence, has hammered in the fact that one essentially does not need literature to live, and ideas and values can be transmitted via other ways. Of course, that life is less rich, but in what sense? The nature of literature being its multiplicity and openness to worldviews hence encompasses the possibility of its non-presence too. There is definitely a confluence of factors that led to the decline of students taking literature, but perhaps getting to the root of the matter requires us to ask ourselves, once again, just what literature means to us, personally, and professionally, as a teacher of literature. Does it really help shape our value system and moral beliefs, or perhaps it is a means in which we experience life – a conduit bridging us to other worlds, alternative realities – a pathway taking us towards ourselves. But literature means something different to everyone, perhaps mere degrees of difference, and ultimately no one is able to create that meaning for you but oneself.
1. As I've been assigned to teach only Secondary 1 for lit, I'm not familiar with how the upper sec lit classes are run, but I understand from a recent chat with the HOD that a few years ago they had only one lit-trained teacher in the department, and now they have about four. Literature doesn't seem to be particularly emphasised by the principal, but neither does it seem to be a subject destined to be discarded by the school. It's difficult to gauge a lit teacher's passion for the subject -- of course all would lay claim to some level of it, and what each would consider as being "passionate" would differ. My CT, at least, has said that she is open to alternative assessments, as long as I write two slightly more traditional CA tests, and the department philosophy appears to be to make lit as enjoyable and accessible as possible. Based on a survey of the classes I'm teaching (3 out of the 4 Express classes), most are ambivalent (or just polite) about how they feel towards lit as a subject, a few are very enthusiastic, and a few are quite bluntly disinterested.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Shu May's point that literature as a subject has been on the decline since the 90's, and the current debate might be a little sensationalised. I was speaking casually with an older English teacher earlier this week, and she mentioned how literature had been a compulsory subject for her at the O levels (she was from SCGS, and this was quite typical then). My guess is that given the traditional emphasis on literature in the older and mission schools, literature would have been compulsory for a fair proportion of the total O level candidates, and the drop in number of candidates indicates less the overall decrease in interest than students exercising their rights to choose their own subject combinations. Of course, we hear of schools which do not offer literature at upper secondary at all, and so potentially lose quite a few interested students in that way.
The concern over grades is quite real -- I was from a school that only allowed us to take 8 subjects at the O levels, so taking elective lit + ss as my only (combined) humanities was a huge risk. there were only two people in the level with my subject combination (triple science + lit), and the other person only took it because I persuaded her it'd be fun (everyone else who enjoyed lit but were more 'pragmatic' chose geog or history because those were content-based and therefore 'safer'). Unfortunately, she didn't do well for combined humanities and couldn't get into a JC. I felt slightly guilty for a while, but she assured me that the enjoyment of two years was worth it. (She's a doctor now, so I suppose she can say that.) What I am saying is this: the realities of the constraints of the system exist, but I suppose how 'pragmatic' one wants to be really depends on the person -- one cannot discount the pressures of the discourse within which one exists, but at the same time, personal autonomy can and probably does play some role in the making of these decisions.
1. Westwood Secondary only offers Pure Literature as an elective subject. Currently the pure lit class that I am teaching consists of 14 students and my CT told me that this is the general trend. Out of the 14 students, 2 were "forced" to take Pure Lit as they did not have enough marks for Geography.
ReplyDeletePreviously, the school taught Chrysalids however as this text is no longer part of the syllabus, the new text is "Lord of the Flies". The school has adopted a Language Arts program whereby they include literature in their English lessons so that next term I will be teaching "The Starchild" to Sec 2 (Express). Even the Sec 1 NT class that I am teaching, have been exposed to literature, of sorts, they have been taught various Fairy Tales and then asked to produce a small skit with an alternative ending. The whole session was then filmed and uploaded on Facebook for the class to vote on the best skit. The school also has an annual drama project for all lower secondary classes.
While Pure Lit is a niche area and there are very few students opting for pure Lit, I think the teachers teaching Literature in the school are very dedicated to the cause. The school Drama Club also puts up a musical for which more than a 100 students auditioned, which I believe is promising. I think the school has a very positive view about Literature and because the school emphasizes on Communication Studies and on mouleding their students in to confident speakers, hence it is not exactly a gloomy situation as far as literature is concerned.
In every class that I teach, I have asked the students to write down their favourite subject and I have seen so far that from the Express class only a very few students chose Literature as their favourite subject. Even with the Pure Lit class, while students are attentive and want to learn more about Literature, no independent reading takes place. Students haven't even started reading the first chapter of the Lord of the Flies despite the fact that it has been 3 months since term started.
When I was in NIE, I always thought that there is a disjuncture between what student teachers do in their microteaching and what they are expected to do in class. As I ventured out for my first class in school, armed with phrases such as "White Man's Burden" and colonization, my CT told me that "you can't teach all this to neighbourhood kids, they won't understand." When I decided to scaffold their learning by going through the Kipling poem first, I noticed that students were listening. Perhaps I should have scaffolded my lesson further and checked for understanding, but it was not like the students were sleeping or looking bored. They were listening. So, I think teachers need to push their students towards the right direction and have higher expectations from them.
However the major problems that I currently see is the fact that students are so disinclined towards reading their prescribed textbooks. The school sets out 25 mins of silent reading in class and therefore I don't understand why they haven't read their novels by now. But it is heartening to see that there are many students who come into the library and borrow books like The Hound of the Baskervilles. It keeps the light burning, I suppose.
Literature is a compulsory subject for all lower secondary school students, and they have 2 hours of literature a week. I'm teaching two Sec 2 Normal Academic classes, and they're using Fun with Literature Essentials textbook while the Express classes are reading Holes by Louis Sachar. For upper secondary classes, there are about 30+ students taking Literature as an elective at O-levels, and only 17 in the Secondary Three cohort. Pure Literature is not available as an option. They're using Telltale - 11 Stories as their main text.
ReplyDeleteThe teachers here are passionate about literature. Just last week, they invited Dr Gwee Li Sui and Jeffrey Lim to class to talk about Telltale. The express students seem to be more interested in literature than the NA students; and I think part of it is because they're a bit put off by the language. It's a neighbourhood school, so they tend to use Singlish a lot.
I have to agree with Shu May that this literature has been sensationalised. Lit has been dying subject for a long time, just that someone has finally made the issue more public, in a way. I am concerned that many still do not see the value in literature, that is it not just about reading, and that it has no practical sense. People tend to dismiss literature as a difficult subject because it takes too much effort to pass and too much reading is involved. I think they forget, or simply do not realise, that a lot of critical thinking is involved as well. It's a pity that many schools have dropped pure literature from their options for O-level subjects, and most do not even have it as an elective. I was pretty horrified when I found out that there were only 17 students who were taking lit as an elective in secondary three. I fear that they might do away with the subject altogether if the number keeps on dwindling. :|
Urm. Serangoon Secondary School does not offer uuper sec literature. Heh.
ReplyDeleteIts sec 1 program is currently working on short stories (Little Ironies of Singapore by Caterine Lim) while its sec 2 is doing Boy in Stripped Pajamas.
There are 2 lit teachers, 1 adjunct teacher and 1 contract teacher in the lit department. In general, my CT would like to have activities incorporated into my lessons, and while there is no special interest in developing the lit department, there is still a general interest in making the subject more alive for the students. There is a handout for the students - worksheets - and is heavily scaffoldded due to the school profile.
From the general online discussion, it seems that some of us are rising up to defend literature, and it is gratifying that the love of books has not been killed. (even though it is mostly the lit majors who have chosen to spoken up)
however, what is troubling is that while there is some buzz about among the literature community, there is no real talk about what can be done to highlight the value of literature. There is empathy and grouse among the teachers, but it seems accepted that literature is not a subject that is as recognized as say, physics and additional maths. Well, let's hope some of us do well enough in schools to be promoted to a position of power (ie. the principal) and start introducing policies which recognizes literature as a subject that is equally worth learning.
To me, literature is a reflection of the human condition, and it shows us more truth than statistics can. While our students learn how to appreciate the "practical" disciplines like science and mathematics, would they forget about the value of literature and how it shows us the both the cruel streak of human nature co-existing with the light of human compassion and hope? If students can reflect more critically about the milieu that they are living in, perhaps they can start understanding their selves better, which will hopefully give them more courage to pursue a course they really want - be it in "practical" or "impractical" disciplines.
1. The situation in my school is an interesting one. The classes that I have been assigned to are all NA classes, so I am not very sure what the Express students are doing, although I assume that they are doing the same texts. The lower secondary classes have 2 periods of literature a week, each period lasting for 45 minutes. The Secondary One classes are currently learning about drama, in preparation for the Stella Kon collection, while the Secondary Twos have just finished poetry and are now starting on short stories. The text that they will be using are two short stories "Parson's Pleasure" and "Way Up to Heaven" from Roald Dahl's Ten Short Stories.
ReplyDeleteThe school does not offer Literature for the upper secondary classes. I have been told that the lower secondary classes 1-2 years ago (which is this year's Secondary Threes and Fours) struggled and "almost died" taking literature in lower secondary, hence the school decided to take it out for them at upper secondary. However, there are plans to bring back literature at the upper secondary level next year, for this year's Secondary Twos who will be Secondary Three next year.
So far, I only know of two teachers teaching literature, one of whom is my CT. From what I know of them (more of him, actually), they seem to be passionate about literature and want to develop this interest in their students. There are regular book sharings after flag raising for the lower secondary students, where one or two students share with the lower secondary cohort a book that they have read, why they like it, and why the rest of the students should read it as well. While this is an initiative to encourage students to read, I think it also helps to develop an interest in literature (although I am not saying that literature is JUST about reading a book).
From the general online discussion, I agree with Tiying and Shu May, that there are people who are defending literature, and that it is possible that this issue has been sensationalised. I find it heartening to know that there are people who are passionate about literature and want others and future generations to share their love, at the same time, it remains that this issue is one that has existed for quite some time. For me, the question is whether or not something will be done to counter this decline: there is still the mindset that literature is a subject 'that is difficult to score' and is easily removable as an option in the O-levels. I don't see the same being done for other (Arts) subjects like Geography or History, which puzzles me a little, because all three are essay-based questions, although some might argue that there are 'model answers' for Geography and there are specific marking rubrics for History, but that is another point to consider. With all this debate (and furore) recently concerning this decline, will there be any action taken to counter the trend? I say this because there was a similar (albeit much smaller) debate about this issue when I was in secondary school myself. My teacher was talking to us about the decline of literature in schools and how some schools do not offer it as an O-level subject. It seems that nothing has been done about it so far, and I wonder what this debate will do for the future of Literature. Like Maz, I think that a lot of critical thinking (and reading) is involved in Literature, skills which are essential and championed by society (and the ministries). I hope that something will be done about this decline, however difficult it is (changing mindsets is something that is close to impossible to doing, I think). Perhaps endorsing Literature and its virtues/values could be one way of starting this change.
Question 1, or, Set-of-Questions 1:
ReplyDeleteThere are two elective literature classes and one pure literature class in upper secondary. There are about twenty students in each of the elective classes, and ten in the pure class. The teachers teaching literature are very good at guiding students to delve deeper during discussions, and though these classes do not run on a language arts programme, I get the sense from informal conversations and one or two staff meetings that the teachers are aware of the benefits of bringing in a literary focus in teaching language. I cannot be the judge of their passion though. But I will say that my literature CT has a very clear focus about what she wants to teach in literature, and that comes through in her teaching and facilitation of discussions in class. I get the sense that students leave her class having learnt something in each lesson.
The principal has not said anything specific about literature. The school in general is very supportive of its CCA culture, and that much was emphasised to us during Big Meetings on Day One.
Student perceptions of literature vary. Some common responses are: literature helps them think and talk about Real Life issues, is good in being open-ended, strengthens their language skills, exposes them to "interesting" texts; but literature is "DIFFICULT TO SCORE IN" etc.
Assessment is fairly standard, following what we termed in our course a "traditional" mode. Teaching involves small group discussion for the most part (from what little I've seen in two weeks). I have been encouraged by my CT to give them opportunities to make presentations and do independent preparatory work. I am in the process of doing so.
Question 2 -- I wrote this on my e-Portfolio page, and as it answers Set-of-Questions 2, I thought to copy it over:
DeleteThere has been much debate recently about the "decline in literature" -- a misleading term, since it is not literature that has declined but the number of students taking literature papers at 'O' levels. This has inspired much sharing in print and social media about the merits and virtues of literature.
Two terms surface very often: "critical thinking" and "values". I would like to comment briefly on them. "Critical thinking" has been used almost as a default term for any sort of positive thinking/response, and in its over-use perhaps what it denotes begins to grow vague. I sat down one day and asked myself what exactly I mean when I say I want to encourage my students to think critically; I tested that also against my use of the term generally, when speaking with friends, or sharing about university learning experiences. The result of that reflection leads me to list the following abilities which come under the "critical thinking" umbrella term --
1. The ability to see multiple perspectives on an issue.
2. The ability to reflect upon one's own perspectives, to judge it in relation to alternative perspectives which challenge the assumptions involved in the perspectives one holds.
3. The ability to evaluate material (textual, inter-personal, situational, inter alia) and read it on a literal and interlinear level -- to examine therefore what is said in the silences and ellipses of the material, and what is not said in its vocalisations.
4. The ability to keep an open mind in reading and evaluating material, being comfortable with facing ambiguities and uncertainties. I think here of the Keatsian term, "Negative Capability", about which he wrote to his brothers:
I had not a dispute but a disquisition, with Dilke on various subjects; several things dove-tailed in my mind, and at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously — I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason ... (http://classweb.gmu.edu/rnanian/Keats-NegativeCapability.html)
I see the idea of "values" fitting into critical thinking. We live in a plural context, with many different value systems coexisting. Much as some value codes may be institutionally valorised, I believe that what is more important is to teach students to evaluate and understand value codes, rather than for them to learn these codes passively, like another fact and figure in a chapter of history. Literature, then, becomes a space where critical thinking is encouraged and tested, and where students sharpen and take ownership of value codes they have personally examined and believe in.
Yet I would hope that literature is not simply treated in a utilitarian fashion. Literature is enjoyable to those of us who have persevered through the beginning phases of adjusting to its modes of thinking, and the ambiguities contained therein. Literature is also often the product of critical thinking, not just its fuel.
The alignment went off for the Keats quote, sorry about that. Blogger's comment function doesn't really support rigorous formatting.
DeleteExtra post:
ReplyDelete1. Ed's observations about the Language Arts programme really ought to go to someone Up There who can Deal With It -- of course without revealing Ed's identity. I think he makes extremely important points that need to be heard. LA is still in an experimental phase, and some schools can afford to make more mistakes than others -- these same schools can also afford more than others, generally. I mean to say the schools which have students who can adapt to the vague and changing criteria of the LA programme, who are already of a certain standard, and who are to that degree insulated from the uncertainties and mistakes in the LA experiment. In schools like Ed's, however, it is fundamentally detrimental to the promotion of literature.
2. I see from some posts that some of our coursemates are really going through a tough time, and would just like to say that you are in my thoughts and prayers, and I really hope you hold out long enough for change to occur in your school, or to change schools. Don't let your passion for literature, your rich training, and your sharp mind go to waste. Word on the street is that we are short of literature teachers. I disagree. I think it is a question of managing deployment better.
3. I think Shu May (and those who expressed agreement with her) is right in pointing out that literature's student rate has been on the decline, and that there is a degree of sensationalism in recent reports. To borrow Tolkien's words, we have been fighting the long defeat. I would also like to point out, however, that I also think that a lot of the sensationalism stems from the gathered latent discontentment with the low standing of literature slow-brooding over these years, and could be, in that sense, a fair portrayal of the frustration that many face in teaching, studying, and promoting literature.
Woodlands Secondary School has no classes in upper secondary that take Literature as an elective, and a grand total of four students taking Lit as a pure subject. I’m not quite sure which text they are using as I am only teaching the lower secondary classes and, since my CT needs no help with her four upper secondary students, I haven’t had the chance to ask her about it. My CT is the only Lit teacher in the school and, as passionate about the subject as she is, there isn’t very much that one teacher can do to change the system. The school does not focus on Lit at all, allocating only 1 period (50 minutes) per week for each class. My HOD told me that she was hoping that my presence would enable them to open more upper sec Lit classes, although that depends on the student demand as well.
ReplyDeleteMost of the students here don’t think that Lit is important at all. My sec 1 kids currently think that Lit is all about reading and writing poems, which they view as difficult, complicated, and boring, even if it allows them to express their feelings. The sec 2 kids, due to their one year of having studied Lit, are less myopic, but also more jaded. Most tell me that they don’t like Lit because it is difficult and boring and makes them think too much, and that they will not take it as an O-level subject. My CT is not to blame, I believe. She tries her best to make Lit interesting and relevant to the students, choosing to use a lot of song lyrics to teach poetry, and physical activities (such as tableaux) to teach drama. Even so, there isn’t very much that she can do for students whose main barrier to entry is the language itself -- most of them speak come from families that do not speak English at home. As a result, it is difficult to convince them that Literature is not “just another boring subject” but the teaching of essential life skills that will help them read, understand, and think about the work around them.
How are we to force such students to love Literature, or even just see it as important and relevant to their development as human beings? How are we to even get them to want to take it at the O-levels, especially when every Lit exam is a struggle to stay afloat? How are we to get them to love reading enough to want to read books for a living, when the students themselves don’t have such a practice to begin with (and would much prefer to watch movies and play video games)?
Perhaps, the very thing that we should be doing to ensure the continued survival of Literature as an O-level subject is to first build a culture of reading, then taking students deeper into texts and what they reflect about values, the individual, and society. Instead of lamenting the unfortunate focus on pragmatism in our education system (because, like it or not, it’s not something that we can change in the near future), or trying to glorify the value of literature (because, let’s face it, fourteen-year-old kids aren’t going to be able to see beyond their immediate academic survival), let us teach Literature as it is and not worry about the rest. Since we, Lit teachers, firmly believe that very essence of Lit cannot be confined to the classroom, let’s focus on teaching it beyond the classroom -- this we do by doing whatever we can to guide our lower sec students in the ways or reading, thinking, and writing, and hoping that they will continue to practise these skills later on in life. In other words, let’s sow the seeds that may later blossom into flowers, and not worry too much that the plant may not bear fruit.
My situation is quite similar to Melissa's. After reading through all the posts before mine, I'm beginning to realise how lucky I am. I have 4 Sec 1 lit classes (3 Express and 1 NA [which my CT described as "half of them have ADHD or something"]).
ReplyDeleteThe students are doing Animal Farm and it's heartening to see that they are taught the historical context of it and my CT would align certain events wherever possible. I'm not sure if students truly get the full extent and the layers and nuances of the book, but I suppose that can't be helped as they probably lack the maturity to fully comprehend it.
Like Melissa's situation, my school offers Literature as an O Level subject and it doesn't look like it's going away but it's not emphasised either. It just is. I spoke with my SCM who is also a lit teacher and he said that his students (sec 4 NA) are taking literature because they didn't do well enough to qualify for Geog or History - quite an ironic situation in this case. They're doing Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart and I don't think they enjoy the book very much, unfortunately.
Perhaps students' enjoyment of the text has a lot to do with how it is taught. When I suggested to my CT that we could bring our students to the music room since they were going to dramatise Animal Farm for their formative assessment, she said that there wouldn't be enough time, etc when they actually have 70 minutes for each lesson.
Anyway, this week onwards I'll be teaching an introduction to poetry and realised how our lesson plans in NIE will probably never be implemented in this school despite us pitching it at lower secondary. The school wants me to teach rhyme, characterisation and writer's intentions - to quote my CT, "something very very basic because it's the first time they're doing it". My CT, as well as other lit teachers, are okay - I don't sense any overflowing passion about teaching the subject but I don't get the sense that they hate it either. What I do get is that they seem to be learner-centred, so they expect my lessons to be understandable. As such, I combed through about 5 textbooks that my CT passed to me and narrowed it down to simple poems like Veruca Salt (Roald Dahl), The National English Meal (Linda Hughes - about Fish and Chips) and Friends (Elizabeth Jennings). She thought the poems were really appropriate. All I can do is hope that by making it accessible at the beginning, students will realise that literature is not THAT daunting and at least not hate it, yet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for all your responses to the issue that has been in the press. It is quite interesting that up till this week, people have continued to write in about the issue of Literature. As some of you have pointed out, Literature declined at two points: implementation of ranking and implementation of Social Studies. And depending on the schools you have been posted to, you get very different visions of Literature. My question for myself, I suppose, is "What should be the role of Literature in the 21st century?" I love teaching literature at schools where there is a strong lit culture and I have had the privilege of teaching at some of these; at the same time, I do believe in the value of literature (with a small 'l') for all students. How can this pan out in the Singapore context? Questions I am still dealing with myself.
ReplyDeleteHere comes the late reply: the lesson planning monster got me -- I swear!
ReplyDelete1. Swiss Cottage Secondary has a fairly strong literature department (in terms of teacher headcount); While I am aware that Literature is offered at upper secondary and attracts a considerable student base, I do not have the specifics because all I got for practicum was a whole lot of Secondary 1 classes. (Jodee will give you a better picture when she posts -- the lesson planning monster got her too!)
Transmediation is a BIG thing here at Swiss Cottage, especially in terms of assessment. The lower secondary lit syllabus is devoid of examination-based assessment, instead opting for task-based grading througout the year. The kids have done scrapbook pages, diary entries from the POV of characters, powerpoint presentations, videos, a tableau, acting, alternate endings, etc as part of their CA and SA components. The Literature department is home to some powerhouses, who bring enthusiasm and zest into the lower secondary literature experience despite the marking madness that multimodal forms of assessment brings with it. The principal -- having a background in art -- is supportive of the arts and aesthetics in general. While multimodality is embraced in assessment, lessons in the classroom tend to be more traditional (ie. chalk and board), and as a result, can be rather dry. (One of my sec 1 students described literature lessons as being 'traumatic'). This is mainly borne out of the ambitious and comprehensive goals of the lower secondary literature program in which content coverage is important so as to equip the students with the necessary skills to do their CA/SA tasks. The result is a sort of tension between the old and the new, the modern and the traditional approach.
2. To me, the debates have made clear one thing: Looking at the list of recommended texts, MOE itself as an organization seems to be grappling with the issue of not only the role of literature, but also the more fundamental question of what exactly is literature. There seem to be overarching goals: critical thinkers, appreciation for the aesthetics, awareness of issues and debate in our environment, engagement in key national issues and ideas. Even in Secondary 1, students in Swiss Cottage are using Shrek to learn about the post-modern concept of the anti-fairy tale and the anti-hero. The first question that came to me was this: "what ever happened to the story?' It is important to engage in issues, but engaging in issues takes a certain maturity in order to grasp the key ideas. Before all of that, it is just the story. This was made remarkably clear when I found out that in the text that the secondary 3s were doing contained two of Alfan Sa'at's stories which are post-modern and devoid of a conventional plot structure. Students were not only grappling to engage with the themes, they were also grappling with the huge technical elements employed by the writer. The lack of a clear 'story' is disorientating for them because they do not have an anchor in which they can easily relate to.
Perhaps one way to combat this issue is to go back to the fundamental element of story: the most basic goal of literature should be to encourage reading via learning to appreciate literary texts, and picking texts that are rich in story and emotion (instead of political blabber) is one way we can redirect attention back to the thing that makes a story a story.
-Jason
My apologies for the late response.
ReplyDelete1)
Having heard about and experienced the language arts program for myself in schools, I’m glad to say that Swiss Cottage Secondary still keeps EL and Lit separate for now, despite attempts to infuse elements of language arts into the EL SOW, such as Paul Richer’s Critical Thinking Framework as a method of helping students read text beyond face value and explore other interesting perspectives, implications and inferences. This means that teachers currently have the freedom of bringing in their own materials to the class, and using a variety of texts to teach EL. For a practical reason, keeping EL and Lit apart means more time with the students, as a certain school I went to had their curriculum time halved after LA was introduced. The demands of each individual subject are different, and it would also be clearer to students to grasp if the subjects were kept separate.
Swiss Cottage’s lit department is fairly strong and passionate about the subject, with teachers swapping ideas and resources across levels. As Jason mentioned, the alternative assessment methods used at lower sec help infuse variety and vigour into the curriculum, albeit with challenges such as marking and rubrics issues. At the upper sec, the focus shifts towards essay based assessment, presumably in preparation for the O levels.
There are 4 lit classes in total for upper sec, one class of elective lit and one class of pure lit
at each level. The sec 4 pure lit class is doing Boom by Jean tay, and they are the most passionate, expressive and motivated bunch of students that would make any lit teacher proud. Possibly also because they love the play and its subtle critique on civil servants, they are engaged and excited to share their viewpoints in class, even going to the extent of coming up to the teacher after class to share their personal interpretation regarding a certain section in the play. I am humbled and heartened to have witnessed the drive and passion of the class, because it reminds me that such an ideal actually exists. In contrast, the sec 3 class is silent and reticent, only offering their responses when they are called upon. This class will be going on to take Romeo and Juliet next year, and it will be my personal challenge to change their minds about what literature is. Having had other teachers go through the text line by line with them in the past, they have come to accept that as literature lessons, and hence not many will read a short story of 15 pages even when they have be told to. This is something I hope I’d be able to change.
With regards to the number of students who choose to take lit in upper sec, it differs from year to year. This year’s class is one of the largest I have seen, 43 in total, making it a challenge when it comes to facilitating discussions. Yet in certain years, there was no literature class at all for that cohort simply because the number of students interested did not meet the minimum requirement of 20 students to form a class.
I hope this proves that literature is not suffering a steady declining death as others would have you to believe as long as opportunities are available to the students, and well trained teachers would take on the challenge.
2)
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the literature discussion, much has been said, with views that appear to differ and yet converge, each view trying to be more polarizing, more ground-breaking or sensational than the last. With all due respect to everyone else who has made their input, my stand on this is simple, all talk and no action will not change a thing. As Damian pointed out, I don’t see a lack of literature teachers, but rather a lack of opportunities for students to take up literature, for “unknown” strategic school or national purposes. I see no need to justify Literature as a subject, if that is the case, we should seek to justify Mathematics too for example, because its practical application is limited to a select few, and from what I know, the rest of us don’t solve questions on logarithm to gain access to our workplaces on a daily basis. Literature is about the beauty of language and an appreciation for its nuances and subtleties. This is one lesson objective that cannot be observed and measured but has to be the underlying objective in all our lessons.
-Jodee