While reading the first half of Arthur Applebee's history, I had several questions about why we (English teachers) do what we do and why tensions and issues have not changed much throughout the last century and a half.
How do we decide which texts are of "literary value" or "literary merit"? Applebee explains that in the American colonies and after the Revolution, literary value meant morality--texts should teach students to be moral or even religious. Or he mentions that pieces of literature were valued if they were part of the culture of the country and helped create a national unity and identity. The uniform requirements for college entrance exams produced the beginnings of a literary canon, but what I find interesting and ironic is that the texts were pieces of contemporary literature at that time (p.32). These pieces are still on many high school reading lists; why are our lists not comprised of contemporary works? Why are these works still taught with such fervor and conviction, as they were chosen at the time to represent the best works at that time? Perhaps we still have a bit of that notion that certain texts are necessary to give us a cultural knowledge.
English curriculum moved from a study of grammar and rhetoric to a study of literature in its own right. Are we now reversing that shift? It seems that we may now again be placing rhetorical studies, perhaps not above, but on the same level as the study of literature. As the state standards have changed, expository writing as well as literary analysis are now part of the yearly exams, and nonfiction texts must comprise a large part of the reading requirements. The AP Language and Composition course focuses solely on nonfiction texts, rhetorical analysis, and argument writing.
Applebee explains that the Classical Model led to prescriptive methods of teaching grammar and writing and "exhaustive line-by-line analysis" (p.9). Some of these methods still exist today, unfortunately. It seems that we still have a problem trying to encompass within the English curriculum "rote learning of rules and memorization of isolated facts" (p.29) and application of English skills to everyday life.
I am especially interested in the tension between English as a "mental discipline" and English as "appreciation." Applebee states that in the nineteenth century the "purpose of education was to exercise and train the mental faculties, in particular the faculties of 'memory' and 'reason'" (p. 6). I admit that I have used that theory to justify text analysis to my students. When they ask if they will ever do literary analysis later in life, I have to admit that they will not; however, I tell them that they are learning to think, and critical thinking is a necessary tool for life. We continue to have the debate over skill vs. content. The state standards emphasize skills, yet the high school reading lists and the teaching of novels focuses on content.
Amber,
ReplyDeleteI also find it extraordinarily interesting that at the moments of "reform" or change in the English curriculum that Applebee notes, policymakers moved to include contemporary works relevant to current students and (somewhat?) reflective of popular interest in literature. It has been my experience that we are not moving towards this direction in the study of literary fiction in the English curriculum, but have still retained the 'contemporary' works of the early 1900's and 1920's as part of the English curriculum.
-
I too am intrigued by the tension between using language for appreciation and mental discipline, but would argue that students *will* use literary analysis later on in life, even if it is not in formal academic writing. I think the skills acquired in literary analysis (recognizing allegory and allusion, analyzing character and narrative, identifying themes and ideological motivations) can be applied to media other than literature, and help equip students with the tools they need to be responsible, savvy consumers of media messages, films and popular culture. Maybe that's more of a personal justification for having theory and literary analysis in the curriculum, but I think it's worth considering.
-Thea
And how does one teach "appreciation"? Is that just the hope with which we have to leave the classroom? I certainly feel that it is important to spend more time working on writing skills ("the practical art" I call it) than negotiating literature. Should reading nonfiction be cut all together? No, but what will help a student more - knowing what allusion, assonance, and epithet are or being able to write a cover letter describing their abilities and fit with a company? It's not as cut and dry as that, but the literature lovers who become English teachers are not cut from the same cloth as the rest. People may not know what they're interested in until exposed to it (reason to keep exposing to literature experiences), but I think that being heard is more interesting than listening to a dead white guy.
ReplyDeleteHaving been a part of one of those decision-making groups on what to put on MS and HS reading lists, I still cannot answer your question, "how do we decide what texts are of 'literary value'?" I do think there is a social and cultural aspect that is missing from most required reading lists of today.
ReplyDelete-Jen
jgbaggie = Johnathan
ReplyDelete