OK, so we've really been talking about this (or around this) all semester, but next week's articles in the course pack directly address the topic of teaching. They also tackle the unanswerable, but forever fascinating, question, "Why teach literature?" Showalter even discusses the perhaps-even-more-difficult question, "What is literature?"
We're at the end of the coursepack, and we only have a few more weeks left in the semester. So, at this point, what do you think about teaching YA literature? Why do you think you (we) teach literature? Do any of Showalter's or hooks' or Appelman's or Rosenblatt's theories speak to you? Why or why not? If they do, which ones and how?
J
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Why do I teach literature? I still ask myself that all the time. My students constantly ask "Why do we have to read this? When will I ever use this?" Some teachers might answer, "Well, some day you might be on Jeopardy..." or something like that. I tend to be more honest with my students. Sometimes they need to hear from me that they may never use it again, but I don't just stop there...I explain that throughout life, we learn many many things. Some we take with us, and others become part of our knowledge base. I believe that passion is an important part of teaching literature. I always have students who are negative but later come to appreciate what they've read and learned. I feel like I'm being very vague and jumpy with this answer, but it is a difficult question.
I like to engage my students in meaningful learning and interacting experiences. I think the beginning of Rosenblatt's chapter has some connection with my beliefs that we are all individuals, as are students. We don't read to just define a text; we develop a relationship with the text. We have unique transactions with what we read, and different readers interpret the text differently.
This can also be linked to my presentation and final project when I pose the question "Why, what, how do students read?" As you saw in my student responses, there was a variety of answers. This is all I have for now. Perhaps I will be able to branch off of others' responses later. I hope you all had a happy Easter!
Why teach literature? Because it's the best subject...no really,because it's the one subject where we can truely discuss mankind, humanity, fears, challenges, extremes etc. and in a safe enviroment. I tend to side with the Blackwell theory that teaching literature makes people better human beings and better citizens. Literature allows us through imagination to weep, laugh, dream etc. As Blackwell states it also helps for a small moment in time to break down those barriers: class, race, social status, gender, sexuality etc. By offering a place to do this the teacher invites conflict, as Blackwell claims. It's great for a teacher to have passion and especially about the novel or subject, but I think there should always be room for disagreement and conflict with the hypothesis. In an English class this critical thinking and anyalyzing can be safely explored by students as it can't in other classes.
I also like the student centered theories, that teaching is a two way transaction (no one can sell unless someone buys.) I think we all have been in classrooms where we've been the student in a room with a dictator teacher. This is not fun and not a good learning environment. I have vowed never to do that to other students.
I also concur with the piece on "Engaged Pedagogy," as I believe each student, as well as each teacher is aa unique being with different experiences, personalities and belief systems. It is important to recognize what each student brings to the literature experience, defined as a holostic approach. Through the holostic approach teachers are growing and becoming empowered, too. I like this idea. I know I have much room to grow, and hope to continue to do so throughout my career. I feel sorry for the teachers and the students of such teachers, who don't view teaching as an everyday learning process for the teacher, as well.
I also liked the section in Rosenblatt that talked about the formal relationships in literature as having a non-seperable effect. I view literature as interconnected: the form, style, theme, sentence structure, mood, plot, imagery as all pieces of a working part. Much in the same way that a machine has many pieces or a math problem has many parts to make its whole. Furthermore, I think Rosenblatt reiterates the personal experiences of the reader as an important piece to the work of literature. It seems all the articles stressed the importance of the reader and the student's experieces.
Staci
I have struggled with the reasons behind the study of literature throughout my professional career. I was originally drawn to the study of literature because I enjoy it—it’s one of the many art forms I like. But the nagging question is always there: “Yes. Literature is wonderful—but what good is it?”
As Showalter explains, numerous academic motives for teaching literature may be used to justify its inclusion in the curriculum; in fact, she explains these reasons very well. But hooks’ ideas regarding self-actualization, teaching, and critical thinking—although they might be regarded as “heavy” or “metaphysical”—seem more substantive to me. In other words, we study literature because it helps us know ourselves. Rosenblatt says that “literature may offer us an emotional outlet” (p. 36/526), but more important is her argument that the study of literature affords us “an enlargement of our experience” (p. 40/528).
I once heard a very learned professor here at Purdue state that there are two kinds of truths: a good argument and a good story. I enjoy a good argument just as much as anyone, but if I had my druthers, I’d opt for the good story.
I’m always a little suspicious of people who proudly state that they don’t own a television or don’t watch television or watch only the news or PBS. Television is an excellent source of good stories (you just have to know where to look), and anyone who avoids it simply because, well, it’s television, is depriving themselves of some great entertainment—as well as some rather complex contemporary attempts at truth (I have in mind shows such as Lost and Heroes, not According to Jim or Deal or No Deal).
As Gerald Graff states in one of the articles Jeff sent us, “Real intellectuals turn any subject, however lightweight it may seem, into grist for their mill through the thoughtful questions they bring to it, whereas a dullard will find a way to drain the interest out of the richest subject” (p. 143). In fact, the author of the other article Jeff sent us addresses this issue rather well, too: “novels and stories should be studied…because they offer powerful examples of the way a culture thinks about itself.”
When I read through Appleman’s book excerpt that called for teaching critical theory in secondary classrooms, I was happy to see that someone has confidence in what teenagers can do with a book. High school students are able to do much more than jot down short-answer responses to comprehension questions at the end of stories in their English textbooks. They are forming opinions about the world around them, and, as English teachers, we are able to expose them to theories that support and challenge what they are thinking.
Appleman says that “literacy theories provide lenses that can sharpen one’s vision and provide alternative ways of seeing” (p. 2/515). Many of my students have come to my classroom expecting me to tell them what they need to know about the stories they would read during the school year. What surprises them is that I challenge them to interpret and critique texts. Exposing students to various types of critical theory takes time, but I think it can be a valuable tool for them to have as they move on to reading texts outside of the classroom.
Post a Comment