Nisha's Reflection 4

Literature in Nan Chiau High

The school does literature in a programme called English Communicative Arts (ECA). The secondary 1s are doing Emily of the Emerald Hill while the Secondary 2s are doing Macbeth.  This programme combines both English and Literature in an attempt to link those two subjects so that students see how they are related to each other. However in my opinion, it has made students hate literature. None of the four sec two classes that I teach, love Literature and they hate English even more because the literature text is used to teach English. I also learnt from my CT that they choose texts based on the canon and when I asked her and another teacher why the Secondary twos are doing Macbeth instead of a local text, their reply was that they are traditional and would prefer to stick to a canon. More importantly they felt that if the kids are not exposed to Shakespeare then they have not learnt literature.  This misconception of what is literature was a disapointment to me with addition to their reason for teaching a Shakespearean text.

Therefore it came as a no surprise when I found out that only half a class is doing Literature in upper sec this year and with none last year. Thus the most they had in Upper Secondary doing Literature was half a class with alternating years none.

The reasons why certain students like Literature was because of the plot in the story. The main reason why they don’t enjoy literature is because of the “alien” language used in the Shakespearean texts and thus they tend to only read the English translation in their text. Other then the fact that the language is discouraging to them, they also dislike literature because they don’t like memorising quotes in a “foreign language” and quoting them, which is what my CT expects. Futhermore, because English is combined with Literature, students feel that in order to do well in literature they need to be good in English. This discourages students who are not good in their language to dislike Literature.

Literature is taught in their school using the texts as a basis to teach English. For example through a fill in the blanks worksheet to test students on their grammer using the Macbeth plot as the pasage and so on. Also because Literature is combined with English, students are not exposed to the full depth of the text as only themes, plot summary, characterization and language is covered in an overview for each Act in Macbeth. Literature for Secondary 2s is taught by going from Act 1 till Act 5 using worksheets. When I start teaching from next week I am supposed to cover Act 3 in 4 periods in which 2 periods to cover the plot summary, 1 period for character analysis only for scene 2 and language and the atmosphere for secene 4, which is the Banquet scene. Thus only selected scenes and selected areas are emphaised, which to me defeats the purpose of doing literature and is no surprise that students don’t enjoy the subject. Also because Nan Chiau High has a 10-day timetable, this means that out of the 13 periods of ECA only 4 periods are allocated for literature and rest for English. Literature is generally taught using PowerPoint slides which are so wordy and boring and worksheets, which are so language, based.

Assessment for Literauture comes as no surprise as the traditional exams and tests. The principal is very exam and results driven so that is why their school days are way longer then typical schools and they are tested for Literature with English via written homework, test papers, CA1, SA1 and so on. Due to how Literauture is being taught and tested, it is no surprise that students see Literature as a memory work in which they just blindly memorise and regurgitate and for those who don’t like the subject, they just focus on other subjects that they can score well in becaue of the results driven system of the school.

With such a mechanial and technical teaching and learning of Literature that has its depths and richness in the ability to connect with the students emotionally because of how they are all emotional feeling beings like every human is the reason why Literature is a declining subject. I feel that teaches should spend some time to share with students the purpose and skills that this subject emparts them and to teach it in a way that involves not just their ability to memorise but more importantly their ability to think and feel. Students need to be shown how Literature stands out from other subjects because it is the only feeling subject in their curriculam with a no right or wrong answer as long as they are able to substantiate their answers logically.

I am deeply discouraged by the fact that I am not allowed to teach Literature as how I feel it deemed to be taught for my practicum but to use the school’s worksheets and structure to teach it. On a final note, if Literature is to be saved the teaching, learning and assessment of Literature needs to change or it will just be like any other techincal subject with no meaning and purpose in which students choose other technical subjects as language is not a hinderance for them to ace the subject. I believe that once students see the relevance, meaning and purpose of any subject that they are studying, they would be more intrinsically motivated to learn it.

Joel's Reflection 4 - A Sad State to be in

In my limited time with the school where the first week was interrupted with common tests and the second brought with it cohort camp, I get a sense that the state of literature is declining and requires an injection of passion. Students in general do not view the subject favourably. They feel that a good command of English language is required as a prerequisite and that the subject reaps no tangible benefits. Another common understanding would be that literature is solely about reading books and should not be examined as a subject but rather meant as enjoyment.

From what I hear from my colleague (trainee) observing the secondary 4s, there is only one class of about 20 students taking full literature. Effectively, there is only one teacher taking the entire upper secondary subject for the secondary 4s and previous batches. At present, the secondary 3s have a new literature teacher who is also new to the school and there are one and a half classes taking full literature.  For the lower secondary, literature is made compulsory for all classes and they typically follow the pattern of poems, prose and then drama. “Ten Short Stories” by Roald Dahl would serve as the text for prose.

In a school where there are only express stream classes, I would have expected that more upper secondary students would have taken literature and it does not help that the teachers do not appear to be as passionate about the subject. For almost every subject in the school, there would be a Time-Table Period (TTT) where teachers teaching the same level and subject would convene to discuss all matters pertaining to their subject and to provide “live” updates. Unfortunately, literature teachers do not practice this. It must be said however that things might (hopefully) take a turn as the school has a new principal who I have heard reads literature as her field of study. In addition to this, during the secondary 1 TTT that I am involved in, I have heard a senior teacher mentioning the need to combine literary elements when teaching English language. Her intentions are laudable and are a step in the right direction.  

In teaching literature, the approaches used are pretty much similar where the teacher would get the students to read the text before class and might get the students to perform a read aloud during class time. The teaching is for the most part didactic and requires the use of worksheets where students would fill it in as the teacher goes through them and usually provides some form of “model answer” where students merely copy. Assessment wise, students at secondary one have tests that asks for short answers and structured responses that would be the norm for the secondary 2s as well. At the upper secondary, students would write essays and constant handholding is required in preparation for the “O” Levels. Basically, the teaching and assessments are all geared towards scoring well in the “O” Levels.

On a whole, the students perform quite well at the “O” Levels and this could be down to the small class size and close supervision of the sole teacher in charge. If I am not mistaken, the students read the “roll of thunder” and they read the play “boom” by Jean Tay.

With regards to the recent debate in the media, I am quite incensed at the constant notion that literature is perceived to be detrimental to grades and how the subject has been given mere “lip service” in relation to its declining status over the years. I feel strongly that the trend needs to be buckled through educating the public in general over the frequent misconceptions and the merits of pursuing literature. It would not be a stretch either to make the subject compulsory thereby forcing the issue and have the government openly endorse the subject which should ensure its status being elevated in the future. This would of course appear somewhat draconian and in a way contradict the very nature of critical thinking that the subject affords but would seem to be the “best” solution in Singapore’s situation which reveals much about its people and the way the education system has been functioning.

In my opinion, the declining state of literature is as such not only because of how others perceive the subject but also how those taking the subject make it out to be. At its best, literature is about the human condition and it helps one to be more sensitive to “things around us”. At its worst, literature might be said to be a lot of hoopla, airy-fairyness, and a subject that can be “smoked through”. In a sense, the people reading literature are walking, talking, breathing role-models to those around them and it pays to be careful with how we present ourselves as students reading literature and the lingo that we use when talking about the subject. Some might say it’s precisely this exclusive behaviour that makes literature students “hip”, “cool” or even “eccentric”. No doubt that stereotypes do exist pertaining to literature students (and I shall not even touch on whether this is a positive or negative thing) but as a whole we must bear in mind that people “on the outside” looking in do not perceive us the way we might perceive ourselves. I feel that understanding is vital and merits such as critical thinking and analytical skills should be emphasized as a set of tangible and relevant skills in light of this ever changing global climate. As they say, “ignorance is not bliss” and it would go a long way if the general public can actually bear witness to the way literature is taught (at least at the tertiary levels) and they would find that literature is so much more than possessing good English and reading skills. Hopefully the close-knit community of literature would be exactly that, a community where learners amount in the majority.       

Jeannette's Reflection 4

Literature in School

I am currently in Nan Chiau Secondary School and they offer English Communicative Arts their lower secondary students. This started last year, and according to my CT, is done in hope that it will promote Literature and encourage them to take Literature in upper secondary. I like ECA very much because even though the teacher is required to teach both English and Literature, it gives a lot more time for the teacher to explore the text with the students, as some English skills are learnt based on passages from the text. Currently, the Sec 2s are doing Macbeth while the Sec 1s are doing Emily of Emerald Hill. I am unsure how many upper secondary classes they have at the moment, but I remember my CT sharing with me that they are doing The Crucible, and do not do Shakespeare at upper secondary level. (Hence Macbeth at Sec 2.)

The teachers in my school are supportive of Literature, and because they were receptive, have allowed the ECA programme to be possible for the lower secondary school levels. I have spoken to some students about Literature and some of them like it while some of them do not. Some find it very interesting to be able to study different characters. Those who do not like it cannot understand why they have to “quote, quote, quote”.

Typical approaches to teaching would be giving out worksheets and going through the text at the same time. However, they do include videos and activities like “hot seating” to make lessons more exciting. Assessment would come in the form of written homework, and test papers. I think this is so because it is ECA, and maybe because English requires assessing their writing skills, their assessment mode tends towards written papers.

Literature, a declining subject?

I cannot deny that the number of classes taking Literature is declining every year, but I am encouraged that Nan Chiau is making an effort to promote Literature with their ECA curriculum. Nonetheless, there is always the concern that even with ECA, students may still dislike Literature because they now have to do Literature in class every day and they get bored of it. (“Teacher, why every day do the same book? We already know the story!”) In this case, because it is tied to English, students would study the book very seriously, but I think that this loses the value of learning Literature. They end up wanting to copy everything there is about every character, memorise themes and quotes and whatever they can get their hands on to get an A. With so much to copy, Literature then becomes a chore. I think there must be a balance where students are also given the opportunity to voice their opinions and realise that there is no model answer, but is very much dependent on how well they can bring across their points.

I also believe that if schools stop seeing Literature as a subject where only students who are good in English can take, there might be more students who are willing to give Literature a shot. I have met students who are interested in taking Literature, but because their schools do not offer it, they do not have a choice but to take something else up. This effectively cuts off many students from Literature, which automatically leads to the declining numbers. Perhaps, ECA may be a good way to give a greater exposure to Literature to students in the Lower Secondary Level (because more periods are allocated to Literature and English combined), and to really experience what Literature is like.

 

Amala's Reflection 4

I am currently at North View Secondary School for my Practicum II. Like many other schools, the passion for Literature is very much encouraged in this school as well. There is a constant revamp of the teaching methods and strategies of Literature here so as to suit the students' learning styles and to make Literature an interesting subject for them. As much as reading is being cultivated as a habit which each and every student in the school must possess, as seen in their silent reading programme, writing is given a lot of emphasis too especially for the lower secondary students so as to prepare them for their upper secondary Literature. Even though they do not write a full essay all the time, they are given at least two questions to answer in short prose forms ensuring that they have the required points in their answers. Through this, their content knowledge of the text is very much built upon by assigning those questions for students to identify the points and write. The principal is also very supportive of the English Department such that he sits in for the department meetings and he even gives us articles to share with our students. He is giving his utmost support in building Literature as one of the core subjects for students.

At North View Secondary School, I am teaching Secondary 2 Literature for students in the Normal academic stream and they are dealing with Stella Kon's 9 Classroom Plays. Last week I discussed with them Stella Kon's play, 'Birds of a Feather', and the students were very much interested in the discussion when they were asked questions like 'Do you like the ending of the story?' and 'If given an opportunity, how will you change the ending of the play?' I also related the story to Singapore by linking it with how we view foreigners in our country and about whether we often have different perceptions about them. I can see that the students have a high level of interest in Literature but at the end of the day, it all depends on whether they are able to understand and relate to the story. In this case, Stella Kon’s 9 classroom plays succeeds in gaining the attention of my students as she deals with the harsh reality rather than an idealistic ending itself. Thus I can see that despite being in the Normal Academic Stream, the students make an attempt to read the play knowing that they will be asked to give out their answers for the summary handout that they are required to complete. However, they are also enthusiastic when they are sharing their answers and I can see that it is possible to motivate them to develop more interest in Literature.

On the contrary, I am worried about the state of Literature as a whole considering that there was an article released about a big drop in the number of students taking Literature. I personally feel that Literature should be made a compulsory subject for the upper secondary students at least for some time. It is undeniable that Literature teaches students values such as compassion, sympathy and empathy. It also brings out the humanity in them which is possible only through Literature. I personally feel that Literature is a very important subject for every student to learn and develop an interest in it because the values that they eventually pick out from the subject are lifelong values which will follow them throughout their lives. Also, if Literature is going to be taken out as a subject, it will create an impression that Literature is indeed not an important students thus it is being removed from the school curriculum. So, I strongly feel that Literature must be taken up by all students at least for some time.

 

Kheng May's Reflection 4

LITERATURE IN MY SCHOOL

I’m currently doing my practicum at Bukit Batok Secondary School and I must say it is a wonderful place for English Literature teachers! The Literature department is made up of 6 teachers who are very easy-going and very open to new ideas and teaching styles. This is great for me since I get the chance to try out new methods and materials. They are very supportive and friendly and it is a joy to talk to them about Literature. They give me extremely useful tips about teaching Lit to the different levels and streams and how I can tie in Lit to help improve their English. The school offers pure Literature to upper secondary students (the total number of students make up about 1 class), but I am not taking any pure lit classes this time round. I am given lower secondary classes and so far it has been quite an experience teaching them. The Sec 1s are doing Animal Farm and the Sec 2s are doing Ten Short Stories by Roald Dahl.

Initially, I thought that the texts chosen were too challenging for ‘neighbourhood’ standards but I was pleasantly surprised when my secondary 1 normal academic class told me that they liked the book and ¼ of them had already finished reading it! It was also very comforting when they asked intelligent questions about Napoleon’s regime and his rules, showing that they are thinking critically about the text and what it represents. The secondary 2s are also very involved in Literature class and they have very fruitful discussions. While Lit is not as promoted as the other subjects, the students generally enjoy Lit classes and they participate actively during lesson. During the recent Lit festival in school, the students responded very well and their work is now put up all around school. Although not all of them choose to do Lit at the upper secondary level*, I feel that they have experienced Literature and they enter upper secondary with a new mindset: one that allows them to read deeper and think critically.

*The streaming system in my school splits the upper secondary express classes into Science and Arts. So instead of 3E1, 3E2 and so on, the classes are now 3S1, 3S2, 3A1 and 3A2 (S = Science, A = Arts). I think this is a good way of banding students, as the Arts students are not compared to the Science students like they would be traditionally. Arts can now stand on its own and students in the Arts stream no longer need to feel inferior to their friends in the Science stream.

ALL THAT HEAT

I feel that the recent heat Literature has been receiving is good publicity for the subject. Those who are passionate about Lit can now use this opportunity to advocate it and show its benefits (both academic and non-academic benefits). The sentiment that Literature is difficult subject to score in is an old sentiment that can be disproved easily since there is now an increase in the number of local texts used in the curriculum. The use of local texts breaks down the language barrier for students and it helps them to relate to and understand the subject better. The study of Literature does not offer us immediate benefits like Math or Science, but it teaches us to be critical and yet to empathize. To be discerning and yet receptive to new ideas. These are intangible skills that cannot be measured and graded, but they are just as valuable as counting and spelling. I acknowledge the fact that these skills take time to develop but I urge people to have a little patience, to wait it out and notice the change in our child’s attitude and mindset towards life in general. 

Literature and the Arts is the soul of society and we cannot do without it. I just hope that people see the value in it fast because Literature is running out of time.

Literature- 'To be or not to be' (Shalini)

Literature in my school

I would neither say that Literature is thriving nor dying in my school, it merely exists. The secondary ones do The Outsiders by S.E Hinton and introduction to poetry. The Secondary twos do a collection of 6 Shakespeare’s plays, abridged version of course, and Unseen prose and the secondary threes do Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet.

The first thing my CT told me when we met was that when she  asked her Secondary 2 classes, on the first day, if they enjoyed or even liked Literature , their immediate response was NO!!! They apparently hated literature. And I don’t blame them. At secondary one, the teaching of literature is mundane and dry and is basically as formulaic as Maths. Perhaps there may be a shortage of literature teachers in my school, which is ironic as three teachers co-teach the secondary twos, such that the six secondary one classes are given a retired returning teacher whose methods, let’s just as, are quite didactic. It’s more like preaching sessions and students are just forced to learn Literature without actually enjoying it.  Having observed her lessons in TP1, I know that she basically drills students with the terms and even equated the learning of the rhyme scheme to Maths, telling them all they had to do was write out the rhyme scheme like a maths formula, without actually contextualizing it for them. Likewise, alliteration was taught with a whole list of random sentences for students to “practise” identifying the alliterated words. This was their first lesson on poetry. I was in shock.

Thankfully, at secondary two, the situation is not so bad. My CT and a BT are both Lit trained and they do make the lessons far more interactive by eliciting responses from students and getting them to think about the characters in Romeo and Juliet through questioning and pair discussions. Since they co-teacher, which means at one time, there can be two teachers in the class taking turns to teach, the worksheets are standardized and they do the same thing in all 6 classes. I find it confusing that the teachers just go into class and decide who teaches which character and I still have not fully comprehended the rationale for co-teaching yet, since the teachers are teaching using the same teaching style and follow the same lesson structure and do the exact same thing, just with a different character. Perhaps it eases the marking load.

The decline of literature

As observed by most, the first words uttered by students when they hear Literature are “boring”, “cannot score” and “useless”.  Students seem to shrink away from it and I always find myself asking why? Especially since I love it so much! The value of Literature in instilling values is something I believe is possible, but I feel should not be the goal of literature. That is what they have RICH lessons for. Literature is definitely life, it deals with the complexities of being human, human emotions, human relationships and society and so on and I feel that sadly, this depth is rarely dealt with in the class. I feel that Literature is taught following some sort of checklist- must teach those similes, metaphors, themes, characters and so on and always linking it to the use of the PEEL structure to answer questions.  I looked at my school’s SOW and they have many small quizzes, which in a way is good to check students understanding, but it makes the whole process of learning mechanical. Thus, although lessons are interactive, students are constantly reminded to use the PEEL structure and that they have a test the following week which requires them to write the answer in a certain way. Thus, once again, it boils down to our education system’s emphasis on examinations and results to determine academic success. Thus, while subjects like maths and chemistry and especially English (in my school) are being drilled to the students, literature also falls prey and the true potential of Literature is lost. 

Nerine's Reflection 4

Sometime last week, I stepped into the pantry and saw both my Lit CTs there. CT1 asked if I read the newspaper articles regarding the Literature debate. I replied that I had and he asked me what I was going to do about the state of Lit in Queensway. Knowing that we have not had an upper secondary Lit class in a long time, I articulated my passion for the subject and expressed hope in trying to set up one. I mentioned that I want to “encourage my students to love Lit and take it at the upper secondary level”. CT1 then laughed mockingly and told CT2 “Did you hear that? She wants to encourage my students to love Lit and take it at the upper secondary level.” Both of them then laughed and lament on the difficulty in teaching Lit at the upper secondary level because “it is a lot of work”. My heart sank when I heard that because I feel that as educators, our job is indeed to encourage students to love Lit and help them see the beauty of the subject. It is also very sad to see my secondary two students complaining about boring teachers and their hatred for Lit because when I taught them for 5 weeks last year, they really seemed like they enjoyed Lit lessons. Some of them even expressed their interest in taking Lit at the upper secondary level. What have 7 months done to them? To put it bluntly, English Literature is dead in Queensway Secondary School.

We have only lower secondary Lit classes because the school “doesn’t have enough resources (teachers)” to teach Lit at the upper secondary level. There are only 3 Lit teachers: 1 adjunct, 1 retiring at the end of this year and 1 who focuses largely on PE. TEXTS - Sec1s: 9 Classroom Plays by Stella Kon, Sec 2 Express: Animal Farm by George Orwell, Sec 2 NA: Singapore Short Stories. My timetable has only 4 hours of Lit each week but 6 hours of EL even though my AS1 is Lit L I teach Sec2 Express. Currently, the teacher is doing a chapter-by-chapter analysis for Animal Farm and students seem extremely bored to death. When I take over the classes after the March holidays, I really hope to introduce more fun activities to help students learn characterisation and themes of the book. It is sometimes difficult to help students progress because I can only see them 1 hour each week. Their language proficiency is also relatively low and many of them don’t even read the book. Their tests and examinations include short answer questions to the books and unseen poetry. These questions are usually very straightforward but some students somehow still obtain just 5/30 marks. There is a PGDE girl who is teaching Lit as well and we share the same goal: setting up an upper secondary Lit class, but we realise how difficult it is without support and experience.

It is very disheartening to read some of the ST articles about the plight of Lit in Singapore. Many would blame it on the MOE syllabus which introduced ‘combined Humanities’ as an O Level examinable subject. The number of students taking Lit at the O Levels have dropped from 16,000+ to just 3,000+ in the past few years. I feel that it is really up to us Lit educators to bring the number back up again. We have to start from the secondary one level and spur our students on, helping them to gain an interest in the subject. We should also equip them with the tools of learning Lit in a fun way. There is no such thing as bad publicity right? I’m glad that many articles regarding Lit are springing up and people can now consider the subject more seriously.

Individual Reflection 4

By and large, West Spring Secondary school tries to support the study of Literature. It is a compulsory subject in Secondary 1 and 2. However, that is where the Literature programme meets a problem - only a handful of these students will opt to take elective Lit (pure isn't offered). In the past two years, the entire cohort has managed to barely fill half a class (~20).

The lower Secondary Literature syllabus is comprehensive enough, ensuring that they are exposed to poetry and prose from a variety of sources. I've taught Sec 1s something as simple as "Cartoon, the Coffee-Shop Boy" (a local poem), and I've also taught Sec 2s how to dissect Sonnet 18 by Shakespeare. For the past 2 years, the Sec 2s have also been studying Romeo and Juliet. 

In my short time here, I believe the problem lies largely with the students' unwillingness to take Literature at the 'O' Levels. The standard of English is the best you can expect from a neighbourhood school (in fact, in West Spring the standard is pretty high compared to the surrounding schools in the Bukit Panjang area, with the exception of Government High), so it's not entirely an issue of students having to struggle very hard to meet the linguistic challenge. I've asked all 4 of my Literature classes (one Sec 2 Express, one Sec 2 NA, one Sec 1 Express, one Sec 1 NA) whether or not they like the subject, and the general response is a 'no' because they think it's too difficult. And yet when I call for responses and prompt them in dissecting poems, I find that they are capable enough to voice an answer that demonstrates some understanding, even if they do not yet have the technical language to write it down and discuss it.

The state of Literature in the school is, I feel, no fault of the institute itself. The teachers are as passionate about the subject as I can hope for, and even the modes of assessment take into account more than simply regurgitation of data. Both last year and this year, there is an alternative mode of assessment that accounts for a generous portion of their final grade (I think up to 20%). Last year, students had to act out a segment from Romeo and Juliet. This year, they intend to take the alternative assessment in a different direction, and they are still discussing it before implementing it in Term 3.

I believe the problem is more deeply rooted in the society's perception of the subject. Until that changes, the infrastructure itself can only do so much. In West Spring, I think the pieces are in place. All it needs are people who are actually interested in taking the subject.

Having said that, I believe that all of West Spring's efforts (and the efforts of any school, really) will account for nothing until there is a fundamental shift in the mindset of the general populace. The recent debate has highlighted the fact that our education system is, for all its reforms, still largely one that favours certain disciplines and industries more than others. The oft-repeated line about how it is "easier to score" in other subjects throws this problem into the spotlight. Whether or not it is really easier to score in other subjects is a moot point. The point is that when students consider studying any subject, the major concern is whether or not it is easier to deliver all the correct answers, and not whether or not they are able to pick up the cognitive skills that will bring them to the solutions they are looking for. With this mentality, they are not coming to school to learn anything useful - they are merely chasing grades because the grades promise something; a job in this-and-that sector, a secure position in this-and-that industry, a future in this-and-that profession. And the reason they pass over Literature is because as a subject it is not readily tied to the cash value of any particular job... or if it is, then it is mainly to the professions that teach it, or to the artists who create literature, which stacks poorly against the more financially attractive things like medicine, law and banking. Literature cannot offer that kind of easy security because the things that come with it - critical thinking being just one of them - are not easily monetized.

What is troubling about the discussion that has been generated is the fact that many still dismiss Literature as a subject that is not meant for everyone. They fail to understand that although linguistic ability does play a part, Literature is not exclusively about poetic flair. Behind the artifice there is a mode of thinking and analysis that is useful in any industry. But that is not to say that the artifice is immaterial - the ability to express oneself is part and parcel of what it means to be human because it involves communication. I'm not saying that people of all professions should be able to write sonnets or speak in iambic pentameter, but I am saying that no matter what job a person is in, the ability to present an idea or thought with some degree of eloquence is incalculably valuable.

And until people see that Literature is less about just spouting verses than it is about thinking and communicating, students will continue to aim for the subjects that lead to specific jobs in the mistaken belief that they will never need the things that they could have learnt in Literature.

Reflection 4 Punitha

Reflections about the State Literature in my practicum school.

The state of literature in my school currently can be deemed as a worrying one as there is no classes undertaking Pure Literature as a subject and there is only one combined class for elective Literature at the graduating level. However, as much as I agree with Dr.Poon’s statement that the pragmatic policies adopted by the state is responsible for the current state of decline for the discipline, MP Indranee’s statement in parliament about how Literature is being side-lined in favour of other options stands true in my school. In a bid to make literature engaging and literature as a discipline my school introduced Media Literacy as part of the literature curriculum as well. This was rolled out in Secondary 2, where students were taught elements of film studies such as editing, camera framing, camera movement, cinematography etc. They were then expected to apply what they have learnt by planning and directing a video that demonstrates all the elements of film making very clearly. They will also be asked to come up with their own movie scripts and dialogues and photo-boards to explain their choice of scenes, camera angles and how does it aid in the meaning making process of the film/video. They also have an external vendor who comes in to teach the students the technical knowledge of how to handle a camera and to film and edit sequences professionally.

 I should have prefaced this argument by also adding that my school offers Media Studies as an O level Subject and this programme is tied to Ngee Ann Polytechnics media studies school. So, what began as an initiative to equip students with media literacy skills (to critically analyse the media that they are being exposed to everyday and to make Literature lessons engaging and relevant to their lives) has now knowingly or unknowingly served as a platform for the school to develop media studies as a niche area for the school. Introduced as part of the Literature curriculum at the lower secondary level to lure students to the subject, it has now caused students to choose Media Studies as the more viable and interesting option up to date.

In the upper secondary literature classrooms, Teachers continue to employ the tried and tested methods of going through the text chapter and to highlight the salient points to the students. As what Michelle had said in her post, the students look to the teachers for their interpretation of the text and are often unable to substantiate opinions about the text. Students and Teachers prefer adopting the Teach to the Test approach also known as the Ten-Year Series Practice Approach, which is to practice as much past year questions and to present model answers. These attitudes then pose as challenges to when inquiry based lessons are being planned for students.

This is where I find myself to echo the stance that many has put forth that a mind-set change is necessary about the value of literature and the potential it has to serve as a discipline that promotes critical thinking and character development. Also, the public should not be the only target audience to convince them of the need to change but the school teachers and students as well.

Debate about drop in number of students in Literature

I believe that the whole argument about decline in the number of students taking Literature as an O’ level subject is related to the perceived economic value of the subject, questioning its ability to open careers beyond teaching and journalism at most. I had recently attended the Singapore Writers Festival where Christine Suchen Lim, a famous local author, came forth to present the Key note address. In her speech, she addressed this issue and listed many other career options that Literature can open doors to , thereby debunking the myth that those who pursue literature can only become teachers or writers. She warned us against looking at everything with a pragmatic or practical perspective as this would result in a loss of a whole ecosystem of teachers, writers, performers, playwrights, poets amongst many others, resulting in a void of literacy and culture.

 I think the task set out for us ahead as beginning teachers, is to not buy into the current train of thought of just teaching to the test and to push to convince our in-service teachers to embracing new means of teaching and pedagogy. I understand that it is difficult to win over our senior teachers. I sent out a survey to my Secondary 2 literature students, hoping to find out their opinion of their subject and how do they want it to be taught. Almost all of them came back saying that they do see that Literature is relevant to their lives and that they feel that they often feel daunted by didactic teaching practices and prefer group based engaging activities. So I believe that there is some hope left.