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.