Reflection 4: State of Literature

In a school where half the cohort comprises of NA and NT students, Literature is dead. Literature is dead not because students lack the capacity to learn the subject. Literature is dead because school believes subjects like Design & Technology, Techinical studies and EOA will be better for students.

I don’t deny that many students in Fajar Secondary School are not proficient in their language, but I also don’t believe that they are incapable of taking Literature at Upper Secondary level. The school does not offer upper secondary Literature. We were not told why either. In this school, perhaps only a handful of the entire English and Literature department are “Lit-trained”. That is to say, many “picked up” Literature along the way, when they were assigned to teach at Lower Secondary. With Literature as my CS1, I was only given 3 periods of literature class a week. It is hard to describe the state of Literature in my school because it is rather non-existent. Principal does not address it. There is no departmental meeting for Lit. I have too little exposure to Literature classes to make a sound judgment of student’s perception of the subject.

For now, secondary one students are working on poetry. I am currently teaching Secondary 1(A) poetic devices. In term 2, students will look at An Inspector Calls, a play by J.B. Priestley. Also next term, students would have 3 tests and a project to complete on poetic devices. I just think that it is all a little too overwhelming for Secondary 1 students with only 1.5 hrs of lesson a week. It seems more like a “touch and go” routine.

For assessment, students are not graded in secondary 1. They have quizzes and projects through the year which will account for their SA and CA results. While I think this is commendable, making literature non-examinable and offered only at lower secondary can be a double edged sword. A wrong message can be sent to the students of Literature being unimportant.

The ST report seems to reflect my school’s Literature culture. By denying Literature as a subject to be taken at Upper Secondary meant that students will not have to take the subject seriously at Lower Secondary. Nonetheless, at the same time, it can also be said that Literature then, can be made a fun subject to study since it is non examinable (only for sec 1) and does not affect their secondary 2 streaming. However, how can Literature be fun when teachers still have an SOW to follow and given only 1.5 hrs a week to teach? This week, my 1(A) students went on a leadership camp and we missed 1 hour of lesson. With activities going on and lessons being cancelled as a result, Literature is affected the most. I also agree in the article that having fewer students taking literature is a vicious cycle that only a change culture and attitude of people can break this cycle. Fewer students taking Literature at O levels meant that fewer students would take Literature at A’s and University. That would mean that fewer teachers would join MOE as literature teachers and eventually join the schools, making Literature an even more difficult subject to provide in schools.

I believe that as of any subject, it is the attitude—and not the innate flair for a subject that matters. No one was born good at math, or science, or humanities. We choose to learn what we want to learn. We build our talent based on our interests. Literature majors chose to take Literature not because they were good at it, but because they love it. If we don’t allow students a healthy, non-biased and safe environment to choose the subjects that they want, then Literature will always remain dead as death can be.

Reflections Week 4(Harvinder)

             

 School Culture

CHIJ Katong Convent puts a lot of focus on the Literary arts. The school traditionally emphasizes the merits of reading books with activities organized ever so often to target readers and budding poets. Students here are also given a choice of Core or Sub-Literature when they go up to Upper Secondary. Unfortunately, polling a class of 40 Secondary 2 Express stream students, only 8-10 would seem certain about taking Literature in the Upper Secondary levels. Most of the students end up taking Sub-Literature instead when they go up to Secondary 3, despite their passion for the subject.

The students are exposed to Shakespeare in Lower Secondary through the Merchant of Venice. Beyond that, students in the Lower Secondary look at poetry focusing on Singaporean Poets as well as poetry from an Australian book, Poetry for Pleasure. They can better grasp the Literary techniques that writers use through the analysis of poetry as they are more likely to be exposed to more elements of poetry depending on what poems are studied in class. Furthermore, the school allows creativity through Literature in the Lower Secondary and students undertake tasks like writing poems on their everyday life as a student. These poems will be displayed at various school events giving students further incentive to perform well when writing it. The Upper Secondary classes are currently doing texts such as Romeo and Juliet and The Crucible.  The former, being rich in dramatic and literary devices, gives the students more to learn. They are taken through a wide spectrum of techniques through one book alone and the only complain you would get from the students is on the language. Students struggle to decode the Shakespearean English when they study his texts. A students in one of the classes I observed even remarked, “I do not understand what Merchant of Venice is all about but I know someone in the book is super racist” a week before it was to be taught in class. 

Assessments

 The assessment methods are fairly similar with traditional essays often in the forefront. Students undertake peer assessment in classroom from time to time as well when they formulate thesis statements and “mark” their work by exchanging scripts.  One other interesting form of assessment which serves as a diagnostic test is an MCQ assessment. Students are given questions such as “What do you think the persona in the poem is trying to say in this poem?” followed by 5 suggested answers. Students think through these questions and complete it. Some of the options are fairly deceiving and can throw the student off into giving the wrong answer. Sometimes, however, the teacher may accept two answers for the same question as there can be alternative readings by the students. The problem with MCQs is that the student cannot elaborate on their choices and it should only be done on the “Superficial reading” stage. This assessment served well in ensuring the students scrutinize the poem well before the lesson proper. It also allowed them to tune into the lesson better while serving as a form of data collection for the teacher who can monitor who is improving in their basic understandings of a poem and who isn’t. I also noticed that across all levels, final assessment/essay questions play a big role in the lesson plan. Teachers outline the expectations of summative assessments as an objective that students are to be able to reach.

     

Key Principles         

 One of the key principles of teaching Literature I have gathered is that students must be allowed a good safe platform to express themselves in a dialogical classroom. Students must not be ashamed or scared to participate in in-class discussions and there are a lot of responses generated from the students. The teacher takes on the role of a learned tourist who poses questions to the tour guides (the students) with the hope of good answers. The teacher then takes on the role of the tour guide head when it is needed. Also, the school acknowledges a flaw in the PEEL system and seeks to move away from it. Students who write using this format tend to not really understand what they are writing about. Instead, they should always remember to add another component and maybe undertake the PECIL framework (it is like PEEL only with a Comment section). Students can comment here on why their point is valid in regards to a holistic view of the text or poem. It allows the student to address shortcoming in answering questions and be able to evaluate their points on the spot. Not being able to show why your point is justifiable may put you into the trap of giving responses that seem rehearsed and do not take into consideration the other key points of the text. Students thinking about the “C” component begin to ask themselves if their point is even worth penning down since they know that in order to do well for the assessment, they would have to give a strong case in “C”. Another key principle would be to ensure that all our lessons are framed with a good question in mind. Students are “scaffolded” towards answers for assessments daily and as teachers analysing any text, we must always have one eye on the examinations and summative assessments as we go about planning our scheme of work.

Final thoughts

 It is sad to hear the latest results of the population of Literature learners in Upper Secondary. As a Literature and Drama teacher, and with less schools offering Drama as well, I have made it a point to spend 20 minutes a day practicing skills such as mopping, sweeping and making chappathis in order to keep up with the time for when my qualifications will not be of any significance and I will need a new career option. However, on a more serious note, the reluctance of students to take Literature is appalling. I do agree that the implementation of Social Studies plays a big role in lessening the numbers of Pure Literature students since some of my students have told me that they enjoyed Literature but were forced into Sub-Literature by other factors (I am guessing parental and Societal pressures).  However, I had a good laugh at the fact that there are suggestions that giving students the options of subjects like Drama in the school takes away from the Literature learning population. The joke lies in the fact that most of the Secondary 4 Drama girls in KC are indeed Pure Literature students. After all, the links are obvious. To quote the most used term on Wikipedia, when it comes down to the claim that giving students more subject choices leads them away from Literature, all I have to say is “Citation Needed”.

Reflection 4 (Zarifah)

State of Literature in my school

I have only been given the opportunity to teach and observe English Literature in lower secondary. My school does however, offer O’level pure literature. Unfortunately, the number of students taking pure literature in upper secondary is very small. There are only about 18 students taking pure literature in secondary 3. Considering the fact that there are 12 express classes in secondary 3 with over 30 students in each class, the figure is rather discouraging.  The boys are currently doing Romeo and Juliet for upper secondary literature. For Secondary one, they are currently doing characterization and setting using the excerpt from Oliver Twist. Other aspects of literature such as the theme, plot and style will be covered in the excerpt from Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. The students are taught how to write literature essay using the PEEL method. This is taught from secondary one.  As the literature teachers in this school are trained in literature, the way literature is taught in this school is refreshing, especially for lower secondary. In the previous year, students acted out and put on a performance for particular scenes found in the text To Kill A Mockingbird. To make it relevant to the students’ life, the literature teachers actually attempt to highlight the existence of social inequality and racism in Singapore. It was highlighted that these issues were not limited to the text. While there are no examinations for literature in lower secondary, there are the occasional class tests. The teachers felt that it was best to have both summative and formative assessment for the lower secondary classes. Because there will be students pursuing literature in upper secondary, it is necessary that teachers help students build a strong foundation in literautre during their lower secondary years. Overall, I would say that the teachers here are passionate about literature. They really do go beyond teaching for the test to really try and engage the students.

However, despite the teachers’ efforts in making English Literature engaging, the number of students that eventually opt to do literature in upper secondary is rather low. This could be due to a number of reasons ranging from students’ personal interest to the way literature is percevied in Singapore society and by the students.

The fall in interest in literature

From the discussion, I gather that English Literautre is facing an alarming decline. In a society that places great importance to grades, it is perhaps not so surprising that students are not choosing literature at the O’levels. This is largely due to the misconception that it is a subject that is difficult to score in. Moreover, as mentioned by Dr Warren, Literature just does not seem “profitable” by society and the ministry. This concept of literature being less valuable to society can and is felt and known to students. Hence, many are reluctant to choose a supposedly difficult subject that is not “practical”. However Literature goes beyong language, it questions and allows for students to engage in multiple persective. It teaches students what it means to be human, to understand the human condition, to appreciate and respect cultures and practises that are different from their own. That in itself is something that is timeless, hence it is rather frustrating to see the decline of literature justified with reasons such as “new subjects being introduced” and “changing social context” as suggested by Stacey Chua. Hopefully, the precpetion of English Literature will one day change.

Michelle's Reflection 4

State of Literature in my school

The number of classes taking Literature at upper secondary at first glance seems to give a rather optimistic view of the state of Literature in my school as compared to other ‘neighbourhood’ schools. Out of the 15 upper secondary classes, 6 classes are taking Literature. But if one takes a closer look at the numbers, it is worrying.

Classes taking Literature

Secondary 5: 1 of 2

Secondary 4: 4 of 7

Secondary 3: 1 of 6

As the numbers clearly indicate, the number of Secondary 3 students taking Literature is drastically fewer than those in Secondary 4.

            Literature is taught mainly by using worksheets and getting students to copy the teacher’s answers on to the worksheet. The worksheets are also used as a means to get students to practice the PEEL format. Depending on the teacher, students might or might not have the opportunity to analyse the text on their own before copying the teacher’s answers. Some teachers provide the Point and Evidence relevant to the question and all students have to do is try to explain the evidence to support the point. Other teachers ask many guiding questions to get students to come up with their own point, pick a relevant quote and explain the point. Generally, however, students still expect teachers to flash answers on the screen and they are lost when they are not told explicitly what to write in their worksheet.

            What I found appalling in secondary 2 Literature which I am teaching is that it is not compulsory for students to buy the text. Moreover, the text being used is an abridged version of Merchant of Venice. As many students do not have the text, it makes it almost impossible for me to get students to analyse the text on their own. Often, I have no choice but to provide the exact quotes so that students who do not have the text can copy them. Essentially, this means that students probably just have to know the plot summary and memorise the quotes that teachers pick out.  An abridged version of the text also means that the text is not appreciated in its entirety. For example, act 2 scenes 2, 3, and 4 of the original text are collapsed into a mere 4 pages.

            The problem of students not having the text and teachers finding it difficult to teach secondary 2 students a Shakespearean text led to some teachers choosing to show videos of the play in class instead of getting students to read the text.

Debate about drop in number of Literature students

The main causes of the drop as argued by the media are the increase in choice of subjects and the emphasis on grades. Many more reasons can be attributed to the drop in number of students taking Literature but the overarching reason I would argue is the pragmatic nature of our society. Many mindset changes have to be made before any changes can be made. Anyone who wants to do Literature will surely be met with questions as such – “Why are you taking a subject that is difficult to score in?” or “What are you going to do in the future?” As a society, we have lost sight of the value of Literature and also education. In a pragmatic society such as ours, education is mainly seen as the key to having a better job in the future, to earning more money, and to climb the social ladder. Education is also seen as a place where values are inculcated, but this is often secondary to academic grades. And if we are to say that values education is also important, we might also argue that that is why we have social studies and character education classes (CCE), so why do we still need Literature? Thus, to change the situation we first have to ask ourselves and articulate what the value of Literature is, and also change our pragmatic mindset.

Ada's Reflection IV

As you all have already read from “A School-wide approach to implementing Literature in a Neighbourhood School” by Mrs June Henry, my school, Pasir Ris Crest Secondary School made a bold move in introducing Literature as a compulsory subject for all upper secondary students back in 2007.

Six years since that bold move, the state of Literature in my school is still very much alive thanks to the supportive school environment even though, Mr James Ong, the principal who introduced such a drastic move, is no longer the one helming the school. His successor, Mrs Woo Soo Min, continues to be a strong advocator of Literature as she firmly believes in its potential to teach students of life lessons beyond the classroom. Even though she was a history teacher before, she strongly believes in the values and skills that Literature is able to afford for the students. In fact, just on Monday, she addressed an article from The Sunday Times, “Reigniting the spark of Literature” which claimed that Pasir Ris Crest Secondary School may have prioritized the Triple Sciences over Literature. Over morning assembly the very next day after the article is published, she reiterates that the article from the Sunday Times may have left out an important part, such as how the school made Literature an elective for the students (those who are taking Double Humanities, Double Sciences, Double Maths, English and their Mother Tongue) who took Music as an additional O-level subject. That way, these students who are keen to learn Literature would only have to take 9 subjects at the very most and not be burdened by 10 subjects if literature is not offered as an elective. 

That issue aside, after reading some of my friends’ posts on how Literature is relegated to the backseat in their schools, I must say that Literature does not suffer the same fate in Pasir Ris Crest Secondary School.  In fact, it is quite the opposite as Literature is very much vibrant and not on the brink of death. While I would not deny that there are students who dislike taking Literature, most of them are genuinely interested in the subject because they had fun learning Literature at the lower secondary level. This is largely due to the dedicated teachers who were really passionate about teaching the subject to their students, who in return, participated actively in the class discussion that often results in a lively debate about the main issues found in the texts. For example, students managed to raise the issue of the gang-rape incident in India and link it with the plight of women in Fasting and Feasting by Anita Desai. On top of that, when they did The Outsiders by S.E Hinton, students also talked about the teen violence and paralleled it with the Downtown East stabbing incident that happened a few years back. These examples would then illustrate why learning Literature helps to promote social awareness of the world and develop students’ ability to be a discerning observer of the world around them. This would then reinforces one of the learning outcomes in the Literature Syllabus which seeks to encourage students to “make meaningful connections between texts and the self, texts and other texts, and texts and the world”, which Literature teachers in Pasir Ris Crest Secondary School are striving for.

       --------------

Looking at the debate that surrounds the decline in the number of students who chose Literature, it would perhaps be wise to see the reasons behind the plunge of the number of students who choose to take Literature over others in the recent years. The articles seem to surface many points behind literature’s decline and Dr Poon’s article mentioned that one of the main culprits behind the subject’s slow death is the failure to publish “the distinction rates in the case of O-level humanities subjects [that ] has led to the perpetuation of erroneous ideas about the alleged difficulty of a subject like literature.” This is indeed true as students and parents would often get the idea that Literature would be a stumbling block to achieving academic excellence. 

It has also been repeatedly said that literature plays an integral role in creating the platform for critical values and skills education in the 21^st century. Unfortunately, Literature does not seem to offer instant results. Values like empathy and compassion could not be taught over night. However, despite all that, I am truly glad that Pasir Ris Crest Secondary School along with many other schools mentioned in the articles still believes in the benefits that Literature brings, especially on the “power to humanize the students” and teach them how to relate to people and the world. 

One small trouble about the discussion is perhaps the point raised by Ms Indranee Rajah in urging schools to be less grade-conscious. In a highly pragmatic society which stresses academic excellence above everything else, changing such a mindset would not be easy and it would also require some time. The question would be how long more before Literature suffers a far worse fate? Of course, this could just be assuming that the numbers of students who choose to take Literature continues to decline further. However, looking at the efforts of writers and teachers who are prepared to do their part to reverse the decline of Literature, I am hoping that the subject would not die a slow death like it is today. 

Teaching Literature in Sandbox Mode

Overview:

I am currently teaching Secondary 1 English Literature in Northland Secondary School. Northland Secondary School is a typical neighborhood school in Singapore taking in the bottom tier of students based on their PSLE scores. English Language is not the first language for many students. As a result, it is unsurprising that many feel that English Literature is a pain because it involves reading long texts that they do not understand. In addition, English Literature lessons are only offered to Secondary 1 and 2s, once a week for 45minutes [1 period]. A teacher would take the Sec 1s and another would take the Sec 2.

This implies that there is limited teaching time. there is also very little support because only 1 teacher is teaching/level. However, this is an opportunity to teach English Literature in the most efficient way. Also, there is autonomy in what I would like to teach  vis-a-vis setting assessment tasks.



Classroom Observations:

Secondary 1 students are using the textbook "Living through Literature 1." It appears that my Coordinating Mentor (CT) was focusing on content before I came. This is evident through their CA1 English Literature questions - it tested student's ability to recall the plot with questions like "describe what happened..." The majority of students had passed their examinations. I manage to speak to a few students regarding their grades. I observed that students made comments such as:

"I don't even know why I've done well"

"I write so long already why my marks still so low?"

"I anyhow write what I think also can pass!"

Based on their remarks, I was relieved that the majority of students have the capacity to engage a text at the surface level, as evident in their examination results. 

Next, the majority of the lessons I observed were teacher fronted ones. The teacher would usually be writing on the board and the onus is on the students to take notes by themselves. I observed that while the majority of students were scribbling notes in the Express classes, many on the Normal Academic classes will simply do nothing. 

I concluded the following after week 1 of observations:

- Students in the school are able to engage the story at a textual level [They are able to read! Woohoo!]

- Students are not given the opportunity to have a 'personal voice' 

- Students do not have note taking skills.

Game Plan:

Hence. I decided to launch my focus on cultivating a dialogic classroom. I have just completed my first lesson titled "What is an opinion?" The purpose of this lesson [and possibly the next few ones] is to get students to contribute their views constructively. 

So how did my first lesson turn out?

Week 2 – Day 1: 4^th March 2013

Lesson Plan:

The words were confined within distinct, rectangular, coffin-like categories. They were in fact corpses slated for a dignified buriel. I’m sorry, words, I have to put you to sleep, despite your desires to stay furiously alive. I have to classify you according to pre-lesson, main-lesson and post-lesson boxes. I hardly have a choice. This template defies the organic nature of teaching. I cannot comprehend the structured, man-made beauty of lesson planning. Why has such an evil template been treated as a holy grail?

The entire English Literature class was filled with humanoids. I entered as a human with a DNA of a robot, programmed to greet the class in the usual boring tone. Yet, I knew I had to break out of it. This is English Literature, the subject that seeks to revive the human voices of an institution that stresses on engineered harmony through conformity.

“Opinions”

It was supposed to be discussed in context of the play “A Case of Durians.”

Yet, I had to equip students with a key weapon before hand.

“The Art of Crafting Opinions”

What makes a good opinion?

A plethora of answers came spilling out of their little mouths.

“A good opinion is a suggestion, a perspective of someone.”

“A good opinion is about combining all the different point of views into 1 mighty, powerful idea.”

“A good opinion is truth!”

“NO! I disagree, a good opinion might also be a lie!”

I felt trapped due to the need to adhere to what had been pre-planned. Yet, the responses were developing into a eureka moment for me. To kill the discussion would be akin to damming a mighty river of life. I took the courage to let human nature take its course. The rebuttals, the arguments, and a little childish but precious quarrel erupted. I became a microcosm of the class, awestruck by what these Secondary One kids were producing – it was unrefined beauty, like a diamond with rough edges. The bell rang.

Trainee teacher failed to adhere to what was pre-planned. As a result, lesson objectives were not met.

That was an evaluation of myself, through the eyes of a humanoid assessor. Yet, I know that learning is an organic process, following the lesson plan in this case would not reveal the raw diamonds.

The heart of the lesson is the student, not the plan. Lesson plans should not be the sole determiner on how classes should be conducted. But rather, lesson plans and classes have an intimate, symbiotic relationship. One affects the other, both ways.

I modified the lesson plan for the next class. More space will be given for students to explore on “what makes a good opinion?” This would set the stage for a more fruitful, dialogic lesson about the text “A Case of Durians” in the next lesson.

Week 2 - Day 4: 3^rd March 2013

English Literature: An Interdisciplinary Subject

I entered class 1EA. This class is precious to the school, the crème de la crème of the cohort. This is Northland Secondary School’s only Express stream class at Secondary 1 level. I stepped in, expecting to encounter brainy students who would pose the most intelligent questions and thoughtful answers.

“In your own groups, I would like you to discuss about what an opinion is.”

Almost immediately, History textbooks began sprouting magically on the table. Students rummaged from page to page in search of the perfect answer. I was dumbfounded.

“History textbooks for my English Literature class?!”

I screamed in my heart. Yet, I was curious.

“Mr Cher, the answer is in our History textbook.”

I understood.

I was in a way, sad because almost all groups gave me the answer printed in their history textbooks. The richness of discussions is killed by a homogenic response. In contrast, the Normal Academic classes provided me with a vriety of original responses, some of which even triggered debates.

However, it was a precious opportunity to promote English Literature as an interdisplinary subject, one that students can draw knowledge from other sources such as textbooks and even their own life experiences.

Geraldine's reflection 4

State of Literature in my school

Literature in Regent Secondary School is (like many others) a dying subject too. The school has a total of 3 literature teachers teaching only lower secondary literature. There is no pure or elective literature in upper secondary. Currently, the secondary 1 students are learning literary devices such as metaphors, personification etc... while the secondary 2 students are studying prose with the help of a textbook About Literature by Andrew Koh, Alison Bickley and Elvira Holmberg. The way literature is taught and assessed in Regent is exactly this 'comprehension-style' that many have mentioned so far. All the focus is placed on understanding the meaning and plot of a story or poem through short-answer questions but nothing further than that.  

I am teaching 3 secondary 2 literature classes: 2 express classes and 1 NA class. I think literature is dying here because students are not pushed towards finding that joy in reading or studying literature. When every literature class becomes one where students copy notes and answer short, comprehension questions, it is no wonder that I have had some students chanting "Cher, cher, I hate literature" before class time. However, I feel that there are some students who genuinely show interest in the subject and will be able to excel if given the opportunity. Yet, these students know that they are not going to be able to do literature as an O level subject and this affects their attitude and enthusiasm towards it as well. I think another reason why literature is not able to flourish in this school is because the students are very weak in the English language. Many of the classes here struggle even with very basic grammar, therefore, a lot of them are not confident in expressing themselves in class. It also hinders the way they express their thoughts and ideas in their written work.

ST article

I agree that there is "a distortion of the holistic and interest-driven education that we want for students" in Singapore. We want students to pursue what they are interested in, this way, they will be motivated towards excelling in it. However, if students are not given the choice to do literature for the O levels, even when they want to, it completely goes against this notion of an "interest-driven" education. In Regent, I feel that students should be allowed to choose their core or elective subjects no matter what. Even if it's only 10 students or even 1 student who wants to do literature, schools should try to help this student do so. The reality is that our education is about practicality and being exam-focused, everything we do is driven by how well students can do in the exams and in the most efficient way possible. As such, literature is neglected because people assume that literature is difficult to understand, difficult to teach and difficult to 'score'.