Are we literature teachers or language teachers?

It has been apparent to me for a while - and, because of a comment on my last post, I decided to write about - the schism in the core belief of ELA teachers.  Some of us look at ourselves as teachers of literature; some of us look at ourselves as teachers of language.

Teachers of literature are primarily concerned about teaching students about literature - the reading of it, the analyzing of it, and the appreciation of it.   Their units are focused around works of literature - usually novels or plays, but often groups of short stories.  Any writing in the units typically surround the work of literature that is read - most commonly a paper analyzing the book, but other types of writing assignments are common.   These teachers are most commonly found in the high schools and model their classrooms after college literature classes.

Teachers of language are primarily concerned about teaching students about how to read and write the English language better - in all its forms.  Their units focus on a variety of things - genres of writing, themes, works of literature, specific reading/writing skills, and many others.  The goal, though, is always the same - improve students' reading and writing abilities.  These teachers are most often found in the middle school.

These divisions are not concrete.  In other words, teachers of literature also focus on helping students to read and write better - they do it through literature.  Teachers of language also want to help students read, analyze, and appreciate literature - but they also focus on other types of reading and writing.

This schism divides our discourse about our profession.  When I discuss choice, I'm coming from the point of the view of a teacher of language - I want students to read and write better and I believe they can do so through any book of their choice.  But, when teachers say that choice is "fine and dandy" but what about these great books that they should read, they are coming at the discourse from the vantage point of a teacher of literature.

There is no doubt that we need both sorts of teachers.  But, I fear that we are not doing our jobs in the way that is most beneficial for our students.  I believe that it is a worthwhile endeavor to teach students about literature.  It helps them understand the world - past, present, and future.  At the same time, in an ever changing world, one that demands the most from its workers, I worry that students are not getting enough experience with all types of reading and writing.

So, what are we to do?  I propose that both types of teachers are needed.  We need to rethink how students receive instruction.  In secondary education, we need one course for literature and one for language skills.  It does not have to be one or the other.  The literature course can be paired with a history course, but not necessarily.  The language course would work with all classes - helping students navigate the reading and writing that occurs in the content areas and truly prepares them to be talented readers and writers.

Comments

[graycie]

You are right, right, right -- both types are needed. One set is a skills focus, while the other is a body ofknowledge focus. The body of knowledge doesn't apply until a certain level of skill and life experience is reached. I am reminded (unpleasantly) of a sixth grade teacher who handed a small groups of her students copies of To Kill a Mockingbird and Animal fram and and set them to independent reading because they were "able to read on that level." Of course, they were far too young to figure out what the books were about -- especially on their own. Skills first, then both simultaneously, sliding ever closer to a complete body-of-knowledge focus.

[Waterfall]

I agree. I was hired to teach composition, but the administration added several literature courses to my teaching load. Four of my comp students are also in my English lit class, and their literature essays are so much better than those of my non-comp students. I do teach some writing in the literature classes, but it's just not enough to give them a little bit here and there. Writing is hard work, and it requires an intensive, writing-only class.

I have already approached the administration about having a required composition course (in addition to literature) for high-school students (either freshmen or juniors). We'll see what happens with that (keeping fingers crossed)!

[Jeri]

This is so easily forgotten, so thank you for the reminder. Recently the private school at which I teach re-organized our English department curriculum to reflect a better progression, we hope. Middle schoolers have 2 periods for "English." One is language based, with time spent on grammar, vocabulary-building, spelling, writing; the other is literature based, with a strong focus on building reading comprehension and speed as well as literary terms and genres. In high school, our 9th and 10th graders have a writing-focused English class, with one literature unit per quarter. Our 11th and 12th graders have American Lit and British Lit survey classes, with research paper projects each semester.

I'm proud of the design that we teachers came up with, which our administration approved heartily. We have 3-4 sections of each grade level, and one teacher for each grade level's English class in the high school.

I teach 11th graders, and this year's group are the first of my students who had both the 9th and 10th grade writing-focused classes. Their writing is much stronger than previous classes, as you might expect.

[Emily]

Never did I understand this division better than when I moved from teaching 9th/11th grade to teaching 7th/8th grade. Both types of teacher have valuable knowledge to bring to the table, but it's hard to get them to work together well. It sounds like Jeri's school has a good plan in place though.