In my last post, I discussed why using whole-class, teacher selected novels was not the way to go.
But, it is not all bad. There are very valid reasons to use such teaching:
1. Allows students to engage in sustained, whole-class discussion about a text. This is an invaluable skill as they continue in secondary school and go into college. Learning how to speak in a large group discussion and/or seminar is difficult and takes a lot of time. When students discuss a novel together in a larger group (larger than literature circles) they are learning how to listen, how to disagree, and how to speak in front of a large group.
The same point, though, could be accomplished by reading short one- or two-day texts. There is something to be said, though, about meaning-making as a group over a long period of time with one text.
2. Allows students to add "classics" to their cultural capital. It is an elitist notion that students have to "know" certain books in order to succed in life. But, it is somewhat true. The more students know about certain books that are accepted as classics, the more likely they are to be seen as "intelligent". We may be doing our students a disservice by not having them read these books. Often, though, students would not pick up these books on their own and we need to have them read them.
I could argue that the same thing could be accomplished using literature circles. The menu of choices would be "classic" books and students could choose which one they wanted to read. Here we are making something disagreeable to the students a little bit more agreeable.
And, quite frankly, I can't think of more reasons. I'm sure they're out there, so add them to the comments, please.
What's the solution? Well, I'm not advocating that we get rid of whole-class novels altogether. The key - as is always the key in education - is balance. I heard that somewhere in New York City there is a school or district or region that has mandated that there should be no whole class novels used. That's ridiculous. It would be equally ridiulous that whole class novels are the only method we use in the ELA classroom.
Clearly, I think the scales should tip towards more student-choice in what they read. Every once in a while, for the reasons stated above, it would be good to use a whole-class novel. As always, it is important to see the pros and cons to a practice and realize that just because something has been done for a long time or, conversely, that something is the latest fad doesn't mean we should accept it unquestionably. Our students deserve our careful consideration.
Sometimes it feels like there are two kinds of schools in the US: strictly traditional ones, and ones where some half-baked progressive ideas have been rigidly imposed by an administrator who just came back from a conference. Here's to flexibility.
Posted by: Tom Hoffman | December 23, 2005 at 12:28 PM
Besides that fact that knowledge of these canonical texts makes them seem more "intelligent," the texts themselves have inherent value (after all, isn't that why they are classic?) and kids always benefit from reading language that is unfamiliar to them, as well as being exposed to subject matter/experiences outside their little world.
Posted by: Nani | December 23, 2005 at 10:55 PM
I've been following your thoughts about teacher-versus-student-chosen literary works to study. What strikes me is that there is a difference between a class which focuses on skills and one which focuses on a body of knowledge. My freshmen are still learning skills,and so the selection of novels is pretty broad, however a course such as American Literature would be a lot more limited to works which exemplify American thought and character during specific American eras. How would you go about student choice for a body of knowledge course such as American Lit?
There is a sort of compromise possible between teacher-chosen-lockstep and student-chosen-chaos -- I was lucky to have some amazing kids last year, and we worked out a method. I just posted some background at Today's Homework and pulished a generic Novel Plan at msaenglish[dot]pbwiki[dot]com.
I'd be very interested in your reaction.
Best wishes for the holidays.
Posted by: graycie | December 24, 2005 at 11:35 PM
We've selected this post as an "editor's choice" at this week's Carnival Of Education:
http://educationwonk.blogspot.com/2006/01/carnival-of-education-week-48.html
Posted by: EdWonk | January 04, 2006 at 08:17 PM
It is an elitist notion that students have to "know" certain books in order to succed in life. But, it is somewhat true.
"BUT" it's true? Not "AND" it's true? You doubt the truth based on the elitism? Why?
Posted by: anon | January 06, 2006 at 03:07 AM
It is true BECAUSE of elitism.
In the whole scheme of things, reading a particular book is important.
It only becomes "important" when the people who hold the power (and in this world, it is the rich, straight, Christian, white men who hold the power) say it is. Not odd then when those rich, straight, Christian, white men say that books written by rich, straight, Christian, white men are what's "important". Therefore, if you want to be accepted in a world dominated by those in power, you need to read those books they think are "important" in order for them to think you are well-educated.
But, if you don't care about being accepted by the people in power, it is not important to you.
Posted by: Tim Fredrick | January 06, 2006 at 07:53 AM