Although I felt this chapter served mostly as a bridge into what's to come, it does wrestle a bit with an important issue for English teachers, the question of why we teach literature. In light of the first part of the chapter, which basically tells us that (for Wilhelm's middle schoolers, at least) school, not reading, is the reason kids don't like to read--and kids know it--the question takes on a sort of pessimistic tone. "If all we're doing is killing reading for these kids, why don't we just teach technical texts and let kids hold onto some faith that reading literaure might be different?
Since Wilhelm got this book published, and we're reading it, I'm assuming he found some way to have kids read in school without ruining their reading experiences. I'm eager to hear about it. In the meantime, I actually began working on the "why teach literature" question in another class, and I have my own answer: My purpose as an English teacher is to teach kids how to use the language, how to be effective and fluent communicators. In order to be enthused about that, they need to see examples of what the English language is capable of doing. Writers of literature are experts of language who test its potential. On a sticky note left in one of my books, I jotted a vague analogy about a boxer-in-training watching videos of Muhammad Ali. Sure, any bozo who's had a few sessions and a few fights can teach you the basics of the sport, but to see the art of it and to see what you could be reaching for (even if you have no intention of reaching all the way), you need to visit with the experts.
This isn't an argument for "the classics" or "the canon" in high schools. Just for real, good literature that kids can enjoy for its artful and clever use of language, not just its subject.
Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts
Monday, September 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)