Defending Literature
Defending Literature
Defending Literature
I’m posting this on behalf of Sue Horner, formerly of the now-defunct Qualifications & Curriculum Authority, and the ‘Looking for the Heart of English’ team.
Sue reflects on some of the implications for English Literature of the Government’s recently proposed specifications. It’s one of the most considered responses I’ve read, and I wanted to get it to a wider audience:
English Literature:
Government proposals for GCSE Summer 2013
General points
This proposal is seriously flawed technically and the intention of encouraging the serious study of important texts from the English Literary Heritage will not be achieved because of the construction of this specification.
There are 2 matters of omission:
The inclusion of ‘seminal world literature’ in the key stage 3 programmes of study is welcome. It is disappointing that the wealth of world literature which is a part of and enhances the British literary heritage has been excised from key stage 4.
‘Digital texts may not be used’. It is a strange prohibition in the 21st century when many literary texts are on screen and understanding of them is often enhanced by accompanying material. It is also unclear. It could mean texts which first appeared on screen, but this would preclude some texts, especially poems, which were first presented on screen and could be highly significant in the writer’s oeuvre but cannot be studied until it later appears in paper form. The wealth of internet resources which support study of texts include writers’ drafts with annotations etc, different interpretations which include illustrations/drawings, lyrics with sound and music, filmed versions of plays and fiction. It is not clear what the sentence is intended to preclude.
It is clear that every effort has been made to separate the English Language GCSE from the one for English Literature. The key stage programmes of study for English include requirements for both aspects of English. The separation means that there is no single qualification for English, which has been the case since 1984. The likely outcome is that many schools in key stage 4 will focus on the English Language GCSE and since there is no statutory requirement to study literature at that key stage, literature will become a minority subject and students will suffer an impoverished version of English.
The content
The division into Reading comprehension and Reading critically
•apparently intends to represent continuity with the previous key stage curriculum and the GCSE Language specification
•apart from being infelicitous grammatically, is hardly a valid distinction at this level of study
•critical perspectives are dependent on literal and inferential comprehension
•it is possible that ‘comprehension’ is implicitly intended to be the focus of questions on ‘unseen’ texts, although unseens are included in AO2.
•comprehension as described is at a lower level and seems related to less able candidates. This is particularly confusing given that there has been a decision to remove tiering from English Literature.
The inclusion of ‘unseen’ texts in AO2 is strange. The requirements to ‘relate texts to their social, historical, cultural and literary contexts’ is particularly unlikely in the context of unseen passages, and given the constraints of timed examinations where short extracts will be all that can be included in the time available. Similarly, the extensive demands of ‘compare and contrast texts – contexts, themes, development of characterisation, style and literary qualities’ – in what is likely to be a pair of short passages, is unrealistic.
The specification of choosing 6 texts, 2 from each of prose, poetry and drama, is far from a choice which will enable Awarding bodies and teachers to construct courses to inspire their students. The source and content of 2 poetry texts are already specified, and in addition to one 19thC novel, one play by Shakespeare, leaves the choice only in the realms of post WW2 fiction and drama.
Weightings
The credit available for the study of ‘a wide range of classic literature’ is minimal per text. Reading comprehension at 20% and Reading critically has 50% of which 20% is unseen text. Thus 40% is available to recognise the reading of 6 texts– 6-7% per text. This is surprising given the emphasis on ‘high quality, intellectually challenging and substantial whole texts’, which implies that this study is at the heart of the qualification and yet only 50% overall is awarded for this study.
For an English Literature qualification it is unusual to award 30% for writing in a ‘discursive and literary style’ and using textual reference. These qualities are, of course, likely to be markers of more skilled readings of texts but the evidence of reading response is much more significant in a qualification called English LIterature. This is in danger of being an inaccurate assessment of the subject. The weighting at 30% in effect means that this specification prohibits any form of response other than the essay.
Giving a weighting of 30% to writing, equivalent to Reading whole texts critically (30%), is unbalanced. It has been indicated that it is intended to have a percentage of marks across all subjects which will be awarded for written expression. In the past it is this requirement which has been applied to English Literature. This has been in the region of 5-10%. This is a more realistic weighting for writing.
The technical arrangements in this specification are inept and will prevent the construction of well framed assessment in the study of Literature.
Recommendations
•Include the possibility of world literature as part of the course
•Omit references to the prohibition of ‘digital texts’
•Reconsider the level of challenge in Reading Comprehension (AO1)
•Remove the 20% for unseen text from AO2 and have it as a separate requirement across the AOs
•Reduce the weighting for Writing to 15% and add the 15% thus freed to AO2 to give more weight to the study of literature.
Sue Horner,
‘Looking for the Heart of English’
Posted by Geoff Barton 25 July, 2013
Thursday, 25 July 2013