The ManicaPost
. . . the whys and wherefores?
Casper Muradzikwa
I WRITE in response to Mr Morris Mtisi’s question, “Why is there apathy and general dislike of Literature in English as a learning area in most schools?” I will also explain how this attitude is in direct contrast with the whole purpose of the new curriculum. I will advance a few solutions on the way forward on the already mentioned problem.In most pupils, there is a general problem of command of the English Language itself on the part of students. The inability of conversing in spoken and written discourse remains a headache and to this end, the study of Literature in English becomes a thing learners would not want to embark on. Failing to comprehend simple English Language in short stories and comprehension tasks discourages language learners to engage in Literature studies. They perceive study of the novel, drama and poetry pieces as very tough literary tasks.
There is a phobia among both teachers and pupils that the study of Literature is complex. Even administrators in schools seem to belong to this school of thought.
To that end, the study of Literature is regarded to be a preserve of a few “elite” learners whose language abilities get the nod from both teachers and administrators. These few then get the opportunity to study Literature. Most learners who display language deficiency are not accorded the opportunity to study literature.
Turning to the complexity of the learning area among pupils/learners, most of them find it difficult to comprehend Shakespearean language and in the end they are put off. A small section of teachers seems also to discourage learners especially when faced with Shakespeare.
Learners who struggle with English as a language will definitely shy away from the study of Literature. There seems to be lack of an understanding on what great role the learning area of literature plays in the future lives of learners, hence the kind of raw deal given to the learning area by the powers that be. In addition the context of some literature stories in certain set books is far divorced from both teachers and pupils’ lives.
Some of the thematic concerns of the writers say in the Elizabethan Medieval epochs maybe too far-fetched to illuminate any interest to today’s learners. Learners may not be amused by the idea of spooks in say Julius Caesar or Chivalric themes espoused by Chaucer.
In certain circumstances the learning area is also given lack of attention because there is lack of expertise to handle the learners. Teachers may avoid this important learning area merely because they may not be able to handle the area.
They then deliberately circumvent the learning area. It is a known fact that not all language teachers are comfortable with the teaching of literature. In some circles or institutions there is a lack of resources. It may be deemed expensive to acquire reading texts demanded by the learning area. Consequently administrators too end up ignoring the learning area.
The challenges cited above seem to be heavily militating against the teaching of literature in English. However, it is not wrong to say that though these challenges are cited, a curriculum without literature in English is a direct violation of the plausible new curriculum’s demands.
Among other things the new curriculum advocates for a learner-centred approach. In this regard it is prudent to have learners have a voice in terms of what they have to study. Learners must be allowed to make choices. In certain circumstances learners are disadvantaged when they are not given a chance to showcase their prowess in literature.
Literature affords learners to develop holistically as it embraces other facets found in other learning areas, talk of cross cutting which is a virtue of the new curriculum. This critical learning area can go back to its days of glory if a few things are seriously taken into consideration. The writer will look at some of the solutions which he deems necessary if the learning area in discussion is to be revitalised.
It is my belief that teachers of the learning area need to be given refresher workshops on how to go about their teaching. Currently a few teachers seem to be involved probably because they are rusty owing to the fact that they last did anything in the area during their college days.
Others need to be conscientised on the importance of this learning area while others lack that confidence. Confidence boosting can be done through period inductions.
Exponents of the learning area can also go on an expansive drive promoting the learning area to would-be teachers and learners. The society should be made aware of the merits of embracing literature in the schools. Renowned experts such as literature critics, Mtisi Morris himself as a good example, writers and other influential stake holders should be able to interact with pupils and teachers. Such experts when engaged will be able to ‘evangelise’ teachers and learners on the value of Literature in life.
Literature learners should be exposed say to real theatre if they are to embrace literature.
Authorities can have learners exposed to say live plays like Othello, Macbeth, Master Harold and The Boys being dramatised. Literature facets should be found in History. Such cross cutting attempts (a compliance to the new curriculum) will immensely develop an interest in the learning area. The Victorian epoch, Colonialism and Pre-independence will all be infused in History with Literature bias.
Learners have to be seriously exposed to the area at a tender age. The critical age hypothesis propounded by Luneburg comes into play here.
One may argue that learners are being introduced to Literature at Form One but that is not as a subject. When learners get to ‘O’ Level, that is Form Three, a sizeable number takes up Literature in English as a subject.
In the end, pupils /learners will at times take up the study of Literature at ‘A’ Level with or without appropriate or relevant previous background. I think most literature teachers of Lower Six learners’ in literature would concur with me that they always receive “raw” learners. It also goes without saying that even at college level, student teachers enrol in English class without any literature background.
Such teachers will not be expected to be overnight experts when they go to teach. Will anyone be surprised if such graduates limit themselves to the teaching of language only?
The above brings me to another level where I feel there should be an association or rather a panel specifically for Literature in English teachers alone. Not all teachers who train to be English Language teachers are competent in the learning area in question.
If such as a panel is put up, then the real Literature teacher will emerge and stand up to be counted? We need one practitioner who has great liking for literal work like Ngugi wa Thiongo who is on record for writing Devil on the Cross on tissue paper in prison. Such are the literary mavericks we need today.
In conclusion, I propose that schools should have internet facilities to enable both learners and teachers to go about their business.
Casper Muradzikwa is an English teacher at Chinota Secondary School in Odzi
