Although the curriculum subject of English is continually reviewed and revised in all English speaking countries, the status of literature is rarely questioned: i.e. that it is of high cultural value and all students should be taught about it. The concerns of any review, in any country, are typically about what counts as literature, especially in terms of national heritage, and then how much of the curriculum it should occupy. This paper reports on three inter-related pieces of research that examine the views of in-service and pre-service English teachers about their experiences of teaching literature and their perceptions of its 'status' and significance, both at official level and in the classroom; it draws attention to how England compares with some other English-speaking countries and to the need to learn from the negative outcomes of political policy in England. The findings suggest that the nature of engagement with literature for teachers and their students has been distorted by official rhetorics and assessment regimes and that English teachers are deeply concerned to reverse this pattern.
The introductory section of the Cox Report describes five models of English teaching. Together, it seems, these constitute a broad map of current thinking:It ispossible to identifi within the English teachingprofession a number of different views on the subject. We list them here, though we stress that they are not the onlypossible views, they are not sharply distinguishable, and they are certainly not mutually exclusive. A 'personal growth'view focuses on the child: it emphasises the relationship between language and learning in the individual child, and the role of literature in developing children's imaginative and aesthetic lives.2. A 'cross-curricular' view focuses on the school: it emphasises that all teachers have a responsibility to help children with the language demunds of different subjects on the school curriculum.. . An 'adult needs'view focuses on communication outside the school: it emphasises the responsibility of English teachers to prepare children for the language demands of adultlife, including the workplace, in a fast-changing world. . . A 'cultural heritage'view emphasises the responsibility of schools to lead children toan appreciation of those works of literature that have been widely regarded as amongst the finest in the language. A kultural analysis'view emphasises the role of English i n helping children towards a critical understanding of the world and cultural environment in which they live.Children should know about the processes by which meanings are conveyed, and about the ways in which print and other media carry values. (DEWNO, 1989)
This article examines the views of the English Teaching Profession about the current National Curriculum for English, the Cox Models of English and the rationale for their subject. It compares the results of a survey in 1997 with an earlier study in 1991, revealing that English teachers are increasingly opposed to the dogmatic and prescriptive nationalistic Cultural Heritage model enshrined in the current Orders for English. The curriculum is perceived as irrelevant and impersonal. Teachers are holding on to their faith in Personal Growth and the value of literature in developing personal responses. However, they are also increasingly adopting a more Cultural Analysis stance to their teaching, chiefly through their advocacy of the importance of media education. This change is embroiled with tensions and uncertainties and English remains an arena of conflict in which debate and controversy are rife.
Purpose This paper aims to provide a critical discussion and re-evaluation of the Personal Growth (PG) model of English, noting that the summer of 2016 marks 50 years since the Dartmouth Conference and the publication of John Dixon’s seminal response to the conference in Growth Through English (1967). The influence of the London School of English was reaching its height at the time with its emphasis on the development of the individual student, the importance of identity, the fundamental role of talk and the rejection of the importance of studying only the traditional literary canon. Dixon argued that PG needed to replace the previous “models” of English, one being “skills”, and the other “cultural heritage”. So strong was that influence that in 1988, the model of “Personal Growth” was one of the five identified by the authors of the first National Curriculum for English in England; it was placed first in the list, but the authors argued the five models were “equal” (the other four were “Adult Needs”, “Cultural Heritage”, “Cross-curricular” (CC) and “Cultural Analysis”. Design/methodology/approach Survey-style research begun in 1990, then throughout the next 25 years, mostly in England but also in the USA. It has investigated the views principally of the classroom teachers of English about their beliefs about the subject and also their views of official versions. Findings These investigations have demonstrated the importance of all the models (except CC, considered by English teachers to be a model for all teachers), but always the primacy of PG as the key model that matches English teachers’ beliefs about the purpose and value of English as a school subject and argues for the demonstrable, yet problematic, centrality of PG. Research limitations/implications Any survey has limitations in terms of the sample, the number of returns and in the constraining nature of questionnaires. However, these surveys provide consistent results over nearly 30 years and have always encouraged respondents to offer qualitative comments. Surveys always have a value in providing an overview of attitudes and feelings. Practical implications English teachers remain convinced that student-centred progressive education offers the most valuable form of English for all students and they find themselves profoundly at odds with official prescriptions. This unquestionably has a damaging effect on teachers’ motivations and can lead them to leave their profession. Originality/value The paper provides a careful rereading of Growth Through English, so often simply taken for granted, and represents its key, neglected arguments in the more balanced 1975 edition. It provides research-based evidence of why the PG model remains central to English teachers and how the international discussions of the Dartmouth seminar still stimulate new thinking, for example, at the 2015 International Federation for the Teaching of English (IFTE) conference. The paper outlines why PG has been so resilient, and also, partly based on data from the 2015 IFTE conference, argues for a future model of English, which is based on PG but with a more critical and social dimension.
The invisible plan: how English teachers develop their expertise and the special place of adapting the skills of lesson planning. Abstract:This paper analyses how English teachers learn to become expert designers of learning and why sharing that expertise is increasingly vital. Its conceptual framework is the widely recognised, empirically tested, five-stage developmental Dreyfus model of skill acquisition, exemplifying the development of teacher expertisesee Goodwyn (2017a), constituted by the 'milestone' [m] and 'transitory' [t] phases connecting with the five (5) stages of: Novice [m], Advanced Beginner [t], Competent [m], Proficient [t] and Expert [m]. Teacher planning is analysed as one key tacit or non-tangible component of developing expertise. Focusing specifically on English teachers as key participants in this pioneer teacher cognition study, the defining characteristics of milestone stages of expertise development are explored with specific attention to the remarkably under-researched area of planning. We introduce three new categories, defining modes of planning, (i) visible practical planning, (ii) external reflective planning and (iii) internal reflective planning demonstrating their role in teacher development through the Dreyfus five (5) stages. Implications for practice include an explicit understanding of how teachers' planning moves through the three phases. Further research is needed to explore how English teachers in particular can share planning expertise between the three phases to improve teachers' skills and student learning. Introduction:A considerable body of research in education concludes that teaching is remarkably complex (Sinnema et al. Hall and Smith, 2006). This article explores our current understanding of the nature of its inherent complexities in relation to teacher development over time and especially in relation to English teachers and their modes of planning. The complexities of teaching are also infused with the globally acknowledged intricacies of English as a subject (Matthewman, 2014;Exley and Chan, 2014;Goodwyn, 2011;Colarusso, 2010;Gibbons, 2009;Sperling and DiPardo, 2008).Currently there are many commendable 'Handbook' style guides to planning for English teachers, especially novices. However, apart from Goodwyn's research (2011) based on book length examination of the development of novice English teachers and the work of their specialist mentors (Goodwyn, 1997), there is little actual research about how English teachers describe their planning processes. As a result, much of the research literature discussed here, and the underpinning Dreyfus schema, is necessarily generic and our argument and findings should be of interest beyond English teaching. However, we are careful to underline that our evidence here comes exclusively from English teachers and is analysed through a subject specialist lens and a recognition of the rapid policy changes that impact the subject, almost certainly more than any other . As this article seeks to establish a new conceptual approach t...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.