Ewww, fantasy is bad! Won't you think of the Children?

[MGlitch]

I'll preface this by stating I'm speaking for schools within the US.

I suspect we would find we would get better results if teachers were given freedom to cater reading material to the students they had, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach that's being forced upon them. Students from with the same state will not get the same experience reading the same books, much less than same country. I wont pretend that the teachers could reach every child they taught and foster a love of reading, but I have to believe that presenting material the children can relate to would be more likely to kindle that love, rather than forcing the classics upon them and telling them 'this is good, you should like it'. This should be done in grade school, so that when the students reach high school and college they will be more likely to embrace the classics, or at least be able to acknowledge the merit of reading them.

I don't think it's the job of English teachers to instill a love of reading, but I do think it's their job to help grow the love of reading by showing students what they can get from reading. English, and reading, are not the same as mathematics, though both are languages with rules (English breaks them often though), math is a science, English and reading are very clearly not. However I would still say it's the job of a math teacher to show students that math isn't something to be feared or hated. This is, again, at a young age, by high school and college the shift toward teaching more advanced ideas in all of these courses should have been made.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would you consider it the primary goal of a maths teacher to teach mathematics, or a love of mathematics?

I consider the primary goal to be to teach mathematics (or any subject) in a way that makes a person want to learn more about the subject on their own. If all a teacher does is present facts, why can't the student just read a book?

Shari

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by MSWallack

Personally, I think that the best thing that teachers can do is find books that speak to the issues that kids are facing today, preferably in settings that the kids recognize and understand, and using language that is familiar rather than archaic. If the point of literature is to make people think, especially about the so-called "human condition" then we need to ask kids to read books that will engage them not turn them off. We have generations who don't read because all that most of them were taught was material that didn't speak to them (and often taught be those who couldn't really make the text come alive or address current issues and concerns). I would say that much of the best literature these days is probably to be found either in the form of science fiction by authors who push the boundaries of what it means to be human or look into questions of existence and morality and so forth or young adult fiction that, while perhaps not written at the complexity that some might want, does speak to youth and to their fears and concerns. Kids will have plenty of time to read Shakespeare and other classics as they grow up, but they never will broaden their horizons if all that they are taught is to hate reading.

The problem is that the young, like the rest of humanity, do not have uniform likes and dislikes. There is no such thing as a reading list that will appeal to everyone and trying too hard to do so is likely to backfire.

Ideally, the teacher would teach what they themselves enjoy most as it's easiest to convey an appreciation that is actually felt but failing that I think that the best approach is to provide variety and as much choice as is practical. My teenage daughter has been permitted to choose which full length book to study out of several selections both fiction and non-fiction for her current English course, all of which have been considered classics of their type.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by MSWallack

Personally, I think that the best thing that teachers can do is find books that speak to the issues that kids are facing today, preferably in settings that the kids recognize and understand, and using language that is familiar rather than archaic.

Can you name a few books that address these issues?

[darryl]

The purpose of a High School English Class is not to instill a love of reading. However, such a course should seek to avoid killing the possibility of such a love developing in those students with the potential to develop such a love.

[DiapDealer]

I believe high school to be much too late for someone to suddenly discover a love for reading. I mean, it's great if they do, but I believe the number of new book-lovers created in high-school would be incredibly low with even the most exciting and modern and age-appropriate content imaginable--taught by the most exciting and charismatic of instructors. At best, I think they can inspire existing book lovers to appreciate the classics as well. But that's about it, though. Could be wrong.

[MSWallack]

I think (sadly) that a lot of the dystopian literature speaks to the fears that kids face (just as other sorts of books focused on fears that those of us who grew up during the cold war faced). I think that there are a lot of YA books that approach teen romance and sexuality in a much more open (and hopefully honest way); at least that's the impression that I get from my teenage daughter.

As to the purpose of English Lit classes, I guess it depends on what the class really is. In high school, at least, the classes aren't really English Lit classes at all; rather they are "English" (at least in the sense that English is the language being used) and more properly described as "language arts". Kids are taught to write essays and research papers in English, they read classics and sometimes modern works (though far more of the former and less of the latter). They learn to engage in public speaking and to create projects around ideas gleaned from their reading. So I don't view English Lit, at least at the high school level, as being about "the classics" or about learning shared heritage.

I also bristle at the notion that the body of literature being taught to our kids should be limited to English language classics. Few of our ancestors originated from England, yet the inclusion of German, Russian, Italian, and Spanish literature is very rare, let alone literature from Japan, China, India or other languages or cultures.

As I said before, I think kids have plenty of time to read the classics, but at least in high school when we're trying to teach kids critical thinking skills, I think that we need to find ways to make reading something that they will want to continue doing rather than a chore to be avoided once school is finished. Just witness recent studies that show just how few people will ever pick up a book once they've completed school. I think that force-feeding "difficult" reading (I'm looking at your Mr. Shakespeare) that doesn't really speak to kids is a sure-fire way to make sure that many of those kids won't become readers as they mature. And then, when they have kids, those kids, growing up in a home without active readers, will be raised with a disdain for books rather than a love for books.

[MSWallack]

By the way, just to be clear, I'm not saying that high school kids shouldn't read Shakespeare or other difficult works or books that don't speak to them in a modern voice; I think reading those sorts of books are important. I'm just saying that I think most high school kids will get far more out of the experience of reading and learn to enjoy reading more if the books that they are taught engage them in a way that Shakespeare probably doesn't.

Oh, and this is coming from the husband of a woman who was working on her Ph.D. in English Renaissance Literature (before she had to suspend her studies due to illness). And she agrees with me (well, at least on this subject...; on other things in life, not so much).

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by MSWallack

I think (sadly) that a lot of the dystopian literature speaks to the fears that kids face (just as other sorts of books focused on fears that those of us who grew up during the cold war faced). I think that there are a lot of YA books that approach teen romance and sexuality in a much more open (and hopefully honest way); at least that's the impression that I get from my teenage daughter.

As to the purpose of English Lit classes, I guess it depends on what the class really is. In high school, at least, the classes aren't really English Lit classes at all; rather they are "English" (at least in the sense that English is the language being used) and more properly described as "language arts". Kids are taught to write essays and research papers in English, they read classics and sometimes modern works (though far more of the former and less of the latter). They learn to engage in public speaking and to create projects around ideas gleaned from their reading. So I don't view English Lit, at least at the high school level, as being about "the classics" or about learning shared heritage.

I also bristle at the notion that the body of literature being taught to our kids should be limited to English language classics. Few of our ancestors originated from England, yet the inclusion of German, Russian, Italian, and Spanish literature is very rare, let alone literature from Japan, China, India or other languages or cultures.

As I said before, I think kids have plenty of time to read the classics, but at least in high school when we're trying to teach kids critical thinking skills, I think that we need to find ways to make reading something that they will want to continue doing rather than a chore to be avoided once school is finished. Just witness recent studies that show just how few people will ever pick up a book once they've completed school. I think that force-feeding "difficult" reading (I'm looking at your Mr. Shakespeare) that doesn't really speak to kids is a sure-fire way to make sure that many of those kids won't become readers as they mature. And then, when they have kids, those kids, growing up in a home without active readers, will be raised with a disdain for books rather than a love for books.

Exactly.
It's a "Do no harm" thing.

They're not expected to make kids like reading--but they shouldn't kill whatever interest in reading the non-bookworms might have.

[rkomar]

I remember hating a lot of books when studying them in high school. A few years after graduating, I decided to read them again without the pressure of trying to analyze them, and I found that I enjoyed most of them. It wasn't the books I hated, it was the process of checking each line for similes, litotes, metaphors, alliteration,... that killed the joy of reading. So, I'm not sure that choosing different books is going to stop people from getting turned off, if they're still going to have to analyze the new ones.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rkomar

It wasn't the books I hated, it was the process of checking each line for similes, litotes, metaphors, alliteration,... that killed the joy of reading. So, I'm not sure that choosing different books is going to stop people from getting turned off, if they're still going to have to analyze the new ones.

That's an excellent point. Even if they read books the kids absolutely loved, it's not like they're going to be asked questions like, "how did that make you feel?", or "what were your favorite parts of the book?", or "who do you think should play the main character in the film version?"

[JSWolf]

We did read some books in school that I won't reread because I disliked the book then. It was nothing to do with how it was taught. Life's too short to reread books I didn't like the first time.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's an excellent point. Even if they read books the kids absolutely loved, it's not like they're going to be asked questions like, "how did that make you feel?", or "what were your favorite parts of the book?", or "who do you think should play the main character in the film version?"

I vaguely recall some past thread about how modern English Lit classes have fallen to this level, so I'm assuming you're referencing that. Why, with so many others available, is there no "tongue-in cheek" smiley? Are smiley artists rarely sardonic?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I remember hating a lot of books when studying them in high school. A few years after graduating, I decided to read them again without the pressure of trying to analyze them, and I found that I enjoyed most of them. It wasn't the books I hated, it was the process of checking each line for similes, litotes, metaphors, alliteration,... that killed the joy of reading. So, I'm not sure that choosing different books is going to stop people from getting turned off, if they're still going to have to analyze the new ones.

This is in fact an excellent point. I might add to that the endless dissection search for themes and meanings, many of which I am sure were probably never even consciously considered by the author. Now, as someone who loves reading, I quite enjoyed this. But to the "non-bookworms" it must have been excruciating.

I agree that choosing different books may not necessarily help, particularly where a class is taught in a way that is not engaging. However, different books and a reasonable aproach to teaching may go some good.

It is of course a mistake to regard children in a grade at school as one homogenous body. It seems clear that such a group is comprised at the extremes of bookworms and book-haters, with of course graduated views between. I would like to think but have no evidence that many of those in between have the potential to become lovers of reading to at least some extent, often depending on their experience of books at school which sometimes, at least initially, can be their only exposure.

Unfortunately I have no magic answer. I am certainly not against the teaching of the Classics in school. An obvious answer off-the-cuff is for the choice of books and the method of teaching to differ between at least the broader groups of children. Because it is easy to kill not only a love of reading but also any interest at trying again later in life. Of course, such discrimination brings its own many potential problems. If adminstered reasonably and sensibly it could work well, but the reality is that in many cases this will not happen. So the cure may be worse than the disease.

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would you consider it the primary goal of a maths teacher to teach mathematics, or a love of mathematics?

Why does it have to be either/or?
If a teacher scares the students away from a topic, how can he teach it to them?
(Most?) people aren't automatons where you simply insert another punchcard and they follow the instructions inscribed. You have to get them to want to do what you want them to do.