Autumn 2004

Talking English

The quest for coherence in 7 - 10 English

In NSW the reconceptualisation of English requires teachers to incorporate in their teaching practice theories which are diverse and sometimes antithetical. MARK HOWIE has developed an individual curriculum model that draws the threads together.

In recent years English has been radically reshaped as postmodernism has laid siege to cultural absolutes. At both tertiary and secondary levels the subject has undergone what has been described as a ‘textual turn’; a movement beyond the study of literature to what is generally understood as a ‘cultural studies’ orientation. This has entailed a redefinition of what constitutes English in terms of both what is set for study and what might be described as its characteristic teaching practices.

Caught up in the disorientating bustle of syllabus implementation and headlong rush into the reconceptualistion of the subject, NSW English teachers are presently faced with the challenging task of negotiating two compelling imperatives. The subject’s past remains an imposing presence, even as the radical change in direction the subject has undergone in recent years looms large.

The relativism inherent in the postmodern assertion that there can be no one privileged position from which to view the world defies any notion that meaning is fixed and stable. With this in mind, the fact that the foundations of the new NSW English years 7–10 syllabus lie within the methods of five different theoretical models (Critical Literacy, Cultural Heritage, Cultural Literacy, Personal Growth and the Social View of Language) points to the postmodern nature of the document. Its eclecticism with regards to these models means that the power of those that have been predominant (such as Cultural Heritage and Personal Growth) is challenged. How we have taught 7–10 English in the past remains relevant but it is not sufficient.

Reframing English

NSW teachers are now being asked to adopt an allencompassing pragmatism in their curriculum planning and teaching. The 7–10 syllabus demands that we become quite fluid in our allegiance to theoretical models, seeking to bring them together in a coherent and functional way. In rethinking my own practice, I have attempted to develop an integrative curriculum model (figure 1). To this end, I have adapted the framing metaphor employed in the current NSW VisualArtsSyllabusforYears7–10. The synergies which exist between English and Visual Arts in NSW are evident in the explanation of the Frames in the Visual Arts Years 7–10 Syllabus:

The Frames recognise that Making and Studying in the Visual Arts is conditioned by different theoretical orientations which affect the way images and objects are identified, valued, interpreted, created and used

(p.2).

Figure 1

If ‘Making and Studying’ is replaced with ‘Responding and Composing’, and ‘images and objects’ with ‘language and text’, this statement would not be out of place in the 7–10 English syllabus. So that the theoretical perspectives and models listed in the glossary of the English syllabus are acknowledged, I have renamed what is called the ‘Postmodern’ frame in the Visual Arts syllabus the ‘Critical frame’ to facilitate the inclusion of Critical Literacy, or resistant reading and writing practices.

Historically, personal growth— or the exploration of how our understandings of the world and ourselves are formed through language and text—has been integral to the study of English. The Aims of the new NSW syllabus extend growth into the realm of social and cultural critique: ‘[to enable students to] shape meaning in ways that are imaginative, interpretive, critical and powerful [author’s emphasis]’. The curriculum model I have been working with establishes such an aim as the growth from the personal; that is, knowledge and understandings that are subjective and grounded in immediate experience, to the cultural and critical; that is, knowledge and understandings that are more abstract and which, moreover, make commonly held views of personal experience quite problematic. In this way, an English curriculum which remains centred upon the ‘personal’, but which is also overtly socially and culturally critical, can be enacted in the classroom.

Describing the Frames

As a starting point, the subjective frame draws on the personal growth model of English, and the familiar practices of reader response theory and ‘writing for understanding’. It seeks to have students personally engage in an active process of meaning making in their reading and writing. However, in anticipating the cultural and critical frames, it also acknowledges that personal responses are culturally constructed. That is to say, that culturally dominant and accepted readings exist and that texts work to ‘invite’ particular readings.

The structural frame draws on the social view of language (which would be instantly recognised in other States and Territories as being fundamentally a ‘rebadging’ of genre theory) in working to extend students’ understanding of the structures and processes of language and text and how they work to make meaning. It works with the subjective frame in picking up John Dixon’s emphasis in the seminal Growth through English on the need for students’ increasing mastery of the use of language in a range of social contexts to be fostered through the valuing of personal experience. Further, the structural frame enables teachers to draw on familiar close reading practices, as well as common approaches to the teaching of writing (such as process and genre approaches), in order to increase the sophistication of students’ texts.

The cultural frame highlights for students that their processes of reading and writing are manifestations of particular cultural ‘norms’. In this way, for example, students might understand that an initial, socalled personal response in fact draws on or accords with a particular set of reading or writing practices. Other ways of reading or writing texts can then be explored and new meanings generated.

The critical frame promotes Critical Literacy, allowing students to challenge and resist particular ways of reading or writing a text. It requires students to question and even reconsider initial responses generated within the subjective frame. The critical frame also draws on poststructuralism and postmodernism in giving students freedom to ‘play’ with texts, including their own, and to transform them.

The recursive nature of the model makes it inevitable that by the stage of a unit or lesson sequence in which students are working within the critical frame, their initial understandings would have been extended or transformed. They are now in a position to revisit the understandings initially generated in the subjective frame and articulate how their learning has given them a new set of understandings of not only language and text, but also of themselves as English students.

Conclusion

The curriculum model described here works to integrate historically significant models of English teaching into a coherent, developmental teaching and learning cycle. While retaining the ‘personal’ at the centre of the curriculum, it places emphasis on students developing the social and cultural understandings and the literacy practices necessary to articulate how textual meanings are multiple, unstable and open to challenge. Working through the frames enables students to undertake the sort of critical inquiry and imaginative play that will give them a heightened sense of their powers as language users and the creators of texts.

Mark Howie is currently head teacher English at Penrith High School and vicepresident of the English Teachers’ Association (NSW).

The author owns the copyright in this article. For information related to the reuse of this work in any form please contact the publisher denise.quinn@curriculum.edu.au