Balancing Literary Texts for Young Adult Pedagogy
Expanding notions of the term ‘text’ pose two major pedagogical problems for young adult educators. The first problem that teachers and curriculum designers face is determining what platforms of text are suitable for the classroom and will be deemed so by the larger political environment to which they must answer, including parents and educational board members. Once these texts are determined, the secondary question arises as to what material is deemed to have textual merit in a new world of possible materials. That is to say that textual platforms as broad as the internet, for example, allow for material such as rap music lyrics or explicit graphic novels to be deemed as text. Obviously there is controversy surrounding what materials should be permitted in the classroom. In this paper I will begin to explore the vast debate surrounding the introduction of new texts into the classroom in an expanding world of text and technology.
Sir Ken Robinson makes the point in his 2006 TED lecture in Monterey California that historically schools have been geared towards preparing students for University with an ultimate goal of higher employment based on an industrial revolution model. Public education systems “came into being to meet the needs of industrialism”. “The whole system of public education around the world is a protracted process of university entrance” (Robinson). Not only has the economy evolved far beyond the industrial revolution era, but university has nearly become the antithesis of employment. College educations represent the majority of high paying employment opportunities while educational inflation at the university level has resulted in only the very elite few achieving relevant or sustained employment in their field. “Suddenly, degrees aren’t worth anything” (Robinson). As such, it would be reasonable to suggest a twofold change. Firstly, secondary education should not be geared towards university as a goal but towards the real needs of a larger majority of students. Secondly, the materials, and specifically the texts examined, should not be limited to a Western canon of high literature that has dogmatically sustained itself from the originating British colonial industrial revolution model. Certainly it is not to be suggested that abandoning these texts is advisable as they represent both fundamental lessons and themes that remain relevant, as well as underscore the very foundation of our culture which seeps into every imaginable social entity. An understanding of Shakespeare is actually relevant to some of the humour on television shows like the Simpsons, for example. Nevertheless, texts which reach out to a broader range of literacy abilities and interests must be implemented to include a broader range of students, many of whom are being lost to the currently pedantic system. A re-evaluation of curricular material is necessary which includes a balance of texts from the traditional canon and from more diverse genres and platforms that speak to modern students’ needs and interests.
Elaine J. O’Quinn, in her article on the Alan Review website entitled Vampires, Changelings, and Radical Mutant Teens champions the popularity of these newer texts. “Teen readers are drawn to figures such as [. . .] winged changelings [and] vampires [. . .] not only because they are resolute in their desire to be themselves, but because they stand as representative of the “lust for life” and the yearning for freedom that youth also feel” (O’Quinn 53). In terms of Supernatural Literature, the popularity of such series as Harry Potter or Twilight is inarguable. Surely a progressive academic system can use this popularity to their advantage in generating a higher level of student interest and participation. But arguments against these texts claim that they are void of literary merit and “[i]nstead of allowing readers to use such texts as touchstones for the sometimes tragic nature of their lives, or even as sites of inevitable loss that may never be reconciled, we condescendingly refer to them as “dumbed down” versions of “real” literature” (O’Quinn 51). However, O’Quinn points out that for young adults, “[b]ooks with elements of the “unreal” which draw only fine lines between reality and fiction help in their reflection of these understandings as much as any other text they encounter.” (O’Quinn 51) And not only supernatural literature, O’Quinn intimates that the entire field of Young Adult literature remains controversial due to its frequent use of vernacular or sexual content. It must be explored and evaluated, and from it we must harvest a new ‘canon’ of acceptable classroom texts. Once students have become motivated and involved, they might be introduced to the ‘higher’ canon texts more easily.
Of even greater controversy is text generated exclusively from electronic platforms. In Nicholas Carr’s article Is Google Making Us Stupid?, he posits that the “media or other technologies we use in learning the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains” (Carr 62). “Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes” (Carr 57). Carr ascribes a reduction in his own attention span to these media technologies. When reading a book, his “concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages” (Carr 57). In her article The Multitasking Generation, Claudia Wallis further argues that ‘toggling’ is not the apparent teen miracle that it seems. “[T]here’s substantial literature on how the brain handles multitasking. And basically, it doesn’t” (Wallis). “[W]hat’s really going on is rapid toggling among tasks rather than simultaneous processing” (Wallis). “[T]he ability to multiprocess has its limits, even among young adults. When people try to perform two or more related tasks either at the same time or alternating rapidly between them, errors go way up, and it takes far longer – often double the time or more – to get the jobs done than if they were done sequentially”(Wallis). Wallis concludes that “today’s students are [therefore] less tolerant of ambiguity. [. . .] “They demand clarity,” says Koonz. They want good guys and bad guys, which she finds problematic in teaching complex topics like Hutu-Tutsi history in Rwanda. She also thinks there are political implications: “their belief in the simple answer, put together in a visual way, is, I think, dangerous.” Koonz thinks this aversion to complexity is directly related to multitasking” (Wallis). However, failing to negotiate this information with young adults echoes dogmatic ideology observed in O’Quinn’s article. Why are we treating these teens like “Radical Mutants” who can’t evaluate this information themselves? It is a disservice to underestimate their understanding of the value of education. By simply informing teen students of these studies and shortcomings, it would be possible to realize a balance in their willingness to detach from their electronics and engage deeper texts.
If these electronic platforms are abandoned entirely in the classroom, educators run the risk of losing the immediacy required to compete with these platforms in a world of rapidly changing communication technology and text. Carr admits that “the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through [. . .] eyes and ears and into [the] mind. The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many” (Carr 57). Inherent to Carr’s argument against these platforms, therefore, is both an admission of their value and recognition of their universal presence. They are here and they are a real part of students’ lives. It is a disservice to students to ignore reading platforms that represent the reality of their daily, and ultimately their economic lives, or worse, provide an education that will be irrelevant to a student who will likely continue to depend on and evolve into an ever expanding e-environment. If we choose to ignore them we will create a rift between students and their academics, losing them entirely to the leviathan technology we are trying to force them to avoid. By striking a balance between classical and modern texts, we can foster both classical reading skills and modern reading techniques that are more immediately relevant to the students’ interests and reality.
The argument is far from resolved, and research is ongoing. Problematic is the fact that technology and definitions of text seem to be changing more rapidly than research is completed. Even slower to change is academic curricula subject to political pressures and red-tape. As Ken Robinson notes, “[w]e have no idea what’s going to happen in terms of the future. No idea how this may play out” (Robinson). The only thing that is certain is that change is occurring rapidly. Whether or not secondary education rises to or resists textual changes remains to be seen, and if changes are implemented, will they be the right ones and in the students best interests? But again, Robinson puts a positive spin on uncertainty. “If you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original” (Robinson). There are no easy answers, but at the very least the current canon of literature and texts must be expanded immediately and technologically before the entire secondary schooling system becomes obsolete to info-bytes on wikipedia.
Expanding notions of the term ‘text’ pose two major pedagogical problems for young adult educators. The first problem that teachers and curriculum designers face is determining what platforms of text are suitable for the classroom and will be deemed so by the larger political environment to which they must answer, including parents and educational board members. Once these texts are determined, the secondary question arises as to what material is deemed to have textual merit in a new world of possible materials. That is to say that textual platforms as broad as the internet, for example, allow for material such as rap music lyrics or explicit graphic novels to be deemed as text. Obviously there is controversy surrounding what materials should be permitted in the classroom. In this paper I will begin to explore the vast debate surrounding the introduction of new texts into the classroom in an expanding world of text and technology.
Sir Ken Robinson makes the point in his 2006 TED lecture in Monterey California that historically schools have been geared towards preparing students for University with an ultimate goal of higher employment based on an industrial revolution model. Public education systems “came into being to meet the needs of industrialism”. “The whole system of public education around the world is a protracted process of university entrance” (Robinson). Not only has the economy evolved far beyond the industrial revolution era, but university has nearly become the antithesis of employment. College educations represent the majority of high paying employment opportunities while educational inflation at the university level has resulted in only the very elite few achieving relevant or sustained employment in their field. “Suddenly, degrees aren’t worth anything” (Robinson). As such, it would be reasonable to suggest a twofold change. Firstly, secondary education should not be geared towards university as a goal but towards the real needs of a larger majority of students. Secondly, the materials, and specifically the texts examined, should not be limited to a Western canon of high literature that has dogmatically sustained itself from the originating British colonial industrial revolution model. Certainly it is not to be suggested that abandoning these texts is advisable as they represent both fundamental lessons and themes that remain relevant, as well as underscore the very foundation of our culture which seeps into every imaginable social entity. An understanding of Shakespeare is actually relevant to some of the humour on television shows like the Simpsons, for example. Nevertheless, texts which reach out to a broader range of literacy abilities and interests must be implemented to include a broader range of students, many of whom are being lost to the currently pedantic system. A re-evaluation of curricular material is necessary which includes a balance of texts from the traditional canon and from more diverse genres and platforms that speak to modern students’ needs and interests.
Elaine J. O’Quinn, in her article on the Alan Review website entitled Vampires, Changelings, and Radical Mutant Teens champions the popularity of these newer texts. “Teen readers are drawn to figures such as [. . .] winged changelings [and] vampires [. . .] not only because they are resolute in their desire to be themselves, but because they stand as representative of the “lust for life” and the yearning for freedom that youth also feel” (O’Quinn 53). In terms of Supernatural Literature, the popularity of such series as Harry Potter or Twilight is inarguable. Surely a progressive academic system can use this popularity to their advantage in generating a higher level of student interest and participation. But arguments against these texts claim that they are void of literary merit and “[i]nstead of allowing readers to use such texts as touchstones for the sometimes tragic nature of their lives, or even as sites of inevitable loss that may never be reconciled, we condescendingly refer to them as “dumbed down” versions of “real” literature” (O’Quinn 51). However, O’Quinn points out that for young adults, “[b]ooks with elements of the “unreal” which draw only fine lines between reality and fiction help in their reflection of these understandings as much as any other text they encounter.” (O’Quinn 51) And not only supernatural literature, O’Quinn intimates that the entire field of Young Adult literature remains controversial due to its frequent use of vernacular or sexual content. It must be explored and evaluated, and from it we must harvest a new ‘canon’ of acceptable classroom texts. Once students have become motivated and involved, they might be introduced to the ‘higher’ canon texts more easily.
Of even greater controversy is text generated exclusively from electronic platforms. In Nicholas Carr’s article Is Google Making Us Stupid?, he posits that the “media or other technologies we use in learning the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains” (Carr 62). “Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes” (Carr 57). Carr ascribes a reduction in his own attention span to these media technologies. When reading a book, his “concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages” (Carr 57). In her article The Multitasking Generation, Claudia Wallis further argues that ‘toggling’ is not the apparent teen miracle that it seems. “[T]here’s substantial literature on how the brain handles multitasking. And basically, it doesn’t” (Wallis). “[W]hat’s really going on is rapid toggling among tasks rather than simultaneous processing” (Wallis). “[T]he ability to multiprocess has its limits, even among young adults. When people try to perform two or more related tasks either at the same time or alternating rapidly between them, errors go way up, and it takes far longer – often double the time or more – to get the jobs done than if they were done sequentially”(Wallis). Wallis concludes that “today’s students are [therefore] less tolerant of ambiguity. [. . .] “They demand clarity,” says Koonz. They want good guys and bad guys, which she finds problematic in teaching complex topics like Hutu-Tutsi history in Rwanda. She also thinks there are political implications: “their belief in the simple answer, put together in a visual way, is, I think, dangerous.” Koonz thinks this aversion to complexity is directly related to multitasking” (Wallis). However, failing to negotiate this information with young adults echoes dogmatic ideology observed in O’Quinn’s article. Why are we treating these teens like “Radical Mutants” who can’t evaluate this information themselves? It is a disservice to underestimate their understanding of the value of education. By simply informing teen students of these studies and shortcomings, it would be possible to realize a balance in their willingness to detach from their electronics and engage deeper texts.
If these electronic platforms are abandoned entirely in the classroom, educators run the risk of losing the immediacy required to compete with these platforms in a world of rapidly changing communication technology and text. Carr admits that “the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through [. . .] eyes and ears and into [the] mind. The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many” (Carr 57). Inherent to Carr’s argument against these platforms, therefore, is both an admission of their value and recognition of their universal presence. They are here and they are a real part of students’ lives. It is a disservice to students to ignore reading platforms that represent the reality of their daily, and ultimately their economic lives, or worse, provide an education that will be irrelevant to a student who will likely continue to depend on and evolve into an ever expanding e-environment. If we choose to ignore them we will create a rift between students and their academics, losing them entirely to the leviathan technology we are trying to force them to avoid. By striking a balance between classical and modern texts, we can foster both classical reading skills and modern reading techniques that are more immediately relevant to the students’ interests and reality.
The argument is far from resolved, and research is ongoing. Problematic is the fact that technology and definitions of text seem to be changing more rapidly than research is completed. Even slower to change is academic curricula subject to political pressures and red-tape. As Ken Robinson notes, “[w]e have no idea what’s going to happen in terms of the future. No idea how this may play out” (Robinson). The only thing that is certain is that change is occurring rapidly. Whether or not secondary education rises to or resists textual changes remains to be seen, and if changes are implemented, will they be the right ones and in the students best interests? But again, Robinson puts a positive spin on uncertainty. “If you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original” (Robinson). There are no easy answers, but at the very least the current canon of literature and texts must be expanded immediately and technologically before the entire secondary schooling system becomes obsolete to info-bytes on wikipedia.
See you in school (a.k.a. hell),
Shakes.
Works Cited
Carr, Nicholas. Is Google Making Us Stupid?. The Atlantic. July/August 2008.
O’Quinn, Elaine J. (2004). Vampires, Changelings, and Radical Mutant Teens. The
Alan Review, Volume 31. Retrieved 18-02-2009.
Robinson, Ken. 2006 Ted Lectures Monterey California. Accessed 18-02-2009.
Wallis, Claudia. The Multitasking Generation. Time/CNN. Retrieved 19-03-2006.
Works Cited
Carr, Nicholas. Is Google Making Us Stupid?. The Atlantic. July/August 2008.
O’Quinn, Elaine J. (2004). Vampires, Changelings, and Radical Mutant Teens. The
Alan Review, Volume 31. Retrieved 18-02-2009.
Robinson, Ken. 2006 Ted Lectures Monterey California. Accessed 18-02-2009.
Wallis, Claudia. The Multitasking Generation. Time/CNN. Retrieved 19-03-2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment