Literature Education in the Asia-Pacific

Policies, Practices and Perspectives in Global Times

Chin Ee Loh, Suzanne S. Choo, Catherine Beavis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351968805
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The continual rise of English as a global lingua franca has meant that English literature, both as a discipline and as a tool in ESL and EFL classrooms, is being used in varied ways outside the inner circle of English. This edited collection provides an overview of English literature education in the Asia-Pacific in global times, bringing to international attention a rich understanding of the trends, issues and challenges specific to nations within the Asia-Pacific region. Comprising contributions from Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam, the collection addresses the diversity of learners in different national, cultural and teaching contexts. In doing so, it provides insights into historical and current trends in literature education, foregrounds specific issues and challenges in policymaking and implementation, presents practical matters concerning text selection, use of literature in the language classroom, innovative practices in literature education, and raises pressing and important questions about the nature, purpose and importance of literature education in global times.

1 Globalizing literature education in the Asia-pacific

Remapping the boundaries

Chin Ee Loh, Suzanne Choo and Catherine Beavis

The act of remapping pushes us to rethink the ways in which Literature education is understood. Jerry Brotton (2012), in his thesis on the history of the world as understood through maps, reminds us that “maps offer a proposal about the world, rather than just a reflection of it, and every proposal emerges from a particular culture’s prevailing assumptions and preoccupations” (p. 438). The attempt to redefine the boundaries for conversations about Literature education is an attempt to interrupt common assumptions that individual readers may hold about Literature education, as situated in their own contexts of language and learning. Remapping is a way to rethink the “imagined community” (Anderson, 1983) of scholars, educators, and students of Literature education and to encourage deep and complex dialogue about Literature education in a global world.

Asia-Pacific countries include Australia (population: 24.13 million), China (population: 1.379 billion), India (population: 1.324 billion), and the ten ASEAN nations that include Indonesia (population: 261.1 million), Philippines (population: 103.3 million), Singapore (population: 5.607 million), and Vietnam (population: 92.701 million) (World Bank, 2017). The region includes more than half the world’s population and contributes significantly to global economic output and growth. What makes Asia-Pacific all the more interesting is the diversity of languages, cultures, and religions that make up the region. While English serves as one of the lingua francae for communication in the region (for example, it is the working language of ASEAN) and is perceived as an important global language (Graddol, 2006), it is only one of many languages in the region. The place of English may also differ based on the different historical contexts of each country – English serves as an official language in former British colonies such as Australia, India, Malaysia, and Singapore, but in countries with other colonial histories (e.g., Vietnam under the French and Indonesia under the Dutch), English is learnt as a foreign language.

This book redraws the map of Literature education in English by placing the Asia-Pacific region in the centre and bringing to the fore the different histories and developments of Literature education in this region. Geographical boundaries insist on recognizing differences within the diverse multilingual and multicultural region to reframe Literature education as a multifaceted subject that is taught across a broad range of contexts and across different historical and political terrains. This reframing requires the reader to bear in mind that every chapter needs to be read with its context in mind, to understand that there may be different definitions or operations of seemingly unproblematic terms such as reader response or cultural capital. Rather than glossing over differences, it is important to ask why the differences exist and to understand how particular historical, policy, and practice contexts have contributed to the evolution of Literature education in each specific context.

To clarify, in this book, we employ the term ‘literature’ when we refer to literary texts and we capitalize the term when referring to Literature as a subject taught in schools or colleges.

The chapters in this book explore the place of Literature education in a globalized world and the globalizing of Literature education in the Asia-Pacific. Broadly, research into the teaching of Literature in this region – the role, nature, and significance of Literature education – and how that has been inflected by past and present contexts and times remains largely unexplored, an issue that this book addresses. Most pressingly, the place and purpose of Literature education, in contrast to the growing pervasiveness of English as a global language, is potentially under threat, as the drive to maximize communication and functionality in economic and social circumstances takes centre stage. Taking the metaphor of mapping, this book sets out to remap Literature education in three dimensions: curriculum boundaries, texts, and pedagogy.

Where do we situate Literature? remapping curriculum boundaries

In tracing the history of English Literature education, it becomes clear that its emergence could not have occurred without globalization as a catalyzing force. Although one could argue that the global impulse to explore, trade, and conquer new territories has occurred throughout history, the role of British colonial empire in establishing and maintaining the values of colonial culture effectively marked the establishment of a global culture (Thomas & Thompson, 2014). During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, political, economic, and technological advances effectively strengthened transnational networks and so fuelled the colonizing expansion of Empire (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999).

Not surprisingly, the end of the British Empire and the corresponding assertion of independence by formerly colonized countries following the end of the Second World War meant that English Literature education could no longer retain its privileged position. Towards the end of the twentieth century, globalization intensified not via the imperialistic tendencies of empires, but through the large-scale shift towards democracy or semi-democracy in countries throughout Asia, Latin America, and Europe. The end of the Cold War secured the ideological dominance of liberal democracy, creating a climate favourable to global interchange and exchanges. Concepts such as global society, global village, and globalism dominated intellectual discourse, perpetuating the view that “peoples of the world [were being] incorporated into a single world” (Albrow & King, 1990, p. 9), that there was an “intensification of social relations throughout the world” (Giddens, 1990, p. 64), and that there was both a “compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of world as a whole” (Robertson, 1992, p. 8).

Remapping the boundaries of English Literature education in the Asia-Pacific entails a shift from Western-centric to more global and inclusive ways of perceiving the subject. In a survey of scholarly discourses on Literature education, we observe that influential debates have been predominantly written by scholars situated within countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Broadly, such discourses tend to focus on issues of canonicity as well as the ideological forces that drive the production, circulation, and legitimacy of literary texts for study in schools and colleges (Applebee, 1993; Guillory, 2003). In contrast, in the Asia Pacfic region, discussions about where English Literature education should be situated within the curriculum have also tended to be connected to English as a Second or Foreign Language programmes, where Literature is often perceived as a tool for English language learning, rather than a subject to be studied in itself.

Instead of narrowly examining Literature as a subject bound to language learning, as such positioning implies, this edited volume seeks to explore a broader range of issues such as: Where do we situate Literature in the curriculum? Whose Literature counts? What is the role, nature, and purpose of Literature? What are Literature’s links to national culture and identity? These questions lie at the heart of many chapters here that explore complex issues about which cultures and their cultural texts as well as which ideologies are valued.

In a number of chapters, English Literature education’s situatedness or place in the national curriculum is tied to its economic value, particularly its connection to the instrumental value of English as a language of commerce and means for economic mobility.

In Chapter 4, “Literature in English Language Learning in China in Tertiary Education”, Geoff Hall and Qian Yang provide a broad historical overview of the fall and rise of Literature in mainstream English language learning materials and instructional methods in China, where English is learnt as a foreign language. Literature’s tenuous place in English language teaching in that country, Hall and Qian argue, reflects the function-culture dichotomy, where views of language are largely instrumental: Culture in the form of literature is often excluded from teaching approaches and instructional materials. The presence of literary stylistics at the tertiary level has barely influenced the teaching of English as a foreign language at the grass roots level and Literature is still seen as a language tool, rather than a subject that allows for “cultural learning or personal development” (p. 55). At the same time, Hall and Qian suggest that globalization has brought about a quickening pace of English language learning and that more Chinese students are accessing literature through private schools and university curricula. There is increased interest in the Humanities and for some institutions and students, Literature education is not mere language accessory, but worthy of study in itself.

In Hong Kong, the instrumental view of English language learning has led to the limited role that Literature plays, as Michael O’Sullivan observes in Chapter 5, “Changing the ‘Success Narrative’: English Literature Can Help Broaden Hong Kong Students’ Perceptions of Education.” Unlike in mainland China, English is the medium of instruction in a number of schools in the former British colony (Nunan, 2003). One reason for Literature’s marginal place in Hong Kong is the perception that it is a subject largely limited to elite English ‘literates.’ O’Sullivan argues that Literature education can play a greater role in a society where ‘success narratives’ are defined by a student’s ability to achieve the kind of education that would bring about maximum economic benefits. For O’Sullivan, education should engage students in discussions of local issues, civic mindedness, mindfulness, and family and societal values, to imagine how society might be different. The narratives ingrained in literature are a way for students to learn empathy and to imagine other worlds (Bruner, 2002) and O’Sullivan suggests that greater student engagement in English Literature (and other literatures) is a way to encourage students to think beyond narrow-minded, economically driven, and competitive success narratives to re-imagine more meaningful and personal success narratives for themselves. He thus makes a case for the value of Literature in a global age as a subject for connection and for the re-imagination of the self and the world.

As in China and Hong Kong, policymakers in India have become increasingly concerned with the development of human capital, with the result that acquisition of language for pragmatic uses overshadows other aims of English education, such as the development of critical literacies. In Chapter 6, “English Literary Studies in India: Between Critical Thinking and Instrumental Drives,” Subarno Chattarji highlights how globalization has reinforced the value of English as subject that can enhance the communicative effectiveness of individuals, enabling them to compete more effectively in the global economy. As a subject, English then becomes a means to an economic end, rather than a platform where students can engage actively and critically in social, cultural, and global issues. Chattarji suggests that the subject can play a role in rejuvenating the Humanities if it focusses on critical thinking and diversity, rather than mere instrumentality.

That English should not to be taken for granted as a medium of instruction is highlighted in Chapter 10, “Problems and Issues in Teaching Literature in English in Philippine Secondary Schools,” where Lalaine F. Yanilla Aquino discusses the place of literature in a country where English is taught as a Second Language and used as a medium of instruction. She reminds us in her historical overview of the development of Literature instruction in English in the Philippines that the choice of language, the kinds of texts chosen, and ways of reading are conduits for ways of thinking (Collins & Blot, 2003). Literature education is intricately bound up with language learning and cultural acquisition, and the vacillating policies regarding the medium of instruction and texts to be taught that she documents reflect indecision about how language, texts, and identities should be viewed and enacted through the curriculum. Aquino welcomes the inclusion of Twenty-First Century Literature from the Philippines and the World, a core course in Senior High School, but worries that the goals might be undermined, were it to be taught by language rather than Literature teachers. Ultimately, teacher education, instructional materials, and other resources, she argues, should be improved in order for Filipino children to engage with both their nation and the world through the comparative lenses of this new course.

The push to globalize the curriculum should not mean discounting the place of the nation, as Chin Ee Loh argues in Chapter 14, “The Poetry of Place, the Place of Poetry: The Promise and Perils of a Place-Based Literary Pedagogy in the Singapore Literature Classroom.” She examines place-based literary education as it is enacted in preservice teacher education at the National Institute of Education in Singapore, arguing that the attention to place – both local and global – can lead to socially and ecologically meaningful discussions of the individual and society’s connection to the urban environment. Drawing on a case study of preservice teachers participating in a learning journey in the city centre, she argues for the centrality of place in Literature education, and the centrality of literary texts to students’ understanding of place. Literary texts serve to mediate students’ historical and emotional understanding of place by providing perspectives of places through stories of the past and present. She argues for creative production as a necessary part of Literature education and argues that ‘place-conscious’ pedagogies (Gruenewald, 2003) in the Literature classroom have the potential to develop students’ awareness of themselves as both national and global citizens.

What constitutes literature? remapping texts

Across the chapters described, the authors encourage the expansion of curriculum boundaries to cope with the demands of globalization, even as they highlight the emergent tensions that inevitably arise as boundaries are pushed. A central tension concerns what constitutes Literature, or more precisely, what texts should be included for study in the curriculum.

For many of the countries represented here, the shadow of colonialism and its active presence, whether now or in the past, create difficult tensions around the place of the body of literature brought with that heritage, and a literature of their own. These are the tensions between canonical literature (literature in ‘The Great Tradition’) and contemporary literature, as well as between national literature and world literature, that run through many of the chapters, both those discussing countries where English is a first language – as in Australia – and those discussing countries where Literature teaching and education were imposed as part of the agenda of colonization, and/or taught only to the elite, and worked as a marker for this elite. While most (but not all) of the countries represented here were subject to colonial rule, with the high culture of the colonizer embodied in and represented by the canonical literature of that empire, colonizing Empires were not exclusively British. In Vietnam, for example, France was the colonizing Empire; in Indonesia, Dutch colonization till 1945 preceded Independence.

Striking a balance in Literature education between canonical literature (the literature of Empire) and the literature of one’s own country, however, is no simple matter, nor is national identity itself something unitary or readily defined. Cultural and ethnic diversity, gender-, class-, and race-based discrimination and how these are represented and read are all also pressing questions for many of the authors here, with implications not only for which texts are set, but also for how they are taught, what work they are seen to do, and for whom this work is done.

In remapping texts in the Literature curriculum, two central concerns emerge across the chapters in this book. The first concern deals with individual and national identities: Texts from which cultures, which heritage and which countries should be chosen for inclusion, in what combination, and why?

In Chapter 2, “Literature in subject English in Australia: purpose, identity and mode,” Catherine Beavis connects changes in text selection to shifts in conceptions of learning, pedagogy, and priorities from the late 1960s. The emergence of popular and non-print texts as worthy of study is linked to debates about ‘relevance,’ student-centred teaching, and the emphasis on language, literacy, and communication in English curriculum at that time, alongside more traditional literary forms. This chapter points to the ways in which the explosion of national writing and film-making in the 1970s resulted in a greater assertion of Australian, rather than primarily British, identity in texts set for study. The inclusion of these texts is seen to be reflective in turn of the role that English as a subject, and the study of texts in particular, was believed to play by teachers, educational institutions, and authorities in constructing national identity. The chapter points, too, to the inclusion of films, television plays, oral documentaries, and graphic novels as indicative of the significance of multimodal texts alongside print in contemporary times.

In Chapter 3, “Re-forming the Nation: Curriculum, Text Selection and Asian Literature in subject English in Australia,” Larissa McLean Davies and Lucy Buzacott turn to “the absence of Asian Australian voices in national conversations, particularly those which take place in classrooms across Australia.” They consider the interrelationships between such absences and public discourses and policy, the experience of text, perspectives conveyed to young readers about ‘who’ is Australian, and rights to belonging and identity. The chapter closes with a recognition and endorsement of the emphasis on diversity of both focus and form in texts chosen for study in the current Australian Curriculum: English, but an insistence, also, on the need for significant resourcing and support for the vison of the curriculum to be realized.

In Chapter 12, “Reclaiming Southeast Asia: Cultural Engagements in the Philippine Tertiary Classroom,” Lily Rose Tope examines how one fun...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Notes on contributors
• 1 Globalizing literature education in the Asia-pacific: remapping the boundaries
• 2 Literature in subject English in Australia: purpose, identity and mode
• 3 Re-forming the nation: curriculum, text selection, and Asian literature in subject English in Australia
• 4 Literature in English language learning in China in tertiary education
• 5 Changing the ‘Success Narrative’: English literature can help broaden Hong Kong students’ perceptions of education
• 6 English literary studies in India: between critical thinking and instrumental drives
• 7 Neo-colonialism and the writer’s identity in creative writing
• 8 Positioning approaches to teaching literature in English in Malaysian secondary schools
• 9 Desired student response and its potential in forms of English literature education in Malaysia
• 10 Problems and issues in teaching literature in English in Philippine secondary schools
• 11 Teaching literature, teaching identity: language pedagogy and building a nation through texts and textbooks
• 12 Reclaiming Southeast Asia: cultural engagements in the Philippine tertiary classroom
• 13 English literature education in Vietnam and the potential of appropriating reader-response theory in global times
• 14 The poetry of place, the place of poetry: the promise and perils of a place-based literary pedagogy in the Singapore literature classroom
• 15 The Asian short film in the literature classroom
• 16 Globalizing literature education in Singapore: reviewing developments and re-envisioning possibilities for the future
• Index