christinasciacca.weebly.com€¦ · Web viewBREAKING DOWN THE CANON DEBATE: EXAMINING LITERARY CRITICISM AS THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH CURRICULUM. BY. Christina M. Sciacca. Mentor

BREAKING DOWN THE CANON DEBATE: EXAMINING LITERARY CRITICISM AS THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH CURRICULUM

BYChristina M. Sciacca

MentorRandall O. Westbrook, Ed.D.

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Degree

Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT)Fairleigh Dickinson University

Fall 2016

Literary Criticism as English Curriculum

TABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT p.3

CHAPTER I—INTRODUCTION p.4

CHAPTER II—REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE p.8

CHAPTER III—METHODOLOGY p.28

CHAPTER IV—CONCLUSION p.39

REFERENCE PAGE p.42

CERTIFICATION p.43

2


Abstract

This paper investigates the argument that engulfs curriculum development for high school

English classrooms. For decades, debate spun around whether or not schools should teach the

Western literary canon. This paper will explore the debate on the canon as well as deconstruct

the understanding of its ability to exist in an educational framework. It will describe the many

experiences teachers have had with the canon as well as their proposed solutions. This

examination of the canon calls to attention the possibility that the debate has missed a crucial

element of English curriculum. The review of the literature reveals that educators ought to

explore how they can teach, rather than dispute what they teach. With a new outlook on English,

research indicates student success can be improved by incorporating literary criticism in the

context of several mini-canons. This change in curriculum creates independent thinkers

competent for a modern world.

Keywords: Literary Canon, English Curriculum, Literary Criticism, Canon Wars

3


CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Are the pieces of literature I teach my students effective tools in my classroom? Are

students growing in their knowledge of the world around them? Have they become literate in the

eyes of the academic world? These are essential questions we must ask ourselves as English

teachers. For many of us, we are rooted in book lists and curriculum that have been in our school

districts for decades. Other than a small reformation in the past thirty years, it is likely that our

students have been reading many of the same books year after year. By the time students have

graduated high school it is probable they have read plays by William Shakespeare, countless

American classics, and a few global traditions. All the while these students have snoozed,

skimmed, summarized and Spark-noted their way to a passing grade. It was to this realization

that my passion for teaching English was born.

Like most excitable education students, I began this journey with a belief and desire that I

would change the apathetic position of the high school student. If only they could perceive the

humor of Shakespeare, marvel over the wonders of Homer, and feel the ache of Fitzgerald would

they love English class. In fact, it was in this excitement that I began my journey as a literature

student. I did believe in that time that I would re-experience all the joys I once felt in my high

school English classes. Yet as I sat in the office of the Head of the Literature Department, about

to change my major from Math to Literature, I was dumbfounded. As he inquired at what types

of literature I enjoyed studying and I could not think of a single notable author to reference. He

rattled off names like Sappho, Stein, Yeats and Lawrence, while I stone-faced reconsidered the

change in major. While I did decide to change my major to literature, I was terrified my lack of

4


knowledge would lead to failure. Though I was able to find success in the field of literature,

many inquires were raised.

In my time studying literature, I encountered many famous works and authors that my

high school education had neglected to teach. However, my professors were keen to educating us

in many diverse works as well. We read works from India, Africa, China and Rome. My classes

were filled with women writers who were praised for their achievements. Though I was growing

in my knowledge of diverse topics I still felt there was so much I did not know. I wanted to read

Beowulf and Dante’s Inferno. Where were the copies of Dickens and Austen that should have sat

on my bookshelf marked with notes and underlines? My professors believed we had read those

‘classics’—as they referred to them—in high school and it was time to gain a greater perspective

of the world. When I reached out to English teachers during my field work they explained that

the neglect of classics was an attempt to diversify reading lists. It was then that I found myself

coupled by regret and frustration; in all my instructors’ attempts to provide a diversely rich

reading experience, they had robbed me of a classical one.

What then is the solution? Do we abandon our classic pieces of literature and solely teach

works that are considered diverse? Or do we hold our classics tightly, limiting the literature

experience of our students? This is the conundrum in which I begin my research. First, we must

investigate what others have already said about this topic. In fact, much of the research regarding

this topic began in the early 1970s and ran to the late 1990s. This debate is referred to as the

canon wars. The war on the canon is the divide among English teachers on whether or not they

should teach the Western literary canon in their classrooms. The literary canon refers to the

unofficial list of books that have been esteemed over time as the great works of literature—the

classics (Loewen, 2006).

5


However, the reason for this debate is that the authors on this list are typically all White

Protestant, Anglo-Saxon men. Teachers are divided on this issue because some believe that in

teaching the canon we subconsciously teach students that the only individuals worthy of

academic praise are White Protestant Anglo-Saxon men. The debate continues as many argue

that through teaching the canon we alienate many students on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity

and gender (Greenbaum, 1994). This furthers the likelihood that a student will be disengaged and

uninterested with what we are teaching. Others who support this side of the debate believe that in

teaching such a narrow perspective, students are unable to sympathize and gain perspective on

many degrees of social injustice. They can remain unaware of issues that circulate the world as

well as uninformed of certain walks of life. The supporters of this side of the debate feel that we

are perpetrating a great injustice on our students.

With the desire to bring in new, diverse works, there is a need to eliminate some

traditional pieces. The reality of the issue is that there is only so much time in a school year for

students to study a range of texts that will highlight the beauty of literature. This is where the

other side of the debate unfolds. Canon supporters feel that many of the texts are just too

essential to discard. In removing these texts, we deprive our students of the foundations of the

English language. We cannot call ourselves an English classroom without the people who shaped

the English language (Crout, 1998). However, as I delved into the research in both sides of the

argument it seems that post 2005 little research can be found. Neither side had come up with a

perfectly wholesome solution and it seems students are currently being taught a somewhat

random assortment of academically esteemed books.

While the canon debate remains at a standstill, new ideas emerge that suggest the canon

debate was an improper investigation of English curriculum. Many passionate English teachers

6


were fighting over a so-called literary canon that logically could not exist (Anderson & Zanetti,

2000). In fact, the debate over doing so is rather pointless and imprudent. As we investigate this

issue, it would be much more beneficial for us to determine ways in which we can reshape our

curriculum to focus on how we teach literature rather than what (Schade, 1996). Therefore, my

research will expand upon these ideas of the canon debate as well as the current status of English

classrooms. It will also investigate how we can create a book list that simply models the type of

literature we want our students to be familiar with as they enter adult life. I will then consider the

different ways we can teach students this book list that prepares them to read any text with a

diverse and widened perspective.

My research is geared towards recreating a curriculum that gives students a selection and

survey of literature throughout history, preparing them for whatever endeavor they encounter

after high school. The curriculum will not only focus on the types of literature we teach students

but also how we teach them. Students will learn literary criticism and other techniques that aid

their ability to engage with texts thoughtfully and originally. It will model techniques that teach

literature against the grain, thus creating questions and further reason for investigation. Students

will be assessed on their ability to read, examine, and comparatively study literature throughout

the many literary periods. It is through this reshaped curriculum that we will create passion and

zeal in our students. They will become intellectually capable and ready for further studies at a

University level if they so choose. Through this method we will give all students, regardless of

their background and experience, an opportunity at academic success.

7


CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review

A War with the Canon

The typical understanding of the Canon debate lies in the idea that the list of texts written

by White, Protestant Males must find its way out of our education system. This desire is

reasonably supported for a number of different reasons. The primary idea in this so-called

argument is that these lists alienate and devalue many students. Sandra G. Kouritzin (2004)

investigates the argument from a meditative perspective in her article, The British Columbia

Literature 12 Curriculum and I: A Soliloquy. She describes her experience as a graduate student

at the University of British Columbia. Through her reflection she addresses the curriculum that

was taught in her literature courses. As she looked back at her experience, she found that the

majority of the focus was on authors such as; Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Browning, all

fitting the description white-males (2004, p.188). Her experience seemed to say, these were the

greats, the people from whom all good things originated.

She describes her classroom experience as one that not only supported this notion but

rather enforced it. She recalls the first day of class when her professor, none other than a white

male, set the scene as a place where he knew all and they knew none. She described his method

of educating as one where he was the performer and the students were the awe struck crowd.

Kouritzin (2004) admits that, “He wept. He raged, intoned, regaled, and stormed. He sang. He

paraded. He seduced. I listened. I trembled while he implored to me about literature as Robert

Browning felt about death” (p. 190). As English teachers we might read this and find ourselves

applauding her professor’s passion for the beauty of literature. However, Kouritzin is suggesting

that we ought to realize the danger in which his actions proclaimed a horrifying subliminal

8


message. His teaching style communicated a divide in the classroom. Slightly and carefully, her

professor’s selection of texts and zealous performance indicated a division between men and

woman. She writes (2004), “Oh yes, part of the bewitching process of Literature 12 was its

introduction to sexual domination and submission, its introduction of sexual fantasy and desire”

(p. 190). In her study of her curriculum she found that all threads came together to support a

male voice that urges for domination and a desired surrendering of the female counterpart.

She continues to look at the curriculum and she finds that the works included in her

course were not simply shutting out women but they shut out every marginalized voice. It

seemed that all the literature presented to them was from one perspective. What this did to her

was mold her into a reader that never questioned the author’s voice. This ‘unquestioning’

spiraled a series of effects that resonated with her throughout the rest of the article. Perhaps the

most chilling of her reflections lies in the very last few pages of her study. Her sentiment reads

(2004):

I learned to valorize the poor and working-class experiences, but not to seek economic equality

because it would ruin happiness. I learned that educated white men have the right to label the rest

of the world. I have learned the tenets of positivism and rationalism. I have learned to admire the

glory of fine masculine conduct during war and to applaud the makers of war who died freeing

the world from what they called tyranny. (p. 200)

Despite the eloquent way she phrases these sentiments she implores us to see the deep rooted

ailments this education has left her with. This then begs the question, how can we, a generation

aware of the need to inclusive education, to better our teaching style?

I think that it is important to note that my own experience with literature has not been

effected by such an extreme idealization of the patriarchy. In fact, my interpretations and

9


understandings are developed out of a mind that has been shaped by feminist professors and

diversity seekers. To which I would make the claim that we cannot assume that it is the literature

to blame for this unfortunate misshaping of the mind. It seems as though the professor who

instructed this course created a very specific divide in his classroom. However, I must agree that

the lack of variety in course material is not coincidental. His deliberate choosing of only texts

written by white men certainly communicates an idealization of the patriarchy. So it would seem

somewhat obvious that this kind of curriculum structure is not only archaic, but incredibly

dangerous. It is worth noting that despite his attempts to mold her mind into a woman in favor of

the patriarchal system, she was still able to dissect the agenda for what it was.

I must also add that I find it extremely comforting that her suggestion was never to

eliminate these texts from the reading list. I would argue that these are still very important texts

within the frame of literature. Yet we must include a diverse range of texts that provide a wider

range of perspectives. This then begs the question; how do we select these novels? What is more,

we ought to explore the passion and zeal that divided the classroom. How can evoke that same

passion out of our students? This idea will become more apparent and beneficial when we shift

away from the canon debate and into the restructuring of our classrooms.

The next article that I found particularly interesting in my attempt to understanding the

canon debate, was written by a high school teacher. Vicky Greenbaum (1994), writes a

significantly more impassioned response to canon inspired curriculum. In her article, Expanding

the Canon: Shaping Inclusive Reading Lists she communicates directly the problems with

reading lists as they existed in the past and new hopes for the future. She gives specific examples

of students who felt that the reading lists did not speak to them. She spoke specifically of a group

of Spanish students that had little desire to study the literature because it simply did not have

10


anything to do with their experience or identity (1994, p.36). Female students were conditioned

to think that two females on a reading list constituted too many. Greenbaum’s writing suggests a

certain frustration due to the sense of helplessness and apathy spawning from her class. It is here

that she meets us, exploring a road for change.

She suggests that book lists and curriculum can have a negative affect on the

development of the student. She states (1994), “Alienated students in today’s English classrooms

are the products of narrow curricula and the resulting exclusion” (p. 38). Simply stated, through

the instruction of canon inspired curriculum we deepen the divide among classes, races, genders

and ethnicities. In fact, she argues that these lists communicate to certain people groups that they

are incapable of literary merit. Furthermore, we tell them they are outside the traditional human

experience (1994, p.38). She addressed this realization through having her class dissect their

experience with literature. In doing so, she pointed out the focus on white masculinity. She then

directed her students to see that there needed to be an inclusion of women and minority groups

within curriculum (1994, p.36). She hypothesizes that in adding diverse texts, students will

become engaged and passionate about literature.

Her approach to evaluating the so-called canon is certainly valid. She highlights the key

points about how certain lists can deny students the ability to connect with literature. She even

provides a clear example as to which books can discourage students as well as suggestions to

new material she would supplement in a new list. However, I have a few inquiries about her

selection of books. First and foremost, how do we determine which books to include in

curriculum and which books to eliminate? Meaning, what is an effective measure of literary

merit and how do we determine if students will be able to connect with the literature? Though a

11


seemingly base or elementary question, it opens up an investigation on how we esteem literary

merit. This exploration creates room for a list of literature that is both inclusive and enriching.

Her arguments are intriguing no doubt, and they raise key points as to our educational

prerogative. Such as, how can we make sure that each student feels welcome, accepted and

included in the learning process? Through exclusive reading lists that portray the White,

Protestant Male as dominant, students often feel disengaged and that is certainly not what we, as

educators in a modern society, aim to achieve. It would also seem that her article supports the

idea that modern American classrooms are outgrowing these archaic reading lists. It is also

important to note that this research was conducted in 1994. Since much time has passed,

definitions of a modern classroom have changed greatly. This then raises the question, what is

the modern classroom? Where is this context? Certainly her approach comes from an identifiable

voice from which we hear the echoes of the schools we teach in today.

It is important that we note the fiery and empowered voices of those who see the need for

change in the literary canon. However, we must also recognize those who desire to keep it. The

article Teaching the Classics in High School written by Anne Crout Shelley (1998),

communicates the issue in a more practical sense. She discusses that as education moves along

throughout time, curriculum becomes more and more difficult to establish. She expresses that

there are many areas in which figuring out what to teach in English has become a complex

journey (1998, p.386). As we take into account that the literature we teach must meet the diverse

needs of our student population yet also reflect an authentic and original point of view,

curriculum becomes harder to develop. With all these components and the growing complexity

of classic pieces of literature, we see a change. She notes that many teachers have abandoned the

classics in order to create a relevant and approachable curriculum (Crout 1998, p.387).

12


However, she argues that we must not throw away our copies of the classics in place for

new things. In fact, she urges us to see that (1998), “the themes of the classics are so universal,

and the books, short stories, plays, and poetry [are] so integral to a “good education”, that

keeping the canon is nonnegotiable” (p. 386). Her focus is not so much that we exclude diverse

pieces of literature, but rather a desire to preserve the classics. She acknowledges a certain

apathy that comes out of teaching the classics. She says that many teachers avoid teaching the

classics because students will resort to plot summaries rather than actually reading the text

(1998, p.386). Many teachers believe that if they teach the classics their students will read

nothing. Shelley finds this to be a completely invalid argument for not teaching the classics.

She suggests that it is our job as teachers to make these texts accessible to students.

Through her study she points out reasons why students might have difficulty with the classics.

She says that much of the trouble students have with studying the classics comes from the

language. Due to the unfamiliarity of the vocabulary and syntax students do not know how to

break texts down (1998, p.387). This mixed with the heightening need for instant gratification

that has come about with the insertion of technology, leads to passive students. She argues that

this is where we come in as teachers. Her suggestion is that teachers scaffold instruction, build

background knowledge, grow student vocabulary, read the text aloud, and extend far past text

summaries (p. 387). She provides detailed suggestions on ways that teachers can accomplish

that. Her main argument is that teachers cannot abandon these beloved works just because

students seem unwilling. We must heighten their passion while breaking the texts down to be

relatable and enticing.

There is a sense in her arguments that all students can learn the material. Her idea is that

no piece of literature is too complex or unfamiliar for students to study. It is absurd to think that

13


some students, because of their culture or ethnicity, will be unable to study a particular work. We

must show students that these stories are timeless yet also deconstruct greater meanings. Her

points about scaffolding the instruction create a safe ground where all students can connect. Her

ideas shift the focus from the works themselves, to the teacher’s ability to instruct.

This article led me to many ideas in my own research. The value for classic pieces of

literature written by the great names throughout history is certainly something that we should

aim for if we intend to ready our students for higher education. In my own experience studying

literature I felt quite unequipped without reading authors such as Dickens, Chaucer, Dante or

Austen. It was embarrassing to me that I had not read Huxley, Lawrence and Tolstoy until late in

my college career. I would agree that we cannot deprive our students the ability to study these

texts, because it leaves our students at a disadvantage. Without studying the classics, they will

remain uninformed on the journey literature has taken. We must acknowledge not all students

come into the classroom with passion, zeal and a hunger for literature. This is something that we

teachers must fire up within them. In this way, we are the catalyst, the ignition, and the spark that

sets students on the road for success. This article brings forth many great ideas and opens new

questions as to how we can do that.

What is the Canon and How Do We Decide it?

It is certainly clear that the use of the literary canon in English classrooms has sparked a

heated debate. Both sides of the argument provide crucial reasons as to why these works should

and should not be included in our educational framework. However, none of these authors

provide a clear indicator of what the canon consists of. In fact, in order to claim that a canon

exists we must first look at where the concept comes from. Earl R. Anderson and Gianfrancesco

Zanetti investigate the logical impossibility of a canon in their study (2000), Comparative

14


Semantic Approaches to the Idea of a Literary Canon. In order to disprove the possible existence

of a canon they look at four different semantic approaches. It is through their study of the

etymology, deconstruction, and connotation that they arrive at a clear definition of the canon.

Once Zanetti and Anderson illustrate their purpose and intent of the study, they call our

attention to the very root of the word ‘canon’. According to their study the word canon, “in its

figurative contexts, could refer to anything that served as a model, a rule, a norm, a guiding

principle, or a collection of principles of rules or norms” (p. 345). In other words, the canon is

meant to measure a specific context. As they search through the various ways the word canon

has been used throughout time, they find it to be a way to measure works attributed to a

particular artist or cultural experience (2000, p.345). Therefore, they conclude, we may refer to a

Shakespeare Canon or a Bach Canon because there is a specified index to which we are looking.

Through the specification of the artist or time period preceding the word canon we can identify

what the works are proving to measure or examine.

They continue to find that the word canon in and of itself is a bit too ambiguous to use

within an educational context. To say that we could create a canon for literature is so broadly

defined that it would need to be incredibly inclusive, looking more like a database or

encyclopedia (2000, p.346). Yet by very definition, creating a canon—of any sort—requires

exclusivity. If we are to create a list that represents the standard for all literature, we would need

to be selective. We cannot then create a canon with such broad terms. It is then that they

conclude a literary canon is as they refer to it (2000), “a logical impossibility” (Anderson &

Zanetti, p. 350). If we want to create a list that represents ‘literature’ we can include William

Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight on the same list, because by

definition they both constitute works of literature. However, doing so we neglect genre, time

15


period, quality, style or any other defining characteristic. They conclude that when discussing

English curriculum, we can hardly refer to it as a canon, since with such broad terminology we

may as well have a database filled with every work of literature in existence.

They follow this suggestion with a statement that is not only thought provoking but

perhaps one that should give us pause. Their study reveals that curriculum is given far too much

authority than it deserves. They indicate that (2000), “it exists only by virtue of educational

propaganda and commercial promotion, and literature is just a medium used to promote the

cultural hegemony of the dominant social class” (Anderson & Zanetti p. 352). It is with this

argument that they propose the imminent death of the literary canon as a pedagogical ideology.

Their claim is that debating the canon is just another way to distract educators from the issues

that lie within the crux of education (2000, p. 352). What is more, debating the canon creates a

place where teachers boldly define a hierarchy of races, cultures, genders and social classes.

Essentially, the debate has distracted us from larger, more important issues in teaching English.

This study leads me to a few conclusions. The first is that it is impossible to create a list

in which we define good literature. In order to create a literary canon, we would need to scan

every work created throughout history, including every culture and time period. Due to the

limitations of time and resources in a high school classroom this is, as they refer to it, a logical

impossibility. However, I am also led to investigate the idea that we can create canons for

specific genres, time periods, or cultures. We can create an American canon just as much as we

can create a Russian canon. To further this idea, we can create canons for time periods such as a

Renaissance Canon or a Modernist Canon. This more defined scope enables exclusivity in the

standard of what we read. Their study also leads me to question, how we determine good

literature. Is there a set of regulations or standards that define literature that is worthy of an

16


educational context? Lastly, we must ask ourselves when creating such canons, how can we get

as many perspectives as possible?

Donald Loewen takes a look at the canon from a more narrowed perspective, that in

many ways, answers questions raised in the previous article. In his study (2006), Twentieth-

Century Russian Literature and the North American Pedagogical Canon he specifically looks at

what happens when we try and create a canonized list of works within a specific context. His

article looks exclusively at 20th century Russian literature and the process in which an educator

must create a list of representative texts. He seems to concur with Zanetti and Anderson’s study

in the fact that there exists an infinite amount of canons, which leads his research in this study.

He begins with stating that as we study literature outside the British Anglo-Saxon/American

context new issues arise.

He starts by pointing out that in order to create a list of literature which includes texts

from other cultures we must discern translation quality. He explains that as language remains a

constantly changing entity, translations have a very short life-span (2006, p.173). Not only this

but there is the issue of availability. Though there are plenty of rich and valuable pieces of

Russian literature, there must be a way in which to retrieve it in a relevant translation as well as

one that is available for pedagogical use. His study also considers what educators tend to look for

as they pick the texts they wish to include on their syllabi. The top responses he received from

educators was: “Literary Merit”, “Availability”, and “Student Receptivity” (2006 p.179). In

essence, he found that the three elements to picking a work suitable for classroom use. The work

must first be considered a good piece of literature as denoted in the world of academia. The next

thing to consider would be translation and availability—can the educator actually retrieve the

work? Lastly, how will students respond to the literature?

17


All of his suggestions and interpretations of the study certainly aid our perspective in how

we can determine a list of books we want to use in our classroom. We must not forget that these

are terms he chooses to define only after he has created a specific context to study. With that

being said, he looks at value, resources, and potential usage (Loewen, p.174). However, in terms

of availability we may be constricted in the variety of texts we desire to use. Nonetheless this

study prompts us to determine a standard for good literature and how to teach it in a way that

students will be receptive of said literature. In many ways, as we steer away from the more

traditional list of ‘good literature’ we find ourselves wondering how we can judge a standard for

it. In order to continue with this study, we would need to find a way to determine what ‘good

literature’ consists of. Once we create our evaluative tool we can then proceed to determining

how to make the texts available to our students.

If we can adjust our thinking to loosely use and understand the word canon, we still find

ourselves in a need to create a list of works which best represents the literature we aim to teach.

John Pfordresher aims to answer this question in his study (1993), Choosing What We Teach:

Judging Value in Literature. It is in his work that he prescribes certain elements that we should

consider when determining what we teach. In fact, his study looks more at the way in which we

choose texts, rather than arguing between two sides. He creates a small checklist of things that

teachers should consider when creating the lists of texts, they wish to include on their syllabi. He

offers a perspective that we cannot continue arguing over the canon for it does not solve the

issues of which texts to study. Through his article he is able to widen the perspective on what

educators need to focus on, which is, creating enriching curriculum for modern day students.

His article begins by removing our ideologies about what we should be teaching. He

proposes that we often hope to pick literature that teaches good from bad with cookie cutter

18


ideologies and lessons (1993, p.27). However, he finds teaching literature to be quite the

opposite, he says (1993), “It’s up to saints, philosophers, political leaders, and revolutionaries to

do that. Literature works in a different way” (Pfordresher, p.27). The proposition is that literature

is called to make us question, wonder and think. We should not teach literature with happy

endings and moral lessons, but rather we ought to teach works that make students see the

brokenness of humanity. It is in those works that we stir students up with a passion and desire to

fight injustice. In fact, he also proposes that the texts we include in our classrooms do not need to

follow the rhythms of logic or reason. In fact, we should not, according to his study (1993),

expect the literature in our classroom to be accurate, truthful or realistic (Pfordresher, p. 27).

It might seem that his ideas of good literature run quite contrary to what we would

believe to be true in education today. However, there is truth to his ideas on what should and

should not be taught in English classrooms today. To start he suggests that we look for literature

that explores the very human experience through emotion, intuitions and exploration (1993, 27).

It is not so much that the literature should describe human experience, but rather take readers

into the experience. The next thing he uncovers is the very importance of picking literature that

uses language to evoke a response from the reader (1993 p.28). There should, he believes, be a

quality to the writing that creates feelings and emotions. What is more, literature should display

how we can use language to create experience, these works must use language to create higher

meanings and understandings. The last thing he includes in his checklist, is the need to study

literature comparatively. We cannot, as teachers, model a piece of literature by itself, but rather

we must pose it against other works for further investigation (1993, p.28). It is through

comparative study that students can create and form educated and widened perspectives.

19


This article sheds light on a variety of many different issues. First, is that the debate of

the canon is a losing battle. There is no success in eliminating all works of the canon yet there is

no sense in keeping all of them either. His article raises the idea that we simply need to develop a

standard for judging the literature we include in our classrooms. The method he proposes looks

to choose works of literature that cause students to think and to question. We cannot therefore,

simply choose a list full of literature filled with subliminal moralism or overt ideologies. The

works we pick may be filled with complex characters, twisted plots and grey perspectives. They

should provoke discussion and debate while striking the very chord of human emotion that we

long for in an age branded by silver screens.

Through his research we can see the need for students to be the ones questioning. It is for

this reason that eliminating all works from the canon would be unwise. Students need to look at

literature that makes them challenge the authority of tradition. It is only by reading traditional

works that we can question them. However, it is only through including diverse works that we

are able to comparatively analyze perspectives. I found this research helpful in that it gives

teachers a clear indicator of what we should look for as we investigate what to teach in schools.

In the realm of curriculum development, as we search for ways to create higher level thinking

students, we must include texts that allow for it. Including simplistic texts with clear morals and

situations may not be the best way to do that. These novels should be deeper and grounded in

complex issues. As students grapple with the texts they will begin to formulate their own

opinions and perspectives on life and the human experience. It would also seem to me that

including traditional works in the modern context would create students who question and

dissect.

20


The article also caused me to question whether excluding these traditional works is more

harmful for students. If we do not include these texts, will students lose appreciation for the

rights that certain individuals now have? If they cannot see the scope of how humanity has

changed throughout history, will there be a desire for further growth? It is almost through the

investigation of ancient texts and canon literature that we can see the grand scope of human

history. His list of checkpoints certainly helps direct our attention to the reasons why we teach

what we teach. In fact, it draws us to question how we can include new perspectives on

traditional pieces of literature.

Creating Students Who Care

In many ways, making executive decisions to eliminate traditional works from syllabi

further discriminates students. A study called, Reforming the Literary Canon by Teaching It

(1996) explores this idea further by discussing the ways in which removing the canon can be

detrimental to students. Weidauer, proposes this by looking at the debate from a collegiate

perspective, he argues that in order to make reformation of the canon possible, we must teach

students about it (1996, p.2). He suggests that traditional texts must be taught against the grain

while also introducing texts from different perspectives. However, he writes from the perspective

that perhaps we have been so distracted by the canon debate that we have missed a crucial

element to our desire to reform the canon.

In fact, he illustrates in his study that there is a unique paradox to curriculum reform. He

explains that the very nature of education at the higher levels seeks to create exclusivity from an

academic perspective—the learned against the unlearned (Weidaur 1996, p.6). It is interesting

then, that we can decide to reform the canon without students ever knowing why book lists have

changed. As we continue to eliminate books from reading lists, students remain unaware as to

21


why the books are being removed in the first place. He suggests (1996), “we have to teach the

debate about the canon at the same time at which we are changing it” (Weidaur, p.7). The article

speaks to the idea that we cannot rely solely on the texts as a way to inform students of the issues

from both sides of the debate. He proposes that the importance lies in emphasizing what that the

debate over the canon represents a certain withholding of cultural capital.

The study discusses that by nature the word canon refers to a way to measure something.

He explains that the way the canon was traditionally used in past education systems leads us to

believe that perhaps it is the way we teach that ought to be reformed, not the what (1996, p.8).

He provides insight into the idea that we do not pick texts because they teach a set of values but

rather we read in such a way that value can be extracted (1998, p.10). His suggestion for an

approach is that we teach these texts using literary criticism, a method used to study literature at

a collegiate perspective. As he goes through the different ways in which literary criticism can be

used to extract meaning he sheds light on a very important argument. He suggests that to not

teach the canon would be a deprivation of their academic rights. He goes so far to say that

(1996), “We would thus perpetuate the prejudices of literary study, the distinction between

complex and accessible texts, between high and low culture, and the hierarchies of genres”

(Weidaur, p.12). He ends the article by explaining that to study literature, is an “exclusive

activity” by its very nature. As we educate students we need to focus more on giving them the

tools to critique and analyze literature so that no matter what text they come across they can

make their own assertions about it.

His perspective is not only helpful, but a rather crucial one as we further investigate how

we can make texts accessible to students. As research indicates previously, the idea of a canon is

certainly necessary when looking at literature from an educational perspective (Anderson &

22


Zanetti, 2000). However, the radical notions to rid our book lists of anything considered

canonized would be an injustice to the education of our future generations. Rather we must

explore ways in which we can open student perspective so that they can investigate literature

creating their own values and interpretations. His suggestion of teaching literary criticism is quite

thought provoking as we consider teaching the canon against the grain.

I would for my own research consider how we can include literary criticism within the

modern high school English classroom. In doing so, we shape the minds of students to think

critically, read for understanding, and engage higher order thinking skills. This is, in my opinion,

of the most value. For once our students enter the world they will not be granted filters or

inclusion, students will face the realities of the many perspectives existing in the world. To teach

them how to uncover these perspectives and create meaning out of them on their own creates

students ready for the modern world. I would further argue that neglecting to teach students the

ways in which we read critically only deprives and diminishes their esteems in the academic

context.

To further the analysis of how we can effectively teach the classics, we can turn to a

study conducted by Lisa Schade (1996). Schade sheds light on how we as educators can apply

literary criticism in our classrooms to benefit the experience of teaching canonized literature. In

her article, Demystifying the Text: Literary Criticism in the High School Classroom (1996)

Schade decides to teach her World Literature seniors how critics determine a work worthy of

literary merit. Her perspective is that we can give students tools to judge works on their own.

Through her study she discusses five different schools of criticism in-depth and how her students

responded to using them. The schools of criticism she looks at are; philosophical, biographical,

reader response, structuralism, and archetypal (1996, p.26).

23


Through her study she determines that the five different schools she first explored in her

classroom were helpful yet not a prescription. She believes that in order to truly educate students

on how to read literature critically we need to know our students. This is why she chooses to

teach different criticisms each year (1996, p.30). Through knowing her students, she can

determine what school will work for them. She does this by learning their different abilities and

interests and having them investigate through different lenses seeing what is comfortable for

them.

She provides a bit of a framework for how she teaches literary criticism within her

classroom. She begins by introducing the theory and practicing it with her students. She notes the

importance of testing for comprehension during this process to make sure students are

understanding how to use it. She also discusses the importance of having students work together

in groups to use a particular school of criticism on a shorter work. For larger works she explains

that she will often split the class up and ask them to read the text through different schools of

thought. She will then have students debate the novel through these lenses. She notes that by the

end of the semester she can have students choose which school of thought best works for them

and that they find most comfortable to use (Schade, 1996). Not only does she let students have

choice in what lens they use but she also allows time in class for experimentation of different

schools. She also comments that during this process she wants students to discern strengths and

weaknesses for each approach. She leaves this study by explaining (1996), “Criticism adds

another level to our literary study and gives the students added insight” (Schade, p.31). In other

words, through using criticism, students can see and experience literature more clearly. In fact, it

gives them authority to make assertions and interpretations.

24


Her study certainly steps away from the heat of the debate long enough to address a

practical way to create an environment where students can learn. Her suggestions stem from the

idea that we can indeed teach the classics it is just the way in which we teach them that must

change. Her goal is not focused on changing the curriculum but rather changing her instruction.

There is no doubt that this approach has longer lasting effects on student development. Her

research suggests that through teaching students the way to critically look at literature, students

can read any text at any point. It is clear that her suggestions are valid through her clear

experimentation in her own classroom. Not only that, but her instruction enables her to

differentiate among every student. It steers away from the one size fits all model that modern

classrooms are trying to avoid. In fact, teaching criticism is a way to equip every student with the

tools to succeed.

I would like to add that this method of instruction is far more beneficial for college-

bound students. We as educators of secondary education must take into account the vast range of

possibilities our students will encounter as they enter their post-education world. Students may

choose to enter the work-force immediately upon graduating, or they may choose to attend an

Ivy League university. Not to mention the students that will choose to enlist in the military, or

enroll in state colleges, private universities or community colleges. We need to equip our

students with skills that far surpass basic retention of Young Adult Fiction. Our pedagogy should

focus on giving each student the ability to take information and process it in such a way that it

positively affects society. This is exactly why our focus must be on how we teach our students

not what. Therefore, it would seem that we can positively impact our classrooms by selecting

books based on literary merit and then equipping students with the necessary tools to interact

25


with the texts. This may look like applying literary criticism to works found from ancient

cultures or reading our so called classics against the grain.

Kenneth Lindblom, a High School English teacher, gives us a first hand look at how he

taught classic pieces of literature against the grain (2005). His article, Teaching English in the

World (2005), describes his experience trying to teach Homer’s Iliad to a class of World

Literature students. It was one day that he entered his classroom filled with unengaged readers

and was honest with his students. He asked them why they seemed not to care about the material.

The answers the students gave were not anything novel or distinctive to what other teachers have

experienced. Answers such as, “it is foreign”, “these things do not matter anymore”, or “it is

boring”, seemed to circle his classroom (2005, p. 82). However, he fought to find a reason for

why his students should be reading the work. When a student asked him why they ought to sit

through a monotonous tale of ancient warriors, the only response he could find was that it was a

part of the canon (p.82).

It was through this experience and his inability to answer the student, that he found a

reason why. Perhaps it was not the literature itself that spoke life into students. In fact, maybe it

was as dead and dusty as those who wrote it. Yet this did not mean they could not study it. He

taught the students how to engage with the text despite whether they liked it or not. He chose to

have his students look for reasons why this piece of literature should not be included in the

canon. He remarked (2005), “I had discovered a way to get students engaged with Homer’s

ancient epic” (Lindblom, p.83). He found that students were reading against the text, a skill that

some do not develop until they study literature in college. They were able to uncover ideologies

and assumptions. In fact, they themselves were able to define that the canon itself was (2005), “a

manifestation of hegemonic power structures” (Lindbolm, p.84). He discovered his students

26


could understand these texts, and this study is certainly proof that they can do much more than

that.

Perhaps this article does more to show how we ought to instruct literature, rather than

what we are to teach. The students did not need to read a text that was so overtly diverse that

they sat passively reading and understanding. In fact, the students engaged with an incredibly

controversial text. They read an epic written in the ancient days of Greece that idealized war,

misogyny, and sexism. Though the students read something so incredibly perverse to what

educators are hoping to teach, these students were able to find larger meanings. They were able

to break the text down in a way that they never could have done so if blatantly provided for

them. In fact, is it not in the face of injustice that we push the need for change? Is it not when

things are corrupt that we fight for justice? It is when we are pushed against that we build a

passion for what is right. This article seems to communicate that in order to equip our students

for the battle of life which is faced with persecution, injustices, and corruption we must make

them grapple with it in the context of literature. In a sense, we must stir up the desire to fight for

what is right. This article shows that through allowing students to engage with traditional texts,

they can create powerful assertions and interpretations.

27


CHAPTER THREE

Methodology

Research Question

Should we teach the literary canon in American High Schools?

Hypothesis

In order to successfully teach English to students in High School classrooms, we must

reshape the curriculum. The two curriculum perspectives we have seen in the past are a first a

sole reliance on the literary canon, and second is the complete disregard of one. My hypothesis is

that in order to successfully teach high school students English we must reshape the canon and

reform our teaching. We must create a set of mini-caons that represent the periods of literature.

Through these mini-canons, we will be able to include a more diverse curriculum while still

clinging to tradition and merit. We will also couple this new set of texts with literary criticism so

that students can engage with any text they are faced with. In modifying what we teach and

reforming how we teach students will become successful learners.

Participants:

The participants of this study will be selected from a middle-class high school in New

Jersey. My reasoning for choosing middle class is so that extreme elements of socioeconomics,

affluence, and parent support will not affect student performance. While there is no way to

completely deduct these elements in students lives I have chosen to minimize them as much as

possible. Our participants will be chosen from the 10th grade only so that we can track the

progress of these students through grades 10, 11 and 12. 9th grade has not been included in this

experiment as to alleviate the effects of stressors experienced during the first year of high school.

28


Out of the population of tenth graders we will choose 75 students. While this may be

considered a small sample of students it will be easier to track student success in the new

curriculum. More specifically the 75 students will be split amongst three English classes, taught

by three separate English teachers. The English teachers will be asked to teach one 10th grade

English class of the old curriculum and one with the experimental. My reasoning for this is so

that in three different scenarios we can compare the success of students in the old and students in

the new curriculum. In order to compensate teachers for the extra material they will need to

teach, they will be given an extra prep period. Each class must be considered diverse in abilities,

ethnicities, races and genders.

Method:

The students will be studied over the course of three years. The study will look at student

academic achievement in the 10th, 11th and 12th grade. In the model of the new curriculum

students will study the selection of traditions, genres and topics assigned for each grade level. In

the model of the old curriculum students will study the thematic units traditionally taught for

their grade level. We will track the academic success of these students in a variety of ways. Each

grade level will have specific benchmark requirements and each year students will be assessed in

three areas. Each year students will be assessed in their ability to critically assess situations,

analyze a piece of literature, and engage thoughtfully in interpersonal discussion. The key

assignments will assess these three areas with the specified qualities for each grade level. The

assessments will not differ between classes, therefore students using old curriculum and new

curriculum will be assessed in the same exact way. Students will also be given a survey at the

end of each year to self-assess and to evaluate instructional methods.

The assessments will be as follows:

29


10th grade students:

Critical Thinking Skills: Author’s Intent

In this assessment students will use one core text studied throughout the year

and be asked to develop a short thesis interpretation of the author’s intent. This

will be guided and not a formal written assignment. Students will be given a

graphic organizer that has prompts and guiding questions. The students will use a

form of literary criticism: sociological criticism will most likely be the one that

best aids students in this process.

Literary Analysis: Close Reading Activity

For a close reading students will be given an excerpt of a particular passage

from a core text used in class. The students will be asked to closely read the text

and discuss any words that show significant meaning. After they have discussed

the words (being sure to reference literary devices, denotative and connotative

meaning, etc.), the students will move onto the overall meaning of the passage.

This is not a summary, but rather an exploration of significance and perspective.

Through this investigation they will also look at how this particular passage

relates to the text as a whole. This will be done in a written passage.

Interpersonal Communication of Thought: Fish Bowl

This assessment will look at students’ ability to develop original thought as

well as their ability to communicate. Students will be split up into two groups, one

group will sit inside the circle and the other group will sit outside the circle. The

group inside the circle will participate in guided discussion, with one facilitator—

the teacher who will have the questions. The outside circle will be responsible for

30


recording an observation for those within the circle. The groups will switch and

repeat the process again. After students have recorded discussion points for their

corresponding fishbowl member students will write a short evaluation of how the

group member did. The evaluation will be a short written piece expanding upon

any thoughts provided in discussion and raising questions when needed.


Critical Thinking Skills: Character Diaries

Students will be asked to keep a diary on a character throughout the course of

reading a core text during the year. The students will pick one lens of literary

criticism and write the diary entries from the chosen character’s perspective using

the lens. The diary entries will run parallel to events that actually occur in the

literary work, however thoughts must be originally interpreted based on

contextual evidence, justified by the lens.

Literary Analysis: Analytic Essay

Using skills developed in the first year of the study (identifying literary devices

and critical lenses), students will write a paper on one core text from an analytic

perspective. Students will respond to a higher order thinking question about the

novel using a chosen lens of literary criticism. The students will be sure to include

analysis of denotative and connotative meaning as well as literary devices. The

paper will be a minimum of five pages.

Interpersonal Communication of Thought: Socratic Seminar

Students will create their own higher order thinking questions in response to a

core text. The students will come to class prepared with a write up discussion of

31


these questions and a list of these questions. Students facilitate the discussion on

their own with little to no help from their instructor. The instructor will evaluate

each student based on their ability to listen thoughtfully to peers, respond

appropriately to their peers and raise original and thought provoking questions.


Critical Thinking Skills: Evaluating for Literary Merit

At this point in the study students will need to be assessed on their ability to

determine whether a text has literary merit. This will involve students creating

their own means to evaluate a work and then respond to it. The evaluation must

measure credibility, accuracy, literary technique. The students will evaluate the

core text and then write a summarized response justifying the evaluation. Students

must provide one resource that aided them in the developing of their evaluation.

Literary Analysis: Comparative Analysis Essay

Students will write an essay comparing two core works taught in the semester.

Students will be asked to respond to a higher order thinking question that needs a

dual-text comparison. They will choose a lens of criticism and write a paper (a

minimum of 8 pages) responding to the question. Students must provide three

academic resources that aided them in the developing of their position.

Interpersonal Communication of Thought: Debate

Students will be split into two teams. The students will be asked a higher order

thinking question about the given text and be assigned a side of the question to

defend. Each team will then be given a different lens of literary criticism to use

32


while defending their side of the argument. The students will each be responsible

for developing their case of the argument as well as points that respond to the

other side of the argument. Students will be evaluated by the instructor based on

how they defend their point, respond thoughtfully to the other side of the

argument, and work collaboratively.

Students will be given these types of assessments throughout the year, however there will

be an official trio of each assessment that will take place during the last month of the school

year. This set of assessments will count towards student’s final grades for the year as well as

provide a benchmark for research on the study. In using three methods of evaluation we will

measure students’ abilities in different areas displayed through different means. These three

evaluation tools ask students to use higher order thinking skills which is the desired result of this

study. It will be through these assessments that we measure student success in the new

curriculum. We will compare the rate of student success in the new curriculum versus the old.

Materials:

In order to perform this study, we would need the following materials. First we would

need a set number of text for each grade level that key assessments would be based off of. There

must be enough books that every student can use to accomplish the tasks asked of them. Each

class must have the same technological resources so that all classes have the same opportunities.

The classrooms must have adequate space for the students (such as desks and chairs for every

student). Parental consent must be given from every student under 18 years old to participate in

the study. Students will also be given a rubric for each assessment as well as a task sheet. These

will look exactly the same for those who are modeling old curriculum and new. There must also

be a self-evaluation survey for each student in the study.

33


There must be three separate instructors who are all given a version of the new

curriculum model as well as the old. The instructors all must be given the same guidelines for

assessment, so that all students are given the same thing. Teachers must be provided with time in

order to prepare the assessments and plan instruction. Teachers will all be given an extra prep-

period to specifically work on study-related preparation.

Procedure:

The study will begin by looking at sophomore students. The three instructors will each

have two English classes for the given grade level, which will be denoted by English 10-A and

English 10-B. English 10-A will represent the students who are using the old curriculum with the

new assessment method, while English 10-B will be the students selected from the 75-student

sample that are using the new curriculum with the new assessment method. It is important to

remember that the goal of this study is to show that with canonized curriculum integrated with

new methods of teaching said English curriculum students will become more successful learners

and thinkers. The goal is to steer away from categorizing literature classes by region, which

alienates, segregates some regions and exalts and glorifies others, but rather create lists of

literature that represents the most academically esteemed in a particular period of similar writing.

With that being said the first year of the study students will study Modern English. The

reason for this is because it is the most relatable period and depicts many themes which will

stimulate the development of who they are as thinkers and individuals. While we use the term

Modern English, we must specify that this is loose terminology. In the 10th grade English

curriculum students will read novels that cover the following periods: The Romantic Period, the

Victorian period, the Modern period and the Postmodern period. There will be a specified list

provided that includes authors of different cultures, perspectives, genders and races.

34


Teachers will be required to instruct students in three areas for the new curriculum

(English 10-B). The first is teachers must understand that they are responsible for teaching

students’ characteristics and patterns of each literary period. The hope is that students will be

able to read any text and identify which period it was from because of its characteristics. The

second thing teachers must include in their instruction is specific themes that arise out of each

novel and literary period. This ensures that students will learn about coming of age, the human

struggle, friendship, good v. evil, etc. Some themes will be more present in certain time periods

and teachers must be sure to explain why. The third aspect that teachers are responsible for

teaching in the new curriculum are specific lenses of literary criticism. They will need to

introduce, scaffold, and assess students on critical lenses in order for students to have the tools to

investigate literature from different perspectives. This allows our students to look at feminist

perspective, race theory, LGBTQ+, structuralism, deconstruction and many other thinking styles.

All of these things can be taught to the teachers unique teaching style and presented in a way that

meets the needs of the class. For the English 10-A students who are still using the old curriculum

they will continue to read the selected book list and study themes in the way they had prior to the

study.

For the 10th grade English class students will study these things in a modern context,

surveying romanticism, Victorian age, modernism and postmodernism. As the students move to

11th grade they will survey the middle period of literature which will study the Medieval period,

the Renaissance and Reformation, as well as the Enlightenment. In choosing this period for

student’s 11th grade year the hope is that they will get an in depth look at the English language

which will prepare them for pre-college testing. In the student’s senior year, they will study the

classical era which span a variety of cultures through dramas, epics, and myths written up until

35


about 500 CE. In doing the classical period in 12th Grade English, students will be the most

prepared to read these difficult texts and it will prepare students to question and investigate

difficult topics prior to entering college.

Each year students will have the opportunity to pick a piece of literature from the various

periods studied that year and conduct their own investigation using literary criticism. This is to

ensure that all students get an opportunity to study an author or culture they feel strongly inclined

to. While these students in group B follow this structure, students in group A will read literature

from the diversified curriculum lists used previously in the district. Typically, these lists include

many American authors from different cultures, genders and races, a random work considered to

be classic such as The Odyssey, and a Shakespeare play. In order to determine which curriculum

design was more useful we will give both students in group A and group B the trio-assessment

indicated in the above sections. Students will also respond to a self-reflective survey that

explores how successful they feel at the end of the school year.

Conclusions:

Once we have taken and processed the data from the study we can begin taking the next

steps to further implementation. If the results of the trio-assessment prove to be higher from

students in group B we will slowly integrate the new curriculum into the entire school. We will

start with the incoming 9th grade students and work by changing curriculum as they move

through each grade level. In their ninth grade year they will read a survey of literature that

touches each different period—these will most likely be the texts that have been over glamorized

such as Romeo and Juliet, The Odyssey and The Catcher in the Rye. Once that group of students

moves to 10th grade they will follow the curriculum that group B had used in the study.

36


With this new curriculum, students will become more active thinkers and readers. They

will be educated in a way that displays academic excellence in genre, period and theme. It will

prepare them for college, work, and life more effectively. This will also prepare them to actively

respond to literature from an educated perspective. With that being said, the curriculum must be

reviewed every three years in order to make sure that texts are still considered academically

relevant. Educators must also consistently teach critical lenses as they provide the ability to

interpret literature.

If group A—students of the old curriculum—had scored higher consistently we may want

to consider a few adjustments. We might want to look at the representative sample and adjust

between each group. We may want to look at providing choice in what periods of literature

students study. Teachers may also consider focusing less on the periods of literature and more on

the literary criticism. Further studies may reveal the need to split courses up by genre or region.

This may be limited to time and space within a high school. Another important element to

explore in further studies would be how students respond to the new curriculum in urban schools

v. rural. We can also explore how socioeconomic status affects student success with the new

curriculum model. The hope would be that this curriculum model would give each student

regardless of class or status the tools they need for success.

Expected Results:

The ultimate hope of this curriculum reform is to open the perspectives of students to see

beyond what they have been exposed to previously. My intention with this reform is to give

students an opportunity to study literature from a unique standpoint. The end goal of teaching

with this curriculum is that students would be equipped with all the necessary tools and

understandings to go out into further endeavors. With this reform I expect that students will

37


become more confident readers. Through the education of literary criticism students will be able

to read works of literature without fear and reservation. Student participation and involvement in

class will increase, as students begin to have the academic confidence they need for success. We

will see these improvements through the trifold assessment guide that teachers will implement.

Students will display academic responses and engage in thoughtful conversation. We will see

student test scores improve as well as student readiness for college. Overall I expect to see more

positive attitudes from teachers and students with an increased rate of student success.

38


CHAPTER FOUR

Conclusion

The debate over the literary canon and whether or not we should include it in our

curriculum has come to a standstill. As we explore the opposing sides of the debate we see that

there are crucial elements to both. In one regard, we must hold dear the essence of classic

literature esteeming some works highly influential. Yet in our attempts to create booklists that

fixate on these “classical” pieces of literature—we find a certain segregation unfolds. The canon

of literature portrays a certainly narrowed perspective, as most of the authors are white males.

Students then become byproducts of an education system that tells them they are not worthy of

academic esteem unless they fit a particular mold. This provokes the other side of the argument

that we must diversify our book list with texts from other cultures, races, and genders. However,

these works cannot merely be from an Americanized perspective, they must be authentic. While

this goal is no doubt a noble one, it is incredibly impossible.

As the debate on the literary canon unfolds we find that canon itself is a complex

structure that cannot be so easily debated. As we break down our understanding of a canon we

find that it is logically impossible. The idea that we can create a list that determines all things

worthy of representing literature is highly insurmountable. To use a word such as, canon, is

broad and indefinite. In fact, there are propositions that even if we are to break into several mini-

canons we still face the issue of how to be totally inclusive while remaining academically

exclusive. There are certain elements we must take into account such as accessibility to

translations and texts, which is certainly evident in public school systems. This affirms a need to

create a system in which we do judge literature making academic selections, and it seems that

one has finally surfaced.

39


We can further see that we need to create selections that stir up questions and academic

reflections. The pieces of literature we include in our classroom must challenge our students, not

necessarily teach them moralistic depictions of the world. In fact, studies reveal that it is up to us

as the educator to facilitate and create an environment and experience with the literature that

cultivates student discovery. This being said, we can open up our exploration of English

curriculum to not only focus on what we teach, but how we teach. When we stop arguing over

the literature we teach and start teaching students how to engage with literature on their own,

they become vessels of academic integrity. Ways we can equip our students in this are through

educating them on the different lenses of criticism as well as teaching against the grain reading

tactics. This development in our English curriculum allows us to prepare our students for a world

where they can create their own understandings and interpretations. Our goal as educators should

not be to simply give our students a really great booklist, but rather to teach our students that no

matter what they read they have the ability to create educated understandings that positively

impact the world they live in.

In order to achieve this goal, we must create a curriculum that meets the many different

points we discussed thus far. This includes determining which periods of literature students

should be familiar with and which authors best represent these periods. While we can create

these book lists through our own academic interpretation we must also allow the ability for

students to study a work that they believe is influential to the period being studied. Once a book

list has been created we can focus on the ways we educate students. Our main focus should be on

giving students enough information on each literary period that they are able to identify a work

and where it comes from on their own. The next thing we should focus on in giving our students

literary criticism tools that can help them study the work. This will also require that we develop

40


ways in which we assess the students progress through writing, speaking and communicating

with others.

This change in curriculum will positively grow students in a way that enables them to be

academically successful. It builds student skill sets so that no matter what background the

student comes from they will be able to appropriately study literature. This is the most effective

and successful way to adjust English curriculum because it allows for schools to make adequate

decisions on which works best fit a particular canon of literature representative of a particular

period. It focuses on ways that teachers can best educate students in their ability to study

literature which will inevitably make them more successful in college, the workforce and life.

Though this study reviews a way to give students a comprehensive look at literature as well as

the key tools used in the literary world, there are certainly still some places for further research.

Given the extreme reliance on testing further research may want to explore how this new

curriculum would affect students testing. I would hypothesize that this new method of teaching

literature would prepare students to be able to take these standardized tests. Surveys could also

investigate how students were prepared for college and other post-education experiences. I also

think that further research would see an increase in student motivation and desire to learn. My

belief is that with this change in education we will be able to see a more positive outcome from

the student population.

41


References

Anderson, E.R., Zanetti, G. (2000). Comparative Semantic Approaches to the Idea of a LiteraryCanon. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58(4), 341-360. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/432180

Greenbaum, V. (1994). Expanding the Canon: Shaping Inclusive Reading Lists. The EnglishJournal, 83(8), 36-39. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/820331

Kouritzin, S.G. (2004). The British Columbia Literature 12 Curriculum and I: A Soliloquy.Curriculum Inquiry, 34(2), 185-212. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3202199

Lindblom, K. (2005). Teaching English in the World: Reversing the Decline of Literary Reading.The English Journal, 94(3), 81-84. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30046425

Loewen, D. (2006). Twentieth Cetnury Russian Literature and the Northern Pedagogical Canon.The Slavic and East European Journal, 50(1), 172-186. Retireved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20459241

Pfordresher, J. (1993). Choosing What We Teach: Judging Value in Literature. The EnglishJournal, 82(5), 27-29. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/820809

Schade, L. (1996). Demystifying the Text: Literary Criticism in the High School Classroom. TheEnglish Journal. 85(3), 26-31. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/820099

Shelley, A.C. (1998). Teaching the Classics in High School. Journal of Adolescent & AdultLiteracy, 41(5), 386-389. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost

Weidauer, F. (1996). Reforming the Literary Criticism by Teaching It. American Council on theTeaching of Foreign Languages. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ehost/

42


This is to certify that:

Christina Sciacca Has completed the following CITI Program course:

Graduate/Undergraduate Students Required to take for Class - Basic/Refresher

Graduate/Undergraduate Students Required to take for Class - Basic/Refresher

1 - Basic Course

Under requirements set by:

Fairleigh Dickinson University

(Curriculum Group)

(Course Learner Group)

(Stage)

Completion Date Expiration Date Report ID

16-Dec-2016 16-Dec-2019 21690031

Verify at www.citiprogram.org/verify/?w7ce32a15-a4be-4ec6-9c83-8a8774fd71b5-21690031

43

Documents

christinasciacca.weebly.com€¦ · Web viewBREAKING DOWN THE CANON DEBATE: EXAMINING LITERARY CRITICISM AS THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH CURRICULUM. BY. Christina M. Sciacca. Mentor