RUNNING HEAD: A Critique on “Literature in the ESL Classroom” 1

Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

A Critique on “Literature in the ESL Classroom”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano Tuesday, May 4, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso Post 164

As Long (1986) has put it, “the teaching of literature has lacked a consistent

methodology for presentation to non-native speakers.” And many teachers have opposed

to the teaching of literature since it does little to help students internalize grammar,

develop their “academic and/or occupational goals,” and comprehend “cultural

perspectives” (McKay, 1986). This is a short-sighted attitude towards literature, and this

mindset must be changed to profit from the use of literary texts in the classroom.

McKay (1986) states the fact that literature has two levels that can be exploited in

class: level of use and level of usage. For her, literature has mainly been used to develop

student “language usage” (grammar) instead of utilizing it for “language use”

(pragmatics). “Literature is ideal for developing an awareness of language use” (McKay,

1986). Academically and occupationally speaking, literature can be used to boost

“reading proficiency.” And literature can promote “a greater tolerance for cultural

differences” (McKay, 1986). As Long (1986) suggests, the teaching of literature should

be a multi-directional mode of presentation, where students practice “verbal” and

“creative” responses while they interact with the text aesthetically and not in an efferent

manner (McKay, 1986).

A Critique on “Literature in the ESL Classroom” 2

Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

McKay (1986) makes a good point in mentioning what needs to be done to achieve

success in the use of literature in the classroom. On the one hand, she points out the fact

that literary works need to be carefully chosen, and not at random. Additionally, the author

identifies an important distinction that needs to be done to use a literary piece in class; it

needs to be used aesthetically (student-text interaction) and not in an efferent manner

(just to gain information, or as stated by Long (1986), as cases of “text(s)-as-object”). The

one main problem with McKay’s approach is that she envisions this in an ESL classroom,

and no mention to EFL learning settings are mentioned or even tested.

It cannot be claimed that literature has no room in ELT; it can be practically

incorporated within the school curricula. If student motivation can be triggered, reading in

English can be an end in itself. Literature can be used to illustrate how language is used

and how cultural assumptions can be made. Its success profoundly depends on a careful

selection of literary pieces, on using an aesthetic approach instead of an efferent one.

With all these in mind, and as Long (1986) suggests, there must be a shift on the focus:

“The whole emphasis” of teaching literature must be “on the learning rather than the

teaching.” For all these reason, “literature does indeed have a place in the ESL[/EFL]

curriculum” (McKay, 1986).

Long, M. (1986). A Feeling for Language: The multiple values of teaching literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP. McKay, S. (1986). Literature in the ESL Classroom. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP.