Literature deserves a place in schools

Literature deserves a place in schools

By A. Chaedar Alwasilah

BANDUNG (JP): Poet and playwright Taufiq Ismail is often
quoted calling for a revival of the proper teaching of literature
and writing in schools. In his estimation, Indonesian high school
students' literary skills lag far behind their peers in 13
foreign countries, where students are required to read and
discuss from five to 32 literary works per year -- a situation
long absent from our school system (Kompas, June 1, 1999).

His is not a new concern. Underlying it is the conviction that
literature is an effective vehicle for promoting intelligence,
virtue, morality and wisdom. History tells us that developed and
industrialized countries, such as Britain, the United States,
France and Germany, have long established literature as an
inseparable part of character and nation-building. When the
present education system has failed to enlighten our youth with
moral and religious values, literature should be viewed as an
alternative.

In the last two national congresses on languages in 1993 and
1998, strong recommendations were made on repositioning
literature in schools. However, as everybody agrees, next to
nothing has been done. This suggests that teaching literature is
not simple, but it necessitates thoughtful and reasoned
consideration. Any proposed solution should address four major
related aspects -- literature, writing, culture and curricular
policy.

Literature, as referred to above, is a particular mode of
experience represented by text following an established literary
standard. It evokes a particular kind of relation between reader
and text. Therefore, it requires a particular kind of reading
process. Marah Rusli's Siti Nurbaya, for example, represents the
author's experiences: cognitive, affective and psychomotoric.
Those experiences in the form of a narrative history are found
not only in this novel, but also in other forms of writing such
as scientific and historical accounts, and social life in
general.

A prevalent and yet faulty attitude among students and people
in general is: Why should you bother to read novels, short
stories, poems and plays when you can find, learn and engage in
those experiences in general writings? One of the frustrating
jobs faced by teachers is to convert this nonliterary attitude to
the literary one, and to provide students with literary reading
skills.

Another erroneous attitude is to take literature for granted
and leave its teaching to any teacher. In many schools, it falls
to the bungling hands of unprofessional teachers. Indeed, our
school system is characterized by such professional mismatches.

From the outset, it is essential to approach literature as the
best pieces of writing containing the people's values, thoughts,
problems and conflicts -- in short, the whole way of life.
Roughly speaking, literature is something worth saying and
something well said. Literature is a monumental element of a
people's culture. Thus, learning literature is part of
understanding one's own culture. It stands to reason that
wherever there is education, there is the study of literature.

Literature is to be read in a well-prepared manner of reading
socially as well as psychologically. Socially and culturally,
readers should develop an attitude that reading literature
enhances understanding of problems faced by humankind.
Psychologically, they must be prepared to adopt an aesthetic
stance toward the literary piece. It is not just reading, but an
aesthetic reading.

Aesthetic reading presupposes nonaesthetic reading and
consists of reading with attention to what readers are
experiencing, thinking and feeling. These psychological aesthetic
efforts are motivated by textual features such as sound, rhythm,
metaphors, similes, associations and choice of diction. Simply
put, teaching how to appreciate literature is to enable readers
to experience, think and feel the rich nuances generated by text.

The opposite of aesthetic reading is efferent (from the Latin
for "carry away") reading, namely, nonliterary reading where
aesthetic aspects of a text is carried away. Unskilled readers
use the strategies commonly used for reading nonliterary texts
such as textbooks, magazines and newspapers. In such poor
readers, aesthetic awareness is hardly developed and,
accordingly, they do not value literary works. In other words, to
teach literature correctly is to emphasize the aesthetic and to
deemphasize the efferent.

Given all the arguments above, should teaching literature be a
difficult endeavor?

Here are suggestions for improving the teaching of literature
in schools:

* Literature should be taught by professional teachers equipped
with competency in literary attitude, literary reading skills and
literary teaching skills. Literary attitude is evident among
others in the number of literary works read, written and
discussed in literature circles in the school and beyond.
Literary reading skills comprise reading for aesthetic purposes
and enjoyment. Recalling structural aspects of fiction such as
characters, settings, themes and plots -- which is a common
exercise in schools -- is by no means a literary activity; thus
carrying away the aesthetic dimension of literature. Literary
teaching skills are skills of creating literary engagements for
aesthetic appreciation, which is emotionally pervasive through
reader's experiencing, thinking and feeling.

* Literature should be thought of as literary evocation. The
poet, novelist and playwright, like other writers, wish to
interact with readers. In consonance with the literary attitude
are transactional views of reading, suggesting a personally,
emotionally and intellectually active role for the reader.
Louise Rosenblatt (1985) has called the literary evocation "the
process in which the reader selects out ideas, sensation,
feelings and images drawn from his past linguistic, literary and
life experience, and synthesizes them into a new experience".

The implication is that teachers should empower students as
readers to snapshot any part of the literary work for aesthetic
enjoyment. As a personal act, literary evocation offers readers
freedom to interpret literary works to the best of their
aesthetic justification. True-false or objective types of tests
-- commonly practiced in the national test of Indonesian -- is
indeed an antithesis to the principle of literary teaching.

* Literacy circles are media not only for learning literature,
but learning in general. Freedom in literary appreciation affirms
individualized ways of responding to literature. Often, students
zero in specifically on the feelings which were called forth
during reading. In literacy circles, these feelings are related
to their personal experiences and those of others. Such
collaborative engagements promote enriched, focused and refined
interpretations of literary works. Thus presented, literature
enhances students verbal skills and, to a great extent, freedom
of speech and democracy.

* The teaching of literature has been associated with the
development of learner's writing skills. Many believe that
writing is the least and difficult skill to acquire by language
learners. As a matter of fact, this skill can be subconsciously
acquired through aesthetic teaching of literature. In literacy
circles, readers are encouraged to do "journaling", namely to
record their reading experiences in a journal. Through writing,
their interpretation is self-reported and thus made authentic.
The readers now have unbelievingly become authors themselves.

* In literacy circles, students are to reciprocally read and
comment on the journals. Over a period of many days, their
reading, writing and responding experiences are continued,
refined and, in many cases, they rewrite the journals. These
literacy engagements have surfaced as an alternative model of
teaching literature, where the paradigm is shifted from
traditional text-centeredness to reader-centeredness.

With all the above aspects considered, the curricular issue of
teaching literature as a separate subject and allocating more
time for language classes sounds far-fetched. Literature is
inseparable from language, and should be thought of holistically.

In the final analysis, the principal actor is the teacher. Our
schools now badly need professional teachers who develop
aesthetic attitude, literary reading proficiency, and literary
teaching skills.

The writer is a lecturer in the graduate school of the
Teachers Training College (IKIP) in Bandung.