Literature and the Leaving Cert

implausible

wilkie2006 wrote: »

Maybe I'm just a cynic but I wonder whether some teachers are less inclined to use newer novels because, well, they're not actually very good teachers and don't understand them. :eek: I've had a few over the years who explained a poem's meaning exclusively through the interpretation in the back of the book.

I think that this new list is great because it offers something that kids might actually want to study. To someone who enjoys reading, Shakespeare or Jane Austen are fine but how dull would they be to a 17 year-old who typically sits around playing his Playstation?

I applaud the Dept of Education for making reading - and learning - more accessible.

You'd be right in saying that teachers are less inclined to use newer novels, but in fairness, it has a lot to do with the notes issue, rather than stupidity. Parents and students in some schools demand reams and reams of notes For a teacher to put his/her own set together on an unfamiliar text and then try to fit that text in with two others for a comparative can seem like a lot of extra thankless work, especially when faced with readily-available sets of notes from tried and tested texts like Juno and the Paycock or Tess of the D’Urbervilles. Of course, laziness can come into it too though.

I've often had to dismiss a particular text that I would love to teach, because it didn't fit in with the comparative or wouldn't suit the class group. However, I love the fact that the course is so dynamic and forces you to teach outside of the comfort zone of the old favourites. Other teachers, especially those who don't read, hate the change every year. I must admit I get a a perverse enjoyment out of their discomfort (*evil laugh)

echo beach

implausible wrote: »

Other teachers, especially those who don't read, hate the change every year. I must admit I get a a perverse enjoyment out of their discomfort (*evil laugh)

While I don't doubt that there are English teachers who don't read, I pity their students.

Seeing adults, especially their parents or teachers, reading for pleasure is surely the best encouragement there is. I remember a teacher often telling our class what he was reading, usually with the proviso "you should read it when you are older." Of course that made us mad to read it right away!

Kinski

implausible wrote: »

Other teachers, especially those who don't read, hate the change every year.

There are English teachers who don't read?

pljudge321

I did 12 Angry Men, Death of a Salesman and Silas Marner. Was probably my favourite part of the course.

wilkie2006

Kinski wrote: »

There are English teachers who don't read?

When I was in 4th year, I had an English teacher who proclaimed proudly that he didn't read novels, only newspapers :eek:

implausible

Kinski wrote: »

There are English teachers who don't read?

Unfortunately, yes! When studying English at college, I think I expected everyone to be as full of enthusiasm as I was, but was disappointed. Then becoming a teacher, I envisaged long discussions with colleagues about books, but often, these never materialised. Many teachers only read the texts on the course.

The sad truth is that it is perfectly feasible to be an excellent English teacher by just teaching to the exam. All that is necessary is to have read/seen 4 of the texts on that list every year. That's why the changing list is good. You can 'get away' with teaching from the tried and trusted back catalogue from the old course for a good while, but eventually, you will have to choose and make notes on a text you are not familiar with. (However, in this instance, the publishing companies kindly oblige with detailed books of notes.) Needless to say, this is not an opinion I broadcast in the staffroom!

For many people, English might have been their second subject or just a good teaching subject. The majority of English teachers are Arts graduates with a teaching qualification. There is no specific course for teaching English (the core subject).

I love my subject and I love my job, but these two things don't always go hand in hand and they don't need to, in the education system's current form.

Kinski

implausible wrote: »

The sad truth is that it is perfectly feasible to be an excellent English teacher by just teaching to the exam.

Are you sure about that?;)

For many people, English might have been their second subject or just a good teaching subject. The majority of English teachers are Arts graduates with a teaching qualification. There is no specific course for teaching English (the core subject).

Of course, not everyone who studies any subject at third level will necessarily be all that interested in it, but given that the points for entry into the PDip in Ed seem pretty high, hopefully we're now producing teaching graduates who are enthusiastic about what they plan to teach!

implausible

Kinski wrote: »

Are you sure about that?;)

If your measure of excellence is exam results, yes