This research is based on the hypothesis that response-based approaches to teaching literature and an outcomes-based system of education (OBE) are conceptually incompatible. This thesis claims that reader response involves processes that cannot be accommodated pedagogically within a system based on pre-determined outcomes. Furthermore, the kind of assessment prescribed by OBE is inappropriate to the nature of reader response. The hypothesis is based on three main premises. The first is that each reader brings a highly individual and complex set of personal schemata to the reading of imaginative texts, and these schemata have a decisive influence on the nature of a reader’s response. This means that response during imaginative engagements with literary texts tends to be idiosyncratic, and therefore largely unpredictable. Because of this, it would be inappropriate for a teacher, working within an OBE system, to try to teach towards pre-selected outcomes and to attempt to ensure that these outcomes, based on responses to literary texts, are in fact achieved. The second premise is that readers’ imaginative engagements with literary texts are essentially hidden events, which even the individual reader cannot fully bring to the surface and articulate. Because they are complex, and to some extent inaccessible, it would be inappropriate to assess the processes of response in the form of tangible evidence that a particular kind of response has taken place, or an outcome achieved. The third premise is that responses need time to grow and develop and do not merely happen quickly and cleanly. Consequently, aesthetic response, already a complex and inaccessible process, has no clearly distinguishable beginnings or endings. It would therefore be inappropriate to try to pinpoint the exact nature and parameters of a particular response or fragment it into a discrete unit of competence or knowledge. A two-dimensional problem emerges. The first is a conceptual one: whether there is an inherent tension between encouraging response to imaginative literature on the one hand, and accepting the rationale for OBE, on the other. The second dimension of the problem is empirical: whether teachers of literature experience any tension of either a conceptual or a practical nature when following response based approaches within the OBE system of Curriculum 2005, and if so, what they do in order to cope. In exploring the conceptual problem, the argument of this thesis is supported by reception theory and reader response criticism. The former provides key theoretical principles and insights that illuminate the nature of aesthetic reading, while the latter describes and analyses the nature, extent and manifestations of response in educational contexts, underpinned by both reception theory and empirical research. Together they offer evidence that personal response is determined by a complex range of processes, and is the core activity in reading for aesthetic purposes. This thesis also examines the conceptual basis and the structure of OBE as interpreted in both Curriculum 2005 and the revised National Curriculum Statement. The purpose of this is to establish the extent to which the philosophy and modus operandi of these curricula are rooted in notions of competence, and the requirement that learners give tangible demonstrations of pre-determined outcomes being achieved. If it is found that the curricula do lean heavily on pre-determined outcomes in regard to competencies that must be demonstrated, it may be concluded that 1) reader response activities are incompatible with OBE in a South African context, and 2) the potential exists for such incompatibility to create obstacles to creative and effective literature teaching. This can lead to difficulties for the teacher, who will then have to adopt acceptable strategies to cope with the situation. These strategies may ultimately be to the detriment of the pupils, particularly if the teacher seeks a compromise between genuine response and the kinds of activities that would yield precise, palpable measures of attainment that can be easily demonstrated. Exploring the empirical dimension of the problem involves investigating the responses of both teachers and teacher trainers to the experience of promoting response-based literature teaching and learning in an OBE environment. In order firstly investigated whether the practitioners do encourage reading response as a core activity in reading for aesthetic purposes. The extent to which practitioners have a sound grasp of the conceptual issues relevant to this research is also investigated. Insight into such issues depends on teachers and teacher trainers understanding the nature of reader response, on the one hand, and the rationale and structures of the relevant OBE curricula, on the other. Whether, and to what extent, practitioners experience tensions through their awareness of conceptual incompatibilities is also investigated. It should be borne in mind that practitioners work in real contexts in which a variety of complex factors play a role in determining how they respond to pressures from the environment. It cannot therefore be expected that teachers and others involved in delivering the curriculum will be able to reflect on purely conceptual issues without being influenced to an extent by more practical or logistical considerations. However, this study argues that the extent to which they are able to identify the relevant factors that affect the conceptual underpinnings of their practice will determine the degree to which their responses support the argument of this thesis. Together, the empirical and the theoretical findings offer qualitative evidence that should illuminate the nature and extent of the problem.
Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:nmmu/vital:11013 |
Date | January 2003 |
Creators | Van Renen, Charles Gerard |
Publisher | University of Port Elizabeth, Faculty of Education |
Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
Language | English |
Detected Language | English |
Type | Thesis, Doctoral, DEd |
Format | 343 pages, pdf |
Rights | University of Port Elizabeth |
Page generated in 0.0036 seconds