Critique on “Wider Reading for Better Reading”
By Prof.
Jonathan Acuña Solano
Friday,
May 8, 2015
Twitter:
@jonacuso
Post 168
Can
a course in which students decide what they want to read from a series of
proposed books already chosen by a tutor be a better and more motivating one
for them? Can the creation of a reading community rather than a lecturing class
prompt individuals to read more and find enjoyment in their readings? For Brumfit
(1986), “the great value of the [literature] course [like this] lay in
establishing what might be called a ‘reading community’,” a group of individuals,
whom guided by their instructor, experience literature with their life
experiences, the understanding of a theme, and comparing writers.
What
Brumfit (1986) proposes is a course which is not designed to follow a “’set
books’ approach to teaching literature.” Brumfit intends to develop “with
students an attitude to works of literature” (1986) that can help learners to
better comprehend literature and find enjoyment in the choice of books they
make. What Brumfit intends to achieve is finding a method that in the eyes of
McKay (1986) focuses its importance on “the enjoyment attained [by the reader] by
interacting with texts” in aesthetic reading. For Brumfit (1986), “our response
to literature is part of our response to history, to ethics, to politics, to
understanding what we are and what other people are.”
The
problem with Brumfit’s proposal, though he admits they “cannot say whether it
worked” (1986) or not, is the fact that he never contextualized this approach
in an EFL/ESL context where students lack the necessary vocabulary to embark in
this reading odyssey. As McKay (1986) insists, “To understand and appreciate
‘any work written in English’ demands far greater command of vocabulary than
2,000 words, and an ability to tolerate and resolve uncertainty for oneself.”
In other words, depending on the level where this method can be applied, learners
may not be fit for choosing books to read from already prepared lists that do
include certain stories that can be rather difficult.
Though
the study presented by Brumfit is not well-contextualized in terms of the kind
of students who were used in this study, it is worthwhile paying attention to
it. After students engaged themselves in constant in-class discussion, they
were better fit for their writing tasks and were able to produce creative
writings based on the things being explored. The adaptability in teaching is
exceptional due to course needs in planning as learners suggest and require
assistance. And of course, it cannot be rule out the fact that if a group of
students become a reading community able to explore “the interplay of Imaginary
objects with a Symbolic code in a Real context” as proposed by Lacan (Bruss,
1981).
Brumfit,
C. (1986). Wider Reading for Better
Reading: An alternative approach to teaching literature. Literature and
Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP
Bruss,
N. (1981), Lacan & Literature.
The Massachusetts Review. Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring 1981). pp. 62-92. Retrieved on
2015, April 2, 2015 from the Jstor webpage at http://www.jstor.org/stable/25089121
McKay,
S. (1986). Literature in the ESL
Classroom. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit &
Carter. Oxford: OUP
Friday, May 08, 2015
Post a Comment