The ManicaPost
Morris Mtisi Education Correspondent
IN my search for answers as to why ‘A’ level Literature is often the fly in the ointment of distinction students in Divinity (Now FRS) and or History (Now Heritage Studies), I blame poor interpretation of the syllabus as. By who? By both teachers and students!
There cannot be a better answer. Knowing what the examiner wants at each stage of the Literature examination is critically important. When students choose to study Literature in English, what skills and abilities do you want to develop in them? Both the teacher and the learner must know these. The earlier these are mastered during the course, the better.
The Literature syllabus, like any other subject syllabus, is the contract document between candidate and Examination Council, Cambridge or Zimsec. In political governance this would be the Constitution-which is the Law of the land. What this means is that both the teacher and the student must be clear, very clear, about the demands of the syllabus to first, do justice to the Literature examination and second, acquire the skills of life offered by its study.
Many students of Literature fail examinations, or do not pass well because they have little or no knowledge about these syllabus demands or expectations. Having enormous knowledge about the texts and set books prescribed or enjoying reading them hysterically without correct interpretation of the syllabus (assessment objectives) is like scoring offside goals. They may be classical and brilliantly executed goals, but do not count.
What the above means is also that every teacher and student needs to have a copy of the syllabus, not to scan through it or read it, but to study it carefully and seriously. This will make you aware of the business to be done in this course. Allow me to analyse the ‘A’ level Literature syllabus (. . . ) for you. This will assist those who teach and learn without the syllabus in mind to refocus and not to ignore assessment objectives.
Syllabus Aim 2.1 emphasises an appreciation of, and an informed personal response, to Literature in English in a variety of texts in different genres and from different historical periods and cultures. ‘‘Informed’’ suggests, points at or means appreciation backed by tangible, convincing evidence. And notice that the appreciation must be ‘‘personal’’ response. The implication here is that marks will be awarded for personal response / own understanding and sensitivity — not borrowed views. This is important to understand.
Prodigious knowledge and reproduction of comments made by learned commentators in their published commentaries are not plausible. They are not yours, will not and cannot be credited unless they help to support your own personal point of view, argument or judgment. This is why candidates who rigmarole around retelling the story they know very well will never be awarded a high mark and grade. There is no depth of personal evaluation, opinion, comprehension and judgment in mere retelling the story.
Syllabus Aim 2.2.1 emphasises showing ability to understand and respond to explicit values and implicit attitudes and meanings in texts. What are explicit values? These refer to implicit attitudes and meanings in texts. What are explicit values? These refer to values expressed by the author in a clear and direct way. And implicit attitudes refer to attitudes expressed not so obviously or directly.
The ability to accurately and intelligently interpret whatever is not openly stated is critically important in the study of the written word (Literature). This is what I always describe as the superiority of Literature over other disciplines of learning (subjects). Literature allows the learner space to see beyond what he or she is reading — space to understand even what is not explicitly expressed — space to understand, not only what things are but also what they ought to be and what they must be. Intellectual prophesy? NO! We do not prophecy in this study. We think. We reflect. We analyse. We evaluate and discriminate between important and not important, between what is deeply philosophical and what is trivial, between sense and nonsense in this game. We supply convincing argument or evidence to support what we mean. That is what lawyers do. That is what legitimate students of Literature do.
Literature is not tied to facts, like History, Economics and Sciences . . . the rest of them. It allows you to examine and see beyond its horizons. And this ability must be smartly illustrated in every high achieving student’s appreciation of texts of whatever genre.
Syllabus Aim 2.2.2. emphasises showing ability to effectively and clearly convey understanding of, response to, and evaluation of literary texts. Notice the emphasis on clarity and effectiveness. These two expectations demand a high command of English Language, a superior style and appropriate register. Literature at ‘A’ level is not an academic kitchen party for revealers who thrive on fun and joy without brilliance of thought and mind. It is not a pleasure-seeking exploration.
It calls for individual intellectual prowess penetrating even the hidden and super-complex. It is important to know the syllabus demands that every essay be a response, personal response, to a given statement crafted to extrapolate / dig out, these specific skills.
You do not answer what you know or want or what you think the examiner is asking. But indeed what the examiner is asking. And the knowledge base in all these answers is always guided or informed by the syllabus. That is critically important to remember.
Syllabus Aim 2.3 demands that students show an understanding of the nature and methods of literary study, demonstrating that literary works may be differently interpreted and valued. What does this mean?
There is no one answer to a literature question seeking a candidate’s response. Marks are awarded in accordance with the depth of understanding or sensitivity of the response to the issues asked.
There is no wrong response in Literature. But surely some responses are more logical, intelligent, insightful and persuasive than others. Of course the words ‘‘farfetched’’, ‘‘weird’’ and even ‘‘ridiculous’’ still exist in Literature. And if you respond as if you were studying a different text altogether you will pay heavily for that. What this syllabus aim emphasises is simply that every essay must as much as humanly possible reflect personal opinion, evaluation and judgment. Do not be guided by common denominators. Be independent in thought and attitude.
Syllabus Aim 3.5 says basically the same as above: Produce knowledgeable, independent opinions and judgments. Aim 3.6 stresses ability to communicate clearly and effectively the knowledge, understanding and insight appropriate to literary works. Again an emphasis much the same as on Aim 2.3! But look at the expression ‘‘appropriate insight’’. Exactly what I have just said above. You cannot go off tangent and claim ‘‘Literature has no wrong answer.’’
The analysis, evaluation, opinion, judgment, conclusion must be appropriate / sound / highly reasonable. And look at the word ‘insight’! Insight refers to ability to see into the true nature of issues-a deep understanding into a character, issue etc. And that insight has to be appropriate. That’s the point.
