Abstract
This doctoral dissertation is a study of the way literature is taught in the Danish secondary school,
called the ‘gymnasium’ and ‘hf’. It aims at answering two questions: How is the interpretation of the
literary text being constructed in the classroom? And: What do students learn from interpreting literary
texts?
The dissertation is based on a short comparative case study. Danish lessons have been observed in three different classes – grades 11 and 12, called the 2.g, the 2.hf and the 3.g. - discussing texts written in the 1990s by three authors: Katrine Marie Guldager, Søren Ulrik Thomsen and Morten Søndergaard. The students wrote about the texts before and after class. Classroom observations were videotaped, transcribed and analysed. The interpretations constructed in the writings and in the class interactions were compared. The theory behind the dissertation is the systems theory of the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, and the methods utilized build upon an operationalization of this theory. The sociocognitive theories and methods, and the research results originating from The National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement (CELA) at The State University of New York at Albany, have also been a major source of inspiration.
The Constitutive Paradox of Literary Instruction
Teaching literature is both similar to and different from other forms of teaching because literary texts in many ways differ from other kinds of material. Literary instruction could be characterized as follows: When a literary text is being used for instruction this initiates a series of complex, psychic, and communicative operations which must come to terms with basic paradoxical conditions by undergoing transformations.
Each operation is performed through selections, which makes it a complex one. These operations are performed in closed psychic and communicative systems, which operate according to their own rules while at the same time observing their environment. The rules of literary instruction are to be found nowhere outside the educational system, but they are put to action under the observation of texts, which have been written according to very different rules, and surrounded by psychic systems, students and teachers, which operate according to yet other sets of rules. Literary instruction aims at conveying and creating knowledge about literature in an orderly manner, but the texts themselves have been created under the commitment of being something out of the ordinary. This creates a paradox. The more orderly the instruction the more it transforms the text into an object of no artistic interest, and the more artistic the instruction the less orderly and efficient it is.
A paradox creates a continuous and sterile oscillation between two stances. The paradoxical state must therefore be respected and at the same time broken. This can only come about through a series of transformations. The classroom communication and the surrounding psychic systems must transform themselves under the influence of the text. Consequently, a both orderly and anarchistic way of thinking and communicating is needed. These are the conditions of literary instruction.
Operationalizing Systems Theory
To comprehend complex and paradoxical conditions you need theories that take complexity into account. In this dissertation Niklas Luhmann’s sociological systems theory was chosen for the reason that it defines social interaction as communication. This allows for carrying out analyses of communication on all levels from top to bottom applying identical concepts.
The top level is society as a whole. This dissertation is built on analyses of society written by others, mainly Lars Qvortrup and his concept of the hyper-complex society. The next level includes the functional systems like the systems of education, literature, politics etc. The differentiation of society into various closed functional systems leaves room for diversity and flexibility, however, systems are dynamic and may either differentiate too far or, on the contrary, implode into identity. The first type of development may be seen when literary instruction is viewed from the perspective of other systems. What becomes visible from the side of society may be an activity locked in its own world, of little use for society, and ripe for reforming. The second type will emerge if the subject of Danish is subsequently reformed primarily due to considerations in the economic system. A development of this kind will change the subject in a way that puts literary instruction under considerable pressure.
This analysis is an example of what systems theory can provide on the level of functional systems, but it claims also to be applicable to lower levels, ‘interaction systems’ such as literature classes. However, a strong tradition for classroom research on a systems theoretical basis does not exist. This dissertation should be seen as a contribution to the strengthening of this, as yet, weak tradition.
For the past twenty to thirty years, educational research in the USA as well as in Scandinavia has rested primarily on a basis of sociocultural theory, to a certain extent in a dialogue with constructivist and cognitive theories. In order to draw on the results of this tradition, the dissertation takes into consideration the differences between sociocultural and systems theory. The latter is seen as the more general and abstract theory, which as its objects also has other theories, including sociocultural theory, as well as systems theory itself.
This hierarchical combination of theories implies a reconstruction of a number of sociocultural concepts into the new frame. This is claimed to be possible except for one central concept. Systems theory argues that systems are cognitively open to their environment, but operationally closed. Contrary to this, sociocultural theory rests on the assumption that psychic systems can internalise or appropriate social operations. Communication can be transformed into mind. At this point no combination of the two theories is possible, a choice is necessary, and systems theory has been chosen. In this dissertation systems are considered operationally closed.
On the basis of this choice and the subsequent reconstruction of a number of sociocultural concepts an attempt has been made to operationalize Luhmann’s theory. One of the results of the dissertation is the construction of a set of analytical tools suitable for the scanning of communication on all relevant levels.
The Function of Literature
If literary instruction is as paradoxical as claimed, why not just bring the teaching of literature to an end? This question gives rise to a demand for understanding the function of literature. Systems theory can provide a frame for this understanding as stated in Luhmann’s Die Kunst der Gesellschaft. What interests Luhmann, though, is art and literature as communication on the level of functional systems. A host of literary theories build upon a far more sophisticated knowledge of texts. Once again a combination of theories is necessary and a small selection of literary theories are used to complement Luhmann’s. Klaus P. Mortensen’s theory of literature is seen as an example of a radical development of hermeneutical theory of literature and interpretation. Philosophically, Luhmann’s theory may also be seen as a radical development of German phenomenology and hermeneutics, and therefore a certain compatibility between the two is claimed.
To abandon literature and literary instruction solve no problems simply because complexity and paradoxes are to be found in all contexts where meaning is involved. This is exactly why literary instruction is important. The crucial aspect of literature is that can be used as a means for concrete, sensuous reflection on meaning. This is in agreement with Mortensen’s view on literature as a method for general formation (dannelse, Bildung), with cognitive semantic’s interest in the cognitive function of metaphoric and narrative structures, and with Sven Møller Kristensen’s and Finn Hauberg Mortensen’s view on literature as embodied and sensuous. Thus, according to a number of quite different theories, the value of literary method lies within two fundamental issues. It can be used cognitively to embody extraordinarily complex and dynamic contexts, and it is closely related to sensuality and delight.
This explains why literature maintains a privileged position in the educational system. Whereas literature operates in language, other art forms operate solely in sense media like space, time, colour, sound, movement etc. Language has in itself a link to sensuousness, as claimed by cognitive semantics, but it is also the primary medium for all communication. This means that literature in a flexible way can operate on a number of levels of reflection.
Therefore literature can use communication from other systems as media. Literature may describe psychic, social, and natural phenomena in ways that makes it look like everyday or scientific communication. Literature can also reflect both on these forms of communication and on its own form. Literary descriptions always rest on second order, never on first order observations. However, because it resembles everyday language, literature can effect even complicated and abstract reflections of a higher order as if they were descriptions of first order, by using narratives and metaphors.
This dissertation is not about literary theory and few new discoveries are expressed on that subject. The most interesting one being the discovery of the fact that there exists a consensus about the nature and function of literature both across systemic boundaries and across boundaries between various literary theories. Luhmann, together with a number of literary theoreticians, teachers and students alike all agree on what literature is. As one teacher said: Good literature should be out of the ordinary and at the same time appeal to the recognition of the reader. This may not be a surprising insight but it lends some firmness to the study of literary instruction.
Conditions and Possibilities of Literary Instruction
Literature can be used in many contexts, in the family sphere and privately as a medium for education or pleasure, in religion in the form of myths, in politics in the form of narratives supporting the building up, maintaining or the breaking down of power, and in economics for stimulating consumption and for building up corporate culture. What literary education adds to all this is that such meaningful operations are being made the objects of reflection. You can read and produce stories in school but you also have to reflect upon them.
Over the last 200 years, the educational system has used literature for a number of purposes. The subject of Danish was born as a consequence of the differentiation of the literature and educational systems from a societal unity in the late 18th century alongside concepts such as the individual and general formation. In the 19th century literary education came to function as a medium for general formation. General formation is a formula (Kontingenzformel) that aims to unite the individual and the collective. The form of formation changes according to the changes in the relationship between these two elements.
In literary education the forms of formation become visible in such phenomena as literary canons, which regulate the relations between the school and the literary system, methods, which regulate the relations between the school and the scientific system, and didactics, which regulate the relations between the school and the students. All three aspects: subject matter, literary methods, and didactics usually exist in normative forms, but may also take on reflective forms. They are under the influence of the function of the school, which is obliged to yield certain contributions to other systems and to society as a whole. This obligation is the basis for the emergence of self-descriptions and selfreflections.
The three dimensions of meaning: the factual, the social, and the temporal, as constructed in the educational system, can be seen during each lesson. Complexity calls for a reduction of complexity, on all levels. Teachers use complexity reducing professional standards when selecting texts, methods, and didactical proceedings. Students learn by alternating between complexity increasing observations of new information, new methods, and new initiatives from the teacher - and complexity reduction through selections and simplifications. And also the observing and analysing researcher is forced to simplify his observations according to the professional rules of the scientific system.
One of the most important results in this field concerns the general conditions of forms of control. In all lessons, control is being executed and at the same time evaded. Luhmann and Foucault have developed theories of power indicating that power is being executed in all situations. It is often productive, but can never become absolute. An example of this is the distinction between control of form and substance which can be seen in the lessons observed.
Control of form can be executed by the teacher as well as by students, in the latter case primarily during group work. This goes for control of turn-taking, time administration, physical dominance by way of freedom of movement, use of the blackboard etc. But formal control is not always identical to control of substance, i.e. the interpretation. This becomes particularly obvious during group work when roles can be distributed leaving one student in control of form while others supply the good ideas. Often in classroom conversation the teacher tries to take control of both fields. But in this respect, literary instruction diverges from other kinds of teaching. The anarchic character of the text means that control over the interpretation cannot be total without damaging the understanding of the text. A good teacher is aware of this and will not try to execute complete control. But even if the teacher tries to do so, students may construct their own interpretations – in verbal form or silently. Peter Rabinowitz has come up with a formula for adequate ‘rule governed’ reading in school: authorial reading. Within this formula lies the idea that the reader has an obligation to communicate with the author, and by so doing, gain the authority of questioning the interpretations of others. Hence this formula also becomes a formula for professional and democratic communication.
The two forms of control are concrete examples of the paradoxical nature of literary instruction. The paradox is unfolded in a contradiction between efforts to control interpretation and the freedom of the readers to construct their own interpretations. Class interaction may prefer control or freedom, or switch back and forth but the paradox can never be eradicated, only evaded.
How is the Interpretation Constructed?
Leaving these preliminary considerations behind, it should be possible to answer the first research question of the dissertation. In all three classes it is possible to observe how the teacher and the students strive to reach a coherent interpretation of the text through a series of analyses. No doubts are raised about the relevance of this effort from the side of any of the parties. The goal is reached to some degree in each class, and the analyses of classroom interaction document the high standards of this activity in the Danish secondary school.
The interaction was analysed using the concept of meaning. Interpretation of a text may be seen as an unusually concentrated and momentary form of meaning operation. The outside world is momentarily present in a highly condensed and imagined form. The text and the interpretation are substitutes for the comprehension of the world as such – though one should constantly be aware of the fact that the text does not represent the world, but presents a reflection of it. This reflection is constructed according to certain systems specific rules – rules of genre, to name but one example. The inherent complexity of the text is crucial to make it suitable as school material.
The analyses show that interpretation of a literary text is a stochastic process, in Bateson’s words, involving a certain degree of freedom of choice and chance. “The phenomenon of meaning appears as a surplus of references to other possibilities of experience and action”1 and unfolds in three dimensions: the factual, the social and the temporal dimension. The construction is carried through in a communication characterized by the formation of patterns of observations and self-observations. These patterns occur as results of selections.
The process involves manoeuvring between extremes. In the fact dimension between an internal and an external horizon, in the social dimension between consensus and dissent, and in the temporal dimension between past and future as seen from the present. When operating in the factual dimension, the thematic structure is strengthened, operating in the social dimension strengthens the social interaction, and operating in the temporal dimension strengthens the general view. The interpretation moves through a number of combinations of these dimensions and horizons, often at great speed. It is possible to try to proceed systematically, as can be seen below, but it is not possible to systematize the process completely. The process is made even more dynamic by the fact that the dimensions and their horizons are constructed through the observations of an unlimited number of domains. The class communication observes itself and it observes the text as a whole, the characters of the text, the themes of the text, and so forth. This dynamic performance is the cause for two opposite evaluations of literary instruction. Some students find it very easy and others very complicated. The dynamic performance is comparable to ordinary conversation, and some students get the impression that in the Danish classes you just have to talk away. But this specific kind of conversation also comprises an unlimited number of additional levels of reflection, which weak students give up handling. Or, in some cases, they do not even discover their existence.
Major differences exist between the ways in which each of the observed classes construct their interpretations. In 3.g the temporal dimension is constructed in a way that places the text in a historical perspective, either on a time line going back a few hundred years, or in an actual historical perspective. In 2.hf many students use the text as a means for a voyage into their own future. In 3.g the social dimension is constructed in a certain atmosphere of competition, each student claiming ownership of his (it is usually a male) interpretation, a tendency, which is not as visible in the other two classes.
In 2.hf the construction of the social dimension is influenced by the fact that these students have chosen not to attend the ordinary ‘gymnasium’, which they find too competitive. In the hf class observed, the communication is closer to everyday interaction. The strength of the 3.g students becomes most visible in their ability to operate in the outer factual dimension. They are able to continuously add knowledge from other sources which fits into the discussion. Also these operations strengthen the temporal dimension of the system by triggering the memory. For these strong students the work of the class must take on the shape of a coherent proceeding. Some hf students attempt to draw on knowledge from other school subjects, from their recollection of previous Danish classes, and from private sources. The problem is that this kind of knowledge often has the form of mere information, and is never combined with other kinds of information into coherent knowledge. To a certain extent, the competence of interpreting texts may be a question of an innate ability or of technical mastery that can be achieved through systematic work. But the key factor in developing the skills to interpret a text seems to be the ability to construct meaning on the basis of existing meaning. The existing meaning is always bound to a system and exists in the system’s ability to recourse to previous operations. In the classroom, various systems are involved in this process. The teacher may remember what happened in a Danish class last year and is therefore able to reintroduce knowledge constructed in this context into the new context. But the crux of the matter is the psychic system of each student. The classroom communication must trigger the memory of each student if learning is to take place and new constructions of meaning are to take form.
Bettina Perregaard has thrown some light over the issue by discussing the various contexts to which students refer. In this connection ‘context’ can be translated into ‘a specific memory domain’. The hf students cannot be said simply to have less knowledge than the gymnasium students, rather they activate different memory domains referring to non-scholastic experiences, making their interpretations seem less coherent.
Of course, more and less coherent interpretations are not distributed simply on ‘gymnasium’ and hf students respectively, but things tend to come across as such in this study. ‘Gymnasium’ students who develop less coherent interpretations just do not show them. The two types of interpretations can be judged from both an aesthetic and a political standpoint. Coherence is a classic aesthetic norm, and the coherent interpretations are therefore likely to come across as more satisfying. But the question is whether even aesthetic norms are or should be universal. Some of the less coherent interpretations have other qualities like being more imaginative or experimenting. This is clearly visible in the Søndergaard-lesson in hf where the students have difficulties understanding the text. This forces them to drift in their search for meaning. At first glance the associations called forward seem far fetched, but some of them have very interesting implications crossing the limits between fine arts, philosophy and suspense literature. Such odd interpretations threaten the coherence of the interpretative process but they also give rise to the political question: Do the gymnasium and hf operate with too narrow a concept of individual formation (dannelse)? And: is it possible to use texts which do not live up to classical demands for coherence, in the scholastic formation process which presupposes coherence?
Didactic Models
So far it seems as if literary instruction is conducted in a state close to chaos. One of the results of the study is the uncovering of patterns and order, despite this proximity to disorder. The patterns of instruction have a strong similarity to patterns of texts, both aesthetic texts and argumentation. Such patterns can by no means be taken for granted. An analysis of a student presentation illustrates how the student uses a simple accumulative form with few hierarchical elements. So the patterns must be constructed more or less deliberately.
The patterns can be found at all levels from general didactic models over course plans and plans for a single lesson to the choice of didactic method in the concrete situation. No final list of forms exists but certain formal elements tend to emerge across different levels and situations. Apparently, some of them can be arranged in contrasting pairs, such as linear vs cyclic, spirals vs circles, dramatic vs associative, heuristic vs searching, thematic vs line-by-line etc. Underlying these pairs seems to be one opposition: pointed vs circular.
Three types of lessons can be singled out as particularly interesting. The first is the dramatic variation, which is especially clear in the Søndergaard-lesson in 2.g. The second type is a linear form, which is identical to the structure of an argumentation or an academic treatise. One example can be found in the Guldager-lesson in 3.g. First half: preliminary presentation of a general impression followed by an analytical deconstruction. Second half: Final interpretation through stages such as: the travel motif → composition → themes → ideology → historical perspective → authorship perspective → point of view technique → reader appeal. The third type is a circular model where the interpretation is created through group work and a subsequent presentation of the results of all groups. Linear control is minimal but in the Thomsen-lesson in 2.hf a coherent interpretation is none the less constructed through a meticulous, collective construction of the social dimension. This lesson is an impressive example of the implementation of an alternative model, which turns out to work just fine.
Another result is the uncovering of the various didactic models, which seem to form the backdrop of each teacher’s instruction in the lessons observed. It must be pointed out that the similarities between the lessons are more substantial than the differences. All lessons adhere to the demands for a coherent interpretation. But the differences are also interesting. The instruction in 3.g could be termed ‘classical’. Care is taken to teach documentation, analysis, coherent interpretation, and historical perspective. Generally, these students achieved very good grades at their final examination (studentereksamen). In 2.g the teacher also used this model but added more linguistic observations and training.
In 2.hf a higher degree of experimentation aimed at transgressing the limit between an ordinary school discourse and the various discourses of the students. The experiments included the teacher’s use of voice, patterns of movement, use of the blackboard, turn-taking technique, types of question and response, combinations of presentation, elaboration and summarizing of information.
The complexity of literary instruction makes it a futile effort to assess the various types of instruction. At CELA observations are combined with tests of the students in order to decide whether dialogic instruction is more efficient than monologic instruction. However, as can be observed in the analyses of this dissertation an overwhelming amount of variables are at stake here. I have not found it fruitful to sort out monologic and dialogic elements and it has not been possible to construct or implement tests. Moreover, Luhmann’s theory was chosen in favour of a sociocultural theory exactly because the latter has a tendency to imply a normative attitude, which is not supported in systems theory. Consequently, an assessment of the various types of instruction would be inconsistent with the theory chosen. But it still leaves room for a reflection on the future development of various didactic models.
The classical model can be said to have reached its optimum, otherwise it would not be classical. Hauberg Mortensen’s research describes how, in the early seventies, teachers felt some insecurity towards the, at that time, new model, but over the years it has established itself and served its purpose: to develop good readers of coherent literary texts. One text being the ultimate coherent text: the history of Danish literature as conveyed by a limited number of textbooks. This contribution should by no means be neglected. It rests on a subtle balance between canonical and personal interpretations. The question is: will this model be able to adjust to the growing complexity in the literary system, which produces more and more heterogeneous texts? As pointed out by Susanne V. Knudsen, some university teachers have developed the model to such a degree that it takes on ritualistic features.
The experiments that take place in 2.g and even more so in 2.hf are not radical to the same degree as is project-organized teaching. The experiments build on the well-known form of class communication. If there is a wish to keep and develop the forms of competence provided by the classical form of instruction it will be necessary to keep it alive and experiment with it in order to make it fit for the handling of the ever more complex literature that is being written. Therefore the experiments described are very interesting. Replacing the classical form by project-organized instruction will not lead to an optimizing of these competences but rather create new ones. One form of instruction can not be replaced by others without losses.
I should like to bring attention to further possibilities within the development of the already known form. Second order observations might come to play a much more central role. The work of the literature teacher is characterized by constant shifts between reflections of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order. Texts are selected on the basis of their contents (1st order) but the teacher also has to consider their use, how the students will react on them, how they will fit in with other texts, how the teacher feels about them etc. (2nd order). And how the texts live up to the requirements of the educational system (3rd order). Routines of this kind must be characterized as hyper-complex, indicating that the teachers of Danish entered the hypermodern world already in the 1970s subsequent to the implementation of the statute of 1971.
Already, students participate to a certain extent in such movements between reflections of various orders. In 2.hf they participate not only by interpreting the text but also by comparing different interpretations. This is arranged through a specific form of accumulating the results of group work on the blackboard. But such activities might take a more prominent place. Students could analyse or even construct course plans and lesson plans. If it holds true that plans of courses and lessons are texts with certain aesthetic features such activities are core literary instruction.
Also to be mentioned is the ’heterogeneous language’ of the students. Especially, in 2.g the male students talk about the texts during group work in a language that is more compound than ordinary school language. They are aware that this language does not belong in school and consequently do not use it in class. Nevertheless, it is being used as a technical tool during group work. This is not to suggest that street language should be used in class, it is rather a proposal for making the difference between school and street language the object of instruction. A 2nd order activity of this nature can be seen as a development of a linguistic training of the type that is already going on in 2.g.
What do the Students Learn?
The second research question has been answered through comparative analyses of the cognitive levels in the students’ writings before class, communication during class and writings after class. The observations have been analysed using Lars Qvortrup’s concept of various knowledge forms.
The core problem in all research in the field of learning is that learning cannot be observed directly. You have to be content with the communicative traces left by psychic activity. This causes some grave methodological problems, which especially concern the analyses of learning in hf.
The study documents that virtually all students learn something during all the lessons observed. In the ‘gymnasium’ classes this becomes evident in the systematic differences between writings before and after class, the cognitive level being higher to considerably higher after class. In 2.g the writings are scarce before class both quantitatively and qualitatively. The writings after class in almost all cases show a considerably better understanding. In 3.g levels are high in both writings, before class especially in connection with the number of skilful observations and ideas. After class, quality is even higher. In many cases a higher degree of order has been reached.
In 2.hf the differences between the contributions are considerable. A few students dominate class interaction and it is difficult to determine the skills of the other students. But this class also produces the most impressive group work. The writings are not significant. Even students who demonstrate a good understanding of a text in class do not write much worth noting, indicating that they may have learned something, even though they write little. Sven Erik Nordenbo reports from an investigation that 63 per cent of the students in hf consider themselves passive receivers of knowledge, not active constructors of knowledge in school. While in the ‘gymnasium’, the 3.g students want to demonstrate their knowledge a majority of the hf students do not find this important.
Given these methodological reservations, the conclusion is as such: it is possible to discriminate between different cognitive levels in the interpretation and that one of the contributions of literary instruction is that students learn to discriminate and move between various cognitive levels. In the interview with the 3.g students it can be discerned that the competence of moving between levels has been learned in the Danish lessons to a degree where it may be exercised in other contexts too.
It is an important fact that students claim their competence has been trained more systematically in the Danish lessons than in other lessons. As pointed out by the students, the examples indicate that this activity transgresses the limit between literary and language instruction. The analysis of a student presentation in 2.g indicates that a systematic instruction of verbal language could be included in this context. It might even be of a particular importance in hf since these students seem to have special difficulties with their writing skills.
The Transformation of Types of Texts and General Formation
In order not to spread the observations over literature in general this dissertation has concentrated on observations of instruction on literature of the 1990s. This calls for an overview of literature of this decade. The selection of texts has moved through a number of stages: a study of a number of curricula, of a canon discussion and of three constructions of contemporary literary history.
Two of these constructions are held to be particularly interesting, namely Anne-Marie Mai’s and Anne Borup’s theory that since the 1960s a broad variety of text types have appeared in Danish alongside with more traditional modernist literature. And Lyngsø’s theory that the literature of the 1990s consists of three types of texts: existential, political and cognitive literature. The texts used for observations were chosen in order to cover these three types.
Anne Borup’s analysis is particularly interesting. She claims that modern literature and the school have drifted apart because a major part of modern literature is not suitable as school material as long as literary instruction rests on ideals connected with modernist literature. In systems theoretical terms, literature has developed a complexity, which can be conceived by the school only if instructional forms which equal the complexity of the new genres are developed.
Others have raised similar claims. In the report Fremtidens danskfag criticism is raised against the so called ‘natural state’ of literary instruction, and in 1986 Finn Hauberg Mortensen claimed that the concept of individual formation which was being used in the subject of Danish was too narrow to contain reflections on the formational potentials deriving from the natural and social sciences. Furthermore, classical hermeneutics has run into a crisis because of the development of the deconstruction and complexity theories. The fundamental idea that the meaning of a text may be uncovered through a circular movement culminating in a merging of horizons is no longer a matter of course.
The texts employed offer a possibility to test these claims although the number of texts is too small to give much room for generalisations. If what is claimed is right one would expect the Søndergaard texts to be difficult material to use, the Guldager texts to be less difficult whereas the Thomsen texts fit perfectly into the ‘natural state’ of literary instruction. The analyses of the lessons and two of the teachers’ reactions to the texts as well as to the analyses of the lessons confirm this expectation. The Søndergaard texts are a major challenge, while the Thomsen-lessons are next to perfect.
Since the 1960s, literature has developed a variety of textual forms that do not appeal to the reader’s capability to empathize. Lyngsø uses the possibility of empathizing as a definition for existential literature, while political and cognitive literature do not offer this possibility. But to some extent literary instruction depends on the students’ ability to empathize with the text or with the characters of the text. Many students consider the deep analysis of characters the core of literary instruction. The analysis of various group works might indicate that a certain difference exists between male and female students. The females work more in depth with the understanding of characters while the males are more interested in solving puzzles as such. Texts offering these possibilities seem to leave the students with a higher degree of contentment and thereby lead to more successful teaching. The problem is how to assess this situation. Has literary instruction concentrated too much on elaborating its own codes and programs, i.e. creating its own canon, methods and a specific kind of literary history, or has literature developed into a closed system leaving only experts interested in the outcome?
It is a political question involving culture and education, and either opinion can be defended. The first opinion is discussed throughout the dissertation. The advocates of the second opinion may choose between three consequences. 1. Literature should not be taught in school at all, 2. Only the classical canon should be taught, 3. Only literature suitable specifically for use in school should be taught. So far, the first opinion is likely to be rare. A variation is found in the wish to split Danish in two or more subjects, giving the subject of literature a position similar to the position of art and music. The second opinion is conservative and prevails in the secondary educational systems of many countries. The third opinion is probably prevalent in much primary school instruction. The last two opinions can be combined. Students should be instructed in the classical canon combined with modern texts offering the possibility for identification and for psychological and moral debate.
The discussion has a bearing on the perspective of general formation. The example of Morten Søndergaard is a principal one. The analysis of the Søndergaard reception of the literary system demonstrates that it differs from the reception of the classes observed, in one respect. According to the literary system Søndergaard expresses himself within the frames of an almost 100 years old phenomenological tradition. This tradition is influenced by developments in modern science and philosophy and has had an impact on culture in general throughout the century. In the 1990s the influence reached Danish literature.
Teachers of Danish have an obligation to use contemporary literature, but some kinds of texts seem to be more difficult to use than others. Apparently they do not fit into the hermeneutical and historic models which characterize the Danish instruction. In the Søndergaard lessons observed, various experiments are made to solve this problem, and for this reason these lessons are particularly interesting.
Insight into scientific thinking and its consequences are crucial to modern society. The difficulties of bringing this insight into a subject like Danish which claims to be formative (almendannende) are worth further consideration. The construction of a broader concept of formation may be necessary. It could also be a contribution to solve a crisis within science itself. The development of modern science is concentrated on elaborating the codes and programs of the system itself without much consideration for its social environment. This has some highly unwanted consequences. The environment is cut off from understanding what happens inside the system and consequently tends to lose interest. A dilemma that is parallel to the dilemma concerning literature and its environment. But literary instruction might be able to take part in the solving of this problem by using cognitive literature.
No analysis of the Guldager-reception has been made. But I see Ankomst, Husumgade as the author’s attempt to develop a political discourse which does not contain proclamations of politically correct opinions – a tendency well known from the literature of the 1970s - while still embracing the ethical perspectives. Superficially read, Guldager’s texts seem simple, but under the surface a complexity hides, which surprises the reader. He or she must be able to identify a number of incoherent voices. This causes problems to the students because they are not able to connect the voices to relevant contexts. But the difficulties can be overcome because the voices do have a certain, although misty, human and social background. This may be the reason why Guldager is one of the favourites among young authors in the ‘gymnasium’.
In Short
The aim of this dissertation is to characterize a literary instruction which rests on what could be termed ‘a general literary didactical basis’ (et alment fagdidaktisk grundlag). Literary instruction respects, and should respect, the character and function of the literary texts as well as the special character of the educational system.
The dissertation documents that such an instruction already exists. The analyses of the lessons reveal that successful instruction tends to be organized in accordance with principles already known from other genres of texts. Most noteworthy: to a large extent in accordance with aesthetic principles. This gives literary instruction its distinctive character. Teachers and students read and interpret the authors’ texts but in so doing they themselves act and learn to act according to aesthetic rules.
It is claimed that the potential of literary instruction lies in the further development of this distinctive quality. Students must be activated on as many levels as possible. Not just as constructors of interpretations but also as constructors of instruction – provided that these activities are bound by rules similar to the rules that characterize literary texts. In this way two extremes are omitted: 1. A very broad instruction which uses literary texts as mere source material for various kinds of activities, as for example political and ethical discussions, history instruction etc. 2. A very narrow instruction which uses texts as source material for analytical procedures only.
A relevant instruction presupposes a constant observation of the literary system - and parts of the scientific system. When new literature is created and when the communication on older literature changes literary instruction must change too. Not by internalising communication from these other systems but in a reflective movement. The sensuous character of literature guarantees that this movement will not lead to endless reflections but will take on the character of a constant moving between the reflective and the concrete. Hypermodern literature attempts to prevent readers from a simple empathetic reading, but this effort must also be seen as an attempt to reach a form of identification on a higher level, which might form the basis for a new kind of general formation relevant for life in the hypermodern, reflective society.
Focusing on Morten Søndergaard’s texts and their reception allows the study to focus on literature as a dynamic phenomenon which develops according to literary rules under the constant observation of the media, philosophy, science etc. It opens for a similar view on literary instruction as a dynamic and yet stable phenomenon. And this is probably the most important result of the dissertation. Two dangers should be omitted in the new ‘gymnasium’ which is under construction: a concentration on single, closed subjects, and a blind belief in project-organized instruction, which will endanger the connection between the school and other systems like the literary and the scientific systems.
The dissertation argues for a development which rests on a comprehension of the paradoxical nature of the ‘gymnasium’. The subjects have to be open to the environment in order to keep closed – which means: operate on their own terms. It is claimed that the dissertation documents that a literary instruction resting on such a comprehension is possible and useful. It may even be called mandatory because the skills, competences and formation which may develop under these circumstances are in accordance with the crucial demand of the hypercomplex society: that the students develop the ability to navigate in a flexible way between endless levels of reflection and viewpoints without losing their way.
The dissertation is based on a short comparative case study. Danish lessons have been observed in three different classes – grades 11 and 12, called the 2.g, the 2.hf and the 3.g. - discussing texts written in the 1990s by three authors: Katrine Marie Guldager, Søren Ulrik Thomsen and Morten Søndergaard. The students wrote about the texts before and after class. Classroom observations were videotaped, transcribed and analysed. The interpretations constructed in the writings and in the class interactions were compared. The theory behind the dissertation is the systems theory of the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, and the methods utilized build upon an operationalization of this theory. The sociocognitive theories and methods, and the research results originating from The National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement (CELA) at The State University of New York at Albany, have also been a major source of inspiration.
The Constitutive Paradox of Literary Instruction
Teaching literature is both similar to and different from other forms of teaching because literary texts in many ways differ from other kinds of material. Literary instruction could be characterized as follows: When a literary text is being used for instruction this initiates a series of complex, psychic, and communicative operations which must come to terms with basic paradoxical conditions by undergoing transformations.
Each operation is performed through selections, which makes it a complex one. These operations are performed in closed psychic and communicative systems, which operate according to their own rules while at the same time observing their environment. The rules of literary instruction are to be found nowhere outside the educational system, but they are put to action under the observation of texts, which have been written according to very different rules, and surrounded by psychic systems, students and teachers, which operate according to yet other sets of rules. Literary instruction aims at conveying and creating knowledge about literature in an orderly manner, but the texts themselves have been created under the commitment of being something out of the ordinary. This creates a paradox. The more orderly the instruction the more it transforms the text into an object of no artistic interest, and the more artistic the instruction the less orderly and efficient it is.
A paradox creates a continuous and sterile oscillation between two stances. The paradoxical state must therefore be respected and at the same time broken. This can only come about through a series of transformations. The classroom communication and the surrounding psychic systems must transform themselves under the influence of the text. Consequently, a both orderly and anarchistic way of thinking and communicating is needed. These are the conditions of literary instruction.
Operationalizing Systems Theory
To comprehend complex and paradoxical conditions you need theories that take complexity into account. In this dissertation Niklas Luhmann’s sociological systems theory was chosen for the reason that it defines social interaction as communication. This allows for carrying out analyses of communication on all levels from top to bottom applying identical concepts.
The top level is society as a whole. This dissertation is built on analyses of society written by others, mainly Lars Qvortrup and his concept of the hyper-complex society. The next level includes the functional systems like the systems of education, literature, politics etc. The differentiation of society into various closed functional systems leaves room for diversity and flexibility, however, systems are dynamic and may either differentiate too far or, on the contrary, implode into identity. The first type of development may be seen when literary instruction is viewed from the perspective of other systems. What becomes visible from the side of society may be an activity locked in its own world, of little use for society, and ripe for reforming. The second type will emerge if the subject of Danish is subsequently reformed primarily due to considerations in the economic system. A development of this kind will change the subject in a way that puts literary instruction under considerable pressure.
This analysis is an example of what systems theory can provide on the level of functional systems, but it claims also to be applicable to lower levels, ‘interaction systems’ such as literature classes. However, a strong tradition for classroom research on a systems theoretical basis does not exist. This dissertation should be seen as a contribution to the strengthening of this, as yet, weak tradition.
For the past twenty to thirty years, educational research in the USA as well as in Scandinavia has rested primarily on a basis of sociocultural theory, to a certain extent in a dialogue with constructivist and cognitive theories. In order to draw on the results of this tradition, the dissertation takes into consideration the differences between sociocultural and systems theory. The latter is seen as the more general and abstract theory, which as its objects also has other theories, including sociocultural theory, as well as systems theory itself.
This hierarchical combination of theories implies a reconstruction of a number of sociocultural concepts into the new frame. This is claimed to be possible except for one central concept. Systems theory argues that systems are cognitively open to their environment, but operationally closed. Contrary to this, sociocultural theory rests on the assumption that psychic systems can internalise or appropriate social operations. Communication can be transformed into mind. At this point no combination of the two theories is possible, a choice is necessary, and systems theory has been chosen. In this dissertation systems are considered operationally closed.
On the basis of this choice and the subsequent reconstruction of a number of sociocultural concepts an attempt has been made to operationalize Luhmann’s theory. One of the results of the dissertation is the construction of a set of analytical tools suitable for the scanning of communication on all relevant levels.
The Function of Literature
If literary instruction is as paradoxical as claimed, why not just bring the teaching of literature to an end? This question gives rise to a demand for understanding the function of literature. Systems theory can provide a frame for this understanding as stated in Luhmann’s Die Kunst der Gesellschaft. What interests Luhmann, though, is art and literature as communication on the level of functional systems. A host of literary theories build upon a far more sophisticated knowledge of texts. Once again a combination of theories is necessary and a small selection of literary theories are used to complement Luhmann’s. Klaus P. Mortensen’s theory of literature is seen as an example of a radical development of hermeneutical theory of literature and interpretation. Philosophically, Luhmann’s theory may also be seen as a radical development of German phenomenology and hermeneutics, and therefore a certain compatibility between the two is claimed.
To abandon literature and literary instruction solve no problems simply because complexity and paradoxes are to be found in all contexts where meaning is involved. This is exactly why literary instruction is important. The crucial aspect of literature is that can be used as a means for concrete, sensuous reflection on meaning. This is in agreement with Mortensen’s view on literature as a method for general formation (dannelse, Bildung), with cognitive semantic’s interest in the cognitive function of metaphoric and narrative structures, and with Sven Møller Kristensen’s and Finn Hauberg Mortensen’s view on literature as embodied and sensuous. Thus, according to a number of quite different theories, the value of literary method lies within two fundamental issues. It can be used cognitively to embody extraordinarily complex and dynamic contexts, and it is closely related to sensuality and delight.
This explains why literature maintains a privileged position in the educational system. Whereas literature operates in language, other art forms operate solely in sense media like space, time, colour, sound, movement etc. Language has in itself a link to sensuousness, as claimed by cognitive semantics, but it is also the primary medium for all communication. This means that literature in a flexible way can operate on a number of levels of reflection.
Therefore literature can use communication from other systems as media. Literature may describe psychic, social, and natural phenomena in ways that makes it look like everyday or scientific communication. Literature can also reflect both on these forms of communication and on its own form. Literary descriptions always rest on second order, never on first order observations. However, because it resembles everyday language, literature can effect even complicated and abstract reflections of a higher order as if they were descriptions of first order, by using narratives and metaphors.
This dissertation is not about literary theory and few new discoveries are expressed on that subject. The most interesting one being the discovery of the fact that there exists a consensus about the nature and function of literature both across systemic boundaries and across boundaries between various literary theories. Luhmann, together with a number of literary theoreticians, teachers and students alike all agree on what literature is. As one teacher said: Good literature should be out of the ordinary and at the same time appeal to the recognition of the reader. This may not be a surprising insight but it lends some firmness to the study of literary instruction.
Conditions and Possibilities of Literary Instruction
Literature can be used in many contexts, in the family sphere and privately as a medium for education or pleasure, in religion in the form of myths, in politics in the form of narratives supporting the building up, maintaining or the breaking down of power, and in economics for stimulating consumption and for building up corporate culture. What literary education adds to all this is that such meaningful operations are being made the objects of reflection. You can read and produce stories in school but you also have to reflect upon them.
Over the last 200 years, the educational system has used literature for a number of purposes. The subject of Danish was born as a consequence of the differentiation of the literature and educational systems from a societal unity in the late 18th century alongside concepts such as the individual and general formation. In the 19th century literary education came to function as a medium for general formation. General formation is a formula (Kontingenzformel) that aims to unite the individual and the collective. The form of formation changes according to the changes in the relationship between these two elements.
In literary education the forms of formation become visible in such phenomena as literary canons, which regulate the relations between the school and the literary system, methods, which regulate the relations between the school and the scientific system, and didactics, which regulate the relations between the school and the students. All three aspects: subject matter, literary methods, and didactics usually exist in normative forms, but may also take on reflective forms. They are under the influence of the function of the school, which is obliged to yield certain contributions to other systems and to society as a whole. This obligation is the basis for the emergence of self-descriptions and selfreflections.
The three dimensions of meaning: the factual, the social, and the temporal, as constructed in the educational system, can be seen during each lesson. Complexity calls for a reduction of complexity, on all levels. Teachers use complexity reducing professional standards when selecting texts, methods, and didactical proceedings. Students learn by alternating between complexity increasing observations of new information, new methods, and new initiatives from the teacher - and complexity reduction through selections and simplifications. And also the observing and analysing researcher is forced to simplify his observations according to the professional rules of the scientific system.
One of the most important results in this field concerns the general conditions of forms of control. In all lessons, control is being executed and at the same time evaded. Luhmann and Foucault have developed theories of power indicating that power is being executed in all situations. It is often productive, but can never become absolute. An example of this is the distinction between control of form and substance which can be seen in the lessons observed.
Control of form can be executed by the teacher as well as by students, in the latter case primarily during group work. This goes for control of turn-taking, time administration, physical dominance by way of freedom of movement, use of the blackboard etc. But formal control is not always identical to control of substance, i.e. the interpretation. This becomes particularly obvious during group work when roles can be distributed leaving one student in control of form while others supply the good ideas. Often in classroom conversation the teacher tries to take control of both fields. But in this respect, literary instruction diverges from other kinds of teaching. The anarchic character of the text means that control over the interpretation cannot be total without damaging the understanding of the text. A good teacher is aware of this and will not try to execute complete control. But even if the teacher tries to do so, students may construct their own interpretations – in verbal form or silently. Peter Rabinowitz has come up with a formula for adequate ‘rule governed’ reading in school: authorial reading. Within this formula lies the idea that the reader has an obligation to communicate with the author, and by so doing, gain the authority of questioning the interpretations of others. Hence this formula also becomes a formula for professional and democratic communication.
The two forms of control are concrete examples of the paradoxical nature of literary instruction. The paradox is unfolded in a contradiction between efforts to control interpretation and the freedom of the readers to construct their own interpretations. Class interaction may prefer control or freedom, or switch back and forth but the paradox can never be eradicated, only evaded.
How is the Interpretation Constructed?
Leaving these preliminary considerations behind, it should be possible to answer the first research question of the dissertation. In all three classes it is possible to observe how the teacher and the students strive to reach a coherent interpretation of the text through a series of analyses. No doubts are raised about the relevance of this effort from the side of any of the parties. The goal is reached to some degree in each class, and the analyses of classroom interaction document the high standards of this activity in the Danish secondary school.
The interaction was analysed using the concept of meaning. Interpretation of a text may be seen as an unusually concentrated and momentary form of meaning operation. The outside world is momentarily present in a highly condensed and imagined form. The text and the interpretation are substitutes for the comprehension of the world as such – though one should constantly be aware of the fact that the text does not represent the world, but presents a reflection of it. This reflection is constructed according to certain systems specific rules – rules of genre, to name but one example. The inherent complexity of the text is crucial to make it suitable as school material.
The analyses show that interpretation of a literary text is a stochastic process, in Bateson’s words, involving a certain degree of freedom of choice and chance. “The phenomenon of meaning appears as a surplus of references to other possibilities of experience and action”1 and unfolds in three dimensions: the factual, the social and the temporal dimension. The construction is carried through in a communication characterized by the formation of patterns of observations and self-observations. These patterns occur as results of selections.
The process involves manoeuvring between extremes. In the fact dimension between an internal and an external horizon, in the social dimension between consensus and dissent, and in the temporal dimension between past and future as seen from the present. When operating in the factual dimension, the thematic structure is strengthened, operating in the social dimension strengthens the social interaction, and operating in the temporal dimension strengthens the general view. The interpretation moves through a number of combinations of these dimensions and horizons, often at great speed. It is possible to try to proceed systematically, as can be seen below, but it is not possible to systematize the process completely. The process is made even more dynamic by the fact that the dimensions and their horizons are constructed through the observations of an unlimited number of domains. The class communication observes itself and it observes the text as a whole, the characters of the text, the themes of the text, and so forth. This dynamic performance is the cause for two opposite evaluations of literary instruction. Some students find it very easy and others very complicated. The dynamic performance is comparable to ordinary conversation, and some students get the impression that in the Danish classes you just have to talk away. But this specific kind of conversation also comprises an unlimited number of additional levels of reflection, which weak students give up handling. Or, in some cases, they do not even discover their existence.
Major differences exist between the ways in which each of the observed classes construct their interpretations. In 3.g the temporal dimension is constructed in a way that places the text in a historical perspective, either on a time line going back a few hundred years, or in an actual historical perspective. In 2.hf many students use the text as a means for a voyage into their own future. In 3.g the social dimension is constructed in a certain atmosphere of competition, each student claiming ownership of his (it is usually a male) interpretation, a tendency, which is not as visible in the other two classes.
In 2.hf the construction of the social dimension is influenced by the fact that these students have chosen not to attend the ordinary ‘gymnasium’, which they find too competitive. In the hf class observed, the communication is closer to everyday interaction. The strength of the 3.g students becomes most visible in their ability to operate in the outer factual dimension. They are able to continuously add knowledge from other sources which fits into the discussion. Also these operations strengthen the temporal dimension of the system by triggering the memory. For these strong students the work of the class must take on the shape of a coherent proceeding. Some hf students attempt to draw on knowledge from other school subjects, from their recollection of previous Danish classes, and from private sources. The problem is that this kind of knowledge often has the form of mere information, and is never combined with other kinds of information into coherent knowledge. To a certain extent, the competence of interpreting texts may be a question of an innate ability or of technical mastery that can be achieved through systematic work. But the key factor in developing the skills to interpret a text seems to be the ability to construct meaning on the basis of existing meaning. The existing meaning is always bound to a system and exists in the system’s ability to recourse to previous operations. In the classroom, various systems are involved in this process. The teacher may remember what happened in a Danish class last year and is therefore able to reintroduce knowledge constructed in this context into the new context. But the crux of the matter is the psychic system of each student. The classroom communication must trigger the memory of each student if learning is to take place and new constructions of meaning are to take form.
Bettina Perregaard has thrown some light over the issue by discussing the various contexts to which students refer. In this connection ‘context’ can be translated into ‘a specific memory domain’. The hf students cannot be said simply to have less knowledge than the gymnasium students, rather they activate different memory domains referring to non-scholastic experiences, making their interpretations seem less coherent.
Of course, more and less coherent interpretations are not distributed simply on ‘gymnasium’ and hf students respectively, but things tend to come across as such in this study. ‘Gymnasium’ students who develop less coherent interpretations just do not show them. The two types of interpretations can be judged from both an aesthetic and a political standpoint. Coherence is a classic aesthetic norm, and the coherent interpretations are therefore likely to come across as more satisfying. But the question is whether even aesthetic norms are or should be universal. Some of the less coherent interpretations have other qualities like being more imaginative or experimenting. This is clearly visible in the Søndergaard-lesson in hf where the students have difficulties understanding the text. This forces them to drift in their search for meaning. At first glance the associations called forward seem far fetched, but some of them have very interesting implications crossing the limits between fine arts, philosophy and suspense literature. Such odd interpretations threaten the coherence of the interpretative process but they also give rise to the political question: Do the gymnasium and hf operate with too narrow a concept of individual formation (dannelse)? And: is it possible to use texts which do not live up to classical demands for coherence, in the scholastic formation process which presupposes coherence?
Didactic Models
So far it seems as if literary instruction is conducted in a state close to chaos. One of the results of the study is the uncovering of patterns and order, despite this proximity to disorder. The patterns of instruction have a strong similarity to patterns of texts, both aesthetic texts and argumentation. Such patterns can by no means be taken for granted. An analysis of a student presentation illustrates how the student uses a simple accumulative form with few hierarchical elements. So the patterns must be constructed more or less deliberately.
The patterns can be found at all levels from general didactic models over course plans and plans for a single lesson to the choice of didactic method in the concrete situation. No final list of forms exists but certain formal elements tend to emerge across different levels and situations. Apparently, some of them can be arranged in contrasting pairs, such as linear vs cyclic, spirals vs circles, dramatic vs associative, heuristic vs searching, thematic vs line-by-line etc. Underlying these pairs seems to be one opposition: pointed vs circular.
Three types of lessons can be singled out as particularly interesting. The first is the dramatic variation, which is especially clear in the Søndergaard-lesson in 2.g. The second type is a linear form, which is identical to the structure of an argumentation or an academic treatise. One example can be found in the Guldager-lesson in 3.g. First half: preliminary presentation of a general impression followed by an analytical deconstruction. Second half: Final interpretation through stages such as: the travel motif → composition → themes → ideology → historical perspective → authorship perspective → point of view technique → reader appeal. The third type is a circular model where the interpretation is created through group work and a subsequent presentation of the results of all groups. Linear control is minimal but in the Thomsen-lesson in 2.hf a coherent interpretation is none the less constructed through a meticulous, collective construction of the social dimension. This lesson is an impressive example of the implementation of an alternative model, which turns out to work just fine.
Another result is the uncovering of the various didactic models, which seem to form the backdrop of each teacher’s instruction in the lessons observed. It must be pointed out that the similarities between the lessons are more substantial than the differences. All lessons adhere to the demands for a coherent interpretation. But the differences are also interesting. The instruction in 3.g could be termed ‘classical’. Care is taken to teach documentation, analysis, coherent interpretation, and historical perspective. Generally, these students achieved very good grades at their final examination (studentereksamen). In 2.g the teacher also used this model but added more linguistic observations and training.
In 2.hf a higher degree of experimentation aimed at transgressing the limit between an ordinary school discourse and the various discourses of the students. The experiments included the teacher’s use of voice, patterns of movement, use of the blackboard, turn-taking technique, types of question and response, combinations of presentation, elaboration and summarizing of information.
The complexity of literary instruction makes it a futile effort to assess the various types of instruction. At CELA observations are combined with tests of the students in order to decide whether dialogic instruction is more efficient than monologic instruction. However, as can be observed in the analyses of this dissertation an overwhelming amount of variables are at stake here. I have not found it fruitful to sort out monologic and dialogic elements and it has not been possible to construct or implement tests. Moreover, Luhmann’s theory was chosen in favour of a sociocultural theory exactly because the latter has a tendency to imply a normative attitude, which is not supported in systems theory. Consequently, an assessment of the various types of instruction would be inconsistent with the theory chosen. But it still leaves room for a reflection on the future development of various didactic models.
The classical model can be said to have reached its optimum, otherwise it would not be classical. Hauberg Mortensen’s research describes how, in the early seventies, teachers felt some insecurity towards the, at that time, new model, but over the years it has established itself and served its purpose: to develop good readers of coherent literary texts. One text being the ultimate coherent text: the history of Danish literature as conveyed by a limited number of textbooks. This contribution should by no means be neglected. It rests on a subtle balance between canonical and personal interpretations. The question is: will this model be able to adjust to the growing complexity in the literary system, which produces more and more heterogeneous texts? As pointed out by Susanne V. Knudsen, some university teachers have developed the model to such a degree that it takes on ritualistic features.
The experiments that take place in 2.g and even more so in 2.hf are not radical to the same degree as is project-organized teaching. The experiments build on the well-known form of class communication. If there is a wish to keep and develop the forms of competence provided by the classical form of instruction it will be necessary to keep it alive and experiment with it in order to make it fit for the handling of the ever more complex literature that is being written. Therefore the experiments described are very interesting. Replacing the classical form by project-organized instruction will not lead to an optimizing of these competences but rather create new ones. One form of instruction can not be replaced by others without losses.
I should like to bring attention to further possibilities within the development of the already known form. Second order observations might come to play a much more central role. The work of the literature teacher is characterized by constant shifts between reflections of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order. Texts are selected on the basis of their contents (1st order) but the teacher also has to consider their use, how the students will react on them, how they will fit in with other texts, how the teacher feels about them etc. (2nd order). And how the texts live up to the requirements of the educational system (3rd order). Routines of this kind must be characterized as hyper-complex, indicating that the teachers of Danish entered the hypermodern world already in the 1970s subsequent to the implementation of the statute of 1971.
Already, students participate to a certain extent in such movements between reflections of various orders. In 2.hf they participate not only by interpreting the text but also by comparing different interpretations. This is arranged through a specific form of accumulating the results of group work on the blackboard. But such activities might take a more prominent place. Students could analyse or even construct course plans and lesson plans. If it holds true that plans of courses and lessons are texts with certain aesthetic features such activities are core literary instruction.
Also to be mentioned is the ’heterogeneous language’ of the students. Especially, in 2.g the male students talk about the texts during group work in a language that is more compound than ordinary school language. They are aware that this language does not belong in school and consequently do not use it in class. Nevertheless, it is being used as a technical tool during group work. This is not to suggest that street language should be used in class, it is rather a proposal for making the difference between school and street language the object of instruction. A 2nd order activity of this nature can be seen as a development of a linguistic training of the type that is already going on in 2.g.
What do the Students Learn?
The second research question has been answered through comparative analyses of the cognitive levels in the students’ writings before class, communication during class and writings after class. The observations have been analysed using Lars Qvortrup’s concept of various knowledge forms.
The core problem in all research in the field of learning is that learning cannot be observed directly. You have to be content with the communicative traces left by psychic activity. This causes some grave methodological problems, which especially concern the analyses of learning in hf.
The study documents that virtually all students learn something during all the lessons observed. In the ‘gymnasium’ classes this becomes evident in the systematic differences between writings before and after class, the cognitive level being higher to considerably higher after class. In 2.g the writings are scarce before class both quantitatively and qualitatively. The writings after class in almost all cases show a considerably better understanding. In 3.g levels are high in both writings, before class especially in connection with the number of skilful observations and ideas. After class, quality is even higher. In many cases a higher degree of order has been reached.
In 2.hf the differences between the contributions are considerable. A few students dominate class interaction and it is difficult to determine the skills of the other students. But this class also produces the most impressive group work. The writings are not significant. Even students who demonstrate a good understanding of a text in class do not write much worth noting, indicating that they may have learned something, even though they write little. Sven Erik Nordenbo reports from an investigation that 63 per cent of the students in hf consider themselves passive receivers of knowledge, not active constructors of knowledge in school. While in the ‘gymnasium’, the 3.g students want to demonstrate their knowledge a majority of the hf students do not find this important.
Given these methodological reservations, the conclusion is as such: it is possible to discriminate between different cognitive levels in the interpretation and that one of the contributions of literary instruction is that students learn to discriminate and move between various cognitive levels. In the interview with the 3.g students it can be discerned that the competence of moving between levels has been learned in the Danish lessons to a degree where it may be exercised in other contexts too.
It is an important fact that students claim their competence has been trained more systematically in the Danish lessons than in other lessons. As pointed out by the students, the examples indicate that this activity transgresses the limit between literary and language instruction. The analysis of a student presentation in 2.g indicates that a systematic instruction of verbal language could be included in this context. It might even be of a particular importance in hf since these students seem to have special difficulties with their writing skills.
The Transformation of Types of Texts and General Formation
In order not to spread the observations over literature in general this dissertation has concentrated on observations of instruction on literature of the 1990s. This calls for an overview of literature of this decade. The selection of texts has moved through a number of stages: a study of a number of curricula, of a canon discussion and of three constructions of contemporary literary history.
Two of these constructions are held to be particularly interesting, namely Anne-Marie Mai’s and Anne Borup’s theory that since the 1960s a broad variety of text types have appeared in Danish alongside with more traditional modernist literature. And Lyngsø’s theory that the literature of the 1990s consists of three types of texts: existential, political and cognitive literature. The texts used for observations were chosen in order to cover these three types.
Anne Borup’s analysis is particularly interesting. She claims that modern literature and the school have drifted apart because a major part of modern literature is not suitable as school material as long as literary instruction rests on ideals connected with modernist literature. In systems theoretical terms, literature has developed a complexity, which can be conceived by the school only if instructional forms which equal the complexity of the new genres are developed.
Others have raised similar claims. In the report Fremtidens danskfag criticism is raised against the so called ‘natural state’ of literary instruction, and in 1986 Finn Hauberg Mortensen claimed that the concept of individual formation which was being used in the subject of Danish was too narrow to contain reflections on the formational potentials deriving from the natural and social sciences. Furthermore, classical hermeneutics has run into a crisis because of the development of the deconstruction and complexity theories. The fundamental idea that the meaning of a text may be uncovered through a circular movement culminating in a merging of horizons is no longer a matter of course.
The texts employed offer a possibility to test these claims although the number of texts is too small to give much room for generalisations. If what is claimed is right one would expect the Søndergaard texts to be difficult material to use, the Guldager texts to be less difficult whereas the Thomsen texts fit perfectly into the ‘natural state’ of literary instruction. The analyses of the lessons and two of the teachers’ reactions to the texts as well as to the analyses of the lessons confirm this expectation. The Søndergaard texts are a major challenge, while the Thomsen-lessons are next to perfect.
Since the 1960s, literature has developed a variety of textual forms that do not appeal to the reader’s capability to empathize. Lyngsø uses the possibility of empathizing as a definition for existential literature, while political and cognitive literature do not offer this possibility. But to some extent literary instruction depends on the students’ ability to empathize with the text or with the characters of the text. Many students consider the deep analysis of characters the core of literary instruction. The analysis of various group works might indicate that a certain difference exists between male and female students. The females work more in depth with the understanding of characters while the males are more interested in solving puzzles as such. Texts offering these possibilities seem to leave the students with a higher degree of contentment and thereby lead to more successful teaching. The problem is how to assess this situation. Has literary instruction concentrated too much on elaborating its own codes and programs, i.e. creating its own canon, methods and a specific kind of literary history, or has literature developed into a closed system leaving only experts interested in the outcome?
It is a political question involving culture and education, and either opinion can be defended. The first opinion is discussed throughout the dissertation. The advocates of the second opinion may choose between three consequences. 1. Literature should not be taught in school at all, 2. Only the classical canon should be taught, 3. Only literature suitable specifically for use in school should be taught. So far, the first opinion is likely to be rare. A variation is found in the wish to split Danish in two or more subjects, giving the subject of literature a position similar to the position of art and music. The second opinion is conservative and prevails in the secondary educational systems of many countries. The third opinion is probably prevalent in much primary school instruction. The last two opinions can be combined. Students should be instructed in the classical canon combined with modern texts offering the possibility for identification and for psychological and moral debate.
The discussion has a bearing on the perspective of general formation. The example of Morten Søndergaard is a principal one. The analysis of the Søndergaard reception of the literary system demonstrates that it differs from the reception of the classes observed, in one respect. According to the literary system Søndergaard expresses himself within the frames of an almost 100 years old phenomenological tradition. This tradition is influenced by developments in modern science and philosophy and has had an impact on culture in general throughout the century. In the 1990s the influence reached Danish literature.
Teachers of Danish have an obligation to use contemporary literature, but some kinds of texts seem to be more difficult to use than others. Apparently they do not fit into the hermeneutical and historic models which characterize the Danish instruction. In the Søndergaard lessons observed, various experiments are made to solve this problem, and for this reason these lessons are particularly interesting.
Insight into scientific thinking and its consequences are crucial to modern society. The difficulties of bringing this insight into a subject like Danish which claims to be formative (almendannende) are worth further consideration. The construction of a broader concept of formation may be necessary. It could also be a contribution to solve a crisis within science itself. The development of modern science is concentrated on elaborating the codes and programs of the system itself without much consideration for its social environment. This has some highly unwanted consequences. The environment is cut off from understanding what happens inside the system and consequently tends to lose interest. A dilemma that is parallel to the dilemma concerning literature and its environment. But literary instruction might be able to take part in the solving of this problem by using cognitive literature.
No analysis of the Guldager-reception has been made. But I see Ankomst, Husumgade as the author’s attempt to develop a political discourse which does not contain proclamations of politically correct opinions – a tendency well known from the literature of the 1970s - while still embracing the ethical perspectives. Superficially read, Guldager’s texts seem simple, but under the surface a complexity hides, which surprises the reader. He or she must be able to identify a number of incoherent voices. This causes problems to the students because they are not able to connect the voices to relevant contexts. But the difficulties can be overcome because the voices do have a certain, although misty, human and social background. This may be the reason why Guldager is one of the favourites among young authors in the ‘gymnasium’.
In Short
The aim of this dissertation is to characterize a literary instruction which rests on what could be termed ‘a general literary didactical basis’ (et alment fagdidaktisk grundlag). Literary instruction respects, and should respect, the character and function of the literary texts as well as the special character of the educational system.
The dissertation documents that such an instruction already exists. The analyses of the lessons reveal that successful instruction tends to be organized in accordance with principles already known from other genres of texts. Most noteworthy: to a large extent in accordance with aesthetic principles. This gives literary instruction its distinctive character. Teachers and students read and interpret the authors’ texts but in so doing they themselves act and learn to act according to aesthetic rules.
It is claimed that the potential of literary instruction lies in the further development of this distinctive quality. Students must be activated on as many levels as possible. Not just as constructors of interpretations but also as constructors of instruction – provided that these activities are bound by rules similar to the rules that characterize literary texts. In this way two extremes are omitted: 1. A very broad instruction which uses literary texts as mere source material for various kinds of activities, as for example political and ethical discussions, history instruction etc. 2. A very narrow instruction which uses texts as source material for analytical procedures only.
A relevant instruction presupposes a constant observation of the literary system - and parts of the scientific system. When new literature is created and when the communication on older literature changes literary instruction must change too. Not by internalising communication from these other systems but in a reflective movement. The sensuous character of literature guarantees that this movement will not lead to endless reflections but will take on the character of a constant moving between the reflective and the concrete. Hypermodern literature attempts to prevent readers from a simple empathetic reading, but this effort must also be seen as an attempt to reach a form of identification on a higher level, which might form the basis for a new kind of general formation relevant for life in the hypermodern, reflective society.
Focusing on Morten Søndergaard’s texts and their reception allows the study to focus on literature as a dynamic phenomenon which develops according to literary rules under the constant observation of the media, philosophy, science etc. It opens for a similar view on literary instruction as a dynamic and yet stable phenomenon. And this is probably the most important result of the dissertation. Two dangers should be omitted in the new ‘gymnasium’ which is under construction: a concentration on single, closed subjects, and a blind belief in project-organized instruction, which will endanger the connection between the school and other systems like the literary and the scientific systems.
The dissertation argues for a development which rests on a comprehension of the paradoxical nature of the ‘gymnasium’. The subjects have to be open to the environment in order to keep closed – which means: operate on their own terms. It is claimed that the dissertation documents that a literary instruction resting on such a comprehension is possible and useful. It may even be called mandatory because the skills, competences and formation which may develop under these circumstances are in accordance with the crucial demand of the hypercomplex society: that the students develop the ability to navigate in a flexible way between endless levels of reflection and viewpoints without losing their way.
| Originalsprog | Dansk |
|---|---|
| Bevilgende institution |
|
| Vejledere/rådgivere |
|
| Udgiver | |
| Status | Udgivet - 2005 |
Citationsformater
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver