I'm currently observing and teaching Literature at the IP level for the students at VJC. There is a Literature package which consists of selected works from Singapore Lit, UK Lit and Indian Lit. As of now, we are doing Singapore Lit. The approach that my CT uses and encourages me to adopt, is less of teaching them the content, but more of teaching them skills, which would enable them to interpret the poems themselves. I think this works very well since the students are generally of high-ability. They are fast to understand the texts but require some guidance to uncover the underlying patterns in the poems, for example. Hence, our role is to teach them such skills, which they will be tested on during their upcoming tests.
The students are also currently doing Integrated Humanities, which is Literature and Geography combined. During IH, both subject teachers do co-teaching. I observed a very interesting lesson where both teachers offered differing perspectives on urban planning, based on Boey Kim Cheng's "The Planners". The students really broadened their perspectives and learnt to read deeper; they saw how urban planning and development in Singapore has become a necessary evil. They also learnt that sometimes we simply do not have a clearcut solution to everything. Getting students to understand these issues is basically what drives each Literature lesson.
I think these entry really described the disparity between the top-tier students and the less able students - how can this gap be bridged? Is it idealistic to think that it can be bridged? Do we really want this gap to be bridged?
ReplyDelete