1

A Look Through the Literary Lens: Examining Schools of Literary Criticism and How They Pertain to Secondary English Education
An Annotated Bibliography
Dustin Sipes The University of Idaho March 1, 2013

INTRODUCTION Teaching English can be a difficult business. While an aptitude for English, the language arts, and literature comes naturally to select individuals, the fact remains that a great majority of students are only passively interested in, are indifferent to, or are turned off even dismayed by such subject matter. This is often due to the fact that these students, usually at the secondary and post-secondary levels of education, have never been imbued with a love for English and literature, or even a fondness for it. If students move into the post-secondary sphere with no appreciation for or desire to learn literature, their learning is impeded. An aversion to literature, mild or otherwise, begins to present problems when students move from secondary schooling to post-secondary schooling, as every student is generally required to take basic pre-requisite classes in English, and more often than not will be required to take at least one literature class to fulfill some other requirement. It is not within the scope of possibility to make every student enjoy literature; nonetheless, there is a necessity for educators to examine why so many students leave high school and enter college disliking it. This annotated bibliography was constructed with the purpose of examining this necessity more closely in terms of literary theory and criticism. More specifically, the common purpose of the sources contained herein is to help one examine which schools of literary theory and criticism secondary educators should employ when teaching English in order to help their students attain a greater love and a better understanding of literature. This bibliography is not by any means authoritative regarding this subject matter; rather, it is intended as a starting point to launch an examination thereof. A good portion of the sources herein focus heavily on New Historicism, a school of literary criticism asserting that works of literature should be analyzed in terms of their historical context. As this seems to be the method of literary criticism that is most widely utilized when teaching literature, a variety of sources discussing it is highly desirable, if not necessary. Sources examining other schools of literary theory and criticism are present as well, and are imperative unless one wishes to instead focus on New Historicism exclusively. Shakespeare is a specific focus in a great portion of sources as well, as Shakespeare tends to be one of the biggest proverbial beasts facing high school students, and thus could be an excellent place to begin examining what theoretical lens(es) could be used to give beleaguered students a clear view of difficult literature. Naturally, sources are included that focus on secondary education, whether exclusively or in tandem with a focus on literature in some form. Other sources span subjects such as students issues with reading literature in high school, teachers and students perceptions of confusion in English classrooms, and the how the incorporation of modern technology primarily internet resources affects secondary English education.

RELEVANT ABBREVIATIONS ASM: Aforementioned Subject Matter, here referring to the subject matter mentioned in the introduction section that is the focus of this bibliography (namely, which school or schools of literary theory secondary educators should employ when leading their students through literature in order to help them attain a greater love and a better understanding thereof).

ANNOTATIONS Adney, K. (2010). Shaping Shakespeare, reflecting history: adaptations of Othello for children in 1990s Britain. Pennsylvania Literary Journal, 2(1), 81-113. This article examines two 1990s presentations of Shakespeares Othello, both adapted for children. This article is particularly relevant to the study of the ASM for three main reasons: firstly, because it is focusing on adapted presentations of plays by Shakespeare, a literary giant and stumbling block for many students, and thus an excellent building block for study of the ASM; secondly, because it focuses on analyzing these adaptations through a New Historicist lens; and lastly, because these adaptations were made for children, who are naturally the center of a study focused on effective education. In the words of Adney (2010), The way in which people process Shakespeare's material, present that material to the world, and the forces that govern their choices serve as the catalyst for this study (p.82). Not only is this statement exemplary of a New Historicist focus, but it also inherently states that this study is relevant to the more vital aspect of the ASM: how to best educate students to love and comprehend literature. To determine this, we must naturally study the way in which students process literature. Batho, R. (1998). Shakespeare in secondary schools. Educational Review, 50(2), 163. In this article, Batho (1998) examines the results of a survey of secondary English teaching in two English local education authorities. It discusses the effects of students in both England and Wales from the ages of 11-14 being mandated to study and be tested on various Shakespeare plays. The author suggests that the study of Shakespeare could result in improved literacy in students, but that the inclusion of the mandated tests, as well the restrictions placed on the plays taught, actually diminish the effectiveness of the literature on the students, in both enjoyment and comprehension. The author supports his suggestions with various data throughout the course of the article. This article is more quantitatively focused than most of the other sources, but is nonetheless useful in studying the ASM. The quantitative data would definitely be useful for supporting claims. This article also focuses on Shakespeare, which is important to the ASM for reasons mentioned in the previous annotation.

Bristol, M. (2011). Macbeth the philosopher: rethinking context. New Literary History, 42(4), 641-662. Bristol (2011) opens this article by relating an anecdote regarding a student of his insisting that one could not understand the play Macbeth without first having substantial knowledge of its historical context in this case, a background in Jacobean politics. In the rest of this article, Bristol (2011) chooses to challenge this assertion by re-evaluating the matter of context. In Bristols (2011) words, The potential relevance of history for the appreciation of texts is not at issue here, but rather the unacknowledged assumption that context in the sense of specialized background knowledge is a necessary condition for understanding a work of literature. Anything else you might come up with to enhance your enjoyment of a literary text such as Macbeth would count as not understanding (641, 642). This statement emphasizes a point that could be essential to studying the ASM. The average high school student is almost assuredly not going to have an extensive understanding of the historical context of Shakespeares works let alone knowledge of Jacobean politics; thus, though the educator can certainly teach them about the historical context along the way, their understanding of the work is going to have to stem from some other source. They will find no fulfillment or enjoyment in the work otherwise. Cope, J. (1997). Beyond Voices of Readers: students on schools effects on reading. The English Journal, 86(3), 18-23. This article builds on a survey by the author of nearly 300 students in five different high schools in regards to their reading of literature. The survey was in the form of a reading biography, an idea he borrowed from a book called Voices of Readers: How We Come to Love Books by G. Robert Carson and Anne Sherrill (1988). The key difference between Copes (1997) work and that of Carson and Sherrill (1988) is that Cope (1997) gives more focus to students that did not have the same enthusiasm for reading as himself or the students points of view in Voices of Readers, thus adding much-needed variety and additional perspective. Reading sits at the very core of literary studies; thus, observing students opinions on reading literature is essential if one is to study the ASM. It is of key importance that Cope (1997) studied high school age students, and it is especially helpful that his focus was on 12th-graders, who are on the verge of continuing on to postsecondary education.

Culler, J. (1997). Literary theory: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Cullers (1997) book, Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, provides a look at many schools of literary theory and criticism in a fashion that is easy to understand, yet loses none of its value. It has chapters on several topics that are helpful to study of the ASM, including: defining literature and why it matters; discussion of language, meaning, and interpretation; and rhetoric, poetics and poetry. It is one of two non-article source in this bibliography. It is also, coincidentally, one of the most vital to the study of the ASM. The most obvious reason for this is that it covers, in decent depth, literary

theory and various schools of literary criticism. Another helpful aspect of this book is that said theories and criticisms are not the only subjects that it covers, and all of the other subjects not involving literary criticism be just as easily analyzed in terms of effectively educating students in literature. While not a long book, it is nonetheless a plethora of knowledge central to the study of the ASM.

Desmet, C. & Bailey, R. (2009). The Shakespeare dialogues: (re)producing The Tempest in secondary and university education. College Literature 36(1), 121-140. The Shakespeare Dialogues is not just the title of this article, but was in fact the title of a project headed by Desmet and Bailey (2009) that allowed Desmets university students and Baileys high school students study Shakespeares The Tempest simultaneously and communicatively via cyberspace. This article focuses mainly on the various methods that the students utilized in learning the literature and analyzing how these methods worked. The fact that these methods were conducted via the internet lends this article further relevance to studying the ASM, considering the fact that todays students are a technologically immersed breed, to say the least. That the literary study was a collaborative effort between secondary and post-secondary students is of further importance. Also, once again, we have a focus on Shakespeare as the exemplary literary giant, and while Shakespeare seems to be a narrow focus of this bibliography thus far, it must be remembered that the study of Shakespeare can easily be expanded to the study of high literature in general. Felski, R. (2011). Context Stinks!. New Literary History, 42(4), 573-591. This article, like the previously cited article from Bristol (2011), has a large focus on challenging the definitions of context. However, while Bristols (2011) piece focuses almost exclusively on context, Felskis (2011) piece despite its title suggesting otherwise focuses less on challenging context in and of itself and more on the New Historicist beliefs that have given rise to our current understanding of context. Felski (2011) chooses instead to take a more Formalist/New Criticist bent and assert that history is not a boxthat conventional models of historicizing and contextualizing prove deficient in accounting for the transtemporal movement and affective resonance of particular texts (574). This is where the study of the ASM takes a step in the direction of examining other methods of literary criticism as they are opposed to New Historicism. This, if one is to recall, is one of the primary points of examining the ASM: to see if there is, in fact, a school of literary theory that is more effective for teaching high schoolers about literature. Lee, M.S. (2012). Searching the archives with Dickens and Hawthorne: databases and aesthetic judgment after the New Historicism. ELH, 79(3), 747-771. Here, Lee (2012) examines how modern databases, such as search engines and online archives and libraries, mediate the relationship between literature and the historical contexts thereof (749, 750). While this may seem a bit off-the-wall and slightly irrelevant to study of the ASM, it nonetheless has the potential to be a valuable resource. Lee (2012) talks about literary scholars being reluctant to adopt database practices for fear of

transforming into superficial skimmers of texts, orwith more teleological drivedata miners guided by search terms (750). Yet, as mentioned in the annotation for Desmet and Baileys (2009) article, todays high schoolers and future university students are a generation fully immersed in technology. Thus, the concept of online databases as they relate to literary studies could be important to analyze. One could also find a way to challenge New Historicisms effectiveness as the dominant literary teaching theory on these grounds by claiming that, in todays technological age, a focus on historical context in a literary work should, in the interest of reaching students where they stand, be displaced by a lighter, quicker reading and a Formalist/New Criticist follow-up. Lewis, E.C. (2012). Friending Atticus Finch: English teachers perspective on MySpace as a contemporary framework for literary analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(4), 285-295. This article is a study conducted by Lewis (2012) with the help of two high school teachers. Building on a concept that they dubbed new literacies, they utilized the social networking site MySpace as a platform for facilitating students understanding, enjoyment, and retention of literature. Though the schools policy prevented them from actually utilizing the website itself, the teachers constructed a hybrid program in which the students replicated the elements of the site on paper and created imitation MySpace profiles for characters from classic American literary texts. This source, if utilized in the study of the ASM, would build further on the idea brought up in the previous annotation for the article by Lee (2012) that the technology utilized by todays students may be rendering conventional methods of literary analysis ineffective, thus requiring that new methods of literary criticism and theory be considered for implementation. Plaut, S. (2006). I just dont get it: teachers and students conceptions of confusion and implications for teaching and learning in the high school English classroom. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 391-421. Plaut (2006) conducted observational studies of interactive writing lessons between two teachers and their respective students, and then conducted interviews with the teachers and the students regarding the lessons with particular focus on moments of confusion. While the greater portion of the article discusses the nature of confusion more than anything else, it provides in-depth descriptions of the studies themselves, which can give a study of the ASM an insider look at some of the functionings and malfunctionings of an English classroom actively teaching literature. Taking into consideration the fact that the true purpose of studying the ASM is to determine by what literary means secondary educators should guide their students to help them maximize comprehension and enjoyment, an article examining the frustrations of students and teachers in a high school English classroom has obvious value. Robbins, B. (2005). Using The Original Approach to teach Shakespeare. The English Journal, 95(1), 65-68. Robbins (2005) utilized a technique called The Original Approach, originally coined by Patrick Tucker and the Original Shakespeare Company, to help teach Shakespeare in his high school English classroom. This technique involves acting out the plays not by memorizing lines, but by remembering and building ones performance in greater part off

of contextual clues from the text of the play itself. The phrase herein that lends itself to the study of the ASM is contextual clues. Looking back through this bibliography at the articles from Felski (2011) and Bristol (2011), one can get some excellent points of view as to the nature of context in relation to its definition, its relation to New Historicism, and its relation to the understanding of literature in a contextual sense. The question that could be raised by Robbins (2005) article is whether or not the contextual clues utilized in the Original Approach were utilized in the fashion of context in its standard, New Historicist sense, or in another, more broad and revolutionary sense; and, more importantly, whether or not it was that theorys version of context that lent to the effectiveness of the method. Thorson, S. (1995). Macbeth in the resource room: students with learning disabilities study Shakespeare. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(9), 575-581. In this article, Thorson (1995) relates the story of how she was able to implement Shakespeare more specifically, his play Macbeth into her special education curriculum with success. Without going into the specifics of her techniques, one can immediately see the value of this article in studying the ASM. The most crucial focus of examining the ASM, the end result a researcher of these things needs to have in mind, is first and foremost how answering the question of literary theory as an educational tool will help students. This means all students, both full incorporation and special needs. This article provides a completely different perspective than any of the others as far as teaching literature is concerned, which is much to be desired, as one must attempt to examine as many facets of English education as possible in order to construct an accurate study of the ASM. Wade, B., & Sheppard, J. (1994). How teachers teach Shakespeare. Educational Review, 46(1), 21. This article is a study very similar to the previously cited article by Batho (1998). In this article, a survey was sent to forty five secondary schools under one local education authority asking how the English teachers in these schools preferred to teach Shakespeare to their classes. Traditional literary study was found to be the most preferred; yet, reviews from students asserted that these methods were the least effective for them, and they disliked learning Shakespeare because of it. This article supports the students claims, and Wade and Sheppard (1994) say that The danger is that an elitist, high-culture, purely literary model of Shakespeare is presented through play-reading, literary critical analysis and scene summarizing (21). Wade and Sheppard (1994) also say that these methods exclude experience of the performance process (21). The data in this article is extremely useful, as it gives detailed feedback regarding teachers preferred methods of teaching Shakespeare, which in turn could serve, after some analysis, to give some proof as to what school of literary criticism teachers tends to lean towards. Wilson, S. (2007). The economimesis of New Historicism (or how New Historicism displaced theory in English literature departments). Journal for Cultural Research, 11(2), 162-174

Wilson (2007) asserts in this article that literary theory has declined in the face of the powerful literary force that is New Historicism, and also asserts that this phenomenon has taken place primarily in the English literature departments of schools. His article forms

the most solid basis in this bibliography, next to Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, for examining schools of literary criticism. What causes this article to stand out is that, out of all the other sources in this bibliography, it is the one that most explicitly indeed, almost exclusively places New Historicism specifically against other schools of literary criticism. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, true to its name, contains a great deal of explanation about the meaning and directions of literary theory; thus, these two texts will most likely be instrumental to each other in interpreting New Historicism, other schools of literary criticism, and literary theory and weaving them into a well-constructed study of the ASM. Wilsons (2007) assertion that this displacement has occurred greatly in the realm of English literature departments is also a valuable asset to support the assertion that New Historicism is indeed the dominant literary school utilized by educators, boards, and other purveyors of the canon. Woolfolk, A. (2013). Educational psychology. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. This source contains a wealth of information regarding an extremely important element that has been so far relatively short handed in this bibliography, the true focus of examining the ASM: children and education. The book covers education and educational psychology for every stage of development and every grade level, and thus it naturally contains useful information about secondary education. It does not, of course, have a specific focus on English, but it does contain information about how children learn and process language. It also provides valuable information about stages of cognitive and social development, which could prove to be valuable tools for study of the ASM by evaluating how students will be thinking and in what fashion they will be cognitively ready to learn. By taking a close look at these factors, one could make inferences when studying the ASM about how students learn and apply those inferences to argue which school of literary criticism would be most effectively learned by students.

WORKS CITED Adney, K. (2010). Shaping Shakespeare, reflecting history: adaptations of Othello for children in 1990s Britain. Pennsylvania Literary Journal, 2(1), 81-113. Batho, R. (1998). Shakespeare in secondary schools. Educational Review, 50(2), 163. Bristol, M. (2011). Macbeth the philosopher: rethinking context. New Literary History, 42(4), 641-662. Cope, J. (1997). Beyond Voices of Readers: students on schools effects on reading. The English Journal, 86(3), 18-23. Culler, J. (1997). Literary theory: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Desmet, C. & Bailey, R. (2009). The Shakespeare dialogues: (re)producing The Tempest in secondary and university education. College Literature 36(1), 121-140. Felski, R. (2011). Context Stinks!. New Literary History, 42(4), 573-591. Lee, M.S. (2012). Searching the archives with Dickens and Hawthorne: databases and aesthetic judgment after the New Historicism. ELH, 79(3), 747-771. Lewis, E.C. (2012). Friending Atticus Finch: English teachers perspective on MySpace as a contemporary framework for literary analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(4), 285-295. Plaut, S. (2006). I just dont get it: teachers and students conceptions of confusion and implications for teaching and learning in the high school English classroom. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 391-421. Robbins, B. (2005). Using The Original Approach to teach Shakespeare. The English Journal, 95(1), 65-68. Thorson, S. (1995). Macbeth in the resource room: students with learning disabilities study Shakespeare. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(9), 575-581. Wade, B., & Sheppard, J. (1994). How teachers teach Shakespeare. Educational Review, 46(1), 21. Wilson, S. (2007). The economimesis of New Historicism (or how New Historicism displaced theory in English literature departments). Journal for Cultural Research, 11(2), 162-174 Woolfolk, A. (2013). Educational psychology. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.