Panel at Bahía Blanca 2009 FAAPI Conference, as published in the proceedings.

1. “A Room of One’s Own”
Panel: Perspectives on the Teaching of Literature
as published in the 2009 FAAPI Conference Proceedings
“A Room of One’s Own” is devoted to discussions on literary theory, literature teaching at different
levels of instruction, and the promotion of literary reading. Its online work can be found at
http://roomown.wordpress.com and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/roomown/. Launched in the 2008
FAAPI Conference, it aims to become a permanent feature of this annual event. The panel organized
this year focused on the teaching and reading of Literature, analyzing current trends in different
contexts and reflecting on the future of the field.
Teaching Narrative, Narrating Teaching (Olga Liberti) addressed the introduction of literary theory
(mainly narratology) by relying on the students’ own knowledge of narrativity drawn from popular
genres such as sitcoms, soap operas, and adventure films.
Reading Groups. A Reflection (Susana Gullco Groisman) discussed the setting up of Reading Groups
not only as an educational issue but also as a social one, pointing out the basic theoretical aspects in
the dynamics of small groups, and illustrating with past and present cases.
Literature in Teacher Education – a riches-to-rags story? (Mariel Amez) is presented in full below as a
springboard for discussion and reflection within and among Higher Education institutions.
Literature in Teacher Education – a riches-to-rags story?
Prof. Mariel R. Amez
Instituto de Educación Superior “Olga Cossettini”
ISPI “San Bartolomé”
mamez@express.com.ar
Abstract
In the late 1990’s all Teacher Education Programmes in the country were revised to
conform to the Federal Law of Education and the regulations issued by the CFCyE.
With the passing of the Law of National Education, new curricula are to be designed,
and new directives should be followed. This paper examines the changes in the literary
curriculum and their underlying assumptions as implemented in the province of Santa
Fe, with special reference to IES “O. Cossettini” (Rosario). It comments on strengths
and weaknesses and pose some questions on possible paths to follow.
Literature in Teacher Education – a riches-to-rags story?
Most national colleges offered broadly the same curriculum for Teacher Training Programmes
from the 1960’s to the 1990’s. Since this curriculum consisted solely of a list of subjects and teaching
periods, there was ample room for updating, while the structure remained the same. The emphasis in
this model lay on linguistic development, and the actual practicum was taught only in the final year.
Literature enjoyed pride of place, as it did in the foreign language classroom in the days of the
Grammar-Translation method: "The assumption was that if the students were continually exposed to
the best uses of the English language, it would in some sense "rub off" on their own performance in
the language." (Short & Candlin, 1986, p. 91) Following Risager (1998), we can say Literature
teaching was underpinned by a foreign-cultural approach, whose aim is to develop native speaker
communicative and cultural competence. It is based on the concept of a single culture which is to be
admired, associated with a specific people, language, and territory, and which enhances positive
stereotypes but does not deal with the relations between the target country and the learners’ own.
At IES “O. Cossettini” (Rosario) in particular, Literature was taught in four different subjects for
a total of 16 weekly periods from 2nd to 4th year. Three of them dealt with English Literature and one
with American Literature. The approach was diachronic and quite static, except for Contemporary
Literature, in which the latest developments were addressed. In all cases, as no statutory contents

2. were defined, lecturers were free to make their own choices and adaptations, within the framework of
the literary periods assigned to each course.
In the late 1990’s all Programmes in the country were revised to conform to the Federal Law of
Education and the regulations issued by the Consejo Federal de Cultura y Educación. These
regulations established two different degrees for teachers of English "Profesor de Inglés para la
Educación Inicial y el primero y el segundo ciclos de la Educación General Básica" (three and a half
years long) and "Profesor de Inglés para el tercer ciclo de la Educación General Básica y la
Educación Polimodal" (four years long). In addition, they indicated the percentage of the curriculum to
be assigned to each field, a maximum of subjects to be taught per year, statutory contents and
outcomes for areas of study, etc. Some provinces required institutions to develop their curriculum
based on these requirements, others, including Santa Fe, decided on a unified curricular structure for
all institutions.
The emphasis in this case was placed on the teachers-to-be professional rather than linguistic
development – a paradigm shift from Teacher Training to Teacher Education, it might be claimed.
st
Teaching Workshops started to be taught every year from 1 year, and subjects devoted to the study
of language acquisition, didactics, action research and ancillary methodological issues were
introduced.
The characterisation of Literature in the statutory contents (CBC) reads:
Los contenidos que se presentan a continuación tienen por objeto rescatar los aportes
de la literatura canónica y alternativa como ventana a la cultura de la lengua en
cuestión. Se trata de que los futuros docentes profundicen el aprendizaje y
adquisición de la lengua extranjera seleccionada a través de la interpretación del
discurso literario. El texto literario retrata situaciones contextualizadas que revelan los
códigos y valores de los hablantes de las lenguas en cuestión. Esto implica aceptar
como diferentes otras concepciones y visiones del mundo, la cultura y la sociedad. El
texto literario contribuye en forma armónica al desarrollo de una única función estética
o poética del lenguaje, y por ende, el desarrollo de una competencia intercultural.
(Contenidos Básicos Comunes Formación Docente de Lenguas Extranjeras, p. 30)
The topics to be incorporated ranged from typical genres in canonical and non-canonical
literature from English-speaking countries, contributions from literary theory and alternative literary
formats, to children’s and young adults’ literature, cultural diversity through literature and criteria for
the use of literature in the EFL classroom. What is more, the aims involved the development of both
critical literacy and aesthetic enjoyment. This ambitious programme, however, was to be put into
practice with a considerable reduction of the teaching periods available, given the percentages for
different areas determined in the regulations.
Turning back to Risager (1998), we can discern in this model components of the transcultural
approach to foreign language teaching, which aims to develop mediators with intercultural and
communicative competence to use language in situations of cultural and linguistic complexity.
Literature involves not only traditional target countries but other countries, areas or cultural contexts
and is based on the concept of the interwoven character of cultures as a common condition for the
whole world.
The revised curriculum was put into practice in Santa Fe in 2001. The name of the area was
changed to “Literature in English” and the number of subjects was reduced to three (11 periods) for
Polimodal Teachers, and two (7 periods) for EGB Teachers. In addition, IES “O. Cossettini” allotted
one of the “institutionally determined subjects” (Espacio de Definición Institucional) to Literary
Research, only for Polimodal Teachers in 4th year. It was an advantage that provincial mandatory
contents were restricted to general guidelines but no authors or texts were prescribed, which meant
we were quite free in the implementation. Working as a team, Literature teachers agreed that the
decrease in the teaching load barred a diachronic approach, so at first we opted for an organisation
based on genres that tried to offer a glimpse of main canonical works together with the other topics to
be addressed. It was clear that more autonomy in the learners was crucial, so that research needed to
be encouraged.
The corpus of texts was modified to incorporate postcolonial authors alongside British and
American ones in the three subjects. During 2002, for example, 2nd year (which had traditionally
included Old English, Medieval and Renaissance literature) covered authors such as Toni Morrison,
Jane Austen, Poe and Shakespeare among others.

3. We soon found that it was extremely taxing for students to become “time-travellers” without
any temporal framework, even more so since 1st year Social Studies dealt exclusively with
contemporary history. We decided therefore, without transforming the subject into a “History of
nd th
Literature”, to start in 2 year with 20 century short stories, and then incorporate some
characterisation and extracts from Old and Middle English literature, ending with lyrical poetry and a
Shakespearean play. Postcolonial literature, originally included in all three years, was eventually
nd
abandoned in 2 year to make way for an American novel.
rd th
The main tenets from several schools of literary criticism started to be dealt with in 3 and 4
year, and exemplified through the analysis of certain works from such perspectives. As regards the
use of Literature in EFL, it is addressed theoretically only in the final year, though some practical
nd
experience of exploitation of material is required from students from 2 year so that they will gain
experiential knowledge and deepen their aesthetic experience.
With the passing of the Law of National Education, new curricula are to be designed, and new
directives should be followed which, at present, are not known. It has been established that once
again only one degree will be available, catering for all levels of instruction. It can hence be envisaged
that certain subjects will have to be shortened to allow for the introduction of necessary practicum
opportunities.
Which role is Literature to play in the new curriculum for Teacher Education? Will we privilege
the study of literature or the use of literature as a resource? If the latter, will it be a resource for
language, cultural or personal growth (Carter & Long, 1991) or a tool for the classroom? Those are
central issues that should underlie the selection of both declarative and procedural contents, and beg
the question of whether all aims can coexist in one class. Even though text selection is essential in the
realization of the curriculum, in my view it is the goals that should be analysed first.
What lessons have we learnt from the current model? The broadening of the canon and the
selection of texts that are engaging and meaningful to students are clear strengths, and so is the
introduction of critical theory beyond the historical dimension. Prioritising the development of literary
competence over the teaching of particular classics is also essential in the education of autonomous,
reflexive and critical professionals who are empowered for lifelong-learning. Finally, if a diachronic
approach is not followed, coordinated efforts are essential to avoid overlapping and reduce omission.
In terms of issues not addressed so far, it should be analysed whether it is advisable to
introduce elements of national culture so that, through comparison, teachers-to-be can learn and
reflect about their own society’s assumptions and values, and thus critically question the mainstream
culture into which they are socialised (Byram & Fleming, 1998, pp. 6-7). Whether such contents
should be the province of Language or Literature is open for discussion as well. A further aspect to
consider concerns the characteristics of learners today: their background, learning styles, expectations
and abilities, which must be taken into account in the Literature class.
Regardless of the choices that are made, two issues remain crucial. First, there should be a
correlation between the aims of the area, the contents to be covered and the allocation of teaching
periods. Second, allowances should be made for the diversity of institutions in the country to make
specific, contextualised choices conducive to effective learning and flexible realisations of the
curriculum. Otherwise, any reform is doomed to failure.
Works cited
Byram, M. & Fleming, M. (1998). “Introduction”. In Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective.
(pp.1-10) Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Consejo Federal de Cultura y Educación y Ministerio de Cultura y Educación de la Nación (1998)
Contenidos Básicos Comunes del Campo de la Formación de Orientación de la Formación
Docente de Lenguas Extranjeras.
Risager, K. (1998) “Language teaching and the process of European integration”. In Language
Learning in Intercultural Perspective. (pp. 242-254) Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Short, M. and Candlin C.N. (1986) 'Teaching Study Skills for English Literature'. In Brumfit C. J. and
Carter R.A (eds.). Literature and Language Teaching. (pp. 89-109) Oxford University Press.
Oxford.