On Stage 6/ Advanced/Module B

On Stage 6/ Advanced/Module B:Critical Study of Texts

Few areas of the curriculum have been as fraught with controversy over the last few years as Advanced Module B. The vexed question relates largely to the issue of “readings” and the need to discuss others’ readings of the text.

A large part of this controversy comes about from not addressing what the Syllabus itself says about the Module, viz:

Students explore the ideas expressed in the text through analysing its construction, content and language. They examine how particular features of the text contribute to textual integrity. They research others’ perspectives of the text and test these against their own understanding and interpretations of the text. Students discuss and evaluate the ways in which the set work has been read, received and valued in historical and other contexts. They extrapolate from this study of a particular text to explore questions of textual integrity and significance.

The italicised sections of the extract from the Syllabus highlight three key issues in the treatment of this Module, viz:

• the need to analyse the text in depth
• the emphasis on the students’ own disciplined response to the text
• the need to test any other readings against the students’ own interpretation

What have the HSC examiners’ comments said about the examination responses?

2005

The examination question required candidates to demonstrate a personal engagement with the text, an analysis of the what and how of their text with reference to content, language and construction, and an exploration of the text’s possible continuing value…. For too many candidates critical readings about the text have been substituted for study of the text. In many scripts, the readings seem to be a barrier placed between the candidate and the text. Many responses suggested that candidates had prepared for the examination but not for the expectations of Module B

2004

While more effective responses reflected an understanding of the prescribed text through critical evaluation, some less successful candidates relied upon a narrow focus on critical readings which prevented them from engaging with their text and the question. There was evident merit in evaluating critical readings in a discerning manner, responding to the set text and to these readings from a personal perspective.

2003

However, there were still some candidates who relied upon a narrow focus on critical readings which prevented them from engaging with their text and the question. There was evident merit in evaluating critical readings in a discerning manner, responding to the text and to these readings from a personal perspective. Many weaker responses provided a list of critical views and/or theories but had not engaged personally in an evaluation of these.

2002

Some candidates’ responses were limited because they appeared to have learned lists of interpretations which sometimes lacked close critical engagement with the set texts, or any meaningful interplay of interpretations. Many candidates tried to apply critical theories such as Marxism and Feminism to their responses but had not engaged personally in an evaluation of these theories. The less capable responses either leant towards a presentation of other critical viewpoints with variable or marginal links to the demands of the question, or presented a more prepared type of response with little real attention to the requirements of the question or the expectations of the Module.

2001

Some candidates allowed a narrow focus on the critical readings of others to prevent them from engaging with the literature themselves. The importance of evaluating critical readings in a discerning manner, and responding to the literature and these readings from a personal perspective, was evident in the higher achievement levels. The syllabus statements for Critical Study of Texts indicate clearly the scope and balance required in the study of this module.
 

Again, these reports consistently stress the same three key issues in the treatment of this Module, viz:

• the need to analyse the text in depth
• the emphasis on the students’ own disciplined response to the text
• the need to test any other readings against the students’ own interpretation.

The notion that a set of potential readings of the text based on specific ideological approaches (Marxist, feminist etc) is being encouraged by the course is specifically contradicted by both the Syllabus and the examiners’ reports.

Another way of reading the Syllabus itself with regards to Advanced Module B is to see it as encouraging a range of approaches to textual study itself as reflected in the following table:

TABLE A

Based on the Syllabus itself, the following points can be used as a starting point for programming the Module:

• Focus of module: how meaning is made through responding to a particular text in different contexts to develop understandings of textual integrity.
• Synthesis in approach and a balance: the importance of …responding to the literature and readings from a personal perspective…The Syllabus statements for Critical Study of Texts indicate clearly the scope and balance required in the study of this module. (2001 Notes from the Marking Centre)
• Developing a personal response that is centred in the text (but moves beyond it), developmental, multi-layered and ‘tested’ against that of others.

The Syllabus requirements for Module B are also suggestive of a possible way of sequencing teaching and learning:

• Phase 1: engaging students with the text and its ideas
• Phase 2: exploring how these ideas are expressed in the text through analysis of its construction, content and language, and examining how particular features of the text contribute to textual integrity
• Phase 3: researching others’ perspectives of the text with students testing these against their own understanding and interpretations - and in the process considering and evaluating the ways in which the set work has been read, received and valued in historical and other contexts
• Phase 4: affirming a deep personal critical understanding of the text through exploring questions of textual integrity and significance.

Following MacLachlan and Reid, it would be useful to introduce into the discussion the notion of frame. The concept of ‘framing’ draws “attention to agency and acknowledges the complex nature of the interpretive process” (1994, p.9). The term draws attention to the ways in which participants in any act of interpretation interact with each other to produce meaning. It suggests a reciprocal activity: something readers do to texts and something texts do to readers - raising issues of interpretative freedom and control. It is an alternative to an idea of context as existing independently of an act of interpretation. MacLachlan and Reid posit four types of framing as follows:
 

Circumtextual framing: the ways context of production affect meaning. This raises questions such as: who has produced this text? why have they produced it? who have they produced it for? what meaning(s) do they expect or want to be made from the text? The placement of a text in a particular context, in this case Module B (Advanced) English in NSW as prescribed by the requirements of the BOS, will shape the meaning we will, and indeed are able to, make.

Intratextual framing: the structural, subdivisional and other devices within the text which affect the flow of words (including but not limited to: chapters, acts, sequencing of texts in a collection or an anthology, abrupt transitions, isolated or single sentence paragraphs, shifts in focalisation, changes in type face etc.)

Extratextual framing: the influence of ‘outside’ information, unspecified by the text but felt to be presupposed by it; the drawing on our knowledge of the world and of texts.

Intertextual framing: the relating of one text or text-type to another (this can include students relating different stages of their own response to each other, as well as their reading of the responses of others).

Thus an approach to Module B Advanced, based on the phases outlined earlier might resemble the following:
 

TABLE B

The description of Module B in the Syllabus itself could be thought of as falling into two halves:

• one half treats the student’s own response to the text (Students explore the ideas expressed in the text through analysing its construction, content and language. They examine how particular features of the text contribute to textual integrity… They extrapolate from this study of a particular text to explore questions of textual integrity and significance)
• the other half treats research into how the text has been read by others (They research others’ perspectives of the text and test these against their own understanding and interpretations of the text. Students discuss and evaluate the ways in which the set work has been read, received and valued in historical and other contexts).

The key point for study of the Module is that both of these areas need to be addressed with equal rigour. We think TABLE B is helpful here, showing that no one frame alone captures the intent of the Module. These framing statements are also meant to emphasise a process, not a strict separation of stages for response, though they might provide a guide to programming for the teacher.
 

REFERENCES

MacLachlan, G. and Reid, I. (1994). Framing and interpretation. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.