Örebro University
Department of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences English
What motivates reading?
A Qualitative Study of Motivations for
Reading in the English Subject Syllabi of the English and Swedish Curricula
Author: Tors Natalie Morravej Id no (19920808-1282) Degree Project Essay Fall 2016 Supervisor: Dr. Mattias Jacobsson
1
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast the motivations for reading in the subject syllabi for English in England and Sweden in the hopes of discovering how the English steering documents can inspire Swedish teachers to adopt new perspectives and approaches to reading. The aspects explored are epistemological approaches, reading content, general aims and aims within the subject, skills, requirements, discourses, and language usage. The study analyzes each of the subject syllabi from both countries and the final phase involves a comparison, which demonstrates the profitable and non-profitable similarities and
dissimilarities. The study provides valuable perspectives on how teachers can broaden their interpretation of Swedish steering documents for the subject of English by departing from critical reading concepts and using a more encouraging discourse than that found in steering documents.
Keywords
Collective practice Disciplinary activity
Educational curriculum theory Epistemological approaches Encourage English/Swedish syllabus Gy11 Interest Vigilant
2
Table of Content
Abstract ... 1
1. Introduction ... 3
1.2 Theoretical Background ... 4
1.2.1 Educational Curriculum Theory... 4
1.2.3 Earlier and current research; Curriculum analysis and second language teaching .... 5
2.0 Material and Method ... 9
3. Analysis ... 10
3.1 Analysis of the Swedish Steering Documents ... 10
3.1.1 English 5 ... 13
3.1.2 English 6 ... 14
3.1.3 English 7 ... 16
3.2 Summary of the analysis of the Swedish syllabus ... 18
3.3 Analysis: English Steering Documents ... 18
3.3.1 GCE AS and A Level English Language ... 19
3.3.2 GCE AS and A level English Literature ... 20
3.4 Summary of the analysis of England’s steering documents ... 23
4. Comparison and discussion ... 23
4.1 Similarities within the steering documents ... 24
4.2 Dissimilarities ... 26
5.0 Conclusion ... 28
6.0 Summary ... 31
3
1. Introduction
This essay compares and contrasts the motivations for reading and knowledge in reading in the English subject syllabus for upper-secondary school (Gy11) and corresponding courses in England. It demonstrates how the motivations for reading and content in the English syllabi, English Literature and English Language (GCE AS and A level), can be applied within the framework of Gy11 to give English teachers new inspiration for teaching reading. Because Gy11 is an abstract curriculum, it does not give motivations for reading, and its text repertoire is repetitive (Lundahl, 84). Various factors play a part in creating this problem: for instance, teachers’ choice of literature, second language learning traditions, curriculum tradition, cultural standpoints, ideology, and academic and community standards. As the technical development of school resources and social interactions progress, and writing and speaking are favoured, reading for pleasure or interest is downplayed in Sweden whereas it is
transparently encouraged in England.
Motivation comes in different forms and approaches depending on both students and text. A motivation to encourage students to read reports or manuals may be to give
students authentic sources where they can choose what is interesting and relevant to them to gain knowledge about a topic or text-type (McGrath, 105). Motivations to read literature or prose could be interest in the topic or escapism (Appleyard, 94-97). In general, reading motivation has to do with encouraging students by taking their personal interests and needs into consideration. The reading process becomes easier when students read something that strengthens their persona, appeals to their personal interests, or meets their emotional needs. However, rather than promoting reading for pleasure, Bo Lundahl argues that communicative skills (reading, listening, writing and speaking) focus on developing strategies for critical analysis and authentic language use (84). In Gy11, reading is foremost encouraged in relation to acquiring a critical mind-set and to gain cultural knowledge. However, could Gy11 be interpreted in another way? I will examine the curriculum using educational curriculum theory (ECT), which I will further explain below.
Bo Lundahl argues that a native speaker ideal in Swedish schools leads teachers to focus on the same issues and materials as in native-speaker countries (84). Although Lundahl criticises this ideal, because the language proficiency levels greatly differ, he also acknowledges that English is slowly becoming the second language of Sweden because of it. If Sweden is striving towards this ideal, could it be appropriate to copy certain L1 ideas, approaches and motivations despite level differences? How do the steering document in the
4 subject of English in Sweden and England compare and contrast in regards to the motivations they give for reading? What kind of inspiration is appropriate or inappropriate for Swedish teachers to consider? Would it be possible to implement inspirational motivations, content or/and approaches from the English steering documents within the framework of English 5, 6 and 7?
This essay will argue that English teachers can find new ways to promote reading by adopting motivations, descriptions and approaches for reading found in English steering documents. Although reading in Gy11 downplays enjoyment and focuses on critical reading skills and cultural knowledge, teachers can still encourage students to read for pleasure and find ways to conjoin creative and critical reading skills within the framework of Gy11.
1.2 Theoretical Background
1.2.1 Educational Curriculum Theory
This analysis will focus on comparing and contrasting steering documents; therefore,
educational curriculum theory (ETC) is the most suitable choice of theory. ETC evaluates and analyzes curricula and syllabi through one main question: what is knowledge? ECT focuses on values on which we base our notions of what knowledge is e.g. epistemology. Because ECT is broad, the present study will focus on knowledge specified in content items, reading knowledge and language usage. In Curriculum Theory and Didactics, Ninni Wahlström explains how the content of a curriculum is a product of the present view of knowledge and values (10-11). Preferred or common values are for instance historical, traditional, scientific or methodological values. Although curricula generally are exceedingly academic products that display an awareness of knowledge, Wahlström argues that some considerations could be unconscious. These unconscious choices are traceable to the governments’ ideology and philosophy (10).
In addition to tradition, curricula and syllabi build on ideals in education, some of which are common in other countries. The Swedish syllabus for English connects to the Council of Europe and the The Common European Framework of Reference in Languages (CEFR). The CEFR unites Europe’s mutual perspectives of an ideal foreign language education model (1). The purpose of the Framework is “to overcome the barriers to
communication among professionals working in the field of modern language arising from the different educational systems in Europe” (1). Further, it aims to create sociocultural benefits
5 through mutual aims and objectives in language teaching and learning. The CEFR is a product of research in foreign language teaching and is intended to be an aid for educators and
students. The Council of Europe explains that the intended use of the Framework is not to guide school ministries constructing programs and syllabi, but rather to provide useful guidelines for educators on how to formulate formative/summative/self-assessment criteria and how to promote student autonomy (2-4). Thus, many European curricula are comparable. Although this might suggest that programs for foreign languages within the Council of Europe’s forty-seven member states are identical, differing traditions of writing, discourses, ideology and sociolinguistic philosophies in their educational systems cause the curricula to diverge.
1.2.3 Earlier and current research; Curriculum analysis and second language teaching
Bo Lundahl and Ben Levin are two among many who have closely analyzed curricula. Whereas Levin brings political perspectives to bear on curriculum construction, Lundahl focuses entirely on English L2 teaching and the Swedish steering documents and their relation to the CEFR.
In “Curriculum Policy and the Politics of What Should be Learned at School,” Levin explains the policies and political impact of curriculum construction (8-22). Like Wahlström, Levin suggests that policy decisions in todays’ educational system are also political decisions. Evaluating a curriculum requires not only an analysis of the opinions of professional educators but also an analysis of its ideology (8-22). In Sweden, the Swedish National Agency of Education (Skolverket), a government administrative authority, writes the steering documents on behalf of the Swedish government. Under the sub-heading, “Processes – How Are Curriculum Policy Decisions Made?” Levin argues that educators, despite their experiences in teaching practices, subjects or pedagogy, are unqualified to take part in the construction of a new curriculum (8-13). The consequence of this exclusion puts a strain in the relationship between educators and governmental decisions, and many teachers are dissatisfied with their limited influence. Nevertheless, teachers still have the ability to interpret the curriculum and choose their own teaching practices.
In “Läroplansmodeller i den svenska läroplansutvecklingen” (Curricula models and the development of the Swedish curriculum), Daniel Sundberg provides an in-depth reflection about the political interests in the former and current Swedish curricula. Over time, steering documents have been centralized and decentralized; they have been aimed at content,
6 results, targets, products, and processes (79-80). In Sweden’s first curricula, Lgr62/69 and Lgy70, the government chose a content-based form, where the basic knowledge in every course was predefined and all teachers taught the same content. Influenced by the American pedagogue Ralph Tyler, Sundberg argues that the linear structure was typical for the social, governmental and political ideas in the Western world at the time (Levin, 8-9). Lgr80, however, focused on the learning processes, due to new values in public policy and new issues in the public domain (Sundberg, 81-82; Levin, 10). Although curriculum construction was long up to every nation, cooperation between European countries reduced the divide between democratic curricula around Europe. In the current curriculum, which is aimed at targets, Swedish policymakers rely on European development (leaning defined by idealistic prototypes). However, Sundberg argues that most curricula, despite common ground, are hybrids and will remain so (76). Why that is so depends yet again on the factors that Levin points out: cultural differences, traditions and different issues in the public domain, which affect the government and politics (8-22).
Leesa Wheelahan and Sundberg both argue that the result-controlled/target aimed curricula of today, born from neo-liberalism, downplays the importance of knowledge outside of school. However, Wahlström claims that knowledge acquired outside of school, which is bound up with social values, is a part of the “hidden” curriculum as distinct from the ethical values of the Swedish curriculum (132). Without blaming the CEFR and its intentions, Wheelahan argues that the change in the status of knowledge has caused knowledge to
become an economic requisition rather than a social value (89). Furthermore, Wheelahan also claims that the active choice curricula that is common today encourages risk taking (90).
According to Lundahl, there are three main ideals in the English language classroom in Sweden; language teaching ideals, English language ideals, and the native speaker ideal (84). Although it may appear natural for Swedes to have British or American English as their target language, Lundahl suggests that the implicit ideals within the cultural content in English 5, 6 and 7 needs to be questioned, given the status of English as a global language (Gy11, 53-71). Lundahl grounds his argument in the phrase “parts of the world where English is used,” suggesting that the syllabus refers to English as global language, even though the native speaker ideal still persists (Lundahl, 84; Gy11, 3). Acquisition of cultural knowledge mainly occurs through the English and American literary canons, which consist of works the represent the reality of their time. Canonical literature concerns timeless themes and topics and is therefore considered more worthy than non-canonical literature (Beach et al., 64-65). Although references to reading for pleasure are absent in the syllabus for English 5, 6,
7 7, Lundahl argues that the curriculum’s abstract disposition does not prohibit teachers from integrating this aspect of reading into their teaching. The multitude of choices of how to approach literature are simply not explicitly stated (64). The primary goal of reading in Gy11 is to use texts as a base for developing critical reading skills, which decreases focus on reading for pleasure and self-concept (Lundahl, 224). In his book English Language
Didactics: Texts, Communication and Language Development, Lundahl presents a table with simplified descriptions of sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic views of reading to exemplify which linguistic tradition the critical approach primarily belongs to (230; Appendix 2
Lundahl). According to the table, the reader perspective in the psycholinguistic tradition focuses on the emotions and knowledge of the individual, whereas the sociolinguistic model regards reading as a collective practice and focuses on social contexts as well as teaching contexts. The sociolinguistic perspective reminds us that the reader always adopts a position while reading, which colors how he/she interprets the content. The psycholinguistic model, however, considers texts as neutral constructions that either are purely informative or have “a creative or emotional content” (Lundahl, 230, my translation). Furthermore, the two models also differ in regards to goals. The primary objective, according to the psycholinguistic perspective, is understanding and personal development, whereas the sociolinguistic model aims for the reader to question texts and gain new perspectives.
The sociocultural content of English 5 and 6 challenges students to discuss and analyze existential questions, emotions, ideas and movements within literature and thereby gain understanding. The focus is on critical/intensive reading and cultural knowledge, and not extensive reading (108, 224). However, Lundahl argues that teachers can choose to approach the material non-critically, even though the requirements in English 5, 6 and 7 do not mention literary appreciation or reading for pleasure (108-110). This ideal comes from society’s changing interest and attitudes toward reading, where critical reading is more highly valued than reading for pleasure and appreciation (Wheelahan, 89). Although critical reading of classic English literature contributes to the aims and goals of cultural understanding about the countries where English is spoken, while developing certain receptive skills, it may not interest adolescents (Harmer, 292).
Joseph A. Appleyard points out the psychological benefits of reading for pleasure for adolescents, referring to the teenage years as the most critical period for constructing self-concept. He argues that teachers should respect and support adolescents’ development of self-concept by choosing texts and literature that represent alternative ways of thinking and being (95-98). Appleyard claims that reading for pleasure and psychological
8 needs will, in the long term, increase language and reading security that makes students more confident when reading, whereas the non-affectional atmosphere of critical reading may cause the students to forget the content of the texts or lose interest in reading (94). The focus on older literature is an integrated part of the tradition of the subject of English and the underlying native speaker-/target language ideal, which is why English literature often is canonical. Although literature satisfies cultural aspects while providing students with great examples of writing, Anne Ediger explains that reading in a second language is complicated because, in contrast to first language learners (L1), second language learners (L2) cannot rely on their speaking abilities (155). English L1 students can always rely on their oral fluency in their native language, whereas Swedish L2 students, who are not fluent speakers, have less to fall back on or refer to (155). Ediger’s claim is supported David Eskey, who argues that students should “read texts that are situated just above their language ability” (qtd. in Lundahl, 231, my translation). While teaching English classics can be problematic, I, in contrast to Lundahl, do not maintain that the English canon’s only purpose is to serve the native speaker ideal. It also serves the purpose of integrating cultural aspects to the degree that it contains “every-day realism”, which can help support students’ self-construction. The main obstacle for optimal use of the English canon, however, is the language change.
Reviewing both critical/intensive/bottom-up/professional reading and reading for pleasure/psychological growth, Magnus Persson investigates the domination of the professional orientation in school reading in modern society (177). Persson distinguishes the two approaches to reading, referring to critical reading as “studying” and extensive reading as “reading”. Persson describes professional reading (studying) as work. It is a “vigilant,” “disciplinary activity,” and “a collective practice” (thus, agreeing with Lundahl’s
sociolinguistic model), whereas extensive reading is associated with “desire” and “spare time” (179). Persson claims that the divide is growing, but he also refers to research that shows how to build a bridge for a conjoined way of reading. Like Appleyard, Persson claims that
students’ self-concept, self-esteem and self-confidence could be put at risk by excluding the valuable emotional support that literature provides (186). Taking sides with literary theorist J. Hillis Miller, Persson explains that the ultimate solution to the divide could be to train
students as skillful readers in both modes of reading so that they can read with passion and suspicion at the same time.
9
2.0 Material and Method
The primary sources for this study are the steering documents for the English subject for upper-secondary school in Sweden and the sixth form in England. This includes the subject syllabus for English 5, 6 and 7 in the 2011 curriculum and the Department for Education’s publications English Programmes of Study: Key Stage 4, National Curriculum in England (KS4), GCE AS and A Level Subject Content for English Language, GCE AS and A level Subject Content for English Literature and GCE AS and A Level Subject Content for English Language and Literature, with complementary commentary material. The last three are considered to be the counterparts of the Swedish syllabus but differ in structure due to the English educational system.1 Key Stage 4 is initially for students age 14-15, but I have decided to compare it with the subject syllabus for the 2011 curriculum for two reasons: its structure is similar to the subject syllabus for English in the 2011 curriculum and it contains further motivations for reading, which students bring with them to Sixth Form College (upper-secondary school). However, the syllabi for GCE AS and A level English are less general than KS4 because they focus on either language or literature and therefore have specific aims and objectives. I believe examining the content and perception of knowledge in both a “general” syllabus (KS4) that is similar to the subject syllabus in the 2011 curriculum as well as the more specific ones (AS and A level English) gives a better overview of the English approaches and motivations to reading.
I have chosen to work with discourse analysis and curriculum analysis.
Discourse analysis will help me investigate language usage in order to distinguish attitudes in the steering documents. James Paul Gee suggests that there are two tools of inquiry that are important when working with discourse analysis; discourses and social languages (28-29). Gee explains how people express themselves with certain words to establish their status in a certain group of society. However, discourse is also strongly connected to other crucial facts such as clothes, attitudes, locations etc. For instance, academics use academic language in academic surroundings and high society people use sophisticated language. This study analyses if the Department for Education and National Agency of Education have
characteristic ways of expressing themselves in text. Correlated with the curriculum theory, the discourse analysis will allow a general idea of the perspectives of knowledge in the steering documents, both in contrast to each other and the CEFR.
1 The subject syllabi for GCE AS and A level English concern England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has
10 In order to implement the central concepts of the theory, I have carried out an educational curriculum analysis with focus on the definition of literary knowledge and motivations for reading in the syllabi. I used Daniel Sundberg’s model for curriculum analysis, which provides all essential questions one might need to analyze the primary sources. (Appendix 1 Sundberg; Wahlström, 169-170). Firstly, I used educational curriculum analysis by asking the following questions about the material:
• What reading skills are preferred?
• What is the perception of knowledge in reading?
• What role do the teacher and students play in the interpretation of the material?
Secondly, I have examined the material through discourse analysis to distinguish the language usage by locating keywords and co-occurring phrases. The hope is that the two types of analysis will help to form a perspective on what kind of knowledge reading is, what purpose that knowledge has, and how it is motivated.
3. Analysis
This section of the essay will compare the results of the analysis. The comparison will place the Swedish and English steering documents side by side to evaluate pros and cons and point out possible approaches available to Swedish teachers when planning reading activities.
3.1 Analysis of the Swedish Steering Documents
The general parts of the steering documents for the English subject are (1) the aim of the subject of English in the 2011 curriculum for upper-secondary school, (2)
Kommentarmaterial till Kursplanen i Engelska (Commentary Material to the English Subject Syllabus) and (3) Ämneskommentar (Subject Commentary Document). The five main goals in the subject of English are
1) Understanding of spoken and written English, and also the ability to interpret content.
2) The ability to express oneself and communicate in English in speech and writing.
11 3) The ability to use different language strategies in different contexts.
4) The ability to adapt language to different purposes, recipients and situations. 5) The ability to discuss and reflect on living conditions, social issues and cultural features in different contexts and parts of the world where English is used. (2)
Receptive skills are included in “understanding of spoken and written English” and “different language strategies.” However, the descriptors are vague in order to allow teachers some freedom of choice. The five goals are also the skills that students preferably aim to develop through working with the content guidelines listed under the heading, Core Content.
Naturally, the teacher organizes the course module, but because the subject syllabus actively promotes student autonomy, the interpretation could be that core content selection is the responsibility of both teachers and students. Teachers are there to organize the teaching and guide students to use their metacognitive skills, but it is the responsibility of the students to be self-directed and independently engage in their learning process in order to achieve the goals (Hedge, 76). The commentary material for the subject of English explains the structure of the subject syllabus and clarifies that “the knowledge areas do not have to correspond to themes within the teaching, but are simply guidelines on ways of structuring the items of content. How the different items of content are used in relation to each other is something to be settled between teachers and students” (“Commentary Material to the Subject of English”, 12). Even though teachers are free to choose their content and structure their themes freely within the framework of the core content, there are traditional kinds of content and certain pedagogical approaches (taught at the university and/or practiced at schools) that are expected in L2 teaching which restrict teachers’ freedom.
The commentary material explains how the core content does not have a
timeframe and all content items do not necessarily have to be included (12). The content items should rather be seen as guidelines, to which the teacher should add material pertaining to the students’ interests in order to create a course model suitable for their classroom. The
commentary material describes how the syllabus is based on the CEFR and mentions how the new curriculum is more aligned with the CEFR than the previous curriculum (“Subject
Commentary Document”, 5-6). This document also confirms that the curriculum is focused on functional and communicative language skills and the English language as used around the globe (“Subject Commentary Document”, 6; Lundahl, 53-71). Further, in its description of the aim of the subject, the English subject syllabus emphasizes that critical reading and listening
12 of authentic texts is primary for learning how to communicate. Reading fiction, however, is foremost referred to as cultural knowledge and for the purpose of analysing exceptional examples of writing, while reading reports, manuals or descriptions supports students writing development. As Lundahl states, the focus is on real-life communication, leaving less room for creative reading, reading for pleasure and reading to assist students’ self-construction (224). The commentary material is of course broad, which makes it abstract and difficult to interpret. It implicitly mentions self-construction, but it puts greater emphasis on the ability to read “information and knowledge resources” and knowledge that is relevant for jobs in the international market.
Apart from focus on language structures, the English subject syllabus has a holistic aim and favours knowledge of living conditions, social movements and issues in the public domain. This knowledge is primarily acquired from listening or reading. The
commentary material states that literature and texts about historical events or living conditions also may give students “keys to understanding the language” and that it should be included to “stimulate the students’ interest for language and culture” (10, my translation). This is one of the few references to students’ interests or emotions in the Swedish steering documents. However, interest in language could be interpreted as either interest in grammar and structure or its creativity, which is in the eye of the beholder.
Another important theme of the commentary material we already have touched upon is the connection with the Council of Europe (COD). The council of Europe consists of 47 countries, and although most EU members also are members of the COD, it should not be confused with being a part of the EU organization. However, the commentary material is built on agreements, contracts and laws of both the COD and the EU. Instead of referring to the two separately, I interpret the commentary material to include the COD when referring to the EU, although the COD has more members. Apart from mentioning literature as a tool to gain interest in language and culture, the commentary material primarily promotes the
communicative and cultural knowledge, which must be sufficient because language skills are needed “within the EU to increase the international competitiveness and thereby the economic growth” (8). This example illustrates Wheelahan’s argument that target aimed curricula turn knowledge into a new kind of capital on the international and European markets (89). The beauty of rhetoric and the historical contexts of texts are not always the appealing parts of reading, but rather the story itself, the fiction and the escape. According to Wheelahan and Lundahl, this kind of reading is less attractive on the international market, whereas
13 highly appreciated in business. Although it is a decentralized curriculum, justifications for reading are less focused on pleasure and more on market values (Sundberg, 79-80). Both contribute to the students’ personal development, but only former caters to students’ psychological needs.
To summarize, English 5, 6 and 7 focus on communicative skills, which are important when interacting in and evaluating real-life situations. Apart from the fact that the required language skills are important values from an international/European perspective, students should be able to use English in private, social and working life. The aim of the subject of English is not only to create a greater understanding of language structure, but also to generate knowledge about contexts, living conditions and historical events in parts of the world where English is used. The syllabus for English is open for interpretation, as long as it covers what is important to the Swedish National Agency – the knowledge requirements. However, the syllabus only mentions interest a few times.
3.1.1 English 5
How is reading (texts and literature) included and motivated in the syllabus for English 5, 6 and 7? Which reading skills are preferred and in what context?
In English 5, under the heading “Content of Communication,” teachers are recommended to work with “content and form in different kinds of fiction” (3). Further on, under the heading “Reception”, they are recommended to use “texts of different kinds and for different purposes, such as manuals, popular science texts and reports” as well as “literature and other fiction”. In the Subject Commentary Document, “other fiction” is defined as lyrics, games, and motion pictures (8). I maintain that these possibly are the most motivating texts for English 5 students because they are multimodal mediums that they interact with every day. Familiar mediums are perhaps necessary in order to get their reading functioning in secondary school English. English 5 students are also to work with “strategies for listening and reading in different ways and for different purposes”, “different ways of searching for, selecting and evaluating texts and spoken language” and study how “words and phrases in oral and written communications create structure and context by clarifying introduction, causal connection, time aspects, and conclusions” (Gy11, 3-4). These content guidelines emphasize learning different pre- and post-reading activities in order to examine texts, whereas the syllabus says little about the content of reading.
14 In conclusion, the content of reading in English 5 is exceedingly general and flat. The Swedish National Agency of Education chooses to construct sentences that could be interpreted in multiple ways, for example, “content and form in different kinds of fiction.” It uses the word different to mark freedom of choice, which makes the document seem general (3). The flatness is caused by the academic discourse the National Agency uses when
describing goals, objectives and knowledge requirements, since they refrain from giving directives and motivations and instead remain objective. The only use of encouraging words (e.g. enjoyment, encourage or interest) is in the aim of the subject where it says, “teaching should encourage students' curiosity in language and culture” (Gy11, 1). However, the subject syllabus does not explicitly promote how to enhance students’ interests in reading. The text forms are of simpler kinds that may be approached with reading strategies (such as intense reading) in order to explore their different angles. Considered as an introduction to further advanced reading, it is understandable that the content is broad because the variation is needed to get students comfortable with upper-secondary school English. Moreover, apart from developing critical skills, reading literature and nonfiction of various kinds are also motivated in the commentary material as valuable sources to promote historical, cultural, and sociocultural knowledge about “parts of the world where English is used” and to create language security by promoting skills in language structure (10). The knowledge requirement in reading for the grade E (pass) is for the “students (to be able to) choose texts and spoken language from different media and in a relevant way use the material selected in their own production and interaction”. They should be able to use critical reading/different strategies in order to respond to texts and produce a written or spoken argument of their own (Gy11, 4).
3.1.2 English 6
In English 6, the content develops the foundation laid down in English 5, meeting the CEFR level B2.1, according to the Commentary Material (7). In its description of level B2, the CEFR explains that “the learner finds he has arrived somewhere, things look different”, which refers to the gap between English 5 (B1.2) and English 6 (35). In contrast to English 5, the core content in English 6 is more defined with certain examples of text forms, which implies what material this more advanced level should focus on and what kind of knowledge is prioritized or preferred. The content item “content and form in different kinds of fiction” in English 5 is developed in English 6 as “themes, ideas, form and content in film and literature; authors and literary periods” (3-7). Although definitive content is not described, the syllabus
15 emphasis reading for analytic purposes in English 6 as students also should be taught
strategies:
• To search for relevant information in larger amounts of […] and to understand perspectives and implied meaning”.
• For source-critical approaches when […] reading communications from different sources and in different media”.
• in order to understand and evaluate “themes, ideas, form and content in film and literature; authors and literary periods”, “texts of different kinds and for different purposes, such as formal letters, popular science texts and reviews” and
“contemporary and older literature, poetry, drama and songs.” (7)
Organizing the content items this way, we can distinguish a certain jargon that supports Lundahl interpretation that the content favours critical reading because yet again psychological aspects such as interest or pleasure are neither explicitly nor implicitly suggested (224).
Critical reading has the overhand in teaching reading and overshadows the importance of reading for pleasure. Even though critical reading can be important to the construction of self-concept since it leads students to acquire new knowledge, it does not provoke the relatable emotions that Appleyard suggests students need at this stage of their development (94). Appleyard claims that students need to read relatable fictional stories, which awaken feelings that help students create their self-concept and develop self-esteem and self-confidence (94). Although critical reading promotes what is considered knowledge in the syllabus, there is no need to exclude reading for pleasure and meeting psychological needs. Strategies for critical reading do not necessarily have to be combined with other content guidelines such as
“contemporary and older literature, poetry, drama and songs”. Teachers could easily motivate reading for pleasure in their own teaching (“Commentary Material to the English Subject Syllabus”, 4). Nevertheless, a study of teachers’ responses to the 2011 curriculum, entitled Teachers’ Comprehension of 2011’s Reform of the Upper-Secondary School – One Year After the Introduction shows that 42 percent of all teachers teaching theoretical subjects (such as English) experience that they have less freedom and inspiration with the new content guidelines (12). By combining the reading strategies from the core content with the
16 experience. The knowledge requirements pertaining to reading for the grade E in English 6 are as follows:
“Students can choose and with some certainty use strategies to search for relevant information and assess the reliability of different sources”.
“Students choose texts and spoken language from different media and in a relevant way use the material selected in their own production and interaction” (Gy11, 8)
Thus, it is the content combination that helps students acquire the knowledge that is specified in the requirements. Although psychological and pleasurable reading to promote students’ interest in reading could be included, the knowledge requirements above clarify what knowledge is important. Nevertheless, it is still possible for teachers to fulfil the cultural knowledge requirements through reading for pleasure.
3.1.3 English 7
English 7 takes yet another developmental step, focusing on debates about historical and current issues in the public domain and about living conditions. The reading content for English 7 is “contemporary and older literature and other fiction in various genres such as drama” and “texts of different kinds and for different purposes, such as agreements, in-depth articles and scientific texts” (Gy11, 11). This is not entirely different from the content of English 6. In contrast to English 6, students should be taught “strategies for drawing
conclusions about the spoken language and texts in terms of attitudes, perspectives, purposes and values, and to understand implied meaning” in order to gain in-depth understanding of the texts and argue about them. The development no longer lies in learning the strategies needed when reading (such as strategies for source-critical approaches, searching for information or distinguishing certain language structures) but about being independent, increasing language fluency and preparing for academic studies by learning strategies for drawing conclusions about the main ideas in different texts. According to a chart in the Subject Commentary Document, English 7 is supposed to be equal to CEFR’s level B2.2 – the independent user (vantage) (2). The CEFR description of an independent user is well aligned with the implicit aims of reading in Gy11. At the B2.2 level, students should be able to “understand the main
17 ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialization” (24).
Fiction of all kinds involves complex political or social values that the author wants to mediate, and in the subject of English, teachers often choose canonical literature to exemplify these values. According to Beach, it is common to consider canonical literature as worthier because of its timeless themes, but are they necessarily appropriate in L2 teaching (Beach et al. 64-65)? Both English 6 and English 7 are including “older literature” in the list of reading materials within the core content (7, 11). Since the Swedish curriculum focuses on living conditions, cultural contexts and has a native speaker ideal, it may not be surprising that many teachers choose to adopt the English canon to demonstrate and analyze as many aspects of English/American culture and history of ideas as possible (Lundahl, 84). However, as both Hedge and the Commentary Material suggests, all kinds of reading promote grammar
acquisition and “keys to understand the language” (Hedge, 114, 133; “Commentary Material to the Subject of English”, 10). Canonical works use language and ideas from historical periods and mainly portray everyday realism or romanticism. Still inspired by the literary canon taught in England, teachers tend to choose the same classics that Swedish schools have taught since the entry of the English subject. However, neither David E. Eskey nor Lundahl suggest that the classics of English literature are perfect reading material for L2 adolescents. As mentioned earlier, Ediger discusses how reading differs for English for L1 and L2 learners because of the surrounding language (155). When L1 learners read, they have their mother tongue to rely on in speech and can orally recognize the words. L2 learners, however, do not constantly surround themselves with the language and obtain a limited vocabulary (155). Eskey claims that students’ reading progress improves the most when they “read texts that are situated just above their language ability” because it is the most difficult communicative skill (qtd. in Lundahl, 231, my own translation). Is it then reasonable to expect Swedish students to drudge through, interesting books indeed, in an unfamiliar form of the English language?
The discussion about whether or not to include older literature is difficult due to the lack of clear directives in the steering documents and supporting documents (such as the CEFR). Of course, it depends on what the definition of “old” is for each teacher, but in the English reading tradition, Shakespeare and the most popular authors of the 19th century are not uncommon (“GCE AS and A level Subject Content for English Literature,” 2). However, the CEFR does not mention “older literature” in the knowledge requirements for reading. Instead, it says students should be able to “read articles and reports concerned with
18 understand contemporary literary prose” (24). Although one can argue that canonical
literature gives an understanding of “contemporary problems” because of its timeless themes, canonical literature is not “contemporary literary prose”. Despite that classical literature and texts are excellent works of arts that deserve to be admired and taught, they are difficult for L2 learners to read and therefore may be inappropriate choices. In this discussion, it should not be forgotten that contemporary literature also is listed among the materials for the English subject in the Swedish 2011 curriculum and that the content items are only meant to be guidelines.
3.2 Summary of the analysis of the Swedish syllabus
There are few explicit motivations for reading apart from those stated in the Commentary Material, which says that the aim for reading literature and prose is to gain knowledge about different cultures. By reading effectively, students may also find keys to the language. The content, as well as the language use, is relatively straightforward in Gy11. However, it gives teachers very little guidelines in regards to motivations for teaching, and therefore gives them a lot of freedom.
3.3 Analysis: English Steering Documents
The English school system is different from the Swedish system, primarily in its structure. As in Sweden, the elementary school English, called the General Certificate of Secondary School (GCSE), has to be accomplished when entering Sixth Form (Department for Education “GCE AS and A level English Literature”, 2). In Sixth form/college students have advanced from GCSE to General Certificate of Education (GCE), but unlike upper-secondary school in Sweden, GCE only covers two years (age 16-18) (“Secondary Education”, 1).2 As in Sweden, GCSE is compulsory education and sixth form/college is eligible but required for entry to the lowest academic degree. Sixth form and college are the same but most GCE schools calls themselves sixth form colleges. In contrast to the Swedish upper-secondary school, there are no required courses and students independently choose their A (Advanced) and AS
(Advanced Subsidiary) level courses depending on what they want to study at the university. Students must have read AS level English before advancing to A level English. A level
19 English is a major subject, which qualifies students for, for example, the teacher programme or journalism at university, whereas students who only choose AS level perhaps aim for programmes where A level English is not sufficient. AS level can be either a sub course or a lower course. For students choosing to study journalism after sixth form, for instance, it is sufficient to choose all AS and A level English courses. The three courses students can choose between are (AS and A level) English language, English literature or English language and literature. Because students are encouraged to mix English literature and English language, many sixth form colleges choose to exclude the latter course.
Although it is difficult to compare the English language levels to foreign language levels of language proficiency, it is possible to do an approximate comparison between the CEFR foreign language levels and the English language scale (Gov.uk). According to the Cambridge English’s comparison, supported by the English government’s qualification levels, AS and A level studies approximately meet higher C1 respective C2 on the CEFR scale (Cambridge English). Syllabus for English 5, 6 and 7, however, reaches from level B1.2 to B2.2 on the CEFR scale. Therefore, the gap between English in Sweden and English in England (B2.2 – C1.2) is as large as the gap between English 5 to English 7. However, the structures of presenting the content, goals and required skills are also different from the Swedish structure and the native speaker’s prior of knowledge is incomparable.
3.3.1 GCE AS and A Level English Language
This course focuses on grammatical, pragmatic and rhetorical knowledge, including language structure and analysis. The English Language course focuses on how to build the language and ways of interpreting it. Aims and objectives in reading are to “develop their skills as […] interpreters of language” and to be able to “apply language concepts and methods of analysis appropriately and systematically to data” and “apply critical and creative skills in close reading, description, evaluation, analysis, interpretation and production of texts and discourses” (1-2). A level students should also be able to “undertake independent investigations of language, selecting appropriate methods and techniques” (2). I find the description of this last requirement interesting because of the choice of the word investigate. The word investigate puts emphasis on curiosity about language, which is highly
motivational. The reading methods included in the course are meant to enhance the learning process especially in regards to acquiring analytical ability. What English Language
20 and to be able to use that knowledge in order to effectively analyse texts for different
purposes.
3.3.2 GCE AS and A level English Literature
This course focuses on reading literature, prose and poems for various purposes and with various approaches in order to generate literary appreciation and understanding. Whereas English Language aims at developing critical abilities, English Literature is more
sociocultural and has a more psychological perspective on reading. Its purpose is to promote and encourage students’ literary appreciation. Focus lies on wakening students’ interest in literature. Under the heading, “Aims and Objectives,” it says “AS and A level specifications in English literature must encourage students to develop their interest in and enjoyment of literature and literary studies” (1). This sentence features the four keywords of this syllabus; encourage, interest, appreciation and enjoyment. The incorporation of these four words is important in order to motivate students and promote decentralization – students’ interests and personal needs are important in literary studies. For studies at A level, reading literature is further motivated as follows “A level specifications must encourage students to develop their interest in and enjoyment of literature and literary studies as they undertake independent and sustained studies to deepen their appreciation and understanding of English literature, including its changing traditions” (1). A level students should be motivated enough to be autonomous in their reading. Especially interesting in this aim is the phrase changing
tradition, which encourages students to appreciate various books from various eras. However, there are also requirements which involve appreciation of the English heritage under the heading “Knowledge and Understanding”:
10. A level specifications must cover a minimum of eight texts. Students must experience a wide range of reading in poetry, prose and drama that must include all of the following:
• At least 3 texts published before 1900, including at least one play by Shakespeare.
21 11. AS specifications must cover a minimum of four texts that must include at least one text published before 1900 (2).
For L1 learners, texts from the 19th century contain language which the students have met in different contexts before, and it is easier for native speakers to comprehend an older version of their native language (Ediger, 155-156). The content description gives generous guidelines, stating not only contemporary and older literature, but also how many works of which kind to include. To be able to understand and evaluate texts, students are required to gain knowledge about “ways in which writers’ shape meanings in texts, […] ways in which individual texts are interpreted by different readers” and “ways in which texts relate to one another and to the contexts in which they are written and read” (2). These requirements promote critical reading in an aesthetic way, but also permit alternative perspectives,
including personal interpretations. The section “Skills” confirms this flexibility when it stipulates that students must be able to “read texts in a variety of ways and respond critically and creatively”. This encourages students to think independently, which is required for all levels above B1 in the CEFR (10, 22-24). There are plenty of phrases referring to student autonomy. The very first sentence in “Aims and Objectives” stipulates that students’ interests are built by “read(ing) widely and independently both set texts and others that they have selected for themselves” (1). Teachers may decide on topics or themes; however, students themselves are also responsible of making active choices to encourage their interests and enjoyment (Department for Education “Research Evidence on Reading for Pleasure”, 6).
For the English sixth form students, the positive motivations for reading are not new. In the English programmes of study: Key Stage 4 (KS4), which is the last compulsory English course in the National curriculum in England, purposes for reading are clearly described within the introduction:
Through reading in particular, pupils have a chance to develop culturally, emotionally, intellectually, socially and spiritually. Literature, especially, plays a key role in such development. Reading also enables pupils both to acquire knowledge and to build on what they already know. All the skills of language are essential to participating fully as a member of society; pupils, therefore, who do not learn to speak, read and write fluently and confidently are effectively disenfranchised (1).
22 Coming from GCSE, GCE students are already familiar with the emphasis on reading both critically and for pleasure, and at the best, they will bring the positive influences from GCSE to GCE. It is important to remember that, although motivational words such as enjoy, pleasure and interest may have a positive ring, they are not necessarily a reflection of the students’ enthusiasm. Rather they are feelings that the Department for Education hopes to generate within every student in order to increase reading inside and outside of school
(Appleyard, 99). The motivations for reading are well grounded in students’ psychological development and self-construction, and the Department for Education calls it “reading for pleasure” (Appleyard, 96). In May 2012, the Department for Education’s education standards research team released their report, entitled Research Evidence on Reading for Pleasure (RERP). Among their key findings (the benefits of reading for pleasure) is the observation that “there is a positive link between positive attitudes towards reading and scoring well on reading assessments”, which is very well promoted in the English steering documents through their language usage (3). Research also shows that reading for pleasure develops “text
comprehension and grammar, positive reading attitudes, pleasure in reading in later life, increased general knowledge” whereas a similar message can be found in KS4 where it says “opportunities for teachers to enhance pupils’ vocabulary will arise naturally from their reading and writing” (RERP, 4; “English Programmes of Study: Key Stage 4 – National Curriculum in England”, 4). Meanwhile the study finds that only 12% of the English students did not enjoy reading for pleasure in 2010, there was between years 2006-2009 a declining number of students around Europe who lost their interest in reading (5, 14). However, since 2012 when the study was published, all English steering documents have been renewed (2014-2015), and no new research has been published since then.
To summarize the content for English Literature, the Department for Education not only succeeds to transparently maintain a positive language usage but also a formal language that is easy for students to understand and interpret correctly. Knowledge is equally to be able to understand and recognize the wholeness of texts while reading for pleasure – which students only can accomplish by also critically studying the texts. This could be interpreted as an attempt or an example of “bridging the divide” between studying and reading (Persson, 184). Persson argues for how it is possible to bridge the divide between studying and reading by teaching students to read both ways at once.
There is yet another sixth form English course, called GCE AS and A level language and literature. This course is a conjunction of the courses English Language and
23 English Literature, whose mixed content is similar to the content of Gy11 or KS4. The content requirements, skills, aims and objectives come from the two previously described courses. One or two requirements or content descriptions has changes for conjoined purposes, for instance, how students must “use linguistic and literary approaches in their reading and interpretation of texts, showing how the two disciplines can relate to each other”. Throughout the syllabus, there is a clear focus on analysis, grammar, pragmatics, writing and context as well as reading, enjoyment, interest, history and social contexts, which is also in line with Persson’s suggestion.
3.4 Summary of the analysis of England’s steering documents
The English steering documents are simultaneously content aimed and target aimed. The GCE AS and A level English Language courses focus on structure, whereas English Literature primarily focus on both critical reading and reading for pleasure. English Literature combines skills of language structure (but with more focus on what the meaning of a word does to the text than what the grammatical function it has) with creative reading for sociocultural knowledge and self-construction. The positive keywords of all three courses - enjoyment, interest, appreciation, encourage and enjoy - mediate the motivational discourse that the Department for Education wants to promote. Because the courses have different purposes, the student may choose to take either the language structure course or the literary course. The language course would give students a greater capital on the European market, on
Wheelahan’s view, because it focuses on critical language skills. English literature, on the other hand, focuses on cultural or psychological development, which is good for further artistic or studies in the humanities, for developing students’ self-construction and for developing literary appreciation (Wheelahan, 80; Appleyard, 94).
4. Comparison and discussion
There are features in each of the syllabi where they can learn from each other, but this
comparison will focus on the features that Swedish L2 teachers can utilize and find inspiration from in the English steering documents. For the comparison, the central question and
following sub-questions are how do the English subject syllabi in Sweden and England compare and contrast in motivations for reading, and what can English teachers in Sweden
24 learn from the L1 syllabi. What kind of inspiration is appropriate or inappropriate for Swedish teachers to consider, and is it possible to implement the inspirational motivations, content or/and approaches of the English subject syllabi within the framework of the English subject in Gy11?
4.1 Similarities within the steering documents
The Swedish and English steering documents are as much alike as unalike in their form. We will begin with the similarities. As controversial as it may appear, GCE AS and A level English can be converted and measured on the CEFR scale, measuring from level C1.2 to C2, and contrasted to English 5 (B1.2), English 6 (B2.1) and English 7 (B2.2) (CEFR 22-24; Subject Commentary Document, 2; Cambridge English). Thus, it may seem that the English subject in both countries is quite similar; however, the CEFR specifies how “one should be careful about interpreting sets of levels and scales of language proficiency as if they were a linear measurement scale like a ruler. No existing scale or set of levels can claim to be linear in this way” (22). Naturally, the language acquisition of native speakers is different from ESL learners. However, the latter scale displays an approximate estimation of how the levels of the two countries are situated. L1 learners’ prior knowledge is something L2 learners do not have (Ediger, 155). Proofing if GCE AS and A level English has influences from the CEFR or vice versa is difficult. However, the Swedish and English syllabi do have similar expressions. The table below displays examples of the same/similar content/skills expressed or motivated differently.
Comparison of different phrasings
English 6 (7) “Strategies for source-critical approaches when listening to and reading communications from different sources and in different media”
GCE AS and A level English Language (1)
“Apply critical and creative skills in close reading, description, evaluation, analysis, interpretation and production of texts and discourses”
GCE AS and A level English Literature (1)
“Develop and effectively apply their knowledge of literary analysis and evaluation”
25 These descriptions of critical reading may be associated with the motivation; “(the student) can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialization” as stated in level B2 in the CEFR (24). Some similarities between the Swedish and English steering documents could depend on both countries membership in the Council of Europe and others might depend on the native speaker ideal.
In English 6 and 7 there is a content item proposing the following literary content: “contemporary and older literature, poetry, drama and songs” (7). The item’s very open disposition is comparably a summary of the more specific content items found under the heading “Knowledge and Objectives” in English Literature. In English Literature, there is a required amount of texts within the different eras (Shakespeare, 19th century literature and contemporary literature) (2). However, there are objections on including older literature in a foreign language syllabus, since L2 learners do not have the same requisition as L1 learners (Ediger, 155). Lundahl agrees with Ediger by suggesting that students should read works, which are challenging but reachable from the abilities they already possess (Lundahl, 231). Lundahl cites the National Encyclopedia which confirms Harmer and Hedge’s claims that “reading acquisition is a difficult matter which in contrast to other communicative skills develops slowly by frequent practice of reading” (231; Hedge, 189-190). Furthermore, the RERP displays that there is a declining number of students around Europe that read (for pleasure) inside and outside school, which means students practice less on their reading skills (4). Although critical approaches focusing on structures and analysis are preferred in reading (such as the bottom-up model), one might consider that language structures and words from (early) modern English are something Swedish students must learn how to decode in order to understand the novel’s purpose (Lundahl, 231). Decoding the 19th century English classics is considerable work for L2 learners who lack the oral and written recognition factor that L1 learners possess. Although, the decoding is an active process of a “psychological guessing game”, where students struggle to make sense of the text (which in its turn promotes development), it risks becoming more difficult than expected (Hedge, 188-189). However, because Swedish students are literate in their native language, they should have skills in prose literacy and document literacy, which will help them along when reading contemporary English (Weinstein, 172).
The advantage of the abstract design of Gy11, in contrast to the syllabus for English Literature, is that there are no definitions in the commentary material or subject commentary document of “older literature”. Although it may belong to the tradition of the
26 English subject, Gy11 opens up for teacher’s own interpretation of “older literature”, since there are no requirements of specific kinds of literature.
4.2 Dissimilarities
The syllabi in Sweden and England for the subject of English may have many similarities because of the CEFR and tradition, but there are differences in regards to reading, which could be useful for teachers in a Swedish ESL classroom. The abstract and open appearance of the subject syllabus in the 2011 curriculum has resulted in language teachers feeling restricted, despite the clarification in the commentary material of how the content items should be seen as guidelines (“The Teachers’ Comprehension of 2011’s Reform of the Upper-Secondary School – One Year After the Introduction”, 12; “The Commentary Material to the Subject of English”, 4). In contrast to GCE AS and A level English Language though, Gy11 is anything but restrictive since it has few specifications of the content. As explained earlier, it is not necessary to interpret the guidelines for reading in the subject syllabus in a way that promotes critical reading. However, the discourse, aim and requirements stipulated by the National Agency of Education may restrict teachers’ interpretation of the syllabus to a certain degree (Sundberg, 81-82).
English Literature has further focus on the participatory approach, a feature that the problem posing approach in English 5, 6 and 7 lacks. The results from the RERP in 2010, about how reading for pleasure is important for students reading interest, may have an impact on the 2014 reform of the sixth form English (22-24). In “Subject Content” in English
Literature, students reading development is clearly stated. In AS English Literature students are introduced to a wide set of text in order to get familiar with them, whereas A level English Literature focuses on depth to “further develop students’ ability to analyze, evaluate and make connections” (1). By promoting the top bottom-model followed by the bottom up, students will get an overview of the text including the psychological, contextual and social features, in order to investigate the text critically without forgetting the implicit meaning (Weinstein, 179). Whereas the subject syllabus focuses on structure (common in ESL learning), English Literature relies on students’ interests and enjoyment to develop their reading skills/abilities. Although the PISA results from 2016 show that Swedish students reading abilities have improved since the previous test (2006), this improvement is as not the same thing as students enjoying or reading more than previous measurement (OECD). In the English Language and Literature subject syllabi, the Department for Education manages, by its language usage and
27 variety of choices, to maintain a positive attitude towards reading which grounds itself in students’ interests. What Swedish teachers should consider when searching for inspiration in the syllabus for English Literature is the emphasis on enjoyment as a guiding light for reading acquisition.
Unlike the English syllabi’s rather nationalistic content, the reading materials in the subject syllabus for English in the 2011 curriculum focuses on cultural knowledge in order to enable an understanding of “the parts of the world where English is used” and contexts of the English language and lifestyle over time until present day (Gy11 5). Naturally, this is important because of the role played by cultural context in creating the English language. While the syllabus for English Literature encourages appreciation for English literature, Swedish teachers could encourage curiosity about texts that portray recognizable living conditions in both fiction and non-fiction (Appleyard, 94, 99).
Whereas the syllabi for English in Gy11 and English Language agrees more with the Lundahl’s model of sociolinguistic perspectives of reading, English Literature agrees with the model of psycholinguistic perspectives by considering reading an individual and emotional experience (230). In Lundahl’s sociolinguistic model, the reader-text meeting emphasizes ideology and explains how “the teacher’s interpretation of a text has greater empowerment than the students’” (230, my translation). According to his sociolinguistic model, reading is a communicative skill and the goal of reading is to develop critical attitudes (230). With the National Agency of Education implying and promoting critical and intense reading, analysis, cultural knowledge and living conditions, the reading goals of the subject syllabus of the 2011 curriculum largely follow Lundahl’s sociolinguistic model. However, there are active and creative choices for teachers to make within the framework for the English subject syllabus which would make reading become more psycholinguistic – despite the lack of encouraging wording to appeal to students’ emotions (e.g. interest, understanding, enjoy). English 5, 6 and 7 belong to a target-aimed curriculum, which Wheelahan and
Lundahl claim turns students’ knowledge into capital on the European/international market (80; Lundahl, 230). Apart from being target aimed, the English subject syllabus is also holistic and has a specific focus on language skills for authentic language use.
The English Literature syllabus responds better to the psycholinguistic model, because the ambition of reader-text meeting is for students to understand the text (230). In the first requirement under the subheading “Knowledge and Understanding” in English Literature it says that “AS and A level specifications must require students to use their detailed
28 knowledge and understanding of individual works of literature to explore relationships
between texts and to appreciate the significance of cultural and contextual influences on readers and writers” (2). Understanding is one of the key words in English steering
documents. Nonetheless, the English Literature course also shows examples of being a hybrid of both models by encouraging reading to be both creative and critical at once and thereby bridging the gap between studying and reading for pleasure (Persson, 177).
Lastly, the most significant contrast between the English and Swedish steering documents is the language use. The English Department for Education maintains a positive and motivating language usage, despite the many requirements and content items in the syllabi, whereas the language use in the English subject syllabus in the Swedish 2011 curriculum is plain and lacking in enthusiasm. The English steering documents may have many content items to fulfill, that are stricter than those in the Swedish 2011 curriculum, but by including positive language use and focusing on the pleasure of reading, the impact on teachers is more motivating. The Swedish National Agency for Education uses a very firm and demanding discourse that focuses on strategies for reading and promotes bottom-up reading rather than promoting the variety of choices. In contrast, the English Department for Education places strategies in the background of reading by foregrounding students’ own interpretation and imagination through forming objectives such as “ways in which individual texts are interpreted by different readers” and requirements such as “read texts in a variety of ways and respond critically and creatively”.
5.0 Conclusion
The English syllabi rely on students’ interests and understanding, whereas the Swedish subject syllabus focuses on analytical skills. In contrast to English 5, 6 and 7, GCE AS and A level students have chosen to study English literature or English language. The abstract disposition and the implicit goals of the subject syllabus may cause teachers to experience it as dull and strict. The English subject syllabus does not have an active focus on reading for pleasure. It is the addition of positive key words (encourage, interest, enjoy, enjoyment, understanding), the motivations explaining why students are reading, the line of argument about how they gain acquisition to reach the aims/objectives, and the critically demanding requirements that differentiates the English steering documents from the Swedish subject syllabus (Department for Education, “English Literature”, 1-3). Gy11 mainly focus on critical skills in order to gain the knowledge that the international market finds attractive. It may not
