Umeå University's logo

(Att undervisa skönlitteratur – från ett lärar- till ett forskarperspektiv)

How literature studies are perceived varies depending on viewer, given prerequisites, and prevailing circumstances. Pre-service teachers approach literature studies from a theoretical understanding, with ideal conditions and rooted in curricular stipulations. The educational researcher’s perspective is rather rooted in conceptual constructions about how readers approach texts. It is between these two perspectives that Swedish L1 teachers combine curricular requisites with pedagogical ideas while considering factors beyond the teaching context. What from a researcher’s viewpoint seems appropriate and necessary may be difficult to operationalize. The comparison between the three perspectives shows a discrepancy in how literature studies may be perceived. These differences do not, however, need to be an impediment, but knowledge of the differences in possibilities and limitations may contribute to further understanding. Awareness about the discrepancy, thus, may be advantageous both to how literature studies are viewed and to the transition from theory to practice. By letting the different perspectives draw nearer to each other, research findings can be made more relevant to both pre-service and in-service teachers. By reducing the distance between the different entities, teachers could more easily relate to the reality that is described as theirs, and research about literature studies would appear more relevant.

Studies have shown a slow but steady change in reading habits among students in Swedish upper secondary schools. The frequency with which they read fiction on a daily basis has decreased and reading comprehension has declined. Consequently, Swedish politicians and school authorities have taken measures to reverse these trends. Fiction reading has traditionally been a part of the Swedish subject, but whereas the course syllabi in the upper secondary school stipulate that fiction be taught, they pay little attention to how. This study examines how teachers describe the process of literary education. In doing so, it suggests that monitoring students is central to teachers’ didactic decisions, and that both teachers and students regard printed books more highly than both audiobooks and e-books. The data was collected using two focus groups interviews with upper secondary school teachers of Swedish, seven female and five male, age 28 to 61. The analysis was grounded in a phenomenographic examination of experience, allowing themes to emerge through iterative coding. The findings show that the teachers’ view on literary education is associated with instrumentality and teacher-centered activities—the discussions circled around practical aspects, with no mention of teaching objectives, approaches, or literary experience.

Organizational frameworks in Swedish schools have resulted in instrumentality and measurability. To literature studies, this has led to a focus on comprehension and pro!ciency at the expense of aesthetic aspects of !ction-reading. This study examines how teachers in Swedish upper secondary schools relate the aesthetic experience to literature studies. Data was collected using an online questionnaire, answered by 22 teachers. The !ndings suggest that participants are aware of and include the aesthetic aspects of !ction-reading, while at the same time prioritizing instrumental goals, such as language development and reading comprehension.

There is a discrepancy between the approach in literature teaching and students’ leisure reading. Reading fiction is knowledge-oriented in school and rarely framed by intrinsic values but, rather, defined by measurability and standardized performance assessments, whereas leisure reading is characterized by aesthetic aspects. Thus, bringing the two approaches closer could make literature teaching more relevant to students. Drawing on Transactional Theory and Envisionment-building, this study examines—from teachers’ perspectives—aesthetic aspects of literature teaching in Swedish upper secondary schools.        Findings from 11 interviews indicate that literature teaching is defined by an efferent framework, which requires teachers’ agency to involve aesthetic aspects. Literary discussions are central to literature teaching in the Swedish upper secondary literature classroom. The role of the discussions is both to facilitate collective reflection through others’ thoughts and to offer students a forum to achieve higher grades by focusing on formal aspects such as literary devices and comprehension.

Teachers who want to engage students with aesthetic aspects of literature studies in their teaching need to be creative in combining learning goals and practice their professional autonomy to succeed in a framework that focuses on formal aspects. While curricular stipulations include aesthetic aspects, the traditional way to organize literature studies is defined by teachers’ accountability for standardized measurements. In this study I conduct participant observation to examine how Swedish upper secondary L1 teachers operationalize their intentions to involve the Reading Experience and, further, what role the sociocultural approach plays in the literary classroom. Findings show an order of priority among the teachers, where efferent aspects come first. Furthermore, the findings indicate individual differences that moved the students closer to a non-fiction reading stance for written fiction. Finally, the sociocultural approach was central in literature studies, if not always made use of to enhance the interpersonal transactional process.