‘CRITICAL SINKING’: Rescuing Australia from the depths of critical illiteracy

Focuses on prescriptive educational practices in English classrooms are crippling student learning, pandering to conservative canonically-minded elitism while neglecting a focus on real-world skills education, particularly those that encourage individual expression or allow students to effectively understand and respond to content that they are exposed to outside the classroom. While students are required to demonstrate skills in “collecting, selecting, interpreting and drawing conclusions about information and ideas in a range of texts in personal, social, historical, cultural and workplace contexts”[1], these skills are seldom applied as a means of understanding the limitations and biases inherently embedded in commercial, cultural and political discourses. For example, while a study of Tim Winton’s “portrayal of the complex nature of family life” or W. B. Yeats’ “portrayal of the complex nature of inspiration” allowed NSW’s 2014 graduates to appreciate the “enduring value” of their respective prescribed texts[2], it appears little was done to assess students’ application of these skills to interrogate texts whose value may not be as “enduring”. Much alike the esteemed texts of the Anglo-centric literary canon that the Board of Studies has always flaunted so proudly, this one-dimensional approach to teaching and assessing critical literacy is one that has endured year after year. In 2006, HSC students were asked to assess the extent to which their views were shaped “by the enduring power” of their texts’ “intellectual and artistic qualities”[3] and in 2002, to write from the perspective of two individuals who “value [the] prescribed text in different ways and for different reasons”[4]. The very manner in which these questions are posed force students to respond in the affirmative, leaving little to no room to actually criticize the text on its potential limitations as an exploration of theme! Even when students were presented with questions that allowed them even the slightest chance of effectively questioning and interrogating the value of their texts (such as in 2009, where students were asked to assess “the extent to which” their prescribed text could explore the theme[5]) students have reported feeling a considerable degree of pressure to simply “agree” with the majority, with many schools presenting institutionalised perspectives that emerge as a result of being “more results-driven and not too fussed on thinking things through”, as stated by Bethany College English Co-Ordinator Con Raptis[6].
It may be argued that our failure to provide students with a “legitimate” teaching of critical literacy is largely due to the texts we place in front of them. Texts that “endure” the test of time should not serve as the be-all-and-end-all of critical studies. While they serve well in developing students’ appreciation for quality literature, they would operate most effectively when supplemented with more questionable or divisive texts — texts where students will undeniably develop varying opinions regarding its quality, message, legitimacy or even its “enduring power” — or texts that themselves serve as expressions of literary criticism such as Ben Lerner’s verse essay, Didactic Elegy. Inundating students with timeless, canonical texts alone won’t allow them to appreciate quality literature if they can’t appreciate the means by which audiences distinguish quality literature from texts whose value may more easily be brought into question. How can we expect our children to grow into informed citizens if they have never interrogated multiple conflicting perspectives within texts, within classrooms or, more broadly, within society as a whole? As argued by D’Arcy Broche, a former student and member of the Board of Studies’ 2012 Student Advisory Group, a more critical approach must be undertaken in the teaching of language so that when individuals “read an advertisement or a politician’s speech they know what might be behind it, instead of taking it at face value.”[7]

With this in mind, it becomes clear that significant changes should be made to the curriculum if we want to see students utilising processes of critical analysis in a meaningful way. The NSW HSC module titled “Critical Study of Texts” states that students will learn to “develop an informed personal understanding of their prescribed text” and “an appreciation of the textual integrity of their prescribed text.” What this model severely lacks is the teaching of processes that allow students to interrogate the validity and limitations of certain texts, and does not place enough emphasis on developing an understanding of the purpose and audience for which texts are written. It is of the utmost importance that students learn to adopt a critical approach that assesses the biases and limitations of these texts, in order to encourage a healthy degree of scepticism and critical consciousness. As a preservice teacher, the current method of “critically analysing” texts, I have found, allows students to become disengaged and disinterested quickly as the mode through which they are taught is largely prescriptive. Students are asked merely to explore why a particular text is seen as culturally, politically or socially important, but hardly ever do students adopt an opposing stance to these texts whereby the legitimacy and limitations of the text are brought into question. I therefore propose that future changes to the Stage 6 syllabus, which covers outcomes and objectives assessed in Years 11 and 12, should feature a more multidimensional approach to a critical study of texts. As stated above, this would ideally a greater focus on a “legitimate” critical analysis and evaluation of divisive texts, where the value or significance of the text itself may be held to the critical lens, allowing students to identify and discuss the various aspects that determine the quality, legitimacy and limitations of a text as an exploration of a theme or event.

As with any new concept taught in the classroom, teachers must present their students with a model that demonstrates how skills and information may be applied effectively. Here is where the value of Didactic Elegy is paramount. While the argument that Lerner makes in his essay certainly is one that lends itself to critical evaluation, the text serves most effectively as an artistic representation of the nature of interpretation and subjectivity, and the ways in which audiences’ reactions to texts are shaped by their emotional response to the events that these texts explore. The questions raised by the essay regarding the limitations of texts and how they affect audiences’ perception of these texts are questions that would form a valuable and enriching source of classroom discussion.
The essay, divided into seven parts, is a fascinating one that, at least initially, befuddles the reader with its intellectual complexity, forcing us to digest it at a much slower pace than the poetry that we might otherwise be used to. In part 1, Lerner opens by conjuring the image of “a bold, black line” juxtaposed “across an otherwise white field” in order to illustrate how quickly and instinctively audiences assign meaning to texts. Lerner even uses this metaphor to highlight the self-reflexiveness of his own essay, stating that “a poem can seek out a figure of its own impossibility” in the same way that the black line “amplifies the whiteness of the field.” Here, Lerner lays the foundation for his argument, stating that all texts are subjective, and are only assigned meaning by their audience, before explaining how emotions tied to tragic events drastically influence our interpretation of texts related to the event in part 2. Throughout the essay, Lerner explores this concept, stating for example that “it is difficult to differentiate between the collapse of the towers and the image of the towers collapsing. The influence of images is often stronger than the influence of events” (part 4) and that images therefore “allow us to apprehend the experience of logic at logic’s expense” (part 5). Part 6 explains this phenomenon further by comparing the event and its image to “a star and starlight”, demonstrating the inherent mediacy and limitedness of these images, while part 7 concludes this discussion with the suggestion that true memorialisation occurs when memorials of an event remain simple, subjective, and intentionally meaningless. In stating that we should “intend as little as possible in the act of memorialization”, thereby “refus[ing] to assign value where there is none”, Lerner implies that being self-aware of how limited our understanding of the event itself is, as a result of its mediacy, is to be as respectful and knowledgeable of the event as possible.
There are key elements to Lerner’s essay that align with the arguments made in this essay. Admittedly, however, Lerner argues these points much more concisely and in a far more artistic fashion than I do, presenting his essay as one that would lend itself to a challenging and exciting degree of textual analysis perfect for a high school classroom environment. Of particular focus are the ways in which Lerner’s essay can be used to develop students’ critical literacy, a quality of this text that lies largely in Lerner’s use of rhetorical questioning. Having highlighted the limitedness of an image in relation to the event it depicts, Lerner asks “Should we memorialize the towers or the towers’ collapse? Can any memorial improve on the elegance of absence? Or perhaps, in memoriam, we should destroy something else.” This line of interrogation perfectly encapsulates the vague importance of images as representations of events, and opens up Lerner’s argument to classroom inquiry. Having undergone an analysis of Lerner’s argument, students may initiate this inquiry through class debates, or more freeform activities such as Socratic seminars which involve a forum-like question-and-answer environment led by students and monitored by teachers. These activities are not only effective in exercising critical literacy skills, but serve as effective practice for leading discussions, and learning to listen and engage with other students’ insights. The examples of “memorials” and “the towers’ collapse”, furthermore, are infinitely interchangeable with any image, or text, and the event or idea that it aims to depict, allowing for students to practice questioning, interrogating and evaluating the importance and effectiveness of any number of texts. Additionally, changes to the curriculum, and the way that it is implemented in areas of formal assessment such as the HSC, are essential in ensuring that further progress is made towards developing the critical literacy skills of Australian students. Of particular importance are a focus on replacing or supplementing particular Critical Study texts with texts whose significance, legitimacy or “enduring quality” may more easily be brought under scrutiny, and altering modes of formal assessment such as the HSC to allow for students to demonstrate a more “legitimate” application of critical literacy skills.

It is essential that students are able to effectively deal with the cognitive dissonance that occurs as a result of exposure to intellectually and emotionally confronting material. A study of Lerner’s essay raises numerous questions about the limitedness and subjectivity of all forms of literary representation, eloquently and thought-provokingly challenging the ways in which the September 11 attacks have been depicted and, more importantly, the way in which the confused and emotional masses responded to these depictions. It positions the events of 9/11 under a critical lens, without being disrespectful to the heroes and victims of this tragic event. It prompts readers to challenge and interrogate their understanding of the event without needing to be overly provocative or confronting. Lerner’s use of language is eloquent, powerfully intellectual, captivating, and considering the ways in which it lends itself as a tool for discussions around textual integrity and subjectivity, its potential as a text for developing students’ critical literacy is unparalleled. It is vital that teachers, parents, and even students initiate discussions in which the current status of critical thinking and criticism of texts is questioned and interrogated, and that we all become more involved in evaluating how thoroughly critical thinking is being taught in the classroom.

[1] Outcome 10, NSW Stage 6 Advanced English Syllabus

[2] 2014 HSC English examination, Paper 1

[3] 2006 HSC English examination, Paper 1

[4] 2002 HSC English examination, Paper 1

[5] 2009 HSC English examination, Paper 1

[6] Eva Tejszerski. Teens get a head-start with critical thinking. (St George & Sutherland Leader, 2014)

[7] ibid.