'We conclude that children appear to prioritise efficiency over completeness when reading, generating inferences spontaneously only when they are necessary for establishing a coherent representation of the text.’ Joseph , Wonnacott, Nation (2021)
The above piece of research is probably the one piece that has stuck with me. The emphasis of efficiency over completeness. We see that so much in our subject. The student who finishes first and there’s not a simple full stop in it. The student who has answered every question on a paper and simply guessed everything. The student who views watching the film as reading the text for revision. This pattern is played out again and again.
Efficiency is a problem that’s hidden in English. Students feel they are doing well in English because they know the plot and they know what the characters think or feel. Completeness comes when you understand the writer’s reasons and patterns behind the choices made. We see students thinking plot and character knowledge as being a sign of completeness. The same applies to techniques. The efficiency is spotting the technique. The completeness is explaining at length why the writer has used that technique in that specific context. Therefore, we are surrounded by this efficiency problem. And, if we are not careful, it becomes a poor proxy for learning in English.
As humans, we are programmed to recall stories and explore inferences around feelings and thoughts. It starts from an early age. Why is Mr Bear sad? What do you think he wants? What do you think he could do to make himself happy? The way we interact with stories is quite second nature. We could watch a 30 second clip of Eastenders and work out the feelings, the story, the conflicts, the hidden tensions quite easily. We use our knowledge of life and experiences. So, when we study Macbeth or Romeo and Juliet the students can connect with this idea of wanting something so badly or disobeying your parents' rules. There’s always something to connect or identify with. Even if you haven’t personally experienced it, then there’s your story knowledge where you have seen it somewhere before. Normally, people would do ‘this’ in stories.
The unnatural aspect is thinking of the writer. When I say unnatural, I don’t mean witchery business, but that it isn’t an automated and natural process. When I watch a TV show, I am not thinking about the writer’s intent and purpose behind things. It isn’t at the forefront of my mind as I am stuffing myself with popcorn. I am thinking and hoping that the dog survives to the end. The writer is far from my thoughts. In fact, I am not thinking of them at all.
Completeness comes when we connect the writer to the plot and characters. To do this, we need to make the writer a bigger presence in reading and lessons. We need to make them celebrities and not the characters in the books. We need to make the invisible visible. In fact, they need to be the bigger things in the lessons. Bigger than the texts. Bigger than the quotations. Bigger than the facts. When we read ‘A Christmas Carol’, we are learning about Dickens and Victorian society and not Scrooge and Tiny Tim. They are only vehicles for us to understand the writer.
Look at any study guide or revision guide and the emphasis is on plot and character with an occasional sniff of themes. Any reference to the writer is vanilla or hidden. They focus on efficiency - know the characters and know the plot.
My daughters are big Taylor Swift fans and they can wax lyrical on her songs and the intent behind the songs. In fact, their understanding is led by the intent and not by the content of the songs. Of course, they can recall the songs, but the understanding is focused around intent. Therefore, the discussion of the song is more complete because it starts with the intent.
I’ve struggled over the years with teaching writer’s intent because it relies too much on speculation and making large inferences that students lack the body of knowledge. Therefore, when we are asking students to use a verb like ‘challenges’ it doesn’t create the desired impact. It is a very different type of inference we are expecting that moves beyond obvious markers like a trembling voice or tears in their eyes. They are making inferences based on often subtle aspects or things that are not openly visible. This is quite a leap.
I tend to give students one sentence which encapsulates what the writers overall purpose is:
Priestley thought it was time to rebuild society.
Stevenson highlights the complexity of what others think is simple.
Shakespeare wants us to understand the problems in Elizabethan society.
Dickens wants to change society – Victorian society.
The reason for this is that it gives a starting point to make inferences as we go along in the text. Plus, it gives them something to frame ideas around. Take the Dickens one. When you read the opening of Stave 1, it is quite clear that the world needs changing. As much as we might like looking at the description of Scrooge, the overall message is that the world is bad. That sort of reading of a text is then built from the start. The writer’s intent is always an afterthought. Look at the dreaded PEE or equivalent. The writer’s intent was always at the end. Systematically, we are disadvantaging students because the intent comes second. Look at how we teach novels or plays. Plot first and intent second.
The second thing I do is give students a selection of key ideas around authorial intent. See below:
They are not a definitive list, but they highlight the plurality of ideas. A writer isn’t just talking about one thing. Students need to see that plurality in lessons. This sheet I get students to stick in their books and we constantly refer to it as we go along.
The beauty of this is that the writer’s intent can be viewed as something more concrete and not so abstract. But, it also allows students to see that moments in the text can reflect differing views of the author or playwright. Take Mrs Birling’s refusal to help Eva Smith. That reflects the idea of ‘with power comes responsibility’ or ‘women are disadvantaged in society’. Instead of lessons being the searching of the one student who understands the intent, the lessons are about exploring and developing the intent. They can build, construct, amend, blend or rewrite what is provided, but they are starting with something rather than nothing.
We have to actively teach students about authorial perspective and intent. It is ok to give students space to speculate and form their own opinions, but unless you have the background knowledge and experience of the writer's intent, students are simply guessing.
We need to make the writer alive. We need to get better and support students to explore and discuss intent. We need to actively shift students from efficiency to completeness.
Thanks for reading,
Xris
