Meanings attributed to literature in language education

ABSTRACT

This study examines the meanings attributed to literature in language education by Finnish General Upper Secondary teachers of English as a Foreign Language. The study employs a phenomenological research design structured around the concepts of language education, literature and values in education. The phenomenological analysis examines five semi-structured interviews from teachers who have experience in including literature in their language education practice. The interviews were conducted both in person and over the phone and audio-recorded, transcribed and processed using qualitative data management software. The analysis showed that literature in language education was experienced as challenged, challenging, framed, a cultural phenomenon, a cultural practice, a path for cross-curricular collaboration, tool for learning and an opportunity for personal growth. The values transmitted through these meanings reflected a balancing act between acknowledging the value of literature for individuals’ holistic growth and the value literature holds for language learning. The results suggest that literature in language education as a phenomenon is more than select texts and practices in a pedagogical setting. Furthermore, employing literature within the language education paradigm can narrow the gap between foreign language teaching and teaching literature, because both language education and teaching literature value the personal growth of the individual.

KEYWORDS:

• Literature
• language education
• values
• phenomenology

Introduction

Literature in language education (henceforth LLE) has been explored from multiple perspectives, including language learning, personal growth and inter- and transcultural learning (see for example Bland 2018b; Bland and Lütge 2013; Mela and Mikkonen 2007; Teranishi, Saito and Wales 2015 for collections of studies on the subject). There is, however, more to be said on the meanings teachers attribute to LLE, because teachers’ value-laden conceptions of and meanings attributed to literature guide their pedagogical practice (Turunen 1992: 10).

Studies involving literature and foreign language education are diverse, as the review by Paran (2008) highlights. Researching teachers’ experience, in-service needs and understanding of key constructs are an important starting point for developing the practice further. Indeed, as Paran (2008: 480) observes, ‘The absence of training also sends out a powerful message that literature is something that is not worth dealing with.’ Studies on teachers’ experience of LLE have been conducted within an L1-context or from the persepective of teachers of multiple subjects, such as Applegate and Applegate (2004), McKool and Gespass (2009), and Skaar, Elvebakk and Nilssen (2018). This study will focus on teachers working with literature specifically in foreign language education contexts. Research into teacher experience is important, because, as Komulainen and Rajakaltio (2017) underline, teachers are pedagogical leaders who transmit value-laden conceptions of literature to their students, just as they transmit other ontological conceptions of humanity, society and the world at large.

The foundations for values in education in Finland are laid out in the General Upper Secondary Schools Act (714/2018) and National Curriculum. The aim is to instill in an individual an ability to make judgments and choices through a process of ethical reflection, placing one’s self in another’s position, and by using the available information (FNAE 2015, 12; see also Finlex 714/2018; Finlex 942/2014). Another key aim is honing the ability and will to ethically, empathetically and solution-orientedly manage the discrepancies between one’s endeavours and the current reality. The general upper secondary school Bildungsideal is founded on ‘truth, humanity and justice’ (FNAE 2015: 12). According to Ojanen (2011: 10), values are central to the way in which humans exist in the world.

In Finland, ‘[t]eaching is organized according to the national curriculum, which each county and schools therein use to formulate their own, more detailed curricula’ (Luukka 2019: 199). In the 2015 curriculum (FNAE 2015), the mandatory courses for languages which the student has begun studying during grades 1–6 progress from strengthening students’ study skills (courses 1–2) to raising awareness of the kinds of language different modes of texts require (course 3 onward) and using language to acquire, condense and distribute information effectively (courses 4–6) (FNAE 2015: 110). Course 3, titled ‘Kulttuuri-ilmiöitä [Cultural phenomena]’, focuses on multiliteracy, and in it students produce a variety of texts around the themes of ‘cultural phenomena, English-speaking media and creative work’ (2015: 110).

Language education as a pedagogical paradigm

This study is structured around the concepts of language education, literature and values in education. While foreign language teaching and learning can take place under many kinds of paradigms, Kohonen (2001: 17) sees the primary goals of language education as ‘self-actualization and personal and social change, aiming to create a more democratic society.’ Following Kohonen’s intellectual legacy, Hildén and Kantelinen (2012: 162) have described language education as emphasising ‘meaningful learning that is based on personal experience, social interaction and reflection. It aims at personal growth’. In defining the aims of language education, Mustaparta, Nissilä and Harmanen (2015: 11) explain that language education combines perspectives and learning objectives common to all language subjects with the values laid out in the curriculum. These include the ability to put one’s self in another’s position, reflecting on and constructing one’s cultural identity, respect for cultural diversity and authentic interaction and sense of community (ibid.).

Pedagogical praxis and research therein should recognise the value-bound nature of any pedagogical paradigm, and – for the purposes of this study – the values associated with language education, in particular. According to Atjonen (2011: 87), values

are an umbrella-term for norms. In the sphere of human endeavours the concept of values extends much further than simply to norms related to right and wrong. Values construct an individual’s world view, which in turn both reflects and feeds teachers’ conceptions of education and assessment. […] teachers must personally and collaboratively actively recognize what kind of a society or pedagogical set of values they communicate. (Translation from Finnish to English by the author).

In addition to recognising the value-laden nature of pedagogical paradigms, this study also recognises the value-laden nature of literature.

A phenomenological approach to literature in language education

In Lauri Rauhala’s existential phenomenology, literature is a cultural construct with an ontologically dualistic nature. That is, it constitutes of both materiality and meanings that are attached to it (2005: 69). In research, meanings attributed to literature have included a wide array of aims, or functions, alongside and in addition to language learning (Bland 2018a, 2013; Bland and Lütge 2013; Bloemert et al. 2019; Hall 2015; Teranishi, Saito and Wales 2015). Meretoja and Lyytikäinen (2015: 3) describe the value and function of literature thus:

Literature does not merely illustrate pre-given ideas and values, but also functions as a medium of thought and imagination in which questions of what is valuable for us and how to understand the value of literature are articulated from new perspectives and addressed in an open process of exploration.

In terms of materiality and attributed meanings, literature can be understood as a temporally and geographically bound social construct (Carter 2007), which consists of a continuously re-defined and re-negotiated set of multimodal texts (Bland 2013; Brumfit 2001; Kupiainen, Kulju and Mäkinen 2015). Literature forms a body of texts to which individuals and institutions attach ethical, aesthetic, cognitive, affective, social, historical and existential values (Meretoja et al. 2015; see also Alber 2011; Bland 2018a; Mikkonen 2015; Paulson 2007; Schmidt and Pailliotet 2008; Surkamp 2016). In LLE practice, the context will necessarily affect what, why and how literature is used. As a practice, LLE requires paying careful attention to how the use of literature is justified, as Alvstad and Castro (2009) point out. The authors analysed university curricula for Spanish as a foreign language and surveyed university teachers, and found that ‘the key concepts of literature, language, and culture tend[ed] to be employed in an unproblematized manner’ and ‘that the objectives expressed for the literary modules […] [were] mainly instrumentally oriented’ toward learning language and culture (Alvstad and Castro 2009: 180–181).

This study employs a phenomenological approach to literature in language education, because it enables the acknowledgment of the holistic and unique nature of individuals, just as language education as a pedagogical paradigm acknowledges ‘the learner as a person with both [sic] the cognitive, aesthetic, moral, physical and spiritual needs.’ (Kohonen 2001: 17).

Teachers’ experiences of literature in foreign education

Research on teachers’ experiences can take multiple foci from the roles and weight literature and language hold in the classroom (Paran 2008: 467) to why and how teachers think LLE ought to be employed. Of the examples Paran (2008: 480) highlights, studies by Burnett and Fonder-Solano (2001) and Fonder-Solano and Burnett (2004) provide particularly interesting, self-reflective explorations into questions of what and why literature is employed within a particular pedagogical context.

From a phenomenological perspective, the situatedness of experience means that, for example, the years of experience a teacher has coupled with particular cultural contexts the teacher has lived in, will influence their experience of LLE. This is seen in, for example, Calafato and Paran (2019) who found that EFL teachers’ age is a factor in their attitudes toward LLE. The authors explain that while teachers of all ages in their sample agreed that literature benefitted language learning, the younger teachers aged ≤30 used literature less in their teaching. Further, Calafato and Paran (2019) found that younger teachers enjoyed literature in a foreign language less. For teachers aged ≥50, literature had also had a stronger presence when they began learning English. The study offers insight into factors which affect why teachers choose to include literature in their teaching.

The situatedness of experience is also seen in the kinds of expectations individuals bring to particular contexts, and the kinds of challenges that arise in different settings. In their study, Duncan and Paran (2018: 246–247) found that teachers worried literary texts might be conceptually or linguistically too challenging for their students, and that teachers found limited classtime and students’ expectations or their ‘fear of unfamiliar vocabulary’ to also pose challenges for LLE. Other challenges included students’ fearing canonised literature – or codeswitching in their excitement over the text under discussion. Teachers worked around these challenges through their choice of texts, the organisation of reading and through reading aloud. In Duncan and Paran’s (2018) study, the focus is on how the subject is taught, and the ways in which the practice is shaped by the situated challenges teachers encounter in their school contexts.

The challenges related to LLE have been explored in depth in the edited volume by Bland (2018b), in which Hall summarises that the notion of ‘challenging’ can be understood in three distinct ways: texts as a socio-linguistically and culturally challenging experience for young readers, texts being challenged through critical ‘and possibly resistant reading’, and reading as a challenged activity in the current educational zeitgeist (2018: 264).

The research question this article addresses is what meanings do teachers attribute to LLE, and what values are transmitted to students through these meanings? Lehtovaara (1992: 154) underlines that while individuals may be conscious of their attributed meanings to differing degrees, the networks of meaning particular to each individual still guide the individual’s thoughts and actions even if the attributed meanings are unclear, unrealistic, or even false. Values are one type of meaning that teachers attribute to the LLE practice. These meanings are formed within the context the individual lives in (Rauhala 2005: 39). Therefore, to understand these situated meanings, my theoretical framework draws from knowledge of the Finnish National Curriculum, language education as a pedagogical paradigm and research on teachers’ experience of literature in language education as well as my professional background as a teacher of English and Spanish. The article presents findings from an interview study conducted with Finnish general upper secondary teachers of English as a foreign language. The results contribute not only to effective teacher pre- and in-service education and training, but they also provide a window into the kinds of values teachers may associate with the practice, and the roles of the curriculum, colleagues, students and resources as framing factors for the practice.

Materials and methods

I chose four teachers on the grounds of their having participated in a survey study I conducted (Luukka 2019) earlier, where they reported using LLE ‘Yes, fairly often’ or even ‘Yes, rarely’, if the examples they provided in the open-ended questions and their years of experience in the profession indicated they had experience in LLE as a practice. All teachers had 15 to over 30 years of teaching experience. Two teachers responded ‘Yes, fairly often’ and two ‘Yes, rarely’. The fifth teacher I selected through their colleague’s recommendation as a teacher who was known to use literature often in their language education. The second criterion was that the teacher currently worked at a general upper secondary school. Four of the participants were women and one a man. The participants’ ages or other background details were not collected from the participants as they were not considered directly necessary for the purposes of the study. However, four of the particpants took part in an earlier study (Luukka 2019) in which they indicated that they, respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5, had, at the time, 33, 15, 30 and 28 years of teaching experience, respectively. As for participant 2, who took part in the study without having filled out the survey earlier, I have assumed their number of years of experience falls in the latter half of this range, as I know that they completed their teacher education in the early 1980s. Each respondent taught English at a general upper secondary school. It is likely the participants also taught other subjects, such as other languages, and indeed some compared and contrasted their experience of using literature in English language teaching with that of using literature in teaching other languages, but accounting for this aspect of the participants’ experience was beyond the scope of this particular study.

I collected the data using a semi-structured interview I designed. I conducted the interviews over the phone due to the lengthy distances between myself and the teachers, with the exception of one interview conducted face to face. The interviews were approximately one hour long each. Each interview was conducted in Finnish as this was the working language at the participants’ schools and a language the participant and interviewer were comfortable expressing themselves in. I analysed the interviews using the qualitative data management software ATLAS.ti. The interviews were held in 2015 when the updated national curriculum was being implemented for the first cohort of students.

In the analysis, I used an adaptation of the phenomenological approach developed by Juha Perttula (1996, 2000) and described by Lehtomaa (2005), in which the networks of meaning are constructed first on the level of the individual and then across the group of teachers. In the example quotes, the two numbers seperated by a colon (e.g. 1:22, 1:13, 3:121 below) signify the number of the teacher and the quote number generated by ATLAS.ti.

First, I read the transcripts multiple times to gain a sense of the whole (Step 1), then broke it into themes the individual spoke of (Step 2), such as ‘what is literature’ (See right hand column of Table 1). For example, I noted each instance where a teacher described kinds of literary texts they had used in their teaching. I coded the text in detail, and then grouped the themes for further analysis. I then pooled together what was said about each particular theme (Step 3): for example, I observed that when speaking of how they understood literature (theme), one teacher noted that ‘I don’t know if we can call anything that’s been printed not literature.’ (1:22). I examined the themes across the group of teachers, and formed the themes into eight networks of meaning which I described in my own words (Step 4) (See Table 1, left hand column). Then I placed the themes under the network of meaning I considered them to contribute to (Step 5). Continuing the same example, the network within which literature was seen as challenging’ included the themes of the ontology of ‘literature’, selecting literary texts, using literature in language education and needing to stay current with young adult readers’ interests. In writing the analysis, I introduced quotations from the interviews to illustrate, for example, how the ontology of literature (a theme) was seen to contribute to the experience of literature as a challenging phenomenon (a network of meaning) (Step 6). I then combined the individual interviews within each network and theme to create a more dynamic presentation of the contents of each network of meaning. The networks are summarised at the beginning of the results’ section in Table 1.

Table 1. Networks of meaning and constitutive themes.

Network of meaning	Constitutive themes
Challenging	Due to ontology of ‘literature’; selecting literary texts; using literature in language education; need to stay current with young adult readers’ interests
Challenged	By surrounding culture; fast-paced media and technology; aspects of student body
Framed	By curriculum; resources; students; colleagues
Cultural phenomenon	Authenticity of literature; comparability to other art forms
Cultural practice	Identifying as a reader; LLE as practices to grow into
Tool for learning	LLE as a pedagogical tool; tool for learning content
Path for cross-curricular collaboration	With Finnish as L1 in particular
Rich possibility for holistic personal development	Fostering extended reading skills; development of world view; ethical perspectives

Results: meanings attributed to literature in language education

The meanings attributed to LLE and the themes which the networks constitute are summarised in Table 1 and elaborated on in the following sections.

Literature in language education as a challenging phenomenon

This network of meanings encompassed the reasons why the teachers found literature challenging to use in language education. Challenges related to the ontology of literature were visible in the varied forms and functions of literary texts the teachers referred to. Teachers referred to including song lyrics (1:13, 3:121, 1:138, 148, 203), songs with lyric videos on YouTube (1:23), 50-year-old grammar guides (1:20–21), printed texts (1:22), nursery rhymes (1:65), school plays (1:68) and drama (3:103), posters with word play (1:180), poetry (3:119, 120), children’s literature (3:113), film (3:131, 3:133, 2:23, 102) and narrative fiction (2:4). For one teacher it was important that texts have a beginning and an end, and ‘an arch over which a particular thought is developed’ (2:79).

Literature was seen as challenging because there was so much material to choose from (5:52): ‘There is so much material in world literature – so much material in the world of verbal art, that choosing the right collection of texts is pretty arduous. Maybe some teachers drop it because they think there’s so much of it.’ (1:187). One teacher expressed needing both time and a larger number of fitting literary texts (1:120). Choosing texts prompted the idea of authenticity. Authentic texts were considered more valuable for LLE than texts created for pedagogical purposes (1:69–70, 2:165). One teacher underlined the need to stay up-to-date in the young adults’ current trends (5:49). Finding texts that appeal to boys was considered challenging (3:5).

LLE was also challenging because it was seen as requiring careful lesson planning. This raised the question of using segments of literature versus whole texts:

A segment, like when you’re introducing a topic or other [unclear word] is perfectly appropriate, because it doesn’t – it has a different function. So it no longer is literature, really, it’s a segment transferred from somewhere to serve a particular function. But when we read a whole novel, it serves a whole other function. (4:141)

Another referred to using segments of novels for students to translate (3:145, 146). Fulfilling specific language learning requirements using a literary text was referenced also (5:72, 5:66). Other challenges included finding ways to incorporate technologies and game culture with literature (5:40, 5:73), and discussing affective responses to texts in the classroom. Lastly, LLE was considered challenging also because it demanded perseverance of students to carry on reading (2:34, 4:14, 4:36; 5:19).

Literature in language education as a challenged phenomenon

The surrounding culture was considered to challenge LLE in many ways. This network includes the social phenomena which the teachers considered as challenging the use of literature the use of literature in their teaching. The teachers felt there was a general lack of reading (3:61, 3:56, 3:64, 3:2, 3:25, 4:23, 3:143, 4:70), nor did students read as widely as before (3:76, 3:1), and students were unfamiliar with ‘old, famous authors’ (3:25). One teacher considered reading literature to be more common among girls than boys (4:30). Additionally, LLE was considered challenged by the likelihood that parents’ lack of reading is transmitted to children, though reading should be ‘as habitual as brushing one’s teeth or eating breakfast’ (4:37). The current educational paradigm was also seen as a challenge, because it was considered to favour students’ agency as opposed to teachers’ lecturing (2:61). Current educational politics were another, because the current course-based secondary education leaves language educators little time to familiarise students with the literature of the target culture (2:37, 2:125). The current system founded on periods (Finn. periodiluku) rather than semesters (Finn. jaksoluku) was considered a challenge to LLE (4:71). One teacher found that in their part of the country ‘there aren’t many opportunities or a culture that promotes sharing one’s experiences’ (3:90) and this hampers their practice. Surprisingly, young adult literature was seen as a challenge to LLE practice (3:126, 5:9), as was the surrounding culture:

This is the Finnish way. We are these fact-based people, apparently, that we don’t give much room for humanistic content, and rather start from “Here’s the grammar, here’s the vocabulary and here’s how you sell things” and so on, and then not give a dime about the target culture. […] We do not have an awareness of world literature. (2:95–96)

This illustrates the interconnectedness of LLE as a challenging, challenged and framed phenomenon, the last aspect of which is expanded on in the next section.

LLE was seen as challenged by the fast-paced media and game-culture (1:57). This materialised in teachers’ references to the challenge of knowing whether students have read a given text or watched the related film (3:47). Another teacher regretted that

Everything has to be so fast-paced. Everything has to happen here and now. Reading on the other hand is so slow. They just don’t have what it takes, what’s the word? They don’t have it. It’s too slow. [Interviewer: Tenacity?] Yes, that’s the word! (4:36)

The practice was also challenged by aspects of the student body. Students’ language skills and textual skills were seen as both a challenge and a framing factor (2:42, 3:62, 3:80, 5:32), as were students’ ability to analyse and acknowledge background information about the text (2:67). LLE was further challenged by a need to differentiate teaching within the short course timeframe (5:31). Lastly, the dichotomy of language and literature was a factor which challenged LLE as a practice (5:57).

Literature in language education as a framed phenomenon

The curriculum was a major factor in framing LLE, and has been included in this section because I have interpreted it as an a-priori framing factor for the practice. With the introduction of the updated curriculum, the teachers were concerned about the fullness of the curriculum and the limited time available for LLE (2:78, 2:114, 5:64). The greatest concern in the curriculum update related to moving the third mandatory course, on culture, from being a second year course to being a first year course. Teachers were concerned students would not be able to read a novel with their level of language skills in the first year (1:162, 1:67):

Now it’s course number three [the course on culture], so that limits the texts, to a degree, because the students are younger. In beginners’ courses we can’t read much, because the students’ language skills are that much weaker still. Like in French we have these shorter collections of short stories, but even that might be too difficult for some, so in these courses we cannot use a lot of literature, unfortunately. (2:7).

The new curriculum also implied new coursebooks, which teachers had conflicting views on.

Related to experiencing the curriculum as full (1:164), a key framing factor was time. Teachers felt too pressed for time to find texts and plan how to incorporate them into lessons (1:120, 2:128, 2:61, 2:46, 3:28, 3:38, 4:136, 5:146): ‘Of course the [LLE] practice requires a little time and effort. I’m sure you’ve heard many other teachers, too, say that there doesn’t seem to be enough time.’ (1:44). They felt, however, that the students were similarly challenged (2:72); that students did not have time to read extensively outside of class (2:118). One teacher related that if the course schedule is very tight, their students read extensively only in class (3:70). Another teacher no longer considered it an option to have students read a novel for a course (5:126).

Nowadays the course books have these reading tips, or segments from somewhere to entice students to read on their own. That’s because – and it’s a real shame – the courses are packed so full that there’s just no opportunity to – like if everyone read the same book or any book and then there would be a seminar-type chance to unpack the reading. (5:7)

Material and immaterial resources were also seen as framing factors, such as physical and electronic texts (1:18, 1:75, 2:32, 2:135), training and teachers’ savoir faire, or skills and know-how, (1:171, 1:207, 2:207, 2:133 3:89) and the (in)ability of the school to provide print copies of books (2:31, 2:51, 2:52). Interestingly, teachers’ own skills, passion and commitment were also seen as central resources to the practice (2:93, 5:34, 1:44, 1:1:171). One teacher related inviting authors to speak (5:157) to show students that writing could be a career. Two teachers felt LLE required in-service training because it had not been covered in their pedagogical training (1:1:207, 2:61, 2:49). Choosing texts was referred to as an area for in-service training (1:187), but having a school librarian who recommended texts was also a highly valuable resource (5:155). One teacher wished for more available materials (1:201).

School communities and collaboration with colleagues were seen as another framing factor. Where one teacher observed that they did not know what other teachers do within the culture course (3:155), another felt that even if they did wish to incorporate more literature into their classroom, the fact that students circulate from one teacher to the next for various courses requires them to conform to colleagues’ ways of working, preventing them from fully engaging with the LLE practice (2:121).

The student body was naturally an important framing factor, including students’ needs and interests (1:128, 1:31, 2:29, 3:32, 4:91), motivation (3:5, 1:174) or a lack thereof (1:54, 1:58, 2:75), students’ background knowledge of texts and their contexts of origin (2:66, 3:116) and ability to analyse texts (2:152). One teacher was concerned about students’ seeming of lack interest in or appreciation for literature and that the ‘fragmented nature and information-overload, typical of the modern world, with students constantly scrolling for some information,’ has left students’ unable to focus at length (5:139).

Literature in language education as a cultural phenomenon

Experiencing literature in language education as a cultural phenomenon included the way teachers understood literature as contributing to educational aims like intercultural awareness through, for example, authentic text choices, and the way literature was seen as comparable to other art forms. The notion of literature as ‘authentic’ surfaced in the interviews (1:47). One teacher considered all authentic texts to be equally excellent (1:141). The authenticity was seen to serve multiple functions. Authentic texts were considered to demonstrate the imperfect nature of authentic language, that ‘in a literary text they might say something a little bit differently from the form in the textbook, but it’s correct nevertheless’ (1:83). Teachers also thought authentic texts help students to stay current with how language changes over time (1:91), to exemplify language that is different from pedagogical texts but still ‘correct’ (1:17), and to thus be more motivating (1:69, 1:71). Easy-readers were considered childish particularly in their illustrations (2:166), boring and de-motivating (2:88, 2:12) and ‘perhaps borderline unnatural’ (2:165). Another teacher related telling their students that by reading authentic texts they take part in creating the meaning, as opposed to having a translator interpret the text for them (4:55, 4:56, 4:123).

As a cultural phenomenon, literary texts were also seen as comparable to other arts, such as music or visual arts. This materialised in the way literature was contextualised within the culture course (3:13, 3:17, 3:96, 3:87, 4:18, 5:4). ‘[W]e’ve tried to cover a little bit from all areas of culture, and the book is read in the background, while simultaneously we cover five to six other things.’ (2:77). Another teacher observed that ‘It’s absolutely self-evident that literature should be a part of the culture-course,’ (4:74) and added that ‘It’s harder to include literature on the other courses because the themes are so different’ (4:75) and the curriculum is so full that the other courses need to focus on teaching language (4:140). The comparability to other art forms also materialised in the way one teacher noted that an appreciation for literature and music, the arts in general, were seen as central to the target culture: ‘if [the arts] disappear, we lose a large portion of the western culture’ (1:137). The way in which teachers referred to using a large variety of texts, as described in section ‘Literature as a challenging phenomenon’, also demonstrates this experience of comparability, or put another way, the expanded notion of the literary text in action.

Lastly, experiencing literature as a cultural phenomenon was embodied in the way literature was seen as contributing to students’ cultural awareness and knowledge (2:14). One teacher considered it important that authors like Shakespeare be made familiar to students, and not simply introduced in name through various ‘modernized’ versions of his texts:

Instead, with Shakespeare, they [the textbook authors] had made it really light, like he was some guy back then, here we go, and sure it was really fun that some theatre group of hiphoppers or what have you are rapping about Shakespeare, like how would he live in contemporary society, but it seemed to be missing the basis, what Shakespeare was all about. Like it was too much to bear to have a little look at that. (5:162)

Literature in language education as a cultural practice

This network of meaning encompassed the variety of practices which manifest the teachers’ identities as readers and the ways in which they aimed to foster these practices in their students. Four participants identified themselves as readers and persons who enjoy reading when asked to describe their relationship with literature and reading (1:2, 2:2, 4:1, 5:1). The fifth teacher lamented lacking the time to read, and felt that many contemporary authors tend to slip below their radar (3:38). One noted that the practice of reading is a shared one in their family (5:1). Teachers related examples of how reading as a practice has been visible in their lives (5:1). These included relating when they learned to read (1:1, 4:1), what they enjoy (1:1, 2:2) and do not enjoy reading (2:13, 2:33), what they read when they were younger (4:2), writing a Master’s thesis on literature (1:1) and the languages they read in (4:2). One teacher also identified as being ‘one of the people who are very glad that Dylan received the Nobel prize for Literature’, and related using YouTube-videos of rock music with accompanying lyrics in their teaching (1:23). Identifying as a proponent for the use of literature was also referred to:

And this practice [of reading a novel for the culture course] is a long-standing practice our school has had since before the turn of the century, so it’s not a custom I brought with me, but rather something I have been more than happy to support. (1:40)

Experiencing LLE as a cultural practice to be grown into was seen, for example, in the way teachers referred to motivating or inspiring students to read (1:71, 1:56, 1:66, 1:181, 2:90, 4:158, 4:160, 5:160, 5:168). It was also visible through the references to introducing literature to young readers through, for example, nursery rhymes (1:47) or children’s literature (3:102), and practicing LLE at all educational levels from primary school early years to the end of general upper secondary education (3:72–73, 4:90). This was not a unanimously shared idea, however, as one of the primary hopes of one of the teachers was that LLE be made more available to students of advanced language skills (5:56, 5:57). Indeed, one teacher emphasised how unrealistic it is to expect high school students to read literature, if they have not seen it in comprehensive school:

In my opinion the practice of using literature should start in the lower and middle school years already. You can just see how the reading practice grows narrower. Like if they never read in middle school, or lower school, then they won’t have much interest in reading in secondary school either. (3:1, 3:56)

Literature in language education as a tool for learning and teaching

Experiencing LLE as a pedagogical tool was seen in the way teachers related using LLE as a tool to differentiate their teaching (5:14), support students’ individuality (1:195, 3:109), to make a text more accessible (1:151), to introduce a topic (4:161) and in the way one teacher noted that LLE fulfils the year two learning objectives (1:210).

LLE was also seen as a tool for teaching content. This included using LLE to teach language, such as vocabulary (4:117, 2:124), grammar (2:124, 5:17, 5:161), pronunciation (3:105), reading comprehension (1:71, 1:179). Multiliteracy was present in references to students producing texts by hand, not just by typing (3:163), learning to read physical texts (3:163) and learning to use a variety of sources in their studies (1:199). Multiliteracy was also explicitly referenced by one teacher:

there [on Google’s image search] are these posters with plays on words, and in a way that’s literature, too, and in a way it’s not. It’s so hard to draw the line. But these might help a student remember some expression better than through rote learning. (1:180)

The role of LLE as a tool for nurturing cognitive capacities included learning to abstract and organise one’s thinking (3:137), growing one’s imagination (2:139, 4:122), encouraging students’ creativity (3:30, 3:109, 5:152), supporting students’ memory (1:180), gaining knowledge (2:56). Additionally, LLE was seen as a tool for acquiring communication skills, such as expressing one’s opinion (3:149) and knowledge about literature, such as learning to differentiate between prose and poetry (1:146). Interestingly and perhaps less expectedly, literature was also seen as a tool to provide students with experiences. The teachers wanted to offer their students opportunities to experience quality poetry (1:140), a variety of expression (1:142, 1:182), and to gain the experience of reading in a foreign language in the first place (2:90), which aligns with Bland’s (2018a: 175) notion of literary apprenticeship below.

Literature in language education as a path for cross-curricular collaboration

All teachers reflected on LLE as a path for cross-curricular collaboration. Collaborating with Finnish as a mother tongue -teachers was referred to in a few places (1:81, 3:15). Interestingly, Finnish as a mother tongue was expected to take agency for collaborative work (2:17, 2:58, 3:58, 3:72, 5:36): ‘If we had more of this kind of [LLE] practice in Finnish as a mother tongue courses, it’d be easier to pick ideas to use in foreign language teaching, too’ (3:91). Perhaps this is due to the subject’s full name being ‘Finnish as a mother tongue and literature’ (FNAE 2019), and EFL being ‘English’. Approaching LLE as a cross-curricular practice was also referred to by one teacher, who stated that using literature diplomas, for instance, ‘should not be tied to any one language’, for example, Finnish language and literature as a mother tongue (4:93). Another noted that in their schools, the novels read for a History course often influenced the texts students chose to read in EFL (2:27). The same teacher added that they hoped the new thematic units in the curriculum (FNAE 2015: 35) would provide better opportunities for including LLE in cross-curricular projects (2:76).

Literature in language education as a rich possibility for personal development

Experiencing LLE as a rich possibility for personal development was a clear thread in the teachers’ interviews. Teachers referred to cultivating one’s tenacity or commitment to, for example, extended reading in a foreign language (4:147), and the way literature was seen as essential to humanity: ‘Without literature, we are nothing’ (2:141). Another teacher reflected:

Reading–I mean, it’s incredibly important. It’s one of the core skills we have. And if our ability to read degenerates, what do we have left? That is, our ability to make sense of the world and learn are made increasingly difficult, and the individual is increasingly at a loss. (4:152)

Teachers also referenced the ability of literature to teach ethics (3:12). One teacher related using ‘Puss in Boots’ and other stories to guide students toward dealing with ethical issues (3:12). They also related discouraging students from reading texts which contained actions or language they deemed morally dubious, such as Catcher in the Rye (1951) by J. D. Salinger. LLE as a rich possibility for personal development was also present in how teachers considered literature to educate (1:189, 4:94), support understanding multiple perspectives (1:172, 1:192, 2:140, 3:12, 3:136, 4:155) and develop the reader’s empathic capacity (2:138). A final theme in this network was the way teachers considered LLE to help the reader to position themselves in space and time (4:152): ‘We should have this basic – like I wish in Finnish as mother tongue they would make these basic works of world literature, beginning with the antiquity, familiar to students, so they could mirror their own existence through history and literature’ (2:142).

Values transmitted through the eight networks of meaning

The second research question asked what values are transmitted through each network of meaning. The study has contributed toward Atjonen's call (2011: 87) for teachers to ‘personally and collaboratively actively recognise what kind of a society or pedagogical set of values they communicate’. Overall, the teachers experienced LLE as a delicate balancing act between acknowledging the value of literature both for language learning and for holistic education. Experiencing LLE as a challenging phenomenon consisted of questions related to what is literature, and how to choose and use literary texts for language education purposes. This has to do with the function LLE is seen to have. Understanding literature broadly, as the teachers here have done, as including nursery rhymes and song lyrics for example, has been characterised as ‘literature with a small “L”’ by McRae (1991), which stands in opposition to canonised texts, or Literature with a capital ‘L’.

Experiencing LLE as challenged by a culture that undervalues reading and literature and by the fast-paced ‘new’ media and game culture suggests valuing the holistic education (Ger. Bildung, Finn. sivistys; see Kohonen et al. 2001; Saari, Salmela and Vilkkilä 2013) of students, as opposed to or at least alongside learning a particular skill-set. Teachers hoped students would be made familiar with a wide range of authors from the English-speaking cultures. Additionally, LLE was seen as an opportunity for slowing down, contrary to other texts like movies, which could be consumed faster.

LLE as a framed phenomenon transmits somewhat different values than the previous two. Teachers’ complaints on the full curriculum and the lack of time for LLE suggest valuing the opportunity to explore topics in depth with students. It also suggests valuing teachers’ pedagogical autonomy, communities of practice and students and teachers as individuals. Seeing LLE as requiring passion, interest and skills on part of the teacher, and as framed by students’ interests and abilities further suggests that value is placed on the individual.

Experiencing LLE as a cultural phenomenon speaks for valuing intercultural awareness and learning as well as the educational ideals (Bildungsideal) that have characterised the Finnish curriculum development over the past decades. Experiencing LLE as a cultural practice, on the other hand, suggests that LLE was a way for teachers to bring their individual interests, strengths and passions into their teaching. This can be seen as an example of the Peter Effect acting within an individual’s sphere of experience (Applegate and Applegate 2004). This connects with Bland’s (2018a: 175) observation on literary apprenticeship:

the opportunities of the adult canon must wait, I argue, until teenagers have metamorphosed into readers – a step-by-step process that should begin well before the age of twelve while children are generally still excited by books. When reading in a foreign language, this slow but indispensable apprenticeship into literary literacy (learning to read the aesthetic nature of a literary text) is too often ignored by the curriculum.

Acknowledging this developmental process should be taken into account in both language teaching, teacher education and training and future versions of the curricula.

Seeing literature as a pedagogical tool and a tool for teaching content in the classroom suggests assigning utilitarian value to the practice where literature is used to differentiate teaching. There is, however, social and cognitive value assigned to the practice as well, which is seen in the way teachers related using literature to develop students’ communication skills and various aspects of students’ cognitive development, such as language learning and critical thinking. This aligns with the values embedded in the language education paradigm as outlined by Kohonen (2001) and Mustaparta, Nissilä and Harmanen (2015) above.

The role of literature as part of cross-curricular collaboration suggests valuing transversal competences, as the curriculum outlines (FNAE 2015: 34; see also FNAE 2019: 58). It also suggests valuing professional learning communities, as Kohonen (2001) calls for: ‘Active, collaborative learning [among students, teachers and school stakeholders] provides a way of integrating school work across the curriculum as a conscious effort towards a new school culture’. Experiencing LLE as a way of positioning one’s self in the world, developing one’s understanding of humanity and sense of empathy suggest assigning social and ethical value to LLE, which likely stem from the Bildungsideal laid out in the curriculum (FNAE 2015: 12). Of the pedaogical aims for language education which Mustaparta, Nissilä and Harmanen (2015: 11) and the National Curriculum (FNAE 2015: 12) outline, this study found that teachers related the use of literature particularly to develop students’ ability for ethical reflection, putting one's self in another’s position, reflecting on and constructing one’s cultural identity, respect for cultural diversity and authentic interaction–if taken to mean authentic texts as interaction between the text and the reader. Using literature to build a sense of community was, however, not as strongly highlighted.

Discussion

In this article I have argued that the Finnish general upper secondary teachers of EFL I have interviewed experienced literature in language education as (1) challenging, (2) challenged, (3) framed, (4) a cultural phenomenon, (5) a cultural practice, (6) a tool for learning, (7) an opportunity for cross-curricular collaboration and (8) an opportunity for personal growth for students. I also argued that the eight networks of meaning reflected a balancing act between acknowledging the value of literature for the students’ holistic growth and valuing literature for the language learning purposes it serves.

Reflecting on these findings from the perspective of the theoretical framework adopted here, there are two conclusions to draw. Firstly, approaching LLE phenomenologically directs attention to the holistic nature of the phenomenon as not simply a group of texts or practices in a pedagogical setting, but rather as a whirlpool of texts, practices, attributed meanings and values that act in concert to fulfil the aims of language education. This is seen in the values that are entailed within the associated meanings.

The second conclusion to draw is that teaching literature and employing literature within the language education paradigm can be said to have overlapping educational aims. This is manifested through meanings, such as personal growth, through which teachers transmit to students the value of holistic education. The goals of teaching literature, Paran (2010: 144) explains, are ‘the development of the individual in affective and intellectual terms; personal growth; developing private appreciation of literary works (thus leading to growth and development beyond the classroom).’

While the scope of the study does not allow for reflecting on how the age of the participants impacts attitudes toward LLE as a practice (Calafato and Paran 2019), it does contribute to a more rounded understanding of the phenomenon by adding to the challenges described in Bland’s (2018b) volume, and to the aspects of teaching with literature that teachers find challenging (cf. Duncan and Paran 2018). The limited classtime, found in Duncan and Paran (2018) for example, is a challenge which the participants of this study also raised. Hall (2018: 264) lists three ways in which literature can be ‘challenging’: texts as a socio-linguistically and culturally challenging experience for young readers, texts being challenged through critical ‘and possibly resistant reading’, and reading as a challenged activity in the current educational zeitgeist. Based on the findings of this study, I propose adding ‘literature as a challenging phenomenon for language educators’, as the results of this study demonstrate. The study also aligns with the findings by McKool and Gespass (2009), who found that teachers’ personal reading habits transmit into professional practice. This can be understood as one manifestation of the way in which teachers act as pedagogical leaders (Komulainen and Rajakaltio 2017).

Experiencing LLE as an opportunity to gain a reading experience was somewhat surprising, as it suggests that reading literature is marginal. As Skaar, Elvebakk and Nilssen (2018: 320) underline, ‘teacher education institutions must provide their students with the literary experiences needed to develop a profound and personal relationship with reading and literature. If not, future teachers will not have a platform to work from to promote literary fiction.’ This applies to general education, also.

These results have implications for teacher education and training. Experiencing LLE as challenging due to the difficulty regarding the ontology, selection and use of literature suggests a need for dialogue around what the expanded notion of the text means for literature and the LLE practice, and the functions of LLE. In this study, literature was understood very broadly. This may be due to the fact that in Finnish, the root word for literature, kirjallisuus, is book, kirja. Similarly to English, the word for literature in Finnish can be specified to indicate a particular theme or focus area, for example, lähdekirjallisuus (used to signify ‘source literature’) which is similar to the way research literature is used in English as a separate concept from fictive literature. This may explain why old grammar guides were considered literature. Additionally, there is a need for training on choosing and using literature for young learners and language beginners, and on differentiating EFL education by engaging with LLE as a practice. Experiencing LLE as a cultural phenomenon suggests a need for training on multimodal literature in LLE that acknowledges how literature relates to other art forms. LLE as a challenged phenomenon implies a need to offer ways of strengthening a culture of reading at home and at school and bridging reading and viewing literature with technology.

It is worth noting that, in the analysis, the curriculum has been placed in the network of meaning focused on factors that frame LLE – a rather neutral viewpoint – though it could also have been included in the network of meaning which considered the curriculum as a challenge to the LLE practice. Similarly, whether student interests and qualities challenge or frame the LLE practice is also an interpretive question. The finding that teachers considered LLE as cultural practice and that they value literary apprenticeship implies a need to build communities around literature and to facilitate learners’ literary apprencticeship. Because teachers valued collegial support, their pedagogical autonomy and cross-curricular learning, practitioner-communities might benefit from generating and sharing ideas on how literature can be a part of cross-curricular learning more than it currently does, within the rather full curriculum. Overall, the study implies a need to ensure that the lived values align with the allocation of resources on national and municipal levels. This is a direction for future research to explore.

Acknowledgements

I would like to the thank the research participants for their time and effort in taking part in the study. I am also grateful for the feedback on an earlier version of this paper which I received from my supervisors, from Professor Janice Bland and from the CLELT-research group.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work has been supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation [grant number 00180679].