| This project reconceptualizes the teaching of literature in American colleges and universities from the purview of the concept of educational alignment, which describes the correlation of educational objectives, methods, and assessments. The history of literature pedagogy is discussed in terms of discrete classical, philological, and critical phases that include such disparate approaches as classicism, impressionism, philology, evangelism, New Criticism, reader response, and the host of other conceptual frameworks presently known as "theory." The historical analysis clearly demonstrates a proclivity for teacher-centered instruction, preoccupation with text selection, and a tendency to blame student ignorance for failed pedagogy. Although there have been numerous advances in textual formatting, selection, and pairing, a model of literary knowledge based upon interpretive, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge provides a far more viable model of curricular content than merely sets of literary texts. The "knowledge model," in turn, makes possible the articulation of specific and measurable cognitive objectives for literature pedagogy as well as affective objectives with links to MI (multiple intelligences) theory and emotional intelligence. Since theory versus practice represents a false dichotomy, the latter is considered an outgrowth of the former. Teacher-centered literature teaching methods based on direct instruction are explained in terms of behaviorism and reflect perennialist and essentialist philosophies of education: learner-centered literature strategies such as discussion and cooperative learning, on the other hand, are firmly rooted in constructivism and reflect existential and progressive educational philosophies. I argue that the former has analogues in formalism, and the latter in reader response. Traditional assessments such as exams, journals, research papers, and presentations are transformed into portfolios, multigenre papers, and performance. The project concludes with a number of recommendations for further research and professional development. |
