Author Archives: M.A.D. LIGAYA
Informal Criticism of Literary Works
People often react to a literary work quite differently. Their reactions and opinions may vary even if they enjoy reading the same story. These reactions may also depend on whether or not they have knowledge of literature and literary criticism. But that notwithstanding, people will naturally want to say something about a story after reading it. Such a reaction is instinctive and indicates that literary criticism is a natural response to any literary work.
A critique of a literary work may be done either formally or informally. Formal criticism has a definite objective and direction. This kind of analysis adheres to the established standards of literary criticism and is anchored on a certain literary theory. This may be done in the classroom as a course requirement, in a journal or magazine for publication, or on a website.
Conversely, the informal version is a simple discussion of the merits and demerits of a certain work in prose or poetry, perhaps done by friends in a cafeteria while sipping coffee or even while riding on public transport or in a private vehicle. If two people have read the same story or watched the same movie, expect a discussion to ensue.
Technological advances have allowed writers to reach their audience and increase their readership. The invention of social networking sites, blogs, and websites has provided writers more platforms to post their stories, essays, and poems. Most writers have their own websites and accounts on Facebook where they promote their literary works.
This has also given literary criticism a new dimension from which to operate. Friends and followers of certain writers can easily turn into critics or supporters and have the opportunity to say something about their writings. Such comments are considered informal criticism of such work. Whatever may be said about a story or a poem is essentially an evaluation of those written materials.
But we tend to think that an informal analysis of a literary work is only a personal expression of views bereft of any academic worth, for literary theories are not used to guide a reader in developing well-informed arguments. We dismiss informal analysis of a story or a poem, especially if it’s made by people unfamiliar with the nitty-gritty details of literary criticism, as being purely misguided opinions, which are basically subjective and disorganized.
However, when we carefully scrutinize people’s comments and expressed opinions related to literary works, they are actually, but perhaps unknowingly, toeing the line of the established literary theories just the same.
For instance, if an author pens a story or a poem about “sadness,” his readers, especially those who know him personally, would readily think he has a problem. If it’s about “separation,” the presumption would be made that the creator just “called it quits” with someone. If such a write-up were posted on any social network, we would expect that it would generate a thread of comments asking what had happened or expressing sympathy in some way.
The assertions in the previous paragraph are a case of “analyzing the author through his work.” This in literary criticism is called “Psychoanalytic theory.” The theory maintains that a story or poem gives insight into the author’s mental processes. Things read in a writer’s work are believed to reveal his feelings and thoughts. Those who subscribe to this theory maintain that separating the author from his work is difficult. This means that any literary work is said to be a mirror of the author’s state of mind and emotions.
In reality, only the creator of the sad story or a separation poem knows if his emotions and thoughts are being discussed in the piece.
Other readers would say, “It is a good story (or poem) but sad.” In the foregoing remark, the focus was on the work or text itself. The author was not part of the equation.
This approach to literary criticism is called Formalism. The theory of Formalism tells us that a literary work has its own intrinsic value. The words weaved together to form meaning divorced from the author’s and reader’s state of mind and emotions. The poem or story should be scrutinized from within, not consider socio-cultural influences, authorship, or historical background. The focus of the analysis should be on the words in the literary work and not related to its author. The things considered should be the story’s or poem’s structural elements, including linguistic devices, literary devices, style, imagery, tone, and genre.
I have essays, stories, and poems posted on Facebook (and other socials), eliciting varied comments from friends and random netizens. Such comments include “That’s what you call irony!” and “Enchanting words woven together to almost perfection to which every poet can relate.” These are examples of “formalistic” reactions.
A surprising comment one of my works received was, “I like green thoughts sleep furiously.” This is about CHOMSKY’s Syntactic Structure. Obviously, the one who commented has a solid background in linguistics. Such goes beyond “Formalism” but touches the outskirts of “Structuralism.” But a reader who has a limited background (or none at all) in literature, much less literary criticism, will find it difficult to use these lenses (“Formalism” and “Structuralism”) when critiquing a literary work. Rare are the informal criticisms that focus on a poem or story’s linguistic and literary structures.
Normally, readers’ reactions to informal criticism would be based on their schema (prior knowledge) activated as they interact with the writer’s words. Each person has a wealth of knowledge and experiences that control their thoughts and decisions. It can also be assumed that the schema enables a reader to give the text its meaning or the author’s own meaning.
There’s also a theory that holds that readers are the ones who give meaning to the literary work. The body of words the author has created is meaningless until the readers read and interpret it. This theory is called the Reader-Response theory.
The proponents of this theory contend that both poems and stories are not considered finished until they’re read and interpreted. And the meaning of the literary piece is what the reader brings to it. This means that a reader interprets literary works as his schema dictates.
If the reader has it, the role of a background theory or philosophy is to moderate his interpretation. But even without a background in literary criticism, whatever a reader says about a literary work will always have philosophical underpinnings that may be connected to a literary theory.
Ultimately, how to react to a literary work is always a matter of choice (and a matter of whim) for the reader. The reader can be any of the following: psychoanalytic, judging the author through his work; formalist, accepting that words put together have a meaning divorced from the author and the environment; or a subjective reader, giving the work his personal meaning.
Furthermore, a reader can be a Feminist or a Marxist in his informal criticism. A reader with a strong grounding in literature and linguistics may opt to be a Structuralist. There are also other hats in literary theory that can be worn if one wishes to. But even if readers may not be bridled by any theory when responding to a literary work, it doesn’t matter, for literary criticism is more of a natural human response to literature than an intellectual undertaking.
As it has always been, readers respond naturally to literary works and express opinions evoked by their knowledge and experiences, sometimes informed by their biases and prejudices. Objectively or subjectively crafted, their opinions are their own. However, readers should never cross the line of propriety and decency when crafting their criticism.
Professionalism Among Teachers
The complexities involving the teaching profession and the importance of the role of teachers in the holistic development of learners require strict adherence to the tenets of professionalism. There are expectations that teachers need to meet, and there are qualities that they are expected to possess.
All the qualities teachers ought to have and what is expected of them can be summed up in one concept – “teacher professionalism.”
“Teacher professionalism” is an idea that can be defined differently based on multiple perspectives, and its merits are scrutinized according to various arguments. It is considered a broad concept consisting of several dimensions. However, for delimitation purposes, this article’s discussion on the subject is anchored only on the definitions of “professionalism” given in the next two (2) paragraphs.
Evans pointed out that “professionalism means different things to different people.”1 The Oxford dictionary defines the term as “the competence or skills expected of a professional.”2 It is the level of excellence or competence that professionals should manifest in their chosen fields of specialization.
Tichenor3 explains that professionalism is the expected behavior of individuals in a specific occupation. Professionals need to conduct themselves in accordance with set standards.
Boyt, Lusch, and Naylor4 combined the views about professionalism when they describe it as a multi-dimensional structure consisting of one’s attitudes and behaviors towards his/her job and achieving high standards. Similarly, Hargreaves5 defines professionalism as the conduct, demeanor, and standards that guide the work of professionals.
The terms associated with professionalism, as seen from the definitions and explanations given, are as follows: competence, skills, behaviors, conduct, demeanor, and standards. Competence and skills are synonymous with behaviors, conduct, and demeanor. Standards refer to the quality or accepted norms for competence and behaviors.
Skills are not the only components that make up a teacher’s competence. Knowledge is, of course, an integral part of it.
However, skills and knowledge are very broad attributions to a teacher’s competence. What specifically are the skills and knowledge that would make a teacher competent?
As Baggini puts it, “To be a professional or a professor was to profess in some skill or field of knowledge.”6 It’s a given that teachers should have knowledge of the subject matter or expertise in a particular skill. Teachers are expected to know not a little but much about what they are teaching.
What adds challenge to being a teacher is the ability to dig (whenever applicable) into the scientific, philosophical, legal, sociological, and psychological foundations of what is being taught. It is important that teachers can relate whatever they are discussing to other fields. Such an ability would enable teachers to enrich the discussion.
But teaching and learning are complex processes that involve a lot more… not just knowing what to teach and being able to connect a topic to other disciplines. The corresponding skills that enable teachers to effectively teach what they know and make the students learn would make them truly competent. Such skills are acquired through training in pedagogy.
Pedagogy is commonly defined as “the art, science, or profession of teaching.” Pedagogy informs teaching strategies, teacher actions, and teacher judgments and decisions by considering theories of learning, understandings of students and their needs, and the backgrounds and interests of individual students.7
Pedagogy, in a nutshell, tells how best to teach and how best the students learn.
Knowledge and expertise in a field would not make one a teacher. Pedagogical skills are needed. Competent teachers SHOULD know the subject matter and how to set learning objectives, motivate students, design learning activities, facilitate learning, construct assessment, and assess learning.’
In addition, another skill through which the competence of 21st-century teachers is gauged is how extensively and effectively they apply technology (computer) to teaching and learning.
Aside from competence, the other dimension of a teacher’s professionalism this article explores is behavior.
Teachers are aware that they should behave according to the ethical standards set for the teaching profession. They are expected to speak, act, and dress accordingly. Barber8 pointed this out when he identifies as one of the main characteristics of professional behavior a “high degree of self-control of behavior through codes of ethics.”
However, the behavior dimension of professionalism among teachers goes beyond proper manners and decorum.
Another characteristic of professional behavior identified by Barber is “orientation primarily to community interest rather than to individual self-interest.” It is no secret that teachers sacrifice a lot to help their students. Teachers work long hours and practice a lot of patience. As Orlin puts it, “ I see it (teaching) as an act of self-sacrifice, as a hard path undertaken for the greater good.”9
Teachers also know that they need to keep learning. They need a continuing professional development plan to better deal with the profession’s challenges. They need to keep abreast with the current trends and innovations in the field of education.
There are also general teaching behaviors that, according to a study, are the most important for effective teaching (as perceived by students). Hativa identified five (5) of them: making the lessons clear, organized, engaging /interesting, and maintaining interactions and rapport with students.10
Two (2) of the said general teaching behaviors (making the lessons clear and organized) are related to the first dimension of teacher professionalism (competence and skills). The rest are more indicative of the second dimension (behavior).
Teacher professionalism strongly implies the demands and complexities of teaching, making it harder to understand why the profession doesn’t get due recognition. Teaching is not just any profession. Not just anybody can be a teacher. Helping young people achieve holistic development and preparing them to become responsible individuals and productive members of society is a ginormous responsibility. If those young people are your children, you will not entrust that responsibility to any Tom, Dick, or Harry but to a “professional” teacher.
References:
- Evans, Linda (2008) Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56 (1). pp. 20-38.
- Definition of “professionalism” – Oxford English Dictionary
- Tichenor, M. S., Tichenor, J. M. (2005). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on professionalism. ERIC.
- Boyt, T., Lusch, R. F. ve Naylor, G. (2001). The role of professionalism in determining job satisfaction in professional services: a study of marketing researchers, Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 321-330
- Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching: History and Practice, 6 (2),151-182.
- Baggini, J. (2005). What does professionalism mean for teachers today? Education Review, 18 (2), 5-11.
- Shulman, Lee (1987). “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform”(PDF). Harvard Educational Review. 15(2): 4–14. Retrieved 12 June 2017.
- Barber, B. (1965). Some Problems in the Sociology of the Professions. In K. S. Lynn (Edt.), The Professions in America (pp. 669-688). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- Orlin, Ben “Teaching As Self Sacrifice.” Match With Bad Drawing. WordPress, March 10, 2014. Web. 19 July, 2017.
- Hativa, N. (2014). A practical approach to designing, operating, and reporting, 2nd, Tel Aviv: Oron Publications.
The Jokers In The Academe
(A Personal Essay)
I have been a teacher since Seoul hosted the Summer Olympics. It has been a long journey filled with ups and downs, joys and sorrows. I don’t regret anything I have undergone as a teacher, and I could say that I triumphed over all the difficulties and pains because I wouldn’t have lasted this long in the academe if not.
I worked in 8 schools in the Philippines, 6 as a full-timer and 2 as a part-timer. Here in South Korea, where I teach now, is my second university. I stayed a year in the first one, and now I’m on my way to completing my tenth year, where I transferred.
Return to the previous paragraph and count the academic institutions I worked in.
How many?
That’s two short of a dozen.
In those schools, I met different kinds of students, administrators, and – teachers… the best and the worst.
This essay deals with teachers I call “jokers in the academe.” But just to be clear – the majority of those I worked with are professionals who love and respect the profession of teaching. It was a pleasure working with them. The jokers I am referring to are the few rotten ones in a crate of apples.
My experience with the “jokers” taught me to have a great deal of patience. There were times when I lost that patience and locked horns with them. During my first few years here in South Korea, I tried to keep quiet for a couple of years, just watching these recipients of the fallacy that “if you’re good at English, you can be a teacher of English.” Yes, you need to be patient when encountering jokers among your colleagues. They aren’t funny at all. They are annoying. But in one meeting, my thread of patience snapped. I said enough is enough. I started telling colleagues who were unnecessarily noisy to shut up.
I am not saying I am a perfect teacher; far from it. I still have lots to improve. At least I have been trying my best to conform to the evolving professional standards for teachers.
Most importantly, I am not a joker. I would never be. As an expat teacher, I feel like being appraised not only as a teacher but as a citizen of my country. I don’t like to be the reason people ask – “Is this the kind of teacher Teacher Education Institutions in the Philippines produce?”
In this personal essay, I would play BATMAN and let me unmask the “JOKER.”
Who might these jokers be?
One of those that I classify as jokers is the “super dependents.”The “super dependents” are teachers who will not solve their problems. They expect their colleagues to do that for them. They are the ones who hate exerting extra effort to find a solution to whatever bugs them. Their sense of entitlement is so strong that they think it is the duty of people around them to help them escape a difficult situation.
What these jokers consider as problems are not problems to begin with.
For example – the school requires teachers to apply new technology in the classroom. That, for them, is a contentious issue. They would try to dip their hands deep into their bag of reasons to justify their non-compliance.
You would hear the lamest excuses like “My training as an educator did not include applying those technologies.”
Really!?
Another excuse, lame also, is “It’s labor-intensive.”
They want things to be given to them on a silver platter. They would never go the extra mile.
They are like square pegs in round holes. No explanation would make them buy the idea that being a 21st-century teacher teaching 21st-century learners would require learning 21st-century skills.
These jokers don’t understand that part of their responsibility as educators – if they really consider themselves educators – is to retool and retrain, if necessary, to cope with the demands of what has become a technology-driven pedagogy used by 21st-century teachers.
They should not subscribe to the idea that “old dogs can’t learn new tricks” because they are not dogs. They’re human beings who are supposed to be rational.
Are they?
Anyway, let’s talk about dogs.
They bark, right?
Some of the jokers in the academe are like dogs. They bark a lot.
I call them the “barkers.”
These jokers bark about their disagreement with school policies and what they perceive as incompetence among the “people upstairs.” They are the eternal fault-finders who see nothing but negative in the organization. They live to seek the “tiny black in an ocean of white.” For them, nothing is right. Everything is wrong.
They complain day and night, but not when they go to the ATM during payday.
Do they deserve their pay? Are they doing their job? Only they and their students could tell.
Yes, there are times when they have valid reasons to disagree. But what is frustrating is that they bark up the wrong tree. They don’t address their concerns to the right people at the right place and time. They grandstand during meetings wasting their colleagues’ precious time. They force them to listen to their misguided eloquence. Sometimes they also write long unsolicited e-mails where they express their grievances. They don’t understand that not everybody in the organization shares their opinion about the policies and their school administrators.
The funny thing is these jokers bark, but they don’t bite.
They do nothing about their complaints except bark about them. But when the administrators responsible for implementing the policies they disagree with are present in meetings, they are very quiet, silent in one corner of the room, wagging their tails.
These jokers curse the school and their administrators at every opportunity they have. They tell everybody that the school where they are is the worst place to be. Yet at the end of the school year, they (let me use these words again) wag their tails as they sign their names on the dotted lines for a contract extension.
See… they whine and whing at every opportunity about policies, imperfections of the organization, and what have you. Still, the following school year, I saw them again, and as usual, whining and whinging.
They say in broad daylight, “This organization sucks.” But they remain. Why? Is it because they have no other place to go? That’s just a guess. Another guess… they won’t be able to find another university that pays as much as where we are working now.
I may be wrong.
I call the next category of jokers “Don Quixotes.”
Don Quixote, in case you’ve forgotten (or have not heard or read about him), is a fictional character introduced to the world by the Spanish author Miguel de Cervantes through his epic novel, “The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha.”
The “Don Quixotes” are the ones who do not understand that when changes are implemented and policies get tweaked by employers, the employees should not take it personally. Changes in the workplace happen when they are due. It is something inevitable. It is frustrating when the jokers cannot or refuse to understand if the management wants to exercise their prerogatives; whether the people downstairs want it or not, they could and would.
When in one meeting, a colleague stood and gave a long speech against a policy our university was about to implement, I felt obliged to cordially beg him to stop his litany because whatever he was saying then would all be in vain. Additionally, I told him that he was just unnecessarily prolonging the meeting and wasting my time and that of those uninterested in what he was saying. I also advised him that if he wanted, he should set an appointment with the university officials and tell them about his protestations… or sue the university. That Don Quixote did not realize they could not force anybody to join their cause, especially those who consider changes necessary and inevitable. What they were trying to do at that time was force everybody in the room (and sometimes in group chats) to listen to (and read) their whinges and whines.
Expat teachers who think they could dissuade their employers who hired them from making the changes the former wants to implement are as delusional as Don Quixote. We could possibly do it in our own countries. But in a country where we are foreigners and work on a contractual basis, it’s a QUIXOTIC endeavor. It’s like “fighting the windmills.”
These “Don Quixotes” thought that their braggadocio was admirable. It is not. It’s irritating. What makes it more irritating is, just like the jokers called “barkers,” they kept accepting the extension of contracts the university offered them. They keep serving the institution whose policies they don’t find acceptable. Why? Can you guess? Why can’t they just keep quiet, do their work, and enjoy the “dough.”
The last category of jokers in my list are those who applied (and luckily got hired) as teachers, even if they are not “really” qualified and trained for the profession.
They are the ones I call the “pretenders.”
Yeah, they pretend to be teachers.
These jokers applied as teachers because there were no other jobs available, especially in the countries where they come from. Given their qualifications and capabilities, I doubt it very much if they will get hired as teachers in their own countries. They are very fortunate (and the students are unfortunate) that they hurdled interviews in Asian countries and were recommended for hiring. That’s why I do not like the “no teaching demo” approach to hiring teacher applicants.
Among these jokers are English teachers who thought they could be English teachers because they can speak the language. In one of my essays, I emphasized that it doesn’t mean that when you know something, you can already teach it. “If you know it, you can teach it” is a fallacy.
Knowing a subject matter is different from knowing how to teach it. The former is only one of the many requirements for the latter.
“Real teachers,” those not pretending to be one, know what it takes to be a teacher. Teaching is not parroting the contents of the book. It’s not delivering a monologue in front of the students.
Teachers must choose the best strategy to use in the class from various available strategies. They have to set objectives and test if those objectives are met. They need to differentiate the levels of their students and identify the corresponding techniques and activities suitable for those levels.
“Real teachers” know what philosophy would inform whatever they do and say in the class. They know which sociological, psychological, historical, and legal foundations they would base all their decisions on as teachers.
It means that a teacher’s job is so complicated that “not just anybody” should be allowed to teach. And when a school commits the mistake of hiring applicants who are not trained to be teachers, expect them to become the jokers in the academe.
In the academe, most of those who complain a lot – those who create a lot of trouble – are the ones who are not really trained to become teachers. These jokers are the ones who seemed to be lost in the wilderness, not knowing what to do and how to do things in the academe. They are the ones who would blame others when they encounter difficulties and can’t figure out how to deal with them.
The common trait among these jokers is that they want everything given to them on a silver platter. You need to explain to them in detail (and repetitively) how to perform tasks that teachers are supposedly trained to do. Sometimes they would even require their colleagues to do things for them. They would not bother learning how to do it.
Beware of the jokers in the academe. They’re not funny.
These jokers could be many or but a few in schools everywhere.
A voice within kept telling me not to mind the jokers in the academe. I did so, but not for long. It became too difficult for me to hold my horses when I heard the “non-performing” barkers whine and whing so persistently. It’s so difficult to just turn a blind eye (and a deaf ear) to what they are doing (and saying) all the time. I had to say my piece – through this personal essay.
What’s dangerous is that they are contagious. They contaminate the working environment. They have the ability to flip the organizational climate from positive to negative.
So, beware of the jokers. Avoid them like a plague.
These crying babies are not cute. Don’t babysit them.
The Tree That You Are and The Fruits That You Bear
Water the fruit trees, and don’t water the thorns.”
– Rumi
“No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.”
That one was from St. Luke, and it’s only one of the many quotes where trees and fruits are used figuratively to bring beauty to an idea that a writer or speaker wishes to convey, emphasize, and clarify.
Obviously, the “tree” in that bible verse refers to you and me. And what about the fruits? They are our thoughts, words, and actions and their outcomes. Could there be other fruits? I believe there’s none. The things we think, say and do and their eventual consequences or results are the fruits of the tree that we are. There’s nothing else that would come from us through which we can be judged or valued as a person.
We think (consciously or subconsciously) first before we say or do something. I refer to it as the “think-say-do” process. After processing an idea or a situation (or any other kind of stimulus) in our minds, we decide what actions to take or words to say thereafter. That’s our response. You may call it a decision.
“Each tree is recognized by its own fruits.” Thus, you should be careful of what you think and the decision you make afterward. They are manifestations of the kind of person you are… and have consequences or results. I don’t know if there can be an argument against that assertion.
You have first-hand knowledge of how you think and decide. You are aware of the kind of fruits you produce. What about their outcomes? The fruits you bear result in the reputation you build for yourself in the community where you belong and among your colleagues, peers, friends, and loved ones. Imagine reputation as the basket where your fruits – the decisions you made in the past – are stored. What people say (and think) about you is your reputation. Your reputation is the consequence of your speech and actions.
Sometimes, even if you say and do good and always try your best to make the right decisions, some people will treat you negatively. Don’t mind them. Their reactions are boomerangs that would harm them, not you.
Whatever you have accomplished at this stage in your life are also consequences of your past decisions. Your resume is also a basket of the fruits you produced. If people would scrutinize your resume, what would they see? What they see are your fruits. Success is one big and ripe apple in the apple tree. It is the end goal of all our personal and professional pursuits.
But there’s a fruit sweeter than success – happiness. That’s what simple people with simple dreams who don’t have a curriculum vitae to show try to grow in their tree. You would even hear people with grand dreams say they aim for success because they want to be happy. Their success is the source of their happiness, while for the simple folks I mentioned earlier, the simplicity of their life and desires makes them happy.
Reputation, success, and happiness – the products of the decisions you make – are the fruits of the tree you become.
The kind of fruits you would bear depends on the kind of tree you grow into. Good fruits will spring out of your branches and twigs if you are a good tree.
Bear in mind that you have control of the process of becoming who you are. Yes, no one else is in control of it. We call that process self-improvement. The tree that would sprout from that transformation is your “best self.”
Only when you become your “best self” that you will start bearing the good fruits.
The journey into becoming your “best self” begins with one simple step – rejecting any excuse to not become the tree you wish to be and bear the fruit you desire.
Education comes next. We nourish the tree called “self” through education. And it’s going to be long and tedious. It’s actually lifelong. Remember what Aristotle said, “The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.” But with education, I don’t mean just formal schooling. Schools are not the only place where learning can be had. Learning comes in many shapes and forms.
Learning makes you better than you were yesterday.
Sometimes we feel discouraged when all the efforts we put into self-improvement seemingly do not bear fruit. We need to be patient. Rousseau tells us that patience is bitter, but the fruit is sweet. Moliere added, “The trees that are slow to grow bear the best fruit.”
There’s one more fruit that your tree will eventually bear – wisdom. You know it’s there when you realize that growing the tree is more exciting than harvesting its fruits. What you will become – your best self – is beyond your reputation, more glittery than success, and more overwhelming than happiness.
M.A.D. LIGAYA
M.A.D. L I G A Y A 