The Study of Poetic Language Features in General Education: Methodological Principles and Pedagogical Investigation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51699/cajlpc.v7i2.1446Keywords:
Poetic Language, Literary Education, Aesthetic Perception, Interactive Methods, Secondary School StudentsAbstract
Under current socio-cultural conditions resulting from the process of globalization and the development of blazingly fast information technologies, the literature education, especially poetry teaching, becomes more and more complex in a pedagogical sense, given the fact that students have lost interest in reading cultural goods made of text, seeing them as writing-based material in a more complex sense. Poetic texts in grades 5–7 tend to be treated more or less superficially, and students are engaged to reproducing the text, rather than analyzing the artistic language, imagery, and elements of expression and representation, thus stunting aesthetic development and limitations of literary competence. Despite literary theory and pedagogical scholarship highlighting the importance of aesthetic perception, emotional engagement, and the poetic function of language, there is still a lack of methodological alignment between these theoretical underpinnings and systematic, classroom-based instructional practice. This study are in the need and to explore the evidential base for how these methodological principles for the teaching of the artistic language of poetry in secondary education may contribute to pupils analytical and aesthetic skills. The overall aim and a focus of the present study. The results, employing a qualitative pedagogical design utilizing observational, textual, and participatory methodology show increased student engagement, improved interpretation metaphor, symbol and emotional tone, and the development of independent aesthetic judgment. Formulating an integrated curricular framework for the teaching of poetry based on scientific considerations, engagement and autonomy, performance in real-life situation, and the unique value of education for aesthetic experience.
References
R. Jakobson, “Linguistics and poetics,” in Style in Language, T. A. Sebeok, Ed. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1960, pp. 350–377.
V. Shklovsky, “Art as technique,” in Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays, L. T. Lemon and M. J. Reis, Eds. Lincoln, NE, USA: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1965, pp. 3–24.
L. M. Rosenblatt, The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale, IL, USA: Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1978.
L. S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1986.
M. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, TX, USA: Univ. of Texas Press, 1981.
W. Okon, Introduction to General Didactics. Warsaw, Poland: PWN, 1998.
C. J. Brumfit and R. A. Carter, Eds., Literature and Language Teaching. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986.
A. Maley and A. Duff, Drama Techniques in Language Learning. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005.
B. Bloom, Ed., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York, NY, USA: Longmans, 1956.
J. Culler, Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997.
T. Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN, USA: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1996.
D. Benton, “Reader-response criticism in the classroom,” English Journal, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 68–72, 1989.
S. L. Tchudi and C. Lafer, The Interdisciplinary Teacher’s Handbook. Portsmouth, NH, USA: Heinemann, 1996.
P. Elbow, Writing Without Teachers. New York, NY, USA: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998.
J. Dewey, Art as Experience. New York, NY, USA: Perigee Books, 2005.
