Posted on 14 June 2012 at 16:43h

The new Group 1 courses for the DP are no longer hypothetical concepts. Now that the first year of teaching is behind us, many teachers, coordinators and students are starting to realize what they entail. Since the first teacher training started in February 2011, I’ve led a lot of workshops on Language A: Language and Literature, often fielding questions that had very few answers. In fact, it seems that these questions (in a healthy, TOK kind of way) have only led to more questions rather than solid answers. With this blog, I hope to engage more Group 1 stakeholders in the broader discussion and present a proposal that ensures parity between the literature and language and literature courses. A version of this text will be sent to the IB.

The uptake for language and literature is big. Very big.

Although the exact numbers of registrations for language and literature is still unknown, there is evidence to suggest that, when given a choice, the majority of students enroll in Language A: Language and Literature over Language A: Literature (Literature and Performance, unfortunately, is not an option at most schools). But why are students choosing one over the other? How are teachers and coordinators ‘marketing’ the courses to students and parents? And what does the IB think of these lopsided numbers?

The end of literature

Many schools have succumbed to the trends and stopped offering literature all together. This raises greater concerns about the importance of literature in society, the ability to engage in sustained reading and the appreciation of art, culture and history. What’s most concerning, however, is that the literature course is often presented to students as the ‘serious’ course, which, unfortunately, takes us into the scary realm of elitism. It begs the question: Which course is more rigorous?

Defining ‘language’

Yes, the book list for literature is longer at both higher and standard level than for language and literature, which may account for the ‘rigorous’ and ‘serious’ reputation that the old A1 course is retaining. Language and literature teachers, however, are supposed to balance this equation with a broad range of non-literary texts. In fact the official IB answer is that both courses are equally rigorous. But this does not stop everyone from wondering if non-literary texts of non-fiction can stimulate sustained cerebral activity. This raises the question: What do we mean exactly by ‘language’ in the language and literature course? Are we talking about bumper stickers or the Gettysburg Address?

A proposal

Naturally, a course is what you make of it. There are students who can speak for 10 minutes about a 5-word ad and others who cannot write one page on Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream. Similarly, most people realize that literature consists of language, and non-fiction can be extremely literary. But at the end of the day, there must be some consistent sense of parity between the literature and the language and literature courses in the IB. May 2013 is an important moment when both courses sit their first exams. It is crucial that both literature and language and literature examiners look over each other’s shoulders to measure student performance in both subjects. If this does not happen, we run the risk of allowing hearsay and speculation to determine the future of these two, equally valuable courses.