Page 89 - Getting of the fence

Students’ perspective on the benefits of literature lessons
4.2.4 Context of this Study
The changing position of foreign language literature teaching as described above
can also be seen in the foreign language curricula in Dutch secondary education.
In 1863, foreign languages became a compulsory component in Dutch schools
and till 1968 only canonical works were studied and translated (Wilhelm, 2005).
In the next 30 years (till 1998, when more emphasis was put on practical language
skills), literature was still mandatory, but students were now requested to study
foreign language literature independently. With the educational reforms of 1998,
13 core curriculum standards for foreign language literature were introduced
and the number of works students had to read was reduced from twelve to three.
Importantly, it was argued that teaching foreign language literature in the target
language could become an obstacle for discussing literary texts. The preferred 4 language of instruction became L1, although the literary works were read in the
original foreign language. Moreover, teachers were not allowed to test language skills and literature in an integrated manner (Kwakernaak, 2016b).
Nine years after the educational reforms of 1998, the government introduced a revised version, which is still in use today: the required minimum remained three literary works but the core curriculum standards for foreign language literature were reduced from 13 to the following three: the student can recognize and distinguish literary text types and can use literary terms when interpreting literary texts; the student can give an overview of the main events of literary history and can place the studied works in this historic perspective; and the student can report about their reading experiences of at least three literary works with clear arguments (Meijer & Fasoglio, 2007).
Apart from these three standards, Dutch foreign language teachers have complete freedom regarding text selection, the number of hours they wish to teach literature, how they wish to teach literature, and also how they wish to test literature. The extent of this curricular freedom is reflected in the variation between learning trajectories in different schools (Bloemert & van Veen, accepted). Despite the apparent language-literature divide and the ‘uneasy position’ literature occupies in Dutch secondary education (Chapter 2), an increasing number of literature lessons, resources, and tests in Dutch secondary education are again, at least partially, in the foreign language, and foreign language teachers consider the use of a foreign language in their lessons as a sign of quality (Kordes & Gille, 2012). This suggests a careful move towards an integrated language and literature curriculum.
87