Call for papers

Faculty of Education – University of Montpellier

Comparisons in literary education 

Twenty years after the first meetings of researchers in literary didactics (Fourtanier, Langlade, Rouxel, 2001), it is noteworthy that projects involving groups of researchers whose aims and/or methodologies have a clear comparative dimension are currently developing concurrently.

The work carried out in Geneva by theGRAFElitt group(Ronveaux & Schneuwly, 2018; Gabathuler, 2016) is a prime example of this. They examine how literature is taught at different school levels in the small region of French-speaking Switzerland, thereby providing insight into what is happening on a larger scale. The GARY project (Brunelet al., 2018) seeks to document students' reading skills and literary teaching practices in France, Switzerland, Belgium, and Quebec. The PELAS group (Plissonneau, Boutevin, Bazile, 2017) examines analytical reading teaching practices in France at^{the 9thand 10th grade} levels. In Montpellier, the group of researchers involved in the TALC project (Louichon, 2019) is working to describe and understand the practices of teachers in cycle 3 (end of primary school and first year of middle school). The HELiCE network[1] examines the history of literature teaching from a comparative perspective at the European level (Louichon, Bishop & Ronveaux, 2017; Denizot & Ronveaux, 2019; Belhadjin & Perret, forthcoming).

This dynamic, however exemplary and visible it may be, should not overshadow earlier, pioneering work (Dubois-Marcoin, 2008) or work carried out on a smaller scale but which is just as heuristic (for example, Sève, 2008; Marlair & Dufays, 2009; Hébert, 2013; Claude, 2017).

In this work, comparisons may be made between different school segments (primary, secondary, general and vocational education), or thresholds (between primary and secondary, for example), different geographical, cultural, and/or linguistic areas, the subjects taught, exercises, students according to their age and curriculum, gender, and socioeconomic characteristics, historical periods, and curricula (Bishop, forthcoming). It can also concern the uses of literature or the reception of works in school or extracurricular contexts (Dias-Chiaruttini, 2015; Bonnéry & Joigneaux, 2015).

The strong trend observed in relation to the comparative dimension of certain works nevertheless raises questions about the lesser importance given to other approaches or other subjects in the field of research in literature teaching. For example, the results or analyses of international comparative surveys (such as PISA or PIRLS) are rarely used (Bart & Daunay, 2016). Literature educators, who are largely open to the French-speaking world, seem relatively unwilling to address issues on a broader scale (Fraisse, 2012) or relating to non-French-speaking areas (Witte & Sâmihăian, 2013). Similarly, at the last conference of the Association pour des Recherches Comparatistes en Didactique (ARCD), there was very little mention of teaching/learning literature. It can also be noted that work on interdidactics (Biagioli & Torterat, 2012) is virtually absent from our meetings, even though the question of the relationship between French and literature is often raised (Dias-Chiarrutini & Lebrun, forthcoming). The^{17th Meetings}focused on "confrontations, exchanges, and articulations between didactic approaches" in relation to the teaching of literature "in dialogue with the arts" (Chabanne, 2019), and the^{20th Meetings}examined the perspective of literature's contribution toaesthetic education. It is surprising that the approach to literatureas an artistic practice, the teaching of literature as a practice, remains marginal, given that it is a central issue in other arts education approaches and in arts education for the balance between cultivation, analysis,and practice.

Finally, it is quite surprising to note that comparative literature is not a subject that is questioned in the teaching of literature. Although formally reserved for university level, this discipline (Franco, 2016) is part of the training of all literature teachers, and one may wonder whether these acquired skills cannot be put into practice in secondary school curricula.

Proposals should therefore fall within one of the following areas:

AXIS 1. The aim here is to examine the comparative approaches adopted in research on the teaching of literature.

What are the objectives? Is the research comparative in nature, or does it develop comparative methodologies? Are the comparative hypotheses research hypotheses or methodological hypotheses? Are they strictly comprehensive in nature? Do they also have transformative objectives, and if so, under what conditions? What are the objects being compared? What methodologies are being developed? How are the data constructed, collected, and cross-referenced? How can we select the observables and operationalize their analysis? What focus should we adopt? What analytical frameworks can we use to make comparisons?

AXIS 2.This involves opening up the field to new spaces, new questions, and new objects. This axis will welcome contributions that solicit, discuss, or adopt the frameworks of comparative education (Meuris, 2008), comparative didactics (Mercier A., et al., 2002), interdidactics (Biagioli & Torterat, 2012), or, more simply, the dialogue between didactics (Chabanne, 2019). et al., 2002), interdidactics (Biagioli & Torterat, 2012), or more simply, dialogue between didactics (Chabanne, 2019). Questions and work related to international comparative surveys will be included, as well as those related to the didactics of comparative literature.

AXIS 3 (Special for doctoral students)

Twenty years after the first Rencontres, the Rencontres de Montpellier also aims to provide a special space for doctoral students. They can naturally register within the common framework (axes 1 and 2) of comparison. However, a specific space for the presentation of theses in progress in the field of literature teaching, designed as a space for training and discussion around emerging work, is specifically dedicated to them.

Bibliography

Bart, D., Daunay, B. (2016). Jokes at PISA. The discourse on education by an international institution. Vulaines sur Seine: Editions du croquant.

Biagioli, N., Torterat, F. (2012). Research in interdidactics: methodological and practical contributions.In M.-L. Elalouf, A. Robert, A. Belhadjin & M.-F. Bishop, (Eds.),Didactics in question(s). Brussels: De Boeck, 269-278.

Belhadjin A., Perret L. (eds.) (2020, in press),L’étude de l’extrait, ou comment l’école fabrique une littérature scolaire (The study of excerpts, or how schools create school literature).Brussels: Peter Lang.

Bishop M.- F. (forthcoming). Studying discipline from a comparative, didactic, and historical perspective.In SandrineAeby Daghé, Ecaterina Bulea Bronckart, Glaís S. Cordeiro, Joaquim Dolz, Irina Leopoldoff, Anne Monnier, Christophe Ronveaux, Bruno Vedrines (eds.).Teaching French and building a scientific discipline. Dialogues with Bernard Schneuwly.Villeneuve d'Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.

Bonnéry, S., Joigneaux, C. (2015). Family literacy skills that are unevenly profitable in school.Le français aujourd’hui, 190(3), 23-34. doi:10.3917/lfa.190.0023.

Brunel M., Dufays, J.-L., Capt V., Florey S., Emery-Bruneau J. (2018). Students' discourse on the values of literary texts and their didactic use by teachers: what variations exist between age groups and countries?In N. Rouvière (ed.),Teaching literature by questioning values.Berlin: Peter Lang, 279-302.

Chabanne, J.-C. (ed.) (2019).Teaching literature in dialogue with the arts. Confrontations, exchanges, and connections between teaching approaches.Namur: Presses universitaires de Namur, "Diptyque," no. 37.

Claude, M.-S. (2017). From pictorial commentary to literary commentary: putting an aesthetic experience into words.Journal of Research in Multimodal Media Literacy,6.https://doi.org/10.7202/1043747ar

Denizot, N., & Ronveaux, C. (Eds.) (2019).La lettre enseignée. Perspective historique et comparaison européenne.Grenoble: UGA Editions.

Dias-Chiaruttini A. (2015), "Reception of gender stereotypes conveyed by children's literature in contrasting institutional spaces,"Repères, 51, 35-53.

Dias-Chiaruttini A., Lebrun M. (eds.) (forthcoming),The question of the relationship between school subjects: the case of French language teaching. Namur: Presses universitaires de Namur, "Recherches en didactique du français" (Research in French language teaching), volume no. 12.

Dubois-Marcoin, D. (ed.) (2008),ReadingThe Little Mermaid: Questioning Literature in a Different Way, Paris: INRP.

Fraisse E. (ed.) (2012) Teaching and literature around the world.International Journal of Education – Sèvres,no. 61.

Fourtanier, M.-J., Langlade, G., & Rouxel, A. (2001).Research in literature teaching.Rennes: PUR.

Franco B. (2016).Comparative literature. History, fields, methods. Paris: Armand Colin, "U lettres."

Gabathuler, C. (2016).Appreciating literature. The aesthetic relationship in teaching the reading of literary texts. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Hébert, M. (2013). Reading, commenting on, and discussing the same novel in elementary and secondary school: what are the differences?Journal of Educational Sciences.http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1024535ar

Louichon B., Bishop M.-F., Ronveaux C. (eds.),Fables at School: A European Heritage Genre?Geneva: Peter Lang, "Exploration."

Louichon B. (2019). TALC Project: Describing Practices in the Field of Literature Teaching.AIRDF Newsletter, 65, 50-51.

Marlair, S., Dufays, J.-L. (2009). "What actions in the classroom for what teaching and learning of literature? A look at four lessons in^{the fifth year}of secondary school." In D. Bucheton & O. Dezutter (eds.),The development of professional actions in French language teaching. A challenge for research and training, Brussels: De Boeck "Perspectives in education and training," 61-82.

Massol, J.-F. and Plissonneau, G. (2008). Literature read in 6th and 7th grades: continuities and progressions.Repères, 37, 69-104.

Mercier A., Schubauer-Leoni M. L., Sensevy G. (2002). Towards a comparative approach to teaching.In:Revue française de pédagogie, volume 141, 5-16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3406/rfp.2002.2910.

MeurisG. (2008). Comparative Education: Getting to Know Each Other.Research & Education[Online], Compare, posted October 15, 2008, accessed September 9, 2019. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/rechercheseducations/45.

Plissonneau, G., Boutevin, C., Bazile, S. (2017). Analytical reading at the end of middle school: an exercise in literary reading? Teachers' perspectives, students' views.Repères,56, 91-108.

Ronveaux C., Schneuwly B. (eds.) (2018).Reading texts considered literary: disciplining and sedimentation. A study across school grades in French-speaking Switzerland.Brussels: Peter Lang.

Sève P. (2008). Working "on children's reading" or "on texts": the terms of a didactic alternative.Repères, 37, 131-152.

Witte, T.C.H., Sâmihăian, F. (2013). Is Europe open to a student-oriented framework for literature? A comparative analysis of the formal literature curriculum in six European countries.L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, vol. 13, 1-22.http://dx.doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2013.01.02

[1]"History of Literature Teaching: A European Comparison." This European network was developed on the initiative of Marie-France Bishop.