Call for Papers

School of Education – University of Montpellier

Comparisons in Literary Pedagogy 

Twenty years after the first meetings of researchers in the didactics of literature (Fourtanier, Langlade, Rouxel, 2001), it is noteworthy that projects are currently developing—and doing so simultaneously—that involve groups of researchers whose objectives and/or methodologies have a distinct comparative dimension.

The work conducted in Geneva by theGRAFElitt group(Ronveaux & Schneuwly, 2018; Gabathuler, 2016) provides a prime example of this. They examine how literature is taught across different grade levels within the small region of French-speaking Switzerland, thereby enabling an understanding of what is at stake on a broader 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 teaching practices in analytical reading in France at the^{3e and2nde grade} levels. In Montpellier, the group of researchers involved in the TALC project (Louichon, 2019) is working to describe and understand the teaching practices of Cycle 3 teachers (the end of elementary school and the first year of middle school). The HELiCE network[1] examines the history of literature instruction from a comparative perspective at the European level (Louichon, Bishop & Ronveaux, 2017; Denizot & Ronveaux, 2019; Belhadjin & Perret, forthcoming).

As exemplary and visible as this trend may be, it should not overshadow earlier, pioneering work (Dubois-Marcoin, 2008) or studies conducted on a smaller scale but that are just as insightful (for example, Sève, 2008; Marlair & Dufays, 2009; Hébert, 2013; Claude, 2017).

In this research, comparisons may focus on different educational levels (elementary, secondary, general education, and vocational education) or transition points (between elementary and secondary school, for example), different geographic, cultural, and/or linguistic areas; the subjects taught; exercises; students based on their age, academic track, gender, and socioeconomic characteristics; historical periods; and curricula (Bishop, forthcoming). It may also concern the uses of literature or the reception of literary works in school or extracurricular contexts (Dias-Chiaruttini, 2015; Bonnéry & Joigneaux, 2015).

The strong trend observed regarding the comparative dimension of certain studies nevertheless raises questions about the limited attention given to other approaches or subjects in the field of literature education research. For example, the results or analyses of international comparative studies (such as PISA or PIRLS) are rarely drawn upon (Bart & Daunay, 2016). Literature educators, who are largely focused on the Francophone world, seem relatively reluctant to address issues on a broader scale (Fraisse, 2012) or those concerning non-Francophone regions (Witte & Sâmihăian, 2013). Similarly, at the most recent conference of the Association for Comparative Research in Didactics (ARCD), there was very little discussion of the teaching and learning of literature. It is also worth noting that work in the field of interdidactics (Biagioli & Torterat, 2012) is virtually absent from our conferences, even though the question of the relationship between French language instruction and literature is frequently raised (Dias-Chiarrutini & Lebrun, forthcoming). The^{17th Conference}focused on “confrontations, exchanges, and connections between didactic approaches” regarding the teaching of literature “in dialogue with the arts” (Chabanne, 2019), and the^{20th Conference}explored 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 this is a central issue in other arts pedagogies or in arts education, where it addresses the balance between cultivating one’s knowledge, analyzing,and practicing.

Finally, it is quite surprising to note that comparative literature is not a subject of inquiry in the pedagogy of literature. Although formally restricted to the university level, this discipline (Franco, 2016) plays a role in the training of all literature teachers, and one might wonder whether the skills acquired there are not put into practice in the secondary school curriculum.

Proposals should therefore fall under one of the following areas:

PRIORITY AREA 1. The aim here is to examine the comparative approaches adopted in research on the pedagogy of literature.

What are the objectives being pursued? Does the research have comparative aims, or does it develop comparative methodologies? Are the comparative hypotheses research hypotheses or methodological hypotheses? Do they aim strictly to provide a comprehensive understanding? Do they also aim to bring about change, and under what conditions? What are the objects being compared? What methodologies have been developed? How are the data constructed, collected, and cross-referenced? How should observables be selected and their analysis operationalized? What focal points should be adopted? From which analytical frameworks can comparisons be made?

THEME 2.The aim is to open the field to new areas, new questions, and new subjects. This theme will welcome contributions that draw upon, 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 among didactics (Chabanne, 2019). Questions and research related to international comparative studies will be included, as well as those focusing on the didactics of comparative literature.

AXIS 3 (For doctoral students only)

Twenty years after the first Rencontres, the Rencontres de Montpellier also aim to provide a special forum for doctoral students. They can, of course, participate within the common framework (Axes 1 and 2) of comparative studies. However, a specific forum for presenting ongoing dissertations in the field of literary didactics—designed as a space for training and discussion around emerging research—is dedicated exclusively to them.

Bibliography

Bart, D., Daunay, B. (2016). Jokes at PISA: An International Institution’s Discourse on Education. Vulaines-sur-Seine: Editions du Croquant.

Biagioli, N., Torterat, F. (2012). Research in Interdisciplinary Pedagogy: Methodological and Practical Contributions.In M.-L. Elalouf, A. Robert, A. Belhadjin, & M.-F. Bishop (Eds.),Pedagogical Approaches Under Scrutiny. Brussels: De Boeck, 269–278.

Belhadjin, A., & Perret, L. (eds.) (2020, in press),*The Study of the Excerpt, or How Schools Create School Literature*.Brussels: Peter Lang.

Bishop, M.-F. (forthcoming). Studying the 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.).The Pedagogy of French and the Construction of a Scientific Discipline: Dialogues with Bernard Schneuwly.Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.

Bonnéry, S., Joigneaux, C. (2015). Family literacies with unequal academic returns.*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 in Literary Texts and Teachers’ Didactic Use of These Values: How Do They Vary by Age Group and Country?”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 Pedagogical 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).*Teaching the Letter: A Historical Perspective and European Comparison*.Grenoble: UGA Editions.

Dias-Chiaruttini, A. (2015), “Reception of Gender Stereotypes Conveyed by Children’s Literature in Diverse Institutional Settings,”*Repères*, 51, 35–53.

Dias-Chiaruttini, A., & Lebrun, M. (eds.) (forthcoming),The Issue of the Relationship Between School Subjects: The Case of French Language Instruction. Namur: Presses universitaires de Namur, “Recherches en didactique du français,” vol. 12.

Dubois-Marcoin, D. (ed.) (2008),*Reading*The Little Mermaid*: A Different Approach to Literature*, Paris: INRP.

Fraisse, E. (ed.) (2012) “Education and Literature in the World.”Revue Internationale d’éducation – Sèvres,No. 61.

Fourtanier, M.-J., Langlade, G., & Rouxel, A. (2001).Research in the Pedagogy of Literature.Rennes: PUR.

Franco B. (2016).Comparative Literature: History, Fields, Methods. Paris: Armand Colin, “U lettres” series.

Gabathuler, C. (2016).Appreciating Literature: The Aesthetic Relationship in Teaching the Reading of Literary Texts. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Hébert, M. (2013). Reading, Analyzing, and Discussing the Same Novel in Elementary and Secondary School: What Are the Differences?*Revue des sciences de l’éducation*.http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1024535ar

Louichon, B., Bishop, M.-F., and Ronveaux, C. (eds.),*Fables in School: A European Heritage Genre?* Geneva: Peter Lang, “Exploration” series.

Louichon, B. (2019). The TALC Project: Describing Practices in the Field of Literature Education.*La lettre de l’AIRDF*, 65, 50–51.

Marlair, S., Dufays, J.-L. (2009). “What Teaching Strategies Should Be Used in the Classroom for Which Approaches to Teaching and Learning Literature? A Look at Four Lessons in^{the 5th Year}of Secondary School.” In D. Bucheton & O. Dezutter (eds.),The Development of Professional Practices in French Language Instruction: 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 Grade: Continuities and Progressions.*Repères*, 37, 69–104.

Mercier, A., Schubauer-Leoni, M. L., & Sensevy, G. (2002). Toward a Comparative Study of Teaching Methods.In:Revue française de pédagogie, vol. 141, pp. 5–16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3406/rfp.2002.2910.

Meuris, G. (2008). “Comparative Education: An Introduction.”Recherches & éducations[Online], Comparer, published 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: Disciplinarization 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 pedagogical 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 Education: A European Comparison.” This European network was established on the initiative of Marie-France Bishop.