Some Thoughts On the (Im)Possibilities of Teaching Australian Literature

Abstract

N 2008, FERVENT PUBLIC DEBATE FOLLOWED THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE NEW national Australian Curriculum, then in early development, would mandate the study of Australian literature for all students 'across the compulsory years of schooling' (Davies, Martin and Buzacott 21). Conservative commentators welcomed what they saw as assurance that 'young Australians' would learn 'to appreciate, value and celebrate this nation's identity and history' (Donnelly, 'A Canon'). More progressive voices argued that rather than the texts to be read, focus should be on practices of reading that respond to 'students' needs, interests and experiences as national and global citizens' (Davies 47-8). Conservatives were less enthused by the final language of the new curriculum: in Quadrant, selfproclaimed 'culture warrior' Kevin Donnelly complained that it had replaced the Western canon and Judeo-Christian morals with 'politically correct perspectives', likely the three cross-curriculum priorities: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures, Asia and Australia's engagement with Asia, and sustainability (Donnelly, 'The Ideology of the National English Curriculum 28, 27; ACARA, 'Cross-curriculum Priorities'). Australian Curriculum: English is separated into three strands, 'language', 'literature' and 'literacy', each with an enormous set of extensively detailed descriptors, outcomes and performance indicators

No time to read? How precarity is shaping learning and teaching in the humanities

“…While these are certainly invigorating and inspiring strategies, we recall Brayshaw’s (2021: 49) statement that ‘pedagogical innovation requires institutional support.’ Implementing new and effective learning activities which may need to be researched, conceptualised, designed, and implemented well before the semester begins, is undermined by the neoliberal institution’s reliance on casual staff. Taken together, then, we suggest that humanities departments are the site of constraint and innovation, and that conversations about the future of the discipline, and about reading practices, cannot take place without acknowledgement of both realities.…”

“…This can also lead to units themselves becoming somewhat static, inflected with the research concerns of a staff member who has long since ceased to be involved in the unit. As Meg Brayshaw (2021: 49) has bluntly explained: ‘Pedagogical innovation requires institutional support,’ and such support is often not forthcoming.…”