A right way to teach and learn Literature

Mr. Tran Hinh (Faculty of Literature). (Photo: Thanh Long/USSH)

- There are comments that this year's Literature exam for groups C and D is quite good and a bit surprising, what is your opinion?

It is really difficult to answer whether it is good or not. It can only be affirmed that the exam questions are in line with the Ministry's direction, which is to gradually eliminate rote learning, learning by patterns, and learning in training centers. Are there any creative or surprising questions in the exam questions? I think there are some surprises. For example, in the 2-point question, both the C and D questions choose texts extracted from two additional readings, not the main lesson ("Do Len" by Nguyen Duy and "Dat Nuoc" by Nguyen Dinh Thi). The reading comprehension questions for these two questions also eliminate the rote learning method. It forces students to learn to understand. If students learn from their own study methods, then from now on they must remember to study the lesson in a "learning to understand" way. If they study like that, the exam questions will not be surprising or difficult for candidates.

- As many people have speculated, this year's Literature exam continues the trend of innovation as in the past few years, but also has new points: no optional questions; the questions are not focused on knowledge but on synthesis and commentary; the social discussion continues to discuss current hot social issues. What do you think about these changes?

First of all, regarding the social argumentation question, I think there is nothing new about the way of asking. The social argumentation question will focus on current essential issues (East Sea, territory, patriotism, war, revolution, ideals, the reason for living of today's youth...). The C block question touches on the East Sea issue, although not directly, but through the "use of muscle power" of the Chinese authorities. The D block question discusses the issue of "contribution and enjoyment", which I think is still the issue of "the reason for living" today. The argumentation question is not difficult for candidates. I would like to affirm that.

Regarding the writing question (5 points), I think it is not new. We have seen this way of setting questions for many years now. In particular, last year's exam was similar. The only thing is, the works chosen for the questions are no longer the same as last year. However, although it is not new, I strongly support the way of setting exam questions in recent years. Setting exam questions like this will make students gradually "afraid" of the way of learning Literature that they have been pursuing in training centers. This way of setting questions should have been applied a long time ago, not waiting until we see the "disaster" of training centers before trying to find a way to eliminate it.

- Does the test have a balance between literary knowledge and practical connection? Will a test like this be effective in assessing the candidates' literary ability, sir?

It is difficult to answer what is a “sufficient dose” in terms of current practical and textual issues. We should also not “encourage” the way of presenting questions that tend towards social discussion. But we also need to avoid the "trivial" way of teaching and learning literature that only follows the "beautiful literature" direction. Literature is something very subtle, sometimes it is life itself, and sometimes it is purely literature. The problem is how we choose to teach and learn. Therefore, what should the exam questions be like to properly assess the students' abilities? I think that in addition to the teaching and learning methods and the way the questions are set, what is more important is the way teachers evaluate (grade) them. For many years, I have heard many people complain that grading exams today is so "risky". Students keep "whispering" to each other that when taking an exam, they must try to write as long as possible, and that the longer they write, the higher the score. Is this true? I do not affirm that all of them are true, but that is basically it. Why is that? Because teachers who grade literature nowadays often only read it briefly (and this fault is due to the exam questions being too long, due to the training centers), so if the essay is long, they do not dare to give a low score. Of course, I see that not all teachers are like that. There are still teachers (young ones) who read each essay very carefully, and the “old” ones who have experience. That is why there are long essays that they still give low marks because the essay does not follow the exam questions.

In short, to thoroughly reform the exams, I think it is necessary to make comprehensive changes: make the exam questions shorter (so that students cannot write long), completely eliminate the option of copying from sample essays (eliminate the practice of reading and copying), the exam marking time must be longer (not just 10 days to 2 weeks as prescribed by the Ministry)... Only then can we eliminate the "risks" in marking exams in general, not just in Literature.

(Photo: Jackie Chan/USSH)

- People have noticed that this year's social science exams have all removed the optional part, the exam questions are unified, the content of the Literature, History or Geography questions all mention the issue of islands, the struggle to protect sovereignty, and regional security - all of which are hot issues today. Does this trend predict a change in the way of thinking about teaching and learning social science subjects?

In fact, removing the optional part means removing the standard and advanced curriculum. That means if this way of giving questions is officially applied from this year, from now on there will be no need to divide students into two groups. That is also a way to reduce the curriculum as many people wish. There will be only one textbook. As for the issue of islands or sovereignty, I think it is like many other issues, like patriotism, revolution, the meaning of life, tolerance, that is, many, many. It will always be present. It is a matter of books and life. In my opinion, such a way of teaching and learning Literature is the right direction.

- With this test, can you predict the score range?

I find this a difficult question, because the score distribution depends on the grading method of the teachers. As for last year, I affirmed that the exam scores would be low, but the admission score to the University of Social Sciences and Humanities was the same as previous years. The teachers kept saying that the students' work always followed a "pattern", but I have a feeling that the grading method of the teachers also followed that direction. Therefore, I see that students taking the C block exam this year say the exam is difficult, but then wait and see, the floor score of the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, VNU will also be from 18 or 18.5 or higher.

Thank you, sir.