A correct 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 blocks C and D is quite good and a bit surprising, what do you think?

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 innovations or surprises 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, they will remember to study the lesson in the "learning to understand" way from now on. 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, and at the same time has new points: no optional questions; the questions are not focused on knowledge but on synthesis and commentary; the social argumentation 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 confirm that.

Regarding the writing question (5 points), I think it is not new. This way of setting questions has been seen for many years now. In particular, last year's exam was similar. The only thing is, the selected works are no longer the same as last year's. However, although it is not new, I strongly support the way of setting questions in recent years. Setting questions like this will make students gradually "afraid" of the way of learning Literature that they still pursue 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 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 issues and books. We should not “encourage” the way of coming up with questions that are inclined towards social discussion. But we also need to avoid the "trivial" way of teaching and learning literature that only follows the "beautiful" 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 be like to properly assess the students' abilities? I think that in addition to the way of teaching and learning, the way of setting the questions, more important is the way of assessing (scoring) by teachers. For many years, I have heard many people complain that grading exams nowadays has so many "risks". Students keep "whispering" to each other that when taking exams, they must try to write as long as possible, the longer they write, the higher the score. Is this true? I do not affirm that all of it is true, but that is basically it. Why is that? Because teachers who grade literature nowadays often only read it briefly (and this is because the exam is 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 innovations: make the exam questions shorter (so that students cannot write long ones), 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 exams all mention the issue of sea and islands, the struggle to protect sovereignty, 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, eliminating the optional part means eliminating 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, reason for living, 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 distribution?

I find this a difficult question, because the score distribution depends on the teachers' grading method. Like 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. Teachers kept saying that students' papers always followed a "pattern", but I have a feeling that the teachers' grading method 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.