English Teaching in the 21st Century: Empathic Intelligence and Brain-Based Research.

This paper puts forward an argument for re-thinking the nature and function of English and English Education, especially the teaching of literature, and proposes a model of empathic intelligence, which helps to formulate how much reshaping might. occur. The paper states that English literacy educators have relied for far too long on a hybrid theory of English Education pedagogy, borrowing from allied disciplines, such as literary criticism, philosophy, psychology, sociology, linguistics, and other disciplines. For the paper, the focus is on enabling feelings such as enthusiasm, joy, awe, excitement, and at times, dread, to be managed, shaped, and transformed through reflective thought, through talk with others, and through various embodied, symbolic experiences. According to the paper, it is timely to reconsider priorities in the light of postmodernism and technological advances and to reaffirm what is fundamentally the core business of English teaching in contemporary contexts. The paper does not represent a call for a return to old orthodoxies, but a call to consider the worlds of current students and to attempt to hypothesize what skills, abilities, and attitudes they need to function effectively in a global, increasingly dynamic world. It argues for a call to re-energize the teaching of literature and multi-literacies by mobilizing a particular dynamic between thinking and feeling. (Contains 147 references.) (NKA) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ENGLISH TEACHING IN THE 21sT CENTURY: EMPATHIC INTELLIGENCE AND BRAIN-BASED RESEARCH Professor Roslyn Arnold University of Tasmania Roslyn.Arnold(a),utas.edu. au IFTE Conference, July 2003 Conference strand: Professional identity and change: the role of English Literacy Educators in the 21s` Century U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1 This paper puts forward an argument for re-thinking the nature and function of English and English Education, especially the teaching of literature, and proposes a model of empathic intelligence which helps to formulate how such re-shaping might occur. I believe that English literacy educators have relied for far too long on a hybrid theory of English Education pedagogy, borrowing from allied disciplines such as literacy criticism, philosophy, psychology, sociology, linguistics and other disciplines. It is timely for English educators to re-shape the focus of their approaches to the teaching of English, and indeed, literacies, to reflect the revitalisation of reading evident in the Harry Potter phenomenon, and brain basedresearch as it demonstrates the inter-connection between thought and feeling (Damasio, 1994, 2000, 2002, Carpenter, 2002, Davia,2000). This paper puts forward an argument for re-thinking the nature and function of English and English Education, especially the teaching of literature, and proposes a model of empathic intelligence which helps to formulate how such re-shaping might occur For this paper, the focus will be on enabling feelings such as enthusiasm, joy, awe and excitement, and at times, dread, to be managed, shaped and transformed through reflective thought, through talk with others, and through various embodied, symbolic experiences. Such a re-shaping of priorities in the teaching of English, might actually mean a return to some key values and potential outcomes of learning embedded in transformative practices of teaching of literature over many decades. It is timely to reconsider priorities in the light of post-modernism and technological advances and to reaffirm what is fundamentally the core business of English teaching in contemporary contexts. Clearly then, this is not a call for a return to old orthodoxies. It is a call to consider the worlds of current students and to attempt to hypothesise what skills, abilities and attitudes they need to function effectively in a global, increasingly dynamic world. It is a call to identify those experiences which can uniquely happen in school learning to position students well for future worlds. It requires educators to re-imagine the inner worlds of students to empathise with their needs, aspirations, abilities, dreams and thoughts. BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2 1 The argument here is a call to re-energise the teaching of literature and multi-literacies by mobilising a particular dynamic between thinking and feeling. That dynamic has always characterised English Education but it has been largely an intuitive approach, born from the positive experiences teachers themselves, and their students have had with literature. It is possible now to understand more clearly the neurological bases for some of those intuitions. Through Magnetic Resonance Imaging, it is now possible to see which parts of the brain are firing, or not, when subjects undertake particular cognitive activities (Carpenter, 2002, Davia, 2002). By understanding better the phemonenological qualities of intersubjective and intrasubjective experience, insight can inform inspiration, shaping the quality of the embedded experiences which remain in the psyche long after the real time experience has ceased. In a sense, this is an argument to acknowledge what English teachers have always known; that there is magical power in the imagination, or a special kind of wizardry in the world of Harry Potter. Unsurprisingly, my own research and scholarship in the development of a theory of empathic intelligence, has been strongly influenced by particular experiences as an English and Drama Educator. The power of interpersonal dynamics and the phenomenon of significant transformative moments, are a primary scholarly interest. Another way to describe it is to think metaphorically about the ways significance is created in the spaces and silences, along with the overt engagements, of inter-subjective and intra-subjective experiences, To support this argument for the significance of creating a dynamic between thinking and feeling, especially as they re evident in the function of imagination, I cite the evidence of some brain-based research. For example, Steven Rose, a practising scientist working at the forefront of medical research, describes his experience of discovering that his feelings interfered with his game of chess, a game which he previously believed involved 'purely cognitive and logical skills '(1993, p.36). From his scientific work and his reflections upon his own learning experiences, he argues that 'cognition cannot be divorced from affect, try as one might' (1993, p.36). He continues, The problems that it (the link between affect and cognition) illuminates are fundamental to my research strategy, just as much as their resolution. However, even today I find myself frequently in danger offorgetting that lesson, though it ought to be fundamental to a strategy for living. (1993, p.36) Some time ago, Howard Gardner, arguing for a more complex view of intelligence that commonly prevailed, remarked the roots of a sense of self lie in the individual's exploration of his (si) own feelings and in his emerging ability to view his (sic) own feelings and experiences in terms of the interpretative schemes and symbol systems provided by the culture (1985, p.294). The work of Antonio Damasio (1994, 2000, 2002) demonstrates how consciousness arose out of the development of emotion, and how that human consciousness is actually a consciousness of the feeling and experiencing of self. As Damasio argues, Contrary to traditional scientific opinion, feelings are just as cognitive as other percepts (1994, xvii). (Emotion and feeling) provide the bridge between rational and non-rational processes, between cortical and subcortical structures (1994, p.128).