Action- and production-oriented literature lessons

Structure

1. Introduction

2. What is action- and production-oriented literature teaching?
2.1 Definitional approach
2.2 Forerunner of action- and production-oriented teaching – history
2.3 The influence of reception aesthetics
2.4 Deconstructivism and Constructivism
2.5 Basic principles and legitimacy
2.5.1 Intensification of learning processes through self-activity and discovering learning
2.5.2 Promotion of motivation
2.5.3 Promoting imagination
2.5.4 Understanding others and taking on perspectives
2.5.5 Individual reference standard orientation
2.5.6 Participation of all students
2.5.7 Combination of different teaching objectives

3 Forms of productive handling of texts
3.1 lyrics
3.2 Epic lyrics
3.3 drama – specially conceived example for the treatment of Mary Stuart

4 Evaluation of productive tasks

5 Final thought

6 Bibliography

1. Introduction

In writing didactics, the action- and production-oriented approach plays a central role for today. The beginnings of the teaching concept lie in the 70s, although there were already tendencies towards this type of writing lessons before. In the 90 years, action and production orientation has found its way into the curricula; writing texts is now an integral part of German lessons.

In the following, after a clarification of the term, the most important basic principles of action- and production-oriented literature teaching are to be pointed out and on the basis of which the necessity of action- and production-oriented German lessons are to be justified. Afterwards, the historical development is shown and finally some of the action- and production-oriented procedures for the lessons are presented. The conclusion of the work is to be a specially conceived project to show how forms of action and production orientation can be realized in the classroom. For this purpose, the drama Mary Stuart by Schiller.

2. What is action- and production-oriented literature teaching?

2.1 Definitional approach

In action- and production-oriented literature lessons, for which the concept of "acting handling of texts"¹ the students not only deal with literature in a recipeive and analytical-interpretive way, but they also become actively active themselves: They supplement texts, rewrite them, or transpose what has been read into other media. However, there is still a close connection between action- and production-oriented handling of texts and analysis and interpretation: "Because the procedures we advocate always want both: with do something to a text and above think about the text, whereby the one cannot always be clearly separated from the other, since insights in a work of art sometimes already by acting with devoted to him."² The traditional text analysis and interpretation in the guided classroom discussion is supplemented by alternative forms of interpretation and analysis: Individual approaches to interpretation result from an extensive preoccupation with the original in the form of one's own writing attempts, the staging of literature in a radio play or a film, the illustration of a story, etc. A detailed description of the various operational procedures is given under point 4.

Action orientation is directed against purely receiving learning and follows the school pedagogical teaching principle of self-activity: the student should be given the opportunity to acquire learning experience in the active use of literature, under the premise that thinking is closely linked to action. That's why the didactics also turn against the fact that action-oriented teaching is often a "nice change for everyday school life"³ is seen; as an entertaining accessory of an otherwise purely text-analytically oriented lesson:

'Action-oriented' literature teaching is rather based on the principle that understanding and aesthetic experience belong together, and that the latter is decidedly more than an acquisition of knowledge about texts and texts, but a unity of appropriation and production.⁴

Action-oriented teaching includes the active use of the senses and means the "a thousand possibilities including[...] pictorial-illustrative[...], musical[...], representing[...] and playing[...] React[...] on texts".⁵ The term production orientation speaks for itself: The students should become productively active, i.e. they should produce their own texts in dealing with already existing texts, or redesign the existing texts or transpose them into another medium. However, the result should always be a product specially made by the student. This does not mean that the focus here is on the product, but the process of writing is also of great importance. While action-oriented teaching is more holistically oriented and "combines cognitive, sensory and affective approaches"⁶ are addressed in production-oriented teaching rather cognitive abilities.

2.2 Forerunner of action- and production-oriented teaching – history

Before the concept of this form of literature teaching was coined in the 1984 book "Handlungs- und produktionsorientierter Literaturunterricht" (Action and Production-Oriented Literature Teaching), there were some similar forms of teaching with the same concern.

A pre-form of action- and production-oriented teaching can already be found in the 18th century. There was a "close connection between rhetoric and poetics lessons"⁷. At that time, language teaching was primarily designed for the development of rhetorical skills and it was widespread to let students deal productively with literary texts in different ways. By imitating the role models, certain skills, such as the handling of different rhyme types and the correct word order with regard to the metric, or the fund of rhyme words should be strengthened, or the fund of rhyme words should be expanded.

An important pioneer of action- and production-oriented literature teaching is Lessing, who was already committed to the independent production of student texts in the time of the late Enlightenment. With his fable didactics, he leans against the "merely receptive reading" and the naked "stylistic imitation"⁸ and pleads for a free invention of fables on the part of the students, although still on the basis of the model, but it should also expressly strive for the individual idea development of the students. For the first time, the focus in the classroom is not only on reproduction and imitation, but also on stimulating the ingenuity and thinking of the students.

It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that reform pedagogy picked up on Lessing's ideas by bringing the creativity and creative potential of the students to the fore. In a euphoric way, the student is almost elevated to a poet, who in his role as an autonomous individual with independent ideas is quite capable of producing literary works of art himself. An example of this is the book According to the poet. Creative poetry lessons (1912), in which Otto Karstädt clearly opposed the traditional way of teaching questions and answers⁹.

The approaches of reform pedagogy were not pursued in the time of National Socialism, but in the post-war period the action- and production-oriented literature didactics with Robert Ulshöfers Methodology of German lessons first concrete forms. This didactics is still partly very directed and formalistic and stands in the tradition of the schools of scholars, but also forms of "free invention" are already present. Ulshöfer's guiding goals in the writing exercises are "productive thinking, creative work and planning action"¹⁰. Above all, he is interested in inventing and continuing to write texts. He has a technical understanding of the writing of literature and focuses on learnable techniques. That is why he also emphasizes the importance of clear work instructions for the students to translate their ideas into literary production.

Since the 60s and 70s, literature didactics has also been influenced by communication and student-oriented didactics (e.B. W. Schulz Lesson planning 1981) many different proposals regarding new playful and experimental handling of literary texts, which place the imagination and creativity of the students more and more in the foreground of school lessons, because the student is considered an autonomous subject and as a "self-confident communication partner of the teacher"¹¹ placed at the center of the teaching process.

2.3 The influence of reception aesthetics

However, the most decisive influence on the development of action- and production-oriented teaching has been exerted by the aesthetics of reception. She dealt in detail with the reading process and came to the conclusion that "reading is not simply the extraction of information from the text, but that the meaning of a text is always created by the reader"¹². According to Waldmann, reading always means "meaningful reading"¹³ (Waldmann, 101). The reader of literature is therefore automatically already active in the reception if he classifies what has been read into his system of meaning and updates it with the help of what has been read. What is meant here is not the purely mechanical, merely affirmative reading that only confirms one's own attitudes and attitudes, but a reading that changes, supplements, or even revises these own attitudes.

Reading is one's own reading when not only the socialized patterns and norms are applied to what is read in accordance with the norm and unconscious (which leads to very selective, merely affirmative reading: one only takes up what confirms one in one's learned attitudes and patterns of behavior), but also if there is always an awareness of the system of meaning updated with the read and productive own assignments and structurings of its patterns and norms. if individual as well as social competence to act with regard to the given system of meaning is preserved or if what is read serves precisely to explore and design one's own sensual updates in it or with it and thus to acquire individual as well as social competence for action.¹⁴

However, in order for these changes of meaning to take place, it is necessary to give up the teacher-centricity in literature lessons and to let the student himself become active. The subjective approach of the students is now the focus, because "for too long one has 'the pupil' too much in the role of the text reception passive Sufferers, at most information or meaning from texts obedient Infers seen"¹⁵. The students are therefore assumed to be active in principle if they not only react to texts in some way, but also act afterwards.¹⁶. The aspect of mediation now comes into play. In order to be able to make the subjective receptions of the students communicatable, the operative procedures are used; through literary production, the initially "inner action" becomes "outer action"¹⁷ convicted and thus tangible and made for others.

[...]

¹ vgl. Spinner, K.H. 2002. „Handlungs- und produktionsorientierter Literaturunterricht.“ In: Bogdal, K.M.; Korte, H. (Hg.). Grundzüge der Literaturdidaktik. München: DTV, 247; und auch Abraham, U. 1998. „Umgehen mit Texten“. In: Abraham, U./Beisbart, O./ Koß, G./ Marenbach, D.: Praxis des Deutschunterrichts. Arbeitsfelder, Tätigkeiten, Methoden. Donauwörth: Auer, 33ff.

² Haas, G./Menzel, W./Spinner, K.H. 2000. „Handlungs- und produktionsorientierter Literatur- unterricht.“ Sonderheft Praxis Deutsch 2000, 10.

³ Spinner, K.H. 1994. „Von der Notwendigkeit produktiver Verfahren im Literaturunterricht.“DD 134 (1993), 491.

⁴ Abraham, U. 1998. „Umgehen mit Texten“. In: Abraham, U./Beisbart, O./ Koß, G./ Marenbach, D.: Praxis des Deutschunterrichts. Arbeitsfelder, Tätigkeiten, Methoden. Donauwörth: Auer, 37.

⁵ Haas, G./Menzel, W./Spinner, K.H. 2000. „Handlungs- und produktionsorientierter Literatur- unterricht.“ Sonderheft Praxis Deutsch 2000, 8.

⁶ Spinner, K.H. 2002. „Handlungs- und produktionsorientierter Literaturunterricht.“ In: Bogdal, K.M.; Korte, H. (Hg.). Grundzüge der Literaturdidaktik. München: DTV, 247.

⁷ Ibid. 248.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Ibid. 249.

¹⁰ Ulshöfer, zitiert nach Spinner, K.H. 2002. „Handlungs- und produktionsorientierter Literaturunterricht.“ In: Bogdal, K.M.; Korte, H. (Hg.). Grundzüge der Literaturdidaktik. München: DTV, 249.

¹¹ Eisenbeiß.U. 1994. „Handlungs- und produktionsorientierter Literaturunterricht. Versuch eines Porträts.“DU (Berlin) 47 (1994), 414.

¹² Haas, G./Menzel, W./Spinner, K.H. 2000. „Handlungs- und produktionsorientierter Literatur- unterricht.“ Sonderheft Praxis Deutsch 2000, 8.

¹³ Waldmann, G. 1984. „Grundzüge von Theorie und Praxis eines produktionsorientierten Literatur- unterrichts.“ In: Hopster, N (Hg.). Handbuch ‚Deutsch’ für Schule und Hochschule. Sekundarstufe I. Paderborn: Schöningh, 101.

¹⁴ Ibid. 105.

¹⁵ Abraham, U. 1998. „Umgehen mit Texten“. In: Abraham, U./Beisbart, O./ Koß, G./ Marenbach, D.: Praxis des Deutschunterrichts. Arbeitsfelder, Tätigkeiten, Methoden. Donauwörth: Auer, 37.

¹⁶ Cf. ibid.

¹⁷ Ibid.