Well, we’d known it was coming for a while: the end of the IBDP English Literature course as I’ve known and taught it since the start of my career, 13 years ago.  Sure, there were some tweaks and addition with the Lit syllabus changes brought in in 2013, but the framework of the course had remained largely unchanged

I cannot describe how much I have enjoyed sharing this course with students over the course: I’ve loved it’s neat structure and focused assessments; I’ve loved the breadth and depth; I’ve loved the nit-picking detail of the IOC, and the creative possibilities of the IOP.  I’ve made decisions about job applications based on whether I’d be able to teach IBDP Lit, and tears have been shed as the prospect of that not being possible – yes, I know #attachment issues.

So it’s fair to say that I’d been ‘looking forward’ to the sweeping changes of the curriculum review with a mixture of cynicism, stoicism, and plain grief.  Rumours circled about the loss of content and favourite assessments.  Was the future of the Literature course itself as risk??

Having spent the last few days learning about and planning for the new course, I now know the answer to that is a firm NO.  In fact, these are changes which I think give us the opportunity to reinvigorate the subject we love – giving it a refreshed and explicit relevance to global issues, whilst retaining the appreciation of the aesthetic.  It is, in a word, brilliant.

Here are a few of my immediate takeaways and favourite bits:

The removal of parts/units and texts attached to particular assessments.  The more time I spend thinking about this new course, the more I’m convinced that this one detail – at first seemingly just structural or organisation – is actually the single biggest change to the essence and experience of this course.

What are the implications of this?  With no texts tied to assessments, students have much greater choice, autonomy, and ownership over the direction of their learning.  There’s the opportunity here for a profound shift in how we and students think about their learning, where the Approaches to Learning and metacognitive strategies can be harnessed and realised.

Of course this brings with it challenges that for some students – and teachers – may feel overwhelming.  I love the neatness and clearly demarcated units of the new course, because it helps me in my planning.  But compared with the new course I can see now how this tight structure at the same serves to undermine our broader aims, working against conceptual understanding by separating texts into silos according to summative assessments.  I think my absolute favourite part of the new course it that if you were to ask students why they are studying a particular text, they will no longer be able to say “for the IOC” or “for the Written Assignment”, and instead be able to think in terms of concepts, connections, and global issues.

The learner portfolio.  At our school we’ve been exploring the potential of digital portfolios (blogs) and learning logs for a little while now.  What’s exciting about the learner portfolio is that it brings these two things together, along with a class notes or a reading journal.  I’m imagining it as a kind of sketchbook of learning – a place to try things out, reflect, make connections, practice and refine.  Its introduction brings up some important questions: what does deliberate practice look like in English?  What does learning look like, over time?  The value of the portfolio with regards formative assessment seems clear, enabled by its detachment from summative criteria.  In reality, however, what role might the portfolio play in supporting teachers’ judgements about students’ progress and approaches to learning?  How might it inform predicted grades or reporting to parents?  Will we need to develop in-house, informal rubrics for our expectations of the portfolio, and at what point might this compromise the ‘spirit’ of the course?

The centrality of concepts.  Linked to the above two highlights for me is the new emphasis on guiding concepts, ‘areas of exploration’ and global issues.  Finally, the course is catching up with universities in terms of moving away from the formalist beginnings of literature studies and the isolated, esoteric discussion of literary texts as static forms.  Commentaries are out, replaced by the Individual Oral on two extracts and global issue, and guided literary analysis on Paper 1.

The focus – across all three Areas of Exploration – is very much on the production of meaning as a dynamic process, where the text interacts with context(s), readers, other texts and traditions.  The possibilities here for grouping texts and building connections across the course are really exciting, while the learner portfolio provides a space for these kinds of reflections.  Though comparison is only an assessment requirement on Paper 2, it’s easy to see how students will have so many more opportunities to view a text through different lenses over time; texts will no longer be studied for an assessment and then set aside.

I’ll be documenting our discussions as a department as we go about planning for this new syllabus, and the challenges and changes along the way!

• What are you most looking forward to on the new syllabus?
• What single change do you think will have the biggest impact of how you teach the course?
• What challenges do you anticipate for students in your context?
•