Teaching literature following loss: teachers’ adherence to emotional rules

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to explore how teachers changed literature instruction in English language arts (ELA) classrooms following personal loss, and identifies factors influencing those changes. The author argues teachers regulated their responses to literature according to emotional rules they perceived to be associated with the teaching profession. Understanding teachers’ responses helps educators, teacher educators and educational researchers consider what conditions and supports may be required for teachers and students to share emotions related to loss in authentic ways in ELA classrooms.

Design/methodology/approach

To examine changes teachers made in literature instruction following personal loss, the author conducted a thematic analysis of 80 questionnaire responses.

Findings

The author found teachers changed literature instruction related to three areas: teachers’ relationship to students, teachers’ instruction surrounding texts and teachers’ reader responses. Responses highlighted how teachers adhered to emotional rules, including a perception of teachers as authorities and caretakers of children. Teachers considered literature instruction to require maintaining focus on texts, and avoided emotional response unless it aided textual comprehension.

Originality/value

Scholars have argued for literature instruction inclusive of both loss experiences and also emotional response, with particular focus on students’ loss experiences. This study focuses on teachers’ experiences and responses to literature following loss, highlighting factors that influence, and at times inhibit, teachers’ authentic sharing of experiences and emotions. The author argues teachers require support to bring loss experiences into literature instruction as they navigate emotional response within the relational dynamics of the classroom.

Citation

Dunn, M.B. (2021), "Teaching literature following loss: teachers’ adherence to emotional rules", English Teaching: Practice & Critique, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 354-367. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-11-2020-0147