AP Lit Then and Now: A 20 Year Reflection

Tomorrow I begin my 20^th year of teaching, both AP Lit and teaching in general. There have been many changes in that time, both in the course and in my teaching strategy. As I entered my first classroom in 2006, I never would have guessed that this class would awake something inside me, leading me to content creation, blogging, social media, and the closest thing to “fame” that I’m ever going to be comfortable with.

I try to make my first blog post of the school year both insightful and reflective. Søren Kierkegaard once said, “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” I think this encapsulates the point of this post. I want to look back at the changes I’ve seen over the years, both in the course and the way I teach it. Hopefully this will inspire me (and you!) to have another great year of guiding young minds in reading, writing, and thinking about the world around them.

I’m also celebrating seven years of a successful blog by sharing many of my favorite AP Lit-centered blog posts. Just click any image on this page and it will take you to the blog post to learn more!

Pedagogical Shifts

Text Coverage vs. Skills Mastery

Then:

• The goal was often to cover as many major works as possible before May. When you met other AP Lit teachers, you compared what texts you taught and how many you could squeeze in. It felt like there was a definite “more is better” approach.
• I often felt pressure to ensure students had read a certain number of canonical novels and plays so they’d be “ready” for the open question. For example, the thought of not doing a Shakespeare work was blasphemous!
• I taught skills like close reading or writing in the context of those works, but I didn’t explicitly break them down as transferable skills.

Now:

• The emphasis is on deep skill mastery that transfers to any literary work.
• I am more willing to slow down and spend weeks on a single work if it means students are developing analytical, interpretive, and writing skills they can apply on exam day and beyond.
• Other types of literature are more embraced as “AP worthy,” especially with the inclusion of short fiction in the new CED. More teachers are working in unusual and creative types of literature, such as librettos, songs, nonfiction, and journalism.

Teacher-as-Interpreter vs. Student-as-Interpreter

Then:

• The teacher was often the keeper of the meaning, guiding students toward the “correct” interpretation of a text.
• My class discussions often revolved around confirming a central reading that I presented.
• Students’ personal or alternative interpretations were sometimes seen as less academically valid unless they mirrored established critical opinions.
• One of the most devastating class reviews I had at the end of a year was from a student who said, “I didn’t feel prepared for the exam because you weren’t there. I don’t know the right answers unless you tell them to us.”

Now:

• Students are positioned as meaning-makers. My role is to facilitate inquiry, pose questions, and help students defend their interpretations with textual evidence.
• Multiple interpretations are encouraged, provided they are supported with logical reasoning and precise evidence.
• This aligns with the new rubric’s focus on “defensible thesis” rather than “correct answer.”

Device Hunting vs. Purposeful Analysis

Then:

• Students were often trained to “hunt” for as many literary devices as possible, such as metaphors, alliteration, or imagery, and list them in essays as proof of analysis. I felt very annoyed at what felt like “name dropping” literary devices.
• The exam rewarded this to some degree, since earlier rubrics valued breadth of device identification.

Now:

• The shift is toward connecting techniques to meaning through a line of reasoning, not just naming devices at random.
• Students must explain why a writer’s choices matter and how they contribute to tone, theme, or character development in a line of reasoning.
• The scoring rubric prioritizes commentary that ties a device to the work’s overall meaning or the reader’s experience.
• This is one of my favorite things about the new rubric, but it still hasn’t caught on globally. I scored for the poetry question this year and I would say 80% of my essays were still organized by literary device. Many students still struggle to think thematically in their essays.

Timed Writing Drill vs. Writing Process Instruction

Then:

• Frequent 40-minute in-class essays dominated instruction. I can’t speak for others, but I didn’t emphasize revision or the writing process much.
• Feedback was often looked at as an end-of-process activity. I would find a quiet afternoon and score 20-30 essays at a go, giving copious amounts of feedback and comments.
• With my students, I prioritized the ability to write quickly under pressure over developing strong revision habits.

Now:

• Teachers still prepare students for timed writing, but there’s more emphasis on building essays step-by-step. This is seen in the CED and the suggested lesson plans. Even the scoring rubric separates essays into processes, like crafting thesis statements, embedding evidence, and deepening commentary.
• Many teachers, myself included, use peer review, multiple drafts, and targeted mini lessons on style and analysis to grow writing skills. Sometimes, these activities can even serve as an alternative for grading whole essays.
• I score essays faster by circling descriptors on the rubric or leaving feedback digitally.
• Many teachers used sample essays to help teach writing, especially those of us who were able to participate in the AP Reading. However, these were difficult to find in the past. AP Classroom’s sample essays and scoring guides have made it easier to find sample essays and offer digital feedback.

Rigorous “Drill and Kill” Approach vs. Creative Learning Opportunities

Then:

• AP Lit rigor was often equated with constant timed essays, daily passage annotations, and relentless multiple-choice drills.
• Units were designed to mimic the exam as closely as possible, with little time for play or creativity.
• While students built stamina and familiarity with test demands, the experience could feel mechanical and exhausting, especially for students who needed different approaches to the material.
• Creative or fun activities were often viewed as distractions from “real” AP work.

Now:

• Rigor is no longer defined solely by repetition and volume. Engagement and intellectual challenge are equally valued.
• Teachers are integrating creative, immersive experiences that deepen understanding while maintaining analytical rigor:
  • I host a Victorian-style tea party during The Importance of Being Earnest to explore social customs, gender roles, and dialogue analysis.
• • Many teachers love designing “create-a-monster” lessons during Frankenstein to examine Romanticism, Gothic elements, and the moral implications of creation.
  • Online groups on Facebook abound with ideas for integrating fun with learning, including chalk drawings, interschool blog groups, guest lectures, and more.
• The shift reframes rigor as active engagement plus intellectual demand, not just endurance under test conditions.

Exam-Centered Motivation vs. Lifelong Learning

Then:

• The AP exam was the end goal. Units were designed backwards from the test.
• “Pass the exam” was often framed as the primary measure of success.
• Many teachers faced scrutiny or even removal from their teaching position if they didn’t get high enough scores. My own principal urged me to “do better” after my first year even when my entire class passed the exam! Apparently there weren’t enough 5’s in comparison to the previous year.

Now:

• Many teachers balance exam prep with cultivating authentic literary engagement, helping students see themselves as part of an ongoing conversation about literature.
• There’s more emphasis on fostering an appreciation for reading and critical thinking that lasts beyond AP Lit.
• I feel like there is more freedom to work in current events and discussions as well when I don’t stress the test.
• We use literature to enrich our students as growing adults. In the online Facebook groups, it’s not uncommon to find teachers who use poetry or literature to help students deal with grief, anxiety, and other current events or social struggles.

Literature Selections & Inclusivity

Then:

• The course was heavily anchored in the Western canon (Shakespeare, Austen, Hawthorne, Dickens, etc.).
• Contemporary works were often U.S. or British and largely white, male authors.
• When my students read independently, I pushed them to pick works that had already appeared on a past exam. If I hadn’t heard of it, I rarely allowed it.

Now:

• There’s a greater push for diverse voices in both teaching and exam prompts.
• Open-ended question titles now frequently include works by authors of color, women, LGBTQ+ writers, and non-Western authors.
  • Authors for the two released exams this year included Colleen McElroy, Rachel Crusk, Victor Hernández Cruz, and Jeannette Haien.
• This has changed classroom libraries, as many AP Lit teachers now curate texts that better reflect a variety of cultures and perspectives.

Program Gatekeeping vs. “AP For All”

Then:

• Enrollment in AP Lit was often restricted to only the highest-achieving juniors and seniors, typically determined by GPA, teacher recommendation, or prerequisite honors courses.
• This exclusivity often reinforced inequities, with underrepresented students less likely to be encouraged or given access to AP coursework.
• The course could feel like a “club” for the already college-bound, rather than a space for all motivated students to grow.

Now:

• Many schools and districts have adopted open-enrollment policies. If a student wants to take AP Lit, they can, regardless of prior coursework.
• The belief is that students from a wider range of academic backgrounds can rise to AP-level expectations when given scaffolding and encouragement.
• The result is a more diverse, representative AP classroom that mirrors the school population and broadens who sees themselves as “college-ready.”
• The focus is on growth and preparation for future challenges, not just protecting pass rates.
  • I know this is not true for many schools and teachers, but it’s a trend I’ve seen in my own school and do believe is happening in more places than people may realize.

Exam Structure & Question Types

Multiple Choice Changes

Then

• Students answered around 60 multiple-choice questions in 60 minutes tied to poetry and prose excerpts.
• Some questions tested discrete literary terms and devices (e.g., “What is the rhyme scheme?” or “What does this word mean in context?”).
• Students had to know a vast amount of literary terms and have an extensive understanding of poetic meter. I remember teaching the difference between dirge, elegy, and lament, or the difference between anapestic and trochaic meter. No thanks.

Now

• Students answer 55 questions in 1 hour.
• There’s more emphasis on skill-based analysis over terminology recall, meaning students must interpret craft, tone, and argument rather than just label techniques.
• With the 2019 changes, only literary terms that appear in the CED are required knowledge for multiple choice terms. Poetic meter is not assessed anymore.
• The 2025 exam moved to a 4 question model rather than 5.

Free Response Changes

Then:

• Three essays, poetry analysis, prose analysis, and an open-ended literary argument, each scored 0–9.

Now:

• Still three essays, but rubrics have shifted to a 6-point scale with explicit criteria for thesis, evidence/commentary, and sophistication.
• This has created more consistency across scoring, but also changes how teachers train students.

Holistic vs. Analytic Scoring

Then:

• In the early 2000s, essays were scored holistically, meaning a reader gave a single score based on overall impression.
• I remember being trained on this rubric at my first AP Reading in 2011. I struggled to find a single score for essays that had strong analysis but poor organization, or horrific mechanics but strong insights. My table leader suggested using my pencil as a kind of barometer, moving forward for strong insights but slowly falling backwards if nothing special happened.

Now:

• Since 2019, rubrics break scores into distinct categories. This benefits students who may have a strong thesis and solid evidence but weaker prose, as they can still earn partial points.
• Teachers still struggle with this rubric, especially with the line of reasoning (which is never properly defined). However, I do feel like students understand their scores easier and know how to improve for future essays because of the rubric change.

Conclusion:

I can’t believe this will be my 20^th year of teaching AP Lit. I’m flattered that some turn to me for advice or examples in teaching and still don’t understand how that has come to be. As a fresh-faced 22-year-old, I certainly didn’t have a strong grasp of this material, but it seems like a few things have clicked in since then.

I look forward to another 20 years of engagement, rigor, and love of literature with AP Lit and to see how the program evolves to reach more students and transform them into literature lovers.

If you too have been teaching AP Lit for quite a while, I’d love to hear some of the changes you’ve noticed or most enjoyed. Leave me a comment below!