PGCE English, King’s College London
Subject Studies Assignment:
Approaches for Teaching Macbeth
7999 Words
Submitted February 4th 2015
Page 1 of 70
Contents
•
Introduction
3
•
Literature Review
4
•
Rationale
12
•
Lesson 1 Aims and Evaluation
14
•
Lesson 2 Aims and Evaluation
20
•
Lesson 3 Aims and Evaluation
26
•
Lesson 4 Aims and Evaluation
30
•
Conclusion
35
•
Works Cited
39
•
Appendices
o Appendix 1: Lesson Plan 1 and Resources
43
o Appendix 2: Lesson Plan 2 and Resources
46
o Appendix 3: Lesson Plan 3 and Resources
50
o Appendix 4: Lesson Plan 4 and Resources
53
o Appendix 5: Pupil Tracking Questionnaires
58
o Appendix 6: Interview Transcript
61
o Appendix 7: Pupils’ Creative Writing Task
64
o Appendix 8: Pupils’ Written Analysis
65
Page 2 of 70
Introduction
This Subject Studies Assignment will evaluate the teaching of four
lessons on Shakespeare’s Macbeth to a year nine mixed-gender highability set at an academy-status secondary school in
. The lessons will fall towards the centre of the scheme of
work. The focus of this assignment is to investigate and evaluate the
efficacy of alternative approaches that may be employed when teaching
Shakespeare and, furthermore, to what extent these different approaches
work symbiotically towards pupils’ ability to ‘understand and critically
evaluate’ the play – a national curriculum requirement (DfE, 2014, p.5).
The effectiveness of these approaches will be measured through the
evaluation of written work as well as participation in discussions. Pupils’
ability to critically respond to the text will be a key area of focus that
informs my evaluation. Although the whole class’s learning will be
evaluated, three pupils will be tracked. In addition to evaluating their
written work and lesson participation, the efficacy of the teaching
approaches will be further gauged through a questionnaire 1 prior to the
SSA lessons and a group interview 2 after the lessons have been taught.
Pupils A and B have gifted and talented status but pupil A – a boy – has a
particular interest in drama. Pupil B – a girl – participates confidently in
drama activities but is more comfortable with written work and produces
work at an extremely high standard. Pupil C – a girl – who does not have
1
2
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Page 3 of 70
gifted and talented status enjoys drama activities and regularly volunteers
to take part. However, due to dyslexia she struggles with her reading of
unfamiliar words and produces written work that is of a lower standard
compared to pupils A and B. The three pupils selected represent a cross
section of the class in terms of gender and abilities.
Literature Review
In 2007 a survey conducted by CEDAR investigated 1500 pupils’
attitudes to Shakespeare. All pupils had been taught Shakespeare
predominantly through a text-centred approach. The results included
findings that 46% of pupils considered Shakespeare boring and 49%
considered Shakespeare’s plays difficult to understand (Neelands et al.,
2009, p.13). Unsurprisingly, therefore, the bulk of the literature written
on pedagogical approaches to Shakespeare addresses the issue of the
language’s inaccessibility for pupils, advocating various teaching methods
for overcoming pupils’ natural inclination to comprehend the plays as
being ‘outmoded and irrelevant’ (Rice, 2012, p.100) or even ‘entirely
foreign’ (West, 1998, p.vii).
The ‘deadening factor’ (Taylor, 1990, p.29) the printed words of
Shakespeare’s plays have on classroom learning is an issue that teachers
routinely struggle to overcome. Wade and Sheppard echo Taylor when
stating
that
transmissional
scholars
and
teaching
for
students
the
blame
failure
Page 4 of 70
traditional,
to
activate
text-centred
interest
in
Shakespeare’s plays (Wade and Sheppard, 2006). A focus on the text
itself - the words on the page - is what is held to inhibit pupil engagement.
Scholars,
with
a
seemingly
unanimous
voice,
therefore
support
pedagogical practices that ‘enable students to inhabit the imaginative
world of the play’ (Gibson, 1994, p.144) and create an ‘exciting
experience in the classroom’ (Hall, 1967, p.564) in order to bring the text
to life. While dramatic exploration of the plays is the most prominent of
recommended approaches, other approaches that similarly intend to raise
pupils’ interest are featured in the literature, and it is these which will be
considered first.
Unlike much of the literature, Hall advocates a text-centred
approach to Shakespeare. She describes a method of teaching Macbeth
that is built around one central challenge for pupils - to find the blood. By
‘looking for the infamous word’ (Hall, 1967, p.564) pupils become
involved in a search through the text. The search and analysis of the
blood’s significance continues throughout the class’ reading of the play,
‘readily lending itself to discussions of related ideas’. (Hall, 1967, p.564).
The pedagogy is, essentially, a traditional approach to Shakespeare - the
absence of any mention of dramatic or creative engagement with the text
by Hall suggests learning that is guided by the teacher, analytical and
desk-bound. However, by focusing pupils on a feature of the text that
naturally intrigues them, Hall avoids creating what Evans refers to as ‘the
often dreary plod of reading from beginning to end, alienat[ing] the
students from the play’ (Evans, 1982, p.204).
Page 5 of 70
Hall therefore disagrees with scholars such as Wade and Sheppard
who claim text-centred teaching naturally leads to pupil disengagement.
For Hall, unlike many scholars, Shakespeare’s plays as printed texts are
‘capable of engrossing our students’ (Hall, 1967, p.565) if approached
correctly. Although Hall’s text-centred pedagogy may be considered
outdated by many contemporary scholars, her recognition of the necessity
to ‘approach [a Shakespeare play] in a manner which will best facilitate
its understanding’ (Hall, 1967, p.565) appears consistently throughout
the literature - the connection Hall cites between approaching the play in
a way that is both apt and interesting for pupils in order to further
understanding is repeatedly identified by scholars.
‘Student-centred’ (Wade and Sheppard, 2006, p.27), ‘studentguided’ (Taggert and Haefner, 1934, p.543), and ‘active methods’ (Gibson,
1994, p.143) are three terms used by scholars for recommended
approaches to teaching Shakespeare that differ from Hall’s text-centred
approach. Consideration of the subtle variations between these three
approaches would largely be an exercise in semantics. Indeed, the
heterogeneous nature of Gibson’s concept of ‘active methods’ has proved
difficult for scholars to comprehend as a unified approach - Green
observes that ‘rather than defining what makes an active approach,
Gibson gives us a list of approximately seventy items which would
seemingly defy any logically consistent classification’ (Green, 1994,
p.294). However, what unites these three terms is their central purpose
in making an enjoyable yet intellectually engaging learning experience
Page 6 of 70
through imaginative thinking and kinaesthetic learning. These are
approaches which, invert the dominant practice of the 1930s where
‘teacher and text work upon the child’ (Green et al., 2010, p.5) and drive
towards investing learners with the freedom and power to make personal
responses to the text. With all three terms being commonly presented as
antithetical to a text-centred approach, for the purposes of this literature
review, ‘student-centred approaches’ will be used as an umbrella term
under which ‘active methods’ and ‘student-guided methods’ fall.
An example of how student-centred approaches transfer into
classroom
practice
is
encouraging
pupils
to
create
their
own
interpretations as a way of taking ownership of the text. Taylor, Corbett
and Gibson all write of the effectiveness of projection in generating pupil
interest, ‘making Shakespeare’s play seem very much their own, when
their ideas [are] found in part of the script’ (Corbett, 1990, p.22).
A further example is the use of ‘a diary or journal in which [pupils]
build up their growing knowledge of the play’ (Gibson, 1994, p.146) - a
method advocated by both Gibson and Arnold. Such a journal, prompting
‘day-by-day written summaries of the action’ (Arnold, 1952, p.37), is not
used for formal assessment purposes but to provide pupils with a place to
develop their own interpretation and understanding of the play.
In order to create and maintain an enjoyable learning experience,
some scholars recommend avoiding written tasks that overtly require
pupils to be analytical. Smith argues that while teachers will require pupils
to formulate a written response to Shakespeare, ‘the form of that
Page 7 of 70
response need not be anything remotely resembling a conventional “litcrit-approach”’ (Smith, 1990, p.56). Supporting Smith’s claim that
creative writing tasks are more ‘effective and productive’ (Corbett, 1990,
p.26) than analytical essays, Corbett states that, when teaching Macbeth,
the writing of spells, riddles, life stories of the witches and descriptions of
Macbeth’s castle led to a significant improvement in the quality of written
work (Corbett, 1990).
While projection and creative writing regularly feature in the
literature as student-centred approaches, the overwhelming majority of
the literature considers ‘dramatic exploration’ (Wade and Sheppard, 2006,
p.27) as an effective approach. Reynolds summarises most scholars when
insisting that ‘Shakespeare is incomplete and partial without the added
dimension of performance’ (Reynolds, 1991, p.191). For most scholars,
performance is the key to successful teaching. For example, Arnold,
evaluating her own teaching, regards approaching Shakespeare ‘with the
house lights still on and the curtain closed’ (Arnold, 1952, p.37) as a
mistake. Similarly, Graham claims that through performance-based
methods ‘imagination acts as a bridge to knowledge’ (Graham, 2002,
p.81) thus making an explicit connection between student-centred
approaches and facilitation of textual understanding. With much of the
literature considering the efficacy of approaching Shakespeare through
the dramatic medium, a great deal has inevitably been written in which
scholars evaluate the various drama-based activities they have employed.
Such activities are too numerous to dwell on here but they include the
Page 8 of 70
acting out of scenes and dialogues, freeze frames, choral speaking,
improvisations and hot seating, to name but a few.
The
literature
therefore
strongly
favours
student-centred
approaches (most notably through drama and performance) as a method
of overcoming pupils’ difficulties of engaging with Shakespeare’s language
on the page. However, a remaining concern identified by a number of
scholars is that such approaches, although productive, may not always be
conducive to the kind of learning that teachers desire. Evans, for example,
advocates student-centred approaches but also highlights the necessity to
balance this with more analytical, text-centred activities - while she
recommends written responses that are creative, she recognises that
such writing ‘is only a partial substitute for the formal discursive essay
and students... need pre-examination practice in writing essays’ (Evans,
1982, p.206).
While Evans employs a combination of approaches in order to
incorporate both creative and analytical tasks into her teaching, other
scholars have chosen to use student-centred approaches exclusively.
Having done so, Rice comments on how assessing the depth of pupils’
critical understanding became problematic. The creative tasks she set
prompted the production of ‘interesting and provocative texts’ (Rice, 2012,
p.101) from pupils but were not suitable for assessing ‘at what level they
comprehended, analysed or evaluated the play’ (Rice, 2012, p.101).
CEDAR’s evaluation of the RSC’s Learning and Performance Network
echoes Rice when describing teachers’ recurrent concern that the testing
Page 9 of 70
and examination system places restrictions on teachers’ choices and
pupils’ experience of Shakespeare (Neelands et al., 2009, p.54). CEDAR,
much like Rice, highlights a belief that student-centred approaches, while
highly engaging and motivating for young people, engender limited
progress in the development of critical written responses to Shakespeare.
Taggert and Haefner conducted a study in which the efficacy of a
student-centred approach was evaluated. Just as Evans affirms the
limitations of student-centred approaches for analytical thinking, the
results of Taggert and Haefner’s study raises similar concerns. Two
classes were taught Macbeth. One class was taught using a studentcentred approach and the other using a text-centred approach - creativity
was at the forefront of learning in one class, and analysis in the other.
The results of an end of unit test, designed to evaluate all pupils’
understanding of the play, revealed that the text-centred approach had a
significantly deeper knowledge of the play. Taggert and Haefner observed
that the class learning through a student-centred approach ‘failed to solve
some of the difficult but highly important abstract problems’ (Taggert and
Haefner, 1934, p.552). The conclusion was a lack of focus on analysis had
hindered scrutiny of the play’s themes and ideas.
Evans, Rice, Taggert and Haefner all cite the limitations of studentcentred approaches in initiating critical responses to Shakespeare - a vital
component of classroom studies of Shakespeare owing to its prominence
in GCSE English literature examinations. Gibson contributes to the
literature’s identification of this limitation when he recognises the
Page 10 of 70
disparity
between
student-centred
approaches
and
examination
requirements:
‘School Shakespeare’ is concerned to evoke ‘informed
personal response’, but not under the same conditions as public
examinations making the same claim (Gibson, 1994, p.143).
Such conclusions, therefore, raise a question mark above Cox’s
assertion that ‘performance-based approach will… lead to a deeper
understanding’ (Cox, 1989, paragraph 8.16). The concern of scholars is
therefore the depth of understanding student-centred approaches initiate
- Graham’s metaphorical bridge between imagination and knowledge, at
least for some scholars, may not be as easy to cross as she suggests. As
Bellamy points out, this is a particular issue for teachers differentiating for
gifted
and
talented
pupils
who,
already
having
a
comprehensive
understanding of a play’s narrative, require tasks that initiate a more
critical engagement with the text (Bellamy, 2005).
In conclusion, as a method of overcoming the inaccessible nature of
printed Shakespeare the literature advocates student-centred approaches,
most notably through the implementation of drama or performance-based
activities that engage pupils’ imagination, producing interesting and
enjoyable classroom experiences. However, although it is commonly
agreed that such approaches support pupils’ progress in knowing the play
and generate pupil engagement with the text, a concern exists that these
Page 11 of 70
approaches are not ideal for initiation of critical responses to Shakespeare.
When
teaching
Shakespeare,
lessons
approaches
might
therefore
require
approaches,
which,
although
often
employing
balancing
cited
by
the
student-centred
with
text-centred
literature
to
be
responsible for pupils’ disinterest in Shakespeare, is elsewhere held to be
integral to the development of critical understanding and examination
preparation. With so much importance placed upon examination results, it
may be unsurprising that while the literature generally favours studentcentred approaches, Wade and Sheppard’s 2006 survey of teachers’
approaches to Shakespeare found that ‘the most popular teaching
methods remain the traditional and transmissional ones’ (Wade and
Sheppard, 2006, p.27).
Rationale
The year nine class to which the four lessons of this SSA will be
taught consists of twenty-six pupils, seventeen of which are girls. The
class is a high-ability set – according to the school’s data exactly half the
pupils are categorised as gifted and talented and all the pupils’ reading
age is above their actual age. The class teacher expects all pupils achieve
at least a grade 5 (comparable to a B grade in the current grading
system) in their English GCSEs in 2017. Being, therefore, a highachieving
class
lessons
are
accordingly
challenging
and
regularly
incorporate tasks that promote analytical and critical responses to texts.
Page 12 of 70
With the two-month Macbeth scheme of work having begun at the
start of December and the lessons relevant to this SSA scheduled for midJanuary, pupils will already have comprehensive knowledge of most of the
play. The major piece of written assessment for this scheme of work is an
essay exploring Shakespeare’s presentation of the theme of power in
Macbeth and, therefore, lessons throughout the scheme have been
designed to draw pupils’ attention to this theme.
The teaching approaches I will employ in the four lessons will
include student-centred approaches such as dramatic exploration as
advocated by scholars such as Graham (2002, p.80) and Arnold (1952,
p.37) and creative writing tasks as advocated by Smith (1990, p.56) and
Corbett (1990, p.26). The primary aim when using these kinds of
approaches – approaches that all fall within Gibson’s concept of active
approaches – is to generate interest in and engagement with the text.
Effectively, I will be testing Gibson’s claim that the ‘necessary ingredients
of successful teaching and learning are active methods which open up the
dramatic and imaginative possibilities of Shakespeare’s plays’ (Gibson,
1994, p.143).
However, my secondary aim will be to initiate analysis of the text
through these student-centred approaches and, therefore, be able to
evaluate Graham and Cox’s claims that such approaches lead directly to a
critical understanding of the play. I will attempt to engender pupils into
making emotional responses to the text and assess how those responses
Page 13 of 70
lead to pupils’ understanding. CEDAR states that ‘this felt understanding
of characters and situation directly feeds pupils’ ability to analyse and
articulate their thoughts’ (Neelands et al., 2009, p.67) and it is this link
between feeling and analysing that I will seek to identify.
Alongside these student-centred approaches I will also employ textcentred approaches. The first reason for this is to develop pupils’ critical
writing skills – a necessary objective of any KS4 scheme of work on
Shakespeare. As Evans reminds us, pupils ‘need pre-examination practice
in writing essays’ (Evans, 1982, p.206). The second reason is to create
opportunities to evaluate how the learning during student-centred
approaches informs pupils’ critical understanding of Macbeth.
Thus, to summarise the investigative focus of this assignment,
through
using
a
combination
of
student-centred
and
text-centred
approaches I will firstly investigate how conducive the approaches are to
productive learning and, secondly, to what extent these approaches hold
a symbiotic relationship and work towards a shared objective of
developing pupils’ critical understanding of Shakespeare.
Lesson One Aims 3
The first lesson focused on act 4 scenes 2 and 3 of Macbeth. The
two scenes present the murder of Lady Macduff and her son, Malcom’s
testing of Macduff’s honour and Macduff’s decision to lead an attack on
3
Appendix 1
Page 14 of 70
Macbeth. The main learning objectives for pupils were firstly to familiarise
themselves with the scenes’ narrative and, secondly, to identify how
Shakespeare develops his presentation of Macbeth as a tyrant and sets up
Macduff as an avenger.
My personal aim for this lesson was to investigate the efficacy of
student-centred approaches in terms of their ability to raise pupil interest
in the text, as is commonly claimed by scholars. Gibson, for example,
claims that active approaches ‘enable students to inhabit the imaginative
world
of
the
play’
(Gibson,
1994,
p.144),
thus
initiating
pupils’
engagement with the text.
In order to cover the reading of these two scenes, the second of
which is rather lengthy, I planned to avoid what Evans calls ‘the often
dreary plod of reading from beginning to end [that] alienates the students
from the play’ (Evans, 1982, p.204) through an audio-reading of scene 3
as well as making a large cut to the scene. Working on the premise that
‘Shakespeare is incomplete and partial without the added dimension of
performance’ (Reynolds, 1991, p.191) and that Shakespeare should be
done ‘on your feet’ (RSC, p.2) I planned to bring the dynamics of
performance into the lesson – the lesson included the reading of scene 2
by selected pupils seated at the front of the class; rehearsing and
performing a short extract from the text; and the reading of scene 3
through following an audio recording of the scene – three activities that,
Page 15 of 70
to varying degrees of prominence, incorporated a sense of performance
into the lesson.
Although not an approach I have found in the literature on teaching
Shakespeare, the debate that required movement in response to
questions was included as a way of encouraging pupils to analyse the play
while echoing the first of the RSC’s mantras that Shakespeare should be
done ‘on your feet’ (RSC, p.2).
Lesson One Evaluation
The lesson plan was followed but with two major adjustments.
Timing, as I had anticipated, was an issue so that the final creative
writing task 4 was set as a homework rather than a class activity. The
other adjustment, however, had a more significant impact on the lesson –
with the school’s internet connection having been cut for the day, the
audio reading section of the lesson in which pupils listened to a
performance of the end of scene 3 had to be changed to a simple read
through of the text with selected pupils assigned to roles. Having already
covered act 4 scene 2 in a similar fashion earlier on in the lesson, the
repetitive mode of learning effectively induced Evans’ ‘dreary plod’ (1982,
p.204) through the play. While pupils had followed the text attentively
during the reading of scene 2, many pupils began to lose focus during
scene 3 – as I monitored the class I discovered three pupils on the wrong
page of their script. Thus, while I cannot make the conclusion that ‘the
4
Appendix 7
Page 16 of 70
added dimension of performance’ (Reynolds, 1991, p.191), as Reynolds
suggests, would have engaged the pupils any better, with the actors’
voices acting as a stimulus, I suspect that if I had been able to play the
audio, it would have raised more interest in the text.
While the reading of scene 3 was the least successful part of the
lesson, the most successful part was the active debate, thus supporting
the RSC’s claim that Shakespeare should be done ‘on your feet’ (RSC,
p.2), although, perhaps not quite in the sense it was intended. Factors
that enabled me to identify it as successful include the outstanding nature
of pupils’ behaviour due to their interest in the questions and each other’s
responses, as well as the quality of those responses.
For example, one of the lowest achieving pupils responded to the
question asking whether pupils still retained any sympathy for Macbeth by
standing near but not next to the wall marked ‘no’. The pupil justified his
position by saying that Macbeth had ‘gone too far over to the dark side’
by killing a child but he could not hold Macbeth completely responsible for
his actions because ‘his mental illness has turned him into like a zombie…
Zombies eat people, and can’t help eating people so you can’t blame
them for it.’ This raised further debate from the class regarding the
strength of the analogy. The debate was not only interesting for pupils
but was also the section of the lesson when it was most obvious that
learning was taking place.
Page 17 of 70
The drama task requiring pupils to rehearse and act out an extract
from scene 2 was met with high enthusiasm from the majority of the class.
However, there were a small number of pupils that were reluctant to
leave their seats and rehearse with their group. Gibson’s theory that
drama activities ‘enable students to inhabit the imaginative world of the
play’ (1994, p.144) and lead to ‘increased motivation’ (1994, p.143) may
therefore be correct for most pupils in the class but not all. For example,
one pupil when being assigned to a group of five immediately volunteered
to be the pupil without a part to play and said, ‘I hate drama so I won’t
do anything.’ Whilst being a strong advocate for the employment of
drama-based learning, Gibson himself, acknowledges that it may not be
ideally suited to all pupils:
All evidence points to the need for variety and balance of
method. There is no ‘one way’ into Shakespeare at any level; no
single method that works for all (Gibson, 1994, p.143).
While the drama task clearly had limitations on engaging the whole
class, most pupils participated well with one group requesting permission
to rehearse outside for extra space and two pupils complaining that they
were not given the opportunity perform their interpretation. The group
that performed to the class clearly enjoyed themselves and Pupil C – a
member of the group – had memorised her lines as the murderer and
enjoyed chasing the pupil playing Lady Macduff around the room.
Although the task was an enjoyable experience and may have provoked
Page 18 of 70
interest in the text which perhaps gave rise to further engagement during
the debate, I am not convinced that this particular drama task gave pupils
an opportunity to consider the play critically so I will be attempting to
design drama tasks for the following lessons that not only provoke
interest but also critical thinking.
Pupils’ positive response to the drama task and the debate supports
Gibson and the RSC’s advocacy of student-centred approaches to
teaching Shakespeare as a method of initiating personal responses to the
text. However, the success of the debate, in particular, suggests that
analysis should be a more prominent feature of lessons. The following
conversation with Student B during the lesson demonstrated the depth of
thinking of which pupils were capable and thus provides further evidence
of the necessity for analysis to feature in lessons:
Student B: How old is Malcom supposed to be?
Me:
That’s open to interpretation. What do you think?
Student B: I think he must be young because else he wouldn’t need
Macduff to play such an important role in the attack on
Macbeth.
Me:
That’s an interesting point. So how old do you think he
is?
Student:
Maybe twenty?
Page 19 of 70
Additionally, Pupils B and C both agreed with the following statement in
the Likert scale pupil questionnaire 5: ‘I would like to do more activities in
class that analyse sections of Shakespeare’s text in close detail.’ There is
therefore both a desire and requirement for opportunities to analyse and
respond to the text critically in this class and thus, the following lessons
shall be planned accordingly.
Lesson Two Aims 6
The class teacher identified act 5 scene 1 – Lady Macbeth’s
sleepwalking – as a scene that requires more extensive focus than other
scenes and, therefore, the second and third lessons were planned to look
at this scene in detail. As pupils will write an essay on the theme of power,
my aim was for pupils to analyse Lady Macbeth’s language in order to
identify how Shakespeare’s character development transitions her from
being powerful to a powerless. In response to the necessity for inclusion
of analysis in lessons but also the enjoyment produced by the studentcentred approach of the previous lesson, I attempted to plan activities in
the second lesson that assimilated kinaesthetic learning with critical
thinking.
I created an opportunity to evaluate the validity of Grahams’ claim
that through employment of performance-based methods ‘imagination
acts as a bridge to knowledge’ (Graham, 2002, p.81) and thus making an
5
6
Appendix 5
Appendix 2
Page 20 of 70
explicit connection between student-centred approaches and facilitation of
textual understanding. This investigation would similarly address the
premise that ‘this felt understanding of characters and situation directly
feeds pupils’ ability to analyse and articulate their thoughts’ (Neelands et
al., 2009, p.67).
Two tasks were designed to test these assertions. The starter,
involving choral speaking of lines from the scene with pupils stood in a
circle was intended to provoke interest and generate enjoyment. After
pupils returned to their seats I planned to ask pupils for their initial
reactions to the lines and I attempted to generate discussion that
considered the lines and characterisation of Lady Macbeth in detail. The
depth of responses to these lines would determine how much the drama
task had provoked a critical response.
Similarly, the activity in which pupils directed an individual pupil’s
delivery of a short extract of the Lady Macbeth’s lines was intended to link
performance with analysis. However, during this task performance and
analysis were merged so that pupils’ analysis was ideally informing and
reinventing the performance organically. Effectively, I was attempting to
avoid the situation that troubled Rice where student-centred approaches
generated interest but were not suitable for assessing ‘at what level
[pupils] comprehended, analysed or evaluated the play’ (Rice, 2012,
p.101). The success of this activity would provide me with the opportunity
Page 21 of 70
to investigate to what degree a drama-based approach can involve pupils
in analysis.
Finally, in response to the loss of attention during the reading
through of act 4 scene 3 in the previous lesson, and with the internet
reconnected at the school, an audio-recording was used in order to
engage pupils through the reading of the scene.
Lesson Two Evaluation
This lesson was less successful than the first. Possibly pupils were
less motivated due to the lesson falling on the last period of a Friday.
However, it is similarly possible that the lack of planned group work or
the challenging nature of tasks contributed to the overall air of malaise
that pervaded the class.
Only around half the class appeared engaged through the dramabased starter and those who were lacked enthusiasm to deliver the lines
with conviction. However, the discussion that revolved around pupils’
initial response to these lines was more productive. Pupil B quickly
identified how Lady Macbeth’s lines signified a deterioration of her mental
state and another commented on how she cannot escape her conscience.
The brief but productive discussion demonstrated that, at least on this
day with this particular starter activity, pupils were more comfortable with
analysis than drama. Pupils engagement here is supportive of Corbett’s
claim that predictions ‘make Shakespeare’s play seem very much their
Page 22 of 70
own, when their ideas [are] found in part of the script’ (Corbett, 1990,
p.22), thus generating interest in the text.
During the final text-centred task in which pupils compared lines
from scene one with lines from earlier scenes, pupils similarly exhibited
their enjoyment of voicing their interpretations. With two pupils stood at
the front representing Lady Macbeth at two different stages of character
development and reading the selected lines, pupils listened and then
compared and contrasted. Initially, pupils were slow to volunteer their
thoughts. However, the following lines provoked an avalanche of
participation:
•
Lady Macbeth: What’s done cannot be undone. (Act 5 Scene 1, Line
57)
•
Lady Macbeth: What’s done, is done. (Act 3 Scene 2, Line 12)
One pupil said that she was just saying the same thing. When asked
if she would be speaking with a different tone of voice he said that the
quotation from act 3 would be spoken with more confidence. This sparked
a debate with a great many hands being raised. One pupil said that the
tone would depend on how it was performed so possibly they could be
delivered in exactly the same tone. Then another pupil challenged this by
claiming that act 5 scene 1 as a whole presented Lady Macbeth as a
fragile character and so it would be delivered with a sense of fear. After
many pupils agreed another pupil bravely challenged this by quoting from
Page 23 of 70
act 5 scene 1 to illustrate how Lady Macbeth occasionally relapses into
confident arrogance.
While supportive of the importance Corbett places on pupils
‘mak[ing] Shakespeare’s play seem very much their own’ (Corbett, 1990,
p.22) through personal interpretation, this sudden increase in pupil
engagement during the task was also interesting due to the absence of
any active or drama-based approach, particularly in view of pupils’ lack of
motivation during the choral speaking starter. This calls into question the
RSC’s assertion that Shakespeare is best done ‘on your feet’ (RSC, p.2)
and suggests that perhaps, at least in terms of textual analysis, certain
classes or pupils, depending on their demeanour during the lesson, may
be more comfortable with traditional deskbound study.
The least successful part of the lesson was the most experimental
task for me as a teacher – a task attempting to employ both
performance-based learning and analysis equally and simultaneously in
order to provoke both pupil engagement and critical thought. The task
was largely a failure due to pacing and pupils’ reluctance to demonstrate
how the selected pupil at the front of the class should deliver the lines.
Ideally, I wanted pupils to analyse each sentence’s language and feed
that analysis into their directions of delivery.
In hindsight, the order of these two steps may have been central to
the task’s failure – Graham speaks of ‘imagination act[ing] as a bridge to
knowledge’ (Graham, 2002, p.81) rather than knowledge acting as a
Page 24 of 70
bridge to imagination. Similarly, Neelands et al.’s claim that ‘felt
understanding… directly feeds pupils’ ability to analyse’ (Neelands et al.,
2009, p.67) does not state that pupils’ ability to analyse leads on
naturally to the expressive performance I was hoping we would create
together as a group. In fact, this reversal of the natural progression from
performance to analysis may have been responsible for the pacing issue –
the constant return to analysis before direction felt clunky, thus stalling
pupils’ engagement with the directing of the performance. If I were to
attempt the analysis of the same lines again in the future, I would employ
small group work to create dramatic interpretations of the lines and then
move onto analysis, thus separating the dimension of performance from
the critical thinking.
However, there were still successful elements to the task that
mainly stemmed from pupils’ analysis of the lines rather than from the
drama. For example, it was interesting that pupils interpreted the line,
‘One, two,’ in ways that I had not considered – while my interpretation of
this was Shakespeare referring back to Lady Macbeth’s ringing of the bell
in order to signal Macbeth to enter the chamber and murder Duncan, one
pupil suggested it could refer to the two bloody daggers she had placed in
the chamber and another suggested it could refer to the two guards.
There was also some debate over how to interpret the line, ‘Hell is murky.’
Pupil B thought ‘it’s just saying that she is dreaming of Hell – she’s not
actually there.’ Another pupil, however, suggested she wasn’t dreaming of
Hell, but she was expressing her fear of it. Another pupil offered yet
Page 25 of 70
another interpretation saying, ‘It’s a metaphor. She is saying Scotland is
like hell because of what they’ve done.’
It was the analysis that therefore seemed to pique pupils’ interest,
rather than the drama, which slowed down and interrupted pupils’
analysis of the lines. This calls into question Gibson’s claim that
‘enabl[ing] students to inhabit the imaginative world of the play’ (Gibson,
1994, p.144) is necessary for effective teaching. Furthermore, it supports
Hall’s assertion that a text-centred approach can create an ‘exciting
experience in the classroom’ (Hall, 1967, p.564).
Lesson Three Aims 7
Having spent the second lesson looking at act 5 scene 1 through
drama and discussion-based activities, the third lesson was designed to
require a critical written response from pupils. As we have seen, scholars
write extensively on the virtues of student-centred approaches and
attempt to deter teachers from text-centred, traditional approaches –
Wade an Sheppard, for example, believe there is ‘an urgent need to
encourage study of plays through student-centred dramatic exploration’
(Wade and Sheppard, 2006, p.27). There still remains, however, a
frequently observed necessity for pupils to write critical responses.
Gibson, for example, identifies ‘the need for variety and balance of
method’ (1994, p.143) and thus, while he views ‘school Shakespeare’
7
Appendix 3
Page 26 of 70
(1994, p.143) and examination Shakespeare as disparate concepts – the
former of which he clearly favours – he may be acknowledging that there
is still a place for written critical responses to Shakespeare in the
classroom. Evans is more explicit in her support for inclusion of critical
written responses within her scheme of work when recognising that
creative writing ‘is only a partial substitute for the formal discursive essay
and students... need pre-examination practice in writing essays’ (Evans,
1982, p.206).
My decision to devote a whole lesson to developing pupils’ skills in
written critical responses was also influenced by the class teacher’s
feedback from the second lesson which expressed concern that the lesson
was set at a ‘pace not suited to the ability of the class’. Through asking
pupils to write critical responses under timed conditions I hoped to ensure
that the pace of the lesson was maintained and, indeed, challenging for
pupils.
The quality of pupils’ writing would inform my judgements regarding
my investigation into how, as Cox claims, ‘performance-based approach
will… lead to a deeper understanding’ (Cox, 1989, paragraph 8.16) – was
the learning taking place during the previous lesson with its inclusion of
four activities, each relating in some way to the dimension of performance,
constructive preparation for pupils’ written analysis of the scene?
Lesson Three Evaluation
Page 27 of 70
The lesson, though successful, required alteration. Pupils were
unsure of how to answer the second question and after a few minutes of
monitoring and identifying the lack of production, the written work was
paused and group discussion leading to class feedback was initiated in
order to provide some stimulus. When asked who thought they needed
discussion before attempting the third question, the majority of hands
went up. This was particularly interesting as while the second question did
not relate directly to any of the tasks in the previous lesson, the third
question did – we had spent a whole task focusing on selected lines
through discussion and drama and it was these very same lines that I was
now asking pupils on which to write an analysis. After a few minutes of
group work and feedback pupils regained their confidence and were able
to write their analysis.
The necessity for this brief discussion and feedback session did not
necessarily disprove Cox’s assertion that ‘performance-based approach
will… lead to a deeper understanding’ (Cox, 1989, paragraph 8.16) –
pupils merely required some extra scaffolding in order to acquire some
understanding of how to tackle the question. It may, significantly perhaps,
suggest that the jump from drama to written analysis does not present
pupils with a smooth transition between these modes of learning and
requires discussion to mediate between them – the discussion was a
necessary stepping stone.
Page 28 of 70
Pupil A’s written analysis 8 demonstrated an engagement with the
play’s context:
She is trying to wash a spot off her hands. This spot is
reminiscent of the devil’s mark which was a mark witches were
thought to have… This shows Shakespeare pandering to King
James’ obsession with witchcraft.
Having not been discussed, this idea was independently conceived and is
illustrative of the level of critical understanding Pupil A exhibited in his
writing.
Pupil C’s writing 9, while of a lower standard compared to Pupil A,
also demonstrated her ability to analyse the language:
Her frustration is shown through short sentences and the
use of question marks as if she is questioning herself like she is
insecure.
Pupils were, therefore, able to produce critical written responses
exhibiting an analytical engagement with Shakespeare’s text, albeit with
the aid of extra scaffolding through discussion. The question, however,
still remains over whether or not they would have been as successful
having not engaged in the drama-based activities in the previous lesson.
Arguably, the creativity involved in the previous lesson engendered pupils’
interest in the scene and therefore opened up the text as language pupils
8
9
Appendix 8
Appendix 8
Page 29 of 70
could feel confident in analysing rather than ‘seem[ing]… entirely foreign
[leaving pupils] feel[ing] angry or humiliated’ (West, 1998, p.vii).
Pupils’ behaviour being consistently good throughout the lesson also
signified their interest in the text. This could also suggest that the
student-centred approaches of the previous lesson had acted as a ‘bridge
to knowledge’ (Graham, 2002, p.81) as ‘would-be evaders became
absorbed and enlivened by [performance-based] activities centred around
Shakespeare’s text’ (Graham, 2002, p.80).
Lesson Four Aims 10
Having evaluated the third lesson’s success in engendering a critical
written response being due to the interest raised in the second lesson’s
performance-based activities, I formulated a lesson plan for the fourth
lesson to incorporate tasks solely intended to raise interest, followed by
tasks requiring pupils to respond critically. As Hall says, teachers should
‘approach [a Shakespeare play] in a manner which will best facilitate its
understanding’ (Hall, 1967, p.565) and at this point of the assignment,
the approach that I was now favouring was a two-step process of dramabased engagement in order to engender a purely felt response, followed
by a text-centred task that demanded a critical response. Effectively, I
was aligning my teaching practice with CEDAR’s assertion that ‘this felt
understanding of characters and situation directly feeds pupils’ ability to
10
Appendix 4
Page 30 of 70
analyse and articulate their thoughts’ (Neelands et al., 2009, p.67). I was
considering it a mistake to attempt to overtly bring the dimension of
critical analysis into drama-based tasks as I had tried previously.
The reading of act 5 scene 2 around a circle in conspiratorial voices
and the striking of poses illustrating the Thanes representations of
Macbeth were therefore intended as a way into the text, initiating interest
and making an ‘exciting experience in the classroom’ (Hall, 1967, p.564).
The following task, requiring pupils to return to their desks, switched the
mode of learning to a text-centred, traditional approach revolving around
a discussion of how and why Shakespeare uses the imagery of clothing in
the scene and throughout the play.
The pattern repeated itself with pupils identifying the tone of two
contrasting speeches by Macbeth in act 5 scene 3 and rehearsing the
speeches in pairs. Discussion was planned to follow this drama-based
activity that required pupils to consider to what extent Macbeth conforms
to the definition of a tragic hero.
The success of this alternating teaching approach was to be
evaluated through the engagement of the pupils – would pupils
participate and enjoy the drama-based activities and would they engage
and respond appropriately to the text-centred discussions?
Page 31 of 70
Lesson Four Evaluation
The fourth lesson was complicated by a delayed start to the planned
activities
due
to
the
need to
address issues surrounding
pupils’
completion of homework assignments over the winter holiday – having
collected exercise books at the end of lesson three I had identified a large
number of pupils with missing work. As a result, some activities required
shortening.
With a large portion of the class having been asked to discuss their
homework issues during the lunch hour, it is perhaps unsurprising that
pupils did not begin the planned activities with a high level of motivation.
When asked to stand up and form a circle for the reading of act 5 scene 2
the class responded with such reluctance that I abandoned the request
and directed pupils to whisper the lines from their seats. Pupils each read
a piece of the text as planned, but many spoke their lines rather than
whispering conspiratorially, as instructed. Pupils’ enthusiasm for engaging
with the text through this drama-based activity was therefore identifiably
lacking as well as disappointing.
However, interestingly, the subsequent analysis of Shakespeare’s
use of clothing imagery through a text-centred approach challenged the
pupils and initiated perceptive responses. One pupil, for example, said
that Macbeth had ‘put on the robe of authority but it doesn’t fit him.’ The
discussion developed to thinking about the purpose of clothing and then
Page 32 of 70
about how people’s image represents their personality before considering
other examples of Shakespeare’s use of clothing imagery in the play.
Although no strong conclusions were made as to why this recurring
imagery is employed, pupils contributed well to the discussion.
The differing levels of engagement with these two tasks is
significant as although pupils’ lack of motivation to participate in the first
drama-based task prevented them from ‘inhabit[ing] the imaginative
world of the play’ (Gibson, 1994, p.144) pupils were still able to critically
respond to the text-centred approach of the second task. It could
therefore be argued that while CEDAR claims that ‘this felt understanding
of characters and situation directly feeds pupils’ ability to analyse and
articulate their thoughts’ (Neelands et al., 2009, p.67), and although,
pupils’ response to these two activities does not disprove such a
statement, a drama-based approach is not a prerequisite for pupils’
engagement with Shakespeare’s language and the development of critical
understanding.
The second drama-based activity proved more successful with
pupils acting out two of Macbeth’s speeches in pairs with contrasting
tones – one spoken defiantly and the other spoken sombrely. Pupils’
participation suggested that this task had generated an ‘exciting
experience in the classroom’ (Hall, 1967, p.564). The discussion that
followed proved equally productive as illustrated by the following
Page 33 of 70
interaction I had with one pupil when asked whether Shakespeare intends
the audience to sympathise with Macbeth:
Pupil:
No, because in the first speech he is so strong.
Me:
By ‘strong’ you mean arrogant or defiant, right?
Pupil:
Yeah. You can’t like him after he’s like that.
Me:
But what about the second speech – how does he
appear
Pupil:
then?
Well, like we said, he seems quite depressed. But that
doesn’t mean that I have any sympathy for him because
just a page ago in the other speech he was so arrogant.
Me:
So you’re saying his remorse is inconsistent?
Pupil:
Yeah. He keeps changing. It’s annoying.
In the case of the pairing of these two tasks, both being more
successful than their respective counterparts earlier on in the lesson,
there appeared to be a clearer link between pupils’ engagement in and
enjoyment of the drama-based task and the pupils’ ability to respond
critically during the text-centred task, thus supporting CEDAR’s assertion
of the link between feeling and understanding. However, a contributing
factor to the relative success of these later tasks may be attributable to
the way in which they both focused upon the characterisation of Macbeth.
Page 34 of 70
In hindsight, the earlier drama-based task which covered a whole scene
and, therefore, lacked focus on Shakespeare’s use of clothing imagery,
may well have not provided pupils with the opportunity to form a ‘felt
understanding’ (Neelands et al., 2009, p.67) of that imagery – a narrower
focus could have proved more productive.
Conclusion
The evaluations of my lessons have led me to form various
conclusions regarding pedagogical approaches to Shakespeare. Firstly, a
balance of student-centred and text-centred activities is effective in
initiating interest in the text and then moving pupils towards development
of their critical understanding of it – the former laying the foundations for
the latter. During the interview 11 that followed the fourth lesson, Pupil A
commented that he ‘quite liked the murder scene where we were acting it
out because it made it very memorable – the lines and things that we
needed for the essay.’ Arguably, Pupil A is alluding to what I hoped to
identify as a symbiotic relationship between student-centred and textcentred approaches. Such conclusions are supportive of Gibson’s claim
that teachers should approach Shakespeare through a ‘variety and
balance of method’ (Gibson, 1994, p.143) and, like Evans, acknowledges
the necessity for ‘pre-examination practice in writing essays’ (Evans,
1982, p.206) within any scheme of work on Shakespeare.
11
Appendix 6
Page 35 of 70
Due to the inclusion and prevalence of drama-based activities within
the four lessons, I was able to avoid the ‘deadening factor’ (Taylor, 1990,
p.29) the printed words of Shakespeare can impose upon lessons.
However, perhaps surprisingly, it became clear that pupils exhibited both
interest in and desire to participate in text-centred analysis. This was not
only evident from pupils’ participation in lessons, but also through the
pupil questionnaire and interview. Both Pupils B and C’s answers to the
questionnaire 12 convey their enthusiasm for activities in class that analyse
Shakespeare’s text in close detail. This enthusiasm was again exhibited
during the interview 13:
Me:
In which lesson, or activity, do you feel you learned the
most?
Pupil C:
I liked the one where we wrote about her sleepwalking.
I
don’t know what it was but I felt like I understood it
more
because we had the writing so I was just looking at the
text and I could like follow it.
Pupil B:
I agree with what [Pupil C] says because we never
really
write in the way that we are meant to write in the
GCSE
so talking about how we should be writing… was
helpful.
12
13
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Page 36 of 70
Arguably, therefore, the class valued the text-centred approach
above the student-centred approach. However, such conclusions are
limited to this particular class of which half the pupils are categorised as
gifted and talented, and therefore, a class with a wider or lower range of
abilities may have responded less favourably towards text-centred
approaches that require pupils to produce written critical responses as the
third lesson did.
Further conclusions can also be reached relating to the efficacy of
drama-based approaches. The drama tasks that seemed particularly
effective were those, such as the rehearsing of the murder of Macduff’s
wife and son, which were conducted in small groups, rather than as a
class. In the interview 14 Pupil C commented on how whole class drama
activities limited participation as they ‘only got to do one line each.’ Group
work therefore ‘enables [all] students to inhabit the imaginative world of
the play’ (Gibson, 1994, p. 144).
My evaluation of the fourth lesson leads to the conclusion that
drama-based tasks that are intended to initiate interest in the text and to
be followed by analysis of a particular feature are most effective when
they are narrow in focus. In order to employ drama-based tasks that
successfully create learning experiences where ‘imagination acts as a
bridge to knowledge’ (Graham, 2002, p.81), those tasks need to have
clear relevance to the learning that will follow through textual analysis. In
14
Appendix 6
Page 37 of 70
the future, I will therefore ensure that drama-based tasks are designed
predominantly for small groups and, although primarily aiming at raising
pupil interest in the text, bare clear relevance to any text-centred analysis
that may follow.
My final conclusion is that many scholars espouse theories on the
right way to teach Shakespeare. However, as Gibson concedes, ‘there is
no single method that works for all’ (Gibson, 1994, p.143) and although
the benefits of student-centred approaches are advantageous in initiating
classroom learning, their success can vary greatly depending on whatever
attitude your pupils happen to bring to the lesson on the day.
Page 38 of 70
Works Cited
•
Arnold, E. M. (1952). No More Hurly-Burly. The English Journal.
41(1), 37-38.
•
Bellamy, L. (2005). A critical analysis of how differentiation can
promote the full inclusion of three gifted and talented students in a
mixed ability, Year 9 studying Macbeth. English Teaching: Practice
and Critique. 4(2), 72-83.
•
Corbett, H. (1990). A Second Year Macbeth at Newquay: Practical
Classwork. In R. Gibson (Ed.), Secondary School Shakespeare:
Classroom Practice (pp. 21-26). NonSubs Records via Curriculum
Corporation and TCF.
•
Cox, B. (1989). The Cox Report. Education in England – The History
of Our Schools [Online]. Available from:
Page 39 of 70
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/cox1989/cox89.ht
ml [Accessed 3rd December 2014]
•
DfE (2014). National curriculum in England: English programmes of
study – Key Stage 4 [Online]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachme
nt_data/file/331877/KS4_English_PoS_FINAL_170714.pdf
[Accessed 8th December 2014]
•
Evans, T. (1981). Teaching English. Croom Helm.
•
Gibson, R. (1994). Teaching Shakespeare in Schools. In S. Brindley
(Ed.), Teaching English (pp. 140-148). Routledge.
•
Graham, G. (2002). “To Perform or Not to Perform?” A Question
Worth Exploring. The English Journal. 92(1), 80-87.
•
Green, B., Cormack, P. & Patterson, A. (2013). Re-reading the
reading lesson: episodes in the history of reading pedagogy. Oxford
Review of Education. 39(3), 329-344.
Page 40 of 70
•
Green, M. (1994). Sixth Form and Pressure: Why Teach
Shakespeare at A Level? In A. J. Hoenselaars (Ed.), Reclamations of
Shakespeare (pp. 281-302). Rodopi B. V. Editions.
•
Hall, E. W. (1967). Color Him Red. The English Journal. 56(4), 564565.
•
Neelands, J., Galloway, S. & Lindsay, G. (2009). An Evaluation of
Stand Up for Shakespeare: The Royal Shakespeare Company
Learning and Performance Network 2006-2009 [Online]. CEDAR
(Centre for Educational Development Appraisal and Research),
University of Warwick. Available from:
https://www.rsc.org.uk/downloads/lpn_evaluation_june_09_final_re
port_june_09.pdf [Accessed 19th December 2014]
•
Reynolds, P. (1991). Unlocking the Box: Shakespeare on Film and
Video. In Aers, L. & Wheale, N. (Eds.), Shakespeare in the Changing
Curriculum (pp. 189-203). Routledge.
•
Rice, M. (2012). Filtering Shakespeare teaching through Curricular
Common places. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. 11(3), 98107.
Page 41 of 70
•
RSC. A Manifesto for Shakespeare in Schools [Online].
http://www.rsc.org.uk/downloads/stand-up-for-shakespearemanifesto.pdf [Accessed 6th January 2015]
•
Smith, R. (1990). Beginning Writing. In R. Gibson (Ed.), Secondary
School Shakespeare: Classroom Practice (pp. 57-62). NonSubs
Records via Curriculum Corporation and TCF.
•
Taggert, L. & Haefner, G. E. (1934). Two Methods of Teaching
“Macbeth”. The English Journal. 23(7), 543-553.
•
Taylor, A. (1990). A Second Year Macbeth: Beginning Shakespeare.
In R. Gibson (Ed.), Secondary School Shakespeare: Classroom
Practice (pp. 27-32). NonSubs Records via Curriculum Corporation
and TCF.
•
Wade, B. & Sheppard, J. (2006). How Teachers Teach Shakespeare.
Educational Review. 46(1), 21-28.
•
West, G. (1998). An Approach to Shakespeare. Continnuum.
Page 42 of 70
Page 43 of 70
Appendix 1: Lesson Plan 1 and Resources
Act 4 Scenes 2&3, Avenger
Date: 7.1.2015
Learning Outcome:
Success Criteria:
KS4 National Curriculum Reference:
To identify the opposition between a
tyrant and an avenger in act 4 of
Macbeth and how Shakespeare sets
up the final act’s action.
Did pupils identify how Macduff is set up as the
avenger?
improvising, rehearsing and performing play scripts and
poetry in order to generate language and discuss language
use and meaning
Did pupils analyse how Shakespeare presents
tyranny?
Activities
Time
Resources
Student Learning
1] Starter: Show pupils images of avengers and elicit a descriptive response. Who is going to be
the avenger in Macbeth?
3
PPT
Pupils think about Macbeth’s
characters as narrative devices.
2] Select students to sit at the front of the class to read the roles of Lady Macduff, Ross, Son,
Messenger and Murderer for Act 4 Scene 2. (P 49)
3
Copies of
Macbeth
Pupils learn the narrative of
the scene.
3] Read through the scene.
5
-
4] Acting – in groups of 3, rehearse the end of the scene from the messenger’s entry at line 62 (P
51). Before starting ask pupils to consider the delivery of their lines.
8
-
5] Presentation from one group.
3
-
6] Audio reading of Act 4 Scene 3.
Pupils engage with the scene
dramatically.
Pupils learn the narrative of
the scene.
This is a long scene which will be heavily edited. Explain to pupils that Malcom and Macduff, as of
yet unaware of his family’s murder, meet in England and Malcom tests Macduff to see if he could
be traitorous and in league with Macbeth. Malcom pretends to be corrupted, even more than
Page 44 of 70
12
Youtube
Macbeth to see Macduff’s reaction. It is like a job interview to see if Macduff is worthy of leading
a rebellion against Macbeth. Macduff passes. Read briefly from line 58 to 86 (P 54) and 104 to
116 (P 55).
Then
an
audio
reading
from
the
Doctor’s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF4fVMXOFPc (6 min)
entry.
From
1.59.30
Debate: ‘Yes’ is the back wall, ‘No’ is the front wall.
•
•
•
•
Do you have a good impression of Macduff?
Do you have any sympathy for Macbeth now?
Do you think Lady Macduff acted stupidly?
In act 4 scene 4 the doctor described how the King of England could cure people through
touch. Assuming such a power could exist, do you consider this any different from
witchcraft?
• Often productions of Macbeth cut the whole of act 4 scene 3 out. It is definitely quite
long, but is it an important scene?
Creative Writing: Become the avenger! Imagine you are Macduff. Having learnt of the slaughter
of your wife and son, write a message to Macbeth.
OR
Pupils are active but analysing
the scenes.
10
15
In lines 166-175 Ross tells what Scotland is like under Macbeth’s rule. Extend his speech by a few
lines describing the suffering of society. Perhaps bring in some hellish imagery or describe how
Macbeth is responsible for the misery.
Differentiation:
-
Exercise
Books
Pupils understanding of the
scenes informs their creative
writing.
Assessment Opportunities:
Assessment of contribution to
yes/no debate.
Differentiation through creative writing tasks.
Assessment of creative writing
task.
Page 45 of 70
Starter: What kind of character is
this?
L.O.
•To identify the concept of
a tyrant and an avenger
and how Shakespeare sets
up the final act’s action.
Slide 1
Audio reading of Act 4 Scene 3.
Drama:
• We are going to read through act 4
scene 2 (page 49). I need volunteers
for the roles of Lady Macduff, Ross,
Son, Messenger and Murderer.
• Rehearse the end of the scene from
the messenger’s entry at line 62 (PAGE
51). Before starting, consider the
delivery of their lines, movement on
the stage and how you will
choreograph the action – don’t hurt
each other please.
• Roles: Messenger, Lady Macduff, Son
and Murderer.
Yes/No Debate
•Let’s listen to the audio to read
through the last third of the
scene from line 142 (PAGE 56):
• Do you have a good impression of Macduff?
• Do you think Lady Macduff acted stupidly?
• In act 4 scene 4 the doctor described how the King
of England could cure people through touch.
Assuming such a power could exist, do you
consider this any different from witchcraft?
• Often productions of Macbeth cut the whole of act
4 scene 3 out. It is definitely quite long, but is it an
important scene?
Slide 7
• This is a long scene of which we will cut a lot
out. Summary of the cut: Malcom and Macduff,
as of yet unaware of his family’s murder, meet
in England and Malcom tests Macduff to see if
he could be traitorous and in league with
Macbeth. Malcom pretends to be corrupted,
even more than Macbeth to see Macduff’s
reaction. It is like a job interview to see if
Macduff is worthy of leading a rebellion against
Macbeth. Macduff passes the test. Let’s read a
little of this section to get a clearer picture:
• Line 58 to 86 (page 54) and 104 to 116 (page
55).
Slide 6
Slide 5
Audio Recording:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF4fVMXOFPc
• From 1.59.30 (6 minutes)
Slide 3
Slide 2
Volunteers:
Slide 4
•Who is going to be the
avenger in Macbeth?
Slide 8
Page 46 of 70
Creative Writing: Act 4 Scene 3
• Become the avenger! Imagine you are Macduff.
Having learnt of the slaughter of your wife and son,
write a message to Macbeth.
OR
• In lines 166-175 Ross tells what Scotland is like
under Macbeth’s rule. Extend his speech by a few
lines describing the suffering of society. Write in
modern English. Perhaps bring in some hellish
imagery or describe how Ross views Macbeth as
responsible for the misery.
Slide 9
Appendix 2: Lesson Plan 2 and Resources
Yr 9 Macbeth: Act 5 Scene 1
Date: 9.1.2015
Learning Outcome:
Success Criteria:
KS4 National Curriculum Reference:
To engage with act 5 scene 1 of Macbeth through
drama tasks and identify how Shakespeare present
a development of Lady Macbeth’s character in this
scene.
Did the drama activities
engage pupils and
prompt analysis?
improvising, rehearsing and performing play scripts and poetry in
order to generate language and discuss language use and meaning,
using role, intonation, tone, volume, mood, silence, stillness and
action to add impact.
Activities
Time
Resources
1] Starter: Drama – choral speaking / acting of key lines in a circle:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Doctor: ‘What at any time have you heard her say?’
Gentlewoman: ‘That, sir, which I will not report after her.’
Doctor: ‘Look how she rubs her hands.’
Lady Macbeth: ‘Yet here’s a spot… Out, damned spot! Out, I say!
One, two.
Hell is murky.
The thane of Fife had a wife.
Banquo’s buried; he cannot come out on’s grave.’
What’s done cannot be undone.
Doctor: Foul whisp’rings are abroad; unnatural deeds.
Student Learning
Students learn from the
drama task that the scene
presents Lady Macbeth as
a character whose mental
stability has dissolved and
her guilty conscience has
taken control of her.
10
PPT
10
Copies of
Macbeth
Pupils discuss their initial reaction to the scene. How is lady Macbeth feeling at this point of the
play?
2] Reading: Select 3 pupils confident in drama to act out the reading of the scene.
Page 47 of 70
Pupils
familiarise
themselves with the scene
– testing their projections.
3] Ask the class to direct a pupil to deliver lines 25-30. Create the drama with decisions line by line.
While doing so draw attention to the erratic language – the breakdown of her mental processes
signified by the breakdown of coherent thought; Short sentences; recognition of guilt mixed with
defiant arrogance.
PPT,
10
Act 5 scene 1, lines 25-30:
Copies of
Macbeth,
One copy
for actor.
Lady Macbeth: Out, damned spot! Out, I say! One, two. Why then ‘tis time to do’t. Hell is murky.
Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear? Who knows it, when none can call our
power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?
4] Select 2 more pupils to stand face to face at the front of the class. Both pupils are Lady Macbeth
but from different points in the play. Only they see the lines they will read. Ask them to read the
lines to the class and discuss with pupils how the lines illustrate character development.
Pupils learn to analyse
character
development
through comparisons of
quotations.
A] A5S1 (Line 25): Out, damned spot! Out, I say! / A2S2 (Line 70): A little water clears us of this
deed.
B] Add Macbeth – A2S2 (Line 63-64): Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood / Clean from
my hand?
Pupils learn to analyse the
play as stage directors.
10
Copy of
Lines,
PPT
C] A5S1 (Line 46): What’s done cannot be undone. / A3S2 What’s done, is done. (Line 12)
After discussion, reveal the lines and line references on the PPT and give pupils a moment to
annotate.
Differentiation:
Assessment Opportunities:
Assessment of creative
writing task and discussion
contribution.
Differentiation through outcome for creative writing task.
LAPs learning is supported through drama activities to engage them.
HAPs have opportunities to analyse the play through the drama activities.
Page 48 of 70
Lesson 2 Resource:
Starter:
•
•
•
•
•
Doctor: What at any time have you heard her say?
Gentlewoman: That, sir, which I will not report after her.
Doctor: Look how she rubs her hands.
Lady Macbeth:
o Yet here’s a spot.
o Out, damned spot! Out, I say!
o One, two.
o Hell is murky.
o The thane of Fife had a wife.
o Banquo’s buried; he cannot come out on’s grave.
o What’s done cannot be undone.
Doctor: Foul whisp’rings are abroad; unnatural deeds.
Speech Direction:
Lady Macbeth: Out, damned spot! Out, I say! One, two. Why then ‘tis time to
do’t. Hell is murky. Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear?
Who knows it, when none can call our power to account? Yet who would have
thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?
Character Development:
Lady Macbeth 1
A] Out, damned spot! Out, I say!
B] What’s done cannot be undone.
Lady Macbeth 2
A] A little water clears us of this deed.
B] What’s done, is done.
Macbeth
A] Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand?
Page 49 of 70
Slide 1
Slide 2
Slide 3
Slide 4
Slide 5
Slide 6
Slide 7
Page 50 of 70
Appendix 3: Lesson Plan 3 and Resources
Yr 9 Macbeth: Act 5 Scene 1 Critical Response
Date: 13.1.2015
Learning Outcome:
Success Criteria:
KS4 National Curriculum Reference:
To write critical responses
to questions relating to act
5 scene 1.
Did pupils’ writing show a deep understanding of the
text as a result of the previous lesson’s drama activities
and discussions?
selecting and organising ideas, facts and key points, and citing
evidence, details and quotation effectively and pertinently for
support and emphasis
Activities
Time
Resources
Student Learning
1] Starter: Without opening your copies of Macbeth, can you remember any lines from act 5
scene 1? Work in pairs for 1 minute.
5
PPT
In trying to recall lines, pupils
refresh their memory of the
previous lesson’s focus.
3] Explain to pupils that the previous lesson’s objective was to give them an understanding of the
scene and, in particular, the character development of Lady Macbeth. It is, however, important to
maintain a focus on written critical responses in order to prepare for GCSE examinations. Today
we are going to do a written response to act 5 scene 1. If any pupil was absent last lesson they
should notify me through a note at the top of their page but attempt the tasks as best they can.
Take questions.
5
PPT
Pupils learn that it is
necessary for them to put as
much
effort
into
the
analytical written tasks as it is
the active tasks.
Give pupils a chance to read through the scene silently.
4] Provide pupils with 3 questions – they will have 2 minutes, 10 minutes and 15 minutes to
answer respectively.
Pupils develop their critical
writing skills.
These are ‘open book’ tasks.
A] At the opening of act 5 scene 1, what are the Doctor and Gentlewoman waiting to observe? (2
minutes)
B] Shakespeare could have presented Lady Macbeth to us in this scene alone on stage. Why does
Shakespeare include the Doctor and the Gentlewoman in this scene? What do they add, if
Page 51 of 70
40
anything, to the impact of the scene on the audience? (10 minutes)
C] In earlier scenes, Shakespeare presents Lady Macbeth as a powerful and fearless character.
How do lines 25 to 30 below present her? Your response should include close analysis of the
language and comment on its impact on the audience.
Lady Macbeth: Out, damned spot! Out, I say! One, two. Why then ‘tis time to do’t. Hell is murky.
Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear? Who knows it, when none can call our
power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?
5] Plenary: Collect the books and ask pupils about their success in answering the questions – ask
for a show of hands for pupils who thought their last answer analysed language, and commented
on audience impact.
5
PPT
Pupils reflect on their critical
writing skills.
Differentiation:
Assessment Opportunities:
Differentiation through outcome.
Assessment of written critical
responses.
Page 52 of 70
Slide 1
Slide 2
Slide 3
Slide 4
Slide 5
Slide 6
Slide 7
Side 8
Slide 9
Page 53 of 70
Appendix 4: Lesson Plan 4 and Resources
Yr 9 Macbeth: Act 5 Scenes 2 and 3
Date: 14.1.2015
Learning Outcome:
Success Criteria:
KS4 National Curriculum Reference:
To identify and analyse recurring
imagery and consider how much
audiences sympathise with Macbeth.
Following drama activities were pupils able to analyse the text
and interpret Shakespeare’s use of imagery of clothing and
consider how much Shakespeare intends audiences to
sympathise with Macbeth as a tragic hero.
improvising, rehearsing and performing play
scripts and poetry in order to generate
language and discuss language use and
meaning
Activities
Time
Resources
Starter: Completion of a definition of a tragic hero.
A *** character who makes an *** of judgment or has a *** ***
that, combined with fate and *** ***, brings about his or her ***.
Student Learning
Pupils learn the definition
of a tragic hero and begin
to consider whether
Macbeth is one.
5
PPT
10
Copies of
Macbeth
Pupils engage with the
scene dramatically –
generating interest.
5
-
Pupils learn how Macbeth
is viewed by other
characters in the play.
Insert the following words in the appropriate space:
flaw, external, fatal, literary, downfall, error, forces
1] In a circles, read through act 5 scene 2 (PAGE 62) as a class. Pupils read to the punctuation mark.
Ask pupils to read like conspirators – whispering the lines secretively. Read it once more the other
way around the circle.
2] I read lines 12 to 22 and ask pupils to strike a pose at appropriate places to depict Macbeth.
3] Pupils return to their seats. Project lines 15-16 and 20-22 (imagery of clothing) and ask pupils
what the imagery being used here is and what effect it has on their views of Macbeth.
Page 54 of 70
PPT,
10
Copies of
Macbeth
Having invested interest
in the scene, pupils now
turn to an analytical
mode of learning and
Lines 15-16:
analyse
a
recurring
imagery of people viewed
as clothing.
He cannot buckles his distempered cause / Within the belt of rule.
Lines 20-22:
Now does he feel his title / Hang loose about him, like a giant’s robe / Upon a dwarfish thief.
Recurring Imagery:
Act 1 Scene 3, Lines 109-110 - PAGE 7:
Macbeth has just met the witches for the first time and they told him he would be the Thane of
Cawdor. Soon after, Ross arrives and greets him as the Thane of Cawdor. Macbeth responds:
Why do you dress me in borrowed robes?
Act 1 Scene 2, Line 22 – PAGE 2:
He unseemed him from the nave to th’ chops.
4] Act 5 Scene 3: Focus on 2 speeches that represent Macbeth in different ways.
PPT,
Lines 1-11(PAGE 63)
15
Bring me no more reports, let them fly all;
Till Birname Wood remove to Dunsinane,
Page 55 of 70
Copies of
Macbeth
Pupils learn through
drama that Macbeth is
portrayed as both an
arrogant tyrant but also
as a character we can still
sympathise with – a tragic
character but probably
not heroic.
I cannot taint with fear. What’s the boy Malcom?
Was he not born of woman? The spirits that know
All mortal consequences have pronounced me thus:
‘Fear not, Macbeth, no man that’s born of woman
Shall e’er have power upon thee.’ Then false thanes
And mingle with the English epicures;
The mind I sway by and the heart I bear
Shall never sag with doubt nor shake with fear.
Lines 24-30 (PAGE 64)
I have lived long enough. My way of life
Is fall’n into the sere, the yellow leaf,
And that which should company old age,
As honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,
I must not look to have; but in their stead,
Curses, not loud but deep, mouth-honour, breath
Which the poor heart would fain deny, and dare not.
Split the class down the centre and ask each half to look at one speech. They have 2 minutes to
Page 56 of 70
identify the tone with which the speech should be delivered.
The two halves of the class swap speeches and practice the speech in pairs. Pupils are
chosen/volunteer to compete against one another for effective delivery of the lines.
Discussion question: What is the impact of these two different speeches on the audience?
5] Plenary:
•
•
•
•
Pupils consolidate their
learning.
What kind of imagery did we discuss today?
How does Shakespeare present Macbeth in act 5 scene 3?
How much do you sympathise with Macbeth?
Is Macbeth a tragic hero?
10
PPT
(A literary character who makes an error of judgment or has a fatal flaw
that, combined with fate and external forces, brings about his or her downfall.)
Differentiation:
Assessment Opportunities:
LAPs are engaged through drama activities while HAPs have opportunities to analyse the text
Assessment of contribution to discussion.
Assessment of participation in drama activities.
Assessment of annotations in copies of Macbeth.
Page 57 of 70
Slide 1
Slide 2
Slide 3
Slide 4
Slide 5
Slide 6
Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9
Page 58 of 70
Slide 10
Appendix 5: Pupil Tracking Questionnaires
Page 59 of 70
Page 60 of 70
Page 61 of 70
Appendix 6: Pupil Focus Group Interview
Interviewer:
In which lesson, or activity, do you feel you learned the
most?
Pupil C:
I liked the one where we wrote about her sleepwalking.
I
don’t know what it was but I felt like I understood it
more
because we had the writing so I was just looking at the
text and I could like follow it. Because with acting I like
it, and I think it’s really good and I do learn with it but
sometimes if it is not me acting I don’t fully understand
it.
Pupil A:
I quite liked the murder scene where we were acting it
out because it made it very memorable – the lines and
things that we needed for the essay.
Pupil B:
I agree with what [Pupil C] says because we never
really
write in the way that we are meant to write in the
GCSE
so talking about how we should be writing it and
what our
ideas should really be was helpful. Where as in
the acting
lessons you understand the text more but we
never talk
about how to write about it.
Interviewer:
A scholar said that imagination is a bridge to knowledge.
Thinking about the last four lessons, would you agree?
Page 62 of 70
Pupil C:
I think that the image of her saying ‘damned spot on
my
hand – it needs to go away’ – we thought about that
and
then acted it out. That’s working our imaginations and
then we did the writing and I understood it.
Pupil B:
Also where they killed Macduff’s son, you sort of needed
imagination act that out and we did other tasks where
we
thought about how we would perform it and by
understanding how you would perform it you can sort of
understand what is really meant by it.
Interviewer:
I tried out different activities with the class during these
lessons and I think there were things that did work
quite
well and things that I think didn’t. Was there any
activity
in particular that you didn’t particularly enjoy or
thought
was a bit of a waste of time?
Pupil A:
I can’t think of anything that I would say were a waste
of
time because they all made us learn something. Some
did it better than others.
Pupil C:
I think the yes/no debate was a bit… I don’t think it is
worth doing with teenagers because nobody wanted to
get up and do it. They want to get up and do something,
but they want to do acting.
Pupil B:
I agree because I think it works well with some people
rather than other people because some people were
Page 63 of 70
saying things but others weren’t. I think the one where
we stood in a circle and said the lines wasn’t good
because you need be doing something else while you’re
doing that because a lot of people were not enthusiastic
enough about it whereas if you had to act and do
something else while saying the lines it would make
people feel more enthusiastic about it.
Pupil A:
Also, when we were speaking the lines around the class
it was quite slow because we only got to do one line
each.
Page 64 of 70
Appendix 7: Pupils’ Creative Writing Task
Pupil A
Pupil B
Page 65 of 70
Appendix 8: Pupils’ Written Analysis
Pupil A
Page 66 of 70
Pupil B
Page 67 of 70
Page 68 of 70
Pupil C
Page 69 of 70
Page 70 of 70