English
Subject Studies Assignment:
‘Much Ado About Nothing’
Work Count: 7994
Submitted 4th February 2015
1
Table of contents
Preface…………………………………………………………………………..3
Rationale……………………………………………………………………….10
Lesson One:……..……………………………………………………………..11
Lesson Two:……………………………………………………………………14
Lesson Three…………………..……………………………………………….18
Lesson Four……..……………………………………………………………...21
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..…24
2
PREFACE
This Subject Studies Assignment will critically evaluate four different pedagogical
approaches to the teaching of Shakespeare in the classroom. These four approaches are:
textual analysis, voice, film and the use of drama. My research and analysis will investigate
which approach is most effective for improving the engagement of students and the quality of
their written responses.
I will be teaching Shakespeare’s ‘Much Ado about Nothing’, which is part of the GCSE
syllabus, to a middle-set Year 10 English class in a comprehensive, co-educational school in
The school has been rated ‘good’ by Ofsted in their most
recent inspections (
), and in
, Ofsted described the school as:
‘very diverse, socially, economically and culturally. Three quarters of the students, a much
higher proportion than average, come from a wide spectrum of minority ethnic heritages with
many at the early stages of learning English.’ (
)
This description is still characteristic of the school as there are currently
from ethnic minority backgrounds,
are on free school meals and
of students
of students are
categorised as having English as an additional language – all considerably higher than the
national average for a secondary schools in England.
In addition to this vast diversity of students in the school, the Year 10 cohort I will be
teaching are known to be challenging in terms of their behaviour. However, the school does
have an effective behaviour policy which I will utilize, and their main class teacher will be
present in all lessons for support.
The first question that arises when confronted with such a diverse, multicultural cohort is, to
quote one of my students: ‘Why Shakespeare?’ This question is especially pressing
considering the high percentage of EAL students who, unlike the students of 30 years ago,
have no choice in the matter as Shakespeare is a mandatory part of the National Curriculum.
In ‘Shakespeare in the changing Curriculum’ Lesley Aers reminds us that ‘Shakespeare was
certainly not compulsory. The O level candidate and the CSE candidate gained a Grade 1
without having read any Shakespeare.’ (Aers, 1991, p.30) Even when Shakespeare was
finally made statutory in 1989, there was still complete freedom of approach for the teacher
as the syllabus of 1989 stated the following:
3
‘In particular, every pupil should be given at least some experience of the plays or poetry of
Shakespeare. Whether this is through the study, viewing or performance of whole plays or of
selected poems or scenes should be entirely at the discretion of the teacher.’ (Cox Report,
1989, Chapter 7.15)
This highly contrasts the demands made on children today to study Shakespeare. The new
National Curriculum, under Michael Gove, has increased its emphasis on Shakespeare,
stating that students must study two plays in KS3, and one whole play for their GCSE
examinations in KS4 (National Curriculum, 2014).
This increasingly prescriptive and
demanding syllabus has faced criticism from many leaders in Education.
An article in The Telegraph reported that ‘Kevin Courtney, deputy general secretary of the
National Union of Teachers, said it was effectively too demanding, adding: “Not enough
effort has been made to design a curriculum for lower attaining children or children with
special educational needs.”’ (Paton, 2013)
Nigel Wheale also addresses the financial challenges of teaching Shakespeare as he says ‘lets
be clear: Shakespeare is expensive to teach….they need a choice of good editions, and they
have a right to expect to be able to study the plays in performance and on film and video.’
(Wheale, 1991, p.8)
In addition to these challenges, teachers and students from multi-cultural backgrounds must
also overcome the ‘elitist’ perception of Shakespeare and the idea that his work is ‘socially
irrelevant’ to the children of inner city schools.
However, the former Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove dismisses the idea that
Shakespeare is too difficult or ‘socially irrelevant’ for multicultural or EAL students as he
said in his speech at Cambridge University, ‘In another Academy school that I visited just last
week, Denbigh High, the students, overwhelming Asian, second and third generation
immigrant families, competed to tell me why they preferred Shakespeare to Dickens’ (DfE,
2011) dismissing any notions that Shakespeare wouldn’t appeal to students of certain class or
ethnic backgrounds.
Gove justified the new emphasis on Shakespeare in the National Curriculum by proclaiming
Shakespeare as part of the English literary heritage: “Shakespeare’s language is our language.
It is our inheritance.’’ (Garner, 2013) He added in his speech at Cambridge ‘all of us are heir
4
to the amazing intellectual achievements of our ancestors. We can all…share in the brilliance
of Shakespeare’ (DfE, 2011)
Gove’s idea that Shakespeare should be ‘inherited’ for the intellectual and spiritual growth of
all students, echoes Mathew Arnolds argument for the teaching of English literature as a
subject. (Conway, 2010) It mirrors the justification that was given in The Cox Report for
making Shakespeare mandatory in 1989. (Cox Report, 1989)
The Cox Report also stated that teachers themselves wanted to teach Shakespeare as ‘Many
teachers believe that Shakespeare's work conveys universal values, and that his language
expresses rich and subtle meanings beyond that of any other English writer….almost
everyone agrees that his work should be represented in a National Curriculum.’ (Cox Report,
1989, Chapter 7.16)
Interestingly, both Gove and The Cox Report highlight that very few teachers would refute
the importance of Shakespeare in the literary cannon or his reputation as ‘the greatest English
writer of all time’ which, they argue, justifies his dominant position in the English
curriculum.
As a trainee-teacher, I too believe that Shakespeare is our greatest writer and I am excited by
the amount of time that can spent on his plays under this new curriculum. Although it will
undoubtedly demand more of the students, the idea that Shakespeare may not appeal to EAL
or ethnic minority students is wholly unconvincing. Personally, I too was categorised as an
EAL, FSM and an ethnic minority student in school, very much like the students I will be
teaching. However, through great teaching and resources, Shakespeare’s plays became
accessible and engaging. There are now also a whole range of resources and companies that
specifically aim to remove the ‘elitist’ stigma of Shakespeare, most notably the Hip-Hop
Shakespeare Company, which creates rap songs inspired by Shakespeare plays and is headed
by MOBO award winning rapper, Akala. As Lesley Aers says ‘Shakespeare must be sold to
the class.’ (Aers, 1991, p. 35) Utilizing such resources will be key to removing any fears or
negative impressions students have of Shakespeare.
In addition to my own personal experiences as a student and trainee teacher, I have also
reviewed some of the different pedagogical approaches to the teaching of Shakespeare.
Prior to my research, I held the view that encouraging pupil’s personal or ‘gut’ response to
Shakespeare was an integral part of exploring his plays. However, in his essay ‘Scientific
5
Object vs. Immediate Experience’, Robert Heilman claims that this is a big disadvantage.
Heilman opposes the purely subjective or ‘unscientific’ ‘what say your bowels on the bard’s
vowels?’ approach and confesses to being ‘impatient with the gut signals’ which he regards
as merely ‘a symptom of flatulence.’ (Heilman, 1977, p.16) Heilman advocates ‘critical
thoughtfulness’ based on the ‘scientific’ study of the text as of the utmost importance. He
stresses the importance of ‘detailed textual’ study as students must be encouraged to support
their ideas with more than just ‘feelings.’ (p.16) However, Heilman does not dismiss the gut
responses entirely, indeed he says it can ‘be useful if the owner can learn to regard their
messages as the start of a journey rather than the end.’ (p.16) But in order for gut responses
to be utilized, the student must always bring it back to the text. Despite this dichotomy
between the Objective and the Subjective, Heilman later says that the ideal teacher should
have ‘a balanced style.’ (p.16)
Another advocate of the ‘balanced style’ approach is Peter Hollindale. Hollindale stresses the
importance of students enjoying the play whilst still being prepared for the ultimate goal:
passing the exam. (Hollindale, 1985) In ‘Approaches to Shakespeare at A Level’, Hollindale
believes that a performance based approach to Shakespeare is the answer. He says ‘‘if
students approach a Shakespeare play in the way most likely to give them enjoyment and a
deepening insight…they will be better placed than otherwise to deal with examinations.’ (p.
83) Hollindale highlights the pedagogical value of drama when he says ‘In dramatic
exploration you are rarely doing only one thing at once, and to doubt pupil’s capacity to
profit from such work is to underestimate the stimulus to memory and understanding which
is given by intense and connected learning experiences.’ (p. 83) Drama will certainly be an
integral part of my own teaching practice as many of the approaches I researched agreed with
Hollindale and advocated the use of drama.
In ‘Teaching Shakespeare through Performance’ Ted Tibbets reminds us that Elizabethans
were more of an ‘oral-based culture than today; they went to ‘hear a play’ while we go to ‘see
a concert.’ (Tibbets, 2002, p. 37) Therefore to truly experience Shakespeare, students must
approach Shakespeare as actors do, using their voice to ‘hear the play.’ (p.37) He says
‘teachers should dedicate considerable time toward developing their student’s abilities to
speak powerfully and, clearly.’ (p. 37) He spends time in the classroom doing voice and
breathing exercises with the students. He then creates a competition on who can speak the
text best. The winners are the students that speak Shakespeare’s language with the most
6
‘volume, articulation and synchronicity’ (p. 37) Tibbets also uses other dramatic techniques
such as ’15 minute plays’ based on a summary of the plot.
Similarly, Rex Gibson also underlines the importance of voice in the teaching of
Shakespeare. In ‘Stepping into Shakespeare’ Gibson encourages students to explore different
speaking styles when reading the language. He says ‘the aim is to speak as effectively as
possible, using the appropriate tone, emphasis and style to convey clearly to the audience the
meaning and emotional content of every line’ (Gibson, 2000, p.8) Teachers can achieve this
exploration by encouraging students to vary the tempo, volume, emotional tone and the
stressing of key words that are dramatically appropriate. Gibson also has practical strategies
for combating the difficulties that a teacher may face, such as reluctant speakers and large
class sizes. He suggests teachers can overcome this by allocating groups to echo key words as
a student reads and getting students to create a dramatically appropriate soundscape for the
reader. Gibson also advocates the use of dramaturgical tools such as story boards and actor’s
journals and director’s note. All these tools can help involve every member of the class to
enjoy the speaking of Shakespeare’s language, together.
Christel and Heck-Oliver are other advocates of drama. Specifically, they propose the use of
role-playing and journal writing before reading the play. Role-playing they argue, ‘requires
students to employ a variety of skills from research and critical thinking to creative writing
and performing…enhancing the basic concept of creating a character.’(Christel & HeckOliver, 1997, p.18) The use of historical research before reading the play is critical with this
approach. Students are asked to investigate the lives and attitudes of people living in the time
of the play. Students are not given characters from the play to role-play at first, but ‘assigned
roles that represent the variety of people living’ (p.18) at the time the play takes place.
Students will then head to the library to research the time, place and people of the play. They
are also given a set of character building questions ‘Where were you born? Describe your
parents?’ and are encouraged to write journal entries in character. Once students have this
strong grasp of the historical context of the play, they are better able to synthesise the
historical context with the events and the characters of the play.
However, this question of when to teach students the historical context is in debate. In his
essay ‘Starting Shakespeare’ Neil King argues that teaching the students the historical context
of Elizabethan England should always be secondary to their exploration of the text. He says
that the ‘text is central and that a consideration of the culture in which Shakespeare lived
7
should grow from a study of his plays, not vice-versa.’ (King, 1985, p.62) King’s approach is
first to cast students in particular roles and get them reading. It is as students proceed to read
the text that he begins to set up a historical context for the play. He describes vividly what
the city would have been like and feeds in the historical context of the plays by getting
students to think about the sort of theatre Shakespeare would have staged his plays in,
informing students as they read rather than before.
The balancing act of enjoyment through drama with exam preparation is also the focus of
Sharon Beehler. Beehler achieves this balance by encouraging students to explore the subtext
in the language. In her essay ‘Teaching Shakespeare’s Dramatic Dialogue’ Beehler first
informs her students that Shakespeare was an actor and encourages them to always think of
him as performer communicating with his audience. She argues that ‘If students become
aware of this aspect of Shakespeare – his role as a communicator – they can begin to regard
his work as similar to their own efforts as writers and speakers. (Beehler, 1993, p. 15) She
adds that this approach helps ‘students develop a better sense of what communication means
to them, how individuals can manipulate communication for self-gain and how selfexpression in both speech and writing can be made most effective.’ (p.15) To introduce the
focus on communication, Beehler first gives the students a slip of paper asking them to
arrange jumbled up words into a logical sentence.(p.15) They then determine where the
stress is in the sentence, and discuss how this can alter what is being communicated. It is
once they have an understanding of this concept that students move on to the actual text and
discuss where the stresses are in a line to infer what the character is communicating.
Another useful strategy for teachers to tackle the language of the play is offered by John
Haddon. In ‘Teaching Reading Shakespeare’ Haddon gives four different strategies to help
students overcome the difficulty of the language. His strategies are: key lines, find responses,
spot the difference and editing. (Haddon, 2009) Key lines, requires the teacher to first give a
plot summary of the play and then to ‘invite [the students] to relate selected lines to the plot
summary: Which characters are likely to have said these things?’ (Haddon, 2009, p. 53) The
line can be selected by the teacher according to what the focus of the lesson will be. Haddon
stresses the importance of not correcting the students but to allow them to see for themselves
once they come across the line in the context of the play. His second strategy involves
handing out slips with fragments of the text and informing them that another pupil has the
corresponding lines. So for example, if teaching ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’, one student
might have the line ‘The more I hate, the more he follows me’ and another will have the
8
remainder of that text ‘The more I love, the more he hateth me.’ Students then have to pair up
if they think their lines go together. ‘Spot the difference’ comes after students have a good
understanding of the play. The teacher will change a word from the characters lines and the
students have to discuss the difference this makes to the line and the intention. His final
strategy in easing the students into the language of Shakespeare is to get students to edit a
piece of text while retaining the meaning, and to justify why they have so in discussion.
Additionally, William Liston also has practical strategies for dealing with Shakespeare’s
language in the classroom. Liston argues that students struggle with Shakespeare because
they ‘are not very skilled at close reading nor very familiar with grammatical constructions
once learned in foreign language classes.’ (Liston, 1997, p.11) His approach to these issues is
to get students to do a daily paraphrase of Shakespeare’s text. In his essay ‘Paraphrasing
Shakespeare’, Liston says that his goal ‘above all is to enable the students to read and
understand any of the plays’ independently. (p. 11) In each class, he gives students an excerpt
of a play which is particularly revealing of a character or plot, and then on the same sheet,
asks students to ‘paraphrase rather slavishly.’ (p.12) Liston says that although this technique
is of pedagogical value, the greatest benefit is to the teacher as they acknowledge ‘what the
students don’t understand’, which they may have taken for granted.
The paraphrasing or editing of the text is also echoed by Veronica O’ Brien who suggests not
using ‘conventional texts, but to constitute special rehearsal scripts’ in class.’ (O’Brien, 1982,
p.9) In ‘Teaching Shakespeare’ O’ Brien also warns that ‘a television or videotape version
should never precede an active classroom reading’ (p.2) This was also the belief of Gladys
Veidemanis. O’Brien, like Veidemanis, argues that the small screen translation is ‘reductive
of the actual range of the original’ and ‘hinders rather than helps efforts to develop the skill
of inward seeing while the play is being read.’ (Veidemanis, 1993, p.2) O’Brien also doesn’t
believe that seeing a live stage performance first is a good idea as she says that ‘the move
from the immediacy of the stage performance to the unexpected difficulty of the play on the
page can be the wrong kind of shock.’ (O’Brien, 1982, p.2) Instead, O’Brien advocates
seeing the play after the reading but never before as this would mean that ‘the vital element
of suspense is then missing from the classroom reading.’ (p.2)
The common theme in the pedagogy of Shakespeare is that: the enjoyment of Shakespeare is
critical to exam success. Although some writers, like Liam E. Semler, have been critical of
the examination process completely, believing it creates ‘surface learning', most approaches
9
stress the importance of preparing students to pass the exam. (Semler, 2013, p.22), I will
endeavour to achieve this balance between the enjoyment and examination preparation in my
own teaching.
Rationale
There will be four lessons taught as part of this SSA and each lesson will focus on one of four
approaches to Shakespeare: voice, drama, textual analysis and film. As I teach the cohort for
two lessons a week, these four SSA lessons will take place over the course of two weeks.
The aims of the SSA lessons are to discern which approach engages the students best and
improves the quality of their understanding of Shakespeare’s language in ‘Much Ado About
Nothing’ which we have just finished reading in class. The effectiveness of each approach
will be assessed by a variety of methods: written work, class discussions, classroom
behaviour and interviews with a focus group to be conducted at the end of every lesson.
The focus group consists of four students:
and
All the selected
students have good attendance and punctuality records. For the purposes of this study, the
students selected have a variety of abilities with two students considered high ability, one of
medium ability and one who is considered low ability. Two of the students are also classed as
having EAL. The written work of these four will also be tracked and will be available in
Appendix, along with the lesson plans and class resources.
The class has twenty-eight students, 60% are EAL and two students are SEN. All the SSA
lessons will either take place in their usual English classroom or the theatre auditorium. Their
usual classroom teacher will be present for all the SSA lessons.
10
Lesson One
Aim:
The first SSA lesson focused on Tibbets approach of using voice work to explore
Shakespeare’s language. (Tibbets, 2002) Two of his exercises, ‘Insults’ and ‘Travelling
Passage’ were used, in addition to warm-up activities taught by the RSC’s voice expert,
Cicely Berry. (Berry, 2005) The lesson took place in the schools theatre.
As students first walked into the theatre, they were asked to lie down on the floor and to
concentrate on their breathing. Student’s performed a series of warmup activities which also
involved stretching and tongue twisters.
Once these warmup activities were done, the class performed Tibbets exercises. The ‘Insults’
activity required the class to get into four groups and each group was given lines from the
first witty exchange between Benedick and Beatrice in Act One Scene One (Appendix). Two
Beatrice groups were to go up against two Benedick groups. The criteria for winning was:
synchronicity, articulation and projection. Once a winner from each round was voted for, by
the students, we had a final competition between the two winning groups. The final winners
were all given gold achievement points as their prize.
Students then performed the ‘Travelling Passage’ activity which consisted of giving students
a monologue by either Beatrice or Benedick (Appendix). Students were asked to walk around
the room reading the text aloud. Students were to change ‘directions when they came to a
comma, kneel on a question mark, and jump up on an exclamation point.’ (Tibbets, 2002,
p.38)
Once this activity was done, the students sat down and reflected on the activities they
performed. The lesson ended with a warm down session.
Evaluation
The lesson did not start well. The fact that students went to their usual classroom first before
coming to the theatre, meant that there were a significant number of late arrivals which
delayed the lesson. The breathing and voice exercises proved difficult as it took considerable
11
time and effort to get some of the students to follow the instructions. Some students objected
to lying on the floor and others struggled with being quiet, disrupting the few students who
were concentrating on the task.
Despite this shaky start to the lesson, their behaviour changed for the better once we got onto
the first of Tibbets’s activities. Each of the four groups were absolutely focused and
determined to win the ‘Insult’ competition. They directed themselves and practiced their
articulation and came up with creative ways of synchronising. What was most startling for
myself, and their main English teacher who was also observing, was the way they managed to
inhabit Shakespeare’s language. As a group, they were confident and clearly understood their
characters intention. It was remarkable to see the transformation on that stage.
Clearly engaged by this activity, it became much easier to transition to the next exercise,
Traveling Passage. As each student walked around the room reciting the speeches aloud and
turning on every comma or jumping on an exclamation mark, they were utterly focused on
what they were doing and for once not attempting to push each other or have a chat. In fact
behaviour was no longer an issue.
Once this activity was done, I sat the whole class down on the stage and we reflected on what
they just did. They all seemed to be in agreement that using these activities were enjoyable
and helped them understand the characters better. The success of the lesson is evidenced by
the interview with the focus group.
Teacher: How do you feel that lesson went?
really well, I liked it…
Teacher: What did you like about it?
It was fun and interactive
It brought the text to life for me. Because it was practical, were kind of saying the
speech how it’s supposed to be performed, it’s not supposed to be read just like a novel.
For me the warmup was the best part. Learning to project made it sound real
For me it was the turning exercise [Travelling Passage] because it made me feel how
much is going through Beatrices head.
Yeah we were constantly turning, so she’s clearly thinking a lot
12
All the time
Teacher: Has it deepened your understanding of the play and characters?
All: Yes.
Tibbets’s exercises proved to be extremely successful in engaging the students and deepening
their understanding of the language. What was especially surprising to see was those students
who are usually challenging in terms of behaviour, suddenly become engaged and eager to
participate in the two activities. My observation from this lesson absolutely affirms Tibbets’s
assertion that the voice approach ‘creates opportunities for students with varied learning
styles to access and enjoy the language of Shakespeare’s plays.’ (Tibbets, 2002, p.43) as the
whole class, regardless of their variances in ability, were focused and making insightful
judgements on the characters, which I had not hitherto seen. This voice approach is one I will
be using in my own teaching practice.
13
Lesson Two
Aim:
The aim of this lesson was to investigate the pedagogical value of drama in the teaching of
Shakespeare. This SSA lesson came a day after the voice lesson, with the intention that
students would build on the voice work. This lesson is based on the drama activities
suggested by Rex Gibson. (Gibson, 1998)
As Gibson says ‘the teacher should select a scene or part of a scene with potential for striking
dramatic enactment’ the students will be performing the masquerade ball scene in Act 2
Scene 1. (Gibson, 1998, p. 158) The week prior, I had assembled a cast list, where each
character in the scene would be performed by two students, and asked the student’s to be offbook for today’s performance.
As the students entered the theatre, they were instructed to form a large circle. The lesson
began with a warmup session consisting of playing well-known drama games such as ‘ZipZap boing!’ and ‘Splat!’ Once this was over, students performed a number of character
building exercises. Students were asked to walk around the stage and to begin thinking about
how their assigned characters would move considering such factors as: their age, gender and
the weather in Messina. Students were then asked a series of character building questions
based on Stanislavski’s ‘Fundamental Questions’ for the actor (Cannon, 2009):
1. Who am I?
2. Where am I?
3. When is it?
4. Where have I just come from?
5. What do I want?
14
Having embodied their characters, students formed small groups where they took turns to
‘hot-seat’ one another, in character.
The next activity was the performance and directing of the scene. Gibson says ‘it is
invaluable to encourage students to think about, discuss, and take on the role, the director’
(Gibson, 1998, p. 160) Therefore by casting two students for every one role, I was able to
create two groups. Group 1 performed first under the direction of Group 2 and then the
groups alternated roles. Once the performances were over, the class sat down on the stage and
reflected on their performances.
Evaluation:
This lesson was largely unsuccessful for a variety of reasons. The primary obstacle I faced
with this drama approach was poor behaviour. Gibson’s activities were pupil-led and required
students to work amongst themselves. This would have worked well if behaviour wasn’t an
issue, however with this class, pupil-led activities seemed to increase their inclination to go
off-task.
As the quiet breathing warmup did not go well in the previous lesson, I redefined the warm
up sessions by introducing drama games which I presumed would be more engaging.
However, this was not the case. Large group activities generally proved to be arduous and
time consuming. It took a long time just to get the students in a circle and many were either
too tired, forgetful or embarrassed to play the games I prepared. The incessant talking,
particular with the girls in the class, also made it difficult to give out the rules and I had to
end this part of the lesson early as it was clearly ineffective.
The character building part of the lesson was designed to give students a deeper
understanding of their characters in the play. Tibbets says it is important ‘to show them how
to access the imaginations in order to become somebody else.’ (Tibbets, 2002, p.39)
However, getting the students to follow instructions was a significant challenge. As I asked
students to walk around the room in character, many students started pushing each other or
forming little groups and going off task. Teaching time was wasted when I had to address
student’s behaviour, therefore the students only had time to explore three of Stanislavski’s
questions.
When it came to the performance, I decided to use the method of creating two groups of
‘acting companies’ (Gibson, 1998, p.182) as it gave the students the opportunity to perform
15
and direct. However, as I called up the cast for Group 1 and 2, some of the students couldn’t
remember which character they were playing, some didn’t feel like performing that day or
claimed they were too tired or had a sore throat. It was difficult to get most of students,
particularly the boys, enthused about performing and although I had asked all students to
learn their lines by heart, most of class did not. The girls were generally more excited about
performing than the boys, particular the four girls who were to play the Beatrice and Hero.
Nonetheless when the groups were finally formed, I chose Group 1 to perform first and asked
Group 2 to direct them. As the teacher, I gave a few questions for directors to think about,
such as the blocking, exit and entrances of the actors. Gibson says ‘The teacher is also a
prompter of questions’ (p.160) and my main role was to ‘to provide a framework which
students can use in later lessons, enabling them to work independently in groups’ (p. 161)
However, allowing students to lead themselves resulted in most going off task completely.
Some of the directors were busy chatting away with the performers while others were
dictatorial. I only stepped whenever students behaviour got out of hand, following Gibson
advice that ‘The advantage of having only one group performing with the others watching
and directing, is that the teacher can act as a kind of referee. The teacher ensures that
everyone who wishes to do so gets a chance to offer their directing advice’ (p. 160) However,
as ‘referee’ I observed very few signs of this ‘advantage’ as very few student engaged with
the task of directing or performing.
As a result of the student’s lack of engagement, both group’s performances were poor. The
students typically buried their heads in their books and read the lines inaudibly and stiffly.
The voice work from the previous lesson had no impact, and despite reading and analysing
the scene previously, in performance they were completely at a loss. Unlike the incredibly
inspired, energetic, and emotionally intelligent performance seen in Tibetts’s Insult activity,
here the students showed no signs of having accessed the language through the use of drama.
The lack of engagement I observed is evidenced by the interview with the focus group.
Teacher: How did that lesson go?
To be honest, I didn’t like it. I preferred yesterday because that helped us be more
expressive, today everyone sounded monotone
You can’t perform it if you don’t really understand what you’re saying
Teacher: Did reading it in class help?
16
A bit but we still needed help understanding it because it’s different
It helped me because you told us to learn the lines
Teacher: Did directing help?
No, because no one really listened to anyone.
Ted Tibbets argued that drama ‘activites create opportunity for students with varied learning
styles to access and enjoy the language of Shakespeare’s plays.’ (Tibbets, 2002, p.43)
However, my findings from this SSA lesson and the focus group, suggest that this approach
was largely unsuccessful in making the text either accessible or enjoyable. Drama certainly
can be beneficial when used as part of a lesson, but a whole lesson dedicated to drama,
particularly with students who are challenging in terms of their behaviour, can be chaotic
without additional support. I have not completely been dissuaded from drama in my lessons
but large, student-led activities can only really be applied if student’s behaviour is not an
issue. Aers says ‘The problem lies in deciding how far these are free-standing activities, and
how much they actually enhance the study of Shakespeare.’ (Aers, 1991, p.36) In this SSA
lesson, the drama approach of performing and directing, showed no signs of enhancing the
enjoyment or accessibility of Shakespeare’s language and served as an opportunity for poorly
behaved students to go-off task..
17
Lesson Three
Aim:
This SSA lesson looked at the approach of using detailed textual analysis in the classroom.
Heilman argued that while drama and voice work could be beneficial, the ‘detailed’ or
‘scientific’ textual analyses of the language was most important in the teaching of
Shakespeare. (Heilman, 1977)
As students entered the classroom, they were told to write down the Lesson Objective which
was: to analyse Shakespeare’s use of language. The lesson began with a worksheet
(Appendix) which asked students to analyse the meaning of lines as said by the main
characters in the play.
Then the students took part in a discussion based on the question ‘What is Beatrice’s attitude
to men?’ This discussion had two parts and required a subjective and an objective answer.
The first part of the discussion asked for students opinions of Beatrice based purely on their
opinions. For the next part of the discussion, I gave students ten minutes to read through Act
1 again and to find quotes to support their opinions.
The final part of the lesson was a past exam question from the AQA exam board for 2012
(Appendix). This question had an extract from the play and asked them to infer a character’s
motivation based on Shakespeare’s use of language. To end the lesson, I had a plenary which
asked students ‘what was the most important thing they learnt in the lesson?’ Once the lesson
finished, I marked the student’s books and gave them written feedback.
Evaluation
This lesson went very well as students were engaged and focused throughout the lesson. The
poor behaviour which was a significant issue in the previous SSA lessons was no longer a
18
problem as the students were back to their usual classroom structure and routine and I could
easily implement the schools behaviour policy.
I decided to place this textual analyses lesson after the drama and voice lessons as I believed
the performance work would enhance their written responses. My decision was based on the
Cox Report’s claim that ‘Pupils exposed to this type of participatory, exploratory approach to
literature can acquire a firm foundation to proceed to more formal literary responses’ (Cox
Report, 1989, Chapter 7.16) which I took into consideration.
The first task was successful in engaging the students and they were relatively confident with
inferring meaning from Shakespeare’s language. I timed this activity by giving them ten
minutes to complete, and although they were not asked to, the entire class was working in
silence. Even those students who are usually susceptible to misbehaving, were all on task.
Once the time was up, the class feedback their answers and most of the inferences were wellsupported.
When it came to the classroom discussion, the more challenging students began going offtask by either not engaging or chatting away. I specifically chose some of these students to
answer and some of the response I got were unenthusiastic. Most of the students gave onedimension, brief answers such as ‘I think Beatrice hates all men’ or ‘Beatrice is a man-hater.’
However, once the students had to find specific quotes to support their opinion, the
discussion became lively and the answers multi-layered. I took notes of some of the answers:
Beatrice hates all men because in Act One she says ‘I had rather my dog bark at a
crow than a man swear he loves me’
But she can’t hate all men because she likes Don Pedro ‘Hath your grace ne'er a
brother like you?’ So clearly her attitude to Benedick is a special case.
Also, clearly her uncle is fond of her and she is fond of him –
Teacher: Can you support that with textual evidence?
Yeah, in Act Two Scene One Leonato says to Beatrice ‘Well, niece, I hope to see you
one day fitted with a husband’ which to me shows they have a positive father and daughter
relationship. It’s not hostile like it is with Benedick.
Answers like this were typical of the whole class, and even the students who were not quite
enthused before were now looking for quotes and joining in the discussion more freely.
19
Heilman’s suggestion that the ‘scientific’ textual analyses was imperative for critical
thoughtfulness was absolutely key in this discussion and produced more detailed, multilayered and interesting responses than the purely subjective approach. The written responses
to the exam questions too were well supported and analyses the use of language.
The learning that took place in this lesson is evidenced by the focus group interview.
Teacher: How did that lesson go?
That was the best lesson so far.
All: Yeah
Teacher: Why?
Because I felt like we were doing work, and the exam style question was really useful
because it was preparing us
I really liked the discussion
All: Yeah
because I changed my mind so many times
Because when you have to support it with the text it’s not just about what you think
but kinda what you can prove
Yeah I think everyone was focused in that lesson
This lesson was hugely successful, not only in engaging the students by getting them to
analyse Shakespeare language, but also producing confident and well supported answers.
Students were thinking critically, challenging other students and themselves, and engaging
with the language on a deeper intellectual level that they have done thus far. Aers says ‘The
crucial point must be the language. If we can get the students to engage with the
language…then we are succeeding’ (Aers, 1991, p.36) I am convinced that this textual
‘scientific’ approach to teaching Shakespeare is the key to engaging students, particularly in
schools where behaviour is an issue and the classroom structure is very much needed.
20
Lesson Four
Aim
The aim of this SSA lesson was to explore the approach of using film in the teaching of
Shakespeare. For this lesson, I took Veronica O’Brien’s approach of only introducing film
once the class had already read the whole play. (O’Brien, 1982)
The lesson began with students being given ten minutes to reflect on their formatively
assessed written work from the textual analysis lesson. Once students had responded, I
presented a starter which presented students with films which are based on Shakespeare’s
plays, such as The Lion King, Romeo Must Die and 10 Things I hate About You, which most
of the students were familiar with.
The class was then divided into three groups. I told the class they will be viewing two
different versions of Act 4 Scene 1 – the famous scene where Beatrice asks Benedick to ‘Kill
Claudio.’ One group was to focus on the performances of the actors, the other group the
directorial choices and the final group, the costume and make-up. The two film adaptations I
chose were the versions directed by Kenneth Branagh (1993) and more recent film by Joss
Wheden (2012) Once the students viewed both clips, we had a discussion comparing the two
adaptations.
Students then were told to create their own storyboard of the same scene. They were given
six frames and were asked to think about the camera angle, actor’s gestures and key quotes
said by the characters in each frame. Students were given the opportunity to share their
storyboards with the class.
Students had a plenary which asked them to write ‘the most important thing they learnt about
Shakespeare in film’ before the end of the lesson.
21
Evaluation
The approach of using film to teach Shakespeare produced mixed results with the class. The
greatest pro to this approach was that it allowed the students to think creatively and see the
possibilities within the language. The biggest con was that it did not engage the whole class
and seemed to be provide ample opportunity for some students to go off-task.
As the student’s written work from the previous lesson was formatively assessed, they were
given time to reflect on their markings. It is the schools policy that students are given enough
time, once a week, to respond to the teacher’s comments on their work. Although this meant
that I had fifty minutes rather than the full hour to explore the film approach, giving them the
time to reflect on their work at the start of the lesson had the effect of settling students down
quicker than usual.
However, the first activity of the SSA film lesson involved the class being split up into three
large groups and it was a challenging process to get the students to sit in groups quickly and
quietly. The displacement of the seating plan also resulted in the student’s behaviour being
more difficult to manage.
It was challenging to get all the students attention as I gave out the instructions to each group
and during the film, there were many students constantly causing low-level disruption by
making inappropriate remarks or chatting away amongst themselves.
In the post-show
discussion, many of the students failed to take notes and consequently had very little to
contribute. Only a handful of students were repeatedly making a contribution to the
discussion. This part of the lesson ended sooner than planned as I wanted students to get back
to their seating plans to better manage poor behaviour.
Wheale says that ‘careful attention in the classroom to Shakespeare’s language, whether from
the point of view of a….film or video adaptation…can generate enthusiasm and constructive
argument.’ (Wheale, 1991, p.2) However, that was not the case in this class who were mostly
unenthused and inclined to go off-task.
Once students returned to their usual classroom structure, with the teacher at front, the
behaviour improved dramatically, and they were engaged in the storyboard activity. Aers
22
writes that ‘Different film versions show the effect of interpretation and demonstrate how the
text is recreated each time it is produced by a different director.’ (Aers, 1991, p.37) The
intention of placing the storyboard activity after viewing the films, was for students to be
inspired by the vast differences in the interpretation of Shakespeare’s language. This activity
was successful as students were being creative, looking through the text for quotes and were
eager to share their work with the rest of the class. Once they completed this task, several
students stood at the front of the class and shared their storyboards with their fellow students.
Although the class did get noisy at this stage, it was on-task as students enjoyed sharing and
seeing each other’s storyboards.
The lesson ended with a plenary and most students remarked upon the vast differences of
interpretation that can be found of Shakespeare’s work. They learned that there is no one way
to interpret Shakespeare’s language.
The focus group interview also revealed a mixed response to the film approach:
Teacher: How was that lesson?
I think that was my favourite lesson so far.
It was good.
I didn’t like it.
Teacher: Why was it your favourite?
when you’re trying to just read it’s not always clear but seeing it makes you see how
it’s supposed to sound.
Teacher: Why did you not like it?
I didn’t like those films. They were boring.
It felt like it was taking away, like the picture in my head of the play. I was just
watching it like no, no.
That’s why I liked the storyboard cos we got to do it how we wanted it.
Although the students clearly enjoyed the storyboard task, the films had a mixed reaction. For
some student’s it was a revelation, and for others, it was boring and only increased their
inclination to go off-task. O’ Brien warns that ‘a television or videotape version should never
precede an active classroom reading’ (O’Brien, 1982, p.2) as ‘the vital element of suspense is
23
then missing from the classroom reading.’ (p.2) I followed this suggestion, and many students
found it helped them in their understanding of the text retrospectively. However, the trick of
selecting the ‘right’ film version that most students will enjoy, or getting the students to
engage with a film that they would not choose to watch, is a major challenge with this
approach.
Conclusion
In this SSA I explored four approaches to the teaching of Shakespeare: Voice, Drama,
Textual Analysis and Film, to see which approach made Shakespeare’s language most
engaging and accessible for students in secondary education.
I have found that the textual analysis approach worked best and there are many reasons for
this conclusion. The textual analysis approach required students to support their opinions
with the text in front of them resulting in answers that were specific and convincing. It
enhanced their critical thinking skills as the students were forced to challenge their own ‘gut’
responses once they were confronted with quotes that appeared to oppose what they initially
thought. Doing detailed textual analysis in class made the students feel that they were
‘actually doing work’ and helped students to feel more confident and well prepared for their
final exams. As this approach was teacher-led, it also had the benefit of making the classroom
behaviour easier to manage.
In the literature review, Hollindale stressed the importance of students enjoying Shakespeare
as he wrote ‘‘if students approach a Shakespeare play in the way most likely to give them
enjoyment and a deepening insight…they will be better placed than otherwise to deal with
examinations.’ (Hollindale, 1985, p. 83) However, I found out that enjoyment does not
necessarily mean drama games, performance or viewing films. The students I interviewed
after the textual analysis lesson clearly ‘enjoyed’ being challenged by the text and other
students. They got joy out of proving their arguments with Shakespeare’s language. The class
as a whole behaved better, were better engaged and more focused than they had been in any
other SSA lesson. As I marked the students written work, I was impressed by the quality of
their answers. Many students were using specific quotes to support what they said. Two of
the four student’s writing which I tracked were now including quotes more consistently than
they had done previously.
24
Contrary to the RSC’s ‘Stand up for Shakespeare’ manifesto which claimed that the 'practical
approach is the most engaging way’ (RSC, 2008), my findings show that this is in fact not
always the case. This is not to dismiss the practical approaches of voice, drama or film. All
three SSA lessons had moments where the students were clearly engaged and showed signs
of learning. However, the more practical approaches were less successful as they were pupilled rather than teacher-led and the poor behaviour of the students was the reason why pupilled approaches was less successful. Before using these three practical approaches in my own
teaching, I will need to consider if the students can work independently away from the
teacher and whether or not the removal of the usual classroom structure would be a detriment
to student’s behaviour. Unfortunately, with this cohort, poor behaviour was the main issue,
which is also why the teacher-led approach of textual analysis produced the best outcome.
Overall, I came to the conclusion that the ideal English lesson should incorporate elements of
voice work, drama and film, but text based work should be the crux of the lesson. My
findings absolutely affirms Heilman's argument that the teacher should aim for ‘a balanced
style’ using all the approaches, but ultimately ‘the student must always bring it back to the
text.’ (Heilman, 1977, p.16) It is this particular balance that I will aim for in my own teaching
practice.
25
Bibliography
Heilman, R.B. (1977). Scientific Object vs. Immediate Experience. In W. Edens, C. Durer,
W. Eggers, D. Harris, K. Hull (Eds.), Teaching Shakespeare, Guilford: Princeton University
Press
King, N. (1985) Starting Shakespeare. In R. Adams (Ed.), Teaching Shakespeare: Essays on
approaches to Shakespeare in schools and colleges, London: Robert Royce Ltd
Hollindale, P. (1985) Approaches to Shakespeare at A Level. In R. Adams (Ed.), Teaching
Shakespeare: Essays on approaches to Shakespeare in schools and colleges, London: Robert
Royce Ltd
O’ Brien, V. (1982) Teaching Matters, London: Edward Arnold Publishers
Semler, L.E, (2013) Teaching Shakespeare and Marlow: Learning versus the System,
London: Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare
Veidemanis, G. (1993) Some Basics on Shakespearean Study. In J.E.Davis & R.E.Salomone
(Eds), Teaching Shakespeare Today: Practical Approaches and Productive Strategies, USA:
National Council of Teachers of English
Beehler, S. (1993) Teaching Shakespeare’s Dramatic Dialogue. In J.E.Davis &
R.E.Salomone (Eds), Teaching Shakespeare Today: Practical Approaches and Productive
Strategies, USA: National Council of Teachers of English
William, L.T. (1997) Paraphrasing Shakespeare. In R. Salomone, J. Davis (Eds), Teaching
Shakespeare Into The Twenty-First Century, USA: Ohio University Press
Christel, M.T & Heckel-Oliver, C. (1997) Role-Playing. In R. Salomone, J. Davis (Eds),
Teaching Shakespeare Into The Twenty-First Century, USA: Ohio University Press
Haddon, J. (2009) Teaching Reading Shakespeare, Oxon: Routledge
26
Tibbets, T. (2002) Teaching Shakespeare Through Performance. In P. Skrebels & S.V.D.
Hoeven (Eds) For All Time? Critical Issues in Teaching Shakespeare, Australia: Wakefield
Press
Gibson, R. (2000) Stepping into Shakespeare: Practical ways of teaching Shakespeare to
younger learners, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
Gibson, R. (1998) Teaching Shakespeare, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
Aers, L. (1991) Shakespeare in the National Curriculum. In L.Aers and N.Wheale (Eds)
Shakespeare in the changing currciculum, London: Routledge
Wheale, N. (1991) Introduction. In L.Aers and N.Wheale (Eds) Shakespeare in the changing
currciculum, London: Routledge
Garner, R. (2013). Shakespeare to be celebrated in schools with children as young as five,
The Independent [Online] Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/homenews/shakespeare-to-be-celebrated-in-schools-with-children-as-young-as-five-8575328.html
[Accessed 18th January 2015)
Paton, G. (2013) National Curriculum overhaul: pupils to study more Shakespeare, The
Telegraph [Online] Available from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10166697/National-Curriculumoverhaul-pupils-to-study-more-Shakespeare.html [Accessed 8th January 2015].
Conway, D. (2010) The lasting guarantee of a decent education, The Telegraph [Online]
Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6929735/The-lasting-guarantee-of-adecent-education.html [Accessed 19th January 2015)
Cannon, D. (2009) Character building and what makes a truly great actor. The Guardian
[Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2009/may/09/character-buildinggreat-actor [Accessed 18th January 2015]
Cox Report (1989), Education in English: The History of Our Schools [Online] Available
from: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/cox1989/cox89.html [Accessed 15th
January 2015]
Department for Education (2014) National Curriculum in England Key stages 3 and 4
framework document [Online] Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381754/SECO
NDARY_national_curriculum.pdf [Accessed 20th January 2015)
Department for Education (2011) Michael Gove to Cambridge University Speech [Online]
Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michael-gove-to-cambridgeuniversity [Accessed on January 22nd 2015]
Berry, C. (2005) Workshop. [Online] Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ztestIB9QQ [Accessed on January 16th 2015]
RSC (2008). Stand Up For Shakespeare: Manifesto, [Online] Available from:
http://www.rsc.org.uk/downloads/stand-up-for-shakespeare-manifesto.pdf [Accessed on 29th
January 2015)
27
28