Irene
Context
Jose, Louise and I began our inquiry on the most pragmatic of terms. We had each been asked to take on a Shakespeare unit during our practicum and coincidentally, we were assigned the same text: Macbeth. When Dr. Dobson approached our seminar in regards to how we preferred to direct our research, the three of us instantly knew that we wanted to devote as much time as possible to learning about the most effective approaches to teaching this canonical work. We brought our questions, anxieties and concerns to table and set out to learn about what educators and scholars uphold as the most impacting strategies to tackling the ambitious task of teaching Shakespeare to high school students. Our research began with a fundamental understanding of how students today differ from those of previous generations. It led to arguments for multi-modal, performative/incarnational practices as well as practical guidelines for teaching traditional canonic literature from a critical literary perspective.
Approach/Method
Our research centered upon reviews of scholarly literature as well as reviews of common practices from our sponsor teachers and other active instructors in the field.
Findings
Millennial Learners
In regard to teacher effectiveness, a dominant theme in the program thus far has been an emphasis on multi-modal teaching and learning. The notion of the “millennial” student and the challenges of educating 21st century learners is one that is at the forefront of recent writing on effective instruction of not only Shakespeare, but across other subjects more generally. In Reaching 21st Century Learners, editor Evan St. Lifer writes of adapting to a “new culture of technology” in which educators must adjust to learners whose “orientation to technology is innate and who view technology not as a way to do something better or more efficiently than it was done before, but as the only way to do it” (11). Other groups in this seminar have covered the arguments for multi-modal practices and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory is only one of many oft-cited scholars on this topic. Teaching Shakespeare effectively, however, is not only about bringing in multi-modal technological tools into the classroom (i.e. films, graphic novels, interactive projects, etc.), Shakespearean scholars vehemently argue that the only way to truly teach his plays effectively is to recognize their intended function not only as written texts, but as works of art created for the purpose of performance.
Performative/Incarnational Practices
In her article, Stop Reading Shakespeare, Susan Spangler argues that students and teachers must work together to create “literacy learning environments” that “ go beyond the surface of the text to engage critically with ideas that are truly meaningful” (132). She posits that this is best done through watching several different performances of the same scenes of a play. Rather than center teaching practices on “read-the-play- list-to-the-tape-take-a-quiz-pedagogy that prevails in schools,” Spangler criticizes teachers’ need to feel knowledgeable about classics rather than help students understand and appreciate them “by equipping them to explore the text rather than merely imparting its meaning to them ”(131). “Seeing something,” she writes, “is as powerful as, and perhaps more powerful than being told” (131).
Scholars like Spangler maintain that millennial students already tacitly understand the genre of drama and stage from their casual encounters with film and television (131). Given that they bring this discourse into the classroom where “written (and thus silent) forms of communication are still privileged over spoken forms,” students who study Shakespeare out of this kind of pedagogical standpoint are apt to miss the value of enjoying his plays as works that were ultimately meant to be viewed rather than read. By valuing images and collaborating with students’’ tacit knowledge, while at the same time maintaining a respect for the text, students are enabled to “rethink productions and offer interpretive possibilities, thus sharpening their critical thinking skills and recognizing that meaning in a play occurs at the intersections of text and performance” (132).
Teaching Traditional Canonic Literature from a Critical Literary Perspective
Scholars, Mellor and Patterson from the Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy further enrich our understanding by highlighting the need for educators to continually hone their “critical consciousness” (508). Students as well as educators need to “reflect critically on the nature of the activity in which they are engaged rather than merely engaging in it” (509). That is to say, in order to effectively and best teach Shakespeare (and any other canonical work for that matter), teachers must be up to date on recent literary theoretical criticism in order to avoid passing on unreflective ways of reading these texts. Teaching methods and critics who are keen to assert Shakespeare’s “eternal relevance”, and argue for a conception Shakespeare as “unique yet universal and historical yet eternal” imply a view of the text as unchanging and the reader and reading process as “curiously neutral” (509). Teachers of Shakespeare ought to reflect on traditional/alternative literary criticism and analyze the assumptions that lead to the translation of theory into practice and the construction of a new classroom where readers are “better placed to investigate the differences among interpretations and to interrogate the terms of their production” (516). In approaching the study of these plays from this standpoint, students will be helped to critically analyze “the values that various readings appear to support (or challenge) and the terms of their legitimation” rather than simply “reproduce moral or aesthetic judgments of characters and texts” – and “Shakespeare” as a whole (517).
Implications
Some of the implications of our initial findings led us to branch off into more specific exploration of assessments and teaching methods recommended by our sponsor teachers. Louise, for example, went on to investigate the rationale and value of implementing a memorized speech recitation presentation into our units. Jose went on to delve more deeply into the challenges of instructing students in Early Modern English. Still other aspects of our research led us to think more creatively about other assessment ideas, and in particular, scholars like Christy Desmet in her article, Teaching Shakespeare with YouTube, advocate for fascinating applications of multi-modal/media approaches to helping students think critically about their relationship to Shakespearean performances and adaptations. Urging teachers to help students apply a rigorous, intellectual scrutiny and peer review practices to their own approbation and reuse of existing material on YouTube, Desmet alludes to exciting and novel approaches to enabling students to have a “real stake in shaping Shakespeare for our time” (69).
Louise
Context:
This year, I am going to teach Macbeth in two Grade 11 classes for the long practicum. I planned the basic components of my unit and lessons along with Jose and Irene. The three of us decided that we would like to focus on the performative aspects of the play as a strategy to incorporate and promote different learning styles in the English language arts classroom. One of our main assignments will be a memorized speech performance in which students will memorize ten to fifteen lines verbatim from Macbeth and perform them individually in front of the class. Students are then assessed based on the following criteria: speech memorized, audibility, concentration, expression and intonation, energy and effort with the use of props or costumes. However, I neglected to interrogate the value of the assignment. After a meeting with my school advisor, I realized that I lacked a clear and thoughtful rationale for assigning the task. That meeting led me to consider the following questions: Why do I want students to memorize exact lines from the play? What is the value of memorizing the lines verbatim? How does memorizing Shakespeare’s lines allow students to be creative? What type of learning can come from the performance? Therefore, for the purpose of my inquiry, I selected to investigate the value of rote memorization and performance as a resource and multimodal strategy that promotes learning and creativity.
Approach:
To begin my inquiry, I first decided to look at current trends of rote memorization in English language arts classrooms today. In “Shakespeare Goes to High School: Some Current Practices in the American Classroom”, Russ Macdonald concludes that while teachers remain enthusiastic about performance, memorization does not necessarily share the same value in the English language arts classroom. He suggests teachers found that performance does not always necessitate memorization as “some instructors employ spontaneous reading, and memorization is occasionally still required; but for the most part the preferred method is the preparation of scenes by groups of student performers” (Macdonald 146). I noted this finding to be consistent with the my school advisor’s philosophy on memorization as she mentioned that she values group performances over individual ones, and memorization of students’ modern English translations over rote lines. Based on several readings, I began to notice a trend that rote memorization has become negatively associated with dated, archaic pedagogical paradigms and that part of being a progressive educator is to remain skeptical about and view memorizing Shakespeare in a language arts classroom as redundant and stifling student creativity. However, columnist Suzanne Fields stated in “Follow the road not taken: Memorize a poem or two”:
Current intellectual fashions that challenge the value of memorizing come from esoteric and fashionable literary theorists who subscribe to “constructivism,” ideas stemming from Jean Piaget, the Swiss child psychologist, who insists that there is no such thing as “objective knowledge” and that children should “construct” knowledge for themselves. Memorization in this formulation deprives children of independent thinking and self-discovery. Anyone who grew up memorizing at least one Shakespeare sonnet, or even “Cat in the Hat,” recognizes this notion as absurd (Fields).
Although the value of memorization in English language arts classrooms seems to be decreasing, challenged, or rejected altogether, my readings revealed that teachers and researchers continue to remain divided on the issue. As a result, I was and am motivated to challenge and validate my views on rote memorization of Shakespeare in language arts classes through academic research and field practice. I would like to enter my practicum with an open mind as well as optimistic expectations of the speech memorization project and impress upon students that rote memorization coupled with performance can be a positive and enjoyable strategy for learning Shakespeare and developing an in depth understanding of character, the play, and life.
Findings:
In treating memorization as a positive and effective resource for learning Shakespeare, the next step into my inquiry was to outline key points to advocate for rote memorization and performance in studying Shakespeare. Based on my findings, I would like to suggest that the key values of memorization are threefold: memorization and performance enables students to learn through a process; memorization and performance encourages students to imbue, extract, and deliver meaning within a text; memorization and recitation promotes student empowerment.
(1) Learning through the process, not from the product
In assigning the speech memorization project, I believe that student learning will occur during the process of memorizing and not at delivering the product of memorization. Focusing on the product draws attention to and measures learning based on how well the student has memorized the lines. In other words, an effective process will lead to a quality product, or in the case of this project, performance. To be specific, a student who memorizes and recites Shakespeare’s lines with no error may still fall short in his or her delivery during the performance, which will indicate that no actual learning of the character had occurred during their memorization process. Perfect memorization may not be consistent with the quality of the delivery, which looks at how well the student manages to embody and represent the character in a meaningful way. In other words, a perfect memory coupled with a poor interpretation of character will result in an uninspired performance. Therefore, in order to help my students succeed in the project, it is necessary for me to scaffold the memorization process and assess students in stages for “the process helps students enrich their language and enhances their feeling for literature, for the beauty in imagery or in the sounds and rhythms of words [and] teachers strive to make the students believe the process is worth their while” (Maeroff). In order to produce a meaningful product (performance), teachers must provide students with effective tools that aid and enrich the process of memorization.
(2) Imbuing, extracting, and delivering meaning through process and performance
Through the process of memorization, students will learn to and engage in imbuing, extracting, and delivering meaning to fulfill the demands of the project. As an educator, I recognize that students (and myself included) are not professional performers; furthermore, producing skilled performers is not what I seek to achieve from this project. Instead, the purpose of this project is to bring students closer to the characters through the lines within the play in order for students to further develop a deeper understanding and empathy for the characters. Through memorization, students are forced to pay close attention to the specific lines of the play or poetry for “engaging in the memory arts is like acting in more ways than one […] to animate memory images in the mind, ‘those who practice the
art of memory have to pretend to feel the same passions’ as the image they ‘impersonate,’ just as an actor would take on the passions needed for a theatrical role” (Wilder 550). Then repetition enables students to make new discoveries about the language they memorize. Also, to facilitate scaffolding of the assignment into my unit plan, I have scheduled an entire block for students to engage in closer readings of the lines with a partner, peer rehearsal, and peer feedback (Athanases 95). In this manner, students can begin to extract meaning from the text and imbue their characters with emotions in order to produce a moving performance. The performance itself also commits students to the understanding of the text, with memorization and its process functioning as a resource.
(3) Recitation, performance, and a sense of empowerment
As students engage in the process of memorization and the modality of performance, I believe that students are also in the act of allowing the text and the lines become a part of them. As students exercise their memory, they will (as George Steiner suggests) “ingest” the words, imbue meaning within the character, and represent this process in performance. Rather than distancing themselves from the text, this speech memorization project should enable students to come closer to the play, the characters, and let the language empower their minds and their self-confidence. Empowerment is the icing on the cake of speech memorization and performance, and empowerment is confidence building for “using drama to teach literature works because it invites students into the language of the text. It does not matter if students do not know or understand every word, scene, or chapter. They can always go back to it later. Students work collaboratively to interpret the text and its subtext. And because the students are responsible for revealing the meaning of the literary text, they become empowered rather than intimidated by language” (DeBlase 32).
Implications:
The implications of my inquiry for teaching generally are that educators need to focus on the process of speech memorization and performance rather than the memorization itself. Instead of rejecting the task altogether, educators may view the act of memorization as a resource or opportunity to build in other learning strategies. In particular, my research has led me to revise the assignment and rubric in a way that incorporates pre-memorization and post-memorization activities. Students will now be working in pairs to select the lines they want to perform, split the lines between them, do a close reading of the lines together, rehearse together, memorize the lines together, and exchange peer feedback before the performance. To facilitate pair work, I had to makes changes to the schedule of my unit plan so that students can have time to confer and work in class. After the performance, students will then write a 250 to 300-word reflection on what they have learned through the performance. They will reflect on the new discoveries they have made about character and they ways in which they chose to interpret the lines and portray the character. The students will also reflect on the challenges they faced in fulfilling the assignment and the strategies they utilized to unpack the language and imbue meaning into their characters. I believe that these reflections will enable me to identify the successes and shortcomings of the assignment. In turn, this information will enable me to reflect and assess the validity of my inquiry and my stand on rote memorization in English language arts classrooms.
Jose
Context:
Being asked to teach Macbeth, or any Shakespeare first seemed incredibly daunting. As Irene, Louise, and I started planning for our unit in previous classes, we decided to take a multi-modal approach to make the play more accessible. However, what we struggled with was how to take the actual language in the play and make it accessible to students. The lessons could be engaging and allow the students to understand what was going in on the play, but it would not reduce the anxiety and difficulties students face when confronted with Macbeth. This inquiry took three branches, and my inquiry branched to, How can I contextualize the language so students are able to examine a piece of text with less anxiety?
Approach
I approached the question by examining texts which focused on the transition from Old English to Modern English, in order to have a better understanding of the history of English.
Findings:
Brief History of English
The history of the English language is one filled with changes, borrowing, and shifts. Both in speaking, writing, and meaning. For the purpose of inquiry, I chose to reduce the enormous amounts of academic literature about the language shifts to this short brief history.
In 1066, Old English experienced a shift as the Duke of Normandy, William the Conqueror, conquered England. Normandy (Modern Day France) was french speaking, thus french became the dominant language in England for the upper class. As the power of Normandy over England waned, French language became a sign of the elite, which created resentment from the English population. Through events, such as the bubonic plague, which led to greater political power for the lower classes, French became less used and English became the language which created a feeling of patriotism. As English became more dominant, so too did the social status of the language.
By 1413, English was fully restored as the language. However, even thought English was the language used, French influence on the language did not disappear. English had borrowed extensively from French. For examples, in the realms of law and government, realms where French served as the dominant language for long periods of time, had a large amount of loan words. “Parliament, authority, arrest, felony, etc” were all loan words from the French language that is now used in English. Middle English was also the era of printing, which led to the development of a written standard for many words which had no formal spelling. Because of this, power influenced the development of language, where a dialect had to be chosen, and the educated and rich had to agree with that dialect. (Brinton & Arnovick, 2006)
The shift from MidE to EME occurred during the English renaissance. The Great Vowel Shift pushed the vowels higher up in articulation, These changes in pronunciations led to significant changes to how we pronounce our words today.
Why is all this relevant?
The purpose of this history is to provide teachers with a background of the changing language of Shakespeare. By showing this, students will be able to see that English is a constantly evolving language, and it is different from modern day English. We acknowledge that the language is dated, that it is sometimes inaccessible, and that we do need tools to understand it. So, how do we go about trying to understand the dated use of English?
Uses in the classroom:
The purpose of this section is to provide teachers a potential starting point from which to introduce EME to their classrooms. I have taken a few activities from Teaching reading Shakespeare, by J. Haddon.
According to Teaching Reading Shakespeare, the discomfort students feel with Shakespeare stems from a few sources. One of the sources of anxiety stems from the historic use of English. However, much of this anxiety is ill-placed. Given time to examine the texts, students can come to see that much of the English in Shakespeare is understandable with a few reading techniques. In Maddon’s book, he suggests that by familiarizing students with different forms of EME, they can be reassured that while it is different from our Modern English, it is not very far removed from it.
Haddon suggests setting up the classroom as a space where, like a foreign language class, students can use the foreign language in Shakespeare to familiarize themselves and get comfortable. By providing an avenue for them to use the language, that anxiety will be reduced. The worksheet provided in the resources section gives phrases that are commonly used in Shakespeare as well as translations, this sheet can be used in classrooms.
Teachers can try to speak in Shakespearean. By using the language in class, they are exposed to the language in use, and can piece together meaning on their own by listening to how the words are used alongside Modern English in the classroom. “Ere thou handst in thy homework, we will go through Act II” By plugging in phrases and words here and there, students may be encouraged to use the language themselves, become more and more familiar and comfortable with reading Shakespeare.
Implications
Rather than avoiding the language of Shakespeare by moving to modern translation, Maddon suggests to face the language head on. By recognizing the language of Shakespeare as a historic way of writing and speaking English, teachers remove the assumptions that students are expected to be able to understand the language at first glance. In providing students with some background knowledge to the history of the English Language, students are also to glimpse that the development of language is an ongoing process, even now. They should be able to see the huge differences between Old English to Early Modern English; as well as the similarities between EME and Modern English.
The strategies posed by Maddon reduces the anxiety by having students use the language as well as make these similarities and differences explicit. I intend to change my current Macbeth unit to incorporate an introductory lesson that focuses on the history and difficulties of Shakespeare as a language, rather than Shakespeare’s personal history. I believe that by helping students understand the language, they will be able to unpack other similar texts in future classes with less anxiety.
Works Cited
Athanases, Steven Z. “Performing the Drama of the Poem: Workshop, Rehearsal, and Reflection.” The English Journal 95.1 (2005): 88-96. Print.
Deblase, Gina. “Teaching Literature and Language through Guided Discovery and Informal Classroom Drama.” The English Journal 95.1 (2005): 29-32. Print.
Desmet, Christy. “Teaching Shakespeare with YouTube.”English Journal 99.1 (2009): 65-70. Print.
Evan St Lifer. “Reaching 21st-Century Learners.” School Library Journal 51.5 (2005): 11.Print.
Haddon, John. Teaching Reading Shakespeare. New York: Routledge, 2009. Print
Lifer, E. S. (2005). Reaching 21st-century learners. School Library Journal, 51(5), 11-11. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/211801408?accountid=14656
Maeroff, Gene I. “Use of Memorization in Schools Fading: Memorization in Schools is Fading.” New York Times (1857-Current file): C1. 1982. Print.
Mellor, Bronwyn, and Annette Patterson. “Critical Practice: Teaching “Shakespeare”.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 43.6 (2000): 508-17. Print.
McDonald, Russ. “Shakespeare Goes to High School: Some Current Practices in the American Classroom.” Shakespeare Quarterly 46.2 (1995): 145-56. Print.
Spangler, Susan. “Speaking My Mind: Stop Reading Shakespeare.” English Journal 99.1 (2009): 130-2. Print.
Steiner, George. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xUzVfxwm_k
Suzanne Fields / The Los Angeles Times. “Follow the Road Not Taken: Memorize a Poem Or Two: All Editions.” The Grand Rapids Press: C.3. 2004. Print.
Wilder, Lina Perkins. “Shakespeare and Memory.” Literature Compass 9.8 (2012): 549-59. Print.
Bibliography
Athanases, Steven Z. “Performing the Drama of the Poem: Workshop, Rehearsal, and Reflection.” The English Journal 95.1 (2005): 88-96. Print.
Bartling, Charles E. “On Teaching “Macbeth” and Shakespeare.” The English Journal 49.1(1960): 38-9. Print.
Deblase, Gina. “Teaching Literature and Language through Guided Discovery and Informal Classroom Drama.” The English Journal 95.1 (2005): 29-32. Print.
Elting, Stephen, and Arthur Firkins. “Dramatizing Poetry in the Second Language Classroom.” English Teaching: Practice and Critique 5.3 (2006): 127-36. Print.
Gilbert, Miriam. “Teaching Shakespeare through Performance. “Shakespeare Quarterly 35.5 (1984): 601-8. Print.
Herguth, Bob. “Bring Back the Humanizing Art of Memorization: FIVE STAR SPORTS FINAL Edition.” Chicago Sun – Times: 52. 1986. Print.
Hoffman, Robert R., and Kenneth A. Deffenbacher. “A Brief History of Applied Cognitive Psychology.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 6.1 (1992): 1-48. Print.
JACQUES KELLY. “AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CLASSROOM’S ROTE ROUTINE: FINAL Edition.” The Sun: B.2. 2007. Print.
Janssen, Joanne Nystrom. “Character of Memorization: Quotation and Identity in Nineteenth-Century British Fiction.” 2011. Print.
McDonald, Russ. “Shakespeare Goes to High School: Some Current Practices in the American Classroom.” Shakespeare Quarterly 46.2 (1995): 145-56. Print.
Maeroff, Gene I. “Use of Memorization in Schools Fading: Memorization in Schools is Fading.” New York Times (1857-Current file): C1. 1982. Print.
“MEMORIZATION HAS ITS PLACE: FIFTH Edition.” Morning Call: A.18. 1996. Print.
Perfect, Kathy A. “Rhyme and Reason: Poetry for the Heart and Head.” The Reading Teacher 52.7 (1999): 728-37. Print.
Perry, Tonya. “Taking Time: Beyond Memorization: Using Drama to Promote Thinking.” The English Journal 95.1 (2005): 120-3. Print.
Rocklin, Edward L. “”an Incarnational Art”: Teaching Shakespeare.” Shakespeare Quarterly 41.2 (1990): 147-59. Print.
Sherman, Anita Gilman. Skepticism and Memory in Shakespeare and Donne. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Print.
Suzanne Fields / The Los Angeles Times. “Follow the Road Not Taken: Memorize a Poem Or Two: All Editions.” The Grand Rapids Press: C.3. 2004. Print.
Suzanne Fields, THE WASHINGTON TIMES. “Poetry on the Potomac ; Teaching the Rhythms of the Language.” Washington Times: A.21. 2004. Print.
Taggart, Louise. “Two Methods of Teaching “Macbeth”.” The English Journal 23.7 (1934): 543-53. Print.
Tonya Perry. “Beyond Memorization: Using Drama to Promote Thinking.” English Journal 95.1 (2005): 120. Print.
Travers, D. Molly Murison. “The Poetry Teacher: Behavior and Attitudes.” Research in the Teaching of English 18.4 (1984): 367-84. Print.
U-En Ng. “Teaching Shakespeare.” New Straits Times: 18. 2011. Print.
Valiente, Carolina. “Are Students using the ‘Wrong’ Style of Learning?: A Multicultural Scrutiny for Helping Teachers to Appreciate Differences.” Active Learning in Higher Education 9.1 (2008): 73-91. Print.
Wilder, Lina Perkins. Shakespeare, Memory and Performance. 58 Vol. Oxford: Oxford Publishing Limited (England), 2007. Print.
Wilder, Lina Perkins. “Shakespeare and Memory.” Literature Compass 9.8 (2012): 549-59. Print.