Thanks to everyone for jumping into the dramatic exercise called "Creative Controversy". A lot of worthwhile points were made.
A few reminders: NO CLASS TUESDAY, JUNE 19. We will meet again on the 26th. Please note: the second assignment will be due that day. (Your choice of of topic related to teaching Shakespeare, drama or poetry. Write 2-3 single space pages on: your response to the Bard play or a literary criticism; creative writing: short dramatic play or poem(s)and how you might use it in your classroom; or, do a Shakespeare project, unit or set of related lessons. Any combination of these is also permitted. E-mail Sue if you have questions. Have a great weekend. See you at Romeo & Juliet Saturday? :D
16 comments:
Bhu wrote:
Today's activity was a great way to start discussion about Shakespeare and whether it should or should not be taught as part of curriculum. What relevance does studying Shakespeare have and for who? Although most of the class seemed to side with the fact that Shakespeare should be both taught and studied in the classroom, there were a few people (whether in role or not i cannot say for sure) who argued that Shakespeare perpetuates western culture/ideologies in terms of social and educational aspects. I played the role of a teacher who was against teaching Shakespeare, although my argument did not denounce Shakespeare's work, because I do not believe Shakespeare's work is the pinnacle, or foundation of English. I acknowledge Shakespeare contributed to the English language and his literature has left an impressionable mark in past and present-day history but this ought not to suggest that he and his literary works are the building blocks of English literature. And there are other great writers, historians, and poets who have immensely contributed to the academic arena today and I often feel as though they get put on the back-burner. The reality is, as someone in class mentioned, secondary English teachers will have to teach Shakespeare at one point or another and it is our duty almost to believe in his work and find value in teaching it to our prospective students. If a teacher is not and cannot be passionate about what he/she is teaching and have a firm belief as to why he/she is teaching, students cannot be to blame for lack of wanting to learn or care for a man who wrote a bunch of plays hundreds of years ago.
Bhu =)
Heather wrote:
I think the question of whether or not to teach Shakespeare ties in with the question of whether or not to teach the canon as a whole.
First, I would like to defend the canon. Yes, it is the Western canon, but we have to teach students works of culture and we live in Western culture so it seems reasonable to start with that tradition. Beyond this, if we can ignore for a while who wrote those works and focus on what they wrote about, we can appreciate what great things dead white men have to say.
That being said, there are many other cultures living in Western nations and so for modern literature, it is important to represent those many voices. This notion of the many voices that ought to be represented in the classroom has me thinking about the differences between some of the modern literature that we read now and the classics like Shakespeare.
I think this difference can perhaps clarify the importance of the canon. With the development of modern literature came the notion of individualism. This notion has affected literature a great deal. Much of modern and postmodern literature has uniquely individual characters who speak with their own voice. In Canadian literature, that voice is often tied to the place/culture from which the character originates. The beauty of this is that we can read so many different perspectives and through these many perspectives, we can gain a better understanding of our collective condition.
The classics, however, pose the question “what is it to be human?” outside the notion of individualism. Renaissance writers, taking their cue from the Greeks and Romans, sought to understand humanity in the largest and most general sense. Although much of the Renaissance talk of “humanity” really means white men, these ideas are still current precisely because they pose a question that still concerns us. For this reason, I think there is something exhilaratingly refreshing about texts like Shakespeare. He sought to say something about what it means to be human outside of the multitude of voices that make up humanity. This way of looking at the question of the human condition is novel to our modern eye, and, I think, an important perspective on the question. In my mind it balances our modern individualistic impulse to only consider our own perspective. This is not to say that modern literature has this effect, just that it only looks at the notion of humanity through the lense of the individual. Both modern and historical literature can lend important insight into the commonality of our experience, but from different vantage points.
Finally, an additional reason to teach the older works of the canon is that it lends great insight into what we are doing now. Although few believe in the Western creation myth that Milton so eloquently put into prose, it is those kinds of Western myths and those literary conventions that modern writers have sought to reinvent or outright destroy. It is implausible to me that you can understand literature today without looking back at the past for this reason.
June 12, 2007 8:10 PM
Heather said...
Ok...just one more thing.
My knowledge of literature is limited to the canon and some modern multicultural works. I have always imagined that there is so much literature out there that I haven't read probably because it is not translated in English or I simply wasn't exposed to it in academia. Is it plausible that in the future we can start talking about a world canon of great works of which the Western canon will only be one part?
June 12, 2007 8:40 PM
Kiel said...
I do believe that Shakespeare should be taught in the classroom. I took pleasure in watching King Lear in Stratford-upon-Avon when I was 10. I took a time consuming side trip to Verona to see Juliet's statue and touch the famous breast. I enjoyed trading Shakespearean barbs with my Grade 12 English teacher. As a teacher though, I cannot let my feelings for the content become my justification for it. For me, the only issues surrounding this topic are why it is taught and how.
It is not enough to say that it is taught because it is Shakespeare and because we must. It is also not enough to have the students read the play, maybe take turns playing different roles, then watch the movie version.
Those who enjoy Shakespeare do so for reasons that are not initially shared by students. The beauty and intrinsic value that some can see and feel in his works is completely lost on many others. If Shakespeare truly speaks to many people, why does the topic of relevance even arise then?
I believe that the language is the number one reason for difficulty in understanding Shakespeare. Many of the themes in Shakespeare are entertaining and relevant to students, but student's can never reach a knowledge of the theme because they don't know what is being said, or cannot conceive why it is written the way that it is.
Like Bho said, most students do not want or care to learn Shakespeare. It is up to the teacher to show students the value of Shakespeare. The history, the intrinsic beauty, the contribution to literature; these reasons do not make Shakespeare meaningful or remotely interesting for most students. This is what we, as educated adults with a passion for literature, see.
How will we teach Shakespeare to students? Why are we teaching them Shakespeare? The answers to these questions will dictate the successes and challenges for students when learning Shakespeare from us.
June 13, 2007 8:51 AM
Lisa said...
I agree that the way that a teacher chooses to approach teaching a Shakespeare unit has a significant impact on his/her students. In my experience, it has not been the content itself that has been initially interesting, but it is the way the teacher has taught the content which made it engaging. In modern society, there are many different ways that teachers can approach a Shakespeare unit without repeating the traditional methods of the past, such as having students read the play out loud, listen to the tapes, critique the movie, and compare/contrast the movie to the play. Teachers can use graphic novels, thematic studies, and group activities. I think that if we change the way we teach Shakespeare the students will be able to see its relevance to the curriculum and their lives. The teacher has to make and/or guide students in making connections between the time of Shakespeare and the modern day. The underlying themes that connect Shakespeare’s plays are also the same issues and themes that are evident in modern society. The most important factor in the teaching of a Shakespeare unit, however, has to depend on the individual students in the class and their interests.
I think that teaching Shakespeare in modernized Middle English is a good way at getting the students actively involved in reading the text. This may be a challenge for some individuals in the classroom with language barriers and/or other barriers to reading the text, but it is possible for them to learn how to read the text. It will give the student a sense of accomplishment when they understand the meaning of the text, whether or not it is publicly apparent or privately evident. As the students understand how to comprehend the words of the text through context, they can apply these skills to other literature and subjects. This skill will help them not only in school but also in life.
The school library and resources also play a part in determining what the teacher is able to teach. There are only so many different books and plays in the bookroom which the teacher has to choose from. In a Shakespeare unit, there can be different materials which are brought in to complement and/or contrast Shakespeare. The Shakespeare unit does not have to solely be a Shakespeare play, but it depends on the individual teacher who teaches the unit.
June 14, 2007 2:23 PM
In my opinion, there are at least a few good reasons that I can think of for including Shakespeare in the curriculum.
First of all, I think that his plays touch on so many themes, that teaching a Shakespeare play gives the teacher a huge array of possible approaches to the content. Perhaps not all teachers get creative about this, but I also think that there is a lot of room to experiment with one's approach to teaching a Shakespeare unit. Examining the different themes, trying out different ways of presenting it (acting out scenes as skits, having students decode and translate select passages into modern English, etc.)should be able to make the content engaging and interesting. I think that students are often afraid of Shakespeare, and teaching it effectively can greatly improve their confidence (i.e. "I can understand this!").
Perhaps there is not always enough conscious justification on the teacher's part for including Shakespeare, but I don't think there is enough justification to NOT teach it either. I think that there is definitely room for at least one or two plays to be taught, in the high school English classroom, and as Sue said in class, if they're not going to experience it here, where will they get the chance? There is still room for other authors, but completely neglecting something as influential as Shakespeare seems wrong to me.
Somehow I don't think I studied very much Shakespeare in school. I know I did Macbeth in grade 11, a little bit of Julius Caesar in grade 12 (I remember performing a rap about Marc Antony and Caesar!), and a bit of Richard III in grade 12. I remember many students groaning at the time, but I think that for the most part we enjoyed it, and those plays have stayed in my memory to this day.
Lastly, I've been inspired to start reading some more Shakespeare (just started Hamlet), and I just found an amazing deal on a leatherbound set of the Bard's complete works, for only $15 (at a used bookstore's clearance sale)!
Although I actually enjoy reading and studying Shakespeare’s works, I am not sure he should be included in every secondary English classroom in BC. We can reserve a place for Shakespeare, but I would argue it should be a limited engagement. If a student truly becomes interested, s/he can pursue curiosity on her own time. By focusing so heavily on one author with arguably “dominant” leanings, we imply that his works are more important than any others. I just don’t believe that’s true. As educators, shouldn’t we rather be illustrating (through classroom texts) the diversity and beauty of all writing? Shakespeare is a great starting point, but at some point, I think we should be moving on…
I have to agree with most people's thoughts. I too have good memories of Shakespeare in high school. Thinking back, I can't remember anything from a couple of years except the Shakespeare unit. The way Shakespeare is taught is essential to getting and keeping the student's attention and interest. Drama and/or kinesthetic based activities might help to pull the students away from the mindset of "it's too hard" because they will need to focus on more than just the written word.
I do believe Shakespeare should be taught in schools. Nowadays, things sometimes get too political and it seems some sectors want to remove a lot of Western culture from schools. I believe Shakespeare is a very important part of Western culture, especially in the language department. Also, he is as relevant today as yesterday. If he wasn't, Bard on the Beach wouldn't be having full houses every night...
This past week’s class reminded me how much visuals are so important in a classroom environment. As mentioned in class, visuals have an important role in every classroom but a significant importance in a classroom with ESL learners. As an educator, I am sensitive to my learners and feel that adapting lessons to learning needs is an essential part of teaching. I found the three versions of Hamlet to be very interesting. Especially since the DVD was spliced! I have to learn how to do that! I think my students would be really impressed, just as I was! As I was watching the movie, I realized that I would probably show the Mel Gibson’s version of Hamlet to my students. In conversations with colleagues, students tend to enjoy watching the modern version of Hamlet with Ethan Hawk and Julia Stiles. However, the Hamlet that is shown most in schools is the Gibson version. And from experience teaching Lord of the Flies to grade 11s, students shy away from black and white movies!
Okay guys and dolls, this comes a little late but here's what I think:
Shakespeare is awesome! Shakespeare gave me so many new ways of looking at humanity and questioning things around me. I started reading Shakespeare in grade 8 with Romeo and Juliet and reading that play, at that time, made me feel that I was not the only girl struggling to understand love and the world around me. I am not saying that Shakespeare was the only reason but he definately inspired me.
I totally agree with Heather (great post by the way) and think that those "dead white men" do have great stuff to say. We do live in a multicultural society but that does not mean that we should shy away from teaching dead white men's works. I also think that Heather's idea for a 'world canon' is awesome.
Who has the authority to put together the canon? Can the canon be changed? Should we teach the canon or teach to what our students are interested in -along with Shakespeare! haha. We have to show students the value in the history of literature and teach them the value of what Shakespeare has to say about the human condition. If we can do this as teachers maybe we can help inspire some more who love him and appreciate him as much as I do.
okay, this is a little late, but here is what I think...
I am definitely in favour of teaching Shakespeare in school. If I had left high school without ever being exposed to such an influential cultural icon, I would have felt cheated and disappointed. There may be a few students in our classes who will have already been exposed to Shakespeare in their homes, by attending plays or maybe even visiting England...what about the students in our classes who don't have these opportunities to be exposed to culture? If we don't expose students to Shakespeare in school, where else will they come across it? I think it is essential that we don't make excuses for eliminating shakespeare from the classroom. One of the most common excuses is, "the language is too hard". While this may be true for a lot of students we have to remember that as teachers we ARE allowed to leave the language alone for a moment and focus on the more relevant things like theme. Like many people have already said, there is so much room for teachers to shape a shakespearean unit whatever way they feel best suits their students. We have to make sure that we create units in such a way that students don't get 'stuck' in language, and that they are able to still find value in the content.
I taught a unit on Midsummer Night's Dream in my 405 practicum to 2 seperate classes, and I had to alter the way the lessons went based on the students I had in each class. In one class I had a large group of students who were into acting and dancing and were not shy. With this group there were a lot of activities that involved acting out scenes and working in groups to modernize the language. In the other class, more time was spent on personal reflection and journal writing based on the themes presented in the play. Both approaches were successful and overall I think the majority of my students loved the play.
After seeing Romeo and Juliet live at the Bard on Saturday, I really cannot dispute the relevance of such a play in my classroom. How could a high school student not relate to feelings of being in love, or feelings of being torn between your family and the one you love? I feel that the onus is on the teacher to make these themes come alive!
I really enjoyed the creative banter that transpired through class. It was funny and enlightening. By sharing my perspective about teaching Shakespearean plays, I learned to accept and consider other, equally valid, viewpoints.
Teaching Shakespeare can be a very valuable endeavor, but it must be approached in a proper way. Today’s students are not as excited about Shakespeare as they used to be, and I understand why. Because Canada is a multicultural nation, the complex archaic language may alienate some students. I remember how I felt when I was just learning the language and my teacher decided to teach Shakespeare.
Teaching Shakespeare is not a bad thing, and I am not trying to associate a negative connotation for those who do it. The truth is that I would teach Shakespeare in my class; I see great value in it. We just have to ask ourselves: Why are we choosing to teach Shakespeare?
I think that the traditional excuses of literary tradition and universal themes are a bit outdated. There are so many other texts out there which could do the same. Furthermore, Shakespeare’s text reinforces Eurocentric ideals, and a teacher must be careful to challenge them.
I also realize that Shakespeare is seen as the ‘be all end all’ of the English language, but do we ever challenge this assumption? Perhaps in Britain Shakespeare can justifiably be seen as ‘the man;’ it is understandable, his roots are there. However, here in North America, we sound nothing like Shakespeare, we never did. Our literary tradition took on its own path with the influences of Walt Whitman and other canonical artists of the New World. I think its time we forged our own literary tradition, separate from our past dependence on England, and bring into our curriculum plays other than Shakespeare’s.
I’m not saying that teaching Shakespeare is bad, I’m just saying that it is a bad thing that it is the only option secondary English teachers have. Perhaps we can expand our canon of literature in the same way that Canadian culture has expanded.
Wow! Everyone has a lot of strong opinions about whether or not Shakespeare, or the Canon for that matter, should be included in high school English classes. I am one of the great believers in Shakespeare (and many of the works of literature included in the Canon). I loved studying Shakespeare's incredible works of literature in high school and loved it even more in university, where professors went in-depth and more time was spent on a single work.
However, I realize that there are many students who dislike Shakespeare with a passion and loathe the times in high school where they are forced to study him. Yet, doesn't this reflect the manner in which Shakespeare has been taught in the past? Dull, tedious lessons of Shakespeare's plays would certainly prove to be horrific for energetic secondary students. So, it becomes the task of the teacher to present the material in an engaging and lively way. Whether that is through rap versions of Shakespeare or graphic novels, students need to be "hooked" into lessons and find a reason to invest their time and interest.
As to whether or not Shakespeare should be taught? This is a difficult question to answer. I value Shakespeare's works for their language, their beauty and their timeless themes, however, many disagree with this. I believe that Shakespeare should be taught at least once in high school, so that students are exposed to one of the most significant dramatists of the English language. Who knows, they may even learn to appreciate one of the plays!
I taught Shakespeare in class and while I initially had a rough start (moans and groans) the class really semed to like Shakespeare by the end of it. I tried to make it as fun and interesting as possible by making connections to their lives and incorporating acting and role play. As we discussed in class, you can make connections from his plays to suit the lives of your students. If you teach in a clas wth a large multicultural student body use Romeo and Juliet as an avenue to discuss parental control or arranged marriages. It's surprising just how many connections you can make.
Why should Shakespeare be in the BC curriculum? While I was a strong campaigner of keeping it there, I have to ask myself are my own reasons valid? Am I just saying it needs to be there, because it's Shakespeare? I understand it shows us about the evolution of language, and it is a classic, but can we not get that elsewhere? Maybe somewhere closer to home? This class just really made me think about curriculum content and its motives for being there. I am starting to think it would be more effective if they left the PLO's general, and it in the hands of the teacher to decide how they should best be met.
I think having Shakespeare in the curriculum isn't necessarily a bad thing. The plays have great stories in them, and the themes and ideas present in the writing offer some great topics for discussion. But I do understand that many people have a problem with the language, especially high school students. Reading the plays are hard for secondary students, and having to stop their reading to check a footnote gets very aggravating after a while. That's why I think just handing the students a copy of the play and saying read such and such an act for next day is a bad idea. The language is hard, and students do need help with it. Whether that takes the form of a lecture, or class/group discussions is up to the teacher, but there has to be something there to aid them in their comprehension of the text. That's why I believe in watching productions of the plays. When it is right up there for them to see, to put into context with actions, body language, and tone of voice-students have a better chance of understanding and following the story line than just having the text in front of them.
There are some interesting and insightful comments here.
I would like to argue in favour of teaching the canon and Shakespeare. My reason is simple. I liken the canon to a body of knowledge that, although can and should change, has a core set of authors and texts. The study of the English language is much like the study of any discipline-they all have core bodies of knowledge. Imagine the study of medicine with a rejection of core knowledge on anatomy and physiology. Imagine the study of law without the statutes and precedents. Imagine the study of engineering without math. Each of these disciplines would be hopelessly lost, directionless, and chaotic without a core body of knowledge as a base and frame of reference. It is my opinion that the cannon in English functions in the same way: as the ground and frame for the study of the language. This does not mean that there are not problems with the cannon, it only recognizes that no one writes in English from a cultural vacuum. No matter what you may feel personally about the cannon, no one who writes in English is not an heir to that tradition and lineage. Therefore, to not have a cannon or to not teach it, carries with it the danger that the study of English will be rendered lost, pointless, and confounded.
The Shakespeare debate in the classroom is one that I continue to struggle with! I personally believe that the themes and issues that are present in Shakespeare can be found in other more contemporary texts that have language that is easier to navigate for students. I do believe however that the themes that run through Shakespeare’s plays are entirely contemporary and relevant to student’s lives.
I personally began to enjoy Shakespeare as a student once a teacher pointed out that understanding the overall meaning and themes of a play was more important than looking up every single word that I didn't understand.
I really appreciated the ideas that were generated from our discussion on the various ways to teach Shakespeare in the classroom. I have come to understand that making Shakespeare fun and accessible is the most important part.
While I can understand why some would criticize the presence of Shakespeare in every high school English class, I cannot imagine an English class without it. We do need to make room for new works but there is nothing wrong with also including Shakespeare, as many of his themes remain relevant to today’s audience. Further, the fact that the point of an English class is to teach about English and Shakespeare had such an influential role in shaping English should assure his presence in the classroom for some time to come.
As to the role-play activity we did in class, I was apprehensive at first, as the mere mention of the word drama makes me nervous. What I found was that in speaking through the roles, we had some great discussions, and it became enjoyable. Thanks for the fun activity, Sue!
Post a Comment