Regine VitalENGL 611: Teaching of LiteratureProf. Alex MuellerFinal Project: Ten-Lesson Curriculum UnitMay 12th, 2016

“And now, ladies and gentlemen:I would like to re-introduce you to William Shakespeare”

Reintroducing Shakespeareto High School Seniors, College Freshmen and Sophomores

Rationale:

In chapter five of The Literature Workshop, Blau asks, “Where do interpretations

come from?” How do those in literary studies produce the “interpretive discourse” that is the

“fundamental and defining act” of field (97)? It is an aspect of literary studies that students

can find to be confusing, intimidating, and perhaps even counterproductive. When we ask

students to read texts to be able to tell us what they mean, as Blau observes, “they act like

witnesses to a crime who are afraid of being personally involved or have been warned by a

judge to stick to the facts and not draw any inferences or reach any conclusions on their

own” (102). Often, they are too nervous to offer up what they believe is a “wrong” answer or

“dumb” thought or idea, or they feel as if the answer can’t possibly be “easy” to figure out,

or they think there is an already constructed “right” answer.

This last sentiment in particular comes into play when reading Shakespeare. He is a

pillar of the Western literary cannon whose repertoire of work is replete with many possible

interpretations, but that potential fluidity is lost on students. Instead, they come to the

pieces with the knowledge that much work has already been done and all the answers

found; how could they possibly offer anything new? The language is different—how do they

even begin to decipher it? Add to this the expectation that there is a “proper” way to read

and interpret literature (especially Shakespeare), and students will feel like they don’t have

a chance with the Bard. Or, they produce “mechanistic readings” that “appear to produce

the analysis of no genuine intellectual reason at all except to satisfy a posed assignment”

(103). These are hindrances to true engagement with Shakespeare’s writing and

storytelling.

My hope with this ten-lesson unit would be to show students that Shakespeare is

accessible, weirdness of Elizabethan English notwithstanding. In fact, Shakespeare’s poems

and plays involve topics they encounter in their own lives. Also, however many

interpretations are out there, there is still the possibility for more. One need not be a genius

well versed in the genre of Shakespeare in order to be able to think and talk about the work.

The majority of his initial audiences were not even literate and it was for them he had to

write; they wanted to hear a good story, just like any of us today. Shakespeare was a

storyteller first. Beginning there, I would hope to help the students realize they are more

than capable to engage with Shakespeare as deeply and broadly as they may like. As Blau

explains, “ [W]e are always telling and hearing stories and always interpreting them, and we

have not needed a specialized course in school to enable us to interpret the stories we hear”

(107). The habit is already present, it just needs to be developed and honed with confidence.

One way to do this is to begin in small pieces. Students may come into a

Shakespeare course thinking we’re going to dive right into the deep, difficult stuff; this is

perhaps one of the reasons for the nervousness and intimidation they feel. Instead, I would

ease them into Shakespeare, piece by piece. Michael Millburn suggests initially working with

Shakespeare’s plays section by section instead of overwhelming students with an entire five

act play of plot, characterization, symbolism, and historical significance, among other things

(76). This strategy not only helped his students, but also helped him to calm his nervousness

about broaching Shakespeare with his students. Beginning with low-stakes gives the

students a chance to orient themselves in Shakespeare’s world and allows me to more

confidently play the role of guide. I should acknowledge that Millburn wrote his essay

considering teaching high school lowerclassmen; however, I believe his assessment holds

true for high school upperclassmen/college freshman and sophomores. Reading a play a

week can be tough; reading a Shakespeare play week may feel like punishment. I think it is

important to first create a space for entre to the material and then develop from there.

Another aspect I would hope to confront is how, in academic endeavors, so much of

Shakespeare’s work does not fall on the ear, literally. I believe strongly that his words are

2

meant to be heard; discussing his works in the absence of this fact very much takes away

from the experience of his work. Consequently, this is a set of lessons that definitely

incorporates a performative aspect in every meeting. By this, I mean that as much of the

work as possible will be read out loud, hopefully with dramatic affects. I would of course

have to lead and model this behavior myself. I would also have part of the unit incorporate

actual performance of pieces by the class as part of instruction, not simply as fun group

activities. I believe that this will help the students to better work with Shakespeare’s

language by hearing it, speaking it, and working with it; the language must be interacted

with directly by the students.

This belief, I think, aligns well with Bruns’ advocacy for an immersive reading, in Why

Literature?, where students must “experience the text. The textual world in which a reader

temporarily loses or releases her clearly bounded sense of herself must be the world which

she recreates in interaction with the text” (118, original italics). Drama is a text that readily

makes this process available to a reader; it truly does require that a reader create a world in

order to fully interact with the text. Drama allows for the reader to become the operating

mechanism of a given piece. Recalling Rosenblatt’s own thinking, Bruns states, “that literary

text is nothing more than marks on the paper until it is read. It becomes, in [Rosenblatt’s]

words, the ‘poem’ or the literary work only as the reader calls it forth” (118). By having the

students use their voices to give life and shape to the ideas in Shakespeare’s lines, my hope

is that they will be able give body to their own ideas and interpretations. Furthermore, the

role of immersive reading in a literary education centered on the formative use of literature

partners well with the performative aspects of drama because in order for the student to

place her/his self in a characters shoes, s/he must first reflect on aspects of her/his self.

Understanding requires empathy. In playing out the motivations of a character, they can

experience consequences that could potentially render deeper insight into who these

characters are in the story they inhabit. This enactment or dramatization is another way of

making meaning (or making worlds). As Jeffrey D. Wilhelm states “drama is imagining a

reality in which you can play with meanings and interact with others” (4). As an actress, I

3

can attest to the truth of this: scripts and rehearsals are part of the apparatus actors work

in; but the work we do is to play with meanings and interact with others at every level of the

piece. The best actors play all the time and are the most collaborative.

Which leads, in a way, to my next method. In chapter two of The Literature

Workshop, “From Telling to Teaching”, Blau discusses the importance of putting students in

conversation with each other in order to expand their knowledge of the texts they read by

pooling and discussing as a group their individual impressions of a piece. Blau describes this

as “coduction”, a term coined by Wayne Booth. Coduction is “a socially constructed form of

reasoning” which “derives from conversation or a kind of collaborative discourse or

negotiation conducted with other readers…it yields knowledge that is always provisional

insofar as literary opinions and judgments are always rooted in comparisons with previous

literary experience and change as our experience grows richer and more varied over time”

(54-55). In other words, coduction is a group-based interpretation where, by sharing then

comparing and/or contrasting individual experiences with a text, a new, fuller, and multi-

dimensional reading is developed. This reading is interactive—it can evolve as new insights

are applied, or as old ones are revised or stripped away. In “coduction”, reading and literary

interpretation becomes a shared task, and therefore not an exercise in reception of one

person’s opinions and judgments. This is the process of the rehearsal in theatre, the process

of play as previously mentioned. Drama is an inherently collaborative process—the story

cannot be told without multiple voices, from playwright to director to actor(s) to audience;

interpretation of drama, I believe, operates in much the same way. It can be a true

ensemble act.

A skill I would like to focus on through performative instruction, as well as through

alternative modes of interpreting written text is transfer. In chapter 4 of Uncommon Core,

Smith, Appleman, and Wilhelm define transfer as “the transfer of knowledge means applying

what one learns in one situation to problem solving in another” (72). At first, “performance”

may not seem to be much of a form of transfer or perhaps is simply an instance of near

transfer at best. But I believe that the activity is still potentially quite beneficial. The

4

ultimate goal is to help “student[s] gain conscious control over their reading strategies,

what’s called metacognition” (74, original italics). Because performing a character inherently

involves self-conscious and self-aware reading, metacognition is a natural part of the

process. Making meaning in performance requires literacy on multiple levels; the process in

many ways is akin to Robert Scholes’ formulation or reading as referenced by Blau (51):

“reading produces text within text; interpretation produces text upon text; criticism

produces text against text.” In performance, reading gives you the personalities of the

characters; interpretation of the characters traits and actions establishes the worlds they

inhabit; their worlds are then synthesized into a time and place to be portrayed and

received, that can be inhabited. Though the final step isn’t quite the same as “criticism”, it is

just as important because so much of how we understand and make meaning of drama is

dependent on how we receive it: any given performance—especially an unexpected one—

can effect totally our perspective on a play. This fact can be applied to an academic reading

of drama as well, or readings in other literary modes. We have to be ready to entertain

multiple readings, especially ones we may not think of ourselves. I intend to practice

transfer through performance of the plays as well as through alternative modes of

interpretation, such as graphic productions of Shakespeare’s poetry as well as interpreting

film interpretations of the plays.

Lastly, I want with this unit to show how Shakespeare’s material is really the stuff we

spend our lives talking about. I often think about why it took so long for me to figure out that

Shakespeare was the area in which so much of both my literary and personal interests

converged. I’d been reading—or, more honestly, trying to read his work since at least the

age of thirteen, but it was not until I was twenty-four that it clicked. In Shakespeare, I’d

found an avenue by which to explore the themes and ideas I found fascinating: politics,

religion, family, art, performance, identity, morality, poetry, storytelling, love, history,

passion, envy, and hate—everything. Shakespeare asks all the big questions and answers

none of them definitively. His work is a deep well of inquiry and interpretations abound. This

was not the version of Shakespeare I got in my early attempts, nor was it the version

5

presented to me in high school and the early stages of college. Then, Shakespeare was rigid,

dry, and pre-determined. And it felt strange on the tongue. It wasn’t until I was officially out

of school and felt much more free to explore Shakespeare’s work in a more open-ended way

that I began to realize that my passions had a home. If I read the poems, plays, and existing

critique I didn’t have to stop there; I could continue and develop my own thoughts and ideas

and enter them into the existing conversation. I’d like to help students realize that much

sooner than I did. Even if they come away still not loving Shakespeare, at least they’ll have

engaged with him in earnest and begun to understand and discuss his persistent relevance

and power. He will no longer be a monolithic, inaccessible figure or idea, but a man who just

tried to make people laugh, sometimes cry, and think about life.

6

Sample Lesson #1: “What’s in a Prologue?”Beginning with Shakespeare’s “beginnings”

Duration: 50-60mins

Objective:1. To introduce the students to Shakespeare in a non-intimidating way2. To establish how I will approach Shakespeare with them during the course of the

term3. To begin the process of immersing students in Shakespeare’s language and stories4. To begin to emphasize the students voices in collaboration with Shakespeare’s words

Rationale: This lesson would serve to introduce the students to Shakespeare and to how I would conduct the course.

The prologues, more often than not, can be considered as contained pieces; while they are attached to a play, they can be removed from its larger context for independent discussion. Furthermore, prologues serve as introductions to their respective plays—their purpose is to situate an audience and prepare them for the events to be portrayed on stage. I’d like to use them in this similar fashion: by reading a selection of prologues from different plays, I would hope to give the students a sampling of Shakespeare’s language to ease them into his world of words and stories. Also, because the prologues are short speeches, I can begin practicing the method of teaching Shakespeare initially as small pieces, then building up to larger, whole texts.

An additional benefit to beginning with prologues is that they are perfect pieces for recitation, which can be constituted as solo or choral pieces. As such, they provide an excellent introduction to reading aloud in the course: outgoing students will have a chance to jump right into the language, while shier students can blend into the group while reading aloud in unison and begin to build up their confidence with the material. This is an essential element to my teaching methods—having the students use their own voices to give breath and meaning to Shakespeare.

In all these ways, the prologues provide a low-stakes, but (ultimately) highly beneficial opportunity to set the ground for how this course can engage with Shakespeare—what better way to begin than with Shakespeare’s beginnings?

Materials: white- or chalkboard; Expo markers or chalk; handout with questions; photocopies of prologues from:

o Henry IV, Part 2o Henry Vo Pericleso Richard III (a soliloquy, not a prologue, but it operates as one)o Romeo and Juliet

Procedure:1. Write play titles on the board in separate columns2. Pass out handout with the following questions (with space to take notes):

a. Who is speaking? How is the speaker described/depicted?b. What does the speaker tell us about the forthcoming play?c. Can we find any specific clues as to what to expect?d. What are we told about setting, character, and time?

7

e. How does the language work? How does it sound? How do its rhythms feel?f. Are you interested/excited to see what will happen next?

3. Ask student volunteer to read Romeo and Juliet prologue (select student if no volunteers)

4. Ask class group questions from handout; write answers on board in R&J column5. Repeat exercise, but with the following reading protocol:

o Henry IV, part 2: whole class in unisono Pericles: line-by-line, one student at a timeo Henry V: teacher, lines 1-8; 8-18, 1st student volunteer; 19-25, 2nd

student volunteer; 26-34, 3rd student volunteer (select students if none volunteer)

o Richard III, teacher (explain that this is a soliloquy—a speech spoken by one actor alone on stage—but that it operates as a prologue in this play, in terms of content as well as position at the top of the play)

6. Once all prologues have been read aloud, ask class if there are general traits of a prologue present in all these pieces; write these on the board

7. Based on these traits, have class develop a definition for “prologue”8. Based on these traits and class definition, what can we expect from “Shakespeare’s

beginnings”, whether there is a prologue or not? (this can proceed as a short informal discussion)

**I anticipate that this lesson could go over time; it depends totally on how long the individual readings take. Should we move at a reasonable pace, I believe each prologue will need 6-10mins for recitation and evaluation. This should allow us 15-25mins for steps 6-8 of the procedure (in a 50-60min class meeting).

8

Sample Lesson #2: “What you talkin’ ‘bout, William?”Translating and Interpreting Shakespeare’s Sonnets

Duration: 50-60minsThis exercise would take place during the second week of the term. It would be done

in two parts: first as a homework assignment, which would then be used for group work during class time in part two.

Objective:1. To begin working with Shakespeare’s words and work directly in small doses in order

to develop a sense of his language and style, as well as to begin to feel comfortable with it

2. To understand that Shakespeare, though a formidable figure in Western Literature, is not inaccessible; in fact, he spends just as much time working the crude joke as he does crafting high art poetry. In other words, his work is meant to be understood, even if it is bit by bit

3. To understand that part of reading literature, particularly poetry, involves some aspect of the act of translation: just because it’s English, doesn’t mean you know exactly what the words are saying—and that’s okay!

4. To develop an understanding of how interpretation happens—how readers go about making meaning OR discovering/revealing meaning in literary language and then justifying their observations and assertions

5. To lay the foundation for longer poetic works by Shakespeare, especially as we work towards a full length play

6. To remind them that poetry (and ultimately drama) was meant to be heard; thus, paying attention to language as speech potentially provides a different impact from the page

Procedure:Part 1:

As a homework assignment, I would assign the students a set of 5-8 sonnets to read. They would have to do a line-by-line translation of each poem. By translation, I’m asking them to rephrase/paraphrase each line to tell me what they hear the poem saying. This process would have been exemplified in the previous class meeting.

This translation could be formatted however thy wish—handwritten in a notebook, typed as a word document, side by side with the text of the poem, etc.—so long as their translated text is legible and as complete as possible, meaning that every line answers the question, “What does this line say?”, even if the answer is “I don’t know.” I will also ask the students to annotate their translations to indicate if they needed to look up words in a dictionary, or Google any terms ideas; if particular fragments or phrases made them think of anything that contributed to the translation; what passages they found difficult to rephrase or, in other words, what language seemed to have no translation. Basically, any idea they have while performing this exercise, they should make a note of it.**These translations would be turned in for participation credit. I would not grade the translations, just make note of whether or not each student did his own individual work so as to participate in the group work.

Part 2 (in the following class meeting):

9

1. Divide the class into groups of three2. Assign each group 1 poem (8-10mins)

a. Members should discuss their individual translations (what they actually wrote, how they arrived at them, their annotations, etc) to discover similarities and differences.

b. Based on this conversation, have members write one final group translation of the poem. This can be accomplished however they think best: they could present one members translation, or assemble a version using different lines form each member, or as a group write a brand new translation—whatever their discussion produces. Group should make note of how they come—or don’t come—to their decisions and why (5-7mins)

3. Ask groups to take 2-3mins to interpret the poem. Now that they have made some decisions about what the poem says, what do they think the poem means? (Answering the “So what?” question).

a. What ideas, messages, or themes seem to be conveyed/depicted by the poem?

b. Have groups make note of how and why they decided upon a particular interpretation(s) or if they disagree

4. Reconvene larger class group to discuss translations/interpretations (25-40mins)Each group will have 5-8mins to present:

a. One member will read the group translationb. A second member will present the group’s interpretation and reasoning for

that interpretationc. The last member will read the poem in Shakespeare’s original wordsd. The class group will then discuss whether or not the translation and

interpretation coincides with the poem. Possible questions include, but are not limited to:

i. Did we hear what Shakespeare was saying?ii. Do we now understand what he was talking about?iii. How do we know? Why do we think so?

e. Students will be allowed to say what they liked about a group’s translation and/or interpretation as well as offer one suggestion or change that could be a possible improvement

**I anticipate that we may not have time for all groups to present. My hope would be to hear from at least three groups and have a solid discussion that would provide a clear model for how to complete the homework assignment.

Homework: Out of a selection of 35 different sonnets, students will be ask to pick 5 and repeat the translation/interpretation assignment. This assignment will be turned in for a grade the following week.

1. The translations can be presented however the student wishes; must include annotations

2. The interpretations must be presented as a formal mini essay (2-3pgs) with clear structure, organization of ideas, and a cogent, cohesive argument

a. Each poetical interpretation should exhibit critical thinking, presenting evidentiary justification from the text for all observations and assertions

3. A short “introduction” (1-3 paragraphs) should be included explaining why the student selected his/her 5 sonnets: what ties these poems together (theme, symbolism, idea, audience)?

4. One of their original translations/interpretations can be revised and included as part of the set of 5

5. The original sonnets should be included alongside its translation/interpretation6. Pages should be collated as follows:

i. Introductionii. Sonnet (1st)

10

iii. Translationiv. Interpretationv. Repeat 4x

7. No criticism/secondary sources are necessary

Sample Lesson #3: “Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis—Is this love?”Envisioning the romantic pursuit

Duration: 50-60mins

Objective:1. To provide students with a different mode of translation2. To provide students with a different mode of interpretation3. To provide students with a mode of reflection on the text and its meaning by having

them practice a form of transfer through drawing/illustration4. To begin the process of visualizing Shakespeare’s stories towards the goal of

performative expression and interpretation of Shakespeare’s work5. To provide students with a creative outlet that will allow them to engage with

Shakespeare in different, fun way 6. To begin the conversation of Shakespeare’s sources by first using Shakespeare as a

foundational source for something new

Rationale: Shakespeare’s works have been interpreted in all sorts of ways, not just as stage productions, but as works of visual art as well. His works provide a wealth of material ripe for visual interpretation because his language is so evocative, as well as subjects themselves—after all, Shakespeare’s narrative works are reinterpretations of material he found provocative and potentially compelling to the audiences of his day. Venus and Adonis, a narrative poem of a Greek myth featuring a beautiful goddess, a strapping and handsome young man, and the thrill of the hunt, is a work which provides compelling material with ample opportunities for visual interpretations which can be as evocative and provocative as the Bard’s. Is this love on the part of Venus? Or is it lust? What does one—or the other—look like?

A second goal of this lesson is to encourage the students towards reflection of their reading. As a narrative poem, Venus and Adonis is a longer piece of text that will require more time and energy to understand, unlike the short dose of a single sonnet. Sometimes, it can be difficult to synthesize all that material into one cohesive expression of written understanding. A picture, however, can be “worth a thousand words.” By having the students visually represent their understanding of a section of the poem, they will be able to begin to synthesize a cohesive expression of their impressions of the work. This will also allow them to practice a type of transfer of knowledge. By moving from written text to pictorial text, the students will be transposing knowledge; then, in sharing their productions with each other, the students will have to use what they know from reading the text to read the drawings.

Finally, Venus and Adonis provides an opportunity to begin discussing Shakespeare’s use of sources. Shakespeare tells no new stories; virtually all his works are based on existing material, either historical chronicles or well-known myths, legends, and stories as well as some works by his contemporaries. Shakespeare’s creativity comes in the retelling, or “telling anew.” The main source for V&A is Ovid’s Metamorphoses, but he tells it newly and differently. I’d like to give the students the opportunity to do something similar through a new medium, while further practicing their interpretation skills.

11

Pre-lesson work: In preparation, I will have given the students an excerpt of Ovid’s telling from Book X of the Metamorphoses, which we would have discussed in the initial class meeting for the poem. By this class meeting, students will have completed a reading of Venus and Adonis to be able to render a drawing of a scene from the poem.

Materials: digital projector (?); print(s) of John Everett Millais’ painting, Ophelia (1852); handout of Hamlet, Act 4 scene 7, lines 161-182 (Arden, 2006); pens, pencils, markers, colored pencils, & crayons; plain, unlined, blank white paper

Procedure:1. If a digital projector is available, project image of Millais’ Ophelia to entire class; if a

projector is not available, pass out color copies of the print2. Pass out handout of Hamlet excerpt3. Read (teacher) Hamlet excerpt aloud (during reading, students follow along or view

print)4. With print still in view, lead informal discussion of how the painting reinterprets the

written scene. Leading question can include:i. What details does Millais include in his rendering? What details does he

leave out?ii. Is this a literal interpretation? or does the artist take liberties with his

text?iii. What is the tone of this painting? Does it feel like the tone of the text?iv. Is this interpretation faithful to Shakespeare’s text? In what way? In

what ways is it not faithful to the text? Does that matter? Why or why not?

v. Is this a successful interpretation of Shakespeare’s text?**This part of lesson should last for 10-15mins

5. Pass out plain, blank, unlined paper.6. Place drawing/coloring implements in different parts of room (markers in one corner,

crayons in another, etc)7. Invite students to sit where their implement of choice resides8. Have each student draw a scene from Venus and Adonis (they may refer to their text

of the poem)a. Student can render his/her scene in whatever way s/he chooses—in

black/white, color, stick figures, etcb. S/he can include whatever details will best depict the chosen scene.c. Student must include a line from the chosen scene as a title for the drawing

**This part of lesson should last for 10-15mins9. Ask 3 students to volunteer to share their scene with the class

a. Hang drawings up in different parts of the room for viewing.b. Have students view all 3 drawings and take notes

**This part of lesson should take 10mins10. Bring class group back together to discuss the interpretations.

a. Use same questions applied to Millais’ painting for discussion**This part of lesson should take 12mins

Homework: At the end of this lesson, students will be asked to produce a graphic text of Venus and Adonis to be turned in for a grade the following week. I will stress that this activity may require at least a second reading, if only to clarify details necessary to scenes.

Requirements:1. The graphic text can be no less than 3 and no more than 10 panels2. Each panel must have a line from the poem that is representative of

the scene/section it depicts

12

3. The graphic text can be rendered in whatever way the student chooses

4. Student can include whatever details s/he wishes5. Student can produce comic strip on whatever platform s/he wishes

(on paper, digitally, comic strip, mini graphic novel. Digital renderings must be submitted by class time via email)

**A rubric will be handed out explaining how graphic text will be assessed

Sample Lesson #4: “Whose play is it anyway?”Situating ourselves in the (Hi)story(s) of Henry IV, Part 1

Duration: 2 class sessions of 50-60mins each

Objective: Henry IV, Part 1 is an interesting piece for several reasons, but perhaps the first thought to strike a reader of the play is: “Just who is this play about?” The play’s titular character, King Henry IV, does not seem to be the main focus of the play, unlike Hamlet or King Lear, or even other historical characters such as the Richards II and III; Prince Hal, his son, arguably has more of a claim to the status of protagonist than the king. Furthermore, the most beloved character of the play—and one of the most beloved of Shakespeare’s cannon—is Sir John Falstaff. Even Hotspur seems to command more attention than Henry. Why is this? Why can’t the king rule his own play?

I believe the play begins to answer this question and situate its objectives almost immediately. In the first three scenes, the audience is given a political drama, a family drama, a buddy comedy, and a contest between rivals. What may sound like a boring history play actually has the elements of some the most popular story genres today (i.e., political thrillers, sports dramas, father/son battles, buddy comedies). Additionally, because the play is character driven, it isn’t bogged down by its history plot—students can invest themselves in these characters and perhaps see them as people instead of as historical caricatures and/or tidbits. By having the students engage performatively with the material, I hope to not only establish the terms and focus of this play, but to also heighten their interest in the piece and ultimately strengthen their investment in the story and some of the most well-known and well loved characters in the cannon.

Rationale: Henry IV, Part 1 can be a deeply engaging play on several levels. As a history, it is an interesting episode of the ongoing political dramas of the English monarchy; it may not be as bloody as Game of Thrones, but such intrigues and maneuverings could prove compelling to students who are fans of such stories. As a comedy there is much to enjoy and discuss in the character of Falstaff alone—especially considering his relationship with Hal. I believe students in this grade level would not only find the pair entertaining as a “buddy comedy” team, but would also recognize the relationship of mentor and mentee, albeit an untraditional one, and be interested in the dynamic at work. And of course, there is a family drama embedded in the plot: the relationship between Hal and his father is integral to understanding the play; it is this relationship which informs Hal’s relationship to Falstaff, his rivalry with Hotspur, and ultimately to the kingdom which will one day be his.

All these plot and character elements can be explored in Act I. Shakespeare’s histories tend to begin by setting the scene—sometimes literally: for example, Henry IV, Part 2 begins with an induction where Rumor (acting as a chorus) explains the state of events following the Battle of Shrewsbury, which takes place in the final scenes of Henry IV, Part 1. Rumor, as the first speaker, serves to recall the previous play and establish the moment of the current one; in so doing, this “character” historicizes (so to speak) the action of the play,

13

situating both the characters as well as the audience. Essentially, it allows us to begin at a beginning by establishing person(s), place, and time. The first act of the play provides an excellent opportunity to set the stakes of the plot and the dynamics between the characters, which makes sense for a history play. This is what I would like the students to accomplish with Act 1 of Henry IV, Part 1.

Materials: white- or chalkboard; Expo markers or chalk; photocopies of Act 1 of Henry IV, Part 1; handouts with questions; the students

Pre-lesson work: read Act 1 of Henry IV, Part 1; ask students to note their initial impressions

Procedure: Day 1.

1. Break students into 3 groups to discuss their initial impressions of Act 1 of play; have group choose one member to take notes of conversation (15mins)

a. Ask students to discuss each scene and answer following questions on handout:

i. Who is the main character in this moment? Is s/he on stage?ii. What is the conflict/tension in this scene? What is its purpose?iii. What ideas or themes are at work in the scene?iv. What relationship(s) is established? To/between whom?v. What is the mode of this scene (political, comical, etc)?vi. How do these scenes connect as the beginning of one (hi)story?vii. How is the plot(s) established?viii. What else do you notice that is important? What might be important as

the plot progresses?2. Reconvene as a class group for a broader conversation (30mins)

a. Ask groups to share their answers to above questions, proceeding one group at a time; record answers on the board (questions will have been written on board)

b. Was there was consensus or differences/disagreements in the group? If differences, were they resolved? How?

3. Introduce part 2 of lesson, performance of Act 1, and assign a scene to each groupa. In each group, assign “roles” and distribute handout explaining questions to

keep in mind (5-15mins):i. Scene 1:

1. King Henry: What is he like? How does he express himself? Is he strong or weak? Does he “hold” center stage?

2. Westmoreland: He is the only other character with lines in this scene; what is his position? Does this indicate he is important? How do we know this?

3. Lord John of Lancaster, Sir Walter Blunt: They are named characters, but have no lines: who are they? Why are they present? Can we make assumptions? What are their positions—as men at court? as men on stage? Could Westmoreland share some of his lines with them? (If yes, why? Will you perform scene accordingly?)

4. Others: Who might they be? Why might they be there? Do we need to see them on stage?

ii. Scene 2:1. John Falstaff: What is he like? How does he express himself?

Does he “hold” center stage? Why does he speak first? How does he feel/think about Hal? How does he interact with Hal?

14

2. Prince Hal: What is he like? How does he express himself? Does he “hold” center stage? How does he think/feel about Falstaff? How does he interact with Falstaff? How does he interact with Poins?

3. Poins: Who is he? What is he like? What is his relationship to Hal? What is position in this group of three? relative to Falstaff? on stage?

iii. Scene 3:1. King Henry: What is he like? How does he express himself? Is he

strong or weak? Does he “hold” center stage?2. Worcester: Who is he? Whose side is he on? What is his position

at court? on stage?3. Northumberland: Who is he? What are his priorities? How does

he feel about the king? How doe she interact with the king?4. Hotspur: Who is he? What is he like? How does he express

himself? Is he strong or weak? Does he “hold” center stage? How does he interact with the king? What are his priorities?

5. Sir Walter Blunt: He speaks! Who is he? What are his priorities? Whose side is he on? What is his position at court? on stage?

b. Each group will have a director; this will be the student previously assigned to record the group’s earlier discussion. The director will be responsible for tracking the decisions the group makes as to how to perform their assigned scene: What group dynamics are important in this moment? How does positioning and movement on stage express this (i.e.,who is center? who stands next to/in front of whom? etc)? What is the main tension/conflict to emphasize? How to express the mode of the scene (i.e., comic or political)?

c. If not all students can be assigned a named character, they must still participate in the staging, but the group will decide how best to accomplish this for the purposes of interpreting their scene (Scene 1, for instance, with a group of “others”—how do they exist in the scene? In scene 2, could the extra people be “others” who come in with Poins? Or are they there asleep at the beginning then leave with Falstaff?)**Groupings will depend heavily on the size of the class. My belief is 5-6 studentsper group would work best; otherwise, I would adjust groupings proportionally to the scenes at the start (i.e., 1 large group, 6-9; 2 medium groups, 4-6)

Homework: using just the text to justify their decisions, students will individually prepare their parts to perform at the following class meeting. They will write up a short character analysis (about 2-3 paragraphs) explaining the textual basis and justification for their portrayal.

Day 2.1. Break class into their assigned “scene” groups to discuss/rehearse their scene.

Director must make note of decisions made by cast as well as help to keep the vision cohesive (15mins)

2. Perform scenes (30mins)a. Each group will have a maximum of 10mins to present their sceneb. Presenting group’s director will give a short explanation of groups vision for

scene at the endc. Groups not presenting will take notes on actors’ decisions they find interesting

or compelling, different or contrary to their own thoughts, and note if the group’s vision (as explained by director) was “accomplished”

d. Cast turns in the character analysis (for participation credit)3. Moderate a talk-back with “audience” (5-15mins)

15

a. Groups will question each other on their visions, decisions, methods, and interpretations for their scenes. I will begin the conversation then assume the role of moderator so the larger class group can lead the conversation. Questions can include:o Does anyone have questions for the performers?o How did your group decide upon your particular interpretation of the

piece?o What were the main ideas/themes you wanted to impress upon the

audience?o Are there alternate decisions you could have made? Would you change

anything?o Do other groups have similar/different interpretations?o Do you (“audience”) find this interpretation plausible?o How does your group’s interpretation establish the plot? These characters?o How will the play move on from here?

**If I have two 60min class sessions, I believe I have a good chance of completing this lesson in two days. If I only have two 50min class sessions, I would anticipate the moderated discussion would need to go over into a third day. I would plan for the following lesson to be a shorter in order to be prepared for this possibility.

Homework: Read the rest of Henry IV, Part 1. Note whether or not the progression of the following acts align with your expectations considering how we have established plot, character, and themes at the beginning. Be prepared to discuss these impressions in class.

Sample Lesson #5: “See no love, hear no love, yet speak of love?”Negotiating the many deceptions in Much Ado About Nothing

Duration: 50-60mins

Objective:1. To work with a new mode of interpretation of Shakespeare’s text2. To compare and contrast the students interpretations of the text with 2 different

films3. To compare and contrast 2 different interpretations within the same medium4. To further the understanding of the “play-within-a-play” convention in this particular

work through a visual interpretation of the text5. To further the students’ interpretation and transfer skills

Rationale: There are conventions within Shakespeare that appear in play after play. One such convention is the “play-within-the-play”; the most famous examples are the Players’ performance of “The Murder of Gonzago” (aka “The Mousetrap”) in Hamlet and the performance of “Pyramus and Thisbe” by the Rude Mechanicals in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. In Much Ado About Nothing, this convention has a twist: instead of performing a recognizable piece of drama, characters are placed in situations (by other characters) to misinterpret scenes surreptitiously witnessed and comic “drama” ensues: Claudio “sees” Hero being unfaithful; Beatrice and Benedick “overhear” their friends talk of how the one “loves” the other; Hero “dies” as a result of her public “disgrace” by Claudio.

Usually, the convention is used to advance a plot point and/or further elucidate an idea or theme of the play. In Much Ado, this goal can become a bit muddled because the convention is not deployed in a straightforward way. Consequently, simply talking about it does not always clarify its usage or its purpose, which further complicates student’s interpretations. This is a situation where having the students perform the scenes would perhaps not be productive or beneficial. Therefore, I would elect to screen the film versions; this would allow them to witness the convention in process.

Additionally, it would allow the students an opportunity to see how Shakespeare can be set in different times and styles, as these two films are quite different in various ways.

16

Materials: digital projector and computer or television and DVD player; Shakespeare’s text of Much Ado About Nothing; scenes from Kenneth Branagh’s 1993 film adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing; scenes from Joss Whedon’s 2012 film adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing

Pre-lesson work: The students will have already completed their reading of play; in previous class discussions we would have discussed the scenes to be screened: What happened? Why? Who did what? How? And where? As a result, this class meeting will focus mainly on the films.

We will also have discussed the pun present in the play’s title, where “nothing” is a pun on “noting”; the two words would have been pronounced similarly in Shakespeare’s time, making the title more significant to the topic of the play—the different deceptions and misunderstandings which drive the plot.

Students will have had at least one opportunity—provided by me—to view both films before this class meeting; otherwise, they must view the films themselves.

Procedure:1. Screen scene(s) corresponding to Act 2, scene 1, lines 154-199 and 282-313 (the

misunderstanding of for whom Don Pedro is wooing Hero) from Branagh film2. Screen same corresponding scene(s) in Whedon film3. Lead discussion on how the scene operates in both films. Questions will include:

i. What is happening in this scene?ii. What is the misunderstanding?iii. Who orchestrates the misunderstanding? Why?iv. How is the misunderstanding resolved/clarified?v. What is the purpose of the misunderstanding in this moment?vi. Does the misunderstanding reveal any truth? Or does it further/create

more misunderstandings?vii. How does the style of the film enhance or diminish this moment of

misunderstanding?viii. Does the film’s depiction of this misunderstanding help you to

understand how the convention works in the play?ix. Which depiction do you prefer? Why?x. Anything else you would like to add?

4. Repeat steps 1-3 for Act 3, scene 2, lines 76-end (Don Jon’s claim of Hero’s infidelity)5. Repeat steps 1-3 for Act 2, scene 3 (men’s discussion of Beatrice’s “affection” for

Benedick)6. Repeat steps 1-3 for Act 3, scene 1 (ladies’ discussion of Benedick’s “affection” for

Beatrice)7. Ask students if there is a scene from the play they would like to screen and discuss

from the film**I am aware that this is more than we will perhaps have time for in class, especially if the discussion proves enthusiastic and fruitful. This is a case where I would rather plan more to ensure that there would be enough material for the class meeting

17

Sample Lesson #6: “Who run the world?”A battle of the sexes

Duration: 50-60mins

Objective:1. To help students further understand the course of the plot2. To get students think about how Shakespeare uses language to differentiate

characters and relationships3. To move beyond the text and discuss some real world issues about relations between

men and women

Rationale: The hallmark of Much Ado About Nothing is the relationship between Beatrice and Benedick. Their verbal sparring, a dazzling display of sharp wit and linguistic fireworks, in large part provides the life and verve of the play. Between them is a true battle of the sexes, one fought on equal footing by opponents of equal talent and skill. In their repartee, Shakespeare accomplishes one of his most beloved couplings.

But there is a battle going on between the sexes. In the banter between Benedick and Beatrice is a real tension of what the nature of relationship is—often, Benedick expresses his intention to never marry as it is a sure path to cuckoldry; Beatrice as well seems to avoid the notion of marriage, perhaps in avoidance of coming under a man’s power. And the dramatic break between Hero and Claudio, though a misunderstanding, points to the difficulties in relations between men and women.

There is potentially a really interesting discussion to be had here with the class while further studying and interpreting the text. As either high school seniors or college underclassmen, this is a topic students most certainly will have something to say about. Having the opportunity to bring Shakespeare out of the classroom and into their lives, albeit as a game, provides a wonderful opportunity to broaden the Bard’s relevance.

18

Materials: text of Much Ado; discussion questions; trivia questions; answer sheets;

Procedure:1. Break class up into teams by counting them off 1-42. Have teams get together in 4 different parts of the room3. Name the teams: Team Benedick, Beatrice, Hero, Claudio4. Pass out answer sheet5. Lead discussion on the different relationships in Much Ado and how they do or do not

look like relationships todaya. Example: What is the relationship like between Hero and Claudio in the

beginning? Have you seen a couple like this before?6. While discussing the broader question, ask class a “trivia” question

a. Example: When did Claudio and Hero first meet?b. Students are allowed to refer back to text (though questions will also include

films)c. Students will write their answers on the answer sheet

7. The discussion will last as long as it takes to ask 10 trivia question and a bonus question

8. Reveal answers to trivia questions and score them: 3pts for every right answer9. Team with most correct answers receives extra credit (to be added to end of

semester grade)

Sample Lesson #7: “He said; she said.”On temptation, gender, and morality in Measure for Measure

Duration: 50-60mins

Objective:1. To continue the class discussion on gender relations/politics in Shakespeare2. To continue applying Shakespeare and his subjects to real world experiences3. To invite the students to debate the politics of sex, sexuality, and morality4. To invite the students to debate the nature of law, justice, and mercy5. To investigate and interrogate the intersections of secular law and religion, crime and

sin, morals and ethics

Rationale: In Measure for Measure, a reader will encounter what initially seems a straightforward story about law, morality and justice; however, it very quickly becomes a much more complicated. The play asks very complex questions about the law, justice, mercy, crime and sin, as well as sexuality, reputation, and gender politics. What may seem a simple “Christian allegory” very quickly becomes a high-stakes psychological drama, one which, for most, comes to a very untidy resolution—if one can call it a resolution at all.

Measure for Measure provides several opportunities for deep discussion as a text. First of all, the frame story of Claudio’s transgressions against the fornication laws and his subsequent judgment and punishment allows the class to talk about issues of law and justice. Secondly, there are the very charged interactions between Angelo and Isabella where the consequences are at the highest degree of life and death. Gender politics are at play through out the novel, providing the chance to continue the conversation begun during our study of Much Ado About Nothing. And lastly, but certainly not least, there is the Christian symbolism weaved throughout the play in various modes, informing the very topics mentioned above—but is this symbolism merely a storytelling tool? or rather a subversive

19

move on the part of Shakespeare? This question becomes particularly important in discussing the character of Isabella, who has had a sort of mixed reputation—is she an admirable woman who makes a deplorable decision? Or is she a woman who does what she must to survive the power plays of powerful men?

This is a play that I think could produce very strong opinions and ideas; I’m very interested (and excited) to let the students loose on it. The play itself employs a structure of debate and I hope to reproduce this in class with the students.

Materials: text of Measure for Measure; the students; the teacher

Pre-lesson work: Having previously completed their reading of Measure for Measure in its entirety, I will have asked students to re-read Act 2, scenes 2 and 4 and consider them deeply; they may take notes and bring them to class to refer back to in discussion

**I have chosen not to introduce background information for this lesson because I am more interested in the students’ immediate, raw reactions to the plot of Measure for Measure. I realize that some of the Christian and biblical allusions may be lost on the some of the students, but I really don’t want to dull their initial impressions. Part of this is due to my own experience of reading the play: my first encounter produced a very strong reaction, one which still colors my thinking on the piece. I didn’t need much background knowledge, as I was already familiar with much of the allusions and symbolisms, but that knowledge was not key to my understanding or my reaction to the play.

Procedure:1. Have students arrange themselves into a circle2. Choose 3 student volunteers3. Have volunteers “perform” Act 2 scene 2 with texts-in-hand in circle

a. Volunteers can do this standing or sitting face-to-face, they may move around—whatever feels comfortable

4. Once scene is complete, moderate discussion and invite students to comment (not on the performances of the volunteers) on the speech/action of the characters. Volunteers are not yet allowed to comment. Questions can include:

a. What are these characters really saying?b. Is Isabella “seducing” Angelo? Or is he hearing what he wants to hear?c. Is Lucio negatively influencing Isabella? Or do his motives justify his advice?d. Do we believe that Angelo is in a true moral crisis? Or is he providing himself

with excuses?e. What else do you see/hear happening in this scene?

5. After the viewers’ discussion is complete, invite volunteers to express how they felt while embodying and expressing these characters. Questions can include those asked of the viewers.

6. Select 2 new student volunteers 7. Have volunteers “perform” Act 2 scene 4, text-in-hand (teacher can read servant’s

line)8. Repeat steps 4-5

**Though I’ll moderate the discussion, I intend to let the students lead this lesson. This is more about their ideas and reactions to the text. Consequently, the discussions will be allowed to go for as long as they have fuel—I’ll not time them, just keep them respectful and relatively on topic.

20

Sample Lesson #8: “Did that really just happen?”The Most [Laughable (?)] Roman Tragedy of

Titus Andronicus

Duration: 50-60mins

Objective:1. To expose the students to an “unexpected” work of Shakespeare2. To think of Shakespeare as initially a producer of entertainment, not canonical

literature and art3. To discover if the level of violence and gore in Titus Andronicus could be purposeful4. To consider whether or not Titus Andronicus is a farcical tragedy or a tragic farce5. To (hopefully) have some fun

Rationale: Dismemberment. Illicit affairs. Insanity. Rape. Inadvertent cannibalism. Ritual sacrifice. Tongues cut out. Decapitated heads in bags. Stubs for hands. And “yo mama” jokes. Titus Andronicus is a grab bag of dramatic action and spectacle, a piece that throws everything at its audience, including the proverbial kitchen sink. It’s so full of blood and gore, so much over-the-top violence, you’d think it was a Quentin Tarantino screenplay—and quite possibly a farce.

The full title of the play is The Most Lamentable Roman Tragedy of Titus Andronicus, and indeed sad events unfold for Titus of the Andronici family; but it is a tale of such excessive melodrama, it seems better classified as a soap opera. Titus, having lost over 20 sons in battle, kills one his surviving sons in the first scene; finds his daughter raped with her tongue cut out and her hands cut off; and ultimately descends into madness. One of these events is tragic, most definitely lamentable, but all three together—well, that just feels like a joke.

Then there is Aaron the Moor, arguably the play’s most compelling character and the ultimate puppet master—follow a plot line far enough, and the diabolical Aaron is sure to be operating along it, laughing the entire time. He orchestrates a set of deaths and a rape,

21

fathers the love child of the emperor’s queen, and lands some of Shakespeare’s sharpest zingers, including a timeless “yo mama” joke (TA, 4.2.78). Aaron the Moor is a sort of caricature, totally unapologetic about his behavior—a decidedly “bad guy” who, like all good villains, steals the show. But he’s also the most honest character in the play, as well as totally protective of his newborn son. He’s almost admirable. Almost.

Titus Andronicus could be best described as a horror-action-comedy-revenge thriller blockbuster, a mash-up of any given summer movie schedule. For that reason, it is potentially one of the most “fun” and unexpected pieces we could study in the course. Shakespeare wasn’t just some high-minded intellectual poet; he was also and entertainer trying to make a buck.

Materials: text of Titus Andronicus; pen/pencil; paper; white- or chalkboard; Expo markers or chalk

Procedure:1. Break class into 5 groups (one for each act)2. Have students go through their section of the play to make note of each instance of

violence and its instigating reason (10-15mins)3. While groups are meeting; create 5 columns on the board (one for each act) titled at

the top “Catalogue of Horrors”4. Reconvene class group5. Ask Act 1 group to report their findings

a. As groups report, ask class:i. Do you think the perpetrator of this action is justified?ii. Does the decision or motivation seem realistic?iii. How would you justify/give purpose to this action as an actor?iv. How do you think such an action was accomplished on the Elizabethan

stage for a viewing audience?v. How do you think this would be accomplished on stage today?vi. How would this look on film?vii. How would you portray this on stage/film? Thematically (farce or

tragedy) and technically?6. Repeat step 5 with groups 2-5

**this part of activity should take 20-25mins7. Once this “Catalogue of Horrors” is complete, survey class on whether or not they

would choose to see a production (stage or film) of Titus Andronicusa. If yes, offer an extra credit opportunity to screen the film adaptation by Julie

Taymor. Students will be asked to report on how their compiled “Catalogue of Horrors” was accomplished (narratively as well as stylistically) and their opinion of the film’s successes or failures.

22

Sample Lesson #9: “Where did all the time go—or come from?”The missing, yet present Time in The Winter’s Tale

Duration: Three consecutive 50-60min class meetings

Objective:1. To have students think about the action that happens off-stage, and therefore “out-

of-time”2. To further the students’ understanding of the characters in The Winter’s Tale3. To have the students think creatively about the consequences of rash judgment4. To offer the students an opportunity to invest themselves in the eventual outcome of

the play by giving meaning to the “time left out”5. To guide the students towards developing an understanding of the power of time as

it works in the play, both as a healing process as well as a personified theatrical convention

Rationale: The Winter’s Tale is a curious piece, full of irrational emotion and judgment, statues coming to life, possibly misplaced settings, and a bear chasing a man off the stage to eat him. But one of the more interesting aspects is how Shakespeare chooses to represent the passage of time. In the middle of the play, at the top of Act 4, a single actor holds the stage to explain to the audience that sixteen years has passed since Leontes’ wife, Hermione, “died” and their newborn daughter was left to die on the coast of Bohemia. Sixteen years have passed and we, the audience, are told that we must now simply pass over those years to pick up the story in a new time and place. But what happened in those sixteen years? How has Leontes lived without his wife and children? How does Hermione spend her days, and where? How has Paulina kept her secret for sixteen years? What has Perdita’s life been in Bohemia? And how has Polixenes fared without his former best friend?

These are just a few questions left unanswered by Time. However, it may be possible—using the text—to answer some of these questions. I’d like the students use what they know from the story they have to develop and build the time that’s missing. In the process, I

23

hope they will put to use their skills in interpretation and critical thinking to justify the decisions they make for their characters.

Materials: text of The Winter’s Tale; pen/pencil; paper; white- or chalkboard; Expo markers or chalk

Procedure:Day 1.

1. Have students count off 1-42. Break them off into groups by matching number3. Read aloud Time’s speech from Act 4, scene 14. Ask students to discuss in their groups what Time is saying (5mins)

a. What is this character asking you to do?b. Why is he asking you to do this?

5. Interrupt discussions to ask students to consider the consequences of complying with Time?

a. What are we leaving behind or unfound?b. Do these characters change/grow in the interim?c. What has life been like? (Questions posed in Rationale above may be asked to

the class at large, htough the hope is they would think of these things in discussion)

d. What may occur during this “lost” time that explains their eventual behavior in the Acts 4 & 5 (ex. Polixenes’ behavior towards Perdita in Act 4 sc. 4: why is he so cruel?)

e. How do events in the second half of the play result (in part or totally) from events in the missing time? (ex. Autolycus)

6. Ask students to make notes of their conversations (20mins)7. While students are discussing questions, write on the board the names of the major

characters who appear in the second half of the play (Leontes, Hermione, Paulina, Perdita, Shepherd, Clown, Autolycus, Florizel, Polixenes, Camillo)

8. Reconvene class group to introduce next phase of activity9. Each group is to choose at least 3 characters from the list on the board10. During the remainder of class, have students begin to consider what their chosen

characters stories were during the time “lost” to the audience11. Explain that class will continue in discussion groups the following class meeting

Homework: Continue to think about the characters your group is discussing.o Have they changed and how?o Have they had a generally happy time? Or has it been sad?o Which characters lives intersect and how?o What do they know of the world they live in, if anything?o Are they lonely? Are they entertained?o What else are you wondering about?

Refer back to the text to provide justification for your thoughts and ideas of these questions. Make not of specific lines or stage directions that support your ideas; bring your notes to class to continue your discussions with your groups

Day 2.12. Break students off into their respective groups13. Have them continue the character conversations they began last class14. Have each group select a “scribe” to keep notes on today’s discussion15. Explain that they are to begin to combine and collaborate their ideas to form a

character profile for each of their chosen charactersa. It is no enough to simply offer conjecture. These profiles must ultimately be

backed up by the text (specific lines or stage directions), meaning there must

24

be continuity within the character from the first half of the play through to the second half—however these characters may behave during the lost time, it must make sense to the person s/he is before and after

i. ex. If Leontes is sad during those sixteen years, what evidence from Acts 1-3 might indicate this possibility? What evidence from Acts 4-5 might support/illustrate this potential reality?

16. Explain to students that they should consider how their characters might interact with one another.

a. If their characters would not have met during these sixteen years, think about how would they think or talk about each other.

i. ex. How would Hermione think or talk of Perdita?**This part of lesson should take 30mins

17. At 30mins, inform groups that they should take some time to reflect on their character profiles and justifications and begin to craft a scene that incorporates their characters.

a. Scenes must take place during the “lost time”b. The episode depicted must in some way refer back to the broader story (ex.

Leontes makes a speech regretting his hasty judgment of Hermione)c. Scenes must be at least 30 lines long (approx. 10 lines per character)d. All chosen characters must make an appearance in the scene. If their

characters would not interact directly in this time, then craft enough scenes so that each character has a chance to be expressed

e. Must be possible to perform scenes in 10mins or less**This part of lesson can take up to 5mins before the end of class

18. Introduce next phase of activity to studentsa. Explain that the scene they create as a group will be presented at the 2nd

class meeting following Day 2 (ex. If Day 2 is a Friday, presentations will take place the following Wednesday, operating on a MWF schedule)

Note: I would plan the schedule such that Day 2 of this lesson/activity would take place on a Friday, giving the students the weekend to convene outside of class in preparation for their presentation

b. Distribute handout with the following activity requirements:i. Each group must introduce their scene

1. Who are the players?2. Where are we?3. When are we?4. What is the context?5. Why are you portraying this moment?6. Any other important information for your audience to note?

ii. Each student must participate in presentation1. Students are allowed to bring in other characters if necessary

(such as Cleomenes or Dion in Sicilia, or Mopsa and Dorcas in Bohemia), but the character must not feel extraneous to scene

2. If a character isn’t applicable, then the 4th (and/or 5th) student can introduce the scene, much like a curtain speech given by a director or member of a theatre company at a performance

iii. Each group will have 10-12mins to present (groups are not required to use the full time)

iv. A copy of the scene’s script, including a justification for scene using textual evidence from play, will be turned in and assessed as part of presentation grade

1. This must be presented as a formal mini essay (2-4pg) with a clear, cohesive argument using textual evidence/examples from the play for support

25

c. Distribute grading rubric so students understand how their group presentations will be assessed.

Day 3.19. Each group will have 10-12mins to present their scene (groups will have some

cushion to go over 1 min or so; no group is required to use the full time if it’s not needed)

20. Ask a group to volunteer to present first (if there is hesitation, pick a number out of a hat)

21. Repeat step 20.

Homework—Bonus! 5 extra points will be added to viewer’s own presentation grade22. Invite students to write a review of a scene of their choosing (this would be

announced before the presentations). Review must include:a. Answers to the following questions:

i. Who are the players?ii. Where are we?iii. When are we?iv. What is the context?v. Why was this moment portrayed?vi. What did you enjoy? Why?vii. What might you have done differently? Why?

1. Textual support for the last 2 questions would be appreciated, but is not required

b. Suggest that they take some notes while watching scenes so that they may be specific in their reviews; this will require they pay attention, as general statements/comments will not suffice for full bonus points

c. Reviews are to be turned in at the beginning of the following class meeting

Sample Lesson #10: “How does one begin to say ‘The End’?”Saying “Thank you” and “Farewell” with Epilogues

Duration: Two 50-60mins, one week apart

Objective:1. To allow the students to mark their finish of the course by using Shakespeare’s words2. To inform me of whether not my teaching of this course has proven beneficial and/or

effective3. To say “Thank you” and “Farewell”

Rationale: As I began the course with beginnings, using a selection of Shakespeare’s prologues, it feels fitting to end the course with his epilogues. They at times read (or sound) like a sort of apology or explanation for the play, as well as an expression of thanks to the audience for the time spent in the world created by the players. Contemporary actors don’t often get such a moment; while we enjoy the applause at our curtain calls, a bow never seems quite enough of a thank you.

Perhaps it is the same in teaching. So much of my impetus to teach Shakespeare has to do with my love of the material and my belief that others can discover and/or express their own enthusiasm for the Bard as well. Through this lesson, I would like to express my thanks to the students for (hopefully) playing along as well as bid them farewell in a most symmetrical fashion. To the students, I’d like to give the opportunity to describe what the course has meant to or been like for them by using Shakespeare’s words as their own. Essentially, this would be a lesson to me from the students, a time for me to learn whether

26

or not my guidance has been helpful and/or consequential in their education and relationship to literature.

Materials: all members of the class; photocopies of epilogues from the following plays:o All’s Well That Ends Wello As You Like Ito A Midsummer Night’s Dreamo Henry IV, Part 2o The Tempest

Procedure:Day 1.

1. Pass out photocopies of epilogues; have students keep them face down2. Select one student to read the epilogue from All’s Well

a. As the reader recites, the other students should listen; they may refer to the text after the initial recitation and during the ensuing discussion

3. After the reading, lead informal discussion. Leading questions may include:i. Who is speaking? As whom (actor or character)?ii. What does s/he say? Is this an apology? An appeal? And expression of

thanks? Or something else entirely?iii. How, or with what words, does this speech mark the end of the play?iv. Anything else you notice/find interesting?

4. Repeat steps 2-3 with the remaining epilogues**this part of the lesson should take no more than 40mins

5. After the epilogues discussion, introduce the activity/assignment for class meeting one week from this lesson:

a. Students will be asked to select an epilogue, passage from a play, or sonnet which describes or expresses in some way their experience of or feelings about the course

b. The passage can be no longer 14 lines and no shorter than one line—unless the line fragment can carry significant meaning outside of its context (ex. “To be, or not to be”)—and can be from any work of the Shakespeare cannon (students are not limited to works studied in class)

c. Students will be asked to bring a copy of their chosen piece to class one week from this class meeting

d. Passage should be accompanied by a short explanation (1-2 paragraphs) of why the particular passage is representative of their experience

i. Students may include what aspects they especially liked or found helpful and what aspects they found difficult or personally unhelpful

Day 2.6. Have students arrange themselves in a circle7. Ask a student to volunteer to share their chosen piece

a. Invite student to stand for recitationb. Before s/he recites, student should offer a brief explanation of why they chose

their piecec. Student does not have to recite from memory, though s/he is more than

welcome to try if s/he’d like8. Invite another student to share their piece

a. Time will not be formally monitored; students (hopefully all of them) will share up until the final 5mins of class, at which point…

9. The teacher will share her “epilogue” (will follow same protocol as students)10. Collect the assignment from students11. Bid class “Farewell”

27

Works cited & consulted

Blau, Sheridan. The Literature Workshop: Teaching Texts and Their Readers. New

Hampshire:

Heinemann, 2003. Print.

Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Penguin Groip, 1998.

Print.

Branagh, Kenneth. Much Ado About Nothing. Perf. Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson,

Denzel

Washington, Keanu Reeves, and Michael Keaton. Renaissance Films and BBC Films,

1993.

Film.

Bruns, Cristina Vischer. Why Literature? The Value of Literary Learning and What it Means

for

28

Teaching. New York: The Continuum Puulishing Group, 2011. Print.

Callahan, Mary. “In Literature, Interpretation is the Thing” lesson plan. readwritethink.org.

Web,

accessed March-May 2016.

Mellor, Brownyn, and Annette Patterson. Critical Practice: Teaching “Shakespeare”. Journal

of

Adolescent and Adult Literacy. Vol. 43, No. 6, March 2000, pp. 508-517. JSTOR. Web,

accessed March-may 2016.

Millburn, Michael. “Selling Shakespeare”. The English Journal. Vol. 92, No.1, September

2002,

pp. 274-279. JSTOR. Web, accessed March 30, 2016.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. The Arden Shakespeare. Ed. Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor.

London: Cengage Learning, 2006. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Henry IV, Part 1. Ed. Maynard Mack. New York: Signet Classic, 1998.

Print.

Shakespeare, William. Measure for Measure. The Arden Shakespeare. Ed. J.W. Lever.

London:

Thompson, 2002. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Measure for Measure. Ed. S. Nagarajan. New York: Signet Classic,

1998.

Shakespeare, William. Much Ado About Nothing. Ed. David L. Stevenson. New York: Signet

Classic,

1998. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Shakespeare’s Sonnets. The Arden Shakespeare. Ed. Katheirne-

Duncan-

Jones. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Print.

Shakespeare, William. The Sonnets and Other Poems. The Royal Shakespeare Company. Ed.

Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen. New York: Modern Library, 2009. Print.

29

Smith, Michael W., Deborah Applemean, and Jeffrey D. Wilhelm. Uncommon Core: Where the

Authors of the Standards Go Wrong About Instruction—and How You Can Get I Right.

California: Corwin Literacy, 2014.

Spencer, Eric V. “Scaling the Deputy: Equity and Mercy in Measure for Measure”. Philosophy

and

Literature. Vol. 36, No. 1, April 2012, pp. 166-182. Web, accessed May 2016.

Tabers-Kwak, Linda, and Timothy U. Kaufman. "Shakespeare through the Lens of a New

Age."

English Journal. Vol. 92 No. 1, September 2002, pp. 69-73. Web, accessed March

2016.

Whedon, Joss. Much Ado About Nothing. Perf. Alexis Denisof, Amy Acker, Nathan Fillion,

Clark

Gregg. Bellwether Pictures, 2012. Film.

Wilhelm, Jeffrey D. “Learning by Being: Drama as Total Immersion”. Voices from the Middle.

Vol. 6,

No. 2, December 1998, pp. 3-10. ProQuest Central. Web, accessed March 30, 2016.

Websites

http://www.calshakes.org/v4/educ/teachers.html

http://www.calshakes.org/v4/educ/teacher's_guides/2016_Teachers_Guide-MuchAdo.pdf

http://www.english.emory.edu/classes/Shakespeare_Illustrated/Shakespeare.html

http://www.folger.edu/teach-learn

http://www.readwritethink.org/

http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/education/teachers/teaching-resources

https://www.tes.com/teaching-shakespeare/

Acknowledgements

Thanks go to Prof. Scott Maisano and Professor Jack Tobin for sitting with me and

talking through their experiences teaching Shakespeare at the college level. They were able

to enlighten me on strategies to gain the interest of students in this grade level, as well

30

information to ground the material historically and thematically. Also, they provided much

needed laughs and validation as I put this idea together.

Thanks go to Tommy Cosgrove for the awesome idea of having students draw a

scene from Venus and Adonis, an activity he had his own undergraduate students perform

this spring semester. While I tweaked it a bit for my purposes, I would have never come up

with the activity on my own.

I’d also like to thanks Prof. Sarah Hamblin: the rubric used for the presentation

project for The Winter’s Tale was inspired by a rubric from her ENGL 258: Introduction to

World Cinema course (for which I was he teaching assistant this Spring 2016 semester). This

class was also my source for the informational sheet on how to analyze film.

And last, but most definitely not least: a HUGE thanks to this semester’s ENGL 611

course! Besides sound feedback and some truly inspiring ideas, the support and community

has been nothing short of heart-and-soul-warming. I had a blast!

31