Posts
My senior English class has begun reading William Shakespeare’s Hamlet as part of their second unit, entitled “Shades of Grey: In-between Good and Evil” (MSDE, 2009). The curricular goals for this unit require students to apply appropriate during and after reading strategies (SC 1.1.4/ ECLG1.1.2, SC 1.1.3/ ECLG 1.1.3), identify and explain the implications of major themes (SC 1.2.2/ECLG 1.2.5), and effectively present particular perspectives on an idea or topic (SC 3.1.5/CLG 4.3.3) (MSDE, 2009). My unit plan was designed to accommodate my students’ diverse interests, learning profiles, and readiness in order to help them achieve shared curricular goals (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).
The most important way this unit differentiates instruction is by employing multiple methods of content delivery (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003; Laureate, 2009). It is important for any content, but especially for Shakespeare, to address students’ readiness, so I had students record and share their prior knowledge of Shakespeare’s language, life and times, and Elizabethan drama on KWL charts, first alone, then paired, and finally as a class, as I recorded on the overhead (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003). Predictably, my students’ prior knowledge in these categories varied widely, but needed development for most. The class then shared ideas for things to look for, recorded in the “Want to Know” section, before viewing a series of video clips on these three topics from the Discovery Education Streaming site at http://streaming.discoveryeducation.com/, during which they gathered information for the “Learned” columns on their personal charts. After each clip, student volunteers shared what they had learned as I recorded in the “Learned” column of the whole class KWL chart. This process was designed to appeal to the receptive strengths and affinities of learners’ diverse recognition networks while building their readiness for Shakespeare reading through examples (provided in the video clips), highlighting of critical features (both in the films and on the KWL chart), and presentation through multiple media forms (film, still images, KWL chart (Moran, Kornhaber, & Gardner, 2006; Rose & Meyer, 2002).
To address students’ common discomfort with Elizabethan English, I paired them to trade playful slurs in original argument skits using a Shakespearean Insult Kit (http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/shake_rule.html). Most found this enjoyable, as it was designed to engage both interpersonal intelligence and exploit the appeal of humor (Moran, Kornhaber, & Gardner, 2006; Rose & Meyer, 2002). I even heard a few Elizabethan jibes in the hallway between classes.
We used a number of methods to establish purposes for reading. One was to introduce the main premise of the play through a drill question: “How would you react if your mother remarried, just two months after your father’s death, to your uncle?” Students reacted passionately to this question in discussion and, once its purpose was revealed, made predictions (which I posted on the wall for future reference and revision) about how the play would turn out—some surprisingly prescient.
Our second method of establishing purpose for reading was the development of a character map showing all major characters in the play and their important interactions and relations. The class map used Cmap Tools on the projection computer, while students could use pencil and paper, a computer, or a foam board with post-it notes and yarn to produce their own. One student chose to use Prezi (http://prezi.com/), which should produce an exciting result. Students were also presented with a short list of traditional questions to answer for each scene because many of my students request them, perhaps because they appeal to their strategic networks and scaffold comprehension (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Students were also given a cumulative purpose for reading, preparation of a final group presentation of an act from the play using media and presentation forms they select, such as PowerPoints, digital stories, prose narratives, animated shorts, songs, or graphic novels. Groups will use modern language and radically alter some aspect of the setting to show how themes in the play apply to contemporary issues, but they must retain the basic plot. Groups were allowed to select the type of products they will create, but not the acts their groups will rework, which will be revealed after the class reading of the play. During the introduction of this assignment, students proposed additional ideas for presentation formats, which we listed and included as options for the assignment. Periodic collaboration in groups arranged to pair complimentary learning styles should help to compensate for differing attitudes toward each purpose for reading method.
With these purposes in mind, students began reading Hamlet after introduction of a few important, and likely unfamiliar, Elizabethan words. First, we viewed a film clip of Act I, scene I available on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Hamlet+Act+I&aq=f). We will use the great variety of productions available on this site to examine various models of skilled performance as we switch from scene to scene (Rose & Meyer, 2002). In our discussion after viewing the scene, we evaluated and revised our predictions and discussed students’ questions. One question that the video clip we viewed left unanswered was whether the ghost of Hamlet’s father was real. When asked how we could find out, students proposed a number of Internet resources designed to provide easy answers, but agreed, based on advice from one of the pre-reading videos used to establish background, to consult the original text. Students opened their texts to Act I while I used the LCD projector and computer to present a multimedia version of the play on a CD Rom entitled Shakespeare Interactive: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (1996) that, in addition to the full text of the play, includes hyperlinks for difficult vocabulary and characters’ names, modern English explanations in the margin, and an audio track of a professional reading. During the reading, students were allowed to call “Stop!” to request a pause to read the margin notes, follow hyperlinks to definitions, replay portions of the program, and ask questions.
After the class reading, students set to work on questions, character maps, and notes for presentations, first individually, then in group debriefings with peers whose learning profiles differ for the purpose of scaffolding (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003). During this time, I had the opportunity to observe and interact with students for formative assessment, and was gratified to find that comprehension levels were higher than I have seen in traditional readings, and that students were engaged in higher level thinking and debate about issues in the play, and even about Shakespeare’s craft as a playwright.
We began the next session with three questions highlighting critical features of the first scene (“1. What do Francisco and Bernardo see on the battlements? 2. Why have they summoned Horatio? 3. What do they decide to do next?”) (Rose & Meyer, 2002). We then continued reading the play in this manner, ready to vary our method to accommodate students’ needs and interests.
After our reading of Act V, we will enjoy the One Minute Hamlet performed by the Famous Last Nerds troupe (available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGPes8KWE0s), and other unusual treatments of the play’s content on YouTube in order to provide additional models of skilled performance to help students prepare final presentations. We also may attend a live performance or view one of the great contemporary film versions of the play before going to workshop on final projects.
As I expected, there were groans and imprecations when I announced that our next reading would be a Shakespeare play. Now that we have worked our way through the first iteration of our scene cycle, however, I am seeing a complete recovery of morale. In fact, I now hear groans when we pause at the end of the scene for debriefing. Through the power of digital information technology to differentiate content delivery for by readiness, interests, and learning profiles, my students are learning to love Shakespeare as they achieve curricular goals.
References
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstructudl.html
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Reaching and engaging all learners through technology. Baltimore: Author.
Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). (2009). Voluntary state curriculum for English: Grades 9-12. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.bcpss.org/webapps/cmsmain/webui/institution/CURRICULUM/English/English%20IV?action=frameset&subaction=view&uniq=-2q4gra&mask=/institution/CURRICULUM/English
Moran, S., Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H. (2006). Orchestrating Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 22-27. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
Shakespeare Interactive: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark [Software]. (1996). New York: Santa Fe New Media.
