ISSN 2040‐2228

Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

Drama Research: international journal of drama in education

Article 2

Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’.

Brian Lighthill

National Drama Publications www.dramaresearch.co.uk [email protected] www.nationaldrama.org.uk

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

Making Shakespare their ‘buddy’. (Should Shakespeare studies have a place in the curriculum – or is it just a load of Bardolatry?) ______

Brian Lighthill

Abstract

This article is based on a paper presented by Dr. Brian Lighthill at the RSC Worlds Together symposium, Tate Modern, London. October 7th, 2012 and is a brief summation of four years of observations and action research in one Warwickshire secondary school (2006‐10). The research project explored whether Shakespeare studies should have an ongoing place in the curriculum? In this article I map out the arguments for and against Shakespeare study then describe the modus operandi of the research process. A debate follows on how to make Shakespeare relevant for young learners – if the students are to own Shakespeare’s production can the issues in the fictional stories be made relevant to their real life world? I then summarize the research methodology and case study analysis and, at some length, discuss the discoveries made from many in‐depth interviews and questionnaires with seven randomly selected students, their parents and teachers over four years. Finally I explore the way forward for Shakespeare studies. This paper interrogates two questions: ‘Have Shakespeare’s plays any relevance to the lives of young people today – or is it just a load of Bardolatry?’ And, to miss‐quote Monty Pythons The Life of Brian, What have Shakespeare studies done for us?

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 2

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

The Argument

This paper will explore a simple question: ‘Have Shakespeare’s plays any relevanceto the lives of young people today – or is it just a load of Bardolatry?’

On one hand, the secular religion (Bloom 1998) of Bardolatry (Felperin 1963) has not been dampened by either feminists perceptions (Davis 2003) or by new‐historicists arguments that Shakespeare had a project to establish an ideological unity (Dollimore and Sinfield 1985a cited in Levin 2003: 57). Neither have Shakespeare enthusiasts been sidetracked by observations on Shakespeare’s strategy of power relations in the comedies of A Midsummer Nights Dream (Kavanagh 1985) nor been deflected by analysis of Shakespeare’s religious bigotry in The Merchant of Venice (Sundelson 1983 cited in Levin 2003). And though Dobson (1994: 231‐32) persuasively argued that Bardolatrists simply suppress critical analysis,

…the fashion of gulping down every drop of Shakespeare (with or without any reservations about the cultural filtration mechanisms by which it has reached us) is too deeply ingrained in dull commentators and foolish admirers alike students continue to be compelled to study Shakespeare’s plays despite his being, as Diment (2003: 17) wrote, a

Dead White English Male who is forcibly and creakingly resurrected from an age so remote to theirs that they feel they have little connection with either it or the man who lived in it.

On the other hand, Members of Parliament, pedagogues and the public seem determined to maintain Shakespeare’s most‐favoured‐author status – the study of Shakespeare in the National Curriculum is deemed important because of its intrinsic moral worth and the universal values it espouses. As Bloom (1998: xvii‐xviii) evangelically wrote:

Bardolatry, the worship of Shakespeare, ought to be even more a secular religion than it already is. The plays remain the outward limit of human achievement: aesthetically, cognitively, in certain ways morally, even spiritually.

In a slightly less zealous vein, Neelands (2004) advocates that the relevance of Shakespeare’s plays can be demonstrated by drawing on the embedded issues in symbiotic parallel with the social realm – and therefore a humanistic and liberal transdisciplinary approach to Shakespeare study has epistemological justification because three subjects on the school syllabus – Citizenship; Personal, Social, Health and Finance Education; and Shakespeare study ‐have overlapping topics which need to be explored.

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 3

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

So, how to bring Shakespeare’s relevance to the fore became the hub of my research – for, in this era of Education by Numbers (Mansell 2007) – students inevitably note:

You don’t get told what you’re supposed to learn from Shakespeare… (Year 9 Interviews cited in Diment 2003: 20.)

Neelands (2004) argues that a cross‐disciplinary approach to Shakespeare study seems an appropriate way forward because it moves learning away from pedagogy based on knowledge‐transfer (Freire 1985) and towards transformational‐ knowledge. However, Whiteheads (1996: 145) apposite question,

How many of Shakespeare’s plays really come within the linguistic and emotional range of the young adolescent? goes to the heart of any exploration on perpetuating Shakespeare study.

I argue that it is not a good enough reason for the perpetuation of Shakespeare studies to say, We study Shakespeare because he is a literary icon. Students today have little enthusiasm for icons of British social and cultural history. Such icons have little relevance to students. Their icons are living celebrities, not objects in a glass case which, as Skrebels (1997: 83) wrote, as beautiful and valuable as they may be, are still debris from the past,

…in preserving them we render them fixed and lifeless, and leave to chance the possible impact they may have on people’s lives.

So the syllabus, as‐is, might actually be turning students off Shakespeare appreciation rather than turning them on.

One can surmise that despite the creative work in English and Drama classes done by many teachers – inspired by those Shakespeare innovators, Allen, Berry and Gibson – the prevailing mood amongst most students still remains that,

…although I know nothing about Shakespeare, I know he’s boring. (11 year old student quoted in Allen 1991: 41.)

The challenge is to make the fictional world in Shakespeare’s plays relevant to the students real life‐world. Gibson (1994: 141) argued that Shakespeare’s stories have the ability to model for students both negative and positive ways to be a member of a community by offering them an

inexhaustible resource of alternatives of what it is to be human, and what societies are or might be.

Gibson (1994: 14) also noted that because Shakespeare opened up the possibilities of other ways of living, other sets of values and beliefs and other ways of defining oneself, his body of work constitutes available sociological and psychological case

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 4

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013 studies for students to analyse forensically like a detective (Gilmore 1996: 79). And Shakespeare’s humanity, with its illusive quality of never being consistent, does provide a fertile model for exploration of human conduct – particularly with reference to the characters often being agents of their own destinies (Gibson 1994). I have argued, in a previous article in Drama: National Dramas Journal of Professional Practice (Lighthill 2009: 26), that no other writer has so successfully advocated the maxim that Truth is not singular – and that this concept is reflected in the validity of the many issues explored in Shakespeare’s plays. Wittgenstein (cited in Bate 1997: 328) encapsulated this idea when he wrote about the Gestalt drawing by Jastrow (1899) which depicts both a duck and a rabbit:

Figure 1: Duck‐rabbit ambiguous image

This is a drawing of a duck. This is a drawing of a rabbit. Now you see a duck; now you see a rabbit (Ibid.) How frustrating, how exciting – and how stimulating that is. Neither the duck nor the rabbit can be seen at the same time – yet both realities are true. And Shakespeare’s plays exemplify that truth is not singular – nothing is what it seems – as illustrated by Bottoms dream; Romeo, Juliet and Hermias idealistic love; and, of course – the Witches prophecies. As one student I was working with noted,

‘…like my friends give me advice on how to win an argument between my sister and me. Like what to say and stuff, which gets me into more trouble. And the Witches sort of got Macbeth into trouble because he then killed the King. So that links me and Shakespeare together.’ (2010 Y9 student: Interview)

During my three years of action research – which was designed both as a prequel to Shakespearean text analysis in English lessons and a stimulus for personal and social development (Lighthill, 2008, pp.21‐26) – I discovered that through Socratic discussions (Nelson, 1965) on the journey the Shakespearean characters take, students can vicariously explore the various courses of action which could have been taken.

In other words: students learn from the characters’ mistakes; give advice to the characters; and come to decisions on what they (the students) would have done in similar circumstances.

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 5

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

And this ability to philosophise on teacher‐set conundrums – which are based on the issues being explored in Shakespeare’s stories – took place during small group discussions and whole year sharing (Lighthill 2008a). And throughout this process the students gained deep learning on how relevant the issues embedded in Shakespeare’s stories are to their lives‐ and how they would/could react to similar slings and arrows (Hamlet: III.I. 72) which life might throw at them (Lighthill 2009).

As the Head of English at my Host School said about this transdisciplinary approach to Shakespeare study + Personal and Social Development:

‘There was no sense of reverence about it, there was no sense of blow the dust off this old book – it was that Shakespeare is relevant to their lives and personal and social development – so then doing it in English wasn’t a problem. They all think Shakespeare is their buddy.’ (June 2010: Interview)

The Research

My four year study was conducted in a Secondary school in Warwickshire. The school was not a particularly high achieving one – in fact in 2009, the School’s Inspectors described the educational challenges in the school thus:

The proportion of pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities is well above average.

The only reason I mention this fact is to illustrate that my research was conducted in a school which had inbuilt and inherited challenges. This was not an ‘easy‐option school’ in which to conduct experimental and participative research.

Over four years I observed and conducted research with two KS3 cohorts through their Years 7‐10 (11‐14 years of age). The particular foci of the research with Cohorts ‘A’ and ‘B’ were thirteen randomly selected students who became the case study Informers. Basey (2003) argues that, though case studies are specific to time and place, they do allow for transferability by honouring and recognising the complexity and impact of social realities. Basey further argued that if the reports include rich, triangulated ‘detail of context and circumstance’ (Ibid.: 51) then other researchers can draw their own conclusions and make their own assertions which are, in turn, a form of generalisation. I freely acknowledge that case studies are open to a multiplicity of interpretations – however, so too are quantitive methods. ‘Truth is not singular’ (Bate1997: 327).

Cohort ‘A’ (2006‐9) was an essential part of the action research process because it was,

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 6

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

‘an information gathering exercise [in order] to find the level of the children’s work [and] their pre‐action knowledge about the research topic’ (Macintyre: 2000: 61; my brackets).

My observations on Cohort ‘A’ were the first two stepping stones – ‘evaluation’ and ‘reconnaissance’ (Hammond and Townsend 2007) – in preparation for the Action Research cycle with Cohort ‘B’. However, Cohort ‘A’ was never regarded by me as a ‘control’ or ‘comparative’ group (Ibid.: 61) – ‘the individuality of informers’ (Kincheloe and Berry 2004: 25) in both cohorts was sacrosanct and precluded such direct comparison.

Over the three years of studying Cohort ‘A’:

 I observed them in Shakespeare and Personal and Social Education lessons – (abbreviated to PSE in the Host School).  I held thrice‐yearly home‐interviews with six randomly selected Informers, their parents and their form teachers and, through the use of specially designed neo‐Kohlbergian conundrums (Krebs and Denton 2005) and the ‘Quarry problem’ (Huddleston 2009) I was able to chart their personal and social development.  Finally, at the end of the students’ third year in the school, I sought out partial connections between their PSE lessons and their personal and social development through time.

My objectives vis‐à‐vis Cohort ‘A’ were to (a) discover how Shakespeare studies were delivered, and the students’ response to said delivery in English lessons, and (b) discover how the teachers in this school delivered PSE – and whether such delivery was making any discernible impact on the students or was it:

‘…a waste of time…a bit of a doss.’ (Y9 student Cohort A 2009)

With the second cohort of students (Cohort ‘B’ 2007‐10) – the experimental group – I was actively involved in delivering their PSE lessons. I used three Shakespearean stories – Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth and A Midsummer Night’s Dream – as a portal through which the students could vicariously explore the prescribed topics on the Citizenship and PSE curricula and as with Cohort ‘A’:

 I home‐interviewed seven randomly selected informers, their parents and their teachers and, using the same conundrums as with Cohort ‘A’, I was able to chart their personal and social development through time.  In 2010 I observed Cohort ‘B’s response to Shakespeare studies in their English lessons.  And in my final analyses I looked for any partial connections between discussions on the journey the Shakespearean characters had taken, the PSE topics we had explored arising out of those discussions, and the students’ personal and social development. Thus discovering (or not discovering) whether the Shakespearean stories used were a useful tool with which to

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 7

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

stimulate personal and social development and deeper engagement with Shakespeare’s texts.

As a researcher I became a ‘bricoleur’ (Kincheloe and Berry 2004: 1) – one who uses all ‘the [research] tools available to complete a task’ (Ibid.:1; my brackets). In my final analysis in 2011 I deconstructed, using Perakyla’s (2005) approach to ‘Analysis of talk and text’, tapes and transcripts of hours of semi‐structured interviews with all the Informers; analysis of questionnaires based on the longitudinal CEDAR Survey (Strand 2008); analysis of Neo‐Kolbergian conundrums modelled on Krebs and Denton’s research, (2005), and analysis of the ‘Quarry problem’ as devised by Huddleston (2009). All discoveries, both positive and negative, were then triangulated through analysis of the interviews with the Informers’ parents and teachers; through my notes made after said interviews; through my classroom observations, and finally – through any pertinent remarks recorded about the Informers by other members of the Host School’s staff. All this was done in order that the complexity of human research would be acknowledged. As a researcher I became a ‘social‐archaeologist’ (Kincheloe and Berry 2004: 120).

Research and theoretical viewpoints on the effect of drama on child education

Various studies have been conducted worldwide on the effect of using drama as a teaching method. No study has been performed in Iceland to assess the actual benefits of this method and therefore it was important to research the topic.

One of the main characteristics of drama in education is how students construct an imaginary world allowing them to add to their knowledge. The experience and understanding gained from this helps them in the complicated world of reality (Bruner 1996). Pioneers of using drama in teaching draw on ideas of cognitive constructivism from research done by Jean Piaget and his colleagues. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development is about the nature and development of human intelligence which progresses through a series of stages. Cognitive development takes place when children gain new experiences and make discoveries. As development progresses, the child gains experience which enables it to deal with new conditions and circumstances. Cognitive constructivism is based on the idea that students learn by building on previous knowledge and are active in creating new understanding. To be able to learn, the student must be an active participant in the process of understanding, knowing, and achieving. In a school setting the student is the main figure in the creation of new knowledge and understanding. Students have control and are responsible for their education and should be active participants in the process of knowledge construction. For students to rise to this challenge they need to be interested and see the purpose of learning to solve tasks. It is necessary to take in account a student’s previous knowledge because new knowledge is adopted and interpreted according to previous knowledge. School projects and tasks need to be in coherence with real‐life situations outside school. Students are

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 8

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013 expected to engage in complicated situations outside school and therefore, school work needs to prepare them for these situations. When using methods of drama in teaching, students are active participants who use their experience to take part in an imaginary process and take on responsibilities of different roles. At the same time they connect new experiences with older ones. Students use their experience to gain knowledge and build up additional experience while problem‐solving. The educational environment should be resourceful, stimulating and open; similar to a real‐life environment (Hsiao 1999).

The ideas of social constructivism put forth in the early 1970s state that interactions and connections between students have a great effect on learning. Students develop understanding through communication with fellow students. When working together on projects, they exchange understanding and express their ideas. It is necessary to be aware of students’ prior knowledge because this is used to build and interpret new knowledge (Good and Brophy 2003). Drama is often taught through group work. Students must work together and find common solutions. Students use their experience to add to their knowledge in role‐playing exercises. In this way drama teaching corresponds well with ideas of social constructivism. Communication and discussion in group work exercises lead to greater understanding. The education specialist Eisner (2002) puts emphasis on using arts in teaching. He believes that students’ minds are not unploughed acres. On the contrary, he claims that students are susceptive to the seeds sown by their teachers. Using artistic methods in teaching develops student’s attitudes and skills, such as talent, initiative, creativity, imagination and work habits along with a sense of pride for a job well done.

In drama, students are participants and have an opportunity to engage with material in an active way. They interpret their lessons with dramatic expression. The philosopher Dewey points out the advantages of learning by doing where students are active participants in a quest for knowledge, not only passive recipients. According to Dewey (1966), every child has an unused opportunity and the teacher’s role is to create situations where talent can reach its full potential for the benefit of the child and the community. Understanding develops in situations where students can relate with experiences important to themselves. These situations need to emerge in a social context, for example in a classroom. Ideas of the British teacher, Cook (1917), correspond with Dewey’s theories, as he states that interest and participation will ensure results and that playing games is a natural situation for children’s learning.

Research by Somers (1996) indicates that drama helps students retain school work in their memory. Students experience their lessons in a different manner than when only reading. As an example he points out that when working with a story related to a school subject, students construct a play based on the storyline. As characters from the story, they learn to be responsible for their actions and find solutions to problems making the lesson more memorable. Somers also states that the teaching method works well when teaching immigrants because diversity is a main element of drama and can easily embrace varied backgrounds. Additionally, he claims that role‐ play scenarios promote diverse language use. When representing different

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 9

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013 characters, students find it easier to speak in a new language, resulting in vocabulary growth. Baldwin (2004) agrees with Somers in that within drama one can find a variety of teaching methods allowing educators to approach teaching material in various ways. According to Bamford’s (2006) theories, drama in teaching often leads to better attendance amongst students. The diverse methods of drama sharpen their focus and attention. Students with learning difficulties and disabilities often have problems with attendance and lack social skills. Group work with drama creates possibilities, according to Cruz (1995), who points out that through group work, students with reading difficulties can learn from fellow students as well as improve their social skills. Drama in teaching is also well‐suited for working with boys in their first years of school. Drama involves lots of movement, which is helpful for children who have difficulty with sitting still (Wolthers 2005).

Other research shows that in mother tongue instruction, students’ understanding develops through acting. When a scenario is based on a narrative or fairy‐tale, language is used in a diverse way. Students need to use various language styles when interpreting different characters and this expands their language skills. Podionzy (2000) studied how language development changes when methods of drama are used in teaching. She examined students tackling problems and challenges in a lesson where drama was used. They were forced to take on different roles which called for diverse language use and resulted in increased language development.

These are especially interesting conclusions from international studies on the effect and impact of drama in teaching children, but no study had been conducted in Iceland on the status and effect of drama on children’s learning.

Why Shakespeare + Personal and Social Education?

As part of a research project with secondary students CEDAR, based at The University of Warwick, conducted three years of quantitative research which assessed student attitude to ‘Shakespeare study’ for the RSC’s Learning and Performance Network. The annual reports (2008‐10) found that a large majority of students had a negative attitude to Shakespeare study and failed to see the point of doing the plays:

‘Only 20% agreed that ‘Shakespeare’s plays help us to understand ourselves and others better’ (Strand 2008: 3).

Therefore the corollary to this statistic is that 80% of the students in this survey felt that Shakespeare’s plays had little or no relevance to their lives. So, despite the creative work in English and Drama lessons, and based on my own observations on Cohorts ‘A’ and ‘B’, the base‐line observations on Shakespeare study were simply negative because,

‘…I don’t think it affects our careers and stuff.’ (Year 9 Interviews cited in Diment 2003: 18)

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 10

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

However, the schemes‐of‐work devised during the Action Research did prove to be productive both for personal and social development and as an invaluable prequel to Shakespeare studies in English lessons (Lighthill 2013).

The Method

After three years of collaborative research with the PSE/English and Drama teachers and, of course, the students in Cohort ‘B’, schemes of work were designed (Lighthill, 2013) which followed three developmental stages:

1. First Stage, using an interactive storytelling method I called the Shakespeare ‘Whoosh’ (Lighthill, 2008a, p.38‐9) one of the afore‐mentioned Shakespearean ‘stories’ – not the text, just the story – was told to and enacted by the students so that, freed from the barriers engendered by archaic language, the students had a clear idea of the whole play and the journey the characters had taken.

(An aside: Why do I say ‘‘freed from archaic language?'‘

In the afore‐mentioned CEDAR survey for the RSC, in answer to ‘do you find Shakespeare difficult to understand: 49% said ‘yes’, 28% said they found it ‘OK’, and 22% were non‐committal. A clear majority found ‘the language’, to say the least, challenging.)

2. Second Stage, I set the students conundrums arising from the stories, for example: ‘What advice would you give the Montague and the Capulet families on how to work better as a community?’ ‘Who is to blame for Romeo and Juliet having to marry in secret?’ ‘Was Macbeth a good leader of his people?’ ‘Were the witches telling Macbeth ‘truths’?’ ‘Are relationships in The Dream story ‘complicated’?’ ‘Was Hermia’s farther a ‘good one’?’

3. Third Stage, I turn the conundrums onto the students’ own lives:

‘What kind of a ‘community’ would you like to live in?’ ‘What makes a good leader?’ ‘What are your rights – today?’ ‘What do you want from a relationship?’ ‘Are you responsible for your actions?’ ‘What is self‐responsibility?’

After working with the experimental group – Cohort ‘B’ – the students thought that, ‘The point of using Shakespeare’s stories in PSElessons’ was:

‘Learning about other people’s problems’ ‘Fun’ ‘Exploring other people’s issues’

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 11

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

‘We was (sic) working with ‘real life’ problems in the plays’ ‘Helps in exploring reasons and problems in Shakespeare’s stories’ (Student Interviews, 2010)

The Discoveries

I discovered that the personal and social development (PSD) topics, vicariously explored through interactive storytelling of three Shakespearean plays, did impact on the majority of informers in Cohort ‘B’. Out of the seven randomly selected students in this Cohort: two dropped out of the research programme at the end of the first year (a statistically predictable percentage); one student, who initially showed clear feedback loops between the Shakespeare inspired PSD topics and his own personal and social development had, by the end of the second year, emotionally disengaging himself from academia (though I was grateful that he did not opt‐out of the Home Interview process during the three years of research); and for four students there were discernible connections between my Shakespeare‐ inspired approach to PSD and their personal and social development (see below). As well as personal maturation, which could be traced to the work we were doing, these students became deeply involved in both the parochial (school) community and their wider world. Three of them applied and became prefects in Y10/11. Two of them became deeply involved in promoting the idea of a ‘Six Form’ at the Host School – and devised and gave presentations to the Head teacher, the school’s Governors, the Local CC Education representative, and the local Member of Parliament. And one of the four organised a local ‘doggy‐poop’ rota ‘in order to keep the streets cleaner’ in her home area.

As a result of the four years of observations, action research and the case study analyses four key discoveries were made which could contribute to a more effective transdisciplinary way of making Shakespeare ‘relevant’ to those ‘high horsepower, low steering’ (OECD/CERI 2007) adolescents and contribute to their personal and social development:

1. The interactive telling of a Shakespearean story – the Shakespeare ‘Whoosh’ (Lighthill 2008a: 38‐9) – is a key tool in the lesson plan design:

‘the point of acting out (the story) was that the people who got picked could be put in those positions of the issues of this play’

‘it’s more fun for the students and you get everyone involved’. (Cohort ‘B’: Student Interview 2009)

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 12

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

2. The act of meaningful communication with their peers during the group discussions, and whole year sharing, is an essential element in personal and social development – especially as most peer‐on‐peer ‘chat’, as Brown et al. (1984; cited in Wood 2005: 170) notes, is normally on a very ‘superficial level’. As the students reported,

‘it’s good to hear other voices, your friends, telling you something – not just the teacher’; ‘talking to your friends shows you that what you’ve got is not that bad – other people have got it worse’ (Cohort ‘B’: Student Interview 2009)

3. Teachers need to find – or create – a suitable, safe and private space for these lessons – because sensitive issues are aired when exploring personal and social topics. If possible this space should be large enough to accommodate a number of classes from the same year group in order that a sense of ‘community can be developed’ (Lighthill 2008: 22). As a PSE teacher noted,

I think the students have a very conscious sense of ‘community’ […] not many year groups have PSE together like that for three years. I think it has given them as a year group a sense of cohesion which is always good – and that builds community in itself. (Interview June 2010)

4. And my final discovery was that teachers need to let go of ‘teaching’ and become ‘facilitators’ as students develop their ability to ‘philosophise’ – to think for themselves. This approach, which would productively move the teacher/student relationship closer towards a facilitator/student partnership, is recommended because both Shakespeare studies and PSEare other kinds of subjects on the curriculum – which need delivering in other kinds of ways.

As has been stated above, four of the seven randomly selected students did make their own connections between their personal and social development and the three Shakespearean stories used in their PSElessons. Below are selected extracts:

 Student ‘J’ noted that Shakespeare’s plays and characters ‘had been an influenced on my life’ and was able to draw feedback loops between ‘rows at home’, ‘bad’ advice given by her peers as to ‘how to ‘tackle’ those rows’, and the Witches interventions in Macbeth. ‘Don’t believe all you are told’ she solemnly told me.  Student ‘H’, despite being severely dyslexic, was empowered to think ‘‘I can do the Macbeth assignment’’ (Teacher Interview: March 2010) without the aid of his usual ‘reader and writer’ because the, ‘‘Whoosh’ made you think and that’ (Exit Interview: June 2010). A positive response to a scheme of work based on developing independent thinkers.  Student ‘K’, in answer to the question, ‘Did Shakespeare’s stories make any difference to your understanding of any of the PSE topics explored?’ noted: ‘I think the Shakespeare stories helped in my own life because they are mostly to do with honesty in relationships and friendships and how to sort out our

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 13

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

differences. One main thing I realised is friends always come before a relationship, because your friends have always been there for you whereas, you will not know a boyfriend/girlfriend as well, even if you think you do.’  And after the Macbeth ‘Whoosh’, student ‘N’ and ‘I’ (Interviewer, see below) were discussing how Macbeth was just, ‘…so ambitious.’ When I asked, ‘Is it a good thing to ‘aim higher’ in life?’ ‘N’ offered a contemporary version of the Macbeth story set in the changing‐room of a cricket pavilion – which eloquently synthesising two important parts of ‘N’s life:

N: …it’s like in cricket, if you want to be the captain of your national team but there was somebody who already was captain, then erm; you wouldn’t like say bad things in the dressing rooms and get him kicked off being captain. You can be captain but you sort of just have to take it slowly and let the selectors select you as captain

I: So, do you think that Shakespeare’s stories have any relevance to your life today?

N: …yeah, I think they do ’cause, even though it’s a long time ago, erm, things that happen then, happen now. Macbeth really wanted something, erm and Shakespeare shows them that Macbeth got what he wanted – but he also killed the King to get what he wanted instead of waiting and then getting it.

The Way Forward…

The ‘gap in knowledge’ (Trafford 2002) to which this research contributes is the cross‐curricular ‘impact of morally inspired literature (the Shakespearean stories) on prosocial and citizenry development’ (Leming 1993; cited in Solomon 2001: 596; my brackets).

Gibson (1994) succinctly wrote – the key to Shakespeare’s longevity is that the characters, themes and stories have been a source of meaning and significance for generations and offer endless opportunities for reinterpretation and reemphasis because they reflect the preoccupations of the listeners down the ages. Shakespeare keeps being re‐invented and rediscovered because the issues he explores are our issues today – whichever today that might be.

After three years of observations of Cohort ‘A’ the majority feeling about Shakespeare and PSE studies was succinctly summed up by one student when he said, …I just think there (sic) sort of rubbish subjects. (Interview June 2009)

This corroborated the CEDAR (Strand 2008: 3) quantitative surveys which found that,

‘the majority of students held negative attitudes to Shakespeare […] Students found studying Shakespeare difficult […] Students did not see the usefulness or relevance of Shakespeare’.

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 14

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

However, after three years of Action Research with Cohort ‘B’, there was a marked change in attitude summed up thus,

I think the work we did with Shakespeare helps me engage and understand the issues better (Informer ‘K’: Exit Interview June 2010)

…and the Host School’s Headteacher observed that,

…I recommend this method for groups studying Shakespeare, as part of a course in English Literature, or as a novel approach to teaching Personal and Social Education. Either way, it will be hard for your students not to be infected with a deeper understanding and love of Shakespeare. (Interview 2012)

And anecdotally, the H.O. English in the Host School summed up the difference between the response of the Cohort ‘B’ students in 2010 and the Year 9 students who followed in 2011, ‘This Year 9 know nothing about Macbeth ‐so we have to start at a much lower level. The distinction is really obvious’ (Email March 2011).

Clearly the more exposure students get to any subject the more familiar and comfortable they could become with it – and Cohort ‘B’ was exposed to three years of exploring Shakespeare stories during the Action Research. But the research indicated that no matter how Shakespeare‐phobic students might be, if the ‘ideas, themes and issues’ (QCA 2008) in his stories can be made ‘relevant’ to the learners then deeper learning can take place (Petty 2006). If teachers can stimulate students by introducing Shakespeare’s ‘relevance’ – as a ‘prequel’(Lighthill 2013: 1) to text analysis (RSC 2011) – students will more readily engage with Shakespeare studies in English lessons.

Therefore, in answer to my initial question, ‘Should Shakespeare studies have a place in the curriculum – or is it just a load of ‘Bardolatry’?’ I answer, ’‘Yes’ and (a cautious) ‘yes’’.

Shakespeare study should continue to have a place in the curriculum because his plays provide a powerful pedagogic tool for deep and meaningful exploration of issues which are relevant to young learners. And ‘a cautious ‘Yes’’ (to the second part of the question) because there is a danger that the ‘secular religion’ (Bloom 1998) of Bardolatry might well alienate young learners from his intrinsic worth.

So let’s take the ‘Bardolatry out of the Bard’ and make ‘Will their buddy’ – not our ‘icon’.

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 15

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

References

Allen, B. (1991) A school perspective on Shakespeare teaching. In: Aers, L. and Wheale, N. (eds.) (1991) Shakespeare in the Changing Curriculum. London: Routledge. Basey, M. (2003) Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Maidenhead: OUP. Bate, J. (1997) The Genius of Shakespeare. London: Picador. Bloom, H. (1998) Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. London: Fourth Estate limited. Davis, L. (2003) Sick desires: All’s Well That Ends Well and the civilising process. In: Davis, L. (2003) Shakespeare Matters: History, Teaching, Performance. London: Delaware Press. Diment, K. (2003) W(h)ither Shakespeare. The Use of English. 55 (1). 16‐26. Dobson, M. (1994) The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation and Authorship, 1660‐1769.Oxford: Clarendon Press. Felperin, H. (1963) Bardolatry then and now. In: Marder, L. (1963) His Exits and His Entrances. The Story of Shakespeare’s Reputation. London: John Murray Ltd. Freire, P. (1985) The Politics of Education. London: Macmillan. Gibson, R. (1994) Teaching Shakespeare in Schools. London, Routledge/Open University. Gilmore, M. (ed.) (1996) Shakespeare for All, Volume 2, The Secondary Schools: An Account of the RSA Shakespeare in Schools Project. London: Cassell. Hammond, M. and Townsend, A. (2007) The Action Research/Case Study/ Collaborative Research Cycle. ARM Seminar. Institute of Education, University of Warwick. 14 February 2007. Unpublished. Huddleston, T. (2009) Political Literacy. [online] Available at: http://www.teachingcitizenship.org.uk/dnloads/political‐literacy.doc [Accessed 24 January 2010]. Kavanagh, J. (1985) Shakespeare in ideology. In: Levin, R. (2003) Looking for an Argument (Second Edition).London: Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corp. Kincheloe, J. L. and Berry, K.S. (2004) Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research – Conceptualizing the Bricolage. Maidenhead: OUP. Krebs, D.L. and Denton, K. (2005) Towards a More Pragmatic Approach to Morality: A Critical Evaluation of Kohlberg’s Model. [online] Available at:http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/krebs/publications/Toward%20a%20More%20Pra gmatic%20Approach%20to%20Morality.pdf [Accessed 7 November 2008]. Levin, R. (ed.) (2003) Looking for an Argument. London: Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corp. Lighthill, B. (2008) Shakespeare, PSHE and Citizenship – a ménage a trios. In: Drama: The National Drama Journal of Professional Practice. Summer 2008. 15 (1). 21‐26. London: National Drama. Lighthill, B. (2008) Romeo & Juliet: building a Year 7 Community: Part 1. In: Drama: The National Drama Journal of Professional Practice. Winter 2008. 15 (2). 35‐41. London: National Drama.

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 16

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

Lighthill, B. (2009) Romeo & Juliet: building a Year 7 Community: Part 2. In: Drama: The National Drama Journal of Professional Practice. Autumn 2009, 16 (1) 24‐29. London: National Drama. Lighthill, B. (2013) Working with Will. Northants: First and Best in Education. Macintyre, C. (2000) The Art of Action Research in the Classroom. London: David Fulton. Mansell, W. (2007) Education by Numbers: The Tyranny of Testing. London: Politico’s Publishing. Neelands, J. (2004) Miracles are happening: beyond the rhetoric of transformation in the western traditions of drama education. Research in Drama Education. 9 (1). 47‐ 54. Nelson, L. (1965) Socratic Method and Critical Philosophy: Selected Essays. Translated by T. K. Brown III (1965). New York: Dover Publications, Inc. OECD/CERI (2007) Understanding the Brain: The Birth of a Learning Science ‐ Executive Summary. [online] Available at:http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/33/38811529.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2007]. Perakyla, A. (2005) Analysing talk and text.In: Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y.(eds.) (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Third Edition). London: Sage Publications. Petty, G. (2006) Evidence‐ Based Teaching: A Practical Approach. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. QCA (2008) 2008 key stage 3 English test: Shakespeare set sections. [online]Available at:http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_9091.aspx [Accessed 13 January 2008]. RSC (2011) The RSC Shakespeare Toolkit for Teachers. London: Methuen Drama. Skrebels, P. (1997) Transhistorizing Much Ado About Nothing: Finding a place for Shakespeare’s work in the postmodern world. In: Salomone, R. E. and Davis, J. E. (eds.) (1997) Teaching Shakespeare into the Twenty‐First Century. Ohio: Ohio University Press. Solomon, D. Watson, M. S. and Battistich, V. A. (2001) Teaching and school effects on moral/prosocial development. In: Richards, V. (ed.) (2001) Handbook of Research on Teaching (Fourth Edition). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association. Strand, S. (2008) Attitude to Shakespeare among Y10 students: report to the Royal Shakespeare Company on the learning and performance network baseline survey 2007/08. Warwick: CEDAR, University of Warwick. Trafford, V. and Leshem, S. (2002) Starting at the end to undertake doctoral research: predictable questions as stepping stones. Higher Education Review. 34 (1), 31‐49. Whitehead, F. (1996) The Disappearing Dais. London: Chatto and Windus. Wood, D. (2005) How Children Think and Learn: The Social Contexts of Cognitive Development (Second Edition). London: Blackwell Publishing.

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 17

Drama Research Vol. 4 No. 1 April 2013

Notes on Author

Brian Lighthill worked as an Actor and TV/Radio Drama Director/Producer winning a ‘BAFTA’ (1995) and the Prix Jeunesse International (1996) for Coping With Grown‐ Ups (C4). Brian was also nominated for a Sony Award for Radio 4’s Blake’s Seven Adventure (1998).

In 1999 Brian entered academia at the University of Warwick. BA, MA, and finally Doctoral research into the impact of selected Shakespearean stories on personal and social development for 11‐14 year old students.

Brian has published in numerous journals – and his PhD research is now available as Working with Will – 30 Lesson plans for English and Personal and Social Development teachers (First and Best in Education, 2013).

Dr. Brian Lighthill Institute of Education University of Warwick Coventry CV4 7AL mailto: [email protected]

Article 2 Making Shakespeare their ‘buddy’ 18