On 14 and 15 of September 2006 a group of colleagues came together to discuss pedagogy at the Shakespeare Institute in Stratford-upon-Avon. This two day event was jointly developed by the English Subject Centre and the CAPITAL Centre at Warwick University and was sponsored by the British Shakespeare Association.The aim of this event was, on the one hand, to give a context for the Subject Centre's recently published report on Teaching Shakespeare (2006): http://www.english.heacademy.ac.uk/archive/publications/reports/shakespeare.pdf, a survey of undergraduate teaching across the country, and, on the other hand, to introduce colleagues to the work of the CAPITAL Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning; a centre which has grown out of the long standing working relationship between Warwick University and the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC).
The English Subject Centre has for a number of years aimed to provide colleagues with a national picture of teaching in the discipline. With the Teaching Shakespeare report it was felt that, it was important to address this national picture with course content in mind. Shakespeare remains the most widely taught author in the curriculum and therefore to tackle this writer as a means of determining teaching approaches nationally seemed appropriate. The report was initiated by the Subject Centre's Advisory Board who suggested that, in addition to determining which plays were being taught, it was essential to establish a sense of how that work was being contextualised both within the classroom and within degree programmes.
The questionnaire that was circulated asked for a departmental response to questions about the level at which Shakespeare is taught, the degree to which Shakespeare is taught alone or alongside other authors and the extent to which Shakespeare is taught as a compulsory part of the degree. The survey, which was answered by 51 institutions nationally, brought forward some very interesting results. It became apparent that every play in the canon was taught in the 2005-06 academic year, including King John which was taught in two separate courses. On the whole the plays were taught in their entirety. The most popular plays at the first year level were perhaps not surprisingly Hamlet and Twelfth Night. What came as more of a surprise was the fact that overall the third most popular work taught was the Sonnets. While the plays were variously organised the majority of institutions favoured chronological, thematic or genreoriented models.
The teaching methods used showed a wide range of approaches including extensive use of film (88% of departments), digital resources (68%), live theatre (59%), and to a lesser extent student-led creative work (31 %). The assessment forms used showed less variation, with the essay and exam format continuing to dominate. There was, nevertheless, certainly evidence of other assessment forms playing their part, including student performance, presentations, portfolios and review work. In terms of the teaching staff involved, the survey determined that in 65% of departments Shakespeare specialists or specialists in the Renaissance or Early Modern literature were teaching classes at the second level and above. At the first year level that statistic drops to 43%, with a further 20% being taught by other members of the English Department. This leaves 35-37% of classes being taught by research students and hourly paid or visiting lecturers.
The one statistic which might be seen as negative was that 89% of students were seen to be only adequately or poorly prepared to study Shakespeare at the university level. It is important to stress, however, that this statistic, unlike the rest of the survey, focused on the impressions of colleagues rather than the representation of measurable fact. There is no doubt that students are prepared differently through their A-Level study but this is not restricted to the study of Shakespeare. On the whole the picture painted by the survey was one of vibrant activity across the country which involved a wide range of colleagues in a variety of institutions.
The two-day event was designed to study in more detail issues emerging from what was inevitably a snapshot of the national view. The first day began with a short personal presentation about individual teaching approaches by colleagues drawn from six very different teaching environments. Jonathan Bate, the Director of the CAPITAL Centre, began by indicating how he had come to appreciate the usefulness of an approach to teaching that emulates the rehearsal process and his excitement about the opportunities that were now open for technologybased project work. He did, however, also point out the difficulties faced when the teaching rooms presented to colleagues are unsuitable for practical work of this kind. This was followed by Roger Mortlock, Director of Communications at the RSC, explaining the Company’s strategy for making more performance resources available online. Mortlock posed the interesting question of how much structure the RSC should provide. Should the RSC be providing teachers and students with methods of teaching or simply providing resources and allowing users to navigate their own way through them?
Kate McLuskie, Director of the Shakespeare Institute, then spoke about the need to address both how approaches to Shakespeare were changing and how teachers of Shakespeare were changing in response to an explosion of new resources being made available. She posed the interesting question of how we might tackle both the pervasiveness of Shakespeare and the dominance of the filmic representation of the plays. Paul Edmonson, from the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, spoke of the wide-ranging work of the Trust, and argued passionately for the importance of seeing education as a conversation which enabled full and frank engagement rather than prescribed questions and responses.
Farah Karim-Cooper, Lecturer at the Globe Theatre, recounted both the pleasures and the difficulties of her specific working environment. She faces the challenging tasks of interacting with a wide range of student groups from the UK and abroad, organising the research programme of the Education Department and responding to the research requests of the theatre practitioners. Through her experience of this unique teaching environment, which she likened to a laboratory allowing for experimentation on the stage, she said she has come to revise her view of teaching Shakespeare, finding it impossible now not to refer to the plays in performance.
Finally, John Joughin, Chair of the British Shakespeare Association, described his excitement in working on the international on-line MA course he has developed with Stuart Hampton-Reeves at the University of Central Lancashire. He pointed out the way this new course has generated a range of new and appropriate assessment methods, such as learning diaries and reflective statements, providing a structure for the course that might offer an example of practice that was not limited by the content. In particular he was excited by the potential of the course to generate, in essence, its own archive. The way that digital technology was used to overcome the barriers of time and geography to enable the lecturers to speak directly to students all over the world through recorded lectures was seen by the group as an example of how a new world of possibilities is opening up for teachers of Shakespeare.
The session ended with a stimulating debate that drew attention to three key issues at stake in this area: the influence of technology, a changing student body and the impact of working in an international educational environment. While these are important issues in all areas of teaching it was felt that a discussion of these issues with a focus on Shakespeare opened up some very interesting and important questions about studying English in the UK in the 21st Century.
After lunch the participants were asked to join a discussion group based around the teaching of a particular play. These were selected to reflect the survey results but also to open up a discussion of approaches based on generic arrangements. Therefore one group gathered to discuss Hamlet and the Tragedies, another to discuss Twelfth Night and the Comedies and the third to discuss The Winter’s Tale and the Late Plays or Romances. The group sizes reflected the relative popularity of these plays and the preference that both students and lecturers seem to have for the tragedies. In the Twelfth Night session, which I facilitated, it was very interesting to hear that colleagues often found it quite difficult to teach the comedies, largely because such an effort had to be made to explain the humour. This group presented a wide range of teaching approaches as well as institutions. What became apparent in this more informal session was that while those attending enjoyed teaching Shakespeare it was often not their primary research area. A discussion of the development of the curriculum and how Shakespeare fits within that raised important and revealing issues about how departmental strategies and teaching assignments are developed.
Following a break for tea Neill Thew, the author of the Report, presented the survey outcomes and gave colleagues an opportunity to discuss these findings. This presentation provided a lively illustration of the issues already raised and stimulated further debate that drew together the larger contextual picture with individual practice. A drinks reception followed and then a number of the group moved on to the theatre. Holding the event in Stratford-upon-Avon during the Complete Works Festival meant that it was possible for delegates to attend a performance – which proved good preparation for the second day of activity.
Day two of this event was turned over to the CAPITAL Centre and began with an introduction to the work of the CETL by Jonathan Bate. The aim of CAPITAL, to explore the ways in which teaching mirrors the rehearsal process, was then made concrete through a workshop that was conducted by Mary Johnson of the Royal Shakespeare Company’s Learning Department. The workshop began with a series of exercises that were designed to alert the participants to the potential of physical movement and sound when dealing with Shakespeare’s poetry. The work again focused on Hamlet and The Winter’s Tale drawing the two days together through the plays addressed. The group was asked to work in pairs to develop a range of relationship models for Hamlet and Ophelia based on movement and vocal styles. Then, using the text from The Winter’s Tale the group developed an understanding of Leontes’ character development through a physicalisation of the language of the play. The exercises stimulated an engaged discussion about the usefulness of this kind of approach in the English classroom. In particular the question was raised of how would an English class differ from a Drama class if these approaches were pursued? This question led to a discussion of assessment and whether it might be necessary for assessment to change to incorporate new teaching approaches.
The final session of the event was dedicated to looking at the lessons that could be taken away from the two days and from the survey results. It was suggested during this session that a distinction could be made between English assignments that drew on an understanding of performance and Drama assignments which embodied that understanding in their assessment methods. One approach that was suggested, given the resistance colleagues felt they might face in changing assessment models, was to incorporate innovative methods of teaching into non-assessed coursework. The survey seems to suggest that this is exactly what is happening already in many institutions. It was pointed out that while there is a call, on the one hand, to move towards innovative and student-centred teaching models there is pressure, on the other hand, to take on ever increasing class sizes. Some of the participants felt anxious about the extent to which they would be able to take forward the ideas developed during the event given the pressure caused by larger student groups and inflexible teaching spaces. A number of the participants requested training materials and wanted to know more about opportunities to support them in trying out some of the active teaching and learning techniques that Mary Johnson demonstrated. In response to this request a reading list was circulated to participants after the event and it was suggested that the CAPITAL Centre would be furthering this work for Higher Education lecturers with the RSC.
While all of the potential hurdles to change were acknowledged by the group it was also generally agreed that coming together to share practice, as well as being able to place that practice in a national context, was an invaluable experience for those who participated. Working with the English Subject Centre as the CETL Liaison Officer I have been asked to develop an overview of the work going on in the Centres of Excellence in Teaching and Learning that may have an impact on the English community. This is a challenging task in that much of the work undertaken by these Centres is focused on specific university environments. This joint event presented the first attempt to incorporate a CETL partner. The subject, Teaching Shakespeare, facilitated a broad approach and a broad appeal, however, the model, which combined personal experience with practical guidance and contextual information, is one I hope will prove useful for future ESC events.
