Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher
The bigger issue surrounding whether we should teach Shakespeare or not is the question of what values and traits we want to develop in students. There is too much emphasis on self-esteem instead of pride. What does it say about our students that they quail and shrink from anything that seems challenging or foreign? Where is the curiosity? Where is the courage?
|
It was pounded out of them in their younger years, when they quickly learned that they got rewarded for RIGHT ANSWERS and penalized for anything else.
Any pack of 5- and 6-year-olds in school will consider any new material given them as a challenge, a fascinating topic for "what can I learn from this; is it fun; what can you do with it?" By five years later, they've learned to narrow their focus down to "what will I be tested on?"
Teaching US public-school kids to *enjoy* literature (setting aside the issue of whether a play should be studied as text or enactment) requires a subversion of the entire grade system. They're not graded on "enjoyment," so they don't put any effort into it. (And enjoyment takes effort. It takes relaxation, which can be deadly to their grades in other topics. It takes time, which they're not often given.) They're not graded on "understanding," either; they're graded on lists of facts and the ability to generate meaningful-sounding phrases with the right buzzwords. And they're expected to forget most of those in the space of about a month.
Much of the problem comes down to: is the point to teach them the importance of Shakespeare in the English-speaking history of art & literature, or is it to teach them to enjoy and understand some of Shakespeare's plays? They can't be taught the same way, and the second can't be taught in a graded classroom setting. The moment a teacher establishes grades for "understanding," the kids will start churning out buzzword-laden essays, just as they've been instructed to do for years.