Problem Statement
Shakespeare’s dramas have long been a staple of high school literature education, with classics like Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Hamlet, and Julius Ceasar included in the lists of most-read works in the country as a part of English curriculums (Applebee, 1989). However, in spite of the widespread study of his works, many students have trouble grasping the complex language employed by Shakespeare. This problem is well-articulated by Toepfer & Haas (2003), who wrote:
Despite the fact that [Shakespeare’s] plays are full of entertaining and manipulative plotting, his language can create a barrier for most high school students. Many do not want to take the extra time, nor do they have an intrinsic interest in analyzing Shakespeare’s words in order to interpret the story (p. 30).
These authors then continue on to say that it is the responsibility of educators to motivate students to analyze and think critically about Shakespearean language. As Parsons (2009) commented, educators must explore methods of turning passive readers and test-takers into students who are actively exploring Shakespeare’s dramas. Such an approach would be valuable in teaching students to engage Shakespearean language, as asking students to perform basic vocabulary and comprehension tasks in isolation can “quickly become deadly” (Veidemanis, 1993). Thus, there is a need for more interactive methods of education that invite students to engage with the text and learn collaboratively with their classmates.
Target Audience
Shades of Shakespeare has been designed for implementation into a high school English curriculum. It can be played by students with a variety of skill levels, and would work well in both standard and honors classes. Additionally, there is potential for students to team up if necessary, which could be helpful for ESL students or those with learning disabilities. The game can be played before, during, or after reading through Macbeth, though the difficulty level increases with the less exposure students have to the story.
Player Experience Goals
The primary goal of Shades of Shakespeare is to encourage critical thinking and analysis of Shakespearean language, which would result in a better overall understanding of his plays. By exploring the text and thinking through it on their own, students can acquire skills related to literary interpretation that can also cross multiple genres.
A secondary objective is to add an element of fun to the study of Shakespeare and change students’ negative attitudes about the text being archaic by bringing it into a modern setting. Showing students that these plays can be translated into words used today can encourage appreciation of the texts as being timeless pieces of literature.
The game also hopes to teach students the value of collaborative learning environments and show them ways in which they can learn from one another. By hearing and judging others’ interpretations, students can be taught by one another in a manner that is less forced and more subtle.
Content Sources
When determining the content focus of Shades of Shakespeare, our first source was a high school literature teacher, who regularly includes Shakespearean plays in her curriculum and recently taught Macbeth to her students. When asked what the needs of her students are as related to Shakespeare, she provided the following responses:
“What I can tell you without thinking too much is that the number one problem is always the language. If you can do something that helps them grasp the unusual syntax and ‘foreign’ words, that does wonders for students ”
“One of the aspects that stumps students about Shakespeare in general is the figurative language he uses. They don’t understand why he takes so many lines to say something he could really say in one. So, you could devise a game around figurative language in Macbeth, but it would then apply to literature in general.
She also had the following to say about a language issue specific to Macbeth:
“They don’t understand the part where Macduff seeks out Malcolm and Malcolm plays with him to test him. With the last one especially, it’s because they take everything Malcolm says at face value instead of questioning why he’s saying it. So, you could do an activity that involves teaching kids not to take language at face value.”
Based on this teacher’s responses, it became clear that a valuable tool for high school educators would be to create a game that provides an interactive approach to teaching students about Shakesperean language.
Scholars in education have commented that an important method in teaching Shakespeare is paraphrasing or translational exercises. Veidemanis (1993) wrote, “Typing up short passages rich in metaphor and asking students to do oral or written paraphrases…is one way of anticipating and preventing reading problems” (p. 5), and continued on to say that such exercises are a “basic” component of Shakespearean study. Similarily, Christenbury (1993) wrote that focusing on single quotations from a play can help students to hone in on the specifics of language, handle the complexity of the plays by breaking them down into smaller parts, and encourage memorization of the language.
Clearly, the act of paraphrasing small sections of Shakespearean plays is believed to be an ideal teaching method, and is also an action that can be incorporated into a game. When creating this translating mechanic for Shades of Shakespeare, the developers drew inspiration from games such as Balderdash, Liebrary, and Origin of Expressions. These three games share a common mechanic–one person prompts all the players, who provide written responses and try to fool others into thinking theirs is the “correct” one. Based on our own experience playing these games, and particularly the popularity of Balderdash, this was seen as an ideal mechanic to emulate in Shades of Shakespeare, and is one that would fit well with the idea of paraphrasing and translating Shakespearean text.
Values
Shades of Shakespeare is a game that places a high value on the ideals of community and cooperation. If one person is not playing the game in the correct manner, it can ruin the dynamic for everyone else. Thus, though individuals are pitted against one another to win the game, there is an important emphasis on working together.
The game also values democracy and equality. The anonymous voting system helps to ensure that the “best” translation wins, and if players do not vote, the game cannot continue. Additionally, the game seeks to equalize all of the players at the beginning of each turn, as no one gains an advantage by being further ahead on the board. The element of chance (embedded in the Fates cards) can also help to balance the playing field, as all players are subject to its random effects.
Shades of Shakespeare, through its main game mechanic of translation, also values creativity and style. Though players are limited by the constraints of the original quote they are read, they have freedom within those limits to interpret and translate Shakespearean language as they see fit. Players can also develop their own style of translation, and consistently provide humorous, elaborate, or simplified quotations in an attempt to win others’ votes. In fact, humor is another important value embedded within the game, as many players choose to capitalize on the freedom they have to interpret and provide a funny translation–this may not always win them the votes they want, but if often adds more fun!
Fun
Playtests with Shades of Shakespeare have demonstrated that players are engaged, laugh often, and enjoy themselves. The game is heavy on the “people fun,” in that players get to interact with one another, compete to win the game, and make each of their voices heard through their own translations. One of the most entertaining instances is when players are presented with a particularly confusing quote–usually, when the translations are revealed, their answers are so varied that individuals cannot help but laugh at the fact that it caused them so much trouble. Additionally, players who make their quotes humorous can add a significant level of entertainment to the game.
Another aspect that people enjoy is the element of bluffing–trying to manipulate their own translation in an effort to fool others that it is the right one. The satisfaction of getting other players to vote for their translation is apparent on individuals’ faces, because it not only shows that they succeeded in fooling others, but also that they were able to provide a good translation of the original quote.
The very act of translating is also a form of “hard fun,” in that it requires critical thinking that can be intrinsically satisfying. Each turn involves an element of problem solving, such that players have to consider the original quote, what others will think it means, what they think it means, and what qualities in their translation will earn them votes.
Theory
Shades of Shakespeare reflects the content of several theories related to learning and game playing. An obvious choice is the constructivist theory of education, which posits that individuals are “perceivers and interpreters who construct their own reality through engaging in…mental activities” (Jonassen, 1991, p. 10). One application of constructivist theory in education is providing students with multiple representations or perspectives of the same content, which subsequently allows individuals to construct their own cognitive schema regarding the topic at hand (Jonassen, 1991). The core mechanic of Shades of Shakespeare mirrors this practice by allowing students to hear multiple “translations” of the same quote, which helps them to build their own understandings of how to interpret Shakespearean text.
Another relevant theoretical framework is that of co-design, which was first proposed by Gee (2004). The underlying principle of this concept is that, in order for learning to occur, students must feel like active, not passive, agents. In other words, students should be producers, as opposed to consumers, of content. Shades of Shakespeare takes the idea of students being producers very seriously, and allows students to do more than just read Shakespearean texts. Instead, they listen to and then create their own interpretations, making them active participants and helping them to engage with the text.
A final framework pertinent to the development of Shades of Shakespeare is reader response theory, which is built on the assumption that the “meaning” of a text is derived from the interaction between the text itself and the reader’s experience and prior knowledge. Additionally, this theory posits that an examination of readers’ responses to texts is more valuable then trying to establish one “correct” interpretation (Chase & Hynd, 1987). Although Shades of Shakespeare is based upon students trying to guess the “correct” translation as its core mechanic, the overarching goal of the game is not to teach students one singular meaning of the text; rather, it is to encourage students to bring their own knowledge and ideas to Shakespearean speech and develop their own interpretations.
References
Applebee., A. N. (1989). A Study of Book-Length Works Taught in High School English Programs. Report Number 1.2. Albany, NY: Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.[ED 309 453]
Chase, N. D. & Hynd, C. R. (1987). Reader response: An alternative way to teach students to think about text. Journal of Reading, 30, 530-540.
Christenbury, L. (1993). The use of quotations in teaching Shakespeare. In J. E. Davis and R. E. Salomone (Eds.) Teaching Shakespeare Today: Practical Approaches and Productive Strategies (pp. 31-38). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 8, 15-23
Jonassen, J. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 5-14.
Parsons, S. (2009). The Text’s the Thing: Using (Neglected) Issues of Textual Scholarship
to Help Students Reimagine Shakespeare. English Journal, 99, 85-90.
Toepfer, M. M. & Haas, K. H. (2003). Imaginative departures with two Shakespearean plays. English Journal, 92, 30-34.
Veidemanis, G. V. (1993). Some “basics” in Shakespearean study. In J. E. Davis and R. E. Salomone (Eds.) Teaching Shakespeare Today: Practical Approaches and Productive Strategies (p. 3-13). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
