MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391312796 · doi:10.33137/rr.v41i4.32475

Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare’s English History Plays

2019· article· en· W4391312796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laurie Ellinghausen, Lisa Celovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory of EnglishHistoryLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does the audience of Hamilton need to understand "history" to be aesthetically and critically engaged?Crowds watching early productions of Shakespeare's histories would have been in much the same position.Two hundred years after the historical fact, an audience might recognize big names and major conflicts.The intricacies of plot would feel new, however; many details would be allusive noise, yet somehow transformed into a narrative with compelling characterization and themes.With only a genealogical chart and mini-lecture on the Wars of the Roses, most of our students will be as prepared for Shakespeare as they are for Lin-Manuel Miranda.But how we teachers of the histories can inspire the fervour audiences bring to Hamilton is at the heart of Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare's English History Plays, a collection of pedagogical resources and strategies from instructors aware of the barriers to learning the histories: overwhelming dumps of names, sometimes incomprehensible political stakes, a focus on the unrelatably high and great (with seemingly invisible female characters), and (at least in North America) none of the cachet of Hamlet.Editor Laurie Ellinghausen provides an excellent addition to the Modern Language Association's Approaches to Teaching series.The book follows the forms common to the entire series and succeeds in targeting specialists and non-specialists, whether they are teaching one text or many.Summarizing results of a survey of 130 experienced teachers of the histories, part 1 offers "Materials" that include preferred editions, useful supplementary resources, key primary texts, critical traditions, and available performances and digital resources (and related scholarship).Part 2 provides a trove of 29 brief essays guaranteed to inspire whatever your approach, available class time, or interest.Having difficulty helping students find their way in?Have students make a map to understand geographic and cultural disjunctions; build word clouds to understand political campaign messaging; employ Stanislavskian method, or make a text-based legend with coloured pencils to understand characterization.Want a theoretical approach?Try the ecocritical, global, or gender offerings by noted experts in their fields.Tired of Richards and the popular Henries?Get an idea for incorporating Henry VI (1-3), King John, or Henry VIII.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.136 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207