Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Teaching for Young Learners
Vol. 6:1 (2024) ► pp.60–83
Original Research Article

Surveying L2 Shakespeare studies in Canadian secondary schools

Developing a framework for continuing research

| Sophia University

The study of Shakespeare in secondary school literature classes remains a global phenomenon across L2 contexts. Understanding said spaces is important, as the study of Shakespeare is known to expand learner knowledge of normative conventions of academic literacy – this, in service of building the cultural and linguistic capital necessary for learners to succeed on their own terms. However, little is known about how best to research this context so as to assist language learners with their academic literacy needs. To address this gap, this study employs thought modeling – an analytic tool informed by complex dynamic systems theory – to investigate the teaching and learning environment of seven secondary school ESL programs in the Canadian province of Ontario. Mining the educational experiences of 106 participants, this research explores five primary components of the educational landscape: conditions, timescales, interactions, artifacts, and agents. Thematic analyses and descriptive statistical analyses were performed on a dataset comprised of surveys and interviews. This study initiates a framework for continuing research into L2 secondary school Shakespeare studies by identifying and describing substantive avenues of research (i.e., control parameters) informing conditions for best practice and highlights thought modeling as an effective analytic framework for understanding educational dynamics.

Keywords: secondary school, academic literacy, Shakespeare, complexity theory, thought modeling, English for specific academic purposes (ESAP)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Academic literacy
  • 3.Shakespeare in secondary school L2 classrooms
  • 4.Complex dynamic systems theory and thought modeling
  • 5.The present study
    • Context: Ontario secondary school ESL programs
    • Participants
    • Instruments
    • Procedure and data collection
    • Data analysis
  • 6.Findings
    • Agents
    • Conditions and timescales
    • Artifacts
    • Interactions
    • Control parameters
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 30 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00045.fog
References
Aita, S.
(2013) Shakespeare in Styria. Scenario, 2 1, 77–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baba, K., & Nitta, R.
(2014) Phase transitions in the development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning, 64 (1), 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bacon, S., & Finneman, M.
(1990) A study of attitudes, motives, and strategies of university foreign language students and their disposition to authentic oral and written input. The Modern Language Journal, 74 (4), 459–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balinska-Ourdeva, V., Johnston, I., Mangat, J., & McKeown, B.
(2013) “What Say these Young Ones”: Students’ Responses to Shakespeare – An Icon of Englishness. Interchange, 44 (3–4), 333–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belliveau, G., & Kim, W.
(2013) Drama in L2 learning: A research synthesis. Scenario, 2 1, 6–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benson, P.
(2021) Language learning environments: Spatial perspectives on SLA. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, J.
(2021) Complexity, emergence, and causality in applied linguistics. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V.
(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruton, A.
(2013) CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System, 41 (3), 587–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burns, A., & Knox, J.
(2011) Classrooms as complex adaptive systems: A relational model. TESL-EJ, 15 (1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E.
(2003) Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Sage.Google Scholar
Cumming, A.
(2013) Multiple dimensions of academic language and literacy development. Language Learning, 63 (1), 130–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z.
(2014) Researching complex dynamic systems:‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47(1), 80–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Kubanyiova, M.
(2014) Motivating learners, motivating teachers: Building vision in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edgarsson, G.
(2018) Academic vocabulary proficiency and reading comprehension among Icelandic secondary school students. In B. Arnbjörnsdóttir & H. Ingvarsdóttir (Eds.), Language development across the life span: The impact of English on education and work in Iceland (pp. 95–112). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenmann, M., & Lütge, C.
(Eds.) (2014) Shakespeare in the EFL classroom. Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Eklund, H. & Hyman, W. B.
(Eds.) (2021) Teaching social justice through Shakespeare: Why Renaissance literature matters now. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fogal, G. G.
(2019) Tracking microgenetic changes in authorial voice development from a complexity theory perspective. Applied Linguistics, 40 (3), 432–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022) System mapping simplex spaces: facilitating change in L2 educational contexts from a complexity theory perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 60 (1), 103–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023) Educational landscapes through a complexity theory lens: Using system mapping to investigate L2 Shakespeare studies in secondary schools. International Journal of Complexity in Education, 4 (1), 115–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fogal, G. G. & Verspoor, M. H.
(Eds.) (2020) Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, J.
(2005) Clear speech: Pronunciation and listening comprehension in North American English. Teacher’s resource book (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, J.
(2006) High challenge, high support: Integrating language and content instruction for diverse learners in an English literature classroom. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (4), 269–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henry, A.
(2017) L2 motivation and multilingual identities. The Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 548–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Learner-environment adaptations in multiple language learning: Casing the ideal multilingual self as a system functioning in context. International Journal of Multilingualism, 20(2), 97–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H.
(2020) Research methods for complexity theory in applied linguistics. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huh, M. H., Lee, J., & Ha, H. S.
(2018) EFL writing development through repetition of a literature-reading-writing task. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34 (4), 53–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K.
(2014) English for academic purposes. In C. Leung & B. Street (Eds.), The Routledge Companion of English Studies. (392–404). Routledge.Google Scholar
Islam, I.
(2013) Using Shakespearean drama for creative writing in ESL classroom: Some techniques and suggestions. Stamford Journal of English, 6 1, 164–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kooy, M., & Chiu, A.
(1998) Language, literature and learning in the ESL classroom. English Journal, 88 (2), 78–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C., & Zhang, L.
(2018) The multilingual instructor. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P.
(2000) Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lau, L. C. M., & Tso, W. B. A.
(2016) Teaching Shakespeare to ESL students. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L.
(2008) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2016) Classroom-oriented research from a complex systems perspective. Studies in second language learning and teaching, 6 (3), 377–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 103 1, 61–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lavelli, M., Pantoja, A. P., Hsu, H., Messinger, D., & Fogel, A.
(2005) Using microgenetic designs to study change processes. In D. M. Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental science (pp. 40–65). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, E.
(2008) The significance of building and activating background knowledge in the teaching of Shakespeare in the ESL classroom. Polyglossia, 15 1, 35–43.Google Scholar
Lillis, T., & Tuck, J.
(2016) Academic literacies: a critical lens on writing and reading in the academy. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes (pp. 30–43). Routledge.Google Scholar
Macaluso, M. & Macaluso, K.
(Eds.) (2018) Teaching the canon in 21st century classrooms. Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ontario Ministry of Education
(2007) The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 to 12: English as a Second Language and English Literacy Development. Retrieved from the Ontario Ministry of Education website: [URL]
Paran, A.
(2013) Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?. Applied Linguistics Review, 4 (2), 317–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) [Review of the book Shakespeare in the EFL Classroom, by M. Eisenmann & Lütge, C. (Eds.), ELT Journal 70 (4) 461–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickett, M. B.
(2011) Teaching Shakespeare to ELLs to develop fluency. Selected Proceedings Michigan TESOL, 1 1, 61–69.Google Scholar
Pinnavaia, L.
(2018) Teaching idioms through Shakespeare: The case for food and drink. In M. Rose, C. Paravano, & R. Situlin (Eds.), Shakespeare, our personal trainer: Teaching Shakespeare in secondary schools (pp. 101–117). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Poupore, G.
(2013) Task motivation in process: A complex systems perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 69 (1), 91–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) A complex systems investigation of group work dynamics in L2 interactive tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 102 (2), 350–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rata, E.
(2021) The curriculum design coherence model in the knowledge-rich school project. Review of Education, 9 (2), 448–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehr-Brackin, K.
(2014) Explicit knowledge and processes from a usage-based perspective: The developmental trajectory of an instructed L2 learner. Language Learning, 64 (4), 771–808. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, M., Paravano, C., & Situlin, R.
(Eds.) (2018) Shakespeare, our personal trainer: Teaching Shakespeare in secondary schools. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Schönbauer, D.
(Ed.) (2021) ‘All the world’s a stage’ – Shakespeare in English language education. Topics – Tasks – Selected Texts. Tectum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shanahan, C.
(2012) How disciplinary experts read. In T. L. Jetlon & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies (pp. 69–90). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Shanahan, D.
(1997) Articulating the relationship between language, literature and culture: Toward a new agenda for foreign language teaching and research. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (2), 164–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheahan, A., & Dallacqua, A. K.
(2020) Taking scissors to Shakespeare. Journal of Language & Literacy Education, 16 (2), 1–13Google Scholar
Straughan, J.
(1996) ‘Romeo and Juliet’ and the ESL Classroom. English Journal, 85 (8), 52–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stredder, J.
(2014) ‘Active reading’ – A workshop on reading Shakespeare’s text in class. In M. Eisenmann & C. Lütge (Eds.), Shakespeare in the EFL classroom (pp. 243–255). Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Tin, T. B.
(2011) Language creativity and co-emergence of form and meaning in creative writing tasks. Applied Linguistics, 32 (2), 215–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Townsend, D., & Collins, P.
(2009) Academic vocabulary and middle school English learners: An intervention study. Reading and Writing, 22 (9), 993–1019. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warnby, M.
(2023) Academic vocabulary knowledge among adolescents in university preparatory programmes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 61 1, 101203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar