Macbeth in the Resource Room: Students with Learning Disabilities Study Shakespeare

Sue Thorson

A teacher describes a secondary English unit on Shakespeare implemented in a manner designed to take advantage of the learning differences of resource room students. After developing and investigating questions relating to Macbeth, students then read and enjoyed the drama. As a result of acquiring an understanding of Shakespeare exceeding that of students in general classes, self-esteem and academic motivation increased. Finally, connections to practice and behavioral, constructivist, feminist, and critical theories are discussed. Appendices describe specific schedules and routines.

My students in a high school resource room had learned that when it came to Eng-

lish class, "difficult" was synonymous with "impossible." Although we coaxed them into reading and enjoy-ing poetry at a college-prep level, they firmly clung to their simplified ver-sions of other literary works, such as novels and plays.

I have always wondered how Shakespeare came to be such a scho-lastic ogre, when he wrote for the uneducated masses of rural England. Surely our students were more sophis-ticated than the illiterate citizens of the Tudor age. But one look at the difficulties of Shakespeare made my guys dig in their heels and screech. I supposed that with an average read-ing level at the fourth grade, a record-best attention span of three class sessions, and a cultural abyss of race, class, and time, they were probably right.

For some mysterious reason, my instructional assistant, Kathy Zepka, and I decided to give Macbeth a try, in spite of all logic, common sense, and experience. It was one of the most successful units I have ever taught and

became a much-anticipated part of our triennial curricular cycle.

When teachers meet, we complain and we boast, in story after story, about our classrooms. Our success stories resound with our pride and love for our students. Each success is a dis-crete event, to be celebrated over and over again. Sharing stories is an im-portant part of our search for ways of duplicating good lessons and engag-ing units.

Academics talk theory. Their peda-gogical panaceas, clinical proofs, and esoteric research projects often fail dismally when applied to daily class-room realities. There are, however, a few theories that will enhance a wide variety of classroom practices. Behav-ioral strategies, although confining and reductionistic, can provide some stu-dents with a sense of security, a clari-fication of the academic arcana. The search for opportunities to reinforce reminds adults to seek out and build on strengths instead of bemoaning weaknesses. Critical pedagogy, with its insistence on respect for students and their realities, the sharing of power in the classroom, and the nurturing of student voices, encourages students

to invest personal interest and in-creased effort in their own learning by addressing their needs instead of the requirements of an alien curricu-lum. Feminine pedagogy permits car-ing and passion to enter the classroom. As learning becomes less sterile, stu-dents respond with gusto. Construc-tivism posits an epistemology that recognizes individual needs and expe-riences, the social nature of learning, and the learner's control of personal growth. When these theories are con-sistently applied to classroom proce-dures, a new environment evolves. Extrinsic control and motivation move toward intrinsic rationales; silent, stub-born resistance to schoolwork becomes friendly social interaction that is a vehicle for academic growth; the chal-lenge of the teaching-learning process becomes a pleasure for all of the par-ticipants.

The following story recounts a suc-cessful experience in our room. I hope that it will give teachers the pleasure of a shared memory, and perhaps a practical idea or two; and academics may enjoy picking out the theoretical underpinning that I am just beginning to discover.

The Group

In our learning disabilities resource room, I was truly a teacher-learner. I had never heard of Freire, and I prob-ably espoused the concept of the

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES VOLUME 28, NUMBER 9, NOVEMBER 1995

PAGES 575-581 at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

576 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

teacher as expert dispenser of infor-mation, but I didn't know a lot about traditional curricula. My background in Spanish literature left me no more prepared to teach high school subjects than any other high school graduate. Students were already used to help-ing me figure out algebra and science lessons. My only exposure to Shake-speare was Hamlet and Julius Caesar in high school; I had never read Macbeth. So, as usual, the students and I were on equal footing when it came to fig-uring this drama out.

Besides assisting in instruction, Kathy was our cheerleader, pushing me ahead when I got nervous and encouraging the students to try assign-ments. As we constructed class learn-ing plans, her curiosity and enthusiasm served as a constant model for us to emulate.

The students were 10th, 11th, and 12th graders, ages 15 to 20. Most had been in special education for 3 to 7 years, although a few started in the resource room in high school. They often remained with us for English and/or math for 3 years. Test scores indicated reading levels from 2.0 to 13.0. Writing skills varied from words and phrases to fairly coherent para-graphs. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar were universally poor. Some students were apathetic, others aggres-sive; none were "academic/' The few students who appeared to be moti-vated had poor skills.

Of course, our first priority involved rules of behavior, from no fighting to appropriate work habits. A behavior modification system based on grade points and positive reinforcement was a central part of the classroom man-agement system. Students who weren't interested in school gradually became avid accumulators of points, then sporadically decreased their interest in scores, and even grades, as they learned to participate in their own education. Due to the variety of ages, interests, skills, and behaviors in any class period, students usually worked individually on a selection of tasks. We actively solicited their input in

planning their work. As their work habits improved, their choice of ac-tivities and assignments expanded.

Although our focus was on academic achievement, Kathy and I worked hard to make the class a safe, pleasant place to be. We didn't have the talent to make the room look pretty, but the casual chaos of papers, books, and scat-tered desks did provide a comfortable, relaxed atmosphere. The interesting book and magazine covers that were strewn about tempted students to read. There was an air of friendly teasing, offhand challenges, unabashed af-fection, and an unswerving belief in their abilities. Group and individual conversations included, but were not led by, the teacher and instructional assistant. We constantly prodded each other to think, explain, guess, and grow.

Preparation

Over the years, we tried several methods to introduce the students to the differences in language and cus-toms found within a Shakespearean play. One thing that always interested them was my comments about the dis-gusting violence, teen sex, blue jokes, and disagreeable adults prevalent in these works. Mysterious references to the crude dialogue in The Taming of the Shrew, what Hamlet was really saying to Ophelia, or the bawdy be-havior of Juliet's nurse made the class curious and slightly interested in at-tempting to explore the mazes of Eliza-bethan English.

During October and November I told them the plots of famous plays whenever we had 10 or 15 minutes to spare. (Lamb's Tales From Shakespeare helped me prepare.) Most students enjoyed listening to these bizarre sto-ries, but some continued their seat work without seeming to pay atten-tion.

The first year, we read a few son-nets together and spent several days reading and discussing Shylock's "If

you prick me, do I not bleed?" speech from The Merchant of Venice (III, i, 51-63). The quotation generated serious conversations about issues of racism and prejudice. Then we watched films on the staging of Shakespeare in the Park productions. Meryl Streep was a hit in The Taming of the Shrew.

The most successful approach, how-ever, was a research project, designed by the students, on Shakespeare and his times, in which they posed about 30 questions pertaining to Shakespeare and his works, did library research, and shared answers. Poor readers found valuable information in il-lustrations, filmstrips, records, and videos. With their interest piqued, they were enticed into reading and writing snippets way above their tested grade level. Results could be presented for evaluation in the form of one-paragraph answers to ques-tions; illustrations and models of sets, clothing, the Globe, housing, and so forth; maps of the times; the locations in Macbeth; or music recitals.

Besides developing students' re-search skills and increasing their in-terest in the study of the play, this project had several unexpected ben-efits. Of course, our librarian was an invaluable resource, but other teach-ers also became actively involved in the research as they entered the me-dia center to pursue their own projects. Their spontaneous involvement im-pressed the students more than any "modeled" research would have. The students were also amused, then im-pressed, as they watched the librarian and me spend 3 days searching for the answer to what had seemed like a fairly straightforward question. We finally combined facts located by stu-dents in history books, an essay on the Globe, and an encyclopedia article on economics to compute an approxi-mate answer to the ticket price of a play in Shakespeare's time in cur-rent dollars (1990 cost: $2.36 for a groundling, $7.08 for a seat with a cushion, or a minimum of $14.14 for a private theater ticket). In the course of their research and sharing, students

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

VOLUME 28, NUMBER 9, NOVEMBER 1995 577

picked up literary terms, historical data, and a picture of Elizabethan England that I could never have "taught" them.

The Play

The first rule we made was that nobody was required to do the play. Students were free to work on stan-dard journal entries, vocabulary re-search, book reports, and reading/ writing projects instead of doing the play with the group. However, they were expected to be quiet during our group work. Most chose to do the al-ternative activities at first, but found it difficult to resist watching the video of the play. I made sure that part of each Macbeth homework assignment was extremely easy, so almost all of the students were drawn into the group by the end of the first act.

We quickly established a daily rou-tine. First, we viewed a Macbeth video, borrowed from the English depart-ment, of the scenes read for home-work. We discussed those scenes as a group, concentrating on plot, lin-guistic explanations, and production values at first. As the students became familiar with the language and in-volved in the plot, they raised increas-ingly sophisticated discussion topics about mood and theme. I followed their lead, at first to avoid discourag-ing them, but finally because I couldn't keep up with their references to street activities, current events, and school politics. After our discussion, we rewound the video, amid moans and groans, to watch what we had discussed and continued through to watch the next section assigned. Ten-sion mounted as we neared the end of the homework assignment, where they knew I would stop the video in spite of their protests. Although they hated watching scenes a second and third time, I think the multiple viewings en-abled the students to develop new insights into the play. I assigned three to five questions for homework. One

or two were factual, the answers to which were obvious from the action in the video. The others probed higher level thinking. (The next time I do this unit, I will ask the students to pose and answer their own questions, a technique that was successful when we read A Raisin in the Sun [Hans-berry, 1959]. The students usually had enough class time to begin, but not to complete their homework. A few never did any more than that, but as the play progressed, more and more began reading at home.

The play begins with an irresistible scene: creepy, rhythmic, suspenseful. What is going on here? The students seem excited as they use the text to figure out the content of the strange language, but they are still convinced that the play is too hard for them. Discussions crop up about witches, the old lady down the street, voodoo cus-toms of recent immigrants, New Age and ancient beliefs and customs. Does Shakespeare really believe this stuff? Do we? We go on to scenes 2 and 3.

Gert was a quiet, awkward girl in my class, whose tests and behaviors, including her rare efforts at speech, indicated fairly serious retardation, but activist parents raised a fuss about EMR placement, so resource teachers had helped her struggle through school. She shyly proffered an insight-ful paper, in her childish handwrit-ing. Each homework question had been answered clearly, in perfect En-glish: complete sentences, paragraphs where appropriate, spelling, punctua-tion, the works. Help at home? I watched her begin, and sometimes complete, every assignment from the play in the ensuing classes. Once she started writing, Gert never reverted to her "retarded" behaviors, but slowly increased her class participation and made tentative social advances.

Sorting out the characters and battle results in Macbeth is easy work for kids accustomed to war movies and the complexities of street politics. Figur-ing out what the witches are talking about takes more group effort, but is almost worth the time. Is Macbeth

really thinking what we think he's thinking? This video is gray and creepy.

As the plot develops, the students are carried along in spite of them-selves. Lady Macbeth's sensuality shocks even these worldly young people. Splashes of red in the gray-ness are noticed and discussed.

Act II. Will he or won't he? The stu-dents enter the room eager to see the next installment. More and more are following the video with their texts. This Macbeth guy is a total jerk: a cow-ard, a sneak, a liar, a cheat. An argu-ment rages over Lady Macbeth's role in the murder. She is defined as cold and heartless. Students comment on the use of loud noises in the quiet of the night.

Most students are impatient with the porter's comic relief. They want to know what will be done to Macbeth and are outraged at Lady Macbeth's deceit. Are the murders of the grooms believable? Only Malcolm and Donal-bain see the truth, and of course the adults won't believe them. What would it be like to have to run away at night? Some students identify only too well with the young princes' ter-ror.

King Macbeth instigates Banquo's murder, but still suffers from guilt. His Queen is despised by the class as an amoral woman who is the antith-esis of their idea of what a woman should be. We chat briefly about the difficulty of removing a corpse from a curtainless stage and the use of rhym-ing couplets to end a scene.

The ghost is greeted with delight. The students predict the beginning of the end. Obviously, Macbeth is going to go completely mad and either con-fess or commit suicide. They hope he confesses, so that his heartless wife can also be punished. The lords' con-versation is not terribly interesting, just typical adult slowness.. . .

The class analyzes the witches' prophecies while Kathy and I sit back and beam. We challenge them to use a history resource to figure out the procession of kings. (I'm thinking

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

578 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

books, they wisely go to teachers. Sev-eral return with an explanation.) A friendly competition is instituted to figure out the other prophecies as the play continues.

Streetwise Ellen, who has been in class for a record 3 consecutive days, is outraged at the murders at Fife. She demands the address of this Shake-speare guy so that she can write him a letter. He has just gone too far. The class cheers Macduff on, straining to understand the complex dialogue, then mourns with him as Ross tells him the horrible news from Scotland.

Linda comes in, shocked by and proud of the time she spent on home-work last night. She even read ahead, because she just had to find out what happens to Lady Macbeth. The other students revel in Lady Macbeth's dis-integration and discuss Macbeth' s con-current strengthening. The Scottish lords are finally wising up.

Although mad, Macbeth is strong. He expresses an astonishing love for his wife. The class discusses his feel-ings at length. Presenting arguments from their own experiences and tele-vision, they decide that Shakespeare is believable, and better than any soap. Billy catches the reference to Birnam Wood. There is a frantic flipping back to the prophecies. But Macbeth is deemed safe, because no one can kill him. Tentative hypotheses of wild horses or vicious dogs are put forth, because it is obvious that Macbeth must die.

Mario enters the discussion with a triumphant explanation of cesarean birth. Can it be? Kathy and I give him a secret thumbs-up but refuse to tell the others whether or not he is right ("Macduff was from his mother's womb untimely ripped"). He glows. The students wonder how Lady Macbeth died. They go back to previ-ous scenes to prove or disprove op-tions. A general education English teacher is stymied by my frantic re-quest for an answer—no general-track student has ever raised that question. The English department grapples with the issue long after we each choose

our favorite interpretations and move ahead.

By now, almost everybody has read ahead to glory in Macbeth's bloody end. Young Siward's death is still greeted with shock; his father's reac-tion is hotly debated. They are dis-appointed by the obvious fakery of Macbeth's bloody head, and discuss ways to make it more realistic. The letdown of finishing the play and end-ing our involvement with ancient Scot-tish feuds is leavened by the discovery that we have, indeed, read and un-derstood a play by William Shake-speare. Casual discussion leads to comparisons with the modern world. Besides the local gangs and drug lords, there is always a "Mac-beth" in the news: Khamenei, Amin, Noriega. Young people wrestle with the demands of their lovers versus the standards of parents and church. Occasional examples of the super-natural come up for discussion.

Afterward

The results of challenging ourselves did not end with the play. Some stu-dents chose to develop their answers from the informal I-Search into a stan-dard research paper. It was their first experience with writing a lengthy pa-per without copying from an encyclo-pedia. After Christmas, the seniors in public and parochial schools began to wrestle with Macbeth. Imagine the glee of "retard room" kids as they became respected Shakespearean experts in the cafeteria and the neighborhood.

The first year, just for kicks, we gave the multiple choice Shakespeare por-tion of the regular English midterm to our students (What the hey . . . one less section for me to write . . .). When the 10th graders in our room outscored the seniors across the hall, we decided to make up our own test in the future. (One student had refused to do any of the play, making up his grade on the optional assignments. He had not, however, been able to ignore the video

or the class discussions. He only got a B on the test.)

As the year continued, students proudly reported answering "Jeop-ardy" questions before the "smart" sib-ling, watching a Shakespeare play on PBS, and even understanding sitcom references that had previously gone over their heads. By June, requests for free-time videos included Romeo and Juliet and Othello.

The students' increased self-confi-dence and newly established work habits, and the thrill of success, led to improved grades, increased main-streaming, and a slow blossoming of interest in postsecondary education programs. The following September, one of Aaron's goals was "to learn to find things in the library, like Ms. T. did last year."

The Theories

The Macbeth unit was a wonderful experience for my students, but, be-cause I had the students for 3 con-secutive years, we could do it for only one quarter every 3 years. My attempts to create other units met with varying degrees of success. Good teachers con-stantly try to recreate magic moments in the classroom, but my efforts were sporadic and chaotic. We could never quite duplicate the Macbeth experience with other topics. Academic and per-sonal growth occurred, but never as dramatically or completely. What made this unit work so well?

Looking back, it is clear that the success of the unit was due not to a five-point lesson plan, or clever orga-nization, but, rather, to a classroom environment and procedures that had been developing for years. Increasing respect for student abilities, combined with student participation in planning, regularly led us to the library, where informal research procedures evolved. After an introductory week in the li-brary in September, students were sent on "treasure hunts" for information ranging from questions about words

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

VOLUME 28, NUMBER 9, NOVEMBER 1995 579

and current events to why I named my cat Carrie. The Shakespearean re-search and studying Macbeth simply polished skills that had been develop-ing in the resource room for years.

Behaviorism was an integral part of the entering student's experience. I am distracted by wandering, head-banging, and put-downs, so these be-haviors were extinguished in favor of the development of on-task, in-seat, socially acceptable behaviors. Tokens and points were faded as soon as stu-dents approached a minimal standard of behavior. (This fading was not planned, but as the students learned that doing work carried its own re-wards, they gradually lost interest in extrinsic reinforcement.) However, the habit of looking for positive traits, improvements, and successes led me to an appreciation of subtle talents and multiple intelligences. My ideal, clini-cal, engineered classroom never got off the ground, but it was the basis for a complex contract system, which, in the process of teacher survival, became a simple, student-driven system of choice.

The years of trial and error led to a management style that almost repli-cated Deci and Ryan's (1987) model of the use of intrinsic motivation to enhance both the quantity and the quality of learning. From the first day, students were offered choices of ac-tivities; they were never required to complete specific assignments, as long as they were working. Although ex-trinsic, positive reinforcement was important in helping students begin to engage in classwork, it was usually paired with informative feedback or a challenge for growth (Deci and Ryan discuss in more detail the use of choice, information, and challenge to encour-age intrinsic motivation).

Feminist pedagogy includes the emotional and spiritual needs of the classroom community and posits that adults should treat students with the care and respect they would extend to their own children (Grumet, 1988). Kathy and I were uncomfortable with many of the demeaning materials and

activities recommended for special education adolescents. Besides chal-lenging them and believing in them, we showed them how much we cared. We closed the door furtively and dropped our professional masks whenever we could. Feminist peda-gogy offers many valuable theories to teachers, but I believe its greatest gift is the permission to show feelings in the classroom. The students7 passion-ate reactions to the play enriched their experience after the emotional atmo-sphere in the room had already enabled them to risk the academic stretches demanded from any student of Shakespeare.

Critical pedagogues espouse a student-centered program, in which the teacher is a resource person who facilitates the students7 journeys of dis-covery, rather than directing them (Freire, 1990). I have realized that stu-dent involvement and learning almost always had an inverse relationship to the amount of structured teaching ac-tivities I presented. However, students enthusiastically welcomed and re-membered my participation. The re-search project and Macbeth discussions exemplify students' ability to direct their own learning with great success. The theories of critical pedagogy also emphasize the importance of connect-ing content to students' social reali-ties. As they discussed the play, the class consistently related plot, charac-ters, and theme to their families and community and the national news. The direction of their discussions validates the importance of social connections to learners.

Understanding how adolescents with LD learn has long been a chal-lenge to educators. Constructivism offers a useful explanation: Each learner builds a meaningful picture of the world based on individual experi-ence, a variety of cognitive styles, in-terests, and social interactions (Poplin, 1988). Although this theory answers a lot of questions for me, it also raises a potential problem. Left to themselves, what kinds of knowledge will these students construct? They designed a

research project based on their inter-ests and knowledge of literary inter-pretation. As they wandered around the library, chatting and explor-ing, they developed a picture of Shakespeare and his times richer than that presented by most literature texts. Although still excessive, teacher guid-ance was minimal as we watched and read the play, but the students did better than general classroom students on a test of standard required knowl-edge (the type of test most of them generally failed). It seems as if, left to their own devices, they not only learned what they were supposed to— a rare enough occurrence—but also acquired a very unusual appreciation for a difficult author.

The application of these theories on a day-to-day basis enables students to develop not an abstract self-respect based on pop psychology and the mere fact of existence, but, instead, a strong self-concept, rooted in successful ex-periences of challenges met and fail-ures overcome. Academic growth be-comes more than a list of memorized gains in grade-level skills; it refers to curiosity and research, literature and passion, composition and expression. Teacher and student become inter-changeable in the exhausting, exhila-rating experiences of intellectual growth.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sue Thorson is an assistant professor in the special education program at the University of Maine in Farmington. Address: Sue Thorson, Special Education, Merrill Hall, Farmington, ME 04938.

REFERENCES

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1987). Intrinsic moti-vation and self-determination in human be-havior. New York: Plenum Press.

Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

580 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter milk. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.

Hansberry, L. (1959). A raisin in the sun.

New York: Random. Poplin, M. (1988). Holistic/constructivist

principles of the teaching/learning pro-

cess: Implications for the field of learn-ing disabilities. Journal of Learning Dis-abilities, 21, 401-416.

APPENDIX A: Studying a Shakespeare Play

Preparations

Activities that lay a foundation for reading a Shakespearean play

Month 1 : Build a classroom environment that encourages work and mutual respect. Prove the possibility of success to each student. Establish standard learning/assessment opportunities, such as journal writing, vocabulary development, reading and writing options, television and video critiques, etc.

Month 2: Use extra class time to tell students Shakespearean plots. Begin research in the middle of the month.

Month 3: Research and/or readings from sonnets and plays once or twice a week.

Month 4: Macbeth

Month 5: Optional assignments due. Final assessment.

Beginning to Study Shakespeare

An activity to introduce the language and customs of Tudor England

Read a selection written by William Shakespeare or a contemporary aloud with the students. Initiate a discussion based on vocabulary, context and imagery. As students demonstrate contextual understanding, move into small-group discussions of imagery. Stimulate conceptual development with a general question about the applicability of the reading to reality. Assess with an oral debriefing or a quick write.

Optional assignments may include a translation of the reading into modern English, a poster or illustration, or resetting the scene into your school and time.

3. Allow a minimum of 3 days in the library. Once the students have started working, the teacher, too, should research a question. Publicly ask the librarian and other teachers for research advice.

4. Students write a minipaper; draw pictures, maps, and diagrams; and make models, tapes, or videos to answer each question they choose to work on. Sources mustbe listed, in the bibliographical format used by the school. Sharing information is permitted, but the student who located the information must also be cited as a source.

5. Students have the option of rewriting minipapers as one coherent academic research paper and/or writing detailed explanations of their pictures, maps, or models for additional credit.

Reading Macbeth in Three Short Weeks

A daily routine and reading schedule for reading the play in 45-minute class periods

Day 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Acts, Scenes I, i-iii I, iv-vi I, vii

II, i-ii II, iii-iv III, i-ii

III, iii-iv III, v-vi

IV, i IV, ii-iii V, i-iv V, v-vii V, viii

Stimulating Intellectual Curiosity

Some considerations in constructing a research project to enrich students' understanding of Macbeth

1. Ask the students what they want to know about Shake-speare and his times, Macbeth and his times, etc.

2. Combine student lists to make a master list of questions, leaving room for additions. Distribute the master list to the students.

At the bell, begin the video with homework reading. View the tape, discuss homework questions and other issues raised by the students. (We often discussed staging and production values.)

Either distribute questions for the next reading or assign students to write and answer their own. Rewatch the scenes, adding those forthe next assignment. I generally assigned three questions per scene: a really easy one (who? where?), one of medium difficulty (translate, list), and a really difficultone (explain, predict). Next time, I will ask the students to write their own questions more often.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

VOLUME 28, NUMBER 9, NOVEMBER 1995 581

APPENDIX B: Resources

Behavior Modification

Bryan, T., & Bryan, J. (1975). Understanding learning disabili-ties. New York: Alfred.

Cartwright, P. G. et al. (1989). Educating special learners. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

O'Leary, K., & O'Leary, S. (1972). Classroom management. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Intrinsic Motivation

Gilbert, T. (1978). Human competence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

The Research Process

Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Graves, D. H. (1984). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Macrorie, K. (1985). Telling writing. Upper Montclair, NJ: Hayden. Macrorie, K. (1976). Writing to be read. Rochelle Park, NJ:

Hayden. Moffet, J. (1968). A student-centered language arts curriculum,

Grades K-13: A handbook for teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Moffet, J. (1981). Active voice. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.

Feminist Pedagogy

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Critical Pedagogy

Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Constructivism

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Macbeth British Broadcasting Company. (1978). Shakespeare Series,

Macbeth. Paramus, NJ: Time-Life Film and Video. Calandra, D. (1979). Cliffs notes on Shakespeare's Macbeth.

Lincoln, NE: Cliffs Notes. Caldwell, S. (1987). Macbeth. Princeton, NJ: Films for the

Humanities. Evans, M., Anderson, J., & Schaefer, G. (1961). Macbeth. Chi-

cago: Macmillan Films. Lamb, C, & Lamb, M. (n.d.). Tales from Shakespeare. New

York: George Routledge and Sons. Mowat, B., & Werstine, P. (Eds.). (1992). Macbeth. New York:

Washington Square Press. Polanski, R. (1971). Macbeth. New York: Evergreen Video Society. Royal Shakespeare Company, (n.d.) Macbeth. Princeton, NJ:

Films for the Humanities, Inc.

REMINDER Please note that manuscripts and

inquiries regarding content of the

Journal of Learning Disabilities should

be directed to: Dr. George Hynd,

Editor in Chief, Journal of Learning

Disabilities, School of Professional

Studies, 570 Aderhold Hall, University

of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602;

706/542-4562; FAX 706/542-5877.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from