Skip to Main Content

Lesson 1

We will engage in a one-on-one philosophical chairs discussion that explores whether literary criticisms present justifiable interpretations of Hamlet.

Lesson Goals

  • Can I develop and clearly communicate meaningful and defensible claims that represent valid, evidence-based analysis?

  • Can I use language and strategies to accomplish my intended purpose in communicating?

Texts

Core

  • Unit Reader
    • Excerpt from “Depressive Illness Delayed Hamlet’s Revenge,” Aaron Shaw and Neil Pickering, BMJ Publishing Group, Ltd., 2002
    • Excerpt from “The Sanity of Hamlet,” Tenney L. Davis, The Journal of Philosophy, 1921
  • Tradebook
    • Hamlet, William Shakespeare, Simon and Schuster, 2003

Materials

Tools

Reference Guides

Question Sets

Editable Google Docs

Activity 1: Write

We will prepare for a peer discussion by completing section 1 of the philosophical chairs Discussion Tool.

Listen to the statement provided by your teacher. Write down the statement on the Philosophical Chairs Discussion Tool.

Using your notes from the Evaluating Ideas Tool for the essays "Depressive Illness Delayed Hamlet’s Revenge" or "The Sanity of Hamlet," jot down relevant details from them that support or refute the given statement.

It is okay if you find that you have evidence to support both sides. If you do, re-examine your evidence and decide which position has the strongest and most sufficient evidence to support it.

Summarize your position in one sentence. Use the possible claim starters in the Claims Reference Guide to structure your sentence. Draft a paragraph that explains your position and include at least two pieces of textual evidence to support your claim, one from the play and one from the relevant essay.

Activity 2: Discuss

We will examine the protocol for academic discussions.

You will engage in an academic discussion with a peer.

As a speaker, you will do the following:

  • Elaborate and clarify your ideas.

  • Support your ideas with specific textual evidence from the play and details from the films.

As a listener, you will do the following:

  • Take notes on your peer’s intriguing ideas.

  • Ask your peer clarifying questions.

  • Build on or respectfully challenge your peer’s ideas.

Examine the Academic Discussion Reference Guide. Select and commit to using two conversation stems, one listener prompt and one speaker prompt.

Activity 3: Discuss

We will engage in a philosophical chairs discussion with peers.

Engage in a philosophical chairs discussion with a peer. Be sure to do the following:

  • Elaborate and clarify your ideas.

  • Support your ideas with specific textual evidence from the play and details from the films.

  • Take notes regarding your peer’s intriguing ideas on Section 2 of the Philosophical Chairs Discussion Tool.

  • Ask your peer clarifying questions.

  • Build on or respectfully challenge your peer’s ideas.

Activity 4: Write

We will reflect on how the discussion refined our original ideas and self-assess our participation in the discussion.

By engaging in a discussion with a peer, we are provided the opportunity to examine other points of view. As a result, we will often refine our own ideas.

Examples of refinement include:

  • changing one’s position on the topic

  • maintaining the same position but clarifying the idea

  • incorporating new information

  • disregarding weaker evidence in favor of stronger evidence

  • better anticipating and refuting counterclaims

In Section 3 of your Philosophical Chairs Discussion Tool, write a reflection about how your thinking was refined during the discussion. Also, complete the self-assessment of the speaking and listening skills you used in the discussion.

Activity 5: Read

For homework, we will read Act 4, Scene 1 and 2.

For homework, read Act 4, Scenes 1 and 2.

Verbal irony is a literary device where what is said is the opposite of what is meant.

As you read, pay attention to Gertrude’s revelation and Claudius’s use of verbal irony.

In your Learning Log, respond to the following questions:

  1. How do Gertrude’s actions in this scene contradict what she said in the previous scene? What evidence from the text supports your interpretation? What might be her reasons for this change? How do her actions confirm or defy Hamlet’s view of women?

  2. What is Claudius’s reaction to Gertrude’s news? What verbal irony does he use? What effect does it have on the meaning of the scene?

  3. What does Hamlet mean when he refers to Rosencrantz as a sponge (4.2.12 and 4.2.20)? What effect does this metaphor have on the meaning of the scene?

As you read for homework, write down new or interesting words you encounter in your Vocabulary Journal. If necessary, revisit the Vocabulary in Context Tool to assist you with words or phrases you struggle with.