Reimagining the Bard in the Language Classroom: An Integrated Pedagogical Framework for Teaching Shakespearean Sonnets In ESL/EFL Contexts

Sonnets by William Shakespeare are an integral part of English literature; however, because they contain advanced vocabulary and syntax, they are often ignored in English Language Teaching (ELT). This paper attempts to present a case for the incorporation of William Shakespeare’s sonnets in an English as a Second Language/English as a Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) classroom, going beyond the traditional appreciation of these poems by English-literate students. William Shakespeare’s sonnets are helpful in the progress of English students’ linguistic, communicative, and intercultural skills. Research on Integrated Sonnet Pedagogy (ISP) will be presented, covering a range of teaching methods such as Swain’s Output Hypothesis, Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, Affective Filter Hypothesis, transactional theory of reading, and performance-based approaches. Mobile-assisted language learning will also be considered. The focus will be on developing vocabulary and skills related to intonation and pronunciation of poetry. Sonnets will be introduced in a way that reduces students’ affective barriers.

Shakespearean sonnets; ELT pedagogy; ESL/EFL literature teaching; performance pedagogy; digital literature learning; postcolonial pedagogy; undergraduate English learners

1. Collie, J., & Slater, S. (1987). Literature in the language classroom: A resource book of ideas and activities. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Eisenmann, M., & Lütge, C. (Eds.). (2014). Shakespeare in the EFL classroom. Universitätsverlag Winter. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Hasyim, R., Noni, N., & Nur, S. (2026). ICT tools in intercultural communication pedagogy: Their impact on speaking competence and students' strategies in negotiating meaning. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1742910. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1742910 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271–289. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Loomba, A. (1989). Gender, race, Renaissance drama. Manchester University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Macaulay, T. B. (1835). Minute on Indian education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Paran, A. (2016). Shakespeare in the EFL classroom [Review of the book Shakespeare in the EFL classroom, edited by M. Eisenmann & C. Lütge]. ELT Journal, 70(4), 461–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw052 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Volkmann, L. (2014). Developing symbolic competence through Shakespeare's sonnets. In M. Eisenmann & C. Lütge (Eds.), Shakespeare in the EFL classroom (pp. 45–62). Universitätsverlag Winter. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Independent Writing in the Machine Age: The Draft–Interrogate–Reflect (DIR) Model of Human–AI Interaction in Second Language Writing