Lesson video

Hello there.

Mr. Barnsley here.

Thank you for joining me today as I'm gonna guide you through the learning as we continue to study the play "An Inspector Calls." And in today's lesson, we're really gonna be focusing on the character of Sheila and the transformation that she goes from this naive, entitled young woman at the beginning of the play to someone who actually pushes back against her parents and some societal norms. As you might be aware, I am gonna be expecting a little bit of prior knowledge here.

This shouldn't be the first time you've thought about or studied "An Inspector Calls." You need to know a little bit about the plot, the characters.

We are really gonna be doing some revisiting of key ideas here and then pushing ourselves and digging a little bit deeper.

You're also gonna want to make sure you have a copy of the text.

I'll be asking you many times during the lesson to go find some evidence from the play, so make sure you've got a copy of the text to hand.

All right, really excited to learn with you today.

Thank you for joining me.

Let's dive in.

So by the end of today's lesson, you will be able to explain how Sheila's character development could reflect the changing attitudes towards gender and class expectations.

Now, five words keep an eye out for today.

The first is a verb, to infantilise, and that means to treat someone like a child or in a way which denies their maturity and age or experience.

We're also going to look out for adjective entitled, and someone who is entitled is someone who believes themselves to be inherently deserving a privilege or special treatment.

Defiance is a kind of behaviour where you may refuse to obey someone or something.

And optimism is the quality of being full of hope and emphasising the good parts of a situation.

And finally, the verb to subvert means the act of challenging or going against a stereotype or a convention.

So do keep an eye out for all five of these words.

You will see them in bold when they appear in the lesson, and let's also see if we can use them in our own discussions and work later today.

So there are three sections in today's lesson.

We're gonna start by thinking about how Sheila is initially presented in the play; we're then gonna track Sheila's journey towards defiance, one of our keywords, when she starts maybe disobeying some of the expectations of her; and then we'll look back on the whole lesson and do some evaluation and think about the role that Sheila plays in the play.

But let's start by thinking about her initial presentation.

So to do that I want you to remind yourself of Sheila at the beginning, so you're gonna reread Act 1 from page one, where the second paragraph of stage directions begins "at rise." And then you're gonna read to page three, so we're only reading a couple of pages here, and you're gonna stop when you see the word "object!" All right, over to you for this one.

I want you to have some questions in mind as you are reading.

The first one is how is Sheila initially presented, and how does this conform to the stereotypical expectations of gender and class in Edwardian society? So as you're reading, keep thinking, what are your opinions of Sheila? How is she being presented to you, and how does that conform to, you know, your understanding of expectations of gender and class? I also want you to start thinking about how the stage directions and the dialogue in this extract reflect those gender expectations that were placed on Sheila, because she is a young woman, she's a young woman in an upper-class family.

So can you see how stage directions and dialogue have been used to reflect the expectations that are put on her as a young upper-class woman? All right, over to you to do some rereading, reminding, revisiting of the opening of the play, and particularly on Sheila's presentation.

All right, pause the video, give this a go, and press play when you are ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Well done for taking the time there to be really careful as you reminded yourself about Sheila's early presentation.

Some of our Oak pupils were doing this as well and they gave this a go, and this is what they said about Sheila.

Jun said, "Sheila is presented as pretty and excited, and arguably these conform to Edwardian expectations of women because we expect them to be charming, to be submissive, and to appear really innocent." So Jun here is saying, actually, Sheila's conforming to expectations.

Sam says that Priestley initially presents Sheila as being naive.

She's described as being playful, and this actually highlights her as being quite immature and quite superficial in her understanding of the world.

Lucas says, "This celebration of her engagement and Priestley's use of the word please actually suggests this sense of entitlement, perhaps." That's one of our keywords, that maybe Sheila feels entitled to the life that she has.

She feels that she's deserving of it by the nature of her class.

Looking at everything you can see on the screen there and thinking about the work that you've just done, which of my Oak pupils do you agree with most and why? Why don't you take a moment to reflect on the ideas you can see on the screen and compare those to the ideas that you've had.

Pause the video, take a moment, and press play when you are ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Let's do a quick check then before we move on with the rest of today's lesson.

In the stage directions of Act 1, Priestley describes Sheila as: A, excited; B, pretty; or C, naive? Pause the video, select your answer, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Well done if you said both excited and pretty.

Okay, these were both descriptions that Priestley uses in the stage directions.

We can then make some assumptions, we can make some inferences here that might mean that Sheila is quite naive as well, but these were the direct quotations from the stage directions.

So we know that other characters often infantilise Sheila, almost treat her like a child, and this reflects the societal attitudes towards women in Edwardian society.

Can you think of any specific examples from the play where Sheila is infantilised by others? Why don't you pause the video.

If you've got a partner, you can look through your text with them, otherwise you can do this independently.

Let's find some specific examples of Sheila being infantilised by other characters, which reflects how, actually, society viewed women at the time.

Pause the video, give this a go, and press play when you are ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Let's have a look at some examples that you might have found.

So in Act 1, page 17, Mr. Birling instruct Sheila to run and move along, undermining her maturity and excluding her from serious matters, showing that as a young woman, her views weren't needed and she shouldn't really be, you know, getting involved with serious matters.

In Act 2, page 48, Mrs. Birling says that Sheila is hysterical and behaving like a child, and this really diminishes her emotional response and concerns.

Hysterical as a word or as an accusation is something that's often kind of used against women, saying they're overly emotional, they're too emotional, they're led by their emotions.

This is something that we see, a word that we see used to diminish women's experiences quite frequently, and here we see Mrs. Birling doing this to her daughter and really treating her as a child.

And in Act 3, Gerald tells Sheila that everything is restored and all right, and he does this in a really patronising tone, which assumes that she will ignore the fact that he has betrayed her, that he has cheated on her, and he just expects her to return to the status quo as everything was before the beginning of the play.

All of these instances really highlight the patronising treatment that Sheila receives, and this emphasises the gender dynamics at the time, specifically the way that young women will have been treated.

So Alex made this statement.

Alex, one of our Oak pupils, he said, "Sheila's constant infantilisation and dismissal by other characters makes her eventual defiance," when she kind of fights back and rejects the power that her family hold over her.

When she challenges their authority, this makes it even more striking and dramatic, when we see this comparison of early Sheila to the Sheila that she becomes.

What extent do you agree with that, then? Why don't you pause the video and take a moment to discuss.

If you've got a partner you can discuss with them or in a small group.

If you are working by yourself, you can maybe just think through this independently or make a few notes.

All right, what do you think? Do you agree with Alex? To what extent? Over to you.

Pause the video, press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

I'm sure you were having some really great discussions there, and welcome to anyone who used extract from the text there to justify their thoughts.

So let's do another check then before we move on.

Mrs. Birling infantilises Sheila by calling her a child and her behaviour is described as being what? Is it A, unrestrained; B, over-emotional; or C, hysterical? A, B, or C? Pause the video, make your choice, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Really well done if you said C, hysterical.

All right, over to you then for our first task, and you are gonna write a paragraph that answers this question: how far does Priestley present Sheila as a woman of her time? So how much does she represent what we might expect Edwardian women to be? This only needs to be a short paragraph.

I just want you to bring together your learning from the lesson so far, but I would like to challenge you to try and use some of the keywords, including some of our keywords from the beginning of the lesson.

So can you use the phrase societal expectations? Can you use that adjective entitled, maybe this adjective naive? Can you use the adjective infantilise, to come from that verb to infantilise, and the verb conforms, conforming to behaviour, conforming to societal expectations? All right, so let's take a moment to bring all of our learning together in a short paragraph.

Pause the video, give it a go, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Great to see you bringing all of those ideas together.

Really well done.

I want to share with you a model, an example of something that you might have written.

Of course, this is not the only right answer, but it's a really good opportunity for you to compare your own thoughts to the ones that you can see on the screen.

So I wrote that Priestley presents Sheila as a woman who initially conforms to societal expectation.

She's shown as naive and entitled, enjoying her privileged life.

Sheila is often infantilised, treated like a child by her parents and Gerald.

This reflects how women in Edwardian society were controlled by men.

However, Sheila begins to challenge these norms, showing growth and awareness of class and gender.

Why don't you pause the video, take a moment to compare your ideas to mine, and make sure, did you include those keywords? And where you did, can you underline them in your answer? All right, pause the video, take a moment of reflection, and then press play when you're ready to continue.

All right, welcome back.

Really excited to continue learning with you, and now we're gonna start tracking Sheila's journey towards this really defiant character that she ends the play being.

So, let's use this timeline here to track Sheila's journey throughout the play.

So we know at the beginning, the stage directions describe her as being pleased and excited and they really highlight her naivety.

Her entitlement is also really evident, because she admits being jealous and furious, and she uses her status and power as an upper-class woman to have Eva fired, which really shows that she's entitled.

She thinks she deserves to be the one who is the beautiful one in the room.

She thinks that the hat should look perfect on her, and actually this jealousy and this anger that she shows towards Eva really shows her entitlement.

But as she speaks to the inspector, we see that she hysterically reveals that the inspector knows, and this shows that she's got this growing awareness.

She's more aware than some of the other characters in her family.

And by the beginning of Act 2, she warns her mother not to build a wall, not to try and keep secrets from the inspector.

By the end of the play, we see that she says she respects Gerald, but she says things aren't the same.

This reveals a real shift in her relationship, not just with her parents but with her partner, and also shows a shift in the power dynamics.

She previously being this kind of naive young woman, often controlled by her family, controlled by men, by her partner Gerald, but here she's kind of taking some of that power away from him.

And by the end she's also challenging her parents.

She challenges their dismissive attitude and she says it frightens her.

Okay, and that's quite an out-there statement to be making to her parents, certainly in Edwardian times.

So, let's have a think then.

How does Sheila's narrative arc, the journey that she go on, what does it reveal about her growing awareness of societal expectations of gender and class? Why don't we take a moment to reflect and think about that timeline that we've just seen and think about what it tells us.

So if you've got a partner, you can discuss with them.

Otherwise you can do this independently and just make a few notes.

Pause the video, give it a go, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

I'm sure you had some great ideas there.

I'd like to compare them to some of our Oak pupils.

So Andeep said that "Sheila's narrative arc reveals her growing awareness of societal expectations of gender and class as she moves from naivety to understanding.

She begins to question the values imposed on her by her family and by society." Sofia says that "Sheila's arc demonstrates her increasing recognition of societal expectations surrounding gender and class.

Priestley uses her shift to critique inequalities, offering optimism for societal change through younger generations." This optimism, this hope that things can be better.

Sofia's saying that actually, Sheila is a really good representation of that.

Why don't you take a moment then to pause and think, who do you agree with most and why? So pause the video, reflect on your own discussions, your own ideas, and compare them to the Oak pupils.

If there's any ideas that you really like here that you hadn't thought about, you can take a moment to note them down as well.

All right, pause the video, and then press play when you're ready to continue.

Right, welcome back.

So we could argue then that Mr. and Mrs. Birling, Sheila's parents, they really represent these societal norms that by the end of the play Sheila begins to challenge and wants to subvert, to kind of turn on their head.

Now, Priestley then uses the conflict between Sheila and her parents to critique, to criticise some of these social structures, particularly these structures around class and gender hierarchies.

So we can see this conflict between Sheila and her parents as a vehicle, as a way of Priestley criticising these societal structures that Mr. and Mrs. Birling try so hard to keep in place.

So, let's see if we can find some evidence then to support this.

With your text open, can you find some examples of where Sheila is challenging those societal norms that her parents represent? Find those specific examples.

You can do this with a partner, you can do this independently, but you are gonna need to make sure you've got that text open.

All right, pause the video, find some examples, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Some excellent finding of evidence there.

You know I love it when we've got really strong arguments, really interesting arguments, but we always need to be justifying this and supporting it with examples from the text.

All right, before we move on, let's do a quick check to see how we're getting on.

True or false? At the beginning of Act 2, Sheila warns her mother and tells her to build a wall to protect herself.

Is that true or is that false? Pause the video, select your answer, and make sure you've thought about why you've selected the answer that you have.

All right, give this a go, press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Did you say false? You should have done.

Why is that false? Well, Sheila tells her mother that she should not build a wall.

Instead she warns her, she says don't build a metaphorical wall between themselves and the truth.

Don't try and lie, okay? It is only gonna make the situation worse.

She's one of the first to realise that the inspector knows a lot more about this than he is letting on.

All right, onto our second task then in today's lesson, and we're gonna continue with discussion here.

You've been doing some really great discussion work and I want to continue with that, putting together all of the things that we've been working on in today's lesson.

Now, if you have a partner or if you've got a small group of people to work with, then that's gonna be really easy for you to discuss.

But don't worry if you're working by yourself at home, you can just think through these questions independently.

You can make a few notes on a bit of paper if you wish.

So the questions that we're gonna look at then, how might Sheila's growing awareness of class and gender expectations reflect Priestley's critique of societal structures? And in what ways does Sheila challenge the societal norms represented by her parents? How does this shift in her character demonstrate the potential for change in the younger generations, according to Priestley? So we're really starting now to think about Sheila as a character, as a vehicle, as a construct to be used to explore Priestley's own views, okay? Priestley's own views about societal structures and change and how they can be changed.

Okay, as I've said though, whenever we are kind of taking our arguments and justifying and thinking about our arguments, we always want to make sure we are supporting those with evidence.

So make sure you've got your copies of the text open.

Find some examples from the stage directions, from the character's dialogue to support and develop your ideas.

All right, over to you.

Answer these questions, pause the video, give it a go, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

I hope you are really starting to get some nice, developed, nuanced ideas which really focus on Priestley's purpose.

Our Oak pupils have given this a go, and so we're gonna take a moment to look at theirs as some model examples of things that you might have been saying, but also give you an opportunity to compare and reflect on the discussions or the ideas that you were having.

So Aisha says, "Sheila's growing awareness of class and gender expectations is evident when she admits her jealousy led to Eva's firing.

It shows her guilt for abusing her power.

By warning her mother not to build a wall, she's critiquing these social divides," so these divides between social classes.

"Priestley uses her guilt and her accountability to expose the flaws in rigid class hierarchies and gender norms." That's a really interesting idea there, saying look, you know, if Sheila can see that she was wrong, you know, are we as a society big enough, brave enough to acknowledge that having these rigid class hierarchies can actually be quite damaging, to have these rigid gender norms isn't a sensible thing to do? You know, that's what Aisha is arguing that Priestley is saying through the character of Sheila.

But what to extent do you agree? Do you agree with what Aisha's arguing? Can you think of any other examples Aisha could use to support her argument? She's obviously used this example of the wall, but could you think of anything else? Why don't you pause for a moment and just reflect on Aisha's answer and see, do you agree with that? All right, press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Another one of our Oak pupils, Jacob, gave this a go and this is what Jacob said.

He said, "Sheila challenges societal norms by confronting her parents' dismissal of the inspector's message, saying their attitude frightens her.

She rejects Gerald's infidelity, refusing to conform to traditional gender roles." 'Cause of course, many women, many wives at the time might have had to just accept their husbands have been unfaithful, and their role as a dutiful wife was to kind of turn a blind eye, to ignore that.

But she doesn't, she refuses to conform.

And we could say then, or Jacob is arguing that Priestley uses her defiance, her kind of pushing back to show the younger generation's potential to dismantle entrenched inequalities and demand accountability.

What's Jacob saying here? He's saying that Sheila or that Priestley uses Sheila's defiance to say to the younger generation, "Hey, things don't have to stay this way.

You don't just have to accept these inequalities that we see in society.

You can dismantle them, you can break them down.

You can demand accountability from those people in power, for those people who have created these inequalities." A really powerful message.

But to what extent do you agree? Do you agree with what Jacob's saying? Do you like Jacob's ideas? Can you think of any ways that Jacob could support his argument further? Why don't you take a moment to pause the video, reflect on what Jacob said, and of course, if there's any of Jacob's ideas that you hadn't thought of and you think, "I really like that, I want to make a note of it," now's the time to do it.

All right, pause the video, press play when you're ready to continue.

All right, welcome back.

We're moving on to the final learning cycle in today's lesson.

We've had some really interesting nuanced discussions and thoughts so far, and I want to bring them all together and start evaluating the role that Sheila plays in "An Inspector Calls." So I think it could be argued by some people that the ending of "An Inspector Calls" is optimistic, it offers hope for the future.

And I think the optimism generally comes from Sheila's transformation, because people could argue that Priestley is perhaps using her as a vehicle, as a construct to suggest that change is possible.

But how did you interpret Sheila's character at the end of the play? What did you think about her by the end? Do you think her transformation is entirely positive, or do you think it reveals that there's actually some limits, that there's still some limits to her awareness? So let's take a moment to think of our own personal response here about how we feel about Sheila at the end of the play.

So if you've got a partner, if you've got a small group people working with, you can discuss with them.

Otherwise you can just take a moment to make a few notes and jot some ideas down on a bit of paper.

All right, pause the video, think about your views on Sheila, and press play when you're ready to continue.

All right, let's have a look at what some of our Oak pupils said, and you can compare your responses to them.

Laura said, "Sheila's transformation is positive; she rejects her family's attitudes, she accepts responsibility, and she symbolises hope for societal change." Okay, Laura's fully behind the optimistic ending here and thinks Sheila's transformation is full, it's complete, and it's really positive.

Izzy says, "Sheila's growth is limited; while she challenges her parents, she still remains part of this wealthy class and she doesn't fully reject all the advantages that she has being an upper-class woman." Interesting.

And Sam says, "Sheila's change is significant but incomplete," it's not finished.

"She grows in awareness, but she struggles to fully escape her upper-class upbringing and the societal constraints." So three different opinions here.

One saying, "Look, it's all positive here." One saying, "Mm-mm-mm-mm, she's changed, you know, she's grown, but it's limited because she's still part of this upper class and she doesn't reject that." And Sam sits somewhere in between.

He says, "Look, there's lots of significant change here, but actually, she can't escape her upper-class upbringing.

You know, she's just one person.

She cannot escape this system, this class and gender system that she lives in." Who do you agree with most and why? Why don't you take a moment to discuss this with a partner or think through this independently and compare this to some of the ideas that you've had.

And of course, as I always say, if there's anything that you like on the screen that you didn't think about, why don't you take a moment to note it down as well.

All right, pause the video, take a moment to reflect, and press play when you're ready to continue.

All right, welcome back.

So to really understand Sheila and evaluate her change and her journey, I want us to compare her to Eva for a second.

So Eva, like Sheila, also challenges the societal norms and authority.

She most clearly does this by striking for better wages and working conditions.

That's really standing up and saying, "Look, I'm challenging the way that society has been run.

I'm challenging the way that my life is being expected to be and I want better." So we can say that Eva, like Sheila, is challenging those societal norms and expectations.

But for Eva, the consequences are very different.

Okay, they're not the same as Sheila, because she's fired and this leads to her being exploited by different characters, we see she's marginalised by society, and ultimately, we can say this all leads to her death.

So, we could then argue that it is much easier for Sheila to challenge those societal conventions because she has protection.

She has protection because of her class status.

She has protection because she's from a wealthy family.

So she can question authority without the fear of really severe consequences.

So, let's think about that comparison that we've just made between Sheila and Eva.

Does that change your interpretation about how impactful Sheila's transformation has been? And why might Priestley then be using this contrast between these two characters? What might he be commenting on social inequality? So think.

Now we compare Sheila to Eva, how do you view Sheila's transformation, and what might Priestley be trying to say? Always bringing it back to what is the author trying to say? What is the purpose here? What is the message? What's the message, do you think, about social inequality? Really meaty questions here, so do take some time to think these through, either in pairs or by yourself.

But pause the video, give yourself plenty of time, and press play when you're ready to continue.

I hope you came up with loads of great ideas.

I thought it was a great question.

Lots of things to think about there.

Let's have a look how a couple of our Oak pupils answered this then, shall we? So Laura said, "The contrast shows Sheila's change is actually less impactful.

She has privilege, whilst Eva faces the harsh reality of challenging authority.

Priestley points out how the upper classes can avoid consequences." And Sam says, "Sheila's transformation is limited by her class and status, while Eva's fate shows the real cost of challenging inequality.

Priestley uses this contrast to really emphasise how social status shapes outcome." Really great ideas here.

Again, let's take a moment to reflect on these and compare these to the discussions you were having.

Who do you agree with most and why? And of course, if there's any ideas here, any phrases that you really like, take a moment to note them down.

All right, pause the video, press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, true or false then? Sheila and Eva both challenge authority in "An Inspector Calls." Is this true or false, and why do you think that? Pause the video, decide which you think is the right answer, and press play when you are ready to find out if you were right.

Well done if you said true.

Well, why is that true? We know that both Eva and Sheila challenge authority, we can see that.

However, due to their class and their status, they do face different consequences.

Right, we are onto the final task of today's lessons then, and I want want you to consider the following statement: Sheila's ability to challenge societal norms is limited to those with power or similar status, and Priestley suggests that such personal growth does not lead to broader change in class or gender structures.

So this is the argument that actually Sheila's transformation, whilst impressive, isn't gonna lead to broader change in society.

I want you to discuss ways in which you could both agree with this statement and disagree.

So I want us to try and kind of look at both sides of this.

We're not just gonna pick a side.

I want you to look at both sides, try and come up with some ways that you might agree with this statement, try and come up with some ways that you might disagree with this statement.

All right, you can do this in pairs or you can do this independently, but pause the video, give this a go, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, let's look at some of the ideas that you might have considered.

So to agree with that statement, you might have said that Sheila's ability to challenge her norms is shaped by her social status.

Personal growth like Sheila's isn't gonna necessarily lead to societal change.

We see that her parents, kind of people who do hold power in society, aren't really listening to Sheila.

And so what we could argue is that Priestley is suggesting that systemic structures are not easily changed.

It's really difficult to change these huge structures in society just by individual transformation.

However, you might have disagreed with that statement by saying that actually Sheila's growth shows that even those with status, those power, those in the upper class, they can change, they can challenge societal norms, and they can start change.

And actually it's often the people who have power, well, it is the people who have power who have the most power to make change.

So Priestley is suggesting that personal change can lead to broader societal shifts, even if small, and he's saying that actually Sheila's transformation hints at potential change, the potential for change across society.

Right, I want you to pick one statement from each side, one from agree and one from disagree, 'cause we're gonna use them for the second part of the final part of this task.

All right, what you're gonna do now is you're gonna write up your findings in response to this statement.

So we're gonna take all the discussions we've had, all the thoughts, and I want you to now bring this into a short piece of writing.

Make sure that you do use evidence from the text.

As ever, we want to support our arguments with evidence.

So make sure you've got your copy of the play open.

Okay, you've done some fantastic work in today's lesson, really thinking about some complex ideas about society and the role that Sheila plays.

Let's bring this all together so we've got a nice piece of writing that summarises our learning and we can use in future for revising or revisiting the play.

All right, pause the video, give this a go, and press play when you're ready to continue.

All right, welcome back.

Really great to see you condensing all of those brilliant things that we have been talking about in today's lesson.

I'm gonna share with you a model example.

Of course, as a model example, it's got some really great points in here, but it's not the only right answer and you might have had slightly different things, but we're gonna take a moment so we can compare these, and hopefully you can find some ideas from this to use to enhance your own work as well.

So a pupil wrote that while Sheila's growth in self-awareness is significant, it does not guarantee a shift in broader class and gender dynamics.

Priestley suggest that societal structures, such as rigid class systems and gender expectations, are deeply entrenched, and personal transformation alone may not be enough to challenge or change these norms. Sheila's journey highlights how individuals can grow, but the play ultimately suggests that these broader societal forces continue to shape and define people's lives, regardless of personal change.

What do you think then? Let's take one final moment to reflect on the learning that you've done, the work that you've done, and compare it to what you can see on screen.

To what extent do you agree? What evidence could this pupil use to develop their response further? And are there any ideas that you would like to take and use in your own work? Pause the video, take a moment to reflect, and then press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, that's it.

We've reached the end of today's lesson, and what a fantastic job that you have done today.

Really proud of you.

Let's have a look then at the summary of what we have learnt, and we need to make sure we feel super confident with this before we move on to our next lesson.

So we've learnt that Priestley initially presents Sheila as naive and entitled.

We know the other characters infantilise Sheila and try to protect her from the truth.

The treatment of Sheila actually conforms to how we would expect women to be treated, gender expectations, particularly in an Edwardian society.

However, Sheila's journey in the play leads her to challenge and defy some of these social expectations of gender, and Sheila arguably begins to subvert the traditional expectations of class and gender by the end of the play.

Great work today.

I've been really impressed with the level of thinking that has gone on, some really quite complex ideas.

You should be really proud of yourself.

I do hope to see you in one of our lessons again in the future.

My name is Mr. Barnsley, thank you for joining me, and I'll see you all soon.

Bye-bye.