Szauder Erik
Drama as Pedagogy
An alternative argument for developing a
curriculum based on drama
(Erik Szauder has
his B. A. (Sp. Ed.) from the
In this paper I
present a thesis that would suggest the necessity of a change in the paradigm
„drama in education.” In the centre of this argument is the statement that for
the promotion of drama in schools, and for the fulfilment of the educational
philosophy of drama we have to set out for drama
as pedagogy, where pedagogy
refers to an overall theoretical and
practical system of schooling.
To prove my argument I offer an analysis where my aim is to show that
drama possesses – or is able to develop – an over-arching thought-system of
schooling, and consequently can be an alternative basis of it.
The underlying
philosophy of drama
The exploration
of philosophical thinking behind drama education is difficult for at least two
reasons. The first is that although there have been some drama educators
thinking about philosophical questions, there are only a few papers
concentrating on this issue. The second reason is that drama theorists
themselves have rather diverse views on this topic. In the following,
therefore, my intention is to outline the common grounds that serve as a basis
for several practitioners of the field.
As Gavin Bolton (in Davis and Lawrence, 1986: 235, passim.) has pointed out, the epistemological standpoint of drama
is one that to a certain extent dialectically combines the traditional/liberal
and the radical/progressive educational views. By referring to the real world
drama initiates the knowledge to be
acquired by the student, and by conjuring up a fictitious world it also involves the student in the formulation
of knowledge.
In this sense knowledge in drama is not a primarily factual and distinct
entity: it is constituted by the acquisition of relationships between the
factual and personal, between the skills and the value of those skills, etc.
It seems that when we emphasise the particular content of drama as
critical for education we imply two conceptual levels of learning – the factual
level relating to knowledge of the objective world and another more significant
philosophical level often relating to one’s responsibility towards the
objective world (including oneself as part of that world). (Bolton in Davis and
Lawrence, 1986: 241)
As it can be seen in the above quotation, the epistemology of drama is
interconnected with, or embedded in its ethics. In relation to knowledge drama
teachers do not only raise the question “how,” but also (and more importantly)
“what for.”
On the other hand, I argue, this latter question in itself carries a
learning content. This learning content is that knowledge does not exist in a decontextualised and general form; it
is basically contextual and value-laden.
Although it would be worthwhile to pursue these topics further, here I
am only able to express the opinion that by answering these questions we can
rightfully claim that drama – contrary to David Morton’s words [1] – can deliver a certain body of knowledge.
This body of knowledge would, however, be much broader than a subject includes:
it would be able to embrace all subject content.
(Note that the emphasis is on the content, not
on the subjects!)
The contextual nature of the knowledge makes it possible that people
experiencing similar conditions can understand each other. Drama, by providing
possibilities for experiencing other people’s life in fictitious contexts,
works towards the notion that Gavin Bolton states as the ‘epistemological
purpose of drama in education:’ “the development of common understanding
through the exercise of basic mental powers.” (Bolton, 1984: 151)
The emphasis on collective understanding and knowledge as a social
product has led some people to think that drama teaching is necessarily based
on a Marxist orientation. Without denying that in some cases there is a
connection, it is not necessarily so. To prove this point it is enough to
remind ourselves that in Gavin Bolton’s writings we have encountered a
basically phenomenologist view (see Davis and Lawrence, 1986, Introduction),
and an expressly post-modernist approach to drama as well (Szatkowski, 1993).
As it is well known, drama as a way of education emerged in a period of
child-centred philosophies that intended to bring about a greater liberation
from the formalities of previous pedagogies. Their standpoint is well captioned
by the claim that “the teacher’s task is that of a loving ally” (Slade,
1958: 1).
Gavin Bolton justly criticises the misuse of “child-centeredness” as a
definitive term (see e.g.
Self-discipline can only be learnt if children are given the chance to
practise it. A certain amount of freedom must, therefore, be allowed. (...)
Drama can help them to form the habit of using freedom creatively.
(Pemberton-Billing and Clegg, 1965: 33)
The other philosophical area that needs exploring is the ethics of a
proposed drama pedagogy. As we have
seen above, drama is primarily concerned with the significance of knowledge in
social situations. From this statement it follows that drama has to concentrate
not only on knowledge but on its social nature as well.
Drama teachers have to clarify for themselves the philosophical
standpoint they approach society, and its representation in the classroom. They
have to decide whether they represent their views in a committed way, or
present the students with situations where their
views come to the fore, and the teacher acts mainly as a “generator” of
exploration and discussions. Those who think it is necessary to act as
“intellectuals who keep alive the memory of human suffering along with the
forms of knowledge and struggles in which suffering was shaped and contested”
(Giroux, 1988: 99) are more likely to work in a committed way, while teachers
with modernist or post-modernist views will presumably work in the frame of the
latter approach. [2]
The underlying learning theory
of drama
I believe the
following words provide us with a good framework for developing a detailed
learning theory for drama.
We would expect the drama teacher to see learning as (a) collective rather than individual, (b) cooperative rather than competitive,
(c) intrinsically rather than
extrinsically motivated, (d) being
achieved through doing (direct experience) rather than hearing or talking about
(indirect experience). (Day, 1983: 90)
In a possible drama pedagogy therefore
factual knowledge would obtain importance only in a social context, where the
known elements have to be recalled, re-formulated and employed in a meaningful
and complex structure. At the same time, new knowledge is not acquired in a
decontextualised and inorganic way: it has to be obtained because the situation
requires so.
In this regard drama pedagogy
uses the artistic process to provide learning situations that reach much
further than their own boundaries. Drama, therefore, exploits the possibilities
of learning from experiences in the way H. P. Rickman (1967) have demonstrated.
He has written that there are three basic mental processes helping us in
learning from artistic or everyday experiences. First, he argues, human
understanding is based on analogy: “we attribute mental content familiar to us
to people in situations different from ours.” (Ibid.: 42) Secondly, he states, a new situation “may elicit
feelings and responses which had not entered into [the] conscious experience
before.” (Ibid.) And thirdly, as
Rickman points out, we can understand a “mental experience of great intensity
from having experienced its equivalent on a much more modest scale” (ibid.), and from having had strong
experiences in other life events. In drama all three elements are of central
importance, for students can understand the human condition by consciously set
up and experience fictitious social situations.
This approach of knowledge is basically different from the one where
factual information stands in a decontextualised, “self-explanatory” way. This
difference has lead even drama practitioners to write about drama as if the
artistic activity and the factual learning were contradictory categories that
cannot be fulfilled simultaneously. The following excerpt is an example of this
misconception:
In contrast with drama as a learning medium, the art form approach to
drama is not primarily concerned with the learning inherent in the specific
content (...) Instead, its focus is the execution of the drama, the quality of
its expression and its effect on an audience. (Burgess and Gaudry, 1986: 11)
My argument here is that the artistic experience creates a basis for
the recognition of how factual information is needed in order to function
successfully in a situation. Similarly, skills that are used or required in a
situation gain importance because of their objective.
Learning in this sense is an active and creative process where the
central category is a (socially defined) problem. (In this regard this approach
is an example of the “creative revolution in education” described by
Burgess, 1986.) The specific problems
serve as challenging situations to be explored and solved. Further, they
provide an immediate reasoning and frame for learning and creativity. As the
situations reflect on certain human conditions, they contribute to the
generalisation (or, as Dorothy Heathcote prefers to call them, “universals”
[3]) and “networking” of the concepts. In this way, I believe, the art form of
drama helps, even if not directly, the acquisition and the meaning-making of knowledge as well.
The hierarchy of knowledge in
drama
In this paragraph I attempt to give an outline
of the preferences in relation to the forms of knowledge that a drama pedagogy in my view should
promote. The quest for clear objectives is in harmony with the words of John
Norman, who writes that
We have to decide precisely what kinds of learning may best be pursued
through drama, and if there is some kind of hierarchy of their respective value
and uniqueness. (Norman, 1982: 49)
The statement that there is a certain hierarchy
of knowledge in drama pedagogy might
seem strange after we have argued in the previous paragraph that drama presents
knowledge as a whole, and concentrates on their interconnectedness.
On the other hand, there is a higher order
statement behind this claim, namely that any experience, piece of information
or appreciation of connections gains significance only in the light of its
social application. In other words: drama places knowledge into a human context
and by doing so it places the supremacy from the factual knowledge or learning
of skills to the understanding of social
processes. In this sense drama has to move forward from the simple
glorification of personal creativity that has prevailed in the writings of the
early pioneers of drama teaching, and had an impact on many. Obviously, drama
teachers should not abandon the
creative potentials of drama. In the contrary, they have to use the creative
nature of drama pedagogy to achieve a
socially based understanding.
This statement attempts to give a concrete form
to the frequently cited claim that the aim of drama is a “change in
understanding” (e.g.
Here again, if we systematically outline the aims that can “best be pursued through drama,” we
are necessarily working towards drama as a distinct pedagogy on its own right. If it was not so, it would be perfectly
sufficient to search for the aims of the pedagogy it serves.
Drama has its own hierarchy of
knowledge: it does value certain ways of knowing higher than others. Although
the different approaches emphasise certain elements, they all agree that a
general understanding of the relationship
between facts, skills and the social conditions is of paramount importance in
drama education. This means that drama teachers prefer these learning outcomes
to teaching isolated items of factual knowledge, or developing skills in
different activities.
Drama teaching, in this regard, can be described as an exemplar of a
radical and critical pedagogy. In general terms, as Henry Giroux (1988) writes,
a critical pedagogy needs to focus on what he refers to as “themes for
democracy” and “democracy in learning.” These terms denote a general approach
to knowledge, where the factual information, skills and concepts are in close
relationship with “the social forms through which human beings live.” (ibid.: 103)
This view provides us with a reasoning to refute the critique of David
Hornbrook as well. As it is well known among drama theorists and practitioners,
in his books (Hornbrook, 1989, 1991) he opposes the approach hallmarked by the
ideas of Dorothy Heathcote and Gavin Bolton. He accuses them that they have
turned away from the knowledge contained in and reflected by theatre and argues
that
Some drama teachers came to believe that a principle aim of drama was to
expose forms of social and historical oppression, such as racism and sexism,
while generally there was a preoccupation with the exploration of topical
issues of all kinds. (Hornbrook, 1991: 7)
Indeed: if drama was a subject that – as he continually proposes –
aimed the mediation of a specific content (i.e. theatre studies), these
elements were misplaced. If, on the other hand, drama is seen not only as a
subject, but – as I propose it – a comprehensive pedagogy, then dealing with
social issues would not only be possible and acceptable: it would indeed be an
imperative function of that approach.
A curriculum based on drama
If the above theory is correct, and drama has (or can have) an
educational structure on its own, it logically follows that it cannot be
regarded as a sub-structure or an element of a curriculum, especially if their
philosophical bases or aims are different.
Drama, as I intended to point out in the previous paragraphs, places
knowledge into a social context, and therefore emphasises that knowledge gains
significance (and is possible) only through application.
A curriculum based on drama, consequently, should be organised around different
(real or fictitious) social situations that hold, reveal and reflect upon the
elements of factual information and skills that are to be acquired by the
students.
The central concept and structural element of a possible drama pedagogy is a situation that
presents the students with a socially defined problem. This means that the problems should be concretely
contextualised. In this way students would be able to realise the importance
and interconnectedness of different pieces of factual information, concepts and
skill areas. Further, it would help them to develop their own personal
relationship towards knowledge, and also would help them acquire and develop
different learning skills. Teachers, on the other hand, would be able to
present meaningful situations and would not have to fight for the interest of
their students. Their interest would be triggered by encountering something
ordinary and still extraordinary. This would be possible, because, as Paul
Feyerabend writes
Dramatic accounts (...) reveal and heighten features of our social lives
that sound unproblematic when told in ordinary speech. (Feyerabend, 1987: 114)
Further, if these these situations would present real problems (that is, problems that are interesting for the
teacher as well) would consequently also sustain their professional excitement.
As it logically follows from the suggestions above, a curriculum based
on drama would be of an integrated
type. In practical terms it means that the curriculum would not be divided into
distinct subjects – and, possibly, not even subject areas – but would present
the content elements interconnectedly.
A curriculum that aims at the mediation of knowledge as a socially
construed and employed entity should structure the content around social
(mostly historical) events, as they would provide a logical, concentrically built
structure for learning.
Historical contexts reveal the levels and content of synchronously held
knowledge in different historical periods (i.e. provides a framework in that
all the different areas of knowledge that, for example, the ancient Greeks had
had could be explored). In this way “subject areas” would appear in a complex
structure: literature, sciences, fine and dramatic art, geography, etc. (with
small initials, as they are not
subjects here) would naturally be connected, as they are in real life.
Adopting a socially-historically based frame, on the other hand, would
not mean that the knowledge gained from the situations is limited to the one of
the evoked historical period. The students should be made aware that the
situations require an ‘as if’ frame of mind from them, so that the situations
can be stopped, discussed, evaluated, or even re-run, using different frame
distances (cf. Heathcote, 1990). In
short, the students have to realise that what they are participating in is not reconstructing historical events
(although this can be an element sometimes), but a dramatic representation of historical periods, situations and
problems.
The suggested concentric structure, however, makes it necessary to use
methods that can be at the service of this curriculum. In the following
paragraph I intend to discuss the overall framework for the methods available
for a future drama pedagogy.
The methodology of drama
In this paragraph
I suggest that in contrary to posing drama as
a method of teaching we can — and hence we should — argue for the existence
of the methodology of drama. This
proposed change in our point of view emphasises drama as a systematic approach
to teaching, offering the wide range of organically connected methods that have
been developed by practitioners, and their reasoning in educational terms.
This is not to say that drama does not or can not make use of the methods usually associated with traditional
methodology (for example explanation, questioning, exercises, etc.), but that
there is a specific system of methods particular to drama, and that they offer
a self-contained and distinct approach to teaching.
The methodology of drama as we know it today is constituted by three
main sets of methods: process drama [5], mantle of the expert and rolling role, and that they are built
up by ‘minor’ methods, some of which are present in other pedagogies as well
(like explanation or questioning), but they are complemented by ones specific
to drama. These latter are usually referred to as drama conventions or strategies.
A unique feature of the mantle of the expert approach to education is
that this dimension, this looking at a part of a subject in terms of the whole,
is built into the heart of the method. (Heathcote and Bolton, 1995: 31)
In the centre of the methodology of drama there are three central
topics: learning by activity [6], problem-solving and discovery by experience. These terms are interconnected, and are to
be understood in their broadest sense, i.e. denoting all the processes from interest-driven
formulation of questions through the collection and evaluation of factual
information (source analysis), hypothesising, reasoning and arguing, probing or
testing theories, re-formulating ideas to acting in accordance to our findings.
This process follows the pattern of scientific inquiries, offered by
Popper (1959). Scientific discussion, he says, starts with a problem (P1),
to which we offer a tentative theory (TT) or hypothesis. Then we try to
eliminate the error in it (EE), and the critical revision gives rise to further
problems (P2). But as P2 is always different from P1,
there is a possibility for deepening understanding by leading students through
a process that operationalises the idea of a spiral curriculum. This model can
be applied to drama by the following pattern:
P1 Õ TT1 ÕA1 Õ EE1 Õ P2 Õ TT2 ÕA2 Õ EE2 Õ P3 Õ ...
where P1 is the original problem or state of knowledge; TT1
is the view of the given learning area based on P1; A1
is the action that operates as a testing for TT1; EE1
is the correction or reorganisation of the action; P2 is
the slightly or significantly higher order understanding of the learning area
in question; TT2, A2 and EE2 are the elements
of the revised process and its evaluative enactment or discussion; P3
is the new understanding gained from the P2 Õ TT2 ÕA2 Õ EE2 phase of the activity. By
using the ellipsis mark […] at the end of the model I wanted to point out that
the process does not necessarily reach an end at the second phase but can go on
to further ‘P’s, ‘TT’s and ‘A’s.
By offering the above model of the process I would like to emphasise
that drama as a pedagogy places
theorising and active involvement into the centre of its methodology, but the
activities are neither ‘end-products’ nor ‘aims’ of the teaching process: they
are the means of understanding.
The central method of drama as pedagogy, rather logically, is the dramatic activity itself. By dramatic
activity I mean any activity that (1)
applies the ‘as if’ for creating a fictitious context, (2) utilises the dramatic form, and (3) by using active involvement aims the transformation of isolated
and seemingly self-contained pieces of factual information into a socially
construed and socially dependent set of knowledge.
Using ‘as if’ makes it possible for the students to enter and
experience social contexts other than their own. By obeying the constraints of
the construed world they may explore its functioning rules, tension, the
motives of its participants, etc., and they can see the implications of putting
factual knowledge to the trial of that environment.
The dramatic form is to hold the construed world together, keep it in
motion, and to give a framework for the exploration and expression of findings
(either at group or personal level), and therefore organise and regulate the
work of the class in an organic way (Heathcote in Johnson and O’Neill, 1984:
133). Obviously, the dramatic form in itself is something that one has to learn
to create and handle. It requires students to have an understanding and
practical knowledge of the elements of drama, and by participating in the
activity of setting up and conducting drama they can creatively employ their
understanding. Dramatic form, in this sense, is similar to any other art form,
because there is a continuous perpetuation between the acquired knowledge and
creation:
When involved in drama students use transformation to generate learning
in two related ways. Firstly it is used where experience and knowledge are
transformed through representation into action. Secondly it is used to
transform knowledge through the creation of dramatic symbol. (Carroll, 1993)
The emphasis on socially constructed knowledge in drama means that the
methods aim to provide a situation where learning appears in a way that holds
its own reasoning. It makes students realise that knowledge is a product and at the same time means of social contact. In other words:
the ‘as if’ world of drama is about people who have to use their existing
knowledge, and by meeting other people (or each other) they can gain additional
information that helps them solve certain problems.
The previous sentence reveals a central difference between the
methodology of drama and other approaches: drama places emphasis on the authenticity of the activity. The
learning therefore is not decontextualised in the sense that “[w]hilst
pupils meet and use some of the tools of academic disciplines, the pervasive
culture in which they use them is school life itself.” (Clayden et al., 1994: 167) In drama the learning
is contextualised, not only in the
sense that it appears in a fictitious context, but that it constantly bears
reference to the real world as well.
It is worth noting, however, that “meeting other people” does not
necessarily appear in a form of physical contact or discussion. Encounters with
past or distant societies might occur by studying objects, documents, or other
media (e.g. sound recordings). These may be real or realistic (i.e. created by
the teacher or the students but acceptable in terms of the drama). These
considerations lead us to the detailed analysis of the media of drama in the
next paragraph.
The media of
drama
Drama pedagogy, I believe, would make use of many available media. It would use
different types of texts as well as pictures, real objects, musical
instruments, elements of modern information technology, etc. The wide range of
media would aim not only to provide
students with information, but also to make it possible for them to create information. (In this sense
‘information’ obviously means much more than factual information.)
As I have noted earlier, the central method in the methodological
structure of drama is the dramatic activity itself. For initiating the dramatic
activity, or to give it meaning and significance the teacher can also use
different objects. These objects can be ones that evoke the historical or
imagined situation, or ones that contain information to be used in the
exploration and meaning-making process.
This element, the exploration and meaning-making process, on the other
hand, requires a range of media that are specific to drama. In this category
one could find formal theatrical elements (spatial arrangements, lighting,
etc.) and those closely connected to the central method, the dramatic action
(movement, voice, gesture, etc). This latter range of ‘tools’ makes it possible
to create and analyse the dramatic situation.
Here again, I have to emphasise that this kind of approach to drama as
pedagogy and its media is not without seeds in other theorists’ writings. When,
for instance, Gavin Bolton analyses the dramatic situation between him and a
black boy living in
[Drama is] not a single genre but a complex
area of related activities composed of a multiplicity of genres which exist as the specific structural elements
and together with the specific contexts
determine the text of drama. (Carroll, 1991, as quoted in O’Toole, 1992: 3)
To reiterate my argument here: if we say that drama has a specific structure and medium (or
media), it is rightful to say that drama possesses a methodology on its own.
Furthermore, if we can support the argument that drama is not only a
methodology but it has a philosophy and learning theory as well, than we are
offering a major paradigmatic change. If we can also argue for a curriculum
based on drama, we can claim that there is a possible drama pedagogy.
A pedagogy and its main “tangible” manifestation, a curriculum has to
contain the outline of the ways of assessing the students’ achievement as well.
In the following paragraph I briefly refer to the structure or preferences of a
possible assessment structure of a future pedagogy that is based on drama.
The assessment criteria in
drama
As it is well
known for those familiar with the literature of drama teaching, theorists have
always struggled for finding comprehensive and acceptable assessment criteria
for drama (see, for example, McGregor et
al., 1977;
[A] major weakness of the expressive, developmental and pedagogic models
which dominated practice for so long was that they had no conceptual means of
addressing fundamental questions of quality and assessment. (Hornbrook, 1991:
70)
Others noted that “drama needs to be analysed and judged not
purely in terms of individual lessons or ‘projects’ with their short term
lesson specific objectives but in terms of long term aims” (Fleming, 1994:
19) After
the realisation of the disadvantages emerging from the situation, many
theorists tried to solve the problem by putting forward more comprehensive
assessment structures. Among those published recently I prefer the one offered
by Gavin Bolton (1992) because of its wide view on learning in drama. In the
following, however, I intend to refer to an even wider approach: that is of drama pedagogy.
An assessment based on the pedagogy discussed throughout this paper
would most probably serve the teacher in the following situations: in
diagnosing the depth of understanding of the discussed period or concepts, and
in devising the necessary steps, methods and media for the acquisition of
factual information. At the same time the assessment would provide a feedback
to the student as well.
The form of the assessment would preferably be described by the
following parameters: it would be quite informal and classroom-based; formative
and process oriented; criterion referenced and group focused; continuous, that
is based on a common evaluation process involving the students as well as the
teacher.
As it follows from these structures, the addressee of the assessment
process would primarily be the student group (referring to the contribution of
each individual student).
A common ethos
among drama practitioners
If the theory of
a possible drama pedagogy was correct
and could be put into practice, there would be a necessity for teachers working
in it as well. This necessity raises the
question of their ethos.
My central argument (i.e. that drama places the socially formulated
knowledge into the focus) implies that teachers working in the frame of drama pedagogy would see themselves as
‘providers of learning situations’ rather than ‘providers of knowledge.’ They
would have to realise that because the whole school as a social environment is
part of the learning, the co-operation of teachers would also be a necessary
element of the overall message.
As the central method of this pedagogy would be the dramatic process,
this approach would naturally require teachers who believe in and are able to
handle the dramatic art form. They would have to be knowledgeable in certain
“subject areas” as well, and (as I have shown) the interconnectedness of
knowledge areas would be emphasised by their co-operation.
Their activity would have to be epitomised by professionalism and,
possibly, the paradigm of “stewardship,” outlined by Dorothy Heathcote (1992).
In this sense, teachers working in the frame of drama pedagogy would have to remember the words of Desmond Hogan,
who focused our attention to the fact that drama practitioners have some
important messages to all other educators:
I don’t believe that a drama department in a school or college can
afford to focus solely on improving its own work. (...) The drama teacher can
lead, or demonstrate, or help others, but the whole institution must change.
(Hogan, 1983: 90)
Drama as
pedagogies?
The central
question posed in this final paragraph is whether the above elements give basis
for one consistent pedagogy, or
rather, they imply that following these thoughts educators can develop many
pedagogies.
I argue that this is both possible and necessary. Drama as an art form
has a much wider potential than serving only one ‘rightful’ pedagogy. It is in
the very nature of drama that it exposes questions, problems, and we cannot
claim – without being treacherous to the art form itself – that there is only
one answer to these questions.
Drama pedagogy, therefore, should not be dogmatic. It is the intrinsic feature of
drama that it opposes every totalitarian way of explanations, methods of
teaching, answering questions. Following this logic, therefore, it is possible
that among the different practitioners there will be philosophical and,
consequently, methodological differences. As a result, they will probably work
in different pedagogies.
These pedagogies, however, will have to find their own connections to
certain approaches, and have to be aware of their differences from other
pedagogies. Otherwise they do not only lose their ‘point of reference’ – i.e.
that they are working in the frame of a drama
pedagogy – but will be fragile and indefensible in periods when there is a
danger of the imposition of a “general educational philosophy.” In this sense I
have to disagree with the following words of Gavin Bolton:
[T]he contribution of drama to education
depends on what general educational philosophy is in the air, or what status is
given to drama as knowledge and on the degree and kind of authority a teacher
can exploit. (Bolton in Davis and Lawrence, 1986: 245)
Although he has not argued for it explicitly or deliberately, in his
sentences lies a suggestion that drama constitutes one entity, and therefore represents one distinct relationship with
the “general educational philosophy.” (Indeed, it also suggests that there is a
“general educational philosophy” at a certain period.)
As I have intended to prove in the previous paragraphs, a possible drama pedagogy should not render itself
to the service of any existing “general educational philosophy.” Drama teachers
– as all intellectuals – have to define individually, what kind of philosophy
they wish to promote and represent. A possible drama pedagogy, as I can see it
now, would by nature stand for the democratic and humanistic values, but apart
from that, would not be committed to
any particular philosophical trend.
Similarly, because of the differences in the methods drama
practitioners use in teaching, it is possible that the methodology of drama
will yield approaches now unknown. However, if they place the dramatic action
into the focus of the work, they still might be closer to the drama pedagogy I have described above,
than to any other approaches.
Epilogue
I am fully aware
that this work serves only as an initiation of a longer process. Here I have
not been able to provide answers to the fundamental question that springs out
of the central argument. This question is: what does a pedagogy (and a
curriculum) based on drama look like in detailed practical terms?
Finding the answer or answers to this question will be necessary if we
want to put the ideas outlined in this paper into practice. I am aware that
this quest will be long and difficult. I hope, though, that by raising the problem I have helped drama
theorists and practitioners to set out for the journey.
Notes
[1]
“Drama is a process which does not aim to
deliver a given body of knowledge but which is a way of exploring areas of
learning and of life.” (Morton, 1989: 15)
[2]
Differences, though, will not necessarily be
that straightforward as described here. An example of a more eclectic view on
the ethical standpoint of teachers has been put forward by Dorothy Heathcote in
her keynote speech at the Didsbury Conference, 1992. (Heathcote, 1992) There
she argues for the concept of “stewardship,” a humanistic-ecological view on
schooling.
[3]
Cf. Wagner, 1979.
[4]
Cf. Gardner, 1993.
[5]
The term is coined by Cecily O’Neill in her
latest book (O’Neill, 1995). Her intention was to emphasise the processual
nature of the approach that is also referred to as experiential drama. I use
the term here for the same reason.
[6]
For the criticism of the “myth” that drama is
doing see
[7]
See, for example, the following quotation: “The
primary aim of drama teaching - a growth or change in understanding - is more
difficult to demonstrate and assess.” (O’Neill and Lambert, 1982: 15)
References
Burgess, R. - Gaudry, P.: (1986) Time for Drama - A Handbook for Secondary Teachers,
Burgess, T.: (1986) New ways to learn, In: Burgess, T. (ed.): Education
for Capability, Windsor, NFER - Nelson
Carroll, J.: (1991) paper presented (?) at the Charles Stewart
University, New South Wales, as quoted in
O’Toole, J.: (1992) The Process of
Drama,
Carroll, J.: (1993) Drama as
Radical Pedagogy, paper presented at the Dorothy Heathcote Conference,
Clayden, E. - Desforges, C. - Mills, C. - Rawson, W.: (1994)
Authentic activity and learning, British
Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 42., No. 2., June, pp. 163-173.
Davis, D. - Lawrence, C.: (1986) Selected Writings of Gavin Bolton,
Day, C.:
(1983) Teaching Styles in Drama, In: Day, C. - Norman, J. L. (eds.): Issues in Educational Drama,
Feyerabend, P.: (1987) Farewell
to Reason,
Fleming, M.: (1994) Starting
Drama Teaching,
Gardner, H.: (1983) Frames of
Mind - The Theory of Multiple Intelligences,
Gardner, H.: (1993) The
Unschooled Mind - How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach,
Giroux, H.: (1988) Schooling
for Democracy - Critical Pedagogy in the Modern Age,
Heathcote, D. - Bolton, G.: (1995) Drama for Learning
- Dorothy Heathcote’s Mantle of the Expert Approach to Education,
Heathcote, D.: (1990)
Keynote speech at the NATD Conference in 1989, In: Byron, K.: (ed.) The Fight for Drama – The Fight for
Education, NATD
Heathcote, D.: (1992)
Stewardship – A Paradigm for Education?, NATD
Broadsheet, Vol. 9. No. 3., December, pp. 5-28.
Hogan, D.:
(1983) Curriculum Planning and the Arts, In: Day, C. - Norman, J. L. (eds.): Issues in Educational Drama,
Hollindale, P.: (1986) Values in the Teaching of English and
Drama, In: Tomlinson, P. - Quinton,
M. (eds.): Values Across the Curriculum,
Hornbrook, D.: (1989) Education
and Dramatic Art,
Hornbrook, D.: (1991) Education
in Drama,
Johnson, L. - O’Neill, C. (eds.): (1984) Collected Writings of Dorothy Heathcote,
McGregor, L. - Tate, M. - Robinson, K.: (1977) Learning Through Drama,
Morton, D.: (1989) Assessment
in Drama, City of Leeds Department of Education
Norman, J. L. (ed.): (1982) Drama
in Education - A Curriculum for Change, Report of Annual Conference 1981,
Banbury, NATD - Kemble Press
O’Neill, C. - Lambert,
A.: (1982) Drama Structures,
O’Neill, C.: (1995) Drama
Worlds - A Framework for Process Drama,
Pemberton-Billing, R. N. - Clegg, J. D.: (1965) Teaching Drama,
Popper, K. R.: (1959) The Logic
of Scientific Discovery,
Rickman, H. P.: (1967) Understanding
and the Human Studies,
Slade, P.: (1958) An
Introduction to Child Drama,
Szatkowski, J.: (1993) Drama on the Margins, Drama Broadsheet, Vol. 10., No. 3., pp. 21-49.
Wagner, B. J.: (1979) Dorothy
Heathcote - Drama as a Learning Medium,
The Hungarian version of this study was published by Csokonai Fõiskola of Kaposvár in 1998. The title was: "Egy lehetséges drámamodell"
© Szauder Erik, 2002