drama classroom a site for inquiry · 2014-11-15 · recognising the drama classroom as a site for...

ISSN 2040‐2228

Vol. 3 No. 1 April 2012

Drama Research: international journal of drama in education

Article 6

Recognising the Drama Classroom as a Site for Critical Social Inquiry Peter Bannister

National Drama Publicationswww.dramaresearch.co.uk

[email protected]

Drama Research Vol. 3 No. 1 April 2012

Article 6 Recognising the Drama Classroom as a Site for Critical Social Inquiry 2

Recognising the Drama Classroom as a Site for Critical Social Inquiry _____________________________________________________________________

Peter Bannister

Abstract The author argues that developing students' ability to think autonomously and critically should be regarded as an educational priority. He explores the relationship between drama and critical thinking and relates his findings to ongoing arguments over the nature and purpose of drama education in England. The author goes on to propose a pedagogic model for the Key Stage 3 drama classroom that looks to support students in establishing a critical stance towards the social world.



Introduction In this paper I propose a pedagogic model for the Key Stage 3 (KS3) drama classroom that prioritises the development of students' ability to think autonomously and critically. To this end I investigate the benefits of active learning and the importance of encouraging students to take a critical stance. I go on to explore how drama can promote critical thinking by drawing on modernist theories of theatre production and presentation, particularly the ideas of Bertolt Brecht (1965). The aim of developing students' ability to think autonomously and critically in the drama classroom is placed in the context of the wider debate over the nature and purpose of drama education in England, specifically the tension that exists between the often artificially polarised views that students should ‘learn about’ or ‘learn through’ drama (Fleming 1994: 19). This paper is shaped from research undertaken for the dissertation I presented as a partial requirement for the award of MA Drama and Theatre Education. The findings inform ongoing reflective practitioner research in the drama department I lead.

Education for thinking

A fully‐participative democratic society requires an autonomous citizenry that can think, judge and act for themselves ... we need the skills of critical thinking to help us to form intelligent judgements on public issues and thus contribute democratically to the solution of social problems (Fisher 2008: 5).

Learning is the active process on the part of the learner of

'making sense and developing new understandings' (Watkins et al. 2007: 73). Pedagogic practices that enable active learning are often referred to as being ‘child centred’ because they emphasise the need for the child to take responsibility for their learning and think for themselves (Boud et al. 1997). The Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review Group (Gilbert et al. 2006) believe that making learners active should be regarded as an educational priority in England. They argue that if students are encouraged to take ownership of their learning they will leave school more able to adapt to the demands of a rapidly changing world. They also suggest that a focus on developing thinking and learning skills rather than on imparting information is more likely to produce a responsible, autonomous citizenry. Fisher (2008: 5) reminds us that a healthy democratic society requires people to be able to think for themselves so that they can

'form intelligent judgements on public issues and thus contribute democratically to the solution of social problems.'



Many of the educational theorists who advocate child centred learning draw on the ideas of Dewey (Geahigan 1998; Moon 2005; Fisher 2008; Nash 2009). In Democracy and Education Dewey (1930: 192) asserts that thinking should be the ‘method of an educative experience’ and advocates the use of inquiry in the classroom. He lists five features he considers essential to inquiry:

First that the pupil have a genuine situation of experience ‐ that there be a continuous activity in which he is interested for its own sake; secondly, that a genuine problem develop within this situation as a stimulus to thought; third, that he possess the information and make the observations needed to deal with it; fourth, that suggested solutions occur to him which he shall be responsible for developing in an orderly way; fifth, that he have opportunity and occasion to test his ideas by application, to make their meaning clear and to discover for himself their validity (ibid).

Designing a curriculum as an inquiry in the way Dewey proposes promotes active learning: the students are cognitively active in their hunt for the solution to a problem. Inquiry in the classroom is often referred to in educational literature as Problem Based Learning (PBL) and one of its chief aims is to develop students’ ability to think autonomously.

Critical Thinking Critical thinking is recognised as a reflective process that does not take truth for granted and leads to a reasoned judgement based on available evidence (Moon 2005). McPeck (1981: 37) claims that critical thinking needs to be recognised as a ‘necessary condition’ of education. He argues that critical thinking involves a suspension of belief that allows an individual the time to assess available evidence and arrive at a justification for a belief that is not part of their ‘existing belief system’ (ibid). In other words, in order to make sense of new knowledge a student needs to produce a justification for it based on evidence. However he will only be able to do this if he holds his current beliefs in a critical light; the student is required to suspend his own belief while he weighs up the evidence for another, and, depending on the strength of this evidence, he either accepts it or rejects it. According to this argument the learning process requires learners to think critically and is impeded without it; the process of discovering the validity of new ideas (Dewey 1930: 167) that are potentially discrepant with what they already know requires students to take a critical stance. The idea that critical thinking is a necessary condition to learning stands in stark contrast to the banking concept of education, where

‘the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving’ (Freire 1975: 53).



In this instructional classroom the knowledge remains the property of the teacher rather than becoming the personal knowledge of the student (Polanyi in McPeck 1981: 37). Students are expected to accept the teacher’s truths as absolute and learning is reduced to acts of memorisation. Despite ongoing initiatives and attempts at reformation, this model of education persists in England (Watkins et al 2007; Neelands 2008). The National Curriculum for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (DfES 2007) states as one of its chief aims that young people at KS3 ‘be able to use high‐quality personal, learning and thinking skills’. The introduction of the Personal Learning and Thinking Skills (PLTS) are a welcome acknowledgment by the British government that active learning is essential if students are going to meet the three main National Curriculum aims of

‘becoming successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens’ (ibid).

Importantly it recognizes the need to develop students as lifelong learners by promoting their ability to think independently and critically.

The claim that drama promotes critical thinking It could be argued that the dramatic arts have an important role to play in the development of a student’s ability to think critically because they bring ‘the possibility of thinking with the whole person’ (Fisher 2008: 164). Anderson (1990: 134) proposes that

‘critical awareness is the development of paradigms for processing sensory data in increasingly sophisticated ways’ and that the visual arts, because they communicate visually using primary symbols, could claim to promote ‘more directly a concern for and awareness of the patterns of sensory input than, for example, does language, which uses secondary symbols’ (ibid.).

Winston (1999: 463) agrees that

‘[v]isual signs have an ability to impart information beyond the verbal’.

He goes on to argue that the dramatic arts with their unique combination of visual and aural languages are able to stimulate not only cognitive but also ‘emotional capacities’ (ibid). If, as Barnett (in Moon 2005: 7) argues, critical thinking is

‘an acquired disposition to all knowledge and action’

then its application will necessarily include both cognitive as well as emotional functioning. This might suggest that the drama classroom lends itself to the practice of critical thinking.



If we accept, however, that the criteria for critical thinking is likely to vary from field to field (McPeck 1981; Moon 2005; Foster 2008), it is important to consider in more depth what a student in the KS3 drama classroom might be expected to think critically about; or rather what ‘genuine problems’ (Dewey 1930: 167) are introduced to

‘provide the impetus and context for critical thinking’ (Bailin 1998: 147).

A social art form for the critical re‐examination of social values

Theatre, at its best, is the communication and exploration of human experience; it is a forum for our values, political, moral and ethical (Pammenter 1980: 59).

Drama is concerned with how human beings function in the social world. As a social art form, drama examines

‘the struggle of human beings to live their lives together, with all the pleasures, tensions and moral questions this engenders’ (Somers 1994: 55). McGrath (2002: 137)

believes that one of theatre’s main roles in a democratic society should be

‘[i]n celebrating and scrutinizing the values within the borders of the Demos.’ He argues that drama and theatre have an important role to play, not only in the process of socialisation, but also in critically challenging a society’s values. His argument draws on the important social role theatre played in Athenian drama. The ancient Greeks confronted questions in their theatre related to their political and moral way of life. Tragedy, asserts Taylor (1986: 34), was used to consider dilemmas

‘which civilised men must learn to resolve if their civilisation is to survive.’ Winston (1999: 467)

argues ardently that drama

‘still has the power to provoke, to move, to engage us in a critical re‐examination of our social and moral values.’

Narrative is the foundation of all dramatic activity (Fleming 1994: 65) and is organised around

‘expectation‐supporting norms and possibility‐evoking transgressions’ (Bruner 2003: 17).



The KS3 drama teacher needs to identify and highlight these transgressions. However if the aim is to have students reach their own social and moral judgements it is important not to instruct, the drama ‘must fully engage those participating but the issue in focus must remain morally ambivalent’ (Colby in Winston 1999: 468). A student cannot respond actively if the dramatic narrative remains didactic (Vine 1993). There should be no easy answers or solutions. Sophocles’ Antigone is an example of this: should young Antigone perform the burial rites for her brother, the traitor Polynices? Her uncle Creon, recently made king, has made a public decree that Polynices’ corpse should remain exposed as a deterrent to any future uprising. Should Antigone threaten the city’s fragile peace by undermining the authority of her uncle for her personally held beliefs? The play represents a confrontation of

‘the two great imperatives that underlie all political action, the needs of the individual and the needs of the state’ (Taylor 1986: 4).

Many of Brecht’s plays end in a situation of ambiguity or contradiction that requires an audience to draw their own conclusions. The Good Person of Szechwan is a good example. In the play’s epilogue Brecht has The Player appeal directly to the audience to search for solutions to the conflict of unresolved problems presented:

There’s only one solution that we know: That you should now consider as you go What sort of measures you would recommend To help good people to a happy end (1985: 109).

The work is left open ‘in the same sense that a debate is “open”…

“openness” is converted into an instrument of revolutionary pedagogics’ (Eco 1962: 31).

Making the self more obvious to the self Cavell (in Mulhall 1994: 43) claims that

‘our responsibilities, the extensions of our cares and commitments, and the implications of our conduct, are not obvious; because the self is not obvious to the self.’

In the drama classroom students can compare the narrative of their own lives with that of others. By experiencing a social or moral dilemma in the world of the drama a student is required to begin to make judgments that might or might not accord with the fictional characters’ beliefs (or those of the other participants in the drama). The student has to reconcile these differences and in so doing locates his own beliefs. Boal (1979) refers to the state of consciousness that holds the imagined and the real



in mind at the same time as ‘metaxis’. Arguably then, by experiencing metaxis the self is made more obvious to the self. As Bolton (1986: 58) points out:

‘[i]t is this act of both contriving and submitting to a metaphorical context that gives symbolic play and drama … a richness and intensity that sharpens awareness.’

Further to this, by taking on a role in the world of the drama students can reach new understandings that lead to an adjustment of their beliefs. Earlier I discussed McPeck’s argument that critical thinking involves ‘a suspension of belief’ (McPeck 1981: 37). When students enter the world of the drama they have to willingly suspend their own beliefs temporarily in order to take on the value system of the character/s they play. The student is required to judge whether a moral belief or social attitude held by a fictional character (in light of a moral or social dilemma), together with its supporting evidence, is compatible with their own existing belief system. If it is not then the student will have to adjust their belief system accordingly:

‘[t]he importance of this process of assessing, fitting and adjusting beliefs cannot be overemphasized because it is this process that makes the belief ‘belong’ to the person as distinct from being merely a proposition or belief he knows about’ (McPeck 1981: 35).

Entering into dialogue with a perspective different from their own can lead to a student developing new understandings.

Multiple perspectives

Good drama praxis in education aims to devise roles and situations which explore the human condition … to help develop a perspective on the world and to understand or at least struggle with the perspectives of others as we all move to a sense of social justice and equity (Taylor in Holland 2009: 532).

Paul (in Fisher 2008: 30) defines two types of critical thinking however, a ‘weak’ sense and a ‘strong’ sense. He suggests ‘weak sense’ critical thinking uses argument to pursue personal interests, i.e. a person will think exclusively from one point of view, whereas ‘strong sense’ critical thinking is ‘allied to fair‐mindedness’ (ibid) and a person regards issues from multiple perspectives. In order to encourage students to think critically in the ‘strong sense’ and develop a sociocentric world view they need to be provided with a reflexive space that introduces them to a range of viewpoints. As I have previously discussed, by taking on a role in a drama it could be argued that a student is in dialogue with the character he portrays through the process of metaxis (Boal 1979). The challenge for the KS3 drama teacher is how to structure a lesson or series of lessons so that the student experiences and enters into dialogue with a range of viewpoints, and that, crucially, no one viewpoint or ‘voice’ is given authority.



Jackson (2005: 111) argues that Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism is congruent with what makes powerful theatre:

‘differentiated, vital, embodied voices that provide conflict, tension, debate, and intellectual stimulus’. Bakhtin himself, however, dismissed theatre as a monologic art form (Bakhtin 1984: 13).

Carlson (1992) offers us an explanation for this. He argues that Bakhtin’s thinking did not take into consideration modernist conceptions and theories of the theatre and theatrical presentation. Bakhtin (1982) regarded theatrical performance as the unified realisation of a single voice, specifically the voice of the playwright. However this only represents one view of the western theatre tradition, where

‘the producers… are concerned to offer an authentic interpretation of the playwright’s intention’ (Neelands 1997: 49).

It could be argued that the process of creating a drama can be collaborative and involve the participation of a number of different voices, or, to use Bakhtin’s term, a ‘polyphony’ of voices. For example in devised theatre if a written text is introduced it is often regarded as a stimulus. This alternative view of theatre came about in the West in the latter half of the twentieth century as a result of the avant‐garde movement who

‘refocused attention on the doing aspects of the script, and beyond script altogether’ (Schechner 1988: 70).

Brecht’s rehearsal practices illuminate possible approaches to the structuring of a KS3 drama lesson that values critical thinking. Brecht worked in collaboration, or in ‘committee’:

'[t]he creative team stops, reflects, uncovers contradictions, tests variations, tries out events from several points of view' (Schechner 2006: 182).

Arguably the KS3 drama classroom would benefit from being regarded as a rehearsal room in this vein: dramatic action is never regarded as the finished article, rather one interpretation of possible action that is open to criticism and revision. If a KS3 drama lesson is structured episodically opportunities for students to interpose their judgement can be created (and for students to regard the dramatic situation from a number of different perspectives). Brecht structured his early performances in a similarly episodic way, often having his actors critically reflect on the actions of the characters between episodes (Esslin 1984). Schechner (2006: 73) likens the breaking apart of the dramatic narrative to the process of abstraction that happened to painting earlier in the twentieth century. By using the conventions of form advocated by Heathcote (1984) and Neelands and Goode (1990), ‘Still Image’ for example, time can be arrested and provide an opportunity for students to reflect in depth on the action. Also, because ‘[d]ramatic time is elastic’ (Winston 1999: 463), a situation in the narrative can be revisited allowing for



‘different permutations of response to be tried’ (Heathcote 1980: 166).

To relate this to Dewey’s thinking, by structuring a lesson in this way a student is offered the ‘opportunity and occasion to test his ideas by application’ (1930: 167). Further to this, the KS3 teacher might also draw inspiration from the performance techniques Brecht employed in his Epic Theatre. Brecht conceived dramatic action as

‘the problematic exposition of specific points of tension’ (Eco 1962: 31). He did not want his performers or audience to

‘submit to an experience uncritically… by means of simple empathy with characters in a play’ (Brecht 1965: 71).

He devised defamiliarisation techniques and devices to force his actors and audience to view the situations presented in performance from a critical perspective. The Epic actor, for example, would use direct address

‘to detach himself from the character portrayed’ (ibid: 121). I have commented on conventions of form that allow students the opportunity to critically reflect on the dramatic action, however other forms, similar to the performance techniques employed by Brecht, can serve to create a critical distance between the students and the characters they portray in the dramatic moment. ‘Collective Character’, for example, is a convention where a single character is improvised by a group of students who are required to negotiate action. ‘Thought Tracking’ reveals a character’s thoughts in order to better understand their motives. The juxtaposition of ‘Cross Cutting’ from one scene to another can offer new meaning by highlighting similarities or differences in the characters’ circumstances. These sorts of conventions prompt ‘reflection in action’ (Schön 1987: 26) by creating a critical distance between the student and the roles they play. This is essential because it gives them

‘a point of view in addition to points of view expressed in the art form’ (Edmiston 1995: 122).

The students are made aware that they have a duel role as participants and reflective percipients. However the KS3 drama teacher needs to apply such techniques with care. It could be argued that for students to fully comprehend the point of view of a character in a dramatic situation an empathetic response is required. It is through empathy that students can begin to understand to what extent emotion might drive a character’s thinking (or perhaps what thinking underlies a character’s emotion). It is only then, in light of all the evidence, that a student can reach an informed judgment. Empathy



can also serve to highlight for the students the relevance of a character’s situation to their own lives: they can relate the thoughts and feelings they experienced in‐role to moments in their real lives when they thought or felt similarly. This can be seen to relate to Stanislavski’s theory of ‘emotional memory’ (Stanislavski 1980). Therefore the KS3 drama teacher needs to structure a dramatic narrative that allows for dialogue between conflicting voices and for critical reflection but not at the cost of precluding emotional engagement. Encouraging students to argue for a particular point of view subsequent to a dramatic episode could be regarded as one solution to this apparent paradox and is discussed in detail later on.

The limitations of a technical approach Bolton (1993: 39) holds the view that

‘the richness of classroom drama lies in its potential to achieve change of understanding (a pedagogic objective) along with improvement in drama skills and knowledge of theatre (an artistic objective).’

Unfortunately the current educational climate of measurability and accountability in England has meant that in recent years learningabout drama has been prioritised over learning through drama, and teachers are

‘focusing on what drama is rather than what drama does for our students’ (Neelands 2001: 48).

This technicist approach limits the role students can play in the meaning making process (Fleming and Stevens 1998). As Bailin (1998) points out however, giving attention to the development of students’ dramatic skills leads to the creation of ‘good quality products’ (146) which, in turn, are more likely to rouse students’ cognitive and emotional capacities. This might suggest that the intensity of a dramatic experience is congruent with technical mastery of dramatic skill. Jackson (2005) reminds us:

'[a]t its best, theatre that aims to educate or influence can only truly do so if it values entertainment, the artistry, and craftsmanship that are associated with resonant, powerful theatre, and the aesthetic qualities that‐by definition‐will appeal to our senses' (106).

Understanding dramatic form and how meaning is conveyed also contributes to a student’s ‘repertoire of strategies for learning’ (Brown and Campione in Watkins et al 2007: 72). Students can achieve a level of metacognition: they come to know how they know. Rasmussen (2008: 8) believes that in our media driven culture students are driven by a desire

‘to see through the representations by ways of mastering and controlling the medium themselves.’



By supplying the students with an aesthetic language they are able to discuss with more confidence the relationship between form and meaning. So whilst it can be argued that, in order to ensure students remain active, instrumental artistic aims and objectives should not be prioritised over pedagogic aims for the sake of measurability, the development of knowledge and skills related to the artistry of drama remains essential. This goes some way to justifying dedicated drama curriculum time at KS3 and continued investment in the training of specialist drama teachers. However if the KS3 drama teacher's aim is to foster a climate of critical inquiry then drama lessons will need to be designed around the ‘genuine problems’ (Dewey 1930: 167) which provide the impetus for inquiry, or, to return to Brecht’s theories, around the

‘problematic exposition of specific points of tension’ (Eco 1962: 31), and look to develop the students' dramatic knowledge and skill as and when an inquiry requires it. Perhaps, rather than returning to learning objectives, the KS3 drama teacher should monitor his or her students’ progress and achievement by asking them periodically what the purpose of their inquiry is. After all an inquiry is a search for the solution to a problem or answer to a question and, as Paul (2007) points out, ‘if there's no question on the floor, there's nothing to think about. If there's no question we're trying to answer, why are we thinking?’

Teacher as facilitator Once the students understand the methods used to teach the skills of critical thinking, in this case the use of particular dramatic conventions that serve to disrupt the dramatic narrative, there remains the problem of how to get them to want to use them:

‘[s]omething in the attitude of the teacher or the atmosphere of the classroom must influence the student to become personally disposed to use these skills’ (McPeck 1984: 19).

Moon (2005: 8) argues that

‘epistemological issues need to be integrated into a definition of critical thinking and its pedagogy.’

In order for students to be able to develop their ability to think critically they will need to understand that knowledge is not absolute. This will involve a shift in their view of teachers

‘from expert holders of knowledge, to partners in the construction of knowledge’ (ibid: 11).



However Meyers (1986: 67) warns that:

'[s]tudents must be led gently into the active roles of discussing, dialoguing and problem solving. They will watch carefully to see how respectfully teachers field comments and will quickly pick up non‐verbal cues that show how open teachers really are to student questions and contributions.'

To this end, akin to Boal’s ‘joker’ (1979), the teacher

‘must transmit energy, excitement and an enthusiasm for tackling the problems, combined with a genuine interest in all the contributions from the audience’ (Vine 1993: 118).

If a teacher guides their students to predetermined outcomes, either in the drama or subsequent reflections on the dramatic action, the students will quickly pick up on this. They are likely to recognise the inquiry as a redundant exercise structured solely to support the beliefs their teacher holds. The disempowerment they feel as a result could lead to frustration and disengagement. In such a classroom the teacher has become the equivalent of the ‘monologic author’ (Bakhtin 1984). By entering into dialogue with their students a teacher can model the fair‐minded approach he or she surely hopes to promote. Dialogue serves to create a critical praxis where students accept, even temporarily, the views of others and potentially come to new understandings as a result (Friere 1975). Teacher‐in‐role (TiR) can ensure the making of drama becomes

‘a partnership between teacher and children as agents’ (Bolton 1993: 41). By stepping in and out of role regularly the teacher models and emphasises the need for reflection. Used in this way TiR can contribute to establishing the episodic structure discussed earlier in relation to Brecht’s theoretical writings. The teacher is also demonstrating that they believe the effort required to inquire is worth the reward.

Encouraging students to argue

Like the disposition to investigate the world, a young child’s disposition to make claims and enter them into a social arena needs to be developed (Kuhn 2008: 147).

Kuhn’s research in the field of cognitive development focuses on two families of thinking skills: ‘inquiry’ and ‘argument’. Kuhn suggests that argument is as important as inquiry to promote learners’ ability to think critically, and that reasoned discourse is



‘the most powerful means of evaluating competing ideas and constructing shared understanding’ (Kuhn 2008: 173).

We have considered how drama can be used to highlight competing ideas in an active inquiry, and, further to this, the suggestion that drama, particularly in modernist conceptions, can be recognised as a dialogic art form. However it is how the students engage with this framework of alternatives through authentic argument that their ability to think critically will develop. A multiplist understanding of knowledge is common by adolescence and many individuals do not develop beyond this. Students with a multiplist level of epistemological understanding consider that all individual beliefs should be respected. The majority of adolescents therefore regard knowledge ‘as consisting of nothing but opinions [and] because everyone has a right to their opinion, all opinions are equally right’ (Kuhn 2008: 128). Kuhn argues that for students to progress to an evaluativist level of epistemological understanding, and to think critically, educators must help them

‘to recognize that respect for individuals is not incompatible with serious debate of the ideas these individuals may hold’ (ibid: 129).

Drama can provide an exploration of different perspectives, but without authentic argument subsequent to this a teacher runs the risk of students walking away from the inquiry merely accepting that these different voices exist. It is therefore important that students engage in serious debate with regards to the competing voices highlighted through the experience of creating, performing and watching drama. As Vine (1993) points out:

'it is the great fallacy of democracy that choice itself is beneficial: unless people are equipped to understand the true nature of the choices given, and can create their own agendas, the existence of alternatives is meaningless' (125).

Through discussion learners can share their new understandings with the group before arguing to what extent they agree or disagree with the actions taken by the fictional character/s, and, crucially, how and why their own and each others' judgements on the fictional characters’ motives and actions might differ. This will necessarily involve a discussion on the aesthetic language used to construct the inquiry and the effect that this may have had on their thinking. It is only once the different perspectives highlighted in the dramatic narrative and students’ personal understanding of them are articulated and made openly available for debate that ‘a shared learning can begin’ (Vine 1993: 124). To relate this back to Cavell’s thinking, it could be argued that if exploring multiple viewpoints in the world of the drama allows students to

‘fix the relative importance of their cares and commitments for themselves’ (Mulhall 1994: 70)



subsequent debate or argument using their own voice requires them to

‘bear the responsibility for doing so’ (ibid). It is also an opportunity for students to reflect in more depth on how their emotions inform their reason:

‘[e]motion is recognised to play a part in critical thinking as it does in all cognitive processing. The thinker should monitor the various influences of emotion, articulating this where possible’ (Moon 2005: 12).

Whole‐class discussion and debate after a dramatic activity can also serve to highlight what Bruner (2003: 24) refers to as a narrative’s ‘illocutionary force’, that is the intentions of the author or, in this instance, the teacher acting as playwright (and director). For example a teacher who uses TiR to shape the drama experience could be accused of imposing their own moral agenda

‘[r]ather than offering genuinely dialogised experiences’ (Winston 1999: 468). The question remains: what form should debate take in the KS3 drama classroom? Closed questions are

‘of a low cognitive level designed to funnel pupils’ response towards a required answer’ (Smith et al 2004: 408).

Questions therefore need to remain open and invite students to offer a contribution, for example: ‘what do you think?’ or ‘how do you feel?’ In this way the teacher becomes a facilitator of discussion or an ‘arbiter in argument’ (Heathcote 1969: p.59) and invites active responses. However one problem with whole‐class debate is how to ensure all students take part. Some students might remain quiet because they assume their point will be made by someone else or because they do not have enough confidence in their beliefs. Drama conventions such as ‘Space Between’, ‘Spectrum of Difference’ and ‘Taking Sides’ (Neelands and Goode 1990) require students to publically demonstrate their thinking. The students literally ‘take a position’ with regards to the social issue being explored. In this way all students remain active whether or not they make a verbal contribution. Such conventions of form support students in establishing their points of view and entering them into the public arena. The teacher facilitating discussion should encourage students to indicate the reasons behind their thinking and prompt them to draw on the available evidence highlighted by the dramatic experience. This will be necessary if they are to construct informed counter arguments. Kuhn (2008: 172) suggests that the long term educational aim is that students develop the ability



‘to engage in this discourse covertly – to conduct both sides of a conversation inside their heads.’

Structuring a KS3 drama lesson as an inquiry using conventions of form allows students the necessary thinking time to personally reflect on the lived‐experience of the drama. By engaging in debate between dramatic episodes students are required to reprocess what they have learned and make sense of it together; the class community re‐establishes the boundaries between individual and collective identity. In so doing they begin to co‐construct knowledge (Kuhn 2008; Watkins et al 2007).

Conclusion

Ensuring a citizenry are able to think autonomously and critically is essential to the safeguarding of democracy. Developing young people's ability to tell truth from lies and reach reasoned judgments on a range of political, social and moral issues is crucial to countering oppression. In this paper, having first highlighted the limitations of instructional delivery in the classroom and explored the benefits of active learning, I have argued that drama is an ideal medium for KS3 students to inquire critically into the social world. With its ability to rouse both cognitive and emotional faculties, drama can support students in developing their understanding of how emotion can colour reason and, conversely, how the way we think can affect the way we feel. Select conventions of dramatic form can be used to highlight conflicting voices in a dramatic narrative. Through the process of reconciling these voices, either as participants or percipients, students can develop a change in understanding. It is by entering into reasoned debate subsequent to dramatic activity that a shared learning can begin; students can progress to an evaluativist level of epistemological understanding and develop their ability to reflect critically. It could be argued that the ongoing debate over whether drama should be learned about or learned through has been artificially polarised by academics in order to maintain a theoretical platform from which to preach (Fleming 1994; Rasmussen 2008). I have suggested that if the aim of developing students' ability to think critically is foregrounded in the KS3 drama classroom 'learning about' and 'learning through' drama can be seen to compliment one another. The attainment of knowledge and skills associated with drama as an art form is necessary for students to create 'good quality products' (Bailin 1998: 146). The more sophisticated the dramatic action the more likely it is students will engage with it in meaningful ways (cognitively and emotionally). This can lead to deeper understandings and supply students with more evidence on which to critically reflect and reach reasoned judgements. The unique contribution drama can make to the development of students' ability to think critically is still largely overlooked by the British Government. Drama is not recognised as a distinct curriculum area at KS3 (DfES 2007) and specialist training in



using drama in the classroom is under threat from recent government proposals (DfE 2011). The Department for Education (DfE) considers it essential that schools offer students opportunities for critical cultural, social and moral development (DfES 2012). Drama, despite its capacity to deliver this fundamental aim, continues to be marginalized. The statutory programme of study for citizenship states that students should

'engage with and reflect on different ideas, opinions, beliefs and values when exploring topical and controversial issues and problems' (ibid).

Whilst active approaches, including inquiry, are advocated, there is no reference to the valuable contribution drama can make in highlighting differentiated voices and encouraging critical reflection. I would argue that the DfE needs to address this omission in any future review.



References Anderson, T. (1990) Attaining Critical Appreciation Through Art. Studies in Art Education. 31 (3). 132‐140. Bailin, S. (1998) Critical Thinking and Drama Education. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance. 3 (2). 145‐153. Bakhtin, M. (1984) Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (Theory & History of Literature). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Boal, A. (1979) Theatre of the Oppressed. London: Pluto Press. Bolton, G. (1986) Selected Writings on Drama in Education. Essex: Longman Group Limited. Bolton, G. (1993) Drama in education and TIE: A comparison. In: Jackson, T. (ed.) Learning Through Theatre: new perspectives on theatre in education. Oxon: Routledge. Boud, D. and Feletti, G. (1997) The Challenge of Problem Based Learning. London: Kogan Page. Bourriaud, N. (1998) Relational Aesthetics. In: Bishop, C. (ed.) Participation: Documents of Contemporary Art. London: Whitechapel. Brecht, B. (1964) Brecht On Theatre. London: Eyre Methuen. Brecht, B. (1985) The Good Person of Szechwan. In: Willet, J. and Manheim, R. (eds.) Bertolt Brecht Collected Plays. London: Methuen. Bruner, J. (2003) Making Stories. Harvard: University Press. Carlson, M. (1992) Theatre and Dialogism. In: Reinelt, J. and Roach, J. (eds.) Critical Theory and Performance. University of Michigan Press. Crain, W. (1985) Theories of Development. New‐Jersey: Prentice‐Hall. Dewey, J. (1930) Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. Department for Education (2011) The Importance of Teaching: Schools White Paper. Available from:http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/toolsandinitiatives/schoolswhitepaper/b0068570/the‐importance‐of‐teaching [Accessed 12th March 2012]. Department for Education and Skills (2007) The National Curriculum for England. London: DfES Publications. Eco, U. (1962) The Poetics of the Open Work. In: Bishop, C. (Ed.) Participation: Documents of Contemporary Art (2006). London: Whitechapel. Edmiston, B. (1995) Discovering right actions: forging ethical understandings through dialogic interactions. In Taylor, P and Hoepper, C (eds.) Selected Readings in Drama and Theatre Education: The IDEA '95 Papers. Queensland: IDEA Publications. Esslin, M. (1984) Brecht: A Choice of Evils. London: Methuen Drama. Fisher, R. (2008) Teaching Thinking: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom. London: Continuum. Fleming, M. (1994) Starting Drama Teaching. London: David Fulton. Fleming, M. and Stevens, D. (1998) English Teaching in the Secondary School: A Handbook for Students and Teachers. London: David Fulton. Freire, P. (2001) Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Freire, P. (1975) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books.



Geahigan, G. (1998) Critical Inquiry: Understanding the Concept and Applying It in the Classroom. Art Education. 51 (5). 10‐16. Gilbert, C. (2006) 2020 Vision: Report of the Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review Group. Nottingham: DfES Publications. Heathcote, D. (1984) Signs and Portents. In: Dorothy Heathcote; Collected writings on education and drama. Johnson, L. and O’Neill, C. (eds.) London: Hutchinson & Co. Jackson, A. (2005) The Dialogic and the Aesthetic: Some Reflections on Theatre as a Learning Medium. Journal of Aesthetic Education. 39 (4). 104‐118. Kalbach, L. and Forester, L. (2006) A Lesson in Critical Literacy and its Impact on Student Achievement and Self Esteem. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue. 8 (1). 69‐82. Kuhn, D. (2008) Education For Thinking. Harvard: University Press. Meyers, C. (1986) Teaching Students to Think Critically. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. McGrath, J. (2002) Naked Thoughts That Roam About: Reflections on Theatre 1958‐2001. London: Nick Hern Books. McPeck, J. (1981) Critical Thinking and Education. Oxford: Martin Robertson & Company Ltd. Moon, J. (2005) We seek it here… a new perspective on the elusive activity of critical thinking: a theoretical approach. Bristol: Higher Education Academy. Mulhall, S. (1994) Stanley Cavell: Philosophy’s Recounting of the Ordinary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nash, R. (2009) The Active Classroom: Practical Strategies for Involving Students in the Learning Process. California: Corwin Press. Neelands, J. (2008) Getting off the Subject: English, Drama, Media and the Commonwealth of Culture. In: Manuel, J. Andersen, M. and Cater, D. (eds.) Re‐visioning English Education: Imagination, Innovation, Creativity. Sydney: University of Sydney Press. Neelands, J. (2001) 11/09 – the Space in our Hearts. [online] Available from:http://www.theatroedu.gr/main/images/stories/files/Magazine/EandT_e‐mag_June2002_UK_03.pdf [Accessed on 7th April 2010]. Neelands, J. (1997) Beginning Drama 11‐14. London: David Fulton. Neelands, J. and Goode, T. (1990) Structuring Drama Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Hara, M. (1984) Drama in Education: A Curriculum Dilemma. Theory into Practice. 23 (4). 314‐320. Pammenter, D. (1980) Devising for TIE. In: Jackson, T. (ed.) Learning through theatre: new perspectives on theatre in education.Oxon: Routledge. Paul, R. (2007) Critical Thinking in Every Domain of Knowledge and Belief. The 27th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking Keynote Address. Available from: http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/27thconf‐keynote.cfm [Accessed 6th April 2010]. Rasmussen, B. (2008) Beyond imitation and representation: extended comprehension of mimesis in drama education. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance. 13 (3). 307‐319. Shechner, R. (1988) Performance Theory. 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Schechner, R. (2002) Performance Studies: an introduction. London: Routledge. Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.



Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K. and Mroz, M. (2004) Interactive whole class teaching in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal. 30. 395‐411. Somers, J. (2000) Measuring the shadow or knowing the bird – evaluation and assessment of drama education. In: Green, J. and Sinker, R. (eds.) Evaluating Creativity. London: Routledge. Stanislavski, C. (1980) An Actor Prepares. London: Methuen. Taylor, D. (1986) Sophocles Plays: 1 (translator’s introduction). London: Methuen. Vine, C. (1993) TIE and the Theatre of the Oppressed. In: Jackson, T. (ed.) Learning Through Theatre: new perspectives on theatre in education. Oxon: Routledge. Watkins, C. Carnell, E. and Lodge, C. (2007) Effective Learning in Classrooms. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Winston, J. (1999) Theorising Drama as Moral Education. Journal of Moral Education. 28 (4). 459‐471.



Notes on Author Peter Bannister is Head of Drama at Backwell School, a large secondary comprehensive outside Bristol. He has delivered professional training and development opportunities in schools across the South West. He is an exponent of reflective practitioner research and particularly enjoys working with Initial Teacher Training students in supporting them to develop a critical praxis. His research interests include critical pedagogy, the semiotics of the secondary school classroom, and exploring the relationship between learning through drama and recent neuroscience research into how the adolescent brain develops.