valuing$tacit$knowledge$and$clear$pedagogy:$ continuing ... · issn2040(2228$ $ vol.5$no.1$...

ISSN 2040-‐2228

Vol. 5 No. 1 April 2014

Drama Research: international journal of drama in education Article 7

Valuing Tacit Knowledge and Clear Pedagogy: Continuing Professional Development for Teachers. Ross. W. Prior, Sally Harris & Anna Carter

National Drama Publications www.dramaresearch.co.uk

[email protected] www.nationaldrama.org.uk

Drama Research Vol. 5 No. 1 April 2014

Article 7 Valuing Tacit Knowledge and Clear Pedagogy: Continuing Professional Development for Teachers .

2

Valuing Tacit Knowledge and Clear Pedagogy: Continuing Professional Development for Teachers ____________________________________________________________________

Ross W. Prior, Sally Harris and Anna Carter

Abstract This article reports on a continuing professional development (CPD) programme that was rolled out into approximately 20 primary and secondary schools around Northamptonshire and beyond. The programme aimed to assist teachers in their ability to harness students’ tacit knowledge and use ‘productive pedagogy’ (drama as a learning medium) which they can add to more traditional learning approaches. Productive pedagogy is rich with contemplation, reflection, innovation and experimentation which are distinguished against ‘reproductive pedagogy’ based on memorisation and rote skills. Essentially, productive pedagogy is largely derived from the use of experiential learning where experience is combined with explicit meaning-‐making. The CPD project was premised on it being critical so that the teachers are empowered by appropriate structures to assist in meaningfully scaffolding students’ learning experiences. The results of the project revealed a predominantly positive acceptance by students and teachers although some teachers struggled with how to balance this approach against meeting inspection targets and other outcome-‐driven imperatives but saw this approach as offering potential to the learning experience. Overall, a process drama model was seen by students and teachers as a way to engage more personally in one’s learning across the curriculum. Keywords Productive pedagogy, Reproductive pedagogy, drama as a learning medium, continuing professional development, tacit knowledge



3

Introduction Dorothy Heathcote throughout her life fully understood, much of the value of drama comes from its experientially derived processes and leaves much understanding in tacit form. This approach that Heathcote terms ‘Mantle of the Expert’ (Heathcote and Bolton, 1995) sought to make classroom drama encounters more fruitful by using process-‐orientated approaches, placing greater ownership of knowledge with the participants thereby developing theoretical understandings in process. Dewey (1968 [1916]) understands that personally significant experience creates meaning for the individual. However knowledge(s) gained this way will often be considered ‘soft’ knowledge and may be relegated to the sidelines in preference to ‘hard’ or factual knowledge: teachers may feel more confident with delivery styles that are transmissive and do not allow students to build upon personal experience; subsequently, teachers may sometimes engage students in experiences which are neither pedagogically coherent nor useful in making tacit knowledge more accessible to either the students or others beyond the classroom. Some educators shunnedi the work of Dorothy Heathcote and Cecily O’Neill when together they sought to make classroom drama encounters more fruitful by using process-‐orientated approaches and developing theoretical understandings of process. Cognisant of a need to build upon particular research of Ross Prior (2009) that distinguishes between pedagogical approaches, The University of Northampton provided the opportunity to develop replicable models of productive pedagogy and deliver a programme to school teachers to assist in offering an expanded approach to student-‐centred learning following a Heathcotian tradition. The aims of the programme included enabling teachers to capitalise on productive learning environments in which authentic learning can take place, practising and refining skill, and to create opportunity for self reflection/collaboration in terms of developing new discipline-‐specific approaches to facilitate learning; that is acknowledging learning is about recognising and making sense of the various ideas, metaphors and discourses that enable students to experience. A professional development package and supporting resource pack were developed and rolled out to participating schools in Northamptonshire. Qualitative data and quantitative statistical data were collected and collated to evidence any impact of the programme of CPD. These approaches, which reposition learning, particularly within drama education, were designed to give educators a language and framework to understand and actively talk about their pedagogy.

The Model: Productive versus Reproductive Pedagogy Productive pedagogy can best be understood if we compare this approach to its opposite model – Reproductive pedagogy. Ross Prior (2009) has set out these two potentially binary opposites in his model (below) designed to provoke thoughtful teaching practice and make pedagogical choices clearer to teachers:



4

Figure 1: Prior’s Productive and Reproductive Pedagogy Model The Reproductive method of teaching seen on the right of Prior’s diagram identifies more traditional ways in which students learn and teachers teach: the teacher reproduces authorised knowledge, i.e. those facts deemed ‘worthy’ of knowing. For example, for schools this may be those areas of knowledge cited in the National Curriculum or the approved syllabi chosen for examination. Therefore if the teacher is to teach his or her students to successfully demonstrate their understanding and acquisition of the knowledge for an authorised test, exam or assessment, s/he may apply a more reproductive method of teaching by reproducing for them facts to learn off-‐by-‐heart, memorise, or imitate (copying notes from the board). Understandably, this may be seen as the most reliable and safe method of teaching in order that his or her students get their answer ‘right’, and by doing so achieve good results that are on the face of it beneficial to all. In the current climate of schools being critically judged on their results it is little wonder that many teachers, albeit not all the time, may lean towards this model as the most efficient and easily assessable model of teaching ‘and learning’. Teachers may at times, despite their own doubts of the effectiveness of this model of pedagogy, find themselves reproducing safe, outcome-‐focussed lesson plans, repeating tried and tested teaching strategies, constructing predictable lesson outcomes or accommodating the latest Ofsted recommendation – so who can blame teachers for sometimes feeling as though they are having to ‘teach to the test’?



5

However, it would seem that even government agencies such as Ofsted have recognised that teachers may place too much focus on results and have realised that this model of teaching restricts the level of engagement that our students experience in their learning and therefore may inhibit the level of their understanding:

Learning was also constrained in schools where teachers concentrated too much or too early on a narrow range of test or examination skills…All schools should ensure that preparation for national tests and examinations is appropriate, does not begin too early and does not limit the range of the curriculum or opportunities for creativity in English. (Ofsted 2012: 6–7)

Productive pedagogy (see left side of Figure 1) is not a new method of teaching. In the 60s, teachers embraced the pedagogy of Child-‐centred education and abided by the well-‐known phrase: ‘we teach children not subjects’. Wagner (1980) captures Heathcote’s ideology of understanding when she states:

Heathcote’s last guarantee is to help students catch more of what is implicit in any situation. Although we never catch all that is implicit in any art form, we can progress towards finding a greater reservoir of meaning and significance. (p. 230)

Teachers may know that for students to understand and experience effective, engaging and independent learning they have to begin by connecting with their own personal understanding of their world, i.e. their tacit, felt understanding. In Polanyi’s words: ‘I know but cannot tell’ (1966: 4).

Conducting the survey The research project was carried out over a period of three months in both secondary and primary schools in Northamptonshire. From the outset of the research to the eventual analysis of the findings Anna Carter and Sally Harris, two of the project’s leads, were guided by the following project questions:

1. To what extent can teachers successfully adapt Prior’s (2009) Productive pedagogy model to encompass all areas of Teaching and Learning?

2. How successful have teachers found this method of teaching in creating a productive learning environment and one that promotes authentic and self-‐directed learning?

The project team invited 240 primary and 58 secondary schools to take part. However, only 6% of all contacted primary schools and 6% of all secondary schools volunteered to take part. During the introductory telephone conversations that took place between ourselves and the school e.g. the Headteacher or teacher responsible for Teaching and Learning, a number of reasons were given that explain, albeit



6

anecdotally, the low response of potential participants. Many of the schools had already calendared their staff meetings; some Heads were concerned about their teachers’ workload and were reluctant to hold extra CPD or staff meetings; the timing of the project was considered too early or too late due to the amount of events taking place in schools, for example the approaching SATs tests. Some Heads asked if they could join in at the end of the summer term when they had more time. Significantly, a number of schools felt that they needed to get to ‘Good’ on the Ofsted scale before they tried anything ‘adventurous’. Interestingly, 14 out of the 17 schools (82%) who participated were graded ‘Good’ by Ofsted. The context of these schools ranged from small rural primary schools (the smallest had just 74 children) to a large Northampton academy/secondary school of 1327 students. Despite the low response to the invitation, the project team were able to reach a significant 110 primary school teachers and 658 Year 1–6 pupils (aged between 6–11) and 40 secondary school teachers and 68 students. The secondary school students were exclusively Year 12 (16–17 year olds). This was largely due to the subject matter of the workshops: Frankenstein was at the time of this research, currently being studied at AS Level by English students. Each school was given an introductory CPD Workshop to teachers on Prior’s model of Productive pedagogy (2009) with an accompanying resource pack that provided a framework for applying and adapting a productive pedagogy lesson. Each school nominated a teacher responsible for using the model with their own class where they could choose their own topic, learning focus and Key Stage. Subjects areas chosen by the teachers included: Literacy, Maths, Philosophy, English A level Literature, Humanities and Science. After the lesson, teachers and students completed a questionnaire to reflect on the impact that this model had on their teaching and learning. It is important to state that as researchers of this project we are all experienced drama-‐in-‐education teachers (one as a trained primary school teacher and two as secondary school teachers). We all share the experience, discourse and domain of our background in drama-‐in-‐education pedagogy and whilst this may bring bias it also brings expertise – after all, this project is framed as continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers and not an experimental piece of research. The planning of this workshop was devised with a deep, shared understanding of its theory and practice and therefore the philosophy underpinning Prior’s (2009) pedagogical framework and deeply inspirited with Heathcote’s general ideology with specific conventions such as ‘Mantel of the Expert’ (Heathcote and Bolton, 1995). Our understanding of the world of schools at a practical level rather than solely theoretical enabled us to devise a workshop that could both introduce Prior’s model and refer to current school practice including the demands of the over-‐arching education system. Given the focus of this project on Productive pedagogy’s ‘experiential learning’ (Prior, 2009), we felt it was appropriate to adopt an ethnographic, reflexive and



7

phenomenological approach: we would be participating in the workshops and employing the drama convention of Teacher in Role (TiR) so that with both teachers and students we could experience, as co-‐participants, the uniqueness of a tacit, lived experience from both a phenomenological (personal individual meanings) and ethnographic stance where we shared an understanding of teaching’s social reality – its context and educational landscape. We wanted to clearly convey to the teachers the principle that their role, as far as possible, should be equity-‐based and regarded with equal authority. We explained before each workshop that we would discover and investigate with them the extent of the impact of using the productive pedagogy model on student and teacher learning; and it was made clear through the correspondence and workshop that their involvement would contribute to the data that would inform a paper presented at the National Drama Conference (2013). Therefore, our own role as teacher/researcher participants in this project has endeavoured to value the contributions of those we visited in schools as co-‐participants, entwined with the analysis of the findings in our role as The University of Northampton’s researchers. This approach we hope, has allowed teachers to position themselves confidently as teacher-‐researchers – although we cannot disregard the assumed ‘authority’ we bring as outsiders to the school and perhaps a perceived hierarchy that this may have given us. We attempted to mitigate against this by working collaboratively with the teachers at all times. When conducting this research we would not only take into account the quantitative data such as the numbers of teachers and students involved; but would privilege the qualitative data generated throughout the duration of the project as a way of hearing responses. Working as ‘insiders’ within the pedagogical framework of drama-‐in-‐education we see it as our job as teacher-‐researchers to communicate, edit and author the different perspectives given by the participants. It is these multi-‐perspectives that recreate the truth of the research and offer more holistic findings. The research story, then, is reported in the first person, denoting our personal experiences in this project. All results have been reported anonymously in order to protect the individual’s identity.

How we were received Head teachers or those responsible for organising the project were enthusiastic about discussing their vision of education and how they saw the potential usefulness of this project for their school’s CPD requirements. The recent Ofsted report calling for more ‘student directed’ learning connected with our use of the nomenclature ‘independent learning’ in our initial letters sent out to explain Prior’s (2009) theory and practice of ‘Productive versus Reproductive pedagogy’. In some cases, this was enough to convince schools of the potential worthwhileness of this project. Many referred to their Ofsted grade and where they were positioned in terms of the rounds of inspection. For example, Headteachers or their representatives would



8

mention their latest grade by saying, ‘we were “inadequate” but we got to “Good” in eighteen months’ or ‘we were “satisfactory” but this time I think we’re going to fail’ or ‘this ticks all the boxes for our CPD stuff’. It is also important to include in this research the impact of Anna Carter’s work ‘Drama for Writing’ in Northamptonshire. During the preceding phone calls for those schools eager to take part, her work was often referred to and the teachers confidence in employing Teacher in Role (TiR) as a pedagogical strategy, allowed them to be particularly receptive, engaged and analytical in the workshop and their reflections on the theory of productive pedagogy.

The workshop In order to test the adaptability of this model we knew that we needed to devise a workshop that could be adapted to every age and ability range. This included the CPD workshop where teachers would undergo for themselves a ‘personal and significant’ (Dewey 1968 [1916]) experience integral to acquiring theoretical understanding and meaning (Prior 2009, 2013; Polanyi 1966: 4). We decided to base the workshop around Berni Wrightson’s (1983) illustrated book of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. We felt that the themes embedded in this visual interpretation of the novel had the potential to be explored through a range of learning foci and Key Stages. The more gruesome illustrations and associated themes were omitted from the Year 1 lessons. The workshop progressed through a series of participatory activities: examining Wrightson’s (1983) landscapes; a section of investigative drama – the pretext of which was an old trunk containing scientific artefacts – glass bottles, parchment scrolls with archived medical and philosophical texts, and a silver notebook with handwritten extracts from the Frankenstein text; to examining and making sense of further extracts of text from the novel, connected to their own tacit discoveries. At the end of each stage of the workshop’s activities, we provided a power-‐point presentation that set out the theoretical stages of Prior’s model (2009) with the associated practical activity. We dedicated sufficient time for the teachers to identify the elements and stages of Prior’s (2009) Productive pedagogy, with their own practical, ‘felt’ experience. The model for this workshop and its corresponding framework was included in the teachers’ resource pack.

The findings: Teachers’ and students’ response to the workshops Primary schools were somewhat familiar with the concepts embedded in the theory and practice of productive pedagogy. Further, they recognised and interpreted this theory as one replicated in drama’s pedagogy and were experienced in using its conventions as a means to enhance and deepen learning. They were also familiar



9

with the concept of ‘tacit understanding’ and often in the process of the workshop would point out that they had to connect with the child’s emotional, felt response before any true learning could take place. Feedback from the nominated teacher-‐led sessions spoke of the ‘profound effect’ that this pedagogy had created within a Media Year 13 class that it had ‘produced much deeper thinking’ and that ‘future staff training sessions would continue to develop this idea to develop independent and deep learning’. A common response from those secondary teachers taking part in this survey was their appreciation of the opportunity to engage in ‘academic’ and ‘philosophical’ discourse, which according to some rarely happened in typical CPD training sessions. We received follow-‐up emails that wrote about the ‘buzz’ it had caused in the staffroom:

(The) workshop is still fondly talked about and has left staff open to pilot and try out some new ideas and even some of the most reluctant staff have tried and tested the methods and have been astounded at the impact of the learning. There was full engagement of the delegates throughout – and their range of questions showed their desire to understand how they could make use of the methodology. The professional dialogues that have occurred since (the) workshop have been truly brilliant.

These particular comments expose a perceived or indeed real need for providing opportunities for secondary school teachers to engage not only in academic, professional discourse but to take part in the tacit learning experience itself, as one secondary school teacher lamented, ‘this is so different to the kind of CPD stuff we’re getting now’. This prompted another teacher to point to a framed list of statutory rules and commandments, which were hung in every classroom, entitled ‘The nine non-‐negotiables’. There was a reluctant acceptance of these commandments despite the recognition that ‘non-‐negotiables’ in this particular teacher’s view, seemed principally alien to educational discourse.

Teacher and student responses to the questionnaires The teachers’ and students’ answers to the questionnaires, revealed more detailed responses to their involvement within the productive pedagogy workshops and the headed sections below refer to each question’s focus. We provided both teacher and pupil and student questionnaires to allow for their relative different experiences. The research questions given at the beginning of this article provided the focus for



10

our questions such as the adaptability of Prior’s model within both Primary and Secondary schools; and its success in promoting authentic and self-‐directed learning. Extended class time In this survey a significant proportion of Primary Schools regularly devoted extended time to their teaching and were able to provide a sound rationale for this practice demonstrating that the teachers saw this as integral to the teaching and learning in their school. One teacher commented:

Extended time is not uncommon practice in primary school settings. Teaching requires a synthesis of experience, new experience, knowledge and new knowledge and it requires opportunities to blend these through activity and over time.

Most teachers valued having extra time to conduct the workshop. It allowed them to explore more deeply with the children the themes arising from the given stimuli and to provide the pupils with the opportunity ‘to discuss at greater length and more time to question’. The value of having enough time to develop ideas was expressed further in this answer: ‘It felt that we could take up learning opportunities without the feeling of time pressure’. This also included the importance of having time to create an appropriate learning environment: ‘there was more time given to creating the setting, enhancing the tension/suspense’. For primary school pupils, the extended lesson gave them the opportunity to ‘just let our ideas flow with no gaps interrupting the lesson. Then we didn’t forget anything that way’. Secondary school teachers welcomed the extended time given for their own lessons resulting in one school devoting a whole day to a KS3 project (Years 11–14) following the practice of Productive pedagogy. Secondary school students appreciated that they weren’t ‘rushed’; that the sessions were ‘relaxed’ and gave them more time to come up with ‘ideas and opinions’ that were more detailed than normal’. It allowed time for them to ‘understand in a different way’ and to ‘fully immerse [oneself] into the lesson’ and be ‘more curious about the questions raised’. One student felt that more time enabled ‘a better understanding of the topic with greater depth and perspective’. Another felt that ‘it was beneficial in the way that we could carry on certain trains of thought as we had more time than usual in our session’. A different type of learning Some primary school teachers stated that this productive pedagogical structure was not only familiar but also synonymous with drama pedagogy and found this term ‘easier to apply to their understanding’. It also enabled some teachers to see the possibilities of transferring art-‐based stimuli traditionally relegated to



11

arts/humanities (‘soft’ knowledge) subjects to non-‐arts subjects such as Science (‘hard’ knowledge):

The use of pictures as a stimulus is again something that I would have used in Literacy and not in Science.

Teachers also identified ‘difference’ as the lesson being ‘less structured’ and more ‘reactive to the children’s lead’ and that they could ‘do anything to show learning’ and that there were ‘no boundaries’. Others saw little difference and explained: ‘It wasn’t really [different] as we do lots of drama’ with the exception that ‘there was more sitting down than normal’. There was no indication whether the teacher saw this as a negative point or not. Primary school pupils more used to interactive and practical drama activities, saw little difference in the structure of their lesson and so identified difference as experiencing a new and different topic therefore their responses focused on what happened and what they learnt:

We learned how to be scientists – what we could do as scientists – We found about how we live

Most secondary students commented on the practical, interactive nature of the workshop that they could ‘move around rather than being sat down’ and that it was ‘more varied with multiple sections’. They felt that this different type of learning ‘required more independent responses and feedback’; that working in groups they could ‘analyse texts/images with our own opinion’ and ‘explore more the moral side of things – the locations involved and their impact emotionally’. One Year 12 student commented on the ‘interactive, peaceful setting’ that ‘allowed the lesson to take on many different courses and outcomes tailored to the students’ understanding’. They felt ‘more involved through the role-‐play and ‘able to interact and really get into the mood and genre of the novel’ concluding, ‘I was able to learn better’. One student felt that it was ‘more productive than our usual English (A level) way’ – that it focused more on ‘analysing material/image analysis rather than writing’. One student described the different approach as being ‘dramarised’ (sic). However, Secondary school teachers and students, both in the workshops and questionnaires, revealed their concerns at the pressure they had on ensuring successful exam results and therefore ‘teaching and learning to the test’ and this dictated the type of pedagogy delivered in schools:

I tend to spoon-‐feed classes, and am over-‐anxious to ‘tell’ them a cultural context. This method challenged their thinking far more. Specifically it was fascinating and beneficial to approach the text holistically and not be over concerned with textual detail. The time was spent on reflection and not exam driven.



12

The above examples reveal a perceived incompatibility between the Productive pedagogy model and the need to pass exams as in the Reproductive model. The following example from one teacher’s evaluation of her Year 12 Drama A level group revealed, to her surprise, that her students felt uncomfortable with the more open-‐ended approach of Productive pedagogy:

Although they enjoyed the Teacher in Role exercise and the challenges of developing a role, for the students, there was ‘too much free thought’. They found it difficult – they wanted a clue! A security blanket! They wanted to know whether they were right or wrong in their responses’.

The teacher’s expectations of creativity and free-‐thought within her own drama group was confounded by their own preconceived ideas that there was a right or wrong response within any learning process, whatever the subject. This perception of learning was reflected in the students’ unease at the ‘openness’ of the workshop and its perceived lack of direction:

Knowing the answer would make responding to the work easier… (We) needed to know we were on the right track and have more obvious clues… It felt like we were looking for something that didn’t exist’.

The lack of prescribed learning objectives and outcomes prompted students to comment: ‘some brief overview beforehand may have been beneficial to focus our minds before’. The collective bewilderment of these particular comments betrays an institutional, conditioned response to the Reproductive pedagogy model e.g. hard facts, rote learning, teaching to the test etc that Prior (2009) defines. The request for ‘more obvious clues’ indicates an assumption that learning requires the collection of existing facts and ones that are correct. Using subject specific language A significant number of Primary school teachers valued and were familiar with the drama convention of role-‐play where creating authentic ‘real life’ contexts for students to imagine enabled them to confidently adopt and explore new subject specific vocabulary as ‘used in real life’. They could experience ‘what it would be like to be a Scientist’ and adopt ‘scientific language’. The teacher continued: ‘This helped them when we discussed ‘life’ and the ‘creation of life, chemicals and body parts etc. It also helped them explore the morals/ethics of the story’.



13

One school’s answer to this question demonstrates a confident and experienced understanding of the potential of this drama convention and its place in the school’s curriculum and pedagogy:

Taking on a role is a powerful way to engage the students, place a context around their learning and ‘draw them in’. It provides a context for the correct vocabulary and for the links between previous learning and new learning.

One primary school student wrote about her role as a scientist: ‘you could say things but it was more up-‐levelled. It helped me to use the language when the experiment (in the drama workshop) was taking place’. Another student recognised the importance of tacit understanding and although not expressed in theoretical terms, voiced her understanding of how s/he was ‘able to understand the emotions and feelings of the issue: ‘the language helped to us to learn new words from Science and created atmosphere’. Most secondary students considered the potential of employing subject specific vocabulary:

It embedded the quotes and ideas into my mind and allowed me to think of the characters personas more which was advantageous towards our summer exam’ (A level English Literature).

It also reveals the students’ perception of the value of the workshop and how they measure the effectiveness of the workshop in relation to what they believe is needed to pass their exams. Ownership of the lesson Very few teachers felt that the students were solely in charge of the learning and the majority wrote about the complexities of the dynamic between Teacher and Learner:

The children were in charge of the learning, because the lesson was adapted depending on what their responses were.

Teachers explained the need for an inbuilt structuring that enables students to make their own discoveries without the explicit presence of authority such as the Teacher:

It was Teacher led but you knew it was supposed to be you leading the exercises. The realisation was retrospective. This was a combination of the two. The teacher ‘shapes’ the initial structure but the dynamics of the lesson are child-‐led with skillful intervention by the teacher to draw out the learning.



14

Teachers recognised the need for a learning framework and structure to enable their pupils to operate creatively and to explore and develop ideas. One important aspect of the collaboration between teachers and learners was observed by one of the secondary students who reflected on the dynamics between teachers and learners: that unfamiliarity could limit the amount of trust and therefore confidence amongst students and could prevent them taking responsibility for leading their learning.

I was taken slightly aback by how different it was – meaning the time was controlled by the teacher because of our unfamiliarity. Perhaps if we were more used to that sort of thing we would have led it more.

As with the teachers’ response to this question, some secondary students attributed the leading of the lesson to the teachers but recognized that there was ‘the opportunity to take charge’ and that they ‘had some input as to where the lesson was heading’ and that they were ‘given the freedom to explore the text themselves’. Primary school children, however, were enthusiastic and confident in claiming leadership in their lessons both as individuals and as a class:

I would probably say the class because using the scrolls on the floor we solved the mystery. We asked the teacher the questions when she was in role. I think that me and the class were in charge of the learning.

There was a significant number of students who felt that it was both themselves and the teacher that ‘led the way, driving the lesson forward’ and that it depended on a collaborative process where the teacher would ‘give us instructions but as a class we took control over our actions’. They also acknowledged that it was during the drama sections of the workshop where ‘everyone was involved’. Building on previous experiences and knowledge In both primary and secondary school workshops, teachers were able to give a number of varied examples where pupils drew on their own experiences (tacit knowledge) to connect with the new stimuli. These ranged from the younger children connecting the landscape pictures of ships, mountains and lakes with their own holidays. Another child said that ‘it might be from another country just like she herself had grown up in Hungary’. Another teacher noted: ‘when discussing what jobs involve Science, some children immediately seized upon the jobs of their parents e.g. one parent was a dentist. Other classes ‘reflected on their own experiences and understanding of witches, wizards and scientists’. One teacher chose to reflect on how children are able to connect with their own experiences and that:

This happens frequently in “Mantle of the Expert” style lessons where children are invited to share what they know, where there is not a right or wrong answer and where skilful teaching draws links.



15

Notably, the primary school teachers had taken time to reflect with their classes about their previous experiences and had linked this with a shared responsibility of their new learning. This responsibility required the teacher to trust her pupils’ reflections so that the learning process could be evaluated without threat to either side. One teacher’s courage and confidence as a facilitator prompted pupils to compare the workshop honestly with previous lessons:

In other philosophy discussions it hasn’t been as good with the atmosphere – whereas in Frankenstein we get to discuss the morals and ethics of it and get to say what we wanted to.

Interestingly, the majority of both secondary school teachers and their students limited their interpretation of this question to their previous knowledge of the subject content of Frankenstein rather than reflecting on their ‘tacit’ understanding that could have connected with the themes of this text. One teacher commented that it ‘made them confront and grapple with the gothic genre’. Similarly, student answers ranged from dismissive ‘I knew what the story was about anyway’ to exam-‐centric comments: ‘it helped to immerse myself into the physical world of Frankenstein and ‘our understanding of the scientific, the philosophies and the sublime’. However, one teacher who adopted Prior’s approach in his own Year 10 lesson on William Blake’s Holy Thursday, wrote a detailed account of the impact this had on his students’ writing:

Perhaps the most striking response, however, was from S___ who felt that “the music and the creative writing tasks created a greater feeling of looking into the memories of someone who has passed away and so [he] took a historian’s approach to reading and writing”, suggesting that, in S___’s case, there was a happy marriage of Prior’s [approach] and a new historicist’s approach. His reaction for me constitutes the English teacher’s Holy Grail: a student delighting in the edifying union of creativity and analysis; of contextual appreciation and personal engagement.

Regardless of this teacher’s interpretation, and given that the CPD workshops had been undertaken before the volunteer teachers replicated the model, it appears that the pressure to pass exams subsumes the value of connecting personal experience as a conduit for developing deeper understanding. Productive pedagogy: an effective method of teaching and learning Without exception there was a positive response to the project: teachers felt that it was an effective method of learning that engaged the children and facilitated rather than dictated. It gave ‘children a real life purpose for learning and completing tasks’. One school reflected on the Productive pedagogy model as providing a:



16

…very effective method of teaching, instrumental in making learning relevant and engaging. It encourages children to think both emotionally and pragmatically and to shape their own learning whilst teachers guide, facilitate and intervene to forge links and cement learning experiences to lead to a fuller understanding.

Some observed the importance of the interactive process that takes place in this model between teachers and pupils:

It engages all the children at a level suitable for them but at the same time gives them opportunities to extend their vocabulary by learning from others. It helps EAL children to share all experiences and learn new language.

Teachers also raised concerns about their pupils’ need for ‘correct’ answers rather than relishing the process of discovery:

The class tends to want the given answers as if there are satisfactory ones. I would certainly use this model to engage the class in thought and perception.

One teacher commented on the challenge that this pedagogy encourages and felt regret that this opportunity is not always given to pupils in day-‐to-‐day teaching and learning:

Pupils driving the learning and the discussion is a high level skill. Bloom’s taxonomy higher-‐level skills, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation were employed at a significant level and we don’t usually allow for this amount of time to do this type of learning experience.

Another teacher commented on his A level students’ response to his productive pedagogy workshop:

…they were struck by the change in pedagogy. C___ commented that “usually in our lessons you talk quite a lot, but in this lesson it was very individual and personal” which both confirms my earlier suspicion that I had previously been rather didactic and reproductive in my teaching but also suggests that this new method was at least effective in its focus on the personal. ‘J___’, too, felt that there was “much less teacher-‐pupil teaching as such, you were much more free to respond independently”.

However, some teachers felt uncertain about the lack of explicit learning objectives that clearly told the children what they were to learn and what the outcomes would be:

There could have been more structure in terms of learning objectives and outcomes for the children.



17

This perceived lack of structure was also expressed in the post-‐workshop discussions. A palpable anxiety could be sensed amongst staff who felt ‘pressurised’ to gain the highest grade during Ofsted inspections; that they should err on the side of caution to devise lessons that ensure a clearly identifiable, quantitative measure of the children’s progress. Therefore, despite positive feedback at the end of each workshop and in the questionnaires, there were still some teachers who were sceptical about the Productive pedagogy’s capacity to ‘push the children on in their learning’ or what to do about ‘differentiation’. As one teacher put it: ‘I was unclear as to where to take the more able children on’. Despite the pedagogy’s inclusion of the intellectual development of the learner (ideas, theories, deep understanding, and reflectiveness) (Prior 2009), the risk of failure may prevent some teachers from confidently embracing open-‐ended, student-‐led strategies for learning.

Conclusion We found that many of the participating primary schools were already deeply committed to exploring new ideas in teaching and learning. Such schools were already familiar with the concept of drama as a learning medium and conventions such as Heathcote’s (2002) 1980s creation of the ‘Mantle of the Expert’, yet rather than dismissing the proposed workshop took the opportunity to participate and contribute to the research. The range of examples given by the teachers’ descriptions and analysis of their use of the pedagogy’s theoretical framework in their lessons, revealed the adaptability of this model: its capacity to accommodate wide and diverse subject matters from Year 12 English Literature A level to KS 1 & 2 Science; and more importantly its potential in connecting with each pupil’s tacit understanding with that of the new learning encounter – whatever age, ability or educational context. The response of participating secondary schools, despite their appreciation of the workshops and their acknowledgement that the productive pedagogy model can lead to a deeper, meaningful experience of learning (Prior 2009, Dewey 1968 [1916]), still continued to expose a results-‐driven learning environment that prioritizes the student’s acquisition of ‘hard knowledge’, as in reproductive pedagogy, over a student’s tacit ‘soft’ knowledge, as in productive pedagogy. The pressure to achieve was prevalent in the secondary students’ reactions: a significant proportion was unused to and suspicious of a lesson where hard facts and outcomes were not presented to be learnt and to be ‘got right’. Despite the opportunity and funding for this project that provided no-‐cost CPD to schools, there was, as we have previously noted, a low response from the secondary schools which limits the accuracy of representation in this area of the research project. However, the future of this research is promising. Schools, both primary and secondary, have requested that they would like to be involved in further research:


Article 7 Valuing Tacit Knowledge and Clear Pedagogy: Continuing Professional Development for Teachers

18

they enjoyed the time and opportunity to take part in the process itself and reflect on educational practice. The active nature of this project which not only involved teachers but took this way of working into the classroom was particularly attractive to many. The CPD training developed for this research, required teachers to be actively engaged in a process-‐orientated workshop so that they could experience for themselves the powerful lived experience of reaching inwardly to connect with their own unique tacit understanding: to experience the delight in ‘knowing’; to be confident to experiment, discover, reflect and contemplate new understandings and in so doing deepen their theoretical understanding of both the themes within the workshop and the possibilities of this pedagogical model. If we are to believe anecdotal reports that much existing CPD training is preoccupied with training teachers to reproduce Ofsted rated ‘outstanding’ lessons, then we must be alert to standardizing or diminishing the importance of ‘process’ as espoused by progressive practitioners such as the late Dorothy Heathcote and those who continue the tradition.



19

References Bolton, G. (2003), Dorothy Heathcote’s Story: biography of a remarkable drama teacher. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books. Dewey, J. (1968 [1916]), Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press. Heathcote, D. and Bolton, G. (1995), Drama for Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Heathcote, D. (2002), Contexts for Active learning -‐ Four models to forge links between schooling and society. Presented at the NATD conference, 2002. Prior, R.W. (2009), ‘Contextual Dimensions of Drama in Education: A Case for Valuing Tacit Knowledge and Clear Pedagogy’, in N. Govas [ed.] Theatre & Education at Centre Stage. Athens: Hellenic Theatre/Drama & Education Newtwork, pp. 259–267. Polanyi, M. (1983 [1966]), The Tacit Dimension. Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith. [Reprint, originally printed by Doubleday]. Wagner, B. J. (1980), Dorothy Heathcote: drama as a learning medium. London: Hutchinson & Co. Wrightson, B. (1983), Mary Wollanstonecraft Shelley’s Frankenstein with pictures by Berni Wrightson, Marvel Comics Group: New York.



20

Notes on Authors

Ross Prior is the founding editor of the international Journal of Applied Arts & Health and became a Fellow of the Royal Society for Public Health in 2011. He is Associate Professor at The University of Northampton, UK. He has held a range of posts both within the profession and education, having taught at all levels of education for many years. In 2007 he was awarded the distinguished 'Teaching Fellow of The University' for excellence in teaching. Dr Prior has been closely involved with the Drama in Education movement for much of his life, as a researcher, teacher and practitioner. His latest major contribution is his book entitled Teaching Actors: knowledge transfer in actor training (2012 Intellect/University of Chicago Press).

Sally Harris began her teaching career as an English, Dance and Drama teacher. During this time she was head of Expressive and Performing Arts (her students include Scott Graham, artistic director of Frantic Assembly and Neil Bettles, artistic director of Thickskin company) and Assistant Head/Director of the Performing Arts Specialism. After completing her PhD she is now a freelance theatre/drama practitioner.

Anna Carter currently works as an independent education adviser based in Northampton, having previously worked for the Local Authority as a Learning Advisor for Drama. Anna is co-‐lead in the Drama for Writing initiative, a method of teaching, progressing from Foundation Stage through to Key Stage 3; developed and trialled over many years to develop pupils’ ability in reading, writing, oracy and analytical thinking, through their enjoyment and practical engagement in well-‐structured dramatic activity. Anna works closely with local Arts Partners including Act Out Graduate Theatre Company and The University of Northampton. She also co-‐organises an annual Schools’ Arts Festival. Anna has also co-‐written the resource Protective Behaviours Activities for Teaching Behaviours in Schools by Jodie Bodsworth, Anna Carter & Simon Sneath, Speechmark. Dr Ross Prior, School of The Arts, The University of Northampton, St George’s Avenue, Northampton NN2 6JD, UK. [email protected]


About Drama Research

National Drama Publications permits the sharing of this article, in print or electronically, in this specific PDF form only and should be accompanied by the following acknowledgment:

‘This article was first published in Drama Research: international journal of drama in education Volume 5 No 1 April 2014 at: www.dramaresearch.co.uk It is one of a wide range of articles on drama/theatre in education available by subscription to the journal at: www.dramaresearch.co.uk/journal/index.cfm/subscribing/ Access to the journal is free to members of National Drama. www.nationaldrama.org.uk/nd/index.cfm/membership/’

Drama Research is an innovative, international refereed e.journal that provides a forum for practitioners and researchers across the spectrum of drama in educational settings. We encourage, gather and publish research-‐based articles from established and new writers to promote knowledge, understanding and dialogue about drama in learning contexts.

valuing$tacit$knowledge$and$clear$pedagogy:$ continuing ... · issn2040(2228$ $ vol.5$no.1$...

Documents