Professional Documents
Culture Documents
University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Aesthetic Education.
http://www.jstor.org
In the current educational climate prevailing in a number of countries, increased emphasis is being placed on the concept of "the artist in schools."
Funding is being channeled to support a range of initiatives and schemes
that are designed to bring arts professionals from all the art forms into the
classroom where they place their artistic talents, knowledge, and insights
alongside the pedagogic skills of the teacher.
We see exciting projects in which artists work with children in schoolvisual artists to create murals, musicians to compose and perform operas,
dancers to choreograph new ballets, and actors and directors to devise plays.
Many of the outcomes are of high quality, and the children who have been
fortunate enough to be involved have enjoyed the experiences and have
gained a great deal from them. This would seem to be a state of affairs to be
applauded unreservedly, as such projects surely enrich the lives of the pupils
and schools in which they take place. In one sense, of course, this is undeniably true, and we have no intention of suggesting otherwise. However, in
reality, this is a much more complex situation. It raises a number of key issues
for us as educational practitioners who work in the field of applied theatre,
sharing with others, as Judith Ackroyd describes, "a belief in the power of the
theatre form to address something beyond the form itself."l
The most critical issue is the perceived separation of the artist from the
teacher that can sometimes be encouraged by artists in schools projects. We
sense a dangerous precedent here. It becomes all too easy for two erroneous
assumptions to be made, namely that teachers cannot be considered to be
artists in their own right, while artists on the other hand can be accorded
Pamela Bowell is Principal Lecturer in Drama Education in the School of Education
at Kingston University. For many years she was Chair of National Drama, the leading professional association for drama educators in the United Kingdom. She has
also worked extensively internationally. She co-authored Planning Process Drama
with Brian Heap as well as a range of articles, most recently focusing on mapping the
practice of process drama and on using process drama in HIV/AIDS education.
Brian Heap is Staff Tutor in Drama at the Philip Sherlock Centre for the Creative Arts
at the University of the West Indies. In addition to collaborating with Pamela Bowell
on a number of publications, he co-authored ProcessDrama:A Wayof ChangingAttitudes
with Anthony Simpson.
Journalof Aesthetic Education,Vol. 39, No. 4, Winter 2005
?2005 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
59
60
form from the dramatic action, reaction, and interaction of the participants.
The external audience of the theatre is replaced by an internal audience, so
that the participants are both the theatrical ensemble that creates the "play"
and the audience that receives it. In short, it is recognized by practitioners
as a form of theatre applied within an educational context in which learners, in collaboration with the teacher, create dramas for exploration, expression, and learning.3 As such, process drama can be found in classrooms
across the world.
This creative and educational collaboration is empowering for participants. Process drama is a potent means by which perception and expression
may be heightened. It provides a framework for the exploration of ideas
and feelings. Through the unique, quintessentially dramatic process of "enactment," learners develop as artists and, through this, refine a means by
which they come to know more about themselves and learn more about the
world around them. As such, process drama demonstrates itself as a genre
of theatre in which the human need and desire to make symbolic representations of life experiences, explore them, and comment upon them are central.
One of the most critical elements of this genre then is the essential, creative, and artistic role played by the teacher. Together with the students,
she is integral to the creative process, both in terms of enabling learning
about the art form and the meaning generated through it. Given our belief
in the educational potency of process drama, it follows that we see that this
role has critical implications for the training of the teacher-artist, especially
the nondrama specialist. Although many drama specialists embrace process
drama wholeheartedly, it is true to say that many nonspecialists, particularly those teaching in elementary grades of school, can feel daunted by the
prospect of taking on the role of the teacher-artist within process drama.
While we are aware that the training of teacher-artists may be a complex
undertaking, the rewards, we fervently believe, are commensurate with the
effort involved. As teacher educators responding to these challenges, our
continuing work together is an attempt to deconstruct the process in order
that the role of the teacher (and the role of the learners) becomes clearer and
therefore more accessible.
One of the essential elements of process drama is the teacher working in
role within the drama with the learners. From this position at first glance, it
seems obvious that the teacher-artist within process drama is actually the
teacher-actor. However, delving more deeply into this genre, it becomes
evident that the successful teacher-artist in process drama actually needs to
function as playwright, director, and actor, as well as teacher. In essence,
this means that training programs need to teach beginning teachers to be all
of these things. However, it is our contention that too frequently, not least
because of time and curricular constraints and the current encouragement of
artist-in-schools projects, especially at the primary level, training programs
give high priority to teaching how to be a teacher but lower priority to the
61
62
and certainly do not convey fully the range and complexity of the systems
and dynamics at work as a drama unfolds in action.
So in furthering our work, the need to move beyond the entry level, preaction mode in order to focus more sharply on the complexities of the process in action-while the drama is happening-becomes imperative. Once
again, the approach will be of necessity similar, in that not everything can
be dealt with at once-not least because the process becomes more complex. However, by moving beyond the first layer and attempting to map the
practice of process drama, we hope to illuminate the possibility of alternative pathways through the drama and how the teacher and pupils together
carve out their creative journey toward meaningful artistic and educative
outcomes.
Moving to the Next Layer
As teachers, we all know that the acquisition of human knowledge and understanding is not an immediate thing. It is gained slowly, in action, often
over a period of many years. Those who set out to enable such acquisition
need to recognize this and understand that success for their pupils will grow,
incrementally, step-by-step, layer-by-layer. In promoting process drama as
a vehicle for such development, we recognize that the nature of process
drama is itself incremental and subtly layered. The poet and artist William
Blake wrote, "He who would do good to another, must do it in minute particulars . .. For Art and Science cannot exist but in minutely organised
particulars."6
Stimulated by this thought and informed by our own practice, we have
set ourselves the task of trying to identify the sorts of "minute particulars"
that a teacher needs to "organize" in order to build an incremental, subtly
layered process drama. However, in beginning this task, we have become
particularly aware of the difficulties inherent in developing a truly dynamic
model for process drama as it "unfolds in time and space and through
action, reaction and interaction."7
In effect, we see three distinct but utterly interrelated sets of increment
and layering taking place as teacher and learners become ever more sophisticated in their engagement with process drama. The first lies within the
learning of the pupils, in terms of the content of the drama but also in terms
of their understanding and confidence in aesthetic engagement with the art
form. The second lies within the unfolding structure of the process drama,
and the third within the continuing development of the teacher's ability to
create a process drama. To become confident and subtle in the structuring
of learning experiences for and with her pupils, the teacher needs to have a
grasp of all of these things.
The difficulties facing any researcher in attempting to develop a model
for the dynamic of process drama are the same as those faced in developing
63
However, in making our decision, we have chosen a place that for us lies at
the heart of the issue-the simultaneity of function and attendant action
that springsfromthe ways in which teacherand pupils need to engage with
process drama in order that it can happen.
As hinted at earlierin this article,part of the complex landscapeof process drama results from the teacher taking on the mantles of playwright,
director, and actor, but actually it is made more complex because the partici-
64
PamelaBowelland BrianHeap
This is even further compounded by the spontaneous, essentially improvisatory nature of process drama in particular and the temporal nature of theatre in general. It happens in what Dorothy Heathcote termed "now time"on the run, if you will-and this presents a particular kind of challenge to the
teacher, who needs to be equipped to make creative and educative decisions
with confidence in the present moment of the drama.9
QuadripartiteThinking
It seems to us that, under these circumstances, the teacher or facilitator of
the drama needs to adopt a kind of quadripartite thinking in order to manage this complex, creative, educative process. This approach appears to
resonate with notions of "quaternities" as outlined by Richard Courtney"Quaternity methods generate multiple meanings, spatial and inclusive."10
But if we take a sort of Wurzel Gummidge analogy for a moment,1 then the
teacher requires
* the head of the playwright needing to think about how to help the
children craft the narrative so the story unfolds in a way that carries
within it the learning;
* the head of the director needing to steer the children to the learning
within the narrative through the best dramatic performance structure;
* the head of the actor needing to give a performance that engages and
beguiles the children and supports and challenges them in the creation
of their own roles;
* the head of the teacher needing to hold all of the other thinking simultaneously, together with knowledge and understanding of the
real context of the children, classroom, school, community, culture,
and curriculum.
But, unlike Wurzel Gummidge, she needs to wear all the heads at once, in
the metaxis between two worlds and four functions.
We believe that, for the teacher, establishing the quadripartite thinking is
actually the starting point for successful process drama, and getting to that
point involves much of the preparation outlined in our earlier work about
the pre-action planning phase. During this planning process, the principles
of theme, context, role, frame, sign, and strategies all actually require the
teacher to address them from the standpoints of the playwright, the director, the actor, and the teacher. The importance of this is that the distillation
of the teacher's planning in these areas results in the creation of a river
flowing through the dramatic experience where the narrative will unfold
and where the desired learning objective may be reached-a process that
we have described as "thehourglassdilemma."12
However, as she moves on from the pre-action phase and she and the
participants enter into "now time" and the drama begins, the teacher needs
65
66
67
- givesa performance
whichengages,
Spectator-Actor
beguiles,supportsandchallengesthepupils
Spectator-Actor- learnshow to respondand
adjustbehaviourwithinfictionalcircumstances,
behaviour- feeds back to the
demonstrating
teacher...
... whois further
to respond
challenged
withherperformance
(andpossibly
newsetof negotiations)
andfeedbackto participants
- holdingeverything
Spectator-Teacher
togethertherealcontextof pupils,classroom,
school
and
curriculum
curriculum
~~anal~d
,,
-'
to evaluate,extendthat
... whois further
challenged
transformation
andfeedbackto participants
emerge from the experience. Significantly, since actively pursuing our particular line of enquiry into the nature of this particular form of aesthetic engagement, we have been encouraged by the discovery of not entirely
dissimilar ideas about learning from researchers working more generically
in education that appear to lend support to our approach.
The "colleagueness" between pupils and teacher generated by the cocreativity of process drama resonates with what Gordon Wells describes as
"a community of enquiry."16 In exploring processes of learning, he identifies "the spiral of knowing" and proposes that " ... for new information to
lead to enhanced understanding, it must be individually appropriated and
transformed; this . . . occurs through collaborative knowledge building."17
68
It seems to us that this is precisely what process drama has the capacity to
enable; further enhanced, indeed, by the presence of the aesthetic. Moreover, in her discussion of the hallmarks of the "creative professional" in
education, Kate Ashcroft proposes a "model of reflective action" that suggests that the creative professional " .. . undertakes a systematic and critical diagnosis of the context for action."18This, we feel, could at least in part
describe the quadripartite thinking of the process drama practitioner.
Our earlier work was an attempt to take beginning drama teachers
through the pre-action phase of their planning. But extending this work
into the action phase of the drama presents a somewhat more daunting task
simply because there are so many more variables at work-the variables of
theatre, the variables of education, the variables of community and culture,
as well as the variables of individual difference in pupils and in teachers.
We acknowledged implicitly the quadripartite thinking that the teacher
must undertake, and elements of this thinking-that of spectator-playwright, spectator-director, spectator-actor, and spectator-teacher-are inherent within the planning elements of theme, context, role, frame, sign,
and strategies.
However, things become more complicated when attempting to reveal
how this quadripartite thinking in the teacher draws out a reciprocal quadripartite response in pupils. This response in turn initiates a spiral of interchange and dialectic simultaneously in each of these areas that drives the
drama forward, all of which is unfolding in the dimensions of space and
time. The selection of one from the many potential paths along which the
unfolding drama might move is sometimes determined by very small choices
made-those minute particulars that are capable of shifting the dramatic
action along a "spectrum of circumstance," thus profoundly affecting the
quality and direction of the learning outcomes offered by the experience.
The teacher, without losing sight of her commitment to her chosen learning
objectives, is faced with exchanges with pupils that not only demand a clear
and immediate response but that may further influence the direction of the
drama.
And so, the teacher, in addition to carrying the responsibility for coordinating the constantly changing theatre elements, including her own performance and register in and out of role, as well as forging a satisfying drama
experience in creative partnership with the pupils, must base everything in
praxis. Through this action with contemplation all these disparate elements
may be held cohesively together and simultaneously moved forward toward meaningful dramatic resolution and the release of the learning potential
inherent within it.
Our initial premise advocated the development of teacher-artists as a
means of mitigating the uncertainties of changing government priorities
and ensuring an ongoing, developmental arts education for children. We
69
NOTES
1. J. Ackroyd, "AppliedTheatre:Problemsand Possibilities,"AppliedTheatreResearcher1, article 1, (2000), http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/cpci/atr/joural/
articlel_numberl.htm.
2. P. Bowell and B.S. Heap, Planning ProcessDrama (London: David Fulton
Publishers,2001),7.
3. For example, P. Taylor, "Afterthought:EvaluatingApplied Theatre,"Applied
TheatreResearcher,
3, article6 (2002),http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/cpci/atr/
joumal/article6_number3.htm.
4. Bowell and Heap, PlanningProcessDrama.
5. Bowell and Heap, PlanningProcessDrama,10.
6. W. Blake,Jerusalem:
TheEmanation
of theGiantAlbion(London:W. Blake,1804),
Chapter3, plate 55,1. 60.
7. Bowell and Heap, PlanningProcessDrama,7.
8. C. O'Neill, DramaWorlds:A Framework
for ProcessDrama(Portsmouth,N.H.:
Heinemann,1995),67.
9. L.Johnsonand C. O'Neill,eds., DorothyHeathcote:
Collected
Writingson Education
andDrama(London:Hutchinson,1984),162.
10. R. Courtney,Play,DramaandThought,4th ed., rev. (Toronto:Simon and Pierre,
1989),191.
11. Wurzel Gummidge-scarecrow characterfrom the classic children'sbook by
BarbaraEuphanTodd (1936)put on differentheads correspondingto the sorts
of thinkinghe needed to do.
12. P. Bowelland B.S. Heap, "TheSpectrumof Circumstance:TheInterconnectivity
of Context,Role and Framein ProcessDrama,"NJ DramaAustraliaJournal26,
no. 1/ IDEAJournal2 (2002),73.
13. J. Neelands, "ThreeTheatresWaiting:ArchitecturalSpace and Performance
Traditions,"TheResearch
(Victoria,B.C.:IDEA
of Practice,ThePracticeof Research
Publications,1998),149.
14. A. Boal,Theatre
(London:Pluto Press,1979).
of theOppressed
15. D. Heathcote,Piecesof Dorothy,videotape (Newcastle:Universityof Newcastle
upon Tyne, 1995).
16. G. Wells, "Inquiryas an Orientationfor Learning,Teachingand TeacherEducation,"in Learningfor
Lifein the21stCentury,ed. G. Wellsand G. Claxton(Oxford:
BlackwellPublishing,2002),200.
17. Ibid.,201.
18. K. Ashcroft,"Enquiryand the CreativeProfessional,"in TheCreative
Professional,
ed. K. Ashcroftand D. James(London:FalmerPress,1999),178.