A Taxonomical Study of the Nature and Behavioral Objectives of Creative Dramatics

Author(s): Ann M. Shaw

Source: Educational Theatre Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 1970), pp. 361-372
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3205416 .
Accessed: 02/05/2011 02:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Educational Theatre Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
 ANN M. SEAW

A Taxonomical Study of the Nature and

Behavioral Objectives of Creative
Dramatics

eaders in the field of children's drama in the United States and their col-
L
leagues in colleges, universities, and elementary schools have recognized
the need for further definition of the nature and goals of creative dramatics, that
form of educational drama which encompasses types of improvised drama in
which children under the guidance of a trained leader create characters, scenes,
and plays and perform them with improvised action and/or dialogue for an
audience usually limited to the participants themselves.'
Individual textbook writers and committees established by the Children's
Theatre Conference have clarified many of the terms and procedures used by the
field. They have not, however, specifically delineated the educational objectives,
the discovery processes, and the subject matter perspectives which distinguish
creative dramatics from other studies. Educational aims expressed in global,
panacean terms and as matters of established fact rather than expressions of intent
typify the rhetoric of the field. Such tendencies may be noted in the following
examples. "Through the art of creative dramatics," Siks writes, "children and
youth can be guided into developing a strength of spirit such as the world has
never known."2 Burger, advocating the use of educational techniques which will
effectively develop "the major attributes of the well-balanced, happy, contributive
personality" claims that "creative dramatics is a successful means to that end
because it is democratic in method, teaches through conditioning, sharpens imagi-
nation and sensitivity, deepens human understanding, adjusts emotional tensions,
develops resourcefulness and initiative, helps to build patterns of behavior, and
stimulates body flexibility and oral communication."3 Ward states that "long
after . . . [the child] ceases to express himself actively in drama his experiences
in theatre are many and delightful, for he has developed a lasting interest which
brings great satisfaction.'" "Out of the program's rhythmic exercises," says
Kerman, "emerges the well co-ordinated child. . . . Enacting characters of differ-
Ann M. Shaw is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Arts & Sciences at
Queens College of the City University of New York. This article is based on Miss Shaw's
doctoral dissertation which was completed at Teachers College, Columbia University in 1968.
1 For discussions of need see: Ann Viola, "Drama With and For Children: An
Interpretation
of Terms," Educational Theatre Journal, VIII (May 1956), 139-142; Clarence Simon's keynote
address to the 1956 Children's Theatre Conference in Agnes Haaga, "Twelfth Annual Children's
Theatre Meeting," ETJ, VIII (December 1956), 316; Jack Morrison, "Foreword," Children's
Theatre and Creative Dramatics, eds. Geraldine Brain Siks and Hazel Brain Dunnington
(Seattle, 1961), pp. ix-xi; Geraldine Brain Siks, "An Appraisal of Creative Dramatics," ETJ,
XVII (December 1965), 328-334.
2Geraldine Brain Siks, Creative Dramatics: An Art for Children (New York, 1958)
p. 44.
3 Isabel B. Burger, Creative Play Acting, 2nd ed. (New York, 1966), p. 11.
4 Winifred Ward, Playmaking with Children, 2nd ed. (New York, 1957), P. 4.

361 /
 362 / EDUCATIONAL THEATRE JOURNAL

ent backgrounds,the child broadens his outlook and judgment."5 Durland

describesthe purposeof work in creativedramaticsas "the building of a living
and vital life philosophy through the discussion of fine moral and esthetic
values."6
If such unqualifiedstatementswere intended as researchhypotheses,or if the
authors presented operational definitions of terms and evidence that the state-
ments were supportedby the outcomesof controlledinvestigation,it seems likely
that creativedramaticswould be a central subject in the elementaryschool cur-
riculum rather than the peripheralone it is now. Clarificationof educational
goals is not only necessaryto the furtherdiscoveryof knowledgeand development
of proceduresin the field itself but, given the competition for a place in the
elementaryschool program,in a child's after school time, and in college course
offerings,is imperativeto the field's survival.
An approachto the specificationof objectiveswhich has not been made, and
which is basic to the understandingof any educationalpursuit, is an analysisof
the behaviorsthe learner is expected to exhibit in or as a result of his study.
Stating what the creativedramaticsparticipantis expected to think, do, and feel
and the processesand subjectmattershe is expected to deal with should reduce
many of the problemswe face in determiningcurriculumcontents and sequences,
in assessingthe child's progress,in establishingmasterylevels, and in generating
hypothesesfor further research. Moreover,an analysisof such behavioralobjec-
tives should provide insights regarding the field's nature, that is, the essential
characterof creative dramaticswhich relates it to a learning discipline and dis-
tinguishesit from other areasof study, and furnish a basis for discussionsof the
particularcontribution creative dramaticsmight make to the education of the
child.
Although clearand distinctivestatementsof learningintents are seldom present
in writingsin the area,an analysisof a sampleof theseworksindicatedthat specific
behavioralobjectiveswere implied in and/or could be derived from discussions
of philosophy and descriptionsof proceduresand class sessions.
An investigation of this kind requires finding or developing a construct
sufficientlystable and neutral to make systematicand objective definition and
analysispossible. The taxonomicalsystemdevelopedby Bloom, Krathwohl,et al.
in the two parts of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives7was selected as the
model constructfor the investigation. This taxonomywas intended to provide a
classificationstructurewhich could contain the goals of our educational system
and apply to all disciplines and fields of study. Several considerationsdictated
5 Gertrude Lerner Kerman, Plays and Creative Ways with Children (Irvington-on-Hudson,
New York, 1961), p. 4.
6 Frances Caldwell Durland, Creative Dramatics for Children
(Yellow Springs, Ohio, 1952),
p. 35.
7 Benjamin S. Bloom, ed., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educa-
tional Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain (New York, 1956); David R. Krathwohl, Benjamin
S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective
Domain (New York, 1964).
 363 / OBJECTIVES OF CREATIVE DRAMATICS

the choice of this model. First of all, the parameters of the creative dramatics field
were too diffuse to guide the development of a reliable instrument. Further, since
there has been lack of agreement on what creative dramatics is and with what
learning discipline it is most closely allied, a model which took a particular per-
spective, such as one based on aesthetic theory and principles, would prejudice the
findings. Additionally, the chosen construct provides extensive descriptions of
specific behaviors which are particularly helpful when one attempts to examine
ambiguous statements, an assistance not available in systems such as Guilford's.8
Finally, it was hoped that the use of a construct which ordered behaviors develop-
mentally and related them to the general objectives of the educational process
would give a basis from which to examine curricular sequence and mastery and
from which to communicate the relation of creative dramatics to the general aims
of the educational system.
The study intended to derive the behavioral objectives of creative dramatics
from representative writings in the field, to develop a taxonomy of cognitive and
affective behaviors in creative dramatics, and to examine the behavioral objec-
tives and nature of the field as indicated by the developed instrument. The
following account of the investigation will be limited to a description of the
methodology and a presentation and discussion of findings. The developed
"Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in Creative Dramatics," hereafter referred
to as Taxonomy, exceeds ninety pages in length and will be illustrated by one of
the categories included in the instrument.

METHOD
Selection of sample.-The Taxonomy is based on an analysis of selected writ-
ings in the creative dramatics field. Although what people say they do may
differ considerably from actual practice, the printed page allows repeated analysis
of the same material thus controlling some of the variables which exist in a live
situation. Further, analysis of the behavioral objectives of actual class sessions
would depend upon the development of a framework such as the Taxonomy
within which systematic observations could be made.

The primary criteria and rationale used in the initial selection of the sample
was that the work be written by United States authors since it is assumed that
they have exerted the greatest influence on creative dramatics practices in this
country; that they deal with kindergarten through junior high school age chil-
dren; that they be mainly concerned with "non-special" populations, thus elimi-
nating factors peculiar to work with the physically handicapped, emotionally
disturbed, etc.; and that the writings be current and available as reflected by
listings in the 1967 edition of Bowker's Books In Print, in periodicals published
between January 1957 and January 1968, and in dissertations completed between
January 1962 and January 1968. These arbitrary time limits reflect the opinion
that dissertations and articles prior to this time would probably be represented in
later publications if they continue to influence the field.
8 J. P. Guilford, The Nature of Human
Intelligence (New York, 1967).
 364 / EDUCATIONAL THEATRE JOURNAL

The criteria yielded eight books, four manuals, thirty-nine articles in periodi-
cals, one monograph, two pamphlets, and two dissertations. Further examination
reduced the sample upon which the study is based to all books listed as "in print"
in 1967, one monograph, one manual, and one pamphlet.9 Those book chapters
which dealt with the production of scripted plays for audiences were not used in
the study.

Identification of educational objectives.-The selected sources were searched

for any statements which explicitly or implicitly suggested the behavior the child
participant in creative dramatics was intended to manifest. These statements
were transferred verbatim onto McBee Keysort cards with source, author, and
context noted.

Classification procedures.-Self-training trials were conducted in interpreting

the taxonomical model and in classifying a sample of randomly chosen behavioral
statements into the major and minor categories of the cognitive and affective
domains of the model. Following training procedures, all of the statements were
classified into the major categories of both domains in three masked trials, a pro-
cedure in which the investigator's preceding decisions are made unavailable to
him as he repeats efforts to deal with the same data. The statements were re-
shuffled each time and forty-eight hours were allowed to elapse between trials
as a further means of enhancing the independence of each classification attempt.
A statement was retained if classification was duplicated in two out of the three
trials. The retained statements were then submitted to three additional masked
and delayed classification trials into the sub-categories of both domains. Dupli-
cation of classification in two out of three of these trials resulted in the retention
of the statements upon which the Taxonomy is based.

Development of the Taxonomy.-The statements classified into the categories

of both domains were examined for behavioral and subject matter commonalities
and three levels of definition of the behavior as it pertains to creative dramatics
were developed for each category. For example, in analyzing the statements
which had been isolated in the 2.io Translation category of the Cognitive
Domain, the investigator asked, "What kinds of translations is the child expected
to make? . . . Translations in regard to what?" Using this approach, it was
possible to discover clusters of objectives related to the ability to translate a
verbal description into dramatic action or into another verbal form such as
translating exposition into dialogue; the ability to translate descriptions of a
person's psychological state into vocal inflections, dialogue, and action; and the
ability to translate actions, images, or internalized speech into oral language.
9 The sample consisted of: Isabel Burger's Creative Play Acting, 2nd ed. (New York, 1966);
Richard Crosscup's Children and Dramatics (New York, 1966); Gertrude Kerman's Plays and
Creative Ways with Children (New York, 1961); Frances Durland's Creative Dramatics for
Children (Yellow Springs, Ohio, 1952); Geraldine Brain Siks's Creative Dramatics: An Art for
Children (New York, 1958); Pamela Prince Walker's Seven Steps to Creative Children's Dramatics
(New York, 1957); Winifred Ward's Playmaking with Children, 2nd ed. (New York, 1957); one
monograph: Children's Theatre and Creative Dramatics, eds. Geraldine Brain Siks and Hazel
Brain Dunnington (Seattle, 1961); one manual: Burdette Fitzgerald's Let's Act the Story
(Palo Alto, 1957); one pamphlet: Creative Dramatics published by Association for Childhood
Education International (Washington, 1961).
 365 / OBJECTIVES OF CREATIVE DRAMATICS

The first level of definition consists of a discussion of the ways in which the
particular behavior is demonstrated in creative dramatics and the typical subject
matter involved. The second level of definition takes the form of educational
objectives and is intended to illustrate statements suited to guiding course and
curriculum development. The third level of definition corresponds to and opera-
tionalizes the educational objectives indicating the specificity needed to direct
daily instructional planning and assessment. Although based on statements iso-
lated from the sources, each of these levels of definition is the invention of the
investigator and must, therefore, be considered an interpretation of the field.

RESULTS
The taxonomical instrument.-The Cognitive Domain of the model and of the
Taxonomy deals with those educational outcomes which emphasize the recall or
recognition of knowledge and the development of intellectual skills and abilities,
often referred to as "critical thinking" abilities. The categories and subcategories
of the Cognitive Domain are ordered on a continuum which is based on the
complexity and abstractness of an expected behavior. These range from the
relatively simple and concrete act of recall and recognition at the 1.oo Knowledge
level and progress to the highly complex and abstract acts of Synthesis, the
category specifically related to creative behaviors, and of Evaluation at the 5.oo
and 6.oo levels, respectively. Each subsequent category requires and includes the
behaviors in the categories below it. For example, in order for a child to be able
to invent a unique pantomime, a behavior classified in the 5.oo Synthesis category,
he must be able, among other things, to remember presentational requirements
of this dramatic form, a behavior classified as 1.25 Knowledge of Methodology.

The Affective Domain of the Taxonomy concentrates on those educational

objectives which emphasize a feeling tone, an emotion, or a degree of acceptance
or rejection. These behavioral aims are often expressed in such words as "cares
about," "is interested in," "believes," "values," "feels," "identifies with," "sensitive
to," "empathy," etc. Affective behaviors are hierarchically classified on a con-
tinuum organized around the concept of internalization which Krathwohl defines
as "the process by which the phenomenon or value successively and pervasively
becomes a part of the individual."'" The continuum ranges from behaviors at
the 1.o level which suggest that the person is simply aware of a phenomenon to
behaviors at the 5.0 level where a value or value complex has become so internal-
ized that it might be said to characterize the individual.

Although space does not permit the inclusion of the entire Taxonomy, the
serve as an illustration of the instrument's
2.3o Extrapolation category may
content and form. Extrapolation is considered the most complex and abstract of
'the comprehension behaviors. The category appears as follows:
2.30 Extrapolation
The extension of trends or tendencies beyond the given data to deter-
mine implications, consequences, corollaries, effects, etc., which are in
Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, p. 28.
o10
 366 / EDUCATIONAL THEATRE JOURNAL

accordance with the conditions described in the original communication.

(Bloom,p. 205)
The creative dramatics student is expected to make inferences on the basis of
the stimulus material presented in the creative dramatics class. The development
of skills in extrapolating from material and interpolating gaps in it while observ-
ing the confines of the material itself requires both convergent and divergent
thinking ability. Extrapolation may be viewed as directly involved with con-
structing and testing inferences. Kerman indicates the use of Extrapolation skills
as a method of building dramatic tension when she says: "The urgency in a
situation increases when the player asks of himself, 'What will happen to me
if... ?' Or to phrase it technically, 'What are the consequences for me?' 'What
is at stake? "' (Kerman, p. 32). As in educational objectives related to Interpreta-
tion, the student is expected to be able to extrapolate both as an objective observer
and from the standpoint of one who is subjectively involved in the situation.
The following quotations are illustrations of statements classified as Extrapola-
tion objectives: "As the children watched the snow, the teacher asked them to
think about the first thing they would do when they got out in the snow" (Woods
and Pirtle, p. 14). "Some exercises will establish, not what one is doing now, but
what one is about to do or what one has just done" (Crosscup, p. 54). "And then
what could happen that would make you feel just the opposite?" (Burger, p. 18).
2.30 Extrapolation--Illustrative Educational Objectives:
A. The ability to make inferences which are based on the material, but which
go beyond it into the area of future outcomes.
B. The ability to make inferences as to possible causal factors in the past which
might explain a character or situation, but which are not stated in the
material.
C. The ability to interpolate gaps which may occur within the presented
material.
2.30 Extrapolation-Illustrative Instructional Objectives:
A. Presented with a problem situation and asked to resolve it, the class is
able to predict outcomes of the situation and conflict, and can state at least
two resolutions which are logically warranted by the circumstances and data
originally presented.
B. After hearing the story of The Golden Touch, the children are able to state
at least three plausible causes for the change in King Midas' behavior from
a man who once enjoyed walking in his beautiful gardens, playing with his
daughter, and considering the problems of his subjects to a man who spends
all of his time in his treasure room counting his gold.

C. Given the outline of a problem-conflict situation involving three characters,

the children are able to suggest transitional material which would unify
the scene.
 367/ OF CREATIVE
OBJECTIVES DRAMATICS

Validity and reliability of the Taxonomy.-The Taxonomy has not been vali-
dated. In regard to content validity, it seems certain that the statements isolated
for classification represent the behavioral objectives contained in the writings.
However, whether the writings accurately reflect the actual practices in the field or
whether the investigator has correctly interpreted the taxonomical model and the
intents of the creative dramatics writers has not been established. Some degree
of reliability is indicated by the duplication of classification of each statement
in the repeated masked trials. Validity and reliability issues must be submitted
to controlled testing before the instrument can be considered perfected.

Range and emphasis of expected behaviors.-Table 1 indicates the range and

emphasis of cognitive behaviors in creative dramatics. When analyzed in relation
to subject matter and mode, the behaviors center around the recall and recogni-
tion of knowledge related to the contents, methods, principles, terminology, and
criteria of the discipline of drama/theatre; the development of intellectual skills
and abilities related to the comprehension of communications; the synthesis of
parts and elements into a dramatic whole which was not clearly there before; and,
the evaluation of materials and methods in terms of their potential for communi-
cating the particular ideas and feelings intended.
The affective behaviors the field seeks to develop are indicated in Table 2 and
emphasize responding and valuing. In general, they revolve around internaliza-
tion of the ideal that all life has meaning and is worthy of our attempts to
understand it. Particularly, the affective objectives stress commitment to belief
in the ability, right, and responsibility of the individual to discover and express
his own unique ideas and feelings; to pursuit of a clearer and more complete
understanding of one's self and others through the process of consciously and
purposefully imagining one's self in the place of another; and to the willingness
to assume responsibility for and to value group effort in exploring and expressing
ideas related to the human condition.

The nature of creative dramatics.-An analysis of the contents and processes

contained in the classified educational objectives shows creative dramatics to lie
within the matrix of humanistic studies and to be specifically and essentially
related to the discipline of drama/theatre. The field concerns itself primarily
with the meaning of human life revealed in acts of the individual man and with
the apprehension, representation, and expression of these meanings through the
dramatic form.

The methodology employed in creative dramatics, that is, the principles of

procedure which govern the search for and expression of meaning, is identical
to that used in drama/theatre. These procedures are based on principles of
dramatic structure, criteria for evaluating presentations in the dramatic form, and
to processes and techniques used in the development of characterizations and
scenes. The primary method of inquiry is that of observation of life and the
imaginative projection of self into the role of another and/or into hypothetical
environments and problem situations. The mode in which meanings are
 368 / EDUCATIONAL THEATRE JOURNAL

TABLE I
NUMBERS OF STATEMENTS AND DIFFERENT AUTHORS REPRESENTED IN THE CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM ON WHICH THE TAXONOMY WAS BASED: COGNITIVE DOMAIN

CLASSIFICATIONS STATEMENTS AUTHORS

i.oo Knowledge

i.io Knowledge of Specifics..................................... 53 9

1.11 Knowledge of Terminology .................. .......... 18 4
1.12 Knowledge of specific facts ................................ 35 9
1.20o Knowledge of Ways and Means of Dealing with Specifics ...... 63 8
1.21 Knowledge of conventions .................. ............. 14 5
1.22 Knowledge of trends & sequences ........................ 5
xo
*1.23 Knowledge of classifications & categories ................... o o
1.24 Knowledge of criteria .................................... 16 5
1.25 Knowledge of methodology ...................... ......... 23 6

1.30o Knowledge of the Universals & Abstractions in a Field ........ 18 6

1.31 Knowledge of principles & generalizations ................. 18 6
*1.32 Knowledge of theories & structures ........................ o o
2.00 Comprehension

2.1o Translation ........................................ 41 1o

2.20 Interpretation ........................... ............. 56 9
2.30 Extrapolation ......................... ............... 26 9

*3.00 Application 6 4
........................................
4.oo00Analysis

4.1o Analysis of Elements ....................................... 15 8

4.20 Analysis of Relationships ................................... 15 6
*4.30 Analysis of Organizational Principles ........................ o o

5.00 Synthesis
Production of a Unique Communication .................... 42 9
5.o1
5.20 Production of a Plan or Proposed Set of Operations .......... 36 9
*5.30 Derivation of a Set of Abstract Relations ................... .. 3 3
6.oo Evaluation

6.oo (General Category) ........................................ 20 8

6.10o Judgments in Terms of Internal Evidence ................... 20 6
6.20 Judgments in Terms of External Criteria .................... 15 5

Totals by Main Divisions-Cognitive Domain:

1.oo Knowledge ................................ ........... 134 9
2.00 Comprehension ........................................... 123 10o
*3.oo Application ........................................ 6 4
4.oo Analysis ........................................ 3o 1o
5.oo Synthesis ........................................ 81 1o
6.oo Evaluation ................................ ........... 55 8

*These divisions are generally defined in the Taxonomy, but are not delineated due to limited
number of objectives identified.
 369 / OBJECTIVES OF CREATIVE DRAMATICS

TABLE II
NUMBERSOF STATEMENTS
AND DIFFERENTAUTHORSREPRESENTED
IN THE CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEMON WHICHTHE TAXONOMY WAS BASED:AFFECTIVEDOMAIN

CLASSIFICATIONS STATEMENTSAUTHORS

1.o Receiving (Attending)

*i.l Awareness ........................................ 1 1
* 1.2 W
illingness to Receive ................... .... .............. 5 4
1.3 Controlled or Selected Attention .................. .......... 20 6
2.0 Responding
2.1 Acquiescence in Responding.................................. 18 6
2.2 Willingness to Respond ................................ ..... 23 9
2.3 Satisfaction in Response....................... ........... 36 1o
3.0 Valuing
3.1 Acceptance of a Value ..................................... 25 7
*3.2 Preference for a Value................... ..... ........... 8 5
3-3 Comm itment ...................... ............ ... ........ 15 6
*4.0 Organization
*4.1 Conceptualization of a Value.............................. 5 3
*4.2 Organization of a Value System .............................. 5 4
*5.0 Characterization by a Value or Value Complex
*5.1 Generalized Set ........................ o o
...................
*5.2 Characterization ............. ............................. . 6 4
Totals by Main Divisions-Affective Domain:
1.o Receiving (Attending) ...................................... 26 7
2.0 Responding ........................................ 77 11
3.0 Valuing ..................................... .......... 48 8
*4.0 Organization .................... .......... o 7
...............
*5.0 Characterization by a Value or Value Complex ................ 6 4

*These divisions are generally defined in the Taxonomy, but are not delineated due to limited
number of objectives identified.

expressed is that of improvised enactment. Criteria for evaluation are based on

aesthetic principles and principles of communication interaction.

DISCUSSION
The taxonomical model and, consequently, the developed instrument have a
particular strength and weakness, both of which result from the specificity of
taxonomy. While the separation of the two domains allows one to isolate and
examine behaviors in detail, a great advantage when attempting to structure
and describe a diffuse field, such a division is artificial and does not represent
the real world where every behavior contains cognitive and affective loadings.
These points should be kept in mind in considering the results of the study and
in using the instrument.
 370 / EDUCATIONAL THEATRE JOURNAL

There is no question but what the creative dramatics field expects to elicit
an extensive and comprehensive range of cognitive and affective behaviors.
Nevertheless, several matters involving apparent behavioral emphases require
consideration. The totals in Table 3 suggest that the field emphasizes cognitive
objectives over affective ones. This disparity is questionable. Unlike cognitive
intents which are primarily indicated by the denotative aspect of words, affective
aims are often housed in the connotative meaning of the words and in the sub-
textual clues provided by vocal inflection and physical expression. Unless directly
stated in words, then, as in York's statement: "Another attitude which can be
an influence in directing a child's life is inherent in the playing of drama just for
the sake of the playing, without any thought of future plaudits from an audi-
ence." 11affective objectives may not be exposed by the printed page. Those who
use the written word to communicate creative dramatics should make every effort
to state their affective goals, e.g., the feelings, attitudes, and values they are
attempting to develop, as precisely as possible.

TABLE III
TOTAL NUMBER OF STATEMENTS AND DIFFERENT AUTHORS REPRESENTED IN MAIN DIVISIONS OF
THE COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DOMAINS OF THE TAXONOMY

DOMAINS & DIVISIONS STATEMENTS AUTHORS

Cognitive Domain:
i.oo Knowledge ............................................... 134 9
2.oo Comprehension ............................................ 123 10

*3.00 Application .................. .. 6 4

.........................
4.oo Analysis ............................................ 30 10o
5.00 Synthesis ........................................ 81 to
6.oo Evaluation .................................................. 55 8
Affective Domain:
i.o Receiving (Attending) ....................................... 26 7
2.0 Responding ............................. ........... 77 11
3.0 Valuing ........................................ 48 8
*4.0 Organization .................................... ........ 1o 7
*5.0 Characterization by a Value or Value System ................. 6 4

Totals:

Cognitive Domain ................................... ..... 429 to

Affective Domain ............ ........................ 167 11

*These divisions are generally defined in the Taxonomy, but are not delineated due to limited
number of objectives identified.

The knowledge total is misleading, also. Many of the statements so classified

clearly aimed at a higher level of critical thinking, but they were so ambiguous
that the more complex behavior could not be determined and so fell by default
into the knowledge division.
11 Eleanor Chase York, "Values to Children from Creative Dramatics," Children's Theatre and
Creative Dramatics, p. 129.
 371/ OF CREATIVE
OBJECTIVES DRAMATICS

With the exception of 3.00 Application, a category which the authors of the
taxonomical model find largely inapplicable to humanistic studies,12 the paucity
of objectives in indicated divisions and sub-categories of the Cognitive Domain is
probably attributable to the age of the students, the usual brevity of their expos-
ure to creative dramatics, and the fact that creative dramatics is usually the first
instructed work in drama. These factors may also explain the apparent emphasis
on 2.oo Comprehension over the 5.00 Synthesis division which encompasses crea-
tive thinking abilities and which might be supposed to receive the major emphasis
in creative dramatics work. Given the usual inexperience of the participant, the
field's emphasis on the skills which provide a base for the more abstract and
complex behaviors involved in the generation of creative works seems appropriate.
Consistency is shown in the field's de-emphasis of the highest sub-categories of
the Knowledge, Analysis, and Synthesis divisions, all of which focus on the
student's ability to deal with a body of complex phenomena in a systematic way.
While the complexity and difficulty level of behaviors at the 4.30 Analysis of
Organizational Principles and the 5-30 Derivation of a Set of Abstract Relations
levels may be more appropriately the goals of high school and college studies in
drama, the creative dramatics field might increase its contribution to the develop-
ment of artistic intelligence by emphasizing the 1.23 Knowledge of Classifications
and Categories and 1.32 Knowledge of Theories and Structures levels, for these
provide a foundation for the more complex behaviors.
The distribution of figures in the Affective Domain is questionable, for state-
ments were often ambiguous and placement in categories was not often accom-
panied by a feeling of certainty despite the duplication of attempts. While a large
part of the problem was due to the imprecise language of the writers, it is my
opinion that the taxonomical model is itself somewhat equivocal in its definition
of affective behaviors. The slight emphasis given the lowest sub-categories sup-
ports the comment frequently made by creative dramatics leaders and other adult
observers, i.e., that it is seldom difficult to motivate children to pay attention in
creative dramatics. Although many of the writers seem to link participation in
creative dramatics with the construction of a life philosophy and style, only a
few objectives were classifiable at the 4.0 and 5.0 levels, the categories which
would correspond to such intentions. Whether or not such aims are appropriate
is open to question, for research indicates that behaviors at this level are devel-
oped over a period of years or an entire lifetime and cannot be reached in a single
course or even, perhaps, in the total span of formal education.'3
One of the most intriguing and aggravating aspects of the study was the indica-
tion that there is a kind of response intended in creative dramatics which is not
classifiable in either the Taxonomy or the model construct. Characteristic of
aesthetic experiences, this response might be described as a sense of being one
with what is being imagined or perceived. While escaping precise behavioral
definition, and this may be where the problem lies, the sense of something missing
has remained omnipresent throughout the investigation. The extensive beha-
12 Bloom, p. 124.
13 Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, p. 165.
 372 / EDUCATIONAL THEATRE JOURNAL

vioral check list which the Taxonomy provides may, however, assist the eventual
definition of this missing element.
It was hoped that this research would offer insights regarding the nature of
creative dramatics. As indicated by the preceding discussion of results, it has.
If one views a subject of study as a unit within a field of disciplined inquiry
which contains and is concerned with a connected set of particular meanings and
concepts, and which has developed a systematic way of uncovering and communi-
cating those meanings, creative dramatics would appear to be a subject based in
the discipline of drama. The writers studied do not, however, clearly relate the
raison d'etre of creative dramatics to the meanings and methodology of the disci-
pline. The field would be well advised to stop describing itself in such terms as
"an activity," "a personality development subject," "a teaching technique," and
start investigating the particular perspectives on the human condition and the
unique ways of pursuing them which it embraces as a study concerned with the
dramatic imagination.
The investigation raises a number of questions for further study, among which
are: How does the ability to put one's self in the place of another relate to
development of self, of social awareness, and of oral communication skills and
artistry? How does enactment within a dramatic context affect the child's mastery
of concepts and processes and his internalization of value structures? How can
entering, developing, and terminal behaviors in creative dramatics be assessed?
When the field speaks of "believing" and "believability," what manner of organ-
ismic involvement is expected and how are such goals behaviorally defined?
Even though the Taxonomy has not been validated it provides the field with
an instrument which may be a useful guide to defining objectives in behavioral
terms and to developing and sequencing creative dramatics curricula in accord
with the order in which complex behaviors are considered to
develop. Offering
insights regarding the nature and goals of creative dramatics, the study provides
a basis for further examination and communication of the distinctive contribu-
tion creative dramatics might make to human development.