REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER RESEARCH

PROCESS DRAMA IN TEACHING LITERATURE
Rumuthamalar A/P Rajaratnam
SMK Bandar Sungai Petani, Sungai Petani, Kedah


Introduction
Benton (1979) defined a reader as a performer who constructs a mental stage on which he places people, events, and scenes from a text. Piaget (1962) stresses on the importance of dramatic play in the child’s cognitive, social, affective, creative and moral development. In addition, Vygotsky (1978) emphasized the social nature of learning and development. Spontaneous dramatic play and teacher-led drama in the classroom are powerful social activities that engage both the intellect and emotions in a setting Vygotsky termed the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Process Drama uses dramatic forms to tell a story with a large group of students involved, whereby students and teacher share and create characters, setting, images and dialogue. There are no tryouts or prepared scripts. It is the process which is important and emphasized on, where all are involved, all are welcomed. Process Drama invites and validates students’ contribution and provides them with a standpoint from which to communicate (O’Neill, 1997). The process calls for critical thinking on the part of both the teacher and students and because drama is a social and inclusive art, it builds community in an active, social, and collaborative nature. Process Drama could allow both teacher and student to make personal and social connections that transcends the traditional limits set by the curriculum and mostly by archaic teacher beliefs. Process Drama strategies allows students to make text-to-text, text-to-self and text-to-world connections. This mode of differentiated instruction in the classroom could determine and modify teacher beliefs on how to invite students in as co-teachers and allow them to take responsibility in directing their own learning experiences.



Literature Review/ Background
Process Drama uses texts as starting points, exploring the spaces between episodes in literary texts to create the imagined world. Teachers initiate and move the drama along by assuming roles themselves. The shift from teacher-controlled classroom to a teacher-as-learner and student-as-teacher is what most research on Process Drama has focussed on. Often in drama, students are found to practice scaffolding (Griffin, 1984). Heathcote’s teacher-in-role and mantle of the expert strategies has been found to be powerful scaffolding devices for normal and hearing-impaired students (Manley, 1996). Wilkinson (1988) notes that students show greater understanding of the language as a powerful tool, whilst de la Cruz’s (1996) study on children with learning disabilities shows significant effect on oral expressive language.  Kao (1994) concluded that drama may activate student’s previously acquired knowledge and students were more actively engaged in problem-solving and reflections (Shacker, Juliebo, and Parker. 1994). The significance of reflective thought in drama has been proven vital (Borody 1995, Verriour 1984) and it can occur at any of these times: pre-drama, during-drama and post-drama and it can occur in three levels: personal, universal, and analogous reflection (Bolton 1979). The role of the teacher is to permit, to free, to encourage but not to force, reflection. Drama becomes a compelling medium because students become involved, engaged in all four skills and they participate because they want to engage in drama and they know why (Creery 1991). Studies generally agree that when a teacher and students improvise a drama, ‘they engage in problem-solving in a deep personal way through the fictional present” (Courtney 1985, 49).
Methods
The process  described here was a series of lessons based on action research and school-based projects funded by the The International Leaders in Education Program (ILEP) Alumni Small Grants Program. The overall purpose of the  project was to investigate how a variety of dramatic forms and techniques could be used to enhance students’ language and literacy development when reading a range of literary texts. Various Process Drama strategies (Mantle-of-the-Expert, Hotseating, Writing-in-Role, Tableau, Role Play, Meeting-of-Tailors, etc) were incorporated with Literature Circle sessions with a class of 27, Form 2 students using the prescribed text “The Phantom of the Opera”  over a period of six months ( April – September 2009) and with a class of 34, Form 4 students using the new prescribed texts “In the Midst of Hardship” by Latiff Mohidin and “QWERTYUIOP” by Vivial Alcock (January – April 2010). The lessons were designed to analyze how process drama strategies employed during the reading of a literary text might serve to develop critical reading skills (in this case, revolving around issues dealing with reflective thinking).  My role in the classroom was as both teacher and researcher. I facilitated and participated in-role in each session in the classroom, observed and took field notes. Other data-gathering techniques included videotaping, semi-structured audio, and written work samples from children and researcher reflective journals.
Findings and Conclusions
My general observation was that these students were able to explore the physical nuances that contribute to the development of both the characters and the themes. Students also indicated that they reread the text to delve more deeply into the meaning. Of interest was the amount of discussion about the roles of the Phantom and Miss Broome (the ghost in Alcock’s QWERTYUIOP) that these rereadings prompted. We viewed each assigned group’s tableau and sketches, and discussed what it was saying. From their comments, it was evident that students were attending to both the drama and the English teaching and learning focus by using reflective processes. In particular, the students were attending to the multiple interpretations each individual brings to a reading of a text. The ensuing discussions provided evidence that many children were moving beyond surface impressions to discover and penetrate the deeper meaning of the issues both in the book and in their own situations. When one student commented that Miss Broome was just like a bully, almost everyone wanted to give reasons as to why children bully and how to address the bully. The boy who played Erik, the phantom insisted on designing a mask which he wore to class. Within the protection of the mask, he could express an opinion in front of the class that he otherwise would not have dared. He could justify how he felt (real life) by being in role as Erik. After a Hot-seating and Wall-of-Thoughts session, students wrote journal entries in role as Erik which showed in depth understanding of Erik’s pain, anger and hurt. Students were transacting with the text and delving below surface impressions to study and understand the character. I can vouch that the same depth of understanding would not have happened without the preceding drama activities.
The drama sessions helped illustrate how such activities can precede talking, listening, reading and writing activities or be interwoven with them. By making personal connections to events in the book, students can deeply explore issues both within and beyond their immediate lives. Furthermore, the protection of being in role allowed most to feel they had a voice to speak and the right to be heard. Students could debate and challenge their own thoughts and the thoughts of others from an “as if” or “what if” stance. As one student said after the drama sessions, “Erik was hurt badly. How would you feel if your mom does not touch or hug you, and makes you wear a mask? What would you do if people shouted and screamed when they saw you? I would be very angry at all, mainly at women. Ugly is not bad.” This is ample prove that my students realise there’s a link between reality and fiction. The most rewarding aspect of these action researches is that my students and I collaborate actively and they have begun taking responsibility for their learning and they cue me in to what they need to learn. That, I would say is the greatest partnership in the teaching and learning process.
References
Bolton, Gavin. Towards a Theory of Drama in Education. London: Longman, 1979.
Brown, Victoria, and Sarah Pleydell. The Dramatic Difference: Drama in the Preschool and Kindergarten Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1999.
Courtney, Richard. ‘The Dramatic Metaphor and Learning.’ In Judith Kase-Polisini, ed., Creative Drama in a Developmental Context. New York: University Press of America, 1985.
Manley, Anita, and Cecily O’Neill. Dreamseekers: Creative Approaches to the African American Heritage. ix –xv, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1997.
Manley, Anita.’Aspects of the Process’: in Dreamseekers: Creative Approaches to the African American Heritage, 85-103, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1997.
Miller, Carole, and Julia Saxton. Into the Story: Language in Action through Drama. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2004.
Swartz, Larry. The New Drama Themes. 3rd ed. Ontario, Canada: Pembroke, 2002.
Wagner, Betty Jane. ‘A Theoretical Framework for Educational Drama and Oral Language’, in  Educational Drama and Language Arts: What Research Shows, 15-55, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1998.
Wilhelm, Jeffrey D.,and Brian Edmiston. Imagining to Learn: Inquiry, Ethics, and Integration through Drama. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1998.
Hertzberg, Margery. Engaging Critical Reader Response to Literature through Process Drama. Reading Online, no. 10 (June 2003). http://www.readingonline.org/international/inter_index.asp?HREF=hertzberg/

Sun, Ping-Yun. Using Drama and Theatre To Promote Literacy Development: Some Basic Classroom Applications. ERICDigests.org. ED477613 (December 2003). http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-1/drama.htm





No comments:

Post a Comment