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/
No comments:
Post a Comment