A Prelude to Mapping the Practice of Process Drama

7/25/2019 A Prelude to Mapping the Practice of Process Drama

1/13

Drama on the Run: A Prelude to Mapping the Practice of Process DramaAuthor(s): Pamela Bowell and Brian HeapSource: Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 39, No. 4, Special Issue: Aesthetics in Drama andTheatre Education (Winter, 2005), pp. 58-69Published by: University of Illinois PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3527392

Accessed: 05/01/2010 10:02

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=illinois.

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 [email protected].

University of Illinois Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of

Aesthetic Education.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3527392?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinoishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinoishttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3527392?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/13

Drama

on the

Run:

A Preludeto

Mapping

the

Practiceof ProcessDrama

PAMELA

BOWELL

AND BRIAN

HEAP

In

the current

educational climate

prevailing

in

a number of

countries,

in-

creased 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

school-

visual 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 undeni-

ably

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 lead-

ing

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

Way

of

Changing

Attitudes

with

Anthony Simpson.

Journal

of

Aesthetic

Education,

Vol.

39,

No.

4,

Winter 2005

?2005 Board

of

Trustees

of the

University

of

Illinois


3/13

Drama on the Run

59

the status of teacher.

In

our

own

experience

too,

the nature of

educational

funding

can be

extremely

volatile,

subject

to all kinds

of

shifts in the

pre-

vailing

political

and

economic

climate,

as

well

as

adjustments

o the

ways

in

which fundingis applied according o the social and educationalpriorities

of the time.

Too

frequently,

ducation

alls

victim

to what

might

be

described

as the-flavor-of-the-month

yndrome.

Those who

are

involved

with

teacher

education,

both

pre-

and

in-service,

make

superhuman

efforts

to

respond

with

alacrity

o the new demands

as

courses are reviewed and

reorganizedaccordingly.

The trainees

of the

next

generation

find

themselves

with a new

party

ine

to

toe as their

courses

conform

to

the

new

priority.

This is

all

well

and

good-until

the

priority

changes

and

gaps

suddenly

appear

in the

knowledge

or skills or under-

standing

of

teachers.

What

was received wisdom becomes

a

deficit model

as

focus

changes,

and the

circle s now

expected

to be

squared.

Under these

circumstances,

t would

seem

a

more

prudentpolicy

to train

teacher-artistsho would

have

the

ability

to

meld their

pedagogical

under-

standing

and

skill

with an

aestheticcraft

and

sensibility

than

to

rely

on

vis-

iting

artists

as

the

natural r normal

providers

of arts education.

This

would ensure not

only

that

teachers

would make

better,

more

informeduse

of

visiting

artists

but

also

that

children's

expertly

guided engagement

with

the arts would be a

permanent

and

enduring aspect

of

their

regular

school-

ing

ratherthan a

special

event

subject

to

the

vagaries

of

arts

funding

or

policy.

This

might

seem an

easy

statement o make for

people

such as

our-

selves,

who

have

spent

whole

careers

working

as

teacher-artists

within

the

field of drama n

education.But it

might

seem an

altogether

more

daunting

prospect

for

teachers,

or

intending

teachers,

who

are

not

specialists

in

the

arts.

Having

spent

a

great

deal

of our

respective

careers

working

in

teacher

education,

we

are

very

conscious of this

possibility.

To this

end,

our

re-

search

collaboration

has

been

centered

on

exploring

and

coming

to

under-

stand more

fully,

clearly,

and

precisely

how

the teacher

unctions

as an

art-

ist within

the

particular

genre

of

applied

theatreknown

as

process

drama.

Embeddedwithin

the

increaseof

our

own

understanding,

here

resides

the

potential

for

increased

success within

our

teacher

education

programs.

So

What Is

Process

Drama?

The

term

process

drama

s used to

describe

the

genre

of

applied

theatre

in

which the

participants,

ogether

with

the

teacher,

constitute

he

theatrical

ensemble

and

engage

in

drama to

make

meaning

for

themselves:

...

par-

ticipants

n

process

drama

will

not

normally

be

involved with

learning

and

presenting

lines from a

pre-written

dramatic

ext

. . .

but will

be

'writing'

theirown play as the narrativeand tensions of theirdramaunfold in time

and

space. 2

It

is a

genre,

essentially

improvised

in

nature,

that takes

its


4/13

60

Pamela

Bowell and Brian

Heap

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

learn-

ers,

in collaboration

with the

teacher,

create

dramas for

exploration, expres-

sion,

and

learning.3

As

such,

process

drama can

be found in

classrooms

across

the world.

This creative

and educational collaboration

is

empowering

for

partici-

pants.

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 en-

actment,

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

represen-

tations of life

experiences, explore

them,

and

comment

upon

them are central.

One of

the most critical

elements of this

genre

then is

the

essential,

cre-

ative,

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, particu-

larly

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


5/13

Drama on the Run 61

other

functions-playwright,

director,

and actor.This

is not to

suggest

that

teachers

who wish to use

process

dramaneed

professional

heatre

raining,

but we do

propose

that,

frequently,assumptions

are made

about their

prior

learningin these areas that lead to gaps in what is made explicit during

their teachereducation

programs.

In

our first

attempt

o address hese

issues,

we

conceived

a text

very

much

at an

entry-level

mode,

which

concentrated

on

taking

the

less-experienced

practitioner

o the

startingpoint

of

a

process

drama.4 t was

deliberately

a

pre-action

text,

designed

to

lay

the foundations

upon

which a

process

dramacan

be

built.

In

it,

we set out what we

consider

to

be the

most

impor-

tant

questions

a

teacher

must ask

herself before

engaging

with

the

action

phase

of the drama,

namely:

*

With which

area of

human

experience

does the teacherwish the

pu-

pils

to

engage?

(Theme)

*

What

particular

ictionalcircumstances

will

be created

by

the drama

to

explore

the

theme?

(Context)

*

Who are the teacherand

pupils going

to

be in the drama?

Role)

*

Which

viewpoint

will the

roles have

in

order

to

createtension in the

drama,and how distancedwill the roles need to be?(Frame)

*

What

artifacts,

personal

items,

sounds,

images,

and

so on will be

needed

to

bring significance

o the drama?

(Sign)

*

What

ways

of

working

will

be used

in

the drama? n

which combina-

tions? Forwhat

purpose?

(Strategies)5

By

their

scope

and

focus,

these

questions encompass

the

concernsof all of

the four

functions in the

planning

stage-playwright,

director,actor,

and

teacher.

Working Principles

in

Action

However,

in

order

to

give

close

examination to each

of the

six

planning

principles

so

as to

do

justice

to

them,

it

becomes

necessary

to

discuss them

sequentially.

The

difficulty

that

arises from this is

that,

although

this makes

for

clarity

about each

principle,

it

makes less

clear

the

actuality

of them

working together simultaneously.

Moreover,

given

the

pre-action

focus of

this

examination,

it

does not

fully

convey

the

range

and

complexity

of the

systems

and

dynamics

at

work as the

drama

unfolds in

action.

The

key examples

we

selected

were

carefully

developed

to

illustrate the

planning

process

and

to

provide

a

means

by

which to

indicate

the

interrelatedness

of

the

principles.

We

chose

to

foreground

the

dynamics

at

work within

the

selection

of

strategies

as

be-

ing

the

most

tangible

and the

most

readily

managed by

the

beginning

drama

teacher in

creating

successful dramas with her

pupils.

However,

given

the

pre-action

phase

focus

of

the

text,

the

examples

are of

necessity

streamlined


6/13

62

Pamela

Bowell and

Brian

Heap

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,

pre-

action mode in order to focus more sharply on the complexities of the pro-

cess

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 com-

plex.

However,

by

moving

beyond

the

first

layer

and

attempting

to

map

the

practice

of

process

drama,

we

hope

to

illuminate the

possibility

of

alterna-

tive

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

un-

derstanding

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

par-

ticulars

. ..

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

sophis-

ticated 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


7/13

Drama on the Run

63

a

model

for theatre

generally.

It seems to

be

an

impossible

task to

produce

a

general

model

of

process

drama,

since it would have to

negotiate

not

only

all the variables

of theatre and all the variables of education but also the

variablesof the broadercommunityand cultureand those of individualpu-

pils.

Recognizing

these

difficulties,

t

seems

sensible

to take

Blake's

advice

and

to

apply

the notion

of incremental

development

to

the

task

we have set

for ourselves.

Using

the

concept

of

a

map

as

an

analogy

to

help

visualize the

problem,

we

perceive

our

earlierwork

as

offering

a detailed

but

large-scale

overview

of the

planning

phase

of the

drama,

and we now feel the need to alter the

scale

and focus of our

scrutiny.

So the next

phase

of our work

will

attempt

to move

beyond

the

pre-actionphase, peeling

off the outer

layer

in orderto

reveal

and

address

some of

the

dynamics

at

work

during

he

drama,

n an

attempt

to

map

the

practice.

It needs

to

be

emphasized

here,

however,

that this does

not contradict

Cecily

O'Neill

when she

asserts

hat

process

drama

practitioners

re

guides

to

new

worlds,

travelling

with

incomplete

maps

...

trying

to

lead

the

way

while

walking

backwards,

so

that

they

do

not

become intent

on

reaching

a

predetermined

destination

as

quickly

as

possible. 8

For

us, too,

a

process

drama

represents

a

journey

nto

the unknown or at least an unknown route

to

potential

destinations.

We

heartily

concur

with her

when

she

goes

on to

say

that

in

process

drama the

experience

s the destination.

We

are not

suggesting

it

is

desirable

(or

possible)

to

fill in

the

gaps

in

the

incomplete

maps

of the terrain of drama

stories,

but we

are

attempting

to

map

the

terrain

of

the

process

hat

makes the

unfolding

of

those stories

possible.

The

Challenge

of the

Map

The

first

challenge

encountered then

in

mapping

the

process

is the

selection

of

the

starting point

from the wide

range

of

possibilities

that are available.

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

springs

from the

ways

in

which

teacher

and

pupils

need to

engage

with

process

drama in order that it

can

happen.

As hinted atearlier n this article,partof the complex landscapeof pro-

cess drama

results from the teacher

taking

on

the

mantles

of

playwright,

director,

and

actor,

but

actually

it

is made more

complex

because the

partici-

pants

take on

these,

too.

This situation creates

challenges,

not least

because

these functions

are

generally

engaged simultaneously yet

are

driven

by

po-

tentially

different needs-the

teacher

being

learning-objective

driven and

the

pupils

narrative driven-but the

teacher

also

recognizing

that

in

order

for

the

learning objective

to be

met,

the

narrative of the drama

must create

the

imperative

in which the

learning

can take

place.


8/13

64

PamelaBowell

and

Brian

Heap

This is even

further

compounded

by

the

spontaneous,

essentially

improvi-

satory

nature

of

process

drama in

particular

and the

temporal

nature of

the-

atre

in

general.

It

happens

in what

Dorothy

Heathcote

termed

now

time -

on the run, if you will-and this presents a particularkind 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 man-

age

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

si-

multaneously,

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 direc-

tor,

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 the

hourglass

dilemma. 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


9/13

Drama

on the Run 65

to

maintain

he four

viewpoints

in

order to

provide

support, challenge,

and

guidance

to the

participants

o that the drama

is sustained

and

developed

and

brought

o its denouement.As the river

flows,

it

is the teacher's

ontinu-

ing thinking,

n

symbiosis

withthat of the

pupils,

that

shapes

the

exploration

of the

landscape

that is

now

being

created.

Given that to create a

process

dramais to work within the

art form

of

theatre,

it becomes

clear that the teacher will need to maintain the

play-

wright/director/actor

dimensions

of

her

thinking

as the drama

unfolds.

As

Jonothan

Neelands reminded us in his

keynote

address at the

second

InternationalDrama n

Education

Research

nstitute:

Actors rainso thattheycancontrolgesture, ime andspace ... Direc-

tors

learn

to weave all

of the

temporal,

spatial

and

physical

actionson

the

stage

into the

illusion of anotherworld.

Playwrights

ill the artis-

tic

dimensions

of

time,

space

and

presence

with

living

and immediate

representations

f human

behaviourand

experience.

These

are

theatre

skills that

process

drama

demands of

the facilitator.

How-

ever,

the

fourth

dimension

springs

from

the

understanding

that

process

drama is an

educational

genre

of

theatre.

While,

of

course,

we

recognize

that all

experience

of theatre is in a sense educative,

process

drama is ex-

plicitly

a

teaching

theatre and

demands the fourth

skill-that of

teacher.

This means then

that

the four-headedness

we referred

o earlier s a

key

feature

not

only

of the

pre-action,planning

phase

for the

teacher

but

also of

the

active,

now-time

phase

of

the drama.

Yet

there

is

a fifth

dimension that

we have

still to

mention. It is of as

great

importance

as

the

others,

and

yet

it

does not stand

alone,

but rather t

is melded

inextricably

with

each of

them.

It

is the

dimension of

the self-

spectator,

and it

seems

to us that in

order

for the

teacher to work in

the

quadripartite

manner we

have

suggested

she needs a

critical

awareness of

herself as

she

operates

n each

function.

We

are all

familiarwith

Boal's crucial

dentification

of the

spectactor

as the

key

conceptualization

of the

participant

n

forum

theatreand

recog-

nize the

insight

this

has

given

to

us as

process

drama

practitioners.14

What

we are

proposing

here is that

while

the

teacherof

process

drama

needs to

see herselfas a spectator-actor, he alsoneeds to see herselfas a specta-

tor-playwright

and

spectator-director

nd

spectator-teacher

n

order

to create

he

particular

nd

essential

reflexivity

equired

o

enableher

pupils

in the

drama.

Quadripartite

Response

However,

so far

we

have

not

yet

referred

to

another

equally

important

set

of considerations-those of the other participants in the drama-the pupils.

In

symbiosis

with

the

quadripartite

hinking

of the

teacher,

he

pupils

need


10/13

66

Pamela Bowell

and Brian

Heap

to be able to make a

quadripartite response

to what is

happening

within

the

drama so that

they

are

in

creative

partnership

with the

teacher.

The

pupils

*

learn

how

to contribute to the extension

and

deepening

of the

play

they

are

in and to feel

sufficiently empowered

to initiate

further

developments

of

the

narrative;

*

learn

by

acquiring knowledge

of the art

form

by

doing

it

(as

well

as

knowledge

of

content)

to have the confidence

to initiate and

implement

directorial

decisions;

*

learn

how to

respond

and

adjust

behavior

within

fictional circum-

stances,

adjusting

and

demonstrating

behavior within

that

other

reality;

*

make

sense

of the

layering

of

experience

as it

moves toward

the

possibility

of

some kind of

self-transformation

in

the real context.

Of

course,

this

quadripartite

response

also

has embedded within

it

the

self-spectator,

and because

the

pupils

and

teacher are

engaged

in

a

creative

ensemble,

activating

the

spectator-actor,

spectator-playwright, specta-

tor-director,

and

spectator-learner

within the

pupils

is

equally

essential,

not

least

because,

as

Dorothy

Heathcote

pointed

out

in

the video Pieces

of

Dorothy,

to

be

engaged

in

process

drama is

to be

engaged

in a

process

of

education for

self-direction. 15 So the

result

of the

quadripartite

thinking

of the

teacher,

when

experienced

during

the now time of

the

drama,

elicits a

reciprocal

quadripartite response

from

the

pupils

and

initiates

a

spiral

of

creative

exchange whereby

both

experience

the

transformative

power

of

drama

(Fig.

1).

In

this

multifaceted

spiral

of

creative

discourse,

pupils provide

feedback

to the

teacher,

who in turn

responds.

The

exchange

continues-pupils

become

teachers,

the

teacher learns, and all are affected.

This

exchange

relationship,

generated

as

it

is

by

the

spiraled

input/

feedback

interchange

of

feelings,

ideas,

and

perceptions

between

pupils

and

teacher,

creates the

topography upon

which

shifts in the

shape

and di-

rection of the drama

can be

initiated

by

both

pupils

and/or

teacher. How-

ever,

rich

though

this

relationship

is,

there are

further

elements that

impact

upon

it and

add

further to its

complexity.

There are a

host of

other

potential

shifts in

the

theatre/learning

continuum that

may

derive from

really

quite

small adjustments to the building blocks of the drama-Blake's minute

particulars

if

you

will.

The

detailing

of

all

such

shifts,

even if

we were at all

confident

that we

had

identified them

all,

is

beyond

the

scope

of this

article.

It

is this

task that

forms the

basis of our

ongoing

collaborative

research.

Our

continued en-

quiry

will be

into how

these

adjustments

are

identified,

decided

upon

(or

rejected),

initiated,

and

sustained,

and

for what

purpose.

We

are also

ex-

ploring

what

impact they

have

upon

the

dramatic

structure of the

process

drama, its unfolding narrative, and the learning outcomes that might


11/13

Drama on

the Run

67

Teacher/Factitator

-

quadripartite thinking

Pupl/Participant

-

quadripartite

response

Spectator-Playwrighthelps

craft

narrative

story

unfolds

nd

carratieshler

fols

Spectator-Playwrightlearns ow o contributeo.careshe earing

the

extension/deepening

f the

play

hey

are

n

and o

feel

sufficiently

mpowered

o

initiate

urther

evelopments

f

narrative feedsback

o

teacher

.

...who

is

challenged

o establish

onsensus

n the

next

tep

and

eed

back o the

pupils

Spectator-Director

steers

articipants

o

learning

through

est

dramatictructure

Spectator-Directorlearns yacquiring

knowledge

f the

art orm

by

engaging

n

it

(and

^^~)~~

^^-


12/13

68 Pamela Bowell and Brian

Heap

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.

More-

over,

in her

discussion

of the

hallmarks

of the creative

professional

in

education, Kate Ashcroft proposes a model of reflective action that sug-

gests

that the

creative

professional

..

.

undertakes

a

systematic

and

criti-

cal

diagnosis

of

the context for action. 18

This,

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-play-

wright, spectator-director,

spectator-actor,

and

spectator-teacher-are

in-

herent 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

quad-

ripartite

response

in

pupils.

This

response

in

turn

initiates

a

spiral

of inter-

change

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 coordi-

nating

the

constantly

changing

theatre

elements,

including

her

own

perfor-

mance 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

to-

ward

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


13/13

Drama

on

the

Run 69

recognized

the

value of teachers

and

visiting

artists

working together

to

provide

rich and

fertile aesthetic

experiences.

We conclude

by suggesting

that

teachers who become

adept process

drama

practitioners

are

teacher-

artists.

By

its

nature,

this

genre

of

applied

theatre draws teacher and

learn-

ers

into

a

creative,

aesthetic,

and educative crucible in which

a

powerful,

artistic

partnership

is

forged.

The dramas

produced

are

by

definition

tem-

poral; they

exist

only

in the

present

moment.

But

the effect

they

generate

endures;

both teacher and

children are touched as the work

they

have

cre-

ated

together

as artists affects them all.

NOTES

1.

J.

Ackroyd,

Applied

Theatre:

Problemsand

Possibilities,

Applied

TheatreRe-

searcher

,

article

1,

(2000),

http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/cpci/atr/joural/

articlel_numberl.htm.

2.

P. Bowell and

B.S.

Heap, Planning

Process Drama

(London:

David Fulton

Publishers,

001),

7.

3.

For

example,

P.

Taylor,

Afterthought:

EvaluatingApplied

Theatre,

Applied

Theatre

Researcher,,

article6

(2002),

http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/cpci/atr/

joumal/article6_number3.htm.

4.

Bowell

and

Heap, Planning

ProcessDrama.

5.

Bowell

and

Heap, Planning

Process

Drama,

0.

6.

W.

Blake,

Jerusalem:

heEmanation

of

the

Giant

Albion

London:

W.

Blake,

1804),

Chapter

3,

plate

55,1.

60.

7.

Bowell

and

Heap, Planning

Process

Drama,

.

8.

C.

O'Neill,

Drama

Worlds:A

Framework

for

ProcessDrama

Portsmouth,

N.H.:

Heinemann,

1995),

67.

9.

L.

Johnson

and C.

O'Neill,

eds.,

Dorothy

Heathcote:

ollected

Writings

n

Education

and

Drama

London:

Hutchinson,

1984),

162.

10. R.Courtney,Play,Drama ndThought,th ed., rev. (Toronto: imonandPierre,

1989),

191.

11.

Wurzel

Gummidge-scarecrow

character

rom

the

classic

children'sbook

by

Barbara

Euphan

Todd

(1936)

put

on

differentheads

corresponding

o

the

sorts

of

thinking

he

needed to do.

12.

P. Bowelland B.

S.

Heap,

The

Spectrum

of

Circumstance:

he

Interconnectivity

of

Context,

Role and

Frame

n

Process

Drama,

NJ

Drama

Australia

ournal

6,

no.

1/

IDEA

Journal

(2002),

73.

13.

J.

Neelands,

Three

Theatres

Waiting:

Architectural

Space

and

Performance

Traditions,

The

Research

of

Practice,

he

Practice

f

Research

Victoria,

B.C.: DEA

Publications,1998),

149.

14.

A.

Boal,

Theatre

of

the

Oppressed

London:

Pluto

Press,

1979).

15.

D.

Heathcote,

Pieces

of Dorothy,

ideotape

(Newcastle:

University

of

Newcastle

upon Tyne,

1995).

16.

G.

Wells,

Inquiry

s an

Orientation

or

Learning,Teaching

and

Teacher

Educa-

tion,

n

Learningfor ife

n the

21st

Century,

d. G.

Wells

and

G.

Claxton

Oxford:

Blackwell

Publishing,

2002),

200.

17.

Ibid.,

201.

18.

K.

Ashcroft,

Enquiry

nd

the

Creative

Professional,

n

The

Creative

rofessional,

ed. K.

Ashcroft

and

D.

James

London:

Falmer

Press,

1999),

178.

Documents

A Prelude to Mapping the Practice of Process Drama