Creating Character:

Romeo, Juliet and didactic challenges with improvised

modern scenes Clara Hultgren

Institutionen för de humanistiska och samhällsvetenskapliga

ämnenas didaktik

Examensarbete 15 hp

Magisterprogram i Drama och Tillämpad teater (60 hp)

Spring term 2020

Supervisor: Birgitta Silfver

Swedish Title: Att skapa karaktärer: Romeo, Julia och didaktiska

utmaningar.

Creating Character:

Romeo, Juliet and didactic challenges with improvised

modern scenes

Clara Hultgren

Abstract

This essay describes an action research project conducted twice in the same high school with

second year students within the subject English.

Students are often unwilling or unable to relate to Shakespeare and his language. It is boring,

they say. It is difficult, inaccessible and has nothing to do with us, they say. But how is falling

in love unrelatable and boring? How are gangs and families far away from today's society?

Romeo and Juliet is relatable and as current today as it was 400 years ago.

The subject English in the Swedish curriculum requires different literary time periods and

dramatic text as well as living conditions, attitudes, values, traditions, social issues as well as

history, politics and culture from the world where English is used should be integrated into

the teaching. Which means that Shakespeare is perfect.

Teaching English using drama is a challenge with students who do not see themselves as

‘actors’, the didactic challenges themselves being of interest in this essay. Students are asked

to create a modern devised version of William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet where they

work on character using for example Stanislavsky’s methods and improvisation. The aim is to

see which didactic changes need to be made for character work and performance to be

effective, run smoothly and be fun. The aim is also to better understand how it feels for the

students to take on a character.

The results show the importance of relevance for the students, leading them slowly into using

drama as a method. The play has to be relatable and have a connection to the students own

lives. In conclusion, in-depth character work linked to improvisation and devising is

important for the development of character.

Keywords

Character work, drama, didactic challenges, Shakespeare, English as second/additional

language.

Content

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Why Shakespeare? 2

1.3 Previous Shakespeare projects 3

1.4 Assessment 3

2. Theory - Points of departure 6

2.1 Learning by doing

2.2 Perspectives on Educational Drama 7

2.3 Group process and meaning 8

2.4 Making didactic changes 8

3. Aim and Research Questions 10

4. Previous Research 11

4.1 The search 11

4.2 Acting and Character 12

4.3 Improvisation 15

4.4 Shakespeare 17

4.5 Devising 19

4.6 Performance and pedagogy 20

5. Method 23

5.1 Research methods 23

5.1.1 Action research 23

5.1.2 Interview 25

5.1.3 Observation 26

5.1.4 Questionnaire 28

5.1.5 Entrepreneurial learning 28

5.2 Teaching methods 29

5.2.1 Reasons for the practical methods 29

5.2.2 Acting 30

5.2.3 Role-playing 30

5.2.4 Improvisation 31

5.2.5 People watching 31

5.2.6.Story-starter and storytelling 31

5.2.7 Devising 32

5.3 Performance pedagogy 32

5.4 Ethics 33

6. Project 35

6.1 The process 35

6.2 Improvisation 37

6.3 Storytelling 38

6.4 Modern scene study 38

6.5 Connecting Romeo and Juliet to the modern 40

6.6 Realisation - Methods working 41

6.7 Working on character 41

6.8 Progression 44

6.9 Summarised discussion of research and teaching methods 45

7. Conclusion 49

8. References 54

9. Attachments 60

9.1 List of attachments 60

9.2 Attachment 1: Character sheet 61

9.3 Attachment 2: Character questions 64

9.4 Attachment 3: Nine Questions worksheet 67

9.5 Attachment 4: Informationsbrev 68

9.6 Attachment 5a: Samtycke 2018 70

9.7 Attachment 5b: Samtycke 2019 71

9.8 Attachment 6: Characters for improv. 2018 72

9.9 Attachment 7: People watching 2018 74

9.10 Attachment 8: People watching 2019 75

9.11 Attachment 9:. Character report 2019 76

9.12 Attachment 10: Exit note 16/10 forms 77

9.13 Attachment 11: Exit note 16/10 responses 79

9.14 Attachment 12: Romeo & Juliet - did you get it? 80

1

1. Introduction

In this part of the essay there will be an introduction of the researcher, the project, previous

Shakespeare projects and the reason for choosing this subject.

1.1 Background

Working as an English teacher at an upper secondary school in the South of Sweden, it is my

experience that students find it difficult to relate to Shakespeare and his language. Going one

step further, getting the students to combine the use of language with physical expression has

been a challenge which for many students causes insecurity leading to non-attendance.

I started teaching English language acquisition in 2008 while I was studying both drama and

English which has consequently led to a BA in English Literature (Högskolan Dalarna, 2014),

BA in Theatre studies (Göteborgs Universitet, 2016), an MA in Creative Media Arts –

Theatre Practice (London South Bank University, 2018), a PGCE (Professional Graduate

Certificate in Education with QTS - Qualified Teacher Status) from Teesside University

(Middlesbrough, 2013) and becoming a certified drama teacher through RAD (Riksförbundet

Auktoriserade Dramapedagoger, 2017) in Sweden. During my PGCE placement in the drama

department at Prior Pursglove College in Guisborough, I started questioning why there was

such an insecurity in the students’ performance. Students were confident, English was their

first language, they were comfortable with each other, well accustomed to participating in

drama activities and experienced in the use of theatrical expression yet there was something

holding them back. This ‘something’ is apparent in the students that I teach today too though

these students use English as their second or third language; very often reverting back to

Swedish or Arabic (the second biggest language at the school), they are not familiar with

theatrical expression and have no experience in participating in drama activities and they are

not comfortable with each other. In other words, this ‘something’ is universal, does not

depend on experience or language but seems to be performance related. It is my belief that

this ‘something’ is related to how students feel about their performance, the people

surrounding them and the inability to let go of themselves, not daring to become the character.

In rehearsal some students are both involved and engaged and do become their character.

Though during performance the ‘something’ is back, nagging at their heels. When they

become their character, when they perform as their character the flow is present, the

engagement is real and that is the focus of this essay: How the flow, the engagement, the

becoming and being feels.

2

Very often the aim of theatre is to make the audience feel; joy, sadness, anger or fear for

example. Theatre should be meaningful: create meaning, give meaning, share meaning. But

the actors who are to project this meaning – the students that are missing this ‘something’- do

they feel meaning too? How does it feel to be the medium for meaning and how do you get

teenagers to see theatre as meaningful, rich, interesting and enlightening? And above all, how

can you erase the ‘something’, the missing link, the holding back. In other words, how can

you adjust character exercises to meet didactic challenges within the curriculum when

working on Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare? And by figuring out how to do this, can you

also remove the ‘something’ as the students become the character?

1.2 Why Shakespeare?

Joe Winston (2015:23) writes that to some the answer is obvious because Shakespeare is the

greatest poet and playwright. But Shakespeare is often seen as high culture which means that

it is difficult. John Russell Brown (2011:1) writes that when the students discover the plays

contemporary relevance they will hopefully understand the connection to themselves. In the

minds of many, Shakespeare’s canon is a monolith that casts a shadow they cannot escape

(Kincaid 2018:3). I am hoping that will not be the case with my group, and as Kincaid

(2018:3), I too hope that Shakespeare will be able to jolt my students out of confusion,

intimidation and apathy. I further expect, as Kincaid (2018:3) to be able to celebrate the

students who respond readily to unexpected stimuli and able to find motivation in their

characters complex personality. In other words, I have high hopes.

When students express themselves as characters, emphasise thoughts and actions, I will

literally ask then how it feels. How does learning through drama feel? Does it matter if they

see the audience reactions? Anthony Jackson (2007:1) writes that theatre’s educational

potential has been harnessed and theorised, claims have been made for its value through its

variety of forms for educational ends and there is always a pressure to demonstrate drama and

theatrical work to be socially beneficial rather than artistic. I would like to think that it is both

and for the purpose of this project, I assume that it is both.

Jackson (2007:2) asks about the aesthetic power of the medium through which the work is

undertaken, while I am wondering if this power can be felt and even perhaps projected. In

theatre research there is talk of theatres effect on the audience but what about the effect on the

performers themselves? With this research project I aim to find out how it feels to be a

3

character, how stepping into this character’s shoes affect the students personally and does it

make the students feel empowered, as Jackson puts it?

1.3 Previous Shakespeare projects

Having previously, in many different ways, worked with Romeo and Juliet letting the students

show their understanding of the playwright and his drama through: a remake as film, using

only specific scenes, workshop style setting and improvisation while also making traditional

theatre at the same school, the experience and the outcome has not been overwhelming and I

therefore wanted to work with action research, trying and then trying again, focusing on the

student experience during the process instead of the final performance. Which in turn I hope

will put less pressure on the students and lead to a better and more relaxed performance.

1.4 Assessment

In this project, as all the previous ones, I have worked with two groups of twenty 17-year old

students using Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet as a source. Curriculum wise, the project

is assessed within the subject English (Engelska 6 which is given during the second year of

studies at upper secondary school in Sweden) and Skolverket states the following curriculum

requirements:

Aim:

Through the use of language in functional and meaningful contexts, to develop all-round

communicative skills. These skills cover both reception, which means understanding spoken

language and texts, and production and interaction, which means expressing oneself and

interacting with others in speech and writing, as well as adapting their language to different

situations, purposes and recipients.

Teaching should as far as possible be conducted in English. In teaching students should meet

written and spoken English of different kinds, and relate the content to their own experiences

and knowledge. Students should be given the opportunity to interact in speech and writing,

and to produce spoken language and texts of different kinds, both on their own and together

with others, using different aids and media.

Areas of development:

1) Understanding of spoken and written English, and also the ability to interpret content.

2) The ability to express oneself and communicate in English in speech and writing.

3) The ability to use different language strategies in different contexts.

4) The ability to adapt language to different purposes, recipients and situations.

4

5) The ability to discuss and reflect on living conditions, social issues and cultural features in

different contexts and parts of the world where English is used.

Core content - what the teaching should include:

Content of communication

Concrete and abstract subject areas related to students' education and societal and

working life; current issues; thoughts, opinions, ideas, experiences and feelings;

ethical and existential issues.

Themes, ideas, form and content in film and literature; authors and literary periods.

Living conditions, attitudes, values, traditions, social issues as well as cultural,

historical, political and cultural conditions in different contexts and parts of the world

where English is used.

Reception

Spoken language, also with different social and dialect features, and texts, including

complex and formal texts, which relate, discuss, argue, report and provide

descriptions, also via film and other media.

Coherent spoken language and conversations of different kinds, such as debates,

lectures and interviews.

Contemporary and older literature, poetry, drama and songs

Production and interaction

Oral and written production and interaction in different situations and for different

purposes where students argue, report, apply, reason, summarise, comment on, assess

and give reasons for their views.

Strategies for contributing to and actively participating in argumentation, debates and

discussions related to societal and working life.

Processing of language and structure in their own and others' oral and written

communications, and also in formal contexts. Adaptation to genre, situation and

purpose.

This is what the curriculum requires and in addition two other requirements which could be

included but are not: 1: Different ways of commenting and note-taking when listening to and

reading communications from different sources - which can be included if the students watch

other groups performances. 2: How language, picture and sound are used to express influence

5

in such areas as political debate and advertising - which can also be included, especially in

Romeo and Juliet and in collaboration with Civics for example, though this is not used in this

project).

All the above requirements are included in the Shakespeare project and assessed both

individually and as a group.

The project consists of the students creating their own version of Romeo and Juliet through

devising by improvising and writing a script. To be able to do this the students have to

thoroughly understand the source: Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet. To create

understanding the students have read the play, we have discussed, dissected it scene by scene

and in workshop translated it to modern English for better understanding.

The final product will be assessed by me, the English teacher, but also by the civics teacher.

The English teacher assesses the use of language, the understanding of the source material and

the production and interpretation of the modern scenes. The civics teacher assesses by means

of the modernisation of the play, the understanding of society and how it has changed.

6

2. Theory – Points of Departure

Actors are storytellers, telling stories using themselves, their voice and body. The telling

always happens in real-time, in the now, and is a physical meeting where the listener and the

teller affect each other. A group is built with different people and the culture in a group is

established through narrative exchange, repetition, imitation and socialising (Zipes 2005:7)

and without this exchange there will be neither development nor maturity (Vygotskij

1995:15). The outcome of using the approaches: narrative exchange, repetition and imitation

through socialising will hopefully lead to both personal, educational improvement connected

with student’s progress in English and maturity in life.

2.1 Learning by doing

Learning by doing, using collaborative methods, developing emotions and empathy leads to

an understanding of and connection with others, which creates awareness of the world. Dewey

writes that learning by doing means “knowing how to go about the accomplishment of ends

(199?:142)” and may also be connected with both narrative exchange and the vision or image

of man as active and in unison with the world around him. In the Romeo and Juliet project,

the ‘world around them’ is what happens inside the story-world; at the ball, on the balcony,

during the fight(s), the wedding etc. Dewey further writes that the students own interest

should be at the centre of the work to encourage development. The students working with this

project are all part of the same Upper Secondary school program, Samhällsprogrammet,

which consists of subjects relating to our society with focus on behaviour. William

Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is perfect as an example of society, a world within a world.

We see how it works and the play clearly shows examples of different types of behaviour

relating to feelings running hot in more ways than one. Robinson (1980:156) writes that the

quality of feeling in drama is to do with the attitude, the issues and events which the drama

represents. To get qualitative feelings from the actors the students need to understand and be

able to relate to everything that happens. An example being one of the 2019 groups using

hooliganism and two rival football teams to express strong feelings which causes fighting:

calling each other names, using gestures, expressing words used on the football field and

applying them to the street fight. By applying something that is familiar to the students they

are able to relate and can easily re-enact.

7

2.2 Perspectives on Educational Drama

In her Educational drama as a means of fostering democratic values? Four perspectives in

educational drama – Educational drama in four curricula (2000) Mia Maria Sternudd writes

about four pedagogical perspectives for drama. One of them she calls ‘the artistically oriented

perspective’ (konstpedagogiskt perspektiv) which may seem to be the most relevant one for

my project as it requires acting and expression. However, the feelings expressed through

acting will be further looked at and therefore the personal development perspective’

(personlighetsutvecklande perspektiv) will also be useful. While ‘the holistic learning

perspective’ (holistiskt lärande perspektiv) is useful as a tool to see an all-round development

of the whole student. In other words, at least three of Sternudd’s four perspectives are useful

in this project.

According to Sternudd (2000:4) the goal with the holistic learning perspective is to give the

students “various theoretical standpoints on the importance of imagination for the individual’s

learning process coupled with aesthetic and dramaturgic competence”. Zipes as well as

Vygotsky, Heathcote and many others put emphasis on the importance of using one's

imagination in creating and learning. Sternudd also (2000:97) writes that it is the students life

experience that affects their attitudes and values and through the integration of feelings and

cognitive aspects in the learning process the students values may change. Sternudd means that

through empathy, distance and reflection the student may develop an awareness and in

extension be able to think both critically and independently. In educational drama imagination

and artistic symbols are used when the students in unison create fictive situations of reality.

Situations are developed, acted out and experienced through feelings and intellect – by both

creator and audience (Sternudd 2000:16). A perfect example of this is the 2019 group working

on the last part of the play. Friar Lawrence is not a priest but a doctor who puts Juliet in a

drug induced coma and the student playing the doctor is so professional in her statements, so

clear in her medical vocabulary and convincing in her actions that the effect was frightening.

Without imagination nothing will be created and in turn, nothing will be viewed. Robinson

(1980:151) writes that we have a fundamental capacity for dramatizing which is as common

as language and gesture: the capacity to represent. This becomes very clear when watching a

world within a world - the imaginary, story world inside our reality - happening right before

your eyes. Robinson (1980:152) further writes that Dorothy (Heathcote) and Gavin (Bolton)

wanted to use children’s own capacity for dramatizing to help them explore specific ideas and

8

feelings but Robinson raises a finger of warning as he adds that there is a danger in talking

about drama as some kind of independent force, as if it is expected to work its magic all by

itself. In drama we create, what Robinson (1980:156) calls an ‘intentional context’ a world

where we know the events are not real but a metaphor for real events. Which is why the

doctor situation just mentioned is a great example of the students own interpretation of what a

doctor might be able to do.

2.3 Group process and meaning

One of a teachers most important tasks is to strengthen the self-image of both individual

students and groups, writes Åberg (1995:31-32) and through positivity contribute to a better

self-image. This is also very much connected to Sternudd’s holistic learning and personal

development perspectives and the groups willingness and ability to help and support each

other. Groups want to be comfortable, get confirmation, be efficient, meet challenges and

develop, Nilsson (1993:12-13, 41) writes while he further writes that it is important that

everyone in a group reaches their goal through functioning cooperation and a good working

relationship that contributes to a supportive and accepting environment. Vygotsky’s (1995:15)

theories about learning through social interaction and the creative process is very relevant and

important in my project as it describes what happens to the individual as they develop and

mature. Though for this to happen the students have to understand the purpose of the tasks

they are given (Vygotsky 1995:85).

2.4 Making didactic changes

Vygotsky (1995:12-13) thought that word and thought were inextricably connected and that

our brain deals with and reproduces memories and experiences while also combining,

creating, re-working and making new. Every thought strives to unite something with

something else – train of thought. While Olsson (2006:34) is of the opinion that it is typical

that people mediate, using culturally formed tools in their expression, Roger Säljö (2000) on

the other hand means that language is a tool that expresses our reality. I would say that we use

both to understand and function within society and that there is a connection between drama

and our reality which makes different didactic choices possible. Being able to make changes

for better perception could, in theory, make learning, creating and developing more

meaningful. Gavin Bolton (1979) writes that the creation of meaning happens somewhere

between the imaginary world and the real. Both worlds are present at the same time and

depend on each other to function. Olsson (2006:34) is also of the opinion that the imaginary

9

and the ‘real’ worlds offer didactic potential as they both offer possibilities for development

directly connected to both theatrical practice and learning in the ‘real’ world. To further build

on the didactic potential, Vygotsky (1978:88-90) writes that learning happens when children

interact and cooperate with each other which is indeed the intention with the Romeo and Juliet

project. Internal developmental processes are part of the child’s independent mental

development and achievement resulting in a variety of processes that would otherwise be

impossible. Hornbrook (1998:10) describes Heathcote as part of the revolution that altered

ideas about teaching, learning and how education should be organised. At the heart of

Heathcote’s theories lay the idea that education cultivates happy, balanced individuals.

Anita Grünbaum (in Sternudd 2000:79) is of the opinion that the practical work that you do in

drama leads to its own theory building which in turn leads to modification of the practical

work. Theory becomes practice, leading to embodied learning that may lead to further

development and understanding which leads to new theories.

10

3. Aim and Research Question

The Romeo and Juliet task for the students is designed as a small action research project

which looks at what didactic changes are required for the students to accept and willingly

approach Shakespeare and drama as a tool and method while also inquiring into how it feels

to take on, become and stay in character.

It is now standard critical practice among teachers of Shakespeare to emphasize that the work

is primarily theatrical as opposed to purely poetic or literary, as earlier eras had taught (Boyer,

2018).  It “serve[s] as an invitation to a ‘game’“ writes Hilberdink-Sakamoto (2013:108) and

using production strategies as teaching tools—asking students to become directors (Boyer,

2018) as well as actors—invites students to see the plays’ dramaturgy. Boyer (2018) further

writes that the students begin to appreciate not only what Shakespeare did but how he did it—

poetically, structurally, thematically, and theatrically. This would of course be an additional

benefit of the project which is not included in the students task but could indeed be one of the

long-lasting benefits of in-depth understanding.

The research relates to how the use of drama and theatre challenges the students and how the

curriculum limits the access to true and deeply perceived emotions and what didactic changes,

relating to for example space requirements, learning new ways of learning (such as

improvisation) and applying character exercises that are needed to enhance the experience.

Further the aim is to let the students put their feelings into words expressing how taking on

and stepping into the chosen character’s shoes feels.

Main research question:

How can the teacher adjust character exercises to meet didactical challenges

when working on a devised version of a Shakespeare play?

Secondary question:

How does it feel for the students to take on and become a character?

11

4. Previous research

This chapter describes what I will not discuss, how I went about searching for books and

articles related to my specific subject and area of research. I further delve into the previous

research of improvisation, Shakespeare, devising and performance pedagogy as they are

relevant both in my research and the project.

This essay will not delve deeply into the previous research of the benefits of drama as this has

been established many times already. Previous research on the effect of drama in schools can

be found in the work by researchers such as Anne Bamford The Wow Factor: Global

Research Compendium on the Impact of the Arts in Education, 2006 and the DICE (Drama

Improves Lisbon Key Competences in Education) project, 2010 for example. Further research

in connection with educational drama and theatre has been done by Gavin Bolton (1979) who

writes about the importance of emotional and subjective knowledge and understanding. This

is indeed connected to my project as is the writing of Jackson (2007) who addresses the

aesthetic framework, the experience that takes place between performer and audience. Though

the research of both Bolton and Jackson is relevant to the method used, the project itself

focuses on what happens between the performer and his character and what the teacher has to

do to make that relationship happen. This previous research section will therefore not bring up

the performer-audience perspective.

4.1 The search

An academic search on the Stockholm University library website, using the following

keywords: feeling, drama, body and performance gave 138992 results. Among this immense

amount of literary treasure I chose to look at for example Drama and the representation of

affect - structures of feeling and signs of learning by Anton Franks (2014) which focuses on

how the audience feels when watching drama which, as has been previously stated, I will not

be the focus in this essay as my interests lay in how the performers themselves feel. Feeling

the meaning by David Grant (2017) is an article about image theatre in connection with

Augusto Boal and how images should be felt rather than read which does not relate to my

project. Production of the body is a PhD thesis by Deborah Thompson (1993) which is about

non-traditional casting in theatre and not relevant to my project. Acting: the altered state of

12

consciousness by Eberhard Scheiffele (2001) which turned out to be more psychological than

artistic which I will not go into in this essay. There may of course have been many more

relevant titles that may have revealed additional information, but I have limited myself these

sources.

Changing the search words to: acting, feelings, arts education revealed one result: The art of

teaching the arts. Creating rich learning environments: a workshop for high school teachers /

by Annenberg Learner. This video was interesting as it looked at all types of arts education

(visual art, music, theatre, dance) and focused on its effect on the student learner. We meet

theatre teacher Joe who talks about seeing the change in the students when they let the

character in and allow emotion. This is very interesting and the beginning of my project.

Letting the character in and allowing feelings is a requirement, or else there will be no

emotions. But only one search result seems unreasonable. I therefore removed the last two

words leaving only the word acting, leading to 1295 results. Though acting is one research

subject that I am interested in I had to find more results that related to the whole project. As

the Stockholm University library website did not provide me with what I needed, I went to

google. There I found an unreasonable amount of blogs and ‘games for drama class’ sites.

Moved on to google scholar where I thought I would find a library of useful material but no.

In a desperate attempt to find anything I turned to libris.kb.se and amazon.co.uk for a new

search using the key words: acting, impact, emotion, education and came up with nothing. I

therefore decided to go to the acting gurus of the 20th century and work with an application of

my own questioning. It has been difficult to find previous research that connects all the

criteria of my search: arts education, how it feels to take on a character, how these feelings are

interpreted and how using devising and improvisation may help to create a better

understanding of a character as the student actor becomes someone else. However, Bergman

Blix (2007) has done a study following six actors in their rehearsal process and she writes that

actors, “as part of their professional competence, gradually unfold and lay bare the emotions

of another, fictive person and, as part of this process, probe into their own emotions”

(2007:162).

4.2 Acting and character

In the article The impact of acting on student actors: boundary blurring, growth and emotional

distress by Suzanne Burgoyne, Karen Poulin and Ashley Rearden (1999). Burgoyne, Poulin

and Rearden refer to Schechner (2010) who has questioned the “aftermath” of production

which he defines as the long term consequences that are the least studied aspects of

13

performance. Burgoyne, Poulin and Rearden (1999:157) suggest that the blurring of

boundaries between actor and character may be a significant condition for impact and that the

actors ability to control that blurring may influence whether an acting experience leads to

growth or emotional distress. A student interviewed by Burgoyne, Poulin and Rearden stated

that:

In theory students are supposed to learn [...] but in reality you are not really

taught how to attune yourself psychologically and how to get back out of that

state. A lot of actors [...] can’t get out of roles.

(Burgoyne, Poulin & Rearden 1999:158)

Young actors may be unaware of the psychological side-effects until they have a distressing

experience and from the study group of fifteen all responded that yes, their acting had

significant impact on them both artistically and personally (Burgoyne, Poulin & Rearden

1999:158). The base for dealing with issues in relation to character lays in educational drama

and drama therapy. While one student is quoted saying that he uses himself “as a tool to have

a character genuinely come to life and have human emotions (Burgoyne, Poulin & Rearden

1999:160)” it may not be the easiest to separate character from reality if these human

emotions become “real”. Many student actors in the study group reported positive

consequences such as: growth, enhanced sensitivity, empathy, awareness, stronger sense of

identity and values and relation skills. One student said that you cannot perform a character

and be outside that character, you have to get inside to know what motivates him, you have to

get under his skin (Burgoyne, Poulin & Rearden 1999:161) and it is understandable that it

takes a lot of effort and engagement to be able to assign yourself to becoming and being

someone else and of course that will affect the ‘real’ you. Further to Burgoyne, Poulin &

Rearden’s study, one actor describes a director as “driving” [drove] the actors to “get inside

the head” of their characters. The actor’s response was that he really did connect with his

character but it blurred reality with character and it caused mental strife to his real life

(Burgoyne, Poulin & Rearden 1999:162). My project will not go this far, there is not the time

to spend on really becoming and being. The students will only spend three hours per week

working with the play and hopefully there will be no lingering psychological consequences.

Turning instead to Zarrilli (1995:23) who believes that taking on a character, no matter how

he acts, there will always be the ghost of a self in the performance. This feels comforting,

knowing the “I” will never be quite lost. Dee Cannon (2012:58) believes that you have to

14

“own” your character by using your imagination and your research to find who your character

is. To do this you need to fine-tune your observational, listening and concentration skills and

allowing yourself to be curious (Cannon 2012:12).

Hess writes that in her acting training she was asked to inhabit, rather than simply analyse the

worlds of a character. Hess (2016:2) elaborates by describing how doing so she began to

discover the interplay between self and otherness—someone different and distinct from her

own persona. Understanding of the play alone is not enough to embrace a character. Charles

Macklin (1799) in Benedetti (2008:55) wrote that it is the duty of an actor to always know the

passion and humour of each character so correctly, so intimately and to feel it so

enthusiastically and to mould all this knowledge, mental and corporeal, to the characteristics

that the poet has given a particular character. If the actor does not have this philosophical

knowledge of the passions, it is impossible for him to imitate them with fidelity. Imitate,

interesting choice of word, a word that no-one will use in connection with acting today.

It is obvious that becoming and being a character requires an emotional connection,

something that connects actor to character, not a relationship but an empathic link. But how

do you do that, how do you connect with your character and her emotions? Kimberly Jentzen

declares that the objective is the most important tool and you have to use what you know and

make sure that this tool is active for you as an actor. Jentzen further talks about the conflict

that has to be there as a driving force, tugging at the actor. Incidentally she uses Romeo and

Juliet as an example of conflict - a want that cannot be had.

Acting is created behaviour, something that looks like life but is, in fact, a selection from

life (Benedetti 2008:4, italics in original). In Alison Hodge’s Actor Training (2010:10)

Sharon Marie Carnicke writes that in his An Actor Prepares (1989) Stanislavsky suggests

reading voraciously (newspapers, novels, anything) and visiting places with people where you

can empathize with others, watching, listening, really seeing. In my project, both year groups

have done an exercise that I have called “People watching” (for more info see Chapter 6

Project and analysis), this is the students first character task, given to them before they take on

a specific character in the play. This is the first step in seeing the world outside themselves.

The students watch, copy and create a life around the person that they “follow” and re-enact

this character in a “real” situation in the classroom which then leads to improvisation. It has

long been supposed that students engaged in the spontaneous improvisation and role-playing

of the drama lesson can lose themselves and feel deeply writes David Hornbrook (2002:12)

15

quoting Gavin Bolton (1986) who means that what surfaces in the drama classroom are the

students real feelings. These real feelings come out when the student does not have to wear a

mask and be something that is expected of them. The real, perhaps free, person comes out.

Drinko (2018:36) writes that Viola Spolin’s theatre games aimed to strengthen children’s

social and emotional developmental skills, which seems to be a very good place to start.

4.3 Improvisation

“Everyone can act, everyone can improvise (Spolin 1963:3), we learn through experience and

experiencing [...] spontaneity is the moment of personal freedom when we are faced with a

reality, see it, explore it and act accordingly.” Hodgson and Richards (1978:12) writes that

improvisation is as natural as speaking or walking. It aims to utilize what ordinary life is, the

spontaneous responses in unexpected situations and the inventiveness that is put in motion to

deal with the situation (Hodgson & Richards, 1978:18). And just as in the situation with half

the group looking at the other, with improvisation there will be insecurity and embarrassment

in the beginning. However, as Morken writes (in Backas & Sarling 1994:4) improvisation is

made up as you act, which does not leave any time for thinking about how embarrassed you

are or how your hair looks. Sternudd (2000:138) writes that by “improvisation” is meant free

dramatic activity where students create situations and actions with simple, spontaneous

movement and improvised speech as it was stated in the Swedish curriculum of 1969. In

improvisation it is imagination, body language and speech that is used in a free association

creation with no inhibitions (Backas & Sarling 1994:4). You create your own knowledge and

the shorter the distance between knowledge and action the more meaningful learning is

perceived (Backas & Sarling 1994:20). This is interesting and similar to what Johnstone

(1981:89) found when asking students to imagine a box, asking “what’s in it?” the students

found it difficult to come up with words that they thought fit. One student’s expressed

cabbage.

That’s not the word you first thought of.

What?

I saw your lips move. They formed an “O” shape.

Orange

What’s wrong with the word orange?

Cabbage seemed more ordinary

(Johnstone 1981:89)

16

Johnstone questions why anyone would want to appear unimaginative while Backas & Sarling

(1994:62-63) discuss the process and structure of an improvisation, how there are several

phases to a model of didactic improvisation beginning with the prep-phase and ending with an

evaluation phase. In a way I think this type of planning removes the spontaneity and the

uninhibited story structure if the frame is already decided.

Spolin and Johnstone both recognized that for scenes to be engaging, spontaneous and

creative, improvisers have to pay attention to the scene as it unfolds and add to it by inviting

contributions and not judge anyone's choices (Drinko 2018:36). Spolin further writes (1963:6)

that to be able to participate we have to become part of the world around us and make it real

by touching it, seeing it, feeling it, tasting it, smelling it and above all accept or reject it. How

you do it, which method you use, is less important than the actual communication, methods

change to fit needs (Spolin 1963:14). Spolin describes an exercise focusing on exposure

where a group is divided into two. Half the group stands, the other half watches them stand. It

is important that students get used to being observed and as Spolin writes (1963:51) some will

giggle and shift while others freeze in their positions. They will be uncomfortable, they will

feel embarrassed but they also get to be on the other side in a couple of minutes. Sternudd

(2000:67) writes that it is in the work with the exercises, improvisations and role-play that the

students self confidence, teamwork, group safety and sense of empathy develops. Describing

feelings, discussing how it feels is important because putting feelings into words makes them

real and can then be shared with the group, which will bring them closer and make scene

work easier and better as improvisation requires close group relationships. It is from group

agreement and group playing that material evolves for scenes and plays (Spolin 1963:10).

Drinko (2018:40) finds that the three principles of improvisation (listening, agreeing, and not

judging) go a long way toward reducing what is referred to as the creative mortification that

can stifle classroom productivity. Students need to feel safe to take any kind of social or

academic risk which in itself requires a long process. The aim of improvisation games is to

trick the audience into thinking the players knows what they are talking about. This requires

students to state things confidently even when they might be completely inaccurate (Drinko

2018:46). Peter Reynolds (1991:6) means that a practical approach requires thinking on your

feet, the students need a combination of intellectual, physical and emotional skills – the ability

to dramatize the action on the spot. This requires an understanding of what improvisation is,

how it is used and what to do: learning to take action on the spot, to ‘do’ without thinking or

planning.

17

Spolin (1963:9) and Johnstone are in agreement that improvisation is the base for all dramatic

work. It is impossible to turn unimaginative people into imaginative people at a moment’s

notice (Johnstone 1981:75) which is why he starts by working on and with status (Johnstone

1981:29) and writes that if the teacher plays low status the students become more comfortable

and eventually the teacher-student relationship dissolves. Johnstone (1981:41) further writes

that no action, sound or movement is innocent of purpose - eye contact often establishes

dominance and stares are aggressive. Frost and Yarrow (2016:xv) write that improvising is

part of the nature of acting but more importantly, acting is only one part of the creative

process of improvisation. They define improvisation in five different ways: a way of working

with the givens of performance-text, a way of making you better at being in the moment, a

way of freeing up the physical, structural and conceptual imagination, a psychophysical

training and last but not least the play drive.

In her Drama för lärande och insikt Grünbaum (2008:230) writes about Dorothy Heathcote

and how an inspector at Her Majesty's inspector for Drama has observed her teaching and use

of improvisation. In DES 2 (Drama: Education Survey 1967:38) he writes: “This is the

beginning of some of the most interesting work we have seen. The teachers detailed questions

to the students lead to a deeper involvement, a feeling of relevance.” Further on feelings,

Grünbaum (2008:253) writes about David Davis who, using structured improvisation says

that the exercises have to generate ‘real’ feelings. In instruction he deliberately gave the

participants conflicting instructions as this would create real feelings. This I also believe is

true as there will be no point, no relevance or meaning, if it is not real.

4.4 Shakespeare

So much has been written about Shakespeare and Elizabethan acting that I will not go into it

more than is required to connect with my project.

When working with Shakespeare one must go beyond what the text requires and have

the actors contribute to the play, John Russell Brown (2011:35) writes which is how my

project is thought to work; students contributing with their own experiences and ideas.

Why teach Shakespeare and how? Joe Winston (2015:23) asks and to some the answer is

obvious because Shakespeare is the greatest poet and playwright but is that the only reason?

Shakespeare is often seen as high culture but as Brown (2011:1) explains, when discovering

the plays contemporary relevance the students will hopefully understand how they connect to

their own contemporary experiences. In the minds of many, Shakespeare’s canon is a

monolith that casts a shadow they cannot escape (Kincaid 2018:3). I was hoping that would

18

not be the case with my group, but as Kincaid, I too hoped that Shakespeare would be able to

jolt my actors out of confusion, intimidation and apathy (2018:3). I further expected, as

Kincaid (2018:3) to be able to celebrate the students who responded readily to unexpected

stimuli, examined language and were able to find motivation in their characters complex

personality. But how?

In her article The Mantle of Macbeth (2011) Debrah Kidd has taken a step closer to

understanding students motivation and ability. She describes her work with GCSE students in

England using Heathcote and Boltons method ‘Mantle of the expert’. Kidd (2011:74) writes

that students choose roles which allows them to explore how a role can shift perception of self

and the perception by others of self, leading to an act of empowerment. The students pretend

and as they experience the play the student changes, develops, grows and learns.

Hearing children described as ‘cancers’ and ‘thugs’ and then seeing how the

role changed not only their actions, but the teacher’s interpretations of their actions

was also powerful. The role shifted power; the oppressed (Shor and Friere 1987;

Boal 1992) were able to reclaim power without redress to violence – their usual

mode of survival – and to win acceptance in the process.

Kidd (2011:83)

In conclusion Kidd (2011:84) writes that what struck her most was not how drama allowed

students to access an insight into Shakespeare, but how drama allowed for an insight into the

students. This is very interesting and confirmed in drama work. When students are able to see

themselves they realize potential and act accordingly. A different approach to Shakespeare is

presented by Kiki Lindell (2012) who writes of immersing oneself in the language and the

practice (performance and rehearsals) of Shakespeare to be able to fully understand. This

takes great commitment and time, something we are all short of. Revisiting Peter Reynolds

and his Practical approaches to Teaching Shakespeare (1991:5) Reynolds writes how

undergraduates find reading Shakespeare difficult and speaking it impossible and best left to

the professionals. How can we expect school children to use the 400 year old language if not

even 20 year olds can? The language is difficult, which is why I divided the play into sections

and went through the scenes one by one, reading them with the students while they took notes

to be able to re-work the scenes, making them modern. Shakespeare wrote for the theatre and

theatre at its best is a risky business: it should make us think and question (Irish 2011:7). The

19

delicious ambiguities in his plays allowed him to question the politics and social norms

around him (Irish 2011:7) which is what we are still doing today and should encourage our

students to keep doing through theatre. Irish (2011:9) further writes that the Royal

Shakespeare Company’s ensemble techniques means that you experience the play as a living

text which is interpreted through emotional response and active participation. Reynolds

(1991:6) is aware of the problem of getting students off their chairs in rehearsal, he writes that

the practical approach is process and not product oriented. It is designed to be enjoyable and

exciting but its real purpose is to encourage the students to “think on their feet.” It is a shared

journey towards a common goal, Irish (2011:9) writes. However, these active or practical

approaches require risk taking, both by the teacher and her students. Irish (2011:10) writes

that many teachers do not feel supported in taking these risks, despite understanding the

advantage. Fiona Banks (2013) presents a solution in her Creative Shakespeare: The Globe

Education Guide to Practical Shakespeare. Banks (2013:31) goes through core approaches

that together provide ways into the key issues and areas of study that concern all teachers of

Shakespeare. She writes that crucially the warm-up activity should start building the skills

needed in the session. By for example playing a game called archetypes the students explore

characters that are frequent in Shakespeare’s plays: Sovereign, Warrior, Carer and Trickster.

Banks further suggests status exercises in structured improvisations that enables the students

to recognise status changes. Hughes (1991:13) writes that Shakespeare’s audience made

certain demands that no audience has repeated since. He had to entertain both the aristocracy;

the intellectual nobility and the common people; the groundlings which was complicated

(Hughes 1991:14). He had to make sure that his dramas gratified their tastes and supplied the

intellectual satisfaction and amusement that they demanded (Hughes 1991:15). What he had

to do was find the right theme, action and words to create a common bond. He devised a

means of expression that communicated instantly with everyone in his audience, he found the

common language of the high and the low. In solving these problems, he invented a new kind

of drama and new poetic vernacular (Hughes 1991:15). This common way of talking is still

used today and still reaches everyone.

4.5 Devising

According to Allain and Harvie (2006:145) devising is a method of making performance and

includes the collaborative participation of the whole creative company while Oddey (2013:14)

writes that devised theatre can start from anything. Heddon and Milling (2006:2-3) write that

devising is called “collaborative creation” in the US though both expressions mean the same:

20

a mode of work in which no script - neither written play-text nor performance score - exist

prior to the work’s creation by the company. Improvisation is often part of the initial process

for many of the companies that Heddon and Milling (2006) bring up as it is for Frantic

Assembly that have the main focus on finding new ways of seeing the world and new ways of

telling the world what you think of it (Graham and Hoggett 2014:13).

“We initially take the kernel of the idea and test this to see if it is interesting

enough to us and see it ‘it has got legs’”

(Graham and Hoggett 2014:14)

Instead of starting from scratch; from an inspiring situation, object, event or person, my

project is based on Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet. Devising is about thinking,

conceiving and forming ideas, being imaginative and spontaneous as well as planning (Oddey

2013:14) which are all being used in my classroom, based on the framework of Shakespeare’s

play while also letting the students themselves colour it in. Oddey (2013:18) writes that

devising demands a group of people who are versatile and multi-talented who can push

further and go beyond the original. Further Oddey (2013:19) suggests that devising includes

methods of research, discussion, ‘workshopping’, improvisation or for example visual

experimentation which is how the project is built up, improvising and working together to

create a piece of theatre and a written script. Establishing both content and context. Heddon

and Milling (2006:42) write that devising a performance through play is a means of exploring

acting and alternatives to realism while according to Oddey (2013:26) devising is about the

relationship of a group of people to their culture, the socio-political, artistic and economic

climate as well as issues or events surrounding them. Devising or devised inspires different

connotations in different people. People and companies that devise may produce very

different results (Graham and Hoggett 2014:13). What I am after in my project is to see the

students work together and create, using collaborative skills, something new from an old

idea.

4.6 Performance and pedagogy

Performance pedagogy provides a holistic frame with a broad range of options (Cozart Riggio

1999:1). Loehlin (2008:627) writes that by teaching Shakespeare through performance

students can come in contact with performance through the character, exploring given

circumstances, intentions and subtext according to Stanislavsky. Performance exercises may

21

also be used to heighten awareness of language or imagery. In Teaching Shakespeare with

Purpose (2016:4), Thompson and Turchi write that their way of teaching Shakespeare is

specifically crafted for the twenty-first century learners values and includes participation in

informal learning communities, explicit explorations of identity, it follows divergent paths to

knowledge and innovative performances of the students knowledge. Divergent paths means

the internet as Thompson and Truchi (2016:5) lays bare the fact that our students have always

had internet and they expect to find answers quickly by surfing.

A Shakespeare classroom should be built on the expectations that students

ideas matter, that the ideas that a group collectively generates are valuable and

that searching for plausible explanations or illuminating details always leads

to new questions as well as new insights to a text.

(Thompson and Truchi 2016:5)

Thompson and Truchi’s way of “doing” Shakespeare is a way of making him relevant in a

contemporary way and setting. Teachers cannot expect students to think Shakespeare is

relevant if they are unable to relate in what they think is a “normal” way. If students are

unable to relate they will not be creative and there will not, as Vygotsky states (Lindqvist

1999:167) be a pedagogic value. The teacher’s most important task is to steer the student

towards the future (Vygotsky 1995:100) but if the teacher is stuck in the past and unable to

use modern ways of teaching, the students will not be able to progress according to the

curriculum nor achieve their own goals. Winston (2015:37) writes that the pedagogy used at

the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) emerged organically and fluidly through practice and

time and now offers a set of principles and strategies in its rehearsal room approach. Cicely

Berry has taught us to embody thought in rigorous and responsible childlike play (Boyd in

Berry 2007). In Shakespeare’s time only eight per cent of the population was literate, the

audience did not come to admire the actors interpretation of a play, they came to listen and be

taken on an emotional journey through the story (Winston 2015:38) and that is why Berry (in

Winston 2015:38) thinks that words should disturb, delight and provoke the listener yet she

thinks that the era we live in is overly literal. The RSC’s approach is theatre-based, needs an

open space and involves movement. It promotes instinct and imagination as starting points

rather than thinking and planning and offers structures which do that (Winston 2015:45).

From the start it is important that there are no unanswered questions, that nothing is unclear

for the student because understanding and making sense of dramatic experiences involves

22

students in developing and using vocabulary to share their impressions. After all, we cannot

forget that responding to drama involves students in reflecting on their own emotional

experiences (Kempe and Nicholson 2010:43).

Previous research reveals important connections between the young actor’s experience of

taking on a character and how it could change you as you become your character. Burgoyne,

Poulin and Reardon (1999) write about the blurred reality - your personality vs the character.

Zarrilli believes that the character leaves a ghost within while Hess (2016) was asked to

inhabit instead of merely analyse her character. By doing so she discovered something

different about herself. Understanding the play alone is not enough to embrace a character. A

character requires an emotional connection and the actor has to understand people which is

why Stanislavsky suggests that general knowledge is important and really watching and

listening to people, really seeing them. Improvisation, what it is and how it is done, from

Johnstone and Spolin which led to why we should teach Shakespeare and how it is important

that students understand the relevance of what they are doing and how it connects to

themselves and society. Further on to devising, how it may be used in a project like the one I

am working on and how it works. Leading to the last part on performance pedagogy which

provides a holistic frame and shows the need for floor work which in return involves

reflecting on your feet, on the students own emotional experience.

23

5. Methods

The Romeo and Juliet project is an action research project which has used several different

methods. This chapter is divided into two sections: Research and Teaching.

The research part consists of methods such as interviews and questionnaires while the

teaching part describes ‘people watching’, storytelling, improvisation and devising. These

research and teaching methods have together, made a result possible.

5.1 Research methods

This part of the chapter mentions the different research methods used in relation to the Romeo

and Juliet project.

5.1.1 Action research

Rönnerman (2012:22) writes that actions research is a concept but it is also a composite of

two different things, action and research. The first word “action” which means move or

procedure – something that is done and Rönnerman clarifies that it is the own practice that is

the focus of the action. Rönnerman (2012:23) describes the second word “research” as a

process of systematic work and a relationship to theories that generate new knowledge. These

definitions are the reason I have chosen to use action research as my approach. Using a new

form of teaching (new to the students) and thereby generating new knowledge for them by

which the teacher/assessor is able to see the process of learning as the students follow through

on their tasks in a manner different from what they are used to (a conventional classroom

setting). Denscombe (2010:125) writes that action research is normally associated with a

‘hands-on’ approach, or it is ‘practice-based’ as Cohen et.al (2018:440) calls it. Action

research can be a small scale research project which fits perfectly with my project. Cohen

mentions (2018:440) Kurt Lewin, one of action research’s founding fathers, who deliberately

intended to change the life of people and groups suffering from prejudice. Lewin’s 1946

paper: “Action research and minority problems” combined action and research to enable the

practitioner. In Lewin’s case it was good-will transformed into action. In the case of my

project it is to better my practice to become more efficient at finding better ways to make

language learning natural by using drama in the English classroom.

Cohen et.al (2018:443) refers to Hult and Lennung (1980), McKernan (1991), Ferrance

(2000) and Kemmis et.al (2014), to which we may also add Rönnerman (2012) and Forssten

24

Seiser (2019), when he states that action research works best on practical problems while

expanding scientific knowledge, research uses feedback from an ongoing cyclical process and

it tries to understand the process of change inside social systems (such as education). It

always involves evaluation and reflection, strives to be emancipatory and above all it

contributes to the science of education.

Forssten Seiser (2019:28) informs of three different types of action research: technical,

practical and critical action research. She further states that the aim of practical action

research is not only to improve function but also the individual’s development of better self-

understanding, awareness and creating new knowledge. While the aim of technical action

research is for efficiency where the researcher defines the problem. Critical action research

on the other hand is emancipatory. The participants develop a critical understanding of how

they are affected (and affect) and shaped by habits, ideologies and traditions. Forssten Seiser

(2019:25) sources Moksnes Furu (2007) who means that action research is always practical as

it always takes on existing problems and dilemmas. Rönnerman (2012:21) asks the question:

What is action research? And states that the answer is connected to the Swedish school law

that clearly states that education should be based on research and proven experience.

Rönnerman (2012:21) means that action research creates a relationship between thoughts on

the practice and actual practice. It is about, as Forssten Seiser (2019), Cohen et.al (2018)

among others, also state: developing a deeper understanding and to change the

practice/function but it is also about understanding how to do this and what happens during

the process.

Denscombe (2010:126), as many others, means that the main aim of action research is to

improve practice and the research should be set up to alter things so that an evaluation of the

findings makes an impact on the practice which becomes part of the cycle of research.

Action research can be used in different areas, as in my case teaching methods. But Cohen

et.al (2018:441) writes that it can also be used to change attitudes and values, management

and control, to evaluate procedures or for learning strategies. Ferrance (2000:1) argues that

action research works best on already identified problems and is more effective when the

practitioner is asked to examine and assess their own work while also thinking of new ways of

operating. Cohen et.al (2018:441) further writes that the research becomes a collective and

shared enterprise and the process and problem solving approach creates ethical responsibility

and behaviour.

25

The four defining characteristics of action research is, according to Denscombe (2010:127):

practical nature, change, cyclical process and participation. Change is regarded as a valuable

enhancer of knowledge and focuses on the researchers own practice. In the case of my project,

action research provides a way forward, where I change my teaching, which hopefully leads

to an improvement of the practical work of the students which in turn leads to better

communication, a sense of ensemble and better cooperation and daring to be creative together.

The important points about the cycle of enquiry in action research are:

1. That research feeds back directly into practice

2. That the process is ongoing

©SAGE Publications.

It can involve an evaluation of changes just instigated which prompts further research

(Denscombe 2010:129). Grundy (1987:142) thinks that action research is a way of improving

the “social conditions of existence” while Somekh (1995:340) is of the opinion that action

research should bridge the gap between research and practice which I think is an important

part of education, especially as it should, as mentioned by Forssten Seiser, be built on

research. It may be of value to add that the difference between action research and pure

research is, according to Rönnerman (2012:23) that the research starts from the practitioners’

questions and desire for improvement and change.

5.1.2 Interview

An interview is an interchange of views between two or more people on a topic of mutual

interest, it is a social interaction not just a form of data collection. Kvale (2011) writes that the

26

techniques of the interview craft can be learned through extensive practice and with the

techniques mastered, the interviewer may concentrate on the subject and the matter. The semi-

structured life-world interview as Kvale (2011:51) calls it, seeks to find descriptions of the

life-world to interpret the meaning of the described phenomenon. Hochschild (2009 in Cohen

et.al 2018:506) writes that the interview can explore issues in depth, for further insight into

how and why people think as they do, their ideas, values, opinions, behaviours, etc.

How to learn from the open phenomenological approach of the life-world interview is

expressed by Spradley (1979:34 in Kvale) in the following way:

I want to understand the world from your point of view.

I want to know what you know in the way you know it.

I want to understand the meaning of your experience, to walk in your shoes, to feel

things as you feel them.

These three perspectives, or ways of understanding, connect very well with the aim and

purpose of the Romeo and Juliet project as it tries to find answers to the questions how it feels

to take on a character which can then be applied to how didactic teaching methods can be

adjusted. Dyer (1995:56-8 in Cohen et.al 2018:506) states that an interview is not an ordinary,

everyday conversation. It has a specific purpose and is usually in question – answer format.

Kvale (2011:57) further writes that good contact is established by attentive listening, showing

interest, understanding and respect for the interviewee. The more spontaneous the interview

procedure, the more likely one is to obtain spontaneous, lively and unexpected answers from

the interviewee.

It may be worth mentioning that interview as a method was dropped with the 2019 group.

5.1.3 Observation

“Observation is more than just looking, it is looking and noting systematically people, events,

behaviours, settings, artefacts, routines and so on” (Simpson and Tuson, 2003:2, Marshall and

Rossman 2016 in Cohen 2018:542). Observation was used specifically in connection with

character development and scene work. Baker (2006:172) writes that observation has been

described as a research method as well as a data collection method which is relevant for my

project as the observation becomes data which is then used to create change. As an observer

in a group that I know and teach, I will, as Baker writes (2006:174) have to take a participant

role where fluidity is important. In Cohen et.al (2018:542) Wellington (2015) and Creswell

2012) are sourced for an explanation of the ideal use of observation.

27

The distinctive feature of observation as a research process is that it

offers an investigator the opportunity to gather first- hand, ‘live’ data

in situ from naturally occurring social situations rather than, for example,

reported data (Wellington, 2015, p. 247) and second- hand accounts

(Creswell, 2012, p. 213). The use of observation as a principal mode

of research has the potential to yield more valid or authentic data than

would otherwise be the case with mediated or inferential methods.

(Cohen et.al 2018:542)

DeWalt and DeWalt (2011:41) write that gaining entry to a field site (or in this case a new

group) and beginning the process of building rapport can be a daunting experience. However,

entering into a field that one already has experience of might instead be inviting as we are all

on the same page and know what to expect from each other. This means that there is safety.

Cohen et.al (2018:543) further explains what observation can be: facts, for example: the

number of books in a classroom. It can be events in the classroom, behaviours or qualities or

cooperative behaviour among students. But one may ask if observation is always reliable. The

evidence is always interpretable and always based on the researchers point of view and

judgement of situations. Something very important is that observation can enable the

researcher to access interactions in a social context (Cohen et.al 2018:543) but it very much

depends on how the observation is structured for there to be good results. Cohen et.al

(2018:543) describes a highly-structured observation as knowing what it is looking for and

everything is worked out a head of time. A semi-structured observation will have an idea but

will gather information to be able to conclude. While an unstructured observation may not

know what it is looking for. Most of the time I have used a semi-structured form of

observation while observing in the classroom. I know what I am looking for but cannot

conclude until I see it. The same method was used for the observation task that was given to

the students, I observed them observing strangers at the train station. To conclude there are

many forms of observation methods and as a participant in the classroom, as a leader, I have

during the observations taken a step back and become the researcher that has viewed the

students with a critical eye, trying to be objective and only watchful while at the same time

looking for evidence of a successful working process.

28

5.1.4 Questionnaire

A questionnaire is a widely used instrument for collecting survey information, providing

structured data and is often straightforward to analyse (Cohen et.al 2018:471). To qualify as a

research questionnaire it should, according to Denscombe (2010:156), be designed to collect

information which can be used subsequently as data for analysis and should provide

information which could help to create change. A questionnaire should further consist of a

written list of questions and these questions should be the same for all participants. Cohen

et.al (2018:471) writes that the questionnaire will always be an intrusion into the life of the

respondent. This could be because it is time consuming, it deals with sensitive subjects or

possible invasion of privacy. Hopefully the students filling in the questionnaires will not find

the questions challenging as they relate to the work they do in the classroom. Cohen et.al

(2018:471) further explains that questionnaire respondents are not passive data providers for

researchers, they are subjects not objects of research. The questionnaires produced for

research within the Romeo and Juliet project were used for the gathering of information

relating to the project. The questions related to the students feelings and thoughts on the

process of acting and taking on a character. The students answers were then used to analyse

the impact of the project and implement the didactic changes that were required for more

efficient, creative and relevant teaching methods to be produced. Answering the

questionnaires was a confidential process where the teacher is the only one who has access to

the responses.

5.1.5 Entrepreneurial learning

Lelinge (2014:31) has completed a project in schools in Malmö where students spend a week

together creating a musical. Empathy and positivity proved to be central elements in the

process for stimuli, motivation and learning. The process with the musical brought

competences to the surface that the students didn’t even know they possessed (Lelinge

2014:39). Lelinge means that this process clearly showed the effect of working in a new and

different way - entrepreneurial learning: creating together, building confidence and

community. This in turn leads to a strengthening of the groups social competence and a long

term effect may be expansion beyond the groups previous consistency. An interpretation may

be that the process is working when you can see the development of empathy in the students

work, when the student becomes his character and owns the words expressed by the character.

29

The Romeo and Juliet project is created as entrepreneurial learning as it is a way of working

that has not been used before, it is new and innovative for them.

5.2 Teaching Methods

This chapter brings up the teaching methods used in project. Beginning with why the practical

methods are used and then presenting the different practical methods.

5.2.1 Reasons for practical methods

When feelings are habitually hurt or not heard, we learn concealment through

silence or compliance, showing one set of emotions, but feeling another. . . The

only feelings in others we can readily identify are those which are written on

the body, on public display, and which in some way we recognise as part of our

own experience (Nicholson 1995:34).

My hopes are that by using the practical methods which will be described in this part of the

chapter, the students will come out of their shells, dare to do, be creative and dare to speak

their minds.

When it comes to being realistic about the effect of using drama in the classroom, Gavin

Bolton gives a very good example of how long it takes to accomplish things. After nearly four

hours of teaching, Bolton is asked what he thought the group of 16 year olds had

learned: trust; protecting; negotiating meaning; and containing (Bolton, Theatre Form in

Drama Teaching in Ken Robinson’s Exploring Theatre & Education (1980). However, I will

be satisfied with the following three things: The students ability to sense the dramatic form

and what works in the dramatic process. That drama is for understanding – it has a purpose.

That this purpose is reached through finding an integrity of feeling.

30

5.2.2 Acting

Ever since drama teachers first removed desks and chairs asking students to ‘find a space’,

drama-in-education has had ‘getting up and doing’ at the heart of its methodological approach

(Hornbrook 2001:20) allowing a new physical freedom which may lead to the students

expressing ideas and feelings. Though the students participating in this project are all

unfamiliar with acting terms and different practitioners and acting coaches. Therefore I have

not spent any time informing them of who is who in the world of acting. Instead the process

has been to feel, to draw out from the students own life, what Romeo and Juliet, as well as

other characters, are feeling and experiencing. Different acting methods may be used though

there is no in-depth account of Stanislavski's techniques or how Stella Adler worked with her

actors. Knowing and recognising acting techniques are not part of the project. As Spolin

(1999:14) writes: the actuality of the communication is far more important than the method

used. I do agree with this, however, to be able to communicate in a constructive way, the

students are fed different ways of doing this. Methods developed by Stanislavski, Johnstone

and Cannon for example have been used to find ways of getting to the core of the character.

Characterisation sheets have been used, see attachments: 1 (2018); 2 (2019) and 3 (2019)

where the student describes ‘themselves’ as specifically as possible, specific to each scene

they participate in. Questions include: what happened before you arrived, where are you

going, why do you say what you say, why and how? To better understand mood, action and

reaction.

5.2.3 Role-playing

Role-play, in itself, is an effective way of learning as it forces participants to think about the

person whose role they take, it connects to real-life situations and promotes active, personal

involvement in learning (Billings and Halstead, 2005 cited in Cohen et al 2011:512). O’Toole

and Haseman (1992:3) expand on this and write that role-play can be created around

relationships: between people, between people and ideas and between people and the(ir)

environment. As a way into characterisation and scene work both year-groups used role-play

to better comprehend the different situations and settings of the scenes. One example is the

football scene in the first part of the 2019 play. That scene was established through role-

playing a modern realistic situation that was familiar to everyone in the group. Once it was

decided on the setting, the characters had to be created as an extension of the scene to make

sure they acted accordingly (what does one do when playing football?). Once the setting and

character(s) were decided upon, they moved on to improvising around what they knew had to

31

happen. O’Sullivan (2011:510) writes that Maier et al. (1957) describes one of the benefits of

role-play as being able to demonstrate the gap between thinking and doing and that it has rich

potential for analysing social behaviour and interaction.

5.2.4 Improvisation

Improvised scenes work when improvisers listen to their scene partners and

agree and add onto each other’s ideas without judgment

(Drinko 2018:35).

Introducing the students to improvisation was interesting. With the 2018 groups I started with

showing what it was using the TV program “Whose line is it anyway?” which proved to be

fun to watch but did not produce the desired effect on the floor. Normally both role-play and

improvisation form a useful base where students can build character, understanding and

establish a creative and limitless environment - if they dare. We approach improvisation

through psychological replay which involves reviving lived experiences, much like role-play,

in the simplest possible way (Lecoq 2015:27). Lecoq (2015:29) further writes that we must

always go back to live observation: people watching. Which incidentally was the very first

assignment I gave the student.

5.2.5 People watching

The 2018 group went to the train station where they observed people coming and going. Back

at school they copied what they had seen and created characters with the help of a form they

filled in (see attachment 1: Character sheet). For a further description of the people-watching

talk see the project chapter.

5.2.6 Story-starter and Storytelling

To get the students into a flow, speaking English, using the language, we played a story-game

in one of the first sessions. There are many ways of telling a story and as Zipes (2004:14)

informs us, three is no shortage of storytelling in our western societies. We are inundated by

one story after another on TV, radio, in the news and in magazines, at school, at home, on the

phone and anywhere on the internet. But despite the constant flow and overflow of stories,

there is something missing, the genuine traditional storytelling. Zipes (2004:14) writes that we

have lost the gift of genuine storytelling, this gift is being able to use the power of story to

share and build a meaningful sense of community. This sense of belonging, of sharing, having

something in common was exactly what I was after. In her Storytelling in the classroom

32

Alison Davies (2007:6) writes that storytelling helps develop language. Starting with a one-

word-story they quickly got some crazy stories going and as the stories were passed around

the group. As Zipes (2005:17) writes, the storyteller is an actor, an agent, a translator, an

animator, a thief who robs treasure. One of the groups, while working with their part of the

play, told “personal stories” from the perspective of Romeo and Juliet to establish and build

on what they already knew. This was then used to form new ideas and directions for

progression. Storytelling stretches the imagination and with the telling of stories comes the

use of voices, facial expressions, posture, attitude and movement (Davies 2007:29,46) which

may lead to anything.

5.2.7 Devising

Devised theatre can start from anything (Oddey 2013:14) but instead of starting from scratch;

from an inspiring situation, object, event or person this project will take its inspiration from

Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet. For Oddey (2013:96) the richness of devising theatre

comes in sharing experiences with others. A devised theatre product is often interpreted as a

collaboration, something created by a group of people. Devising is about thinking, conceiving

and forming ideas, being imaginative and spontaneous as well as planning (Oddey 2013:14), a

combination of the methods used in my classroom. As suggested by Oddey (2013:19, 26)

devising may include methods of research, discussion, ‘workshopping’, improvisation or for

example visual experimentation and is a reflection of contemporary culture and society which

makes it fit very well with the themes in the chosen play.

5.3 Performance Pedagogy

“Performance pedagogy has become [...] “the” practice for teaching Shakespeare writes

Schupak (2018:163). What does that mean? Schupak (2018:164) writes that she had high

expectations of the method as she knew, because it was well documented that the advantages

were many: increased student engagement, overcoming the resistance of studying

Shakespeare, focused close-reading and active learning.

The true uniqueness of performance-based teaching lies in the manner in which

it gives agency to the student by placing the words of the author in the mouth of

the pupil and allowing her or him to embody, and thus interpret those words.

(Schupak 2018:166).

What is amazing, but not new to people who ordinarily work with drama, is, according to

Schupak (2018:166) that the teachers influence and dominance reduces and the text becomes

33

the property of the student as she mediates and interprets through and with her body - this

promotes “active learning”. Schechner (1999:139) writes that the play cannot have meaning

until you start to “behave” it. By this he means behave as they do in the play. Core parts

of performance approach is, according to Rocklin (in Schupak 2018:168), to analyse, cast,

rehearse, memorize and perform part of a play which is exactly what both year groups have

done. One more thing that may be part of performance is choral reading or speech which I

used with the 2019 group, full class, with the prologue.

5.4 Ethics

When it comes to ethics within this research project, the students participated in the project as

part of their mandatory education in English. It took place in the classroom as part of the

normal school day. The students were informed of the research (verbally and in writing) and I

went through the intention of the project with them. They received the written information

with the consent form, took it home to be signed by their parents/guardians and returned it the

next day. The students were told that participation in the research project was voluntary which

meant that they had a choice to be part of the research process or not. However, taking part in

the project which was part of their mandatory English lessons was not voluntary. This in turn

meant that everyone had to perform to get their grade in English. Alternatively had there been

many students that did not want to participate, there would have been a theoretical task for

them to do connected to the same play and playwright. However, there were no issues in

either of the year groups, only as stated, one student who did not want to be part of the

research. The students were told that, in documents or anything else relating to the research

project, they would never be referred to by name i.e. the students will always be

anonymous. For further details, please see attachments 4 (Information about informed

consent) and 5a and b (Consent form). In the 2018 group there was one student out of 20 who

did not give consent. This meant that the work the student did was not used in the research

though the student still had to participate for a grade in English. In the 2019 group, everyone

gave consent and participated voluntarily in the research.

Documentation (such as film, sound files, questionnaires and written correspondence etc.) has

been kept on my computer at all times, not saved in a cloud or anywhere where it could be

lost or shared. A backup copy has been saved on the USB drive/memory stick provided by the

University which will also be kept by the University for a limited time period. This project

has been following the advice of Vetenskapsrådets God forskingssed 2017.

34

It was difficult to be both teacher and researcher within the same class. Setting the students

grade has not been a problem, but making sure that they understand their tasks and me having

to take a step back becoming the researcher was difficult both for them and for me to keep

apart but it did not cause a problem, everything just took more time. Another thing that was

difficult to handle at times was the filmed evidence. The students wanted to see themselves,

they wanted to approve the filmed versions of their work. I showed them the films once and

told them that the films would after this viewing be filed away. As I already knew the students

before they took part in the project I could foresee no issues or problems when it came to

ethical demands stated by Vetenskapsrådet and there were none.

35

6. Project

The project part of the essay is structured in such a way that it always brings up the 2018 year

group first, then the 2019 year group. I begin with the process of the project, introducing the

different research and teaching methods used with the two year groups, then we move to

improvisation, devising and last character work. Didactic changes from one year group to

another are discussed throughout the text.

6.1 The process

Around six students take on each part of the play and in addition have to comprehend what

leads up to the moment that their part of the play begins. In the planning stages of the project,

I kept with each step of the method in Jean Benedetti’s book Stanislavski and the actor

(1998/2008) which is described as the following process: Dividing the play into episodes then

divide the episodes into ‘facts’. This is done by picking out the ‘facts’ in the scenes, what

actually happens. The students then have to define what each character does in each episode,

figuring out their basic action; what they have to do, their task, in each ‘fact’. What is the

character doing? Why is he doing it? What are his objectives, his drive, his given

circumstance?

Once they had chosen when and where their play was taking place. I asked the students to

commit to this time period and setting. The 2018 group decided to set the play in the future,

on Mars. What did they know about this planet? Nothing. They needed to create a backstory

to why they were on a different planet, they chose a Star Wars type explanation. “In a galaxy

far far away….” there had been a natural disaster and the survivors travelled to Mars to

colonize it. They found Mars to be just like Earth but with different social rules, this planet

was ruled by women. They had a very determined and driven student who was taking charge

of the project. This was allowed by the others because nobody else wanted, or dared, to

contribute with ideas.

The 2019 group voted for present time and two different settings Helsingborg (Verona) and

Landskrona (Mantua). In a way both settings worked for the different groups as the 2019

group understood the rivalry between the two cities (in the play represented as families).

While the choice of setting for the 2018 group meant that anything could happen, none of the

36

groups had an advantage or knew something that the other groups did not know as a clear

description of the setting had to be created collectively.

Progression then led to students being divided into groups and it was decided by lottery which

part of the play they would be working on.

During the first few lessons with the 2018 group I had to ask them several times to push tables

and chairs towards the walls and ‘find a space’ which they found very difficult as they were

not protected by a table or attached to a chair. They were very vulnerable and often resorted to

finding a corner. When it comes to preparing space, Reynolds (1991:13) writes that while

working with physical exercises one cannot assume that all teachers have access to a hall or

such large open areas. He writes that most exercises can be performed by pushing tables

towards walls, clearing the middle of the room. Irish (2011:12) writes about a teacher (Karen)

who describes one occasion when the furniture in the room they were in was not moved. The

girls were unresponsive, they lacked interest and their ideas were limited. Karen said that the

desk-bound reading had changed their learning style to one that was passive (Irish 2011:12).

I realised that there were empty rooms available and booked one room for rehearsal where we

were able to remove desks and chairs and keep the room locked during the whole period we

needed it and no one else had access to, or used, it. We had three lessons per week, this meant

one lesson per week was dedicated to each group. One chance, per group, to go through each

scene. If students were missing, we lost time. If students were not attentive or on their phones,

arriving late, we lost time. While scene work was happening, the other two groups would be

in the regular classroom devising their part of the play, discussing scenery and costume.

The ‘getting up and doing’ has been a challenge with both year groups but in comparison, less

so with the 2019 group. Entering a room without having them sit down was a challenge in the

beginning with both year groups and there was no time to remove desks and chairs

beforehand. Reynolds (1991:6) writes that he is aware of the problem of getting students off

their chairs in rehearsal but the real purpose is to encourage the students to “think on their

feet.” This I kept saying to them, that they need to feel the words in their bodies to be able to

create meaning.

As time passed it was easier with the 2018 group as the room was already set up, they knew

what they had to do when they entered the room. That was not the case with the 2019 groups.

For the 2019 year groups I booked three rooms, one for each group, where they had to remove

the tables themselves. 15-20 minutes of every lesson (lasting 50 min) was dedicated to going

through the scenes with each group. We would go through one scene at the time, together. I

37

asked them to read the scene out loud, discuss what was happening before, after and what is

actually happening in the scene. Where are they, why are they there? Brown (2011:78) writes

that by speaking the lines out loud the student will begin to understand how the text comes

alive. And this worked brilliantly in the beginning. But as each group was only given 15-20

minutes of supervision during each 50 minute lesson, one of the groups, group number 2,

working on the middle part of the play (from the setup of the wedding to Juliet’s meeting with

Friar Lawrence), decided to do their own version and not stick to the established city feud

setting (Helsingborg-Landskrona). Their part of the play was now set in India, they needed a

temple and had renamed all the characters - all in the 25-30 minutes that they were alone.

The group that received their 15-20 min runthrough first was not a problem but the other two

groups entered the classroom, sat down and were lost in something other than Shakespeare. It

took too long to get them started, time was wasted which reflected badly on the work they did

in the groups.

As is obvious, space was an issue that needed improvement. It was not possible to find an

empty room in the small school on the days that they were needed for rehearsal as they were

all being used. This is then a clear indication that the time period for the project should be

looked into. Perhaps it is a good idea to do the project when some classes are out on work

experience, leaving empty rooms that can be prepared in advance. Having the rooms set up

would also minimize the amount of time removing furniture and save time for warm up work

and giving more time to scene and character work.

6.2 Improvisation

After establishing which group gets which part of the play, the 2018 group starts with

watching improvisation videos, showing what they are expected to do and what improvisation

means. We play a simple warm-up game and do some stretches whereupon they start with

simple tasks such as role-playing a sales situation or asking where the bathroom is. This

worked to some extent, some students were more active than others, as was expected. The

next task was born from Jacques Lecoq’s exercises in the book The Improvisation Studies

Reader – Spontaneous Acts (2015) ed. by Rebecca Caines and Ajay Heble: The party, where

the students were asked to take on a famous character and given the following instructions:

You will be given a party invitation. When you arrive at the party you will pick

a character (out of a hat/bowl) that you are going to become at this party.

You will also be given a task to perform. At the end of the party you should be able

38

to answer the question: who are the other characters and what were their tasks?

The famous characters and the tasks can be found in attachment 6. Contrary to what one

might believe, the students did not find it easy to become celebrities performing silly tasks or

unrealistically falling in love with other famous characters. Perhaps this game had worked

better in a smaller group where they were more comfortable. Though the whole idea was to

create comfort by having fun. Sadly it was unsuccessful.

Next they played a structured improvisation game, the hitchhiker - which is a story in itself.

One group volunteered to start. This group was not embarrassed and no one was forced. In

every shape and form the hitchhiker was a disaster, a hilarious disaster. First there were three

teenagers going to a music festival, picking up a boy with a dead pet kangaroo. The boy was

to infect the teenagers with the feeling of sadness, which he did when he shared the story of

his best friend, Ingemar Larsson the pet kangaroo. The boy had hoped to be dropped off at the

vets but the mood changed and the dead kangaroo ended up being thrown out the window and

the boy partying at the music festival.

6.3 Storytelling

We then moved on to storytelling which was only used with the 2018 year group. We started

by creating single word stories, moved on to single sentence stories and then one minute of

storytelling each. This worked well and two of four groups came up with some fun stories

which led to them wanting to do it again. The other two groups were unsuccessful because of

refusal to speak and one group consisted of one person the others being absent. For the next

lesson they were asked to read The Tale of the Three Brothers from The Tales of Beedle the

Bard by J.K. Rowling (2008) and to think about ways of acting the story out. This worked

with three of four groups, they liked having texts based assignment and not having to use their

imagination and feeling exposed. This success was very inspiring and led to an enthusiasm for

the coming task which was to rewrite their part of Romeo and Juliet.

However successful The Three Brothers task may have been, my project advisor at the time

asked why I had chosen that specific story instead of connecting the task to Shakespeare. I

therefore changed the task for the 2019 groups, connecting all the tasks to the same theme.

6.4 Modern scene Study

Hess (2016:195) writes that it is important that scene study begins with a thorough reading of

the script. The 2019 year group therefore watched the 2013 film version of Romeo and Juliet,

39

directed by Carlo Carlei and we read the play together before dividing it into three equal parts

with an equal amount of scenes for the three groups to work on.

The 2019 groups first task was to reflect on the story in their groups and try to make personal

connections, showing its relevance today. All the groups were able to give examples of issues

that could happen today such as love and loss, family relationships and dysfunctionality,

friends and enemies. My next question was how they would describe the family feuds, how

the fighting, the forbidden love and killings would happen today. The responses were varied:

drug related, hate crimes, honour killings etc. The students could now see that there were

connections to the play written 450 years ago and our reality today.

This led to me showing several different versions of the first fight scene, from 1936, 1968,

1976 and 1996 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9D_4A7yYzc) showing them the

different interpretations, connected with the contemporary world at the time. I asked them if

they thought a situation like that could happen today? Brown (2011:1) writes that students

have to discover Shakespeare’s contemporary relevance which was why the first task the

groups were given was to make a realistic, modern interpretation of the first scene in the play

where the first fight scene (Act 1, scene 1) takes place and the expression “I bite my thumb” is

used.

I asked them where an incident like that might happen and showed them a video on gang

killings in East London (https://news.sky.com/video/uk-gangs-keeping-knife-and-gun-

violence-scoreboard-11726679). Their response was: In the school, on the football field, at the

train station, at a club, anywhere.

With the gang video in mind I asked them to create a short contemporary drama around the

first scene of the play. I received one scene from a football field, one scene in a school and

one scene in a family. This was very interesting because the group constellations very much

reflected their choices. The first group had three football playing boys and three girls. The

second group, only girls, chose the school setting and the last group with five girls and one

boy (all with different cultural backgrounds) chose the family setting. This last group gave the

most heartfelt performance of a broken family. They all clearly understood the task and were

given high grades for creativity, performance and dedication to the task. By taking charge and

being able to relate to characters, settings and situations the students, according to Irish

(2011:7), show ownership, empathic empowerment, problem solving and relevance. And by

doing these things the students are taking risks. They are using their imagination to find

solutions to the problems in the play by relating it to themselves and thereby finding meaning.

It was an overwhelming feeling seeing all the groups so dedicated to the task, wanting to

40

prove that they had understood and were active participants in their groups. Comparing this

task to the 2018 group task, my former adviser was indeed right, there had to be a relevant

connection.

6.5 Connecting Romeo and Juliet to the modern

Moving on from the personal to the story of the play, the groups were asked to redo the scene,

connecting it to what they knew about Romeo and Juliet. It did become a little bit more

difficult when they had to apply Romeo and Juliet to their improvised scenes. It became

particularly difficult for those students who had, for some reason, not watched the film and

could therefore not answer the questions in the quiz (See attachment: 12 Romeo & Juliet - Did

you get it?) correctly which meant additional work for the other students in their group,

having to spend time explaining. This may seem like a setback but in comparison to the

previous year group, this was a real breakthrough as there was communication and

commitment, the students did respond and were able to successfully complete the task.

The reason for using improvisation added to the set framework of Romeo and Juliet was to

make the students more comfortable, more relaxed as they would be using familiar, not

complicated words, making it easier for them to remember their lines. Drinko (2018:46)

suggests teachers should lay the ground rules firmly by stating that the purpose of any

brainstorm is to add ideas and not remove any. Though I partly agree with this, sometimes

removing things is exactly what is needed. The framework of Romeo and Juliet was added

after the first improvisation of the family situation for the 2019 year group and worked much

better than with the 2018 year group. I have previously stated that I, in a way, think that set

framework around improvisation limits the spontaneity and stops the uninhibited story from

developing. However, in the case of the 2019 group, I think the freedom of the family scene

and the later application of the Romeo & Juliet setting was just what they needed to make it

work.

The 2019 group made their narrative much more relatable as they created realistic family

situations and scenarios which they then applied to the Romeo and Juliet framework. The

2018 group were thrown into space (as was their chosen setting) and had to improvise around

what they believed was realistic within the set frame for Romeo and Juliet in the future, in

space, on a different planet. It did not work that well and became both confusing and difficult

to stick with.

41

Next time I saw the 2019 year group I informed them that I wanted them to stay in the groups

they had worked in the previous week and they were randomly given a part of the play to

work on (by picking a folded paper with a number on it out of a hat).

To keep track of students' thoughts and feelings as they were working on the tasks and play, I

used interview and questionnaire with the 2018 year group and only questionnaire with the

2019 year group.

We then moved on to going through all the scenes. One week per scene/per group for the

2019 year group while the 2018 year group was given one lesson per week to go through their

progress with me, we went through all the scenes together.

When the groups started rewriting the play, there were no real personal connections made

with any of the 2018 year groups which resulted in confusion, lack of engagement, students

prone to distraction and above all lack of attention and attendance. While all the 2019 groups

just wanted to get on with it. They were impatient to start and wanted to show their

understanding of the play.

6.6 Realisation – methods working

Working with improvisation, the students realised that they really had to be there, both

physically and mentally, no phones allowed or they would miss their que and mess up the

scene. In the 2019 year groups, all but one group was able to create an improvised scene

around a set theme where they were all focused, alert and aware. This led to a realisation of

their ability which made it fun.

6.7 Working on character

Already in 1799, the Irish actor Macklin stated that if actors did not have the philosophical

knowledge of the character it would be impossible to imitate with accuracy (Kirkman

1799:363). To be able to understand a character you have to walk in their shoes.

The students first task was to observe characteristics.

Hess (2016:17) writes that early in her training she spent a day at the Zoo observing a specific

animal whose behaviour was translated into her own body. Instead of watching animals, I

took them to the train station where they observed people coming and going. In her In-depth

Acting Cannon (2012:12) writes that as an actor you should fine-tune your observational,

listening and concentration skills as well as develop your imagination and stay forever

curious. The students performed a task referred to as “people-watching”. This was something

that worked really well with both year groups. This was an individual task, they each received

42

a form (see attachment number 7 (2018) and 8 (2019)) asking them who they thought the

people were, where they were going, where they came from and why they were there. This,

for both groups, lead to an understanding that if they were able to deduce who these people

were just by watching, they themselves would be able to create characters that were

believable to observers. This relates to Hess’ (2016:3) realization that one’s truth is uniquely

one’s own and pretending does not have to be lying because the interpretation is in the eye of

the beholder. The people-watching task asked more of the 2018 groups than the 2019 groups

as they were asked to re-enact some of the characters that they had observed and created a

back-story to them. This was the first and only time that the whole class worked together in a

fruitful way. The 2019 year group was tasked with people-watching in connection with their

own character creation. One student took the characterisation one step further than everyone

else and created backstories for all the people that she saw and applied these characteristics to

the characters in her part of the play. As the boy in the 2018 year group, she took over but was

more interested in what the scenes looked like then the content, she decorated the classroom

which was her temple and dressed herself and the other girls in turbans made out of T-shirts

but there was no focus on learning lines or creating a deeper meaning and connection to the

characters and the play. Cannon (2012:58) writes that she believes that you have to “own”

your character, not merely play him but take ownership of him. Therefore never refer to the

character as them, but I. I did not cast anyone, they chose their own roles which meant that in

the 2018 year group we had 4 Juliet’s and 4 Romeo’s as the play was divided into four parts.

In the 2019 year group we had three of each.

Benedetti (2017:56) writes that a great actor responds to great writing, he embodies the noble

idea it contains, the high emotion, and in his performance balances the elements of the style

through his voice and body. There was one girl in particular in the 2019 year group that was

outstanding in both her interpretation of character and her performance. She had no help from

her group, tying together scene after scene with her capable ideas and actions. Benedetti

further mentions Greek writer Longinus (1st century AD) stated that the sublime not only

persuades, but throws the audience into transport. Sadly there was nothing sublime about the

2018 year group, they went in and did, no thoughts on how it could be related, how what they

did could be interpreted, they behaved like punch cards: punch in, punch out. Though in the

2019 year group there were several students that stood out in one way or another. The girl

previously mentioned who made us all feel like we were unfeeling robots in comparison and

one boy that excelled at acting. It was difficult to take your eyes of him as he was so focused,

43

so dedicated and so determined to please. His looks lingered on Juliet a little bit too long,

when he stretched out his hand to touch her cheek he hesitated at just the right time. The

balcony scene became a forbidden moment that was so explicit and loving, it made us all

melt. In comparison, the 2018 year groups balcony scene sadly became a joke as Juliet

became unable to speak and Romeo started speaking for her. Romeo was a visitor on Mars

and had fallen in love with the ruler's daughter. He was not supposed to be dominant and

pushy but he was. I suppose it could be argued that that was what made Juliet speechless but it

was not. Juliet in part two of the play in the 2018 version had only showed up for 1 rehearsal

and thought he (Juliet was played by a boy) could pull it off with the help of his domineering

friend who played Romeo. It did not work.

Benedetti (2008:7) writes that there is no “character” out there anywhere, only me alone on a

stage in an imaginary situation. But the I, the me, has to be transported into something else

and by answering six questions, I will understand this someone better: Where have I just

come from? Where am I? What am I doing? Why am I doing it? When is this happening (time

of day, month, year)? Where am I going now? In their Theatre in Practice: a student’s

handbook (2013:25) Annie Sutton and Nick O’Brien call these questions the six w’s (Who,

When, Where, Why, What do I want and What am I willing to do to get it?). The basic task

for the students is to figure out what their characters given circumstances are (what drives

them)? After looking at that in each scene they moved on to what happened before, why what

happens happens and what that leads to.

The 2018 group worked with Role-on-the-wall and questionnaires to describe their characters

while the 2019 year group received an exit-note in Classroom with questions about their

character. In the beginning of the project they received an exit note after each lesson but as we

got further into the project they did one exit note per week. Exit-notes worked much better

than interviews as the students could answer the questions at their own pace, after reflecting.

The 2019 year group also had several opportunities to share their character. There were two

forms, one question sheet and one exit-note (Attachment no: 3 Character worksheet,

attachment no: 2 Character questions and attachment no: 9 Character report) for the students

to answer, making sure that they really knew their character well. But how do they find this

character within themselves? Hess (2016:187) writes through research and rehearsal but most

often by accident does she discover the essence of a character and insight often comes while

working “on her feet.”

44

Acting is the ability to live truthfully under imaginary circumstances

(Sanford Meisner)

Benedetti (2017:1) writes that acting is a normal human activity, a way of showing our

understanding of the world and passing it on to other people. It is done by pretending to be

someone we are not. This was not easy to convey to the 2018 group who instead of pretending

to be someone else chose to be themselves and not participate. The 2019 groups were all

active, they all contributed with ideas for the scenes, were engaged and energetic. Benedetti

(2017:3) further writes that once a performer moves into the designated space, his

performance is governed by certain basic rules: he must be seen, heard, his actions must be

clear and readable, allowing an audience to understand the reasons for his conduct. Here I

would like to bring up the girl in the 2019 year group that established the wedding scene in

India. She very often spoke her lines very fast making it difficult to hear what she was saying.

She spent a lot of time working on the exterior aesthetics of her part of the play but forgot to

fill it with clear pictures of what was going on, making the lines rushed, forced and with so

much decoration one forgot to listen and it all became uninteresting. In one of the last scenes

of the play the students had messed up a little, leaving an open ending that did not make any

sense. Instead of committing suicide she had been saved by Friar Lawrence but driven crazy

by grief. She started seeing Romeo in everyone and there was no established connection to

why and too much talking around the subject of mental instability which left me confused.

Donnellan (2005:66) writes that whatever we do must be a reaction to something that has

happened before. I asked them to rethink the ending and though they did, they created another

type of open ending, but this time it worked. Richards (1995:103) writes that only an actor

who can master what he does is able to create life on stage. Few of the students had a desire to

act while many of them had a desire to get a good grade. As William Espers states (2008:45)

an actor who makes himself the focus of attention becomes self-conscious and paralyzed. You

have to focus your attention on the one you are speaking to, the one you should listen to and

the one that says something before you say something. This relates back to the girl in the 2019

group and the boy in the 2018 group. They were creative but focus lay on self enhancement

instead of on the good of the play, holistically.

6.8 Progression

As the plays progressed, I watched all the parts of the play during all the lessons, running

from room to room with the 2019 year group and staying put with the 2018 year group,

45

though sometimes having to go get the groups if they did not show up in the room dedicated

to the play. With the 2018 year groups, there was progression in two of the groups, the other

two I almost never saw.

The boy who took control of the story, setting and casting would under “normal”

circumstances be considered disruptive and bad. Though in this case his behaviour was

encouraging and the others followed his lead, did not complain and most of them did what

they were told. Had he not taken charge I doubt there would have been a play at the end of the

project.

The people watching task was the first task the 2018 group was given, they created a life

around a person they watched at the train station, this lead to an understanding of inner life

and what a character is. This task was successful with both year groups but the 2019 groups

should have worked further with the task and re-enacted, as the 2018 group did. The

additional task asked the students to physically become the character and perform a task. This

is good for both actor and audience, both experiences are real but from different perspectives,

however embarrassing they thought it was.

There were two students in particular in the 2019 group that excelled at character work and

acting. For the boy it was about asking the right questions to be able to establish a connection

between himself and his character and for the girl it was finding the feelings within herself.

6.9 Summarised discussion of research and teaching method

The analysis of the project has been made possible through reading, experience in the

classroom, observation, questionnaire and discussion with the students.

I have worked with two classes, one in 2018 and the other one the following year, 2019. The

play, Romeo and Juliet, was divided into parts. The 2018 year group consisted of 22 students

and the play was divided into four parts. The second year group: 2019, consisted of 20

students and the play was divided into three parts. The reason for the difference in parts was

not due to student numbers but attendance.

To be able to document the students' thoughts, to get the best version of their truth about the

project, interviews and questionnaires were set up regularly. The purpose of the interview was

to obtain relevant details to be able to produce reliable and applicable data from the material.

46

With the 2018 group both individual and group interviews were carried out but it became

clear that the group interviews gave nothing to the research as two of the three groups were

very insecure and did not dare to speak. Interview was dropped in the 2019 project as it

became obvious that the groups felt pressured to answer correctly even though there was no

correct response. They tried to give the answer that they thought the researcher wanted which

defeated the purpose of the interview. The interviews became less frequent while the

questionnaires instead became more recurrent and worked much better. Though not every

student responded to all the questions, the responses were more frequent and there were more

of them. The answers were short and to the point. As the students in the 2019 year group

found it easier to start working on their scenes, they did not need the structured interview

sessions to be able to answer the questions in the questionnaires. Instead they could reflect

after each lesson, making responses to the questionnaires at their leisure.

By just entering a classroom it was obvious that the space requirements for the project have to

be addressed. As also mentioned and suggested above, planning the project for when other

classes are out on work experience would free up rooms and if thinking one step further,

making sure that the classes have their lesson right after lunch would make the removal of

tables and chairs even easier. Another thing that needs more work is how to go through the

scenes. Neither year group was offered a way that worked well. However, had the group

agreed to do the whole play together, the time that it took going through the scenes would not

have been an issue.

After the failure in space the way into the play had to be reassessed. Neelands (1992:4) writes

that drama is a form of shared cultural activity. This gave me the idea of bringing the students

own cultural settings and environment into the improvisations. One of the 2019 groups picked

up on this immediately, making and understanding the connection between youth gangs in the

early 1600’s and themselves in the present. They chose football, rival towns fighting over the

ball. By making this connection a reality, they were able to see and understand the reason

behind the rivalry. This was the group working with the first part of the play, the gang fight,

the: “I bite my thumb” scene (Act 1, scene 1).

Banks (2013:65) suggests structured improvisations to establish status, one such is a scene

between a famous footballer and his manager that is not happy with his performance - the

change in status is unavoidable. In the scene my students chose, the fight between rival gangs,

on the football field revolved around who possessed the ball. Drama involves taking roles and

adapting to different viewpoints (Neelands 1992:5). The viewpoints in the football scene

47

being the two gangs understanding of each other. Where was the other side coming from?

What was their intention and how did they feel? The difficulty here was that both sides

wanted the same, the ball, and both sides were equally strong, determined and ignorant of

each other. In the improvisation one boy starts calling another boy a thief - just like his

granddad before him, when he does not return the ball. A status game is being played, if you

do not have the ball you try to belittle and bully the one who has it into giving it to you and

this starts the fight.

Neelands (1992:8-9) writes that teachers using drama as a tool face a dilemma of personal

security, responsibility and classroom management. This has indeed been difficult and it

would have been much easier if the groups had accepted working together as a whole group in

one room with one established script. But as that was out of the question, and not a

requirement established by the curriculum, the play was divided up to make it more inclusive

and the groups more content. This meant that the students had to take responsibility

themselves which not all did. The one girl in the 2019 group that really cemented her part of

the play, the character’s mood switches were a bit worrying. Juliet goes from blissful love,

longing for her lover to psychotic when she finds out that he is dead. The girl did an amazing

job, such a good job that I was worried about potential psychological side-effects of

experiencing distress.

An interesting issue is that it seems to be the scheduling, the physical space and the moving of

furniture that makes the project difficult. With the 2018 group this was not an issue as there

was a room available for rehearsal but for the 2019 groups it was a problem. The 2018 groups

had problems with the physical work too, not committing, this was not an issue with two of

three of the 2019 groups as they had at least one driving force in each group that pushed and

had clearly structured ideas to build their improvisations on. Another interesting thing that

seems to happen when the classroom setting changes is that the more disruptive the student is

in a “normal” classroom setting, the more willing they are to work creatively and

practically. I am not the only teacher that has noticed this and will not be the last, yet many

teachers will not work on the floor because of their own insecurity. As with anything, it takes

practice.

In the Google exit note (Exit note 16/10, attachment 10) that 19 of the 20 students in the 2019

year group filled in, one student said that they did not enjoy creating freely on the floor, did

48

not like working with drama and did not understand the task. That one person also stated that

it felt bad to take on a character (see attachment: 11 exit note 16/10). A majority of the

students however enjoyed creating freely (15 of 19), 14 of 19 enjoyed working with drama

from text while three (including the one previously mentioned) did not understand the task

though, curiously one has replied that “it felt good” to take on a character (see attachment: 11

exit note 16/10). Two students did not understand what they were doing and why they were

doing it and ticked the box with the reply “Not really, would you please go through this with

us again” to the statement: I understand the work we are doing and why we are doing it. This

may seem like a setback but in comparison to the previous year group, this was a real

breakthrough partly because it was only two students that did not understand and partly

because they actually admitted not understanding which leads me to believe that they would

like to.

49

7. Conclusion

It seems that in some cases the teaching methods used; devising and improvisation, have

worked wonders for the student’s self-expression and self-esteem. Some students have gone

from sitting silently sulking to becoming an assistant director not afraid to share their thoughts

and ideas. Others have come out of their shell; smiling, energetic and daring to do what they

have never done before. However, not all of them.

Using lesson time effectively.

It was not until two weeks before Christmas when the devising and improvisation really

started to take off with the 2018 year group. With the play finally coming together during the

second week after the Christmas break. One of the 2019 year groups started working

immediately, working really well on their own, they had an idea and were consistently

following it. The other two 2019 groups took their time. They needed someone to guide them

and give them constructive ideas and feedback otherwise they got lost when it did not work.

This often meant that they spent time looking for me when I was with one of the other groups

whereby they lost time, process and efficiency.

English second language learning

All groups have improved their spoken English. While working on their script they looked up

words, found synonyms, heard the words being pronounced and applied this new knowledge

to their performance. When they understood the words and the meaning of the words it was

easy to act accordingly. None of the students that participated in the project failed English.

Some students had an “Aha!” experience that established an enthusiasm for the subject

(English) which since has been seen in other assignments and tasks.

Improvisation

After the Hitchhiker the 2018 groups found it difficult to improvise. They did not want a

teacher in the classroom watching them but if the teacher left they did nothing and had

nothing to show when the teacher returned. It was almost the opposite with the 2019 groups

who were all very creative in the improvisation tasks. They all had ideas that they were able

to realise perhaps due to the openness of the task. This, however, changed for two of the

groups when they were asked to apply the Romeo & Juliet framework. It restricted them in

their creativity and they became insecure, started questioning their own ability and if they

50

were doing it right. This ‘something’ that disconnects and confines the students needs to be

looked into further. What is very interesting is the lack of this ‘something’ as soon as they are

allowed to be creative and productive on their own terms. This leads me to believe that the

right instruction and didactic application could prevent the ‘something’ from destroying the

students creative process.

Group engagement/Ensemble

The 2018 groups lacked members every time they rehearsed which made it difficult to

establish an ensemble feeling which led to lack of engagement and enthusiasm. For the 2019

group it was not the group constellations but the lack of connection to the subject and the loss

of their phones that made them vulnerable and disconnected. In conclusion, as none of the

year groups were used to working on the floor and were not familiar with being asked to

express or expose themselves, the tasks were performed unwillingly, lacking energy and with

a reluctance to speak.

Survey/Questionnaires answers relating to character work

I believe that I have not been asking the right questions as the students seem not to understand

the step between saying yes to a character and becoming one. I have indirectly asked

questions about how it feels to be and become a character but their responses have indicated

misunderstanding, as instead of describing who their character is they have replied with a

title, such as “priest”. Going through the 6 W’s (who, when, why, where, what do I want and

what will I do to get it) it became flat as the work was only done on paper. The character

never had the opportunity to manifest in the student. When they submitted their written work,

the task was completed, the work was over and the character disappeared and was gone. This

made it difficult to pick him up or even find him during the next lesson.

Using the responses from the 2019 questionnaire and the 2018 character documents clearly

showed the lack of connection with character. This meant that adjustments had to be made to

the exercises for the students to establish a further and better connection to their characters.

The following needs more work:

practical character work - more connected lessons, three in a row for example, making

it possible to dedicate a whole afternoon to a task and completing it.

Finding a room where the students can work undisturbed, where the setting is

available and where there are no tables that need to be moved.

51

An understanding of what it means to take on a character, working more practically on

character. Getting to know the character and getting to know themselves. Asking

simple questions like: How does your character walk? How does he fill a glass of

water and drink? Put his shoes on, get dressed. There was no time for these essential

exercises, though with a better planned schedule, they should be a priority. In other

words, many of the students were unable to answer the question: How does it feel to

take on a character? Because they never got there, they did not make the connection.

Time was an issue with both groups as it was not spent sensibly and when they said

that they needed more time to rehearse, that was because they did not use the time

constructively, but wasted it and in the end they were not taking on a character, they

are improvising as themselves. There was a lack of understanding of what it means to

convincingly take on a character. Acting - what is that? Perhaps there should be an

acting history lesson connected to the character work, clearly showing the progress in

acting during the 20th century. And this before they go out and do the people-

watching.

Working with Shakespeare and performance pedagogy

Bolton and Heathcote (1999) found that when teachers commit to a role, students feel more

protected within the drama, as the burden of establishing a social context in real-time is now

shared with a teacher. This brings to light the students lack of both understanding and

commitment to the task - they need a leader to guide them, as previously mentioned with

some of the 2019 groups. When the students understand they can commit. This problem is

something I did not acknowledge or even consider as there was no option of having one

teacher per group. To solve this issue, the classes should not be divided up, they should work

together.

For the character exercises to work the students need to have a basic understanding of what

acting is and how drama works. The adjustment of character exercises has to happen as soon

as it is clear that something is not working, directly or the next lesson. Character exercises

have to be used between and before the other tasks. The students should be able to do the

tasks as the character. This did not happen for anyone other than the two students already

mentioned on several occasions. The way that both year groups worked with the exercises

needs improvement, more time and supervision.

52

Before this project, the challenges foreseen were connected with some students’

unwillingness to use drama and theatre in the classroom. This is now realised to be due to the

lack of understanding of the teaching methods, not understanding what was required of them

and definitely not realising how much fun it could be for both teacher and students.

Doing it twice

After having done the same project twice, it is clear that the tasks have to be tweaked based

on the groups ability, willingness and experience. But not only that, one cannot forget that

these groups are not theatre groups, they are high school students most of them preparing for

university and several years of higher education. Most of them see the English course as 100

points that need to be acquired and do not care as long as they pass.

For the project to be a success and for the students to care, the project has to be relevant - not

only to fit the requirements of the curriculum but it is even more important to make it relevant

to the students, their lives and their future.

The result of the action research clearly shows the importance of relevance for the students.

The play has to be understood and relatable, connected to their own lives, their own time

period to be meaningful.

More in-depth character work linked to the improvisation and devising is needed for there to

be a connection between actor/student and character.

An important factor was the teachers’ ability to be present and guiding at all times during the

lessons, dividing up the class is not recommended. Having access to a separate room/space

that does not require moving of furniture saves time and lets the student get to task

immediately. Last but not least the students need to develop an understanding of using drama

by being led into the work slowly, making it natural instead of a totally different way of

teaching that they are not used to.

A third time around? Action research has worked very well overall in the project, it has

clearly shown what worked and what did not work by being a cyclical process. If there was an

option of doing this a third time I am sure that there would be other parts of the process that

would work better, and not, than with the 2018 and 2019 groups. For the action research in

education to be a successful process for both learner and teacher/assessor it is very clear that

prior knowledge of the theatre process should be acquired by the student, meaning that a

“lead-in” part on what theatre and drama is and how it is used as tool and method would be

added to the project before the introduction to the play itself. This would strengthen the

53

students understanding of what is expected of them as they would have a clear idea of what

the end product (the performance) may and should look like. However, I do not believe that

there is a better method for this type of project, which is why I would use the same method a

third time.

54

8. References

Allain, Paul & Harvie, Jen, The Routledge companion to theatre and performance

[Elektronisk resurs], Routledge, London, 2006

Baker, Lynda M. Observation: A Complex Research Method, Library Trends, vol. 55, no. 1,

summer 2006. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, ML.

Bamford, Anne. The Wow Factor: Global Research compendium on the impact of the arts in

education, 2006.

Banks, Fiona. Creative Shakespeare the Globe Education guide to Practical Shakespeare,

Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2013

Benedetti, Jean. The Art of the Actor: the essential history of acting, from classical times to

the present day, Routledge, London, 2017

Benedetti, Jean. Stanislavski and the actor, Methuen Drama, 2008

Bergman Blix, Stina. ‘Stage actors and emotions at work’, Int. J. Work Organisation and

Emotion, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.161–172. 2007

Bolton, Gavin. - Drama för lärande och insikt : om dramapedagogik i teori och praktik /

Gavin Bolton ; texter i urval av Anita Grünbaum ; översättning: Anna Sörmark, Daidalos,

Göteborg, 2008

Bolton, Gavin, Towards a Theory of Drama in Education, Longman, London, 1979

Boyer, Arlynda, Teaching Shakespeare Through the Theatrical Practice of Doubling, This

Rough Magic, June 2018 http://www.thisroughmagic.org/boyer%20article.html

Boyd. Michael, Foreword in Berry, Cicely, From Word to Play: a Handbook for Directors,

Oberon Books [electronic version], London, 2007

Brown, John Russell, Studying Shakespeare in Performance, Palgrave Macmillan, London,

2011

Burgoyne, Suzanne; Poulin, Karen and Rearden, Ashley. The impact of acting on student

actors: boundary blurring, growth and emotional distress, in Theatre Topics, 1999, vol. 9 (2),

pp. 157-179. Accessed 2019-12-28

Caines, Rebecca and Heble, Ajay (ed.), The Improvisation Studies Reader – Spontaneous

Acts. Routledge, London, 2015.

Cannon, Dee. In-Depth Acting, Oberon Books, 2012

Carlei, Carlo (director), Romeo & Juliet, Echo Lake Entertainment, Icon Productions, 2013.

Carnicke, Sharon Marie, Stanislavsky’s system: pathways for the actor in Alison Hodge (ed.)

Actor Training, Routledge, London, 2010

55

Cohen, Louis, Manion, Lawrence. & Morrison, Keith, Research methods in education

[Elektronisk resurs], 7. ed., Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, 2018

Cozart Riggio, Milla. Teaching Shakespeare through performance, The Modern Language

Association of America, New York, 1999

Creswell, J. W. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (second edition).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012

Davies, Alison, Storytelling in the classroom: enhancing oral and traditional skills for

teachers, Paul Chapman Pub., London, 2007

Denscombe, Martyn, The Good Research Guide: for small-scale research projects, Open

University Press, Maidenhead, 2010.

DeWalt, Kathleen Musante & DeWalt, Billie R., Participant Observation [Elektronisk

resurs], AltaMira Press, 2010

Dewey, John, Democracy and education [Elektronisk resurs], Project Gutenberg, Champaign,

Ill., 199? Accessed 26 Apr. 2020.

Donnellan, Declan, The Actor and the target, Nick Hern Books, London, 2002

Drinko, Clayton D, The Improv Paradigm: Three principles that Spur Creativity in the

Classroom in Creativity in Theatre – Theory and Action in Theatre/Drama Education ed.

Suzanne Burgoyne, Springer International Publishing AG, 2018.

Dyer, C. Beginning Research in Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995

Espers, William & DiMarco, Damon, The Actor’s art and craft William Espers teaches the

Meisner Technique, Anchor Books, Random House, New York, 2008

Ferrance, E. Action Research. Providence, RI: North-east and Islands Regional Educational

Laboratory at Brown University. 2000 Available from:

www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/themes_ed/act_research.pdf accessed 2020-06-16

Forssten Seiser, Anette, Skolförbättring med vetenskaplig grund – Så stärktes ett pedagogiskt

ledarskap, Studentlittertur, 2019.

Frost, Anthony & Yarrow, Ralph, Improvisation in drama, theatre and performance: history,

practice, theory, Third edition., Palgrave, London, 2016

Graham, Scott & Hoggett, Steven. The Frantic Assembly book of devising theatre [second

edition, electronic version] Routledge, London, 2014

Grundy, S. Curriculum: Product or Praxis. Lewes, UK: Falmer. 1987

Heddon, Deirdre and Milling, Jane. Devising Performance - A critical History,

PalgraveMacmillan, 2006

56

Hess, Elizabeth., Acting and Being Explorations in Embodied Performance, Palgrave

Macmillan UK, London, 2016

Heathcote, Dorothy & Bolton, Gavin, Drama for learning: Dorothy Heathcote's mantle of the

expert approach to education, Heinemann, Portsmouth, N. H., 1995

Hiberdink-Sakamoto, Kimoko, Reconsidering ‘doubling’: the case of Globe on Tours

Comedy of Errors (2009-2011), Journal of Arts & Humanities, Vol 2, No 6 (2013): http://dx.doi.org/10.18533/journal.v2i6.159

Hochschild, J. L. (2009) Conducting intensive interviews and elite interviews. Workshop on

Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research. Available from:

https://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/soc/ISSQR_workshop_rpt.pdf Accessed 20200617

Hodge, Alison, Actor Training [Elektronisk resurs], Taylor & Francis, Hoboken, 2010

Hodgson, John & Richards, Ernest, Improvisation, New rev. ed., paperback, Eyre Methuen,

London, 1978

Hornbrook, David., Education and Dramatic Art [Elektronisk resurs], 2, Routledge, 2002

Hughes, Ted. The Essential Shakespeare, Ecco Press, Hopewell NJ, 1991

Hult, M. and Lennung, S. Towards a definition of action- research: a note and bibliography.

Journal of Management Studies, 17 (2), pp. 241–50, 1980

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1980.tb00087.x Accessed

20200617

Irish, Tracy, Would you risk it for Shakespeare? A case study of using active approaches in

the English classroom in English in Education Research journal of the National Association

for the Teaching of English, 45:1, 6-19, 2011.

https://doi.org/10.1111/17548845.2010.11912421

Accessed 2019-12-05

Jackson, Anthony. Theatre, Education and The Making of Meaning – art or instrument?

Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2007.

Johnstone, Keith. Impro – Improvisation and the theatre, Methuen Drama, London, 1993

Kemmis, Stephen., McTaggart, Robin. & Nixon, Rhonda., The Action Research Planner

[Elektronisk resurs] Doing Critical Participatory Action Research, Springer Singapore,

Singapore, 2014 Accessed 20200617

Kempe, Andy & Nicholson, Helen, Learning to teach drama 11-18, Bloomsbury, London,

2010

Kidd, Debrah The Mantle of Macbeth, English in Education, 2011, 45:1, 72-85.

Kincaid, Bill, Performing Shakespeare Unrehearsed - A practical guide to acting and

producing spontaneous Shakespeare, Routledge, New York, 2018

57

Kirkman, Thomas James, The Memoirs of Charles Macklin Esq, Allen and Co, London. 1799

Kvale, Steinar, Doing Interviews, SAGE Publications, London, 2011

Lelinge, Balli och Widén, Pär, Entreprenöriellt lärande i skolan, Studentlitteratur, Lund,

2014.

Lewin, Kurt, Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2 (4), pp. 34–

46, 1946, https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x

accessed 2020616

Lewin, Miriam (Producer), Creating Rich Learning Environments. In The Art of Teaching the

Arts: a Workshop for High School Teachers. 5. District of Columbia: Anneberg Learner

[streaming video], Retrieved from: video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/creating-rich-learning-

envornments, Accessed on 11/12/2019

Lindell, Kiki, Staging Shakespeare’s Comedies with EFL University Students, Doctoral

Thesis, Centre for Languages and Literature English Studies, Lund University, 2012.

Introduction & conclusion.

Lindqvist, Gunilla. Vygotskij och skolan, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1999

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B. (2016) Designing Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage, 2016,

https://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?Refer

enceID=2043112 Accessed 20200616

McKernan, J. Curriculum Action Research. London: Kogan Page, 199,

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED408884 Accessed 20200616

Moksnes Furu. E. Rak lærerrygg: Aksjonslæring i skolen. Doktorsavhandling. Tromsø:

Universitetet i Tromsø, 2007 https://www.skolporten.se/forskning/avhandling/rak-laererrygg-

aksjonslaering-i-skolen/ Accessed 20200617

Neelands, Jonothan, Learning through Imagined Experience, Hodder & Stoughton, 1992

Nicholson, Helen, ‘Drama education, gender and identity’, Forum of Education (Australia),

50(2), 1995, p.34.

Nilsson, Björn. Individ och grupp – En introduktion till gruppsykologi. Studentlitteratur,

Lund, 1993.

Oddey, Alison, Devising Theatre: A practical and Theoretical Handbook, Routledge,

London, 2013.

Olsson, Eva-Kristina, Att vara någon annan – Teater som estetisk lärprocess vid tre 6-9

skolor, Licentiatavhandling Litteraturvetenskap, Växjö Universitet, 2006 tillgänglig:

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:207211/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Accessed 9/11/2019

58

O’Sullivan, Carmel. Role-playing, chapter 26 p. 510-527 in Cohen, L., Manion, L. &

Morrison, K. Research methods in education. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; Routledge,

2011.

O’Toole, John & Haseman, Brad. Dramawise: An introduction to the elements of drama,

Heinemann Educational, Victoria AU, 1992.

Reynolds, Peter, Practical Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare, Oxford University Press,

1991.

Robinson, Ken (ed.), Exploring Theatre & Education, Heinemann, London, 1980

Rowling, J. K., The tales of Beedle the Bard, Children's High Level Group, London, 2008

Richards, Thomas & Grotowski, Jerzy, At work with Grotowski on physical actions

[Elektronisk resurs], Routledge, London, 1995

Rönnerman, Karin, Aktionsforskning i praktiken – förskola och skola på vetenskaplig grund,

Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2012

Schechner, Richard, Performance Theory, Routledge, London, 1988

Schupak, Esther B. Shakespeare and Performance Pedagogy, Changing English, 25:2, 163-

179.

Simpson, M. and Tuson, J. Using Observations in Small-Scale Research: A Beginner’s Guide

(revised edition). Glasgow: University of Glasgow, the SCRE Centre, 2003.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED481695 Downloaded 20200616

Somekh, B. The contribution of action research to development in social endeavours: a

position paper on action research methodology. British Educational Research Journal, 21 (3),

pp. 339–55, 1995, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0141192950210307

Accessed 20200616

UK gangs keeping knife and gun violence scoreboard, https://news.sky.com/video/uk-gangs-

keeping-knife-and-gun-violence-scoreboard-11726679 broadcast May 23, 2019

Spolin, Viola, Improvisation for the theatre: A handbook of teaching and directing

techniques: Including two hundred and twenty theatre games, Pitman, London, 1963

Skolverket, Requirements for the teaching of English:

https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.4fc05a3f164131a74181056/1535372297288/English-

swedish-school.pdf

Sternudd, Sternudd, Mia Marie F., Dramapedagogik som demokratisk fostran?: fyra

dramapedagogiska perspektiv : dramapedagogik i fyra läroplaner, Acta Universitatis

Upsaliensis, Diss. Uppsala : Univ.,Uppsala, 2000

http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-472

59

Sutton, Annie & O’Brien, Nick, Theatre in Practice A student’s handbook, Routledge,

London, 2013

Säljö, Roger, Lärande i praktiken ett sociokulturellt perspektiv, TPB, Johanneshov, 2011

Thompson, Ayanna & Turchi, Laura. Teaching Shakespeare with purpose, The Arden

Shakespeare, Bloomsbury, London, 2016

Vetenskapsrådet, God Forskningssed 2017,

https://www.vr.se/download/18.2412c5311624176023d25b05/1529480532631/God-

forskningssed_VR_2017.pdf

Vygotsky, Lev. Fantasi och Kreativitet i barndomen, Daidalos, Göteborg, 1995.

Wellington, J. Educational Research (second edition). London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015

Winston, Joe. Transforming the Teaching of Shakespeare with the Royal Shakespeare

Company, Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2015

Zarrilli, Phillip B. Acting (Re)Considered - Theories and practices, Routledge, London and

New York, 1995

Zipes, Jack. “To Eat or Be Eaten: The Survival of Traditional Storytelling.” Storytelling, Self,

Society, vol. 2, no. 1, 2005, pp. 1–20. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41948950

Zipes, Jack. Speaking out - Storytelling and Creative Drama for Children, Routledge, London

and New York, 2004

Åberg, Karin. Bland stjärnor och syndabockar, om hur man skapar ett gott samarbetsklimat i

klassrummet. Ekelund, Solna., 1995.

Østern, Anna-Lena, Backas, Ingegerd & Sarling, Isabella, Dramatisk improvisation: ledarens

metodik och pedagogiska grundsyn, Åbo akad., Pedagogiska fakulteten, Vasa, 1994

60

9. Attachments

Here follows the attachments mentioned in the essay and used in project.

9.1 List of attachments

1. Character Sheet 2018

2. Character Questions 2019

3. Character Worksheet - nine questions 2019

4. Information letter - consent 2018

5. A Informed consent - 2018

5 B Informed consent - 2019

6. Characters for improv 2018

7. People watching 2018

8. People watching 2019

9. Character report 2019

10. Exit note 16/10 google forms (questions) 2019

11. Exit note 16/10 (responses) 2019

12. Romeo & Juliet – Did you get it? 2019

61

9.2 Attachment 1:

Character Sheet - Physical Qualities

1. Who am I?

2. Who am I named after? Do I like my name?

3. What is my gender? What do I think about sex?

4. How old am I? What do I think of my age?

5. How does my posture express my age, health, inner feeling?

6. How is my complexion? What do I think of it?

7. What is my height? What do I think of I?

8. What is my weight? What do I think of it?

9. What is the pitch, volume, tempo, resonance or quality of my voice? What do I think of it?

10. Is my articulation careless or precise? Is my articulation standard or colloquial? Do I have

a dialect or accent?

11. What is my hair color and style? Do I like it?

12. Do I have any deformities? What do I think of them?

13. Do I have any mannerisms? What do I think of them?

14. Do I have any handicaps? What do I think of them?

15. How energetic or vital am I? Do I like it?

16. Do I suffer from any diseases past or present?

17. Are my gestures complete or incomplete, vigorous or weak, compulsive or controlled? 18.

Do I like my walk?

19. How do I usually sit?

20. How do I usually stand?

21. Do I have any objects, hand props or accessories with me? Why? How do I handle them?

22. Are my basic rhythms smooth or jerky, even-tempered or volatile, impulsive or deliberate,

ponderous or light, broken or continuous?

23. What do I like to wear? What do I have to wear? How do I wear my clothes? How do I

handle them?

Social Qualities

1. What do I do when I wake up each morning?

2. What is my relationship to my environment? Do I like it?

3. What is my educational background? How much discipline was I subjected to? How

intelligent am I?

4. What was my childhood like? What are my strongest memories?

5. How much money do I have? How much do I want?

6. What is my nationality? What do I think of it?

7. What is my occupation? Do I like it? What other jobs have I had? When and why did I

choose this one?

8. What are my political attitudes?

9. Am I religious?

10. Whom would I choose to be if I could be anyone else?

11. Did I have childhood heroes? What did I like about them?

12. Do I like members of the opposite sex? What do I like about them?

13. Who were my parents? What do I like and/or dislike about them?

14. Do I like my family? What do I like? What do I dislike?

15. How has my mother influenced me? How has my father influenced me?

16. Do I have brothers and sisters? What do I think about them?

17. What was my favorite fairy tale? Why?

62

18. Who are my friends? Who are my enemies? How can I tell if someone is a friend or an

enemy?

19. What ideas do I like? What ideas do I dislike?

20. What hobbies or interests do I have?

21. Do I have children? Do I like them? Why? Do they like me?

22. What advice do I have for my children?

23. Am I married? Why did I marry the person I did?

24. What do I think about my spouse? What do I dislike?

25. How do my physical traits affect each of the social traits?

26. How do the social traits affect the script and my objective?

27. How do the social traits affect my life needs and wants?

Psychological Qualities

1. What choices do I face?

2. What choices do I make?

3. What makes me angry? What relaxes me?

4. What are my driving ambitions, my goals?

5. Do I have any instincts?

6. Do I do things impulsively?

7. What do I worry about?

8. What do I want? What do others think I want?

9. What do I like about myself? Dislike about myself?

10. What do I need?

11. What do I fear?

12. Why can’t I get what I want?

13. Do other people like me? Why?

14. Are any of my psychological traits manifested physically?

15. Are any of my psychological traits manifested vocally

Moral Qualities

1. Are the choices I will make based upon expediency of some ethical standard?

2. Who do I admire?

3. Will the pursuit of my needs lead to a moral choice?

4. What is my attitude toward the choice I make?

5. How do I express this attitude vocally and physically?

Things to think of regarding the character in the play

1. Who am I? (character-search for character’s life prior to play’s/scene’s

beginning)

2. Where am I? (environment: location, conditions)

3. What surrounds me? (persons, objects, color and texture)

4. What time is it? (hour, minute, date, year, century, era)

5. What are the given circumstances? (those events, facts, and conditions occurring before or

during the play/scene that affect the character and /or action)

63

6. What is my relationship? (to all of the above and to other characters-solid or shifting?)

7. What do I want? (Objectives or Intention –includes the overall character objectives as well

as more immediate beat to-beat intentions).

8. What’s in my way? (Obstacle)

9. What do I do to get what I want? (ACTION – VERBS; physical, verbal, psychological)

64

9.3 Attachment 2:

Character questions:

Only answer the questions connected with your character.

Juliet 1. How do you show Juliet's attitude towards love?

2. Her attitude towards her parents?

3. Attitude towards marriage to Paris?

4. Attitude towards marriage to Romeo?

5. Attitude towards love in the Balcony scene?

6. Lord Capulet informs Juliet that she must marry Paris. Juliet reacts angrily, as she

does not love Paris. “He shall not make me there a joyful bride“ How do you show

this?

Romeo

1. How do you show Romeo's attitude towards love?

2. When he finds out who Juliet is, how does he feel and how do you show that?

3. Attitude towards marriage? Why do you think he is desperate to get married? And

how does that show?

4. He shows his desperation for example when setting up the wedding with the priest,

how do you think this desperation is different from when he loved Rosaline?

5. Attitude towards love in the Balcony scene?

6. Romeo says he loves Tybalt, Juliet’s cousin, explain this love, how do you show this?

Friar Lawrence: 1. First he is surprised that Romeo wants to marry someone other than Rosaline, how do

you show this?

2. Friar then decides to marry then, he thinks it is a good way to end the fighting - he is

being inventive - how do you show that? And what do you really think about this set

up?

3. Juliet comes to you in desperation when she is told she has to marry Paris, how do you

feel about this and how do you show it?

4. How do you explain to Juliet your plan to save both her and Romeo? How do you feel

this suggestion is received by Juliet?

5. The missing message - what type of feelings are connected with this and how do you

show it?

6. In the end, when the Friar confesses to Juliet’s parents what he has done, how do you

interpret that? How do you think they see you after you admit to deceiving them?

Juliet’s Mother and Father

1. Juliet is very young, how does it feel to give her away?

2. Do you want to get rid of her? How does that feel? How does your character show

this?

3. When Juliet refuses to marry Paris, what do you do and how does that feel?

65

4. Your daughter is willing to kill herself rather than do as you want. How does that feel?

Would you say that you are a good parent?

5. When you find out that you have been deceived by Friar Lawrence? Will you ever

trust him again?

6. This conflict that you have with the Montague’s, how does that feel now that your

daughter is dead?

Mercutio and Benvolio

1. Mercutio and Benvolio both want to keep the peace but Mercutio is really angry.

There is a frustration in both these characters, though different. Explain how this

frustration feels.

2. While Mercutio is more aggressive, Benvolio is calm. Romeo is a friend of both. How

do you see Romeo, what do you think about his behaviour when it comes to love?

3. Mercutio dies and Benvolio runs off to inform the family. This is the effect of their

behaviour - they are extreme contrasts. How would you say their relationship works?

4. Benvolio is the only survivor, do you think Mercutio thinks he is a traitor? Benvolio

avoids being in the middle, is he a traitor?

5. Romeo keeps them both close. Mercutio is joking and enjoys life to the fullest while

Benvolio is more quiet and contemplating. How would they fare without Romeo do

you think? Would they be friends?

6.

Nurse

1. Nurse has been with Juliet her whole life. How does she feel about her?

2. While Juliet is playful, Nurse is restrictive (mature) how is their relationship?

3. At the party Nurse sees Juliet kiss Romeo. Knowing that he is from the rival family.

Why does she not stop this?

4. Nurse meets Romeo and helps set up the wedding. Why? How does it feel to give

Juliet away, she is only a child?

5. Nurse is the one who finds Juliet ‘dead’, how does that feel? What do you do?

6. Nurse sets up the wedding night, inviting Romeo into the family house before he is

banished. You are breaking many moral rules here, how does that feel?

Tybalt

1. Tybalt is angry, defensive and very loyal to his family, the Capulets. He is a leading

instigator in every fight. Why is he so angry? Why does he want to kill Mercutio and

Romeo?

2. At the Capulet ball, Tybalt sees Romeo and wants to throw him out but Juliet’s father

stops him. The frustration that you feel when you are not allowed to follow through on

your anger, how does that feel?

66

3. You confront your cousin, Juliet, at the ball. You have seen her with your enemy

Romeo. What do you say to her? What mood are you in, your temper?

4. The day after the party you meet Mercutio and Romeo in the street. Romeo says he

does not want to fight you, that he loves you more than you know. How do you

interpret this? What do you think he means? Is he making fun of you?

5. This anger you then take out on Mercutio and kill him the day after. How does that

feel? Release? A sense of completion? Do you feel powerful?

6. Romeo comes after you when you have killed his best friend. How does that feel?

How do you defend yourself? Are you scared?

Paris

1. Paris is older than Juliet, but you want to marry her. How do you see Juliet? Is she a

child?

2. First Juliet’s father is reluctant to give his daughter to you but then he changes his

mind. How does that make you feel?

3. At the ball you dance with Juliet but she is distracted and goes off with someone else,

how does that make you feel?

4. Your beloved Juliet has died. You are told by her parents that she has passed away,

what does this make you do? How do you feel when you find out that she has killed

herself rather than marry you?

5. At the tomb you meet Romeo who is an outlaw. You fight with him, why?

6. Your wish is to die and be laid out with Juliet in her tomb, why?

“Side” characters (Rosaline, Apothecary, messengers etc.)

1. You are aiding Juliet and Romeos love affair in some way. How do you feel about

this? Are you doing this willingly or do you feel forced to?

2. Finding out that Juliet is forced to marry at such a young age, how do you relate to

this? Do you support this? How does it feel to know that at 14 she is becoming an old

mans wife?

3. The family relationship (Juliets or Romeos), you see this as an outsider. How do you

relate to the family, what do you think about it and how do you show this in your part

of the play?

4. The apothecary (for example) is poor and it is illegal to sell poison (drugs) but he does

it anyway because he needs the money. On the other hand, you have contributed to

Romeo killing himself. How does that make you feel? Guilty? Good riddance?

5. Does it matter if you are a Capulet or a Montague? The feelings of belonging and hate

for the other family are the same. How do you show this hate, how do you show the

belonging?

6. You are one of the few survivors of the play, how does it feel to see all this death

around you? How do you show this in the play?

67

9.4 Attachment 3:

Nine Questions Worksheet

1. WHO AM I? (All the details about your character including name, age, address, relatives, likes, dislikes, hobbies, career, description of physical traits, opinions, beliefs, religion, education, origins, enemies, loved ones, sociological influences, etc.)

2. WHAT TIME IS IT? (Century, season, year, day, minute, significance of time)

3. WHERE AM I? (Country, city, neighbourhood, home, room, area of room)

4. WHAT SURROUNDS ME? (Animate and inanimate objects-complete details of environment)

5. WHAT ARE THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES? (Past, present, future and all of the events - what are my reasons for doing what I am doing?)

6. WHAT ARE MY RELATIONSHIPS? (Relation to total events - the whole story (what is your place in the story), other characters, and to things)

7. WHAT DO I WANT? (Your character’s needs. The immediate and main objective)

8. WHAT IS IN MY WAY? (The obstacles which prevent character from getting his/her need)

9. WHAT DO I DO TO GET WHAT I WANT? (The action: physical and verbal, also-action verbs)

68

9.5 Attachment 4

Institutionen för de humanistiska och samhällsvetenskapliga ämnenas didaktik (HSD)

Informationsbrev om samtycke

1. Inledande information

I följande stycke får Du information om projektet och forskaren.

Mitt namn är Clara Hultgren och jag undervisar i engelska på Drottning Blanka Gymnasieskola

Södra Kyrkogatan. Under höstterminen kommer jag att skriva en uppsats i Drama och

Tillämpad teater för en magisterkurs vid Stockholms Universitet. Uppsatsen handlar om hur det

känns att vara i roll och hur man med hjälp av rollen skapar en berättelse. Forskningsfrågan

lyder (med reservation för viss ändring): How can one adjust character exercises to meet

didactical challenges when working on a devised version of a Shakespeare play.

Du tillfrågas härmed om ditt deltagande i denna undersökning.

Anledningen till detta brev är att jag vill ha er tillåtelse att observera och dokumentera under

lektionen och intervjua i samband med undervisningen. Dock är projektet är en del i den vanliga

undervisningen som handlar om Shakespeares pjäs Romeo och Julia.

2. Syfte, genomförande och hantering av material.

Undersökningens fokus är ett praxisrelaterat problem och syftet handlar om att bättre förstår

hur man på bästa sätt kan undervisa utifrån rolltagande för att som denna karaktär skapa en

berättelse genom improvisation.

Undersökningen är relevant både med koppling till kursmålen för den programobligatoriska

kursen engelska 6; att både kunna använda språket och förstå talad engelska, äldre litteratur

och drama samt att kunna koppla uppgiften till dagens samhälle och använda sin nyförvärvade

kunskap i sitt eget arbete. Undersökningen är också relevant med koppling till eleverna

program och personliga utveckling då jag i undervisningen kommer att arbeta

dramapedagogiskt, berättande och individuellt med elevens eget skapande i roll och byggande

69

av karaktär. Detta kommer i sin tur vara relevant för elevens vidare utbildning som handlar

om att kunna arbeta med och bemöta alla människor

Det praktiska genomförandet av projektet

Klassen har valts ut att deltaga i undersökningen eftersom det är en samhällsklass och de

förväntas att i framtiden arbeta med människor.

Pjäsen Romeo och Julia handlar om två familjer som legat i strid med varandra i flera

generationer. Som samhällsvetare är det viktigt för eleverna att förstå samhället utanför skolan

och utanför sin egen familj. Praktiskt kommer vi därför att, till att börja med, arbeta med

rollspel som vidare kommer att växa till improvisationer i roll och skapandet av en ny version

av originalpjäsen. För att rollspelet ska kunna växa behöver eleverna förstå vad det innebär att

gå i roll och bli en annan person. Vi kommer att arbeta med rollanalys och eleverna kommer

även att få ikläda sig rollerna i ’verkligheten’ och göra uppgifter i roll utanför skolan.

I klassen går det 20 elever och det kommer inte att ske något urval av elever för

datainsamlingen.

All elever (som väljer att delta) kommer att ingå i datainsamlingsgruppen, vilket betyder att

alla elevers arbete dokumenteras och observeras.

Den enskilde eleven förväntas utföra rollanalys, ta en roll, i grupp improvisera fram en ny

version av Shakespeares Romeo och Julia, visa upp resultatet av denna version, skriva

reflekterande dagbok i bloggformat och delta i reflekterande individuella och gruppsamtal.

Tidsmässigt kommer projektet att pågå fram till jul (vecka 51) och möten sker tre

gånger i veckan under lektionstid (t.ex. måndagar 40, torsdagar 55 min och

fredagar 55 min.)

En riskanalys kommer att utföras tillsammans med klassen i början av projektet

där vi går igenom eventuella risker som kan uppkomma i de olika

arbetssituationerna dock finns det inte något som säger att det skulle finnas fler

risker i denna sorts arbete i jämförelse med vanlig katederundervisning.

Ditt deltagande i undersökningen är helt frivilligt. Du kan när som helst avbryta

ditt deltagande utan närmare motivering.

c. Det insamlade materialet kommer att bearbetas, hanteras och arkiveras i tio år.

Materialet kommer endast att användas i vetenskapligt syfte. Materials kan komma att

användas av andra forskare men i så fall först efter ert godkännande och informerade

samtycke. Undersökningen kommer att analyseras och presenteras i form av en

uppsats vid Stockholms Universitet.

Stockholms universitet är personuppgiftsansvarig för personuppgifterna.

3. Avslutande information

Avslutningsvis vill jag uppmuntra er att ta kontakt med mig eller min handledare Dr.David

Fopp vid Stockholms Universitet om det är något ni undrar över.

Ytterligare upplysningar lämnas av nedanstående ansvariga.

Helsingborg/Stockholm den 18 november, 2018.

Clara Hultgren Dr. David Fopp

Clara.hultgren@dbgy.se david.fopp@hsd.su.se

70

9.6 Attachment 5a

Informerat samtycke

Helsingborg den 18 november 2018

Till vårdnadshavare och elever i klass SA17 vid Drottning Blanka Gymnasieskola Södra

Kyrkogatan.

Jag heter Clara Hultgren och undervisar i engelska. Samtidigt läser jag en magisterkurs i drama och

tillämpad teater vid Stockholms universitet och denna termin skriver jag en uppsats med anknytning till

Tillämpad teater i undervisningen av engelska med koppling till elevers lärande. Syftet är att undersöka

hur det känns att vara i roll och hur man genom att ta på sig en karaktär bygger upp en berättelse. Jag

och eleverna kommer att arbeta med improvisation och karaktärsarbete, jag kommer att observera

eleverna i deras rolltagande, under improvisationsarbetet och intervjua dem både enskilt och i grupp

under/i samband med lektionen. Forskningsfrågan är följande (med reservation för viss ändring): How

can one adjust character exercises to meet didactical challenges when working on a devised version of

a Shakespeare play.

Jag behöver din tillåtelse att göra intervjuer och spela in dessa. Materialet kommer att behandlas

konfidentiellt, dvs. elevens och skolans namn kommer att vara anonyma. Du kan när som helst avbryta

deltagandet i forskningsdelen av projektet utan närmare motivering. Dock kommer du ändå att delta i

undervisningen då arbetet med Shakespeare och pjäsen Romeo och Julia ingår i undervisningen.

Skillnaden blir att jag inte kommer att använda intervjuerna jag utfört med dig. Det insamlade

materialet kommer endast att användas i vetenskapligt syfte och inte lämnas ut till utomstående.

Materialet kommer att arkiveras vid Institutionen för de humanistiska och samhällsvetenskapliga

ämnenas didaktik vid Stockholms Universitet under minst tio år. Materialet kan komma att användas

av andra forskare men i så fall först efter ditt godkännande och informerade samtycke. Stockholms

universitet är personuppgiftsansvarigt för alla personuppgifter.

Om du inte önskar delta i undersökningen respekterar jag naturligtvis det.

Jag ber dig fylla i nedanstående talong och lämna den till mig senast torsdagen den 22/11.

Om du har några frågor eller funderingar angående min forskning, är du välkommen att höra av dig.

Min e-mail adress är: clara.hultgren@dbgy.se

Hälsningar Clara Hultgren

Elevens namn: ______________________________________________________

Jag vill delta i undersökningen.

Jag vill inte delta i undersökningen.

71

9.7 Attachment 5b

Informerat samtycke

Helsingborg den 10 oktober 2019

Till vårdnadshavare och elever i klass SA17 vid Drottning Blanka Gymnasieskola Södra

Kyrkogatan.

Jag heter Clara Hultgren och undervisar i engelska. Samtidigt läser jag en magisterkurs i drama och

tillämpad teater vid Stockholms universitet och denna termin skriver jag en uppsats med anknytning till

Tillämpad teater i undervisningen av engelska med koppling till elevers lärande. Syftet är att undersöka

hur det känns att vara i roll och hur man genom att ta på sig en karaktär bygger upp en berättelse. Jag

och eleverna kommer att arbeta med improvisation och karaktärsarbete, jag kommer att observera

eleverna i deras rolltagande, under improvisationsarbetet och intervjua dem både enskilt och i grupp

under/i samband med lektionen. Forskningsfrågan är följande (med reservation för viss ändring): How

can one adjust character exercises to meet didactical challenges when working on a devised version of

a Shakespeare play.

Jag behöver din tillåtelse att göra intervjuer och spela in dessa. Materialet kommer att behandlas

konfidentiellt, dvs. elevens och skolans namn kommer att vara anonyma. Du kan när som helst avbryta

deltagandet i forskningsdelen av projektet utan närmare motivering. Dock kommer du ändå att delta i

undervisningen då arbetet med Shakespeare och pjäsen Romeo och Julia ingår i undervisningen.

Skillnaden blir att jag inte kommer att använda intervjuerna jag utfört med dig. Det insamlade

materialet kommer endast att användas i vetenskapligt syfte och inte lämnas ut till utomstående.

Materialet kommer att arkiveras vid Institutionen för de humanistiska och samhällsvetenskapliga

ämnenas didaktik vid Stockholms Universitet under minst tio år. Materialet kan komma att användas

av andra forskare men i så fall först efter ditt godkännande och informerade samtycke. Stockholms

universitet är personuppgiftsansvarigt för alla personuppgifter.

Om du inte önskar delta i undersökningen respekterar jag naturligtvis det.

Jag ber dig fylla i nedanstående talong och lämna den till mig senast torsdagen den 16/10.

Om du har några frågor eller funderingar angående min forskning, är du välkommen att höra av dig.

Min e-mail adress är: clara.hultgren@dbgy.se

Hälsningar

Clara Hultgren

Elevens namn: ______________________________________________________

Jag vill delta i undersökningen.

Jag vill inte delta i undersökningen.

72

9.8 Attachment 6 – Characters for improv. 2018

Kim Kardashian -

Is jealous, accusing Kanye of cheating

The Rock -

follows Elvis around

Donald Trump -

Is secretly in love with Nicki Minaj

Nicki Minaj -

Hates Donald Trump

Kanye West -

Is in awe of Donald Trump, follows him everywhere.

Elvis -

I’m not dead

69 -

Thinks he is Voldemort

Michael Jackson -

Has lost his voice

Lebron James -

has lost a baby

Samuel L. Jackson -

Sees snakes everywhere

73

Harley Quinn -

Is a neat-freak

Jay Z -

Thinks he Is pregnant

The Joker -

Is in love with Batman

Batman -

Is in love with Harry Potter

Drake -

wants to collaborate with Michael Jackson

Travis Scott -

“It wasn’t me, I didn’t do nothing”

Cartman -

Thinks that Kenny is a ghost, sees Kenny everywhere.

Harry Potter -

has a crush on Michael Jackson.

74

9.9 Attachment 7 – People watching 2018

Handout 1

Thursday, 17th of October 2pm

1. We meet at Knutpunkten to watch people.

Pick a person you think might be interesting and observe her/him.

Watch behaviour and actions. Imagine the persons life.

Answer the following questions about the person you choose to observe.

a. What is this person’s name?

b. What does this person do for a living?

c. How old is this person?

d. Family?

e. Why is this person here?

f. Think about her walk, what has just happened in her life?

g. Where is he/she going?

75

9.10 Attachment 8 – People watching 2019

Pick two people you think might be interesting and observe them.

Answer the following questions about the person you choose to observe.

Person 1:

a. What is this person’s name?

b. What does this person do for a living?

c. How old is this person?

d. Family?

e. Why is this person here?

f. Thinking about how he/she walks, what has just happened?

g. Where is he/she going?

2. Person number 2.

a. What is this person’s name?

b. What does this person do for a living?

c. How old is this person?

d. Family?

e. Why is this person here?

f. Thinking about how he/she walks, what has just happened?

g. Where is he/she going?

76

9.11 Attachment 9 – Character report 2019

HANDOUT 4 - CHARACTER REPORT

No matter how big or small the part, every actor needs to know the answer to the following questions:

1. What does your character want in this scene?

2. What is your character’s motivation for doing what he or she does?

3. What obstacles stand in his or her way?

4. What happens when your character confronts these obstacles?

5. What is your character thinking during this scene? (How does s/he react to other characters and events?)

77

9.12 Attachment 10: Exit note 16/10 google forms

3/6/2020 Exit note - 16/10

Exit note - 16/10

First improv/scene work SA18 *Required

1. 1. Working in small groups *

Mark only one oval.

Fun

Boring

Different

other

2. 2. I enjoy creating freely on the floor from instructions *

Mark only one oval.

Yes

No

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1znJ9cT6ODeT5JVrupUHtAy7Dx3uiNrDAUskxJmqzMkk/edit 1/3

78

3/6/2020 Exit note - 16/10

3. 3. I like working with drama from text *

Mark only one oval.

yes

No

4. 4. I understand the work we are doing and why we are doing it. *

Mark only one oval.

yes

NoNot really, would you please go through this with us again?

5. 5. How does it feel to take on a character? * This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1znJ9cT6ODeT5JVrupUHtAy7Dx3uiNrDAUskxJmqzMkk/edit 2/3 3/6/2020 Exit note - 16/10

Formshttps://docs.google.com/forms/d/1znJ9cT6ODeT5JVrupUHtAy7Dx3uiNrDAUskxJmqzMkk/edit 3/3

79

9.13 Attachment 11: Exit note 16/10 responses.

Attachment made separately as an excel file.

80

9.14 Attachment 12: Romeo & Juliet – did you get it?

Attached separately as an excel file.

Stockholms universitet/Stockholm University

SE-106 91 Stockholm

Telefon/Phone: 08 – 16 20 00

www.su.se