Continued Literature Review and Links to Interview Transcripts

Over the last week I have continued to write my Literature Review, focusing more specifically on engagement in Drama and English. As a continuation of my previous post, these are my further ‘invitations’ to my dinner party with reasoning:

OFSTED (2012): The government policy ‘Moving Forward in English’ is key to understand the required standards expect of schools. The document also identifies the importance of English in education.

Arts Council England (2003): As there are no statutory requirements for teaching Drama or a National Curriculum for this subject, the document ‘Drama in schools’ is considered to be a significant contribution for teaching drama. The document also outlines the importance of Drama and offers relevant explanations as to why students engage in Drama, many of which were closely linked to the views of my colleagues and BAPP peers.

Fautley and Savage (2011): the authors recognize the lack of engagement in the school curriculum that does not appeal to multi-intelligence learners and advocate that cross-curricular learning is key to engaging students in the ‘bigger picture’ of learning.

Fleming (2012): The author offers significant definitions in terms of Drama as an approach to teaching and Drama as a subject. He defines the two as different entities and offers clear examples of how both approaches are used in education.

Anderson (2012): Outlines current arguments in the educational field in relation to Drama. The author also introduces the idea of ‘powerful pedagogies’ which again offer explanation as to why students engage in Drama.

Davies (2012): Is a small-scale researcher who explores the idea of creativity in Drama, offering explanation of why creativity is important in education. Her views are very much in alignment with Ken Robinson

Robinson (2006): A significant, through controversial, theorist who has contributed a great deal to the arts in education. Robinson argues that the arts are collaborative, creative and more humanistic in their approach, again offering reasons why student engage in the subject of Drama.

Simons (2002): Explores the idea of collaboration in Drama. The author posits that because of the collaborative nature of drama, the subject becomes more sensitive in its approach, again offering reasons why students may engage in Drama.

Freeman and Sullivan (2003): Build upon the standpoints of Simons, by arguing that collaboration is fundamental to human life and that Drama is much more holistic in nature.

Stevens and McGuinn (2004): Explore the issues surrounding English teaching in the current climate. They argue that the pressures placed on literacy levels have resulted in English no longer being an arts-based subject. Furthermore they argue that creativity is important in Drama teaching, but is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve in English classrooms.

It has been interesting to explore some of my previous questions through the literature review. For example, I have questioned whether Drama is an approach to teaching or a subject it its own right (Literature Reviews: Reflections and Inquiry Questions). I have discussed this with my SIG also. In my on inquiry, I am treating the two as separate subjects, but I found Fleming (2012) ‘The Arts in Education: An Introduction to aesthetics, theory and pedagogy’ offered a significant standpoint in this argument:

… Fleming discusses a key issue that arises in the literature and provides rationale for the confusion between learning with drama and drama as a subject discipline. In contrast to Fautley and Savage (2011), he identifies that there are two different types of Drama in education: ‘learning in’ and ‘learning through’ drama. Fleming (2012) defines learning through drama as the type of drama that is used to further learning outcomes in any subject area; this could be applied to Fautley and Savage’s cross-curricular approach to learning. Whereas, learning in drama refers to the learning of discipline specific material (Fleming 2012). He considers both the advantages and disadvantages of learning in and learning through drama, reflecting key issues that have been reflected within my own inquiry, concluding that:

‘if the arts are subsumed into the learning objectives of other subject the approach is in danger of becoming mechanical and restricted. On the other hands, a ‘learning in’ approach runs the risk of embracing a traditional, separatist conception of art that plays little heed to the social and cultural context’ (Fleming 2012 p 77).

Today, I have been transcribing my interviews. This has been a lengthy process, as identified by much of the research literature, but it has given me the opportunity to reflect more closely on the themes that are arising between and across the participants answers. Due to confidentiality I will not share what the participants have said during the interviews, however I have noticed that every interviewee has identified that group work is an engagement strategy and that students respond positivity to collaborative work in both English and Drama. As shown below theorists and researchers believe that students engage in Drama because of the focus on collaborative work, but I have found that this is also the case in English in my inquiry.

…The Arts Council England (2003) argue that Drama allows students to use their imaginations to make sense of the world and their personal experiences, develop confidence and control, work creatively and develop effective collaborative skills. Furthermore, the Arts Council England justifies its stance that drama develops thinking skills by highlighting reasoning and evaluation. The organisation states that ‘Human concerns and relationships are the foundations of much drama’ (Arts Council England 2003 p. 7), which enables students to develop empathy, flexibility and risk-taking; skills that the Arts Council England (2003) claims are essential in the world of work. Again, although this document does not focus specifically on engagement in Drama, it offers rational explanations as to why students engage in Drama.

… As researchers and theorists have identified, collaboration is both a central aspect in creativity and forms the bases of Drama. Simons (2002), not only perceives that communication is an essential aspect of life, but hypothesises that as students discuss ideas in Drama they develop a greater understanding and awareness of others. Additionally Simons (2002) posits that through this process of communication and understanding, drama becomes more sensitive and inclusive in its approach to learning. Similarly, in their article Freeman, Sullivan and Fulton (2003) discuss how creative drama can be used to improve academic performance. Their ideas that drama can be used as an approach to teaching can be compared to Fleming’s (2012) definition of learning through drama. Freeman, Sullivan and Fulton argue in agreement with Simons (2002) that ‘The ability of a person to interact with others is considered one of the most important and significant attributes of mankind’ (2003 p 132). Furthermore, Freeman, Sullivan and Fulton (2003) argue that the ‘Dramatic activities are holistic in nature’. This again links to Robinson’s (2006) ideas of the way we experience life. The theory that collaboration is a central aspect on human life could suggest a further reason why student engage in Drama. In terms of my own inquiry, the drama specialist stated that the majority of drama is in groups, which students tend to enjoy. Interestingly, all English specialists in my inquiry identified group work as an engagement strategy in their subject. This suggests that Drama’s heavily reliance of group work could be one of the reasons why students engage in drama.

I am looking forward to analysing the interviews in greater detail through the data analysis process. As Lara has identified in her blog, the search for literature is both continuing and varied. I feel that after I have analysed the interviews I will find more areas to research in the literature.

Reference List

Anderson, M. (2012) MasterClass in Drama Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning London: Continuum International Publishing Group

Arts Council England Drama in schools www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/documents/publications/726.doc [Accessed on 5th March 2016]

Davies, S. (2010) ‘Creativity in Drama: Explanations and Explorations’ Drama Australia Journal, 33 (2), 31-44

Fautley, M. and Savage, J. (2011) Cross-Curricular teaching and learning in the secondary school: The Arts: Drama, Visual Art, Music and Design USA: Routledge

Fleming, M. (2012) The Arts in Education: An Introduction to aesthetics, theory and pedagogy New York: Routledge

Freeman, G. D., Sullivan, K. and Fulton, R. C. (2003) ‘Effects of Creative Drama on Self-Concept, Social Skills and Problem Behaviour’ The Journal of Educational Research, 96 (3), 131-138

OFSTED (2012) Moving Forward in English https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181204/110118.pdf [Accessed on 22nd March 2016]

Robinson, K. (2006) Do schools kill creativity? http://www.ted.com/playlists/171/the_most_popular_talks_of_all?gclid=CjwKEAjww9O3BRDp1tq0jIP023YSJAB0-j1SJPtorOkmu-CxhXZ3HlvDbMSF-6k0DWRD6QlBi9dFXBoCKgTw_wcB [Accessed on 20^th March 2016]

Simons, J. (2002) ‘Drama and the Learner’ Melborne Studies in Education, 43 (2), 1-11

Stevens, D. and McGuinn, N. (2004) The Art of Teaching Secondary English: Innovative and creative approaches London: Routledge