Process vs Product Drama in Education - Essay Example

 Abstract “… Authenticity is found through a primary commitment to the symbolic capabilities of drama – an aesthetic language with the power to animate the imagination and reframe the future. Then with all the world our stage, the entire content of life is made available for learning, critique and change” (Haseman, theorist and educational drama practitioner 2004). The concepts of Process vs. Product Drama in education are eloquently and meaningfully described in detail by numerous theorists and educational drama practitioners. From Way to Heathcote to O’Toole, process and product drama are explored in order to explain intrinsic freedoms of expression of process and meaningful designs/constructs of product and/or performance. Authors and educational drama practitioners Gustave J. Weltsek-Medina, Ph.D., Adam Blatner, MD, and Daniel Weiner, Ph.D. have written a stimulating account of the debatable, dialectic, dramatic concepts in “Interactive and Improvisational Drama; Varieties of applied Theatre and Performance. An excerpt from the book defines Process Drama in the thought provoking Chapter 9: Process Drama in Education: Explaining its Methods. “When one engages in Process Drama, the potential exists for a heightened sense of self-reflexivity. Process Drama is foremost a situation immersed in experiential knowledge and an experience of Living Through. Individual freedom is allowed to, not only explore ideas, but to also provide the space to explore ideologies. A participant must reflect upon fictional situations and tap into her or his own set of social signifiers as a means to interpret the moment. The creation of the moment rests upon the immediate experiences of those involved as they reflect, act, and interact with one another as they live with and through the fictional moment…” (Gustave J. Weltsek-Medina, Ph.D. 2008). Defining Process vs Product Drama in Education: A Historical Account In the late 18th century, an approach to child-rearing and education that expressed ‘child-centered’ processes was advocated by philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. “… The first impulses of nature are always right”. Likewise, educator Fredrich Frobel supported and advocated a similar philosophy in the early 19th century – ‘a child-centered’ process in education. Both philosopher and educator were expressing an alternate perspective or viewpoint to instructional and learning processes in education; one that advocated that “learning took place internally (within the person) based on an individual’s needs” (Weltsek-Medina; Blatner & Weiner 2008; Frobel 1800’s). The responsibility of the teacher was not to transfer outside knowledge into the student, as were the practices of instruction. The role of the teacher was to help students explore intrinsic needs through the contexts of education. “In this way students’ needs were placed at the center of the educational experience… the teacher filled the position of guide or facilitator. As a result of the new ‘child-centered or student-centered’ approach in education, a discussion about educational drama arose in England” (Weltsek-Medina, Blatner & Weiner 2008). Discussions and dialogue emerged on the importance of ‘process of the learning experience’ -- child/student centered and focused on intrinsic needs. In the 20th century, a prominent teacher and drama education practitioner, Harriet-Finlay Johnson expressed that drama education focused too much and primarily on adult interpretations. In turn, aesthetic valuation of the ‘product’, production or performance of plays worked on in schools focused primarily on adult cognitive interpretation. (Weltsek-Medina, Blatner & Weiner 2008; Johnson 1900’s). Johnson advocated that the ‘product’ – a play performance – should be by and for the student. Johnson proposed, “… the student should create the product, the play, regardless of how an adult might perceive the outcome. A student’s aesthetics and perspective should be the gauge through which the value of drama or theatrical experience be judged. It is in this way that drama and theatre education might move away from teacher-centered to student-centered” (Weltsek-Medina, Blatner & Weiner; Johnson 1900’s). The theories of teacher and drama education practitioner, Harriet-Finlay Johnson, focused on traditional concepts of performance or production but were concerned less with exercises and activities of skill of production. In turn, she dialectically debated that the product – the play – could be the well-produced end product of a process-centered drama class. Johnson argued for the acknowledgement of the student’s intrinsic or personal experience with and through drama. The creation of the performance or production (the product) would be a reflection of the student’s vision, insight, and cognitive imagination… not that of the adult’s. Johnson argued and felt strongly about the creation of the product/performance being the outcome of intrinsic processes. The creation of the product “should not be valued by adult standards and expectations, but rather valued in terms of the student’s experiences and needs” (Weltsek-Medina, Blatner & Weiner 2008; Johnson 1900’s). Education drama practitioner Caldwell Cook (1917) termed the theories of Harriet-Finlay Johnson, “The Play Way”… a Platonic term addressing the student’s intrinsic growth as central to the dramatic experience, the process. With the 1970’s and early 1980’s emerging, discussions on a “new” understanding of what drama/theatre education entailed also emerged. Theorist and educator Brain Way (1923 – 2006) dialectically discussed the issues concerning the distinct differences and separation of traditional ‘teacher-centered production’ orientation and ‘student-centered process’ orientation. Theories proposed, studied and discussed by B. Way developed the questioning of whether the cognitive imaginations and intrinsic nature of the dramatic experiences of students and/or children are what created educational value. On the other hand and from a different perspective, should children and students be trained as professional actors? The topics of discussion and debate by the educational drama practitioners became known as ‘Drama in Education’ or D.I.E. Discussions on Drama in Education or D.I.E. continued. Dorothy Heathcote, one of the most noted pioneers of D.I.E. (Drama in Education) and educational drama practitioner was an advocate on the concept of process vs. product (or production) in drama education – its dialogues, its self-actualizations. There was mounting concern over whether the experiences of the participants of drama/theatre education were being neglected. Dorothy Heathcote (1976) expressed that a primary way a student should interact with drama education is to develop an “intense personal relationship with the material”; this means developing a feeling on the texuality of the dialogue, script and contexts. “Intimate involvement with the presented issues in a dramatic moment would challenge participants to confront not only their understanding of the issues, but also would be the best way to communicate understanding” (Weltsek-Medina, Blatner & Weiner 2008; Heathcote 1976). An essential difference is recognized between the theoretical understandings of Heathcote, Way and Johnson. Their interpretations in views and perspectives of the final products (or productions) maintained that the final productions did not enhance or increase the value of a drama… it was the intrinsic value of the learning experience that mattered. “I don’t have a name for what I do. As a person I seems to me I simply stand midway between all that happened before I arrived and what is now. What I do at this moment obviously shapes up some part of what is to come. Everything that has happened before me I have something in common with, and this is my secret for finding material for drama” (Dorothy Heathcote on ‘process’ drama; experiences… 1976). According to Betty Jane Wagner, author of the book, “Dorothy Heathcote: Drama as a Learning Medium” (1976), Dorothy Heathcote, one of England’s best-known educators has described what she does as a theorists and educational/drama practitioner. “What she is not creative dramatics, role playing, psychodrama, or sociodrama, but a conscious employment of elements of drama – to literally bring out what children (students) already know… this is quality education as opposed to quantity. At times, the best thing to do is to go for the quality of the experience, to plummet deep into feeling and meaning; this is her goal in drama education… We also use drama (process and product) to learn to live and accept experiences that are disturbing. We relive the shock going and over the details, we digest the event and it finally becomes a truth we can bear” (Wagner, B. J.; Heathcote 1976). The emergence of contemporary critical thought concerning ‘process vs. product’ drama in education realized one of the leading theorists and practitioners of Process Drama, Gavin Bolton. A modernist of thought and theory, Gavin Bolton argued that there is educational value and merit in the product and productions of drama education. Careful thought-provoking analysis should be exercised, however, against understanding of the product (or production) prompted by the instructor’s or teacher (adult) imposed vision and/or perspective of the material vs. the student’s understanding. Bolton proposed that student and teacher may mistakenly infer that performance of a work leads to an understanding of that work. Not so, asserts Bolton, “Unless students and teachers consciously analyze the politics embedded within text (script) and in the performance or production of that text, both may simply reproduce the agenda of the playwright, rather than commenting upon it, understanding it, or owning the interpretation of it” (Weltsek-Medina, Blatner & Weiner 2008; Bolton 2007). Bolton’s writings entitled, “A History of Drama Education: A Search for Substance” (2007) offer an in-depth historical analysis of drama in education (D.I.E.) and theatre in education (T.I.E.). While at the University of Durham, UK, Bolton quotes educational practitioner, Cecily O’Neill (1995), as stating, “… Process drama and Storydrama often rely on the use of teacher-in-role and the ambiguous seduction of a guide leading the way while walking backwards. Consistently, the purpose of their work was growth in understanding” (Bolton 2007; O’Neill 1995). Further analysis and discussions by Gavin Bolton illustrate dialectic cognitive and interpretive paradigms of theoretical models. The work of Bolton delves thoroughly into the value of D.I.E. and the theories of Piaget – the concepts of ‘child play and cognitive growth’. Bolton (2007) describes the concepts and issues of ‘process vs. product’ -- drama in education as separate but equal in educational context. Themes and issues of exploration within drama consist of both the dramatic experience of the process and the goal expectations of the product. Process drama, as described by Bolton (2007), becomes a medium through which any life experience can be explored. There is a focus upon experiential context as opposed to the formation of a production. These, indeed, were viable educational and theoretical strategies that explored issues of how the student engages with the world, problem-solving skills as well as intrinsic experiences. The term Process Drama continued to grow within the world of educational contexts. In the literary work, “The Process of Drama; Negotiating Art and Meaning” by educational drama practitioner John O’Toole (1992), “… Dramatic process in education, like art, is a dynamic process. Process drama itself happens, and never accidentally. It is a dynamic event which is always part of a context. It is a background to the aesthetic. Drama in education is concerned with making operative in the real world the implications, ideological discoveries, and symbols that emerge within its fiction”. Drama practitioner, John O’Toole, goes on further to explore “Meaning” in drama education. An excerpt from one of his chapter reads: “Dramatic meaning emerges – it is not laid down. It is a multiple and many- layered dynamic. It is to a degree always negotiable, and continually renegotiable – and more than this, it is not always controllable. Drama in education provides a particularly interesting framework in which to perceive and study the dynamic nature of meanings which emerge from it”. (O’Toole 1992). The Debate: Process vs. Product Drama in Education In understanding the concept of ‘Process Drama’, it is demonstrated that creative meaningful strategies are used to elicit a ‘story’ from the students themselves. Likewise, characterization and personification take life in a Process Drama – developing in direct relationship to the lived experiences of the participants themselves. The focus and meanings of Process Drama have the ability to change due to perspectives and dialectic viewpoints of individual participants and their understanding of a moment in the process. “Process drama requires the participants to become completely immersed into the fiction and discover the life of their character based solely on the participants own lived experiences… discoveries made within the fictional world benefit the intrinsic sense of the individual and not the forward moment of character development in the plot of production” (Weltsek-Medina, Blatner & Weiner 2008). In comparing and contrasting the concepts of Process vs. Product Drama in Education, educational drama practitioners have documented via literature reviews: Process drama: “Emphasis is placed on participants experiencing personal growth through an exploration of their understanding of the issues within dramatic experience; The generated topics are explored through improvisation; Student and teacher share equal places in the development, analysis and production of drama; The drama is normally not performed for an audience”. (Weltsek-Medina, Blatner & Weiner 2008). Product-driven exploration: “The student’s personal growth is measured through the learning skills; The study is facilitated through scripted work not of the student’s making; The teacher transfers her or his interpretation and analysis of the drama; The primary objective is formal play production” A primary purpose of Process Drama is to aid the person in their daily lives, whether the problem is ethical, moral, philosophical or mathematical (Weltsek-Medina, Blatner & Weiner 2008). Literature Review: A Statistical Analysis The Impact of Educational Drama and Theatre (EDT) – The DICE Project (Study) From November 1, 2008 until February 28, 2011, DICE (Dram Improves Lisbon Key Competencies in Education) conducted a quantitative/qualitative cross-cultural study in which the affects of educational drama and theatre on five Key Competencies was analyzed in detail. Research was conducted by highly regarded national and international, formal and informal drama practitioners in education. The UK was a prominent and purposive participating partner during the statistical study. Educational drama practitioners from twelve countries (the widest, most diverse theoretical and professional consortium of researchers) studied collaboratively with academics (psychologists and sociologists) with the goal of statistically measuring the impact of educational drama and theatre (EDT). The purpose of the research was to observe analyze and evaluate how EDT impacts five of eight Lisbon Key Competencies for life-long learning. These key competencies are: “Communication in the mother tongue; Learning to learn; International, intercultural and social competencies, and civic competence; Entrepreneurship Cultural expression”. (DICE 2010). According to Chris Cooper, editor of “DICE: Making the Difference: A DICE resource for practitioners on educational theatre and drama”, the Consortium views each key competency as a vital part of an integral whole and the value of each competency is necessary to the development of the child or student. The competencies are important to EDT research study and development. “They add dimension and are primarily concerned with the universal competence of what is to be human. There is an increasing concern about the coherence of our society and developing demographic citizenship that requires a moral compass by which to locate ourselves and each other in the world; and to begin to analyze and re-evaluated and create new values; to imagine, envision a society worth living in, and living with a better sense of where we are going. It is with deep convictions about what kind of people we want to be that the EDT impact and statistical research study was conducted. Educational drama and theatre is a social act of meaning-making and it has the capacity to ignite the collective imagination to do this”. (C. Cooper, educational drama and theatre practitioner and editor, DICE Consortium 2010). The collaborative study of the DICE Consortium is quantitative and qualitative in its research methodologies. The impact study represents a statistical and narrative struggle “to open doors for young people and to allow them to see themselves in the world. The ethos or context underpinning the DICE project (The DICE Project – Our Ethos) has been developed by the practice of the research itself. The primary and secondary documentation and collected sources of data reflect our own learning, the spirit of our collaboration and the ongoing analysis and practice”. (DICE Consortium 2010). The key outcomes of the DICE Consortium Project/Study are documented in the Educational Resource and Policy Paper. The innovative statistical purpose of the project/study is to continue to document and produce production and publications of the detailed process via research results in future years. This is the first research study to be conducted demonstrating connections between theatre and drama activities in education and the Key Competencies. Educational drama practitioners had to invent and develop new measurement techniques and tools that would be useful in the future of quantitative and qualitative research analysis in the educational areas. “Newly developed questionnaires and surveys for teachers, students, children, theatre and drama practitioners and external assessors/stakeholders have been designed. Likewise, for the independent objective observation of education theatre and drama (production and performance) classes, questionnaires have been designed as a result of the analytical process. “DICE is not only a two-year long project, but rather a journey and an enterprise that has just begun with this form of research. For the past two years, a several hundred researchers and EDT practitioners have been working collaboratively, from peer volunteers to members of National Academies of Science. For DICE Consortium the project/study has been one of the most challenging tasks of professional careers… life-long learning tasks, indeed”. (DICE Consortium 2010). The Research Findings: A Summary of the Statistics The research project/study conducted by the DICE Consortium (2010) analytically states via measurable data from questionnaires and surveys, “… The research proves that educational theatre and drama significantly supports the targets of the most relevant EU level documents, such as the Europe 2020 strategy. Educational theatre and drama has a significant and objectively measurable impact on five of the eight Key Competencies: Communication of the mother tongue; Learning to learn; Interpersonal, intercultural and social competencies, civic competence; Entrepreneurship and Cultural expression. It was determined that raising citizens with educational theatre and drama in the curriculum will result in: Rise in the employment rate; Reduction in then number of early school leavers; Raising the overall quality of all levels of education and training; Stronger synergy between culture and education; More active citizens; Citizens being more sympathetic toward cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue; More innovative, creative and competitive citizens”. (Source of data: The DICE Consortium 2010). Works Cited and References Anderson, M. (University of Sydney). Real Players: Aesthetics, Drama practice and Pedagogy. (2004). Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/culture/es/files/2885/11286200101 Michael_Anderson.htm. [WEB] Bolton, G. Acting in Classroom Drama: A Critical Analysis. (1998). Trenton Books: Oakhill. [TEXT]. Brester, L. International Handbook of Research in Arts Education. (2007). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/www.springer.com [WEB]. Courtney, R. Play, Drama & Thought: The Intellectual Background to Dramatic Education (4th ed.). (1989). Cassell & Collier Macmillian Publishers: Toronto, Canada. [TEXT]. Cziboly, A. & Drama/Theatre in Education Association. DICE: Drama Improves Lisbon Key Competencies in Education (2008 – 2011). Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/projects/public_parts/documents/comenius/ com_mp_1424455_dice.pdf. [WEB]. DICE Consortium (Drama Improves Lisbon Key Competencies in Education). Making a Difference: A DICE resource for practitioners on educational theatre and drama. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.dramanetwork.eu/file/Education. [WEB]. Gears, A. Drama and Media Education: Current Issues in Drama. (2009). Retrieved from http://agears.webs.com. [WEB]. Heinemann, Schneider & Crumpler & Rogers (2006). Process Drama and Multiple Literacies: Addressing social, cultural, and ethical issues. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.heinemann.com/ [WEB] NYU Steinhardt (Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development). Educational Theatre Faculty: Dorothy Heathcote. (2013). Retrieved from http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/theatre/people/faculty/heathcote [WEB] O’Toole, J. “The Process of Drama: Negotiating art and meaning”. (1992). Routledge: London, England. [TEXT]. Wagner, B. J. & Heathcote, D. Dorothy Heathcote: Drama as a Learning Medium. (1976). National Education Association. Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED1303362.pdf. [WEB]. Weltsek-Medina, Blatner & Weiner. Process Drama in Education. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.interactiveimprov.com/procdrmethodswb.html [WEB] Weltsek-Medina, G. J. Interactive and Improvisational Drama. (2008). Retrieved form http://www.interactiveimprov.com/procdrmwb.html. [WEB]. Read More