‘Drama for Learning and

Creativity’

[September 2005 – July

2006]

An evaluation for National Drama, NESTA and

Norfolk County Council

Dr. D A Simpson (University of Brighton, School of

Education)

Foreword

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ has been a learning journey for

all the teachers and consultants involved. The success of the project

is due to their individual and collective energy. There is a passionate

commitment to whole class Drama as a teaching and learning

medium throughout the three phases of the fieldwork period.

Without exception, there is a determination to move children’s

learning forward. The participants recognise that the project also

represents a way to improve their own and others’ understanding of

what it is to be a teacher in the early part of the twenty-first

century.

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is successful in meeting the

criteria set out in the Bid Document.

The findings to support this judgement are presented in the

following groups of bullet points.

The management of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

The management and structure of the action research ensures

there is a clearly identified, evidence-oriented and

manageable core for each of the schools’ projects. It is a very

strong feature of the project.

Use of funding

The use made of the funds available is entirely appropriate to

the demands and needs of a research project.

2

There is evidence of careful forward planning for the

dissemination of the project’s findings.

Research methodology

The research methodology that underpins the school-based

action research enables teachers and consultants to

collaborate in sustained, thoughtful ways. It sees the teachers

assume responsibility for the direction of their fieldwork. There

is consistent evidence that this responsibility has a profound

effect on the teachers’ thinking about whole class Drama

teaching, and its practice in the classroom.

Two related parts of the school-based action research are

highly effective. The seminars to bring together teachers and

consultants help both parties to realise their roles. They are a

major contribution to the excellent working relationships

between teachers and consultants. Second, the precise

allocation of consultants makes sure that expertise is matched

with schools. This deepens the first two school-based phases

of the fieldwork.

The teachers’ initial research questions are adapted,

discussed with consultants and developed in ways which add

depth to the action research. The evidence available shows

that one outcome of such deliberation is whole class teaching

which stimulates and engages pupils of all ages and abilities.

The impact of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

The entry and exit questionnaires are evidence that an

increasing number of schools now use Drama regularly as a

methodology. Over 90% of schools surveyed state that Drama

is influencing their development plans. Drama is now a

significant priority for over half the schools in the survey, an

increase of over 15%.

3

The exit questionnaire shows that all schools in the survey

(100%) now have Drama in their improvement plans.

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ influences head-teachers

as well as teachers. This suggests that the schools in the

survey are developing both the policy and practice of whole

class Drama teaching, with over 80% of the primary and

middle schools surveyed now having a teacher responsible for

Drama.

Over 90% of the teachers surveyed report an increase in their

confidence to teach Drama.

The data points to a connection between confidence,

knowledge and skill that has implications for the future of

Drama teaching, especially at Key Stages One and Two.

The teachers’ journals show that pupils respond positively to

what whole class Drama offers them as learners. There is

consistent evidence that pupils think that it provides them

with opportunities for affective and cognitive engagement

with their learning.

By the time of the end of the project over 95% of the teachers

surveyed are working with Drama in an increasing number of

subjects.

There are equally firm quantitative indicators that the

increase in the curriculum areas which feature Drama is

matched by a rise in the time allocated on a regular basis to

Drama. Over a third of schools now allocate more than an

hour a week to Drama.

Teachers now work in the classroom with a significantly

increased range of Drama conventions. Teacher in role, Hot

seating and Thought tracking are far more evident in

teacher’s work. As a result there is a different Drama ‘diet’

emerging which has the potential to broaden significantly

children’s learning opportunities.

4

Drama is now viewed to be a means to develop pupils’

thinking. Teachers associate it with creative thinking,

communication and expressive skills. Examples from three

projects show that pupils take part in speculation, hypothesis

making and testing, searching for reasons and making

justifications rather than looking for the ‘right’ answer. They

experience standing in another person’s shoes and the

exploration of other viewpoints than their own.

Publications

The project is meeting its targets of producing high-quality

publications directed at a range of audiences. For example,

there has been print media coverage in the Times Educational

Supplement, a web site became operational in January 2006

and an academic paper is to be presented at a major

European conference on creativity. A CD ROM, which has

accompanying materials, has been completed.

Communication with the management group of ‘Drama for Learning

and Creativity’ during the period September 2005 – July 2006

The ease of communication with the project management group

means there is no difficulty with gaining access to any material

necessary for the three phase evaluations. One result is the

availability of a substantial body of data for this report. There are,

therefore, quotations from teachers and pupils as well as references

from teachers and consultants’ writing in the main body of the

report.

Regular contact with the project management team not only makes

writing the fieldwork’s three phase evaluations easier but it also

enables me to act more as a critical friend to the project. This gives

5

me an opportunity to undertake a learning journey too. It

encourages me to think about how I see the role and shape of

Drama teaching, especially in the light of government proposals for

initial teacher education, and the school curriculum more generally.

As with the three phase evaluations, the writing of this report is

actively encouraged and supported by Lorraine Harrison, Head of

the School of Education.

D A Simpson

University of Brighton, School of Education,

6

Falmer, Brighton BN1 9PH

ds116@bton.ac.uk

01273 643376 October

2006

Contents

Page

Foreword 2

Contents 7

Tables and Appendices 8

Introduction - ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

10

Evaluation Methodology 15

Results from ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ 22

Moving On 63

Bibliography 69

Appendices 71

7

Tables and Appendices

Tables

Table One The original research questions

Table Two The subject areas where Drama is in use by the end of

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

Table ThreeThe combinations in teachers’ choices of the five

purposes of Drama

Table Four Drama conventions in the classroom

Table Five Combinations in the teachers’ choices of the five

purposes of Drama

Table Six Planet Perfecton

Table Seven Owl Babies

Table Eight Rainforest

Appendices

Appendix 1 Funding for ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

Appendix 2 Success criteria

Appendix 3 Evaluation schedule

8

Appendix 4 Are more schools now using Drama?

Appendix 5 Teacher confidence and Drama teaching

Appendix 6 What impact is Drama having on learning and creative

outcomes?

Appendix 7 Extracts from a research teacher’s diary

Appendix 8 Extract from a research teacher’s log

1. Introduction - ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

9

Introduction

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is initiated by Norfolk LEA.

NESTA provides a major source of financial support. There is

assistance on a much smaller scale from the University of Brighton

School of Education who fund release from teaching for its

evaluation and dissemination.

The project investigates the capacity of whole class Drama to

initiate, sustain and enhance children’s creativity and learning. It

involves 60 schools in Norfolk LEA during the academic year 2005/6,

with evaluation and dissemination running from June 2006 to May

2007. At its centre there are 14 schools which are designated as

research schools. In these primary, middle and secondary schools,

teachers work with consultants on a variety of whole class, teacher-

initiated and managed projects. They are designed to stimulate

creativity through Drama-based teaching and learning.

The project’s structure and organisation

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is a collaborative venture.

Teachers and consultants concentrate on how Drama can develop

children’s creative capabilities. There is a management group of

three, all of whom act as consultants to the schools in the project. It

is led by Patrice Baldwin, Advisor for the Arts (Norfolk LEA) and

Chair of National Drama, with two consultants, Pam Bowell

(Kingston University and a former Chair of National Drama) and

Kate Fleming (Drama Consultant and Vice Chair of National Drama).

All three are experienced, highly-regarded Drama teachers with

substantial classroom backgrounds. All have taken part in small-

scale Drama and Arts projects before and are published widely in

this field. Advice and support for the project management team

10

comes from the Executive Committee of National Drama, the

principal subject organisation for Drama in the United Kingdom.

The funding allows for two levels of involvement, an inner group of

14 chosen research schools and an outer looser grouping of over 50

schools (fuller details of the funding and expenditure are in

Appendix 1). The inner group is made up of schools from Key Stages

One to Four, with pupils from Reception to Year 10 taking part. Both

the inner and outer levels of involvement work on investigations

into Drama teaching and learning. The first seminar for the inner

group of research schools (November 2005) emphasises the

collaborative nature of the project. Teachers from the research

schools work with the consultants to shape the wording and form of

their project. Following the seminar the consultants spend half a

day in each school on the research school’s chosen investigation.

This takes several patterns. For example, in some schools a

consultant leads a teaching session whilst in others the teaching is

shared or the consultant joins the Drama in an agreed role. In the

period from January to May 2006 the consultants make a second

visit to their delegated schools, and both teachers and consultants

meet for a further twilight seminar. Throughout the fieldwork

teachers and consultants are in regular contact via email, phone

and the exchange of longer documents.

The outer group, which comprises over 50 more schools, are also

visited twice between November 2005 and May 2006. Visits are

made by either Patrice Baldwin, a Drama consultant or a local

authority advanced skills teacher. Like the inner group, the outer

group have two visits and are offered help and advice. However,

they do not work to an agreed research question.

The project management team meets on a number of occasions. It

also meets with the executive of National Drama which enables

11

reports on work in progress, as well as questions about the

fieldwork, to be discussed fully with leading members of the Drama

subject community. As each phase of the fieldwork finishes, the

project evaluator reports on how far and to what extent the project

is meeting its targets (see Appendix 2). This sets up a dialogue

between the evaluator and project management team that lasts for

the length of the fieldwork.

Background to ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

The project is the first in depth, classroom based Drama research

project initiated by a national drama subject association – National

Drama – in partnership with a local education authority.

The project focuses on the relationships between whole class Drama

teaching, creativity and learning. It comes from the project

management group’s belief in Drama as something which is highly

engaging to pupils. In their view Drama:

Develops pupils’ inter-thinking and learning;

Stimulates creativity through role play and sustained

imaginative experience;

Enables visual, auditory and kinaesthetic access,

understanding and expression;

Focuses on engaging empathically in ways that combine

the cognitive and affective.

[Bid Document, Section B4]

Drama is seen as an inclusive, multi-faceted agency for the holistic

development of children as learners. For the project management

team, it is a learning medium that utilises a range of intelligences.

They believe these engage all learners in ways which often go

beyond the prescribed methods and formal teaching that dominate

the current curriculum [Bid Document, Section B4].

12

The management team’s view of Drama is in sympathy with ‘All Our

Futures,’ the 1999 government report into the Arts. This report

provides a definition of creativity which they support and use in

their bid application. Creativity [NACCE 1999: 12] is:

“Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce

outcomes that are both original and of value.”

The management group adopt this definition for two reasons. The

local authority’s schools work within a curriculum framework that

endorses this report. The ‘Every Child Matters’ policy [DfES 2005]

draws on ‘All Our Futures’ and shares its commitment to a creative

curriculum in which imaginative enquiry are part of all pupils’

entitlement. ‘All Our Futures’ itself refers to its description of

creativity as a democratic one. This is in keeping with two key,

related areas of the project, what happens in the classroom and the

sharing of ideas between teachers and consultants. The interplay

between classroom and discussion - which is led by ideas rather

than by either teachers or consultants - is a sharing, supportive one

that is part of the approach to the Arts championed by ‘All Our

Futures.’ It relies upon equal voices in and out of the classroom.

‘All Our Futures’ goes on to state that creative thinking and

behaviour is always imaginative, purposeful, original and valuable.

The management group take this further in order to identify what

they consider to be the ”features” of drama within a context of

creativity and learning [Bid Document, Section B5]. They choose

five features of creative thinking and behaviour from the QCA

document ’Creativity: Find it, Promote it’ [QCA 2005]. These are:

Questioning and challenging;

Exploring ideas, keeping options open;

Making connections and seeing relationships;

Envisaging what might be;

Reflecting critically on ideas, actions and outcomes.

13

The five “types of behaviour” are to be exemplified by the

processes and outcomes of the research schools’ projects [Bid

Document, Section B5].

The success criteria for ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

The success criteria come from the Bid Document. They are

arranged under three headings, Classroom Centred, Drama Subject

Community and Influence on Government Curriculum Policy

(Appendix 2).

The QCA Creativity Criteria [QCA 2005] are referred to extensively

in Section 3.6. This Section is where the impact of Drama on

learning and creative outcomes is analysed in detail. The QCA

criteria are assumed to be part of the success criteria.

The production of high quality publications is seen as an important

contribution to debates about Drama and learning at the start of the

twenty-first century, and a way to influence government curriculum

policy. The management team feel that whole class Drama does not

have the profile which it deserves within education. They believe

there is a need to raise the profile of Drama overall, both as a

subject and an area for research. Consequently they attach

importance to the quality of the written outcomes, as well as

recognising that there are a number of audiences who may well

require different publications.

14

2. Evaluation Methodology

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ seeks to explore how whole

class Drama enriches teaching and learning. At the same time it

aims to raise the educational profile of drama.

The evaluation of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is scheduled to run from

September 2005 until May 2007. The school-based action research,

which is the fieldwork part of the project, takes up the academic

year 2005/6. This length of time, coupled with the diversity of

activities that take place during the fieldwork, leads to a two-stage

evaluation. In stage one, each phase of the school-based action

research – evaluative, formative, and summative - is evaluated

immediately it finishes. The phase evaluations focus on how the

work proceeds, as well as providing information for the funding

agencies. They also show the management group how much has

been achieved (Appendix 3 is an overview of the evaluation

schedule).

The second stage of the evaluation is based on data analysis. There

are two sources of data; replies and responses from questionnaires

and teachers’ writing undertaken as part of the action research. An

entry questionnaire is completed at the start of ‘Drama for Learning

and Creativity’ in September 2005 and an exit one at the finish of

the classroom-centred action research in the summer of 2006. The

entry questionnaire is a snap-shot of drama teaching with separate

questionnaires for head-teachers and teachers. The head-teacher

questionnaire concentrates on the overall presence and

organisation of Drama in the school and its wider curriculum. 45

replies are received by the end of October 2005. The teacher

15

questionnaire looks at the classroom and use of Drama by teachers.

76 replies are received in the same period. The exit questionnaire

has a number of different questions. It follows up issues raised by

the entry questionnaire (for example, the time allocated to Drama

within the school). This is because one purpose is to give

comparative data to enable ‘before’ and ‘after’ to be included in this

evaluation. But it is also designed to be a response to both the on-

going action research in schools and the entry questionnaire. A

number of ideas from the second and third phases of the fieldwork

do feed into the action research. They provide information that

helps to re-formulate a number of the exit questionnaire’s items, in

particular those which ask for written replies of one or two

sentences or longer. 43 head-teachers and 45 teachers reply to this

questionnaire.

The second source of data is an extensive sample of written

materials collected from the research school teachers and

consultants. The qualitative data from the teacher logs and diaries is

coded and categorised using standard research approaches [for

example Mason 1996; Riley 1992]. An identical method is used with

the teachers’ replies to the open ended responses from both

questionnaires. It ensures that all prose is analysed in the same way

and makes it more likely that the final writing is accurate and

reliable. All the categorised data is then read against the

quantitative data for comparative purposes.

The qualitative and quantitative data are brought together in the

evaluation. The intention is to present a rounded analysis that

captures a sense of the daily life of contemporary whole class

Drama teaching. It is also a way to work with data whereby the

voice of teachers and pupils can be heard. This is necessary if the

evaluation is to capture the flavour of how the project meets its

stipulated criteria.

16

The technique brings with it matters of permission and

confidentiality. Participating teachers and head-teachers are

expected to return the questionnaires, and – as far as possible – are

guaranteed confidentiality. A similar assurance is given for the

teachers’ logs and diaries. However, individual, informed consent

from pupils to use what they say or write in the documents written

by the teachers is implicit and assumed to be included within the

explicit teacher permission. An assumption is made about

permission to quote from the pupil work that is submitted by a

teacher as part of their action research. Questions about such

assumptions are ethical issues that confront any writer who wants

to portray the lived experience of a school [Hammersley and

Atkinson 1995]. Mason [1996: 31] warns against using the “least

stringent set of moral criteria” in order to justify a duplicitous action.

For Hammersley and Atkinson [1995] what is appropriate and

inappropriate depends on the context. A writer has to decide if there

are necessary and sufficient grounds for believing that he has, in

good faith, permission to print quotations from children’s written

and spoken words.

There is also uncertainty about confidentiality. Although teachers

and pupils are not identified in the evaluation, there are indications

of the location of schools and teachers within the data. For example,

a school’s project may be known to the parents and possibly, via the

school’s web site, to a literally universal audience. For this reason

the extracts from the teachers’ logs and diaries which are to be

found in the Appendices are edited to remove as much identification

as possible. It is the reason why the pupils’ comments are excluded

from the Appendices. Therefore, direct references to pupils and

teachers are kept to a minimum to avoid invalidating the evaluation

or breaching the moral code expected of a writer who deals with

material that is confidential. It would be easy to refer to the

17

quantitative data alone, and so avoid some of the features of the

debates about permission and confidentiality. To do so would

present an incomplete as well as false picture of what the project

sets out to achieve.

It is hoped that readers of the evaluation bear these issues in mind,

and understand the reasons for the limited presence of supporting

extracts from teachers’ logs and diaries.

Research Methodology of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

The principal methodology of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is

classroom-based action research. Data collection and interpretation

are carried out by teachers and consultants who work together on

whole class teaching and the reflection that stems from this

teaching.

Action research is a group of research methodologies that

simultaneously pursue action (or change) and research (or

understanding) [http://www.scu.edu.au/schools]. They are

methodologies based upon a Plan-Act-Observe-Reflect cycle or

“spiral process which alternates between action and critical

reflection.” Action research:

“….tries to work towards effective action through good

processes and appropriate participation.  It tries also to

collect adequate data, and interpret it well. At its best,

action research is done so that the action and the research

enhance each other.”

[Dick: http: // www.scu.edu.au/schools ]

Action research is a continual interplay between action and

reflection [Searle 2004]. McNiff refers to this inter-relationship as a

form of self reflective practice

[http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1]. As those working on an

action research project begin to effect change, so the data collection

18

methods, the data itself and earlier interpretations are reviewed and

revised [Cohen and Mannion 2002] ‘in the light of understandings

developed in the earlier cycles of the process’

[ http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/ ]. The collaboration between

teachers and consultants in this project relies on action research to

inter-relate action and reflection; teachers and consultants, action

and reflection all guide and shape each other in a mutually

responsive as well as dynamic manner. The active and the reflective

are central, equal elements of a collaborative research process that

underpins the project.

Three issues in the evaluation of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

In addition to debates about permission and confidentiality, a

further issue for an evaluator of an action research project is

whether it is possible to remain an outsider during the period of

data collection. In any project where data gathering and reflection

are combined, the direction the work takes may well be determined

by a combination of “accident and happenstance” as well as

planning [Von Mannen 1988:2]. McKeganey and Barnard [1996: 15]

write about a comparable situation:

“Looking back at this period of field research it is

apparent that a good deal of what was achieved was

arrived at through a process of trial and error. There

was no blueprint for us to follow….The mix of

research methods was largely a response to the

particularities of gathering information in the context

of street prostitution.”

McKeganey and Barnard’s discussions about the data collection

resonate with the action research cycle for ‘Drama for Learning and

Creativity.’ The planned combination of the active and the reflective

may initiate changes to the individual school’s research question,

19

methods of data collection and thus their eventual analysis. Like any

research project, the action research that forms a central part of

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ can be influenced by everyday

circumstances (for example, unexpected time constraints in school)

as well as things like potential changes in patterns of teacher co-

operation (for instance, creating times to meet a consultant or

attend the twilight seminars). The “happenstance” factors in any

research project have the potential to affect the scope, content and

outcomes of the drama teaching at the heart of the project, and, as

a result, influence the substance of some of the reflection of the

teachers and consultants. To have access to the inside of this part

of the fieldwork process is, therefore, an important part of an

evaluation. It helps an evaluator to gain a fuller insight into the

thinking behind the decisions, thoughts and feelings of the teachers

and consultants as they plan, carry out and review their drama

teaching. To evaluate a project like ‘Drama for Learning and

Creativity,’ with such a pronounced commitment to action research

requires an evaluator to work from within the project.

One way in which evaluation from the inside of ‘Drama for Learning

and Creativity’ manifests itself is through what can be called the

evaluator’s stance. In this case, to adapt Schon’s term, the

evaluator is a “critical friend” [Schon 1985: 27]. Such a role helps an

evaluator avoid becoming too near to a project because to become

so closely identified with the participants in a project can invalidate

any findings [Silverman 1992]. Writing about ethnographic research,

Hammersley and Atkinson [1995: 75] argue that rather than engage

in “futile attempts to eliminate the effects of the researcher we

should set about understanding them.” An evaluator can be part of

a project but has to retain a sense of detachment to write a report

which is based upon published criteria. This stance gives an

evaluator the opportunity to meet the consultants during the action

research. It allows the evaluator to put forward ideas about issues

20

like data collection, teacher researcher diaries and how to record

reflective discussions. For ’Drama for Learning and Creativity’

“critical friend” is more to do with the processes of data collection

than content. It enables the evaluator to offer support over

questions about the overall methodology of the action research. It is

one way to help the project maintain sight of issues which have the

potential to take it forward.

An evaluator also has to respect the personal involvement of those

doing the action research. McNiff

[http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1] argues that action

researchers “enquire into their own lives” as an investigation such

as that undertaken for ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is “an

enquiry conducted by the self into the self.” The action researcher

has to think about her/his own life, something that asks her/him to

think about their own life, why they do the things they do and why

they are the way they are. To evaluate a project with action

research as the chosen methodology is to place an evaluator in the

position of having to recognise that professional judgements and

decisions are personal ones as well. What teachers, consultants and

an evaluator bring to the project is not just their expertise as

teachers and lecturers but, to adapt McNiff’s phrase, their ‘selves’

as well.

21

3. Results from ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

Introduction

This section reports on how the success criteria are met (Appendix

2). The results are organised under seven headings. They are:

1. Use of funding and allocation of expenditure;

2. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the project’s action

research methodology;

3. Are an increasing number of schools using Drama as a

methodology?

4. Teacher confidence and Drama teaching;

5. Pupil attitudes towards Drama;

6. What impact is Drama having on learning and creative

outcomes?

22

7. Publications

1. Use of funding and allocation of expenditure

The use made of the funds available is appropriate to the demands

and needs of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity.’ In particular the

seminars and deployment of the consultants are thought by both

teachers and head-teachers to be very effective.

The seminars which bring together the teachers and consultants for

sustained, focussed discussion and on-going review of the

classroom projects help both parties to realise their roles. They are

also a telling contribution to the excellent working relationships

between the teachers and consultants. The match of consultant to

school enables them to work in their specialist fields, something that

adds weight to the fieldwork and the resultant writings by teachers

and consultants. The visits to schools are seen as highlights and

benefits of the project by teachers. A number of head-teachers see

these visits as catalysts for change and comment on how the

consultants’ expertise feeds into the research teachers in their

schools. For example, it allows a speedy, non-threatening cascading

of ideas to colleagues previously reluctant to use Drama.

The next phase of the project is a dissemination phase. Conferences

and publications are planned as part of a concerted drive to

publicise the project and demonstrate the effectiveness of Drama as

a learning medium. Given the volume of research and teaching

materials, ideas and approaches produced by teachers and

consultants during the school-based action research, they are both

necessary and important for project’s success. Furthermore, the

preparation for the proposed conferences and meetings is careful

and justifies the costs attached to them.

23

2. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the project’s action

research methodology

The choice of action research as the research paradigm is

appropriate for three reasons. It matches the management team’s

insistence on the creation and maintenance of collaborative

relationships between teachers and consultants. Second, it makes it

possible for the schools’ research questions to be kept under

continual review and revised to meet any changes that arise during

the fieldwork. Third, the use of this research paradigm with all 14

research schools makes certain that there is a clearly identified,

evidence-oriented and manageable core for all the school-based

work.

It is the research school teachers who work with consultants on the

questions identified at a research seminar held in November 2005

(Table 1). The further 40 schools who also take part in the project

are supported differently. They are not asked to devise a research

question but are entitled to visits from a consultant or local

authority advanced skills teacher. From the beginning there are two

clearly defined levels of participation. The support allotted to the

research schools, and that available to the outer layer of schools, is

appropriate to their respective levels of participation in the project.

The first seminar for the research schools generates revised

questions that match up with the project’s criteria on creativity and

learning. It also encourages the teachers to explore their question

in ways they think are suited to their schools. The emphasis in the

initial questions is writing, with 10 proposals referring explicitly to

En 3 Writing in National Curriculum English (for example ‘Can the

use of drama strategies impact on the quality of different genres of

writing?) or the development of literacy skills (in the role play area,

for instance). Although the project management group are uneasy

24

at this tendency, discussion with the research teachers leads to an

agreed decision to make the questions tentative. The consultants

stress the need for the continual revision of priorities in the action

research as it develops in school.

There is evidence of the success of this approach in Appendix 7. A

teacher writes:

“So I changed my research question into “How does

drama influence children’s creativity?” I felt this was

much more manageable. But what is creativity? Is it

just as complicated as writing? A product of a long

process? The work we have done this year provides

some answers to these questions but it also raises

more questions.”

For this teacher, an original question moves towards a broader

issue, creativity, which she sees as a further question in itself (“But

what is creativity?”) that makes her eventually reach a further,

specific issue that joins creativity with writing (“Is it just as

complicated as writing? A product of a long process?). By accepting

the need for the continuous review of the question as a way to

direct the action research this teacher recognises the perpetual

cycle that is at the heart of action research (“The work we have

done this year provides some answers to these questions but it also

raises more questions.”). This is an example of how reflection

modifies the content and direction of action research. It confirms

that the on-going review of the fieldwork has to be initiated by

teachers for teachers.

Other research questions show different emphases. For instance,

one question brings together aspects of motivation and engagement

with features of successful learning (“Can drama empower children

to become self motivated learners (cross curricula drama)?”). It is

directed to the whole curriculum, unlike the questions that focus on

25

English and literacy. Another question (“Does drama extend

children’s ability to solve problems and articulate their methods and

reasoning in maths?) concentrates on the connections between the

pedagogy of problem solving and whole class Drama in

mathematics teaching. The questions reflect a diversity of interests

and concerns, with an understandable focus on writing which is, in

one teacher’s words in the entry questionnaire, “at the forefront of

our minds.” There are broader questions that aim to investigate

Drama’s potential for the curriculum and its capacity to engage

children fully in their learning.

To support the research school teachers, funding is used to secure

teacher-release, two visits from a consultant and finance for further

research seminars in Spring and Summer 2006. It is a level of

support that extends as well as deepens the teachers’ contact with

their consultant. The consultants work within the action research

framework, offering encouragement, help and guidance where they

are wanted and needed. One result is the development of learning

partnerships which the teachers believe are a valuable contribution

to their action research.

The use of action research is both appropriate and effective. It gives

the teachers a dynamic and reflective way to devise and develop

their initial questions. Because their questions evolve as the project

continues, teachers own their research questions and feel able to

adapt them as they see fit. One of the project’s strengths is that

there is no single question which the teachers feel obliged to

answer. They can, and do, direct their energies, enthusiasms and

skills towards something they believe is important for their school.

In this respect, the consultants are seen as part of the action

research methodology and not an addition to it. The relationship

between teacher and consultant is based on equality and a shared

desire to develop Drama teaching within the context of each

26

individual school’s needs. It is another strong feature of ‘Drama for

Learning and Creativity,’ as well as an appropriate, effective

research methodology.

3. Are an increasing number of schools using Drama as a

methodology?

Appendix 4.1 shows that 22.1% of primary schools taught Drama as

a timetabled lesson in 2004/5. Over three quarters of schools

choose not to use Drama in this way, preferring to use it in Literacy,

as well as part of a curriculum “carousel” or in cross curricula work

(Appendix 4.2). More broadly, schools also see its role in terms of

public events like assemblies or seasonal presentations (for

example, Nativity plays or pantomimes). It indicates that Drama is

considered to be a learning medium whose role and value relates to

the teaching of Literacy and, more broadly, to the curriculum as a

whole, including the corporate life of the school. Furthermore,

Drama is more likely to be envisaged as cross-curricula rather than

to be thought of as a separate, defined subject. At the start of

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ qualitative and quantitative data

shows that Drama is present as a classroom-centred learning

medium which has an active part in the corporate life of schools.

Rather than repeat this question in the exit questionnaire, head-

teachers are asked for their views about the extent Drama

influences their development plans for 2006/7, the year following

the project. The entry questionnaire (Appendix 4.3) shows that for

2004/5 drama is part of 67.5% of primary school development

plans. Following the project, 92.3% of primary schools state that

Drama is influencing their development plans (Appendix 4.4) and

become a significant priority for over half the schools in the survey

(Appendix 4.5). As Appendix 4.5 shows further that all schools in the

survey see Drama as part of their improvement plans, there is

evidence that Drama is now part of the curriculum in all the

27

authority’s primary schools and that, therefore, the project meets

this criteria.

Nearly half of the replies to open-ended questions in both the entry

and exit questionnaires refer to the same two things. They are the

expertise and knowledge to teach Drama and confidence. In the

entry questionnaire, head-teachers and teachers alike express

worries about their professional abilities in Drama. Comments like

“I’m not very good at Drama” and “I’m not confident because I don’t

have the same knowledge that I have in Maths or R.E” indicate their

concerns. At the same time, the entry questionnaire reveals that

there are already a number of teachers who have strong

backgrounds in Drama (“I’ve always been involved with Drama both

in and out of school”), believe in its potential (“Drama is a way to

unlock children’s learning”) and want to use it more in the

classroom (“It has potential for everything we teach”). There is a

duality of worry about and commitment to Drama which is an

expression of a tension in teachers’ views about their capabilities to

teach Drama.

One factor here may be that, prior to the start of the project, only a

third of the primary and middle schools have a teacher with school-

wide responsibility for Drama. Appendices 4.6 and 4.7 indicate one

way in which primary and middle schools are addressing the

combined issues of expertise, knowledge and confidence. Appendix

4.7, which comes from the exit questionnaire, shows that from

September 2006 the number of primary and middle schools with a

named teacher responsible for Drama will have more than doubled.

It is anticipated that from this date, 80% of such schools will have a

teacher with an explicit remit for Drama.

Some of the increase in the number of teachers who are willing to

take on a responsibility for Drama may stem directly from the

28

project. In an email sent to a consultant after the teacher-led action

research in his school one primary head-teacher writes:

“We’re really excited and enthusiastic about drama –

thanks to you and the project – if only we had

received good quality drama education during

teacher training and at school I’m sure it would have

been an integral part of my teaching – but I’ll make

sure it is from now on. Who said ‘you can’t teach old

dogs new tricks?’ rubbish !!!!”

The comment indicates that part of the success of ‘Drama for

Learning and Creativity’ lies with its commitment to a combination

of increasing teacher knowledge and expertise and raising

confidence, together with the project’s action research

methodology. Personal contact between consultant, head-teacher

and teacher which is established through action research (“you and

the project”) is seen to be a powerful influence by an experienced

teacher (“Who said ‘you can’t teach old dogs new tricks?’

rubbish !!!!”). At the same time the head-teacher’s statement is

further evidence that action research is an appropriate methodology

for the project.

The quotation also echoes a criticism from teachers and head-

teachers which occurs throughout the entry and exit questionnaires.

Appendix 4.8 shows that although two-thirds of teachers receive

Drama as part of their initial teacher education, one third does not

have Drama in their course. Two recently qualified teachers write in

the entry questionnaire how Drama is “one afternoon” of their

course and how it is “something that was added on more or less at

the end.” A number of other teachers, who attend short and year-

long local authority Drama courses, write of the “inspirational

courses” which they “wished had been part of their (teacher)

training.” “We need courses like this all the time” is how another

29

teacher writes in the exit questionnaire to summarise her/his need

for continuous professional development in Drama.

The evidence in this Section confirms that ‘Drama for Learning and

Creativity’ is meeting its criteria about ensuring an increasing

number of schools use Drama as a methodology. There are also

indications that it is influencing head-teachers as well as teachers.

Increasingly, Drama is part of school development plans. To

accompany the change, over four fifths of the primary and middle

schools in the survey are putting in place a post of responsibility for

Drama.

4. Teacher confidence and Drama teaching

The entry questionnaire provides limited evidence about teacher’s

confidence to teach Drama. The question has a ‘middle’ reply which

indicates that just over half of the teachers (55.6%) are confident to

teach their own class some aspects of Drama (see Appendix 5.1).

The 9.7% of teachers who are confident to lead Drama confirms the

previous Section’s view of the existence of a core of teachers with

the capacity to lead Drama in their school. When the percentage of

teachers who indicate they are confident only with play-scripts is

added to those who say they have no confidence to teach Drama, a

total of more than 12% of teachers express a lack of confidence in

their ability to teach Drama. It supports further the idea of a duality

between worry and commitment that is reported in the previous

Section. What is more, there are, at the start of ‘Drama for Learning

and Creativity,’ more teachers who are concerned about having to

teach Drama than those who think they have the skills and

confidence to lead their colleagues in Drama teaching.

The influence of the project on teacher confidence can be gauged

by data collected from three items in the exit questionnaire. In total

30

over 90% of the teachers involved as either research schools or as

part of the project’s outer layer report an increase in their

confidence to teach Drama (Appendix 5.2). There are no negative

returns for this question. When asked about their confidence to

teach classes other than their own, over 60% of the teachers believe

that they can. If this is placed alongside the indication that 88.7% of

teachers believe they have a range of new Drama teaching ideas

and approaches (Appendix 5.3), it suggests that the development of

confidence is allied with the acquisition of knowledge and skill. One

primary school teacher writes:

“It’s much more rewarding working with the whole

class in the hall than I expected. I’m becoming more

confident each time.”

Working in the way that Drama demands can surprise teachers and

take them aback (“It’s much more rewarding working with the

whole class in the hall than I expected”). With her newly acquired

knowledge and skills this teacher is “becoming more confident each

time” she teaches Drama. Writing about the duality of worry and

enthusiasm another teacher writes:

“I am covering more along with excitement, fun and

developing imagination. I am feeling less and less

anxious each time. I am feeling more successful each

time.”

With confidence comes a sense of relaxation (“I am feeling less and

less anxious each time”) that creates a potent learning context for

children that brings together “excitement, fun and developing

imagination.” With the continuous use of Drama this teacher is

“feeling more successful each time.” Again there is reference to

how long it takes to acquire confidence. It is seen as a gradual

process. But as she continues to use whole class Drama, and her

confidence to do so grows, this teacher thinks Drama enables her to

exceed the prescribed curriculum (“I am covering more “). Some of

the rewards for working more frequently with whole class Drama

31

teachers include increased feelings of confidence and success.

There is less concern with covering objectives and more belief in the

role of Drama to generate an imaginative, broader curriculum.

The project gives the teachers who take part the confidence to work

effectively with whole class Drama. Although there remain a

number of anxieties for teachers, the data contains clear indications

that the enjoyment experienced by teachers and pupils can

outweigh the worries that accompany teaching Drama.

5. Pupil attitudes towards Drama

The teachers’ journals from two of the research schools have the

following pupil comments about Drama.

“When is our next History lesson? (because we do

drama)”

“When I read it I don’t get it, but when I do it, it

sticks.”

“I love it when you pretend to be someone else,

Miss.”

“Can we do drama, today?”

“I think Drama is important because it grabs people’s

attention. It’s a fun way to learn.”

Another teacher writes:

“The children like drama….a lot. It’s nice to be

stopped in the corridor nearly every day and have

conversations like this –

Pupil: When’s our next drama lesson?

Teacher: Thursday

Pupil: Cool

Teacher: Do you like Drama?

Pupil: It’s wicked”

32

The data in the fieldwork journals read for the preparation of this

evaluation all show that pupils like Drama. They respond positively

to al that it offers them as learners. There is a sense of anticipation

(“Can we do drama, today?”) that their learning is to be different in

Drama (“It’s a fun way to learn”). They enjoy Drama (“It’s wicked”),

find that it makes the retention of what is being learned more

accessible and long-lasting (“When I read it I don’t get it, but when I

do it, it sticks”) and see their teacher as someone who does more

than set them work to do (“I love it when you pretend to be

someone else, Miss.”).

The data also shows that pupils see Drama as a positive influence

on the way they retain ideas. For example, one teacher asks her/his

class to think of a lesson “where drama was used and where you

really learnt something.” Pupil replies include:

“The rainforest…now I know that the rainforest got

destroyed…and we learnt that there are animals

dying and losing their homes.”

“Literacy. Often it is used when we are writing a

story and I don’t understand it.”

“Yes, during History we have done drama and it

helps stick in my memory because of the fun

actions.”

“In History because we are learning about the Black

Death and I can remember a lot of information

because we did it in drama not in books.”

The comments suggest a certainty and security of the knowledge

learned through Drama (“now I know that the rainforest got

destroyed”) along with a number of the inter-connections that lie

within that knowledge (“there are animals dying and losing their

homes.”). Drama also helps with the clarification that is part of the

meaning making which is integral to writing (“Often it is used when

33

we are writing a story and I don’t understand it.”). For a content-

heavy topic like the Black Death it helps pupils to recall a volume of

ideas (“I can remember a lot of information”) as well as the details

(“it helps stick it in my memory”). From the pupils’ point of view

Drama has the potential to develop the knowledge retention and

application that they think is necessary for successful learning in

content-heavy subjects.

Data from one school provides an insight into the inclusive nature of

Drama. When asked if Drama “is important to do in schools” a pupil

responds with:

“Yes, it is because the children will teach the children

to come out of the dark and into the light.”

When asked to explain what this means the pupil adds:

“When I first did drama I was really nervous but now

I really like it. It helps you express yourself and not

hide away.”

Pupil gain the confidence to find their voice through Drama (“It

helps you express yourself and not hide away.”) and the

encouragement to express as well as share ideas and opinions with

his/her peers. Another pupil in the same school thinks one of the

benefits of Drama is that “you get to mix with other people and

share their ideas.” Drama has both cognitive and affective roles in

learning. The pupils’ views indicate that cognitive-led knowledge

acquisition is enhanced and made more enjoyable because it is

bound up with an affective engagement with what is being studied.

Drama blends the cognitive and affective domains successfully and,

by doing so, makes pupils more responsive to the knowledge they

have to learn.

One pupil’s reply to the question whether Drama is an important

thing to do is:

34

“Yes, I think it is because I think I learn more. The

reason why is because I get into it more, but when

we are doing it I do not think I am learning but when

we have finished then I realise.”

Pupil attitudes towards Drama are positive. There is evidence that

pupils think they “learn more” because of a depth of engagement

(“I get into it more”) in which they are not aware they are learning

(“when we are doing it I do not think I am learning”). It is afterwards

that pupils begin to grasp they have been learning throughout the

Drama (“when we have finished then I realise.”). The evidence

gathered for this section of the evaluation suggests that pupils think

that Drama is equally significant for the processes of learning as it is

for the outcome. Their enjoyment of learning is clear, and indicates

that the project is doing much more than just meeting its criteria.

Pupils have positive attitudes towards Drama. They think that

Drama helps them to learn information and be able to retain

knowledge securely within their working memory. They believe it

also helps them with the volume of material they have to learn. In

addition, pupils are aware of how Drama encourages all to

contribute, no matter how much they lack self- belief and self-

confidence.

6. What impact is Drama having on learning and creative

outcomes?

Appendix 6.1 confirms the extent Drama is found in one subject,

English. The figure of just over a third of schools having Drama

lessons is higher in this table than Appendix 4.1, but this may be

because 4.1 refers to “lesson” whilst the question in Appendix 6.1 is

directed more towards the wider curriculum, including clubs and

school plays.

35

A comparison between Appendices 6.2 and 6.3 indicates that

teachers, particularly those in Reception, Key Stage One and Two

and Year 7 classes in middle schools, now work with Drama in an

increasing range of subjects. Table 2 shows the curriculum areas

where Drama gains substantially. It also shows that there are gains

across the primary and Year 7 curriculum. The nearly 50% gain for

Citizenship may also reflect the broad scope of recent government

materials, some of which include Drama, as well as local authority

curriculum initiatives. However, the figures for P.E. and I.C.T. may

be distorted. The difference between Appendix 6.2 and 6.3 shows

P.E. to gain just over 1.0%. National Curriculum P.E. Key Stages One

and Two [DfEE 1999: 128 – 133] has Dance as part of P.E. Appendix

6.3 has Drama connected with Dance in over half the schools in the

exit survey. When this is added to the P.E. figure in the same

survey, it suggests that over three-quarters of the schools (77.1%)

join P.E., Dance and Drama.

Even if there is an overlap between P.E and Dance in the figures, it

appears likely that Drama is perceived to have a marked curriculum

connection with National Curriculum P.E. If this is accurate, then the

gains of over 20% in the subject areas studying Drama at the end

of the school-based action research are Citizenship, Geography,

Visual Arts and P.E., all of which can be associated more with ‘Arts’

than ‘Sciences.’ This is confirmed by Appendix 6.3. It shows

Literacy, Citizenship, History, Dance/P.E and Geography to be the

curriculum areas where Drama is used by more than 50% of the

schools surveyed. Appendix 6.6, also from the exit questionnaire,

supports this finding as it shows that 64.3% and 61.0% of teachers

think Drama is of either “some importance” or no importance for

children’s learning in Science and Maths respectively. The scores

imply that almost two thirds of teachers do not, at present, make

curriculum connections between Drama and mathematical or

scientific thinking.

36

The entry and exit questionnaire returns for I.C.T. in Appendix 6.3,

6.4 and 6.6 also have significance for Drama. At the start of the

action research only 1% of respondents reply that they use I.C.T.

with Drama. Although this rises by nearly 15% it still means that

four fifths of teachers do not associate Drama with I.C.T. Appendix

6.6 shows that 70.0% of teachers think that Drama has only some

or no importance for children’s learning in I.C.T. By the end of the

fieldwork a maximum of only one-third of teachers are working with

Drama in I.C.T.

Appendix 6.4 is evidence that by the time of the exit survey over

95% of the teachers work with Drama in an increasing number of

subjects. A comparison between Appendices 6.7 and 6.8 shows that

the increase in those curriculum areas where Drama occurs is

matched by an increase in the time allocated to Drama on a regular

basis. Over a third of schools surveyed now commit more than one

hour a week to Drama, either within English/Literacy or across the

curriculum. This is in contrast with less than 5% at the start of the

project. The rise is over 25%. The number of schools who expect to

work with Drama for between 30 minutes and one hour a week

increases by a similar percentage to 60%. Drama now occupies a

much more secure as well as prominent place in the whole primary

curriculum.

The range of subjects where drama is used and the amount of time

allocated to it on a weekly basis are both part of a larger picture in

which Drama is increasingly a priority for the primary and middle

school curriculum. Over half the schools see it as a priority and four

fifths of all the schools surveyed want to have a teacher responsible

for it. The exit questionnaire findings in Appendix 6.6 show that

Drama is thought to be very important or important for children’s

learning in English, Citizenship, History, R.E. and possibly P.E/Dance

37

by over four fifths of the primary and middle school teachers in the

survey. For Geography and Music, Drama is very important or

important for 60% of schools, with half the teachers seeing Drama

as having a similar role in Art and Design. The areas with least

exposure to Drama are Mathematics, Science and I.C.T. Even with

the figures for these last three subjects, whole class Drama now

features regularly in two thirds of the curriculum and is likely to

make up over one hour a week of a child’s learning. There is,

therefore, far greater cross curricula use of whole class Drama than

at the start of the fieldwork.

Further evidence of the project’s impact on learning and creative

outcomes comes from data on the teaching activities found in whole

class Drama. Table 3.1 is from the entry questionnaire. It shows that

at the beginning of the project over a fifth of teachers use Hot

seating, Role play and Enacting (which includes ‘Acting out’ and ‘Act

out’). When the scores for Role play and Enacting are added

together they make up 42%, which is twice the figure for Hot

seating and 35.4% more than the next dramatic activity, Freeze

framing. At the start of the project, the data indicates that teachers

connect Drama strongly with Role play and Enacting but far less

with conventions like Hot seating and Thought tracking.

The extent that Enacting and Role play are prominent in whole class

Drama at the opening of the fieldwork is found in examples in the

entry questionnaire. For instance “Acting out the Fire of London” is

to “help improve descriptive writing especially extending

vocabulary”; “Acting out the story of Rama and Sita” is “to enter

into and relate to another religious story” and “to promote

questions.” In a History activity called ‘Wifey wifey’ the children are

“in role as Henry VIII’s wives” and “have to defend their case” to

“improve questioning skills, empathy and improvisation.” An

example from Numeracy has children “playing the role of the

greedy shop keeper” so that they learn to “increase prices by (the)

38

set amount” and “total amounts.” The same teacher has an

example from Literacy in which “children take on a character from a

traditional tale” “to generate words that describe their character,

their looks, movements and behaviour.” Although these examples

come from across the curriculum, over 22% are from History, 18%

from PHSE, 15.2% from R.E. and 20% from Literacy. Enacting and

Role play are most likely to be found in primarily four curriculum

areas when the project begins.

Table 3.2 has a different slant. The same entry questionnaire data

as before is divided into ‘illustrative’ and ‘narrative.’ There is a

distinction between Drama teaching to illustrate ideas or points and

Drama as a means to make a narrative. 80% of the Drama teaching

appears to be geared to showing, for instance, how language works

(“help improve descriptive writing especially extending

vocabulary”), how to reason and question (“improve questioning

skills, empathy and improvisation”) and how to calculate (“increase

prices by (the) set amount” and “total amounts.”). In these

examples, Role play and Acting out illustrate procedures associated

with a body of knowledge. By contrast only 20% of the responses

describe teaching in which the pupils make narratives, from either

non-fiction or fiction.

The finding about the illustrative use of Drama can be matched up

with the uses of dramatic conventions like Mantle of the expert, Hot

seating and Freeze framing. In an example from Geography

teaching, Mantle of the expert aims to help the pupils to “find

relevant information and present it to others.” In a History Role play,

Freeze framing and Hot seating combine with the aim of ensuring

pupils “understand situation and emotions of different people during

the 1930s.” When ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ begins,

conventions like Hot seating, as well as Acting out and Role play,

39

are all connected more with the illustration of ideas, concepts and

moments than with the construction of a narrative.

Table 3.3 points to a change between the start and end of the

fieldwork part of the project. Although it is not possible to make a

direct comparison between Tables 4.1 and 4.3, it is clear that by the

end of the fieldwork teachers are working more consistently with a

broader array of drama conventions. For example, the replies show

Acting out, Freeze frame and Teacher in role have become part of

all the teachers’ work at some point in the fieldwork (Table 3.3).

Conventions like Hot seating and Build an environment have a more

than 90% chance of being used in this period. This is different from

the beginning of the project in which there is a reliance on a narrow

range and infrequent use of Drama strategies (Table 3.1). At that

time Hot seating is in 21.3% of the examples, Freeze framing in less

than 5% and Conscience alley in just over 2%. By the end of the

fieldwork, four more Drama conventions (Build an environment,

Conscience Alley, Mantle of the expert and Teacher in role) are

regular teaching strategies for over 50% of the teachers. The

previous reliance on Acting out and Role play is in the process of

being replaced. The diet of activity has extended so that Enacting

and Role play are now partnered by a variety of Drama conventions

like Teacher in role and Mantle of the expert.

While two Drama strategies, Acting out and Freeze framing,

continue to be prominent, the pronounced emergence of Teacher in

role is a significant alteration to the landscape of whole class Drama

teaching. Unlike other dramatic conventions, Teacher in role places

the teacher as a character within the dramatic context. It works

through representation [Ackroyd 2004] as the teacher becomes part

of what is to unfold. A teacher mediates the “teaching purpose”

through her/his involvement in the drama [Neelands 1990: 32]. As

the Drama continues, “teachers in role are also writing as they go,

40

because they have to respond to the moment” [Ackroyd 2004: 161].

It is a strategy, amongst other things, to provoke thoughts and

feelings, direct the course of the narrative, create possibilities as

well as uncertainties, question pupils’ stereotypical thinking and

stimulate their involvement. The entry questionnaire records that

2.2% of the teachers’ examples use this strategy. However, the exit

survey shows that just over half of the teachers say they use it all or

most of the time, and 48.8% some of the time. During the course of

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ over nine-tenths of the teachers

in the survey experience working with Teacher in role in whole class

Drama, which is an increase of more than 90%.

The nature of the change is evident in two of the case studies

submitted by teachers. For example ‘Owl Babies’ (Table 7) has

shared reading and talk groups framed by a sequence of five Drama

conventions. The teacher is in role as a baby owl and is questioned

(hot seated) by the pupils. The questions and answers are integral

to the pupils’ creation of an alternative, speculative text. Teacher in

role takes two forms which are integral to a non-fiction based whole

class Drama, Rainforest (Table 8). In the first form, Teacher in role

is a guide who creates the rainforest through the visual and tactile

(“we took the class on an expedition into the rainforest….to explore

and feedback on sights and smells”). In the second form, when in

role as Professor X, the teacher controls access to the forest.

‘Rainforest’ and ‘Owl Babies’ have teachers in roles which are

powerful or dominant (as a Professor), equal (a guide to the rain

forest) and weak or sub-ordinate (one of the baby owls). A teacher

who steps into teacher in role moves from spectator to participant in

imaginative work that is narrative or illustrative. They become part

of the Drama as characters (baby owls or a professor, for instance),

as writers (replying to questions when being hot seated) and as

narrators (being a guide). Teacher in role is a way to verbalise the

thinking and feeling that lie inside all narrative and non-fiction

41

writing. This has implications for the teaching of writing, and thus

the raising of standards in schools. The evidence from the end of the

fieldwork suggests that when teachers work as Teacher in role their

interactions with the pupils are verbal models of the cognitive and

affective thought processes that generate the ideas that are at the

heart of successful writing.

Teacher in role is part of the gradual expansion of the conventions

that make up whole class Drama teaching. By the end of the

classroom-based action research, there is evidence that Hot seating,

Mantle of the expert and Thought tracking are an increasing part of

teachers’ work in Drama. This perceptible change is found in the

teachers’ combinations of Drama conventions (Table 4). The two

most frequently used pairs of Drama activities (Table 4.1) are:

Acting Out and Freeze

and

Acting out and Build an environment.

As a combination, Acting Out and Freeze is in two fifths of all Drama

work, which is nearly 9% more than Acting out and Build an

environment. Teacher in role appears in three out of the succeeding

six combinations. When it is put together with Hot seating, Mantle of

the expert and Thought tracking, Teacher in role is now found in

over 15% of whole class Drama teaching. Table 4.2, which details

the combinations of three Drama strategies, shows the start of a

change. Freeze framing is in all four of the combinations that score

above 10% with Teacher in role in three of the same combinations

and Hot seating in two. Acting out does not appear in these

combinations. This adds weight to the view that the teaching

sequences in whole class Drama teaching now use a greater variety

of activities than at the start of the project. In particular, Teacher in

role is combined with opportunities for pupils to engage with their

learning as questioners and respondents (Hot seating) and experts

(Mantle of the expert) whose points of view as thinkers are valued

42

as well as respected (Thought tracking). The emphasis on Drama as

making through activities like Acting out and Role play starts to be

challenged by Drama conventions that allow for the internal

elaboration of ideas and conscious reflection.

Table 4.3 shows that a combination of Acting out, Freeze, Movement

and Teacher in role is found in a fifth of whole class Drama. The

blend of physical movement, stillness and making is still prominent,

therefore, in whole class Drama teaching. But the presence of

Teacher in role and Conscience Alley in tandem with Acting Out is a

further indication of a movement in how teachers work in the

classroom. With over 10% of Drama teaching now bringing together

making, elaboration and reflection there is more support for the

view that its overall shape is changing. The role of pupil thinking is

coming more to the forefront of whole class Drama teaching.

The idea that teachers may be attaching significance to connections

between whole class Drama and thinking is both denied and

confirmed by the initial focus of the research schools’ projects.

Almost two thirds of the research schools’ projects begin by

focussing on writing (Table 1). Appendix 6.5 reveals that over 97%

of the teachers think Drama is either central or important to the

development of Listening and Speaking (En1) and Writing (En3). The

same items for Reading (En2) give 53.3%, which indicates that

teachers make much less of a connection between reading and

Drama than they do between speaking and listening and writing.

When this finding is taken further it shows that over four-fifths of the

teachers think Drama is central to the development of Listening and

Speaking, whilst the same reply for Reading is 15.6% and 37.7% for

Writing. Thus the data implies that Drama is not considered to be

significant for the development of reading by over 85% of the

teachers in the survey. For them, Drama is more closely associated

with the English listening and speaking programmes of study. It can

43

be argued that this denies a connection between En1, Drama and

thinking. For example there is only one reference to problem-solving

as a “key skill” [DfEE 1999: 8]. The “Group discussion and

interaction” for Key Stage 2 has in its “purposes” investigating,

editing, sorting; planning, predicting, exploring; explaining,

reporting and evaluating. They all seem to be present in Drama

conventions like Teacher in role and Conscience Alley.

There is firmer evidence for the view that teachers are making a

connection between whole class Drama and the development of

thinking. It comes from data collected for questions that cover

teachers’ ideas about the purposes of Drama. Appendices 6.10 to

6.13 show consistently high scores for “Creative and thinking skills.”

This may be caused partly by teachers knowing that the project’s

title of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ carries with it notions of

creativity, learning and thinking. All three are terms found in the

title and publicity. If allowance is made for this, then the data

suggest that teachers may value Drama because it promotes a

cluster of verbal, thinking and collaborative skills.

In the following diagram the Entry Questionnaire returns have

‘Creative and thinking skills’ as over 15% more than the following

two purposes, ‘Enhance learning in other subjects’ and

‘Communication and expressive skills.’ With ‘Working co-

operatively’ less than 3% behind them it implies that - at the start of

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ - teachers see Drama in terms

of a network that brings together imagination, meaning-making and

collaborative cross- curricula thinking.

Entry Questionnaire – Leading Five Purposes of Drama

%age Exit Questionnaire – Leading Five Purposes of Drama

%ag

e

Creative and thinking skills

76.3 Communication and expressive skills

67.2

Enhance learning in other 60.5 Creative and thinking 63.6

44

subjects skills

Communication and expressive skills

60.5 Allow pupils to contribute positively and co-operatively

45.6

Working co-operatively 57.9 Enhance learning in other subjects

42.0

Enjoyment 52.6 Enjoyment 36.3

Confidence building 47.4 Non-academic route to learning

36.3

Although number of the items change in the Exit Questionnaire,

there is still sound evidence to suggest that by the end of the

fieldwork teachers see Drama’s purposes to be concerned most

strongly with the development of thinking, expression and ways of

working together purposefully across the curriculum.

This finding can be explored in three ways. The single purpose of

Drama chosen by most teachers in the Entry and Exit

Questionnaires is ‘Creative and thinking skills’ (Appendices 6.13 and

6.14). In both questionnaires it scores substantially more than the

second choices, ‘Enhance learning in other subjects’ and ‘Non-

academic route to learning’, by 8.6% and over 16.0% respectively.

Allowing for the presence of learning and creativity in the project’s

title, and the possible distortion this causes, it is more evidence that

Drama is valued because of a capacity to stimulate and develop

children’s intellectual capabilities. And that this role is a cross

curricula one.

A second way to explore the findings is to refer to the purposes

which either score lowly (less than 5.0%) or not at all in the choice

of the most important purpose of Drama. The diagram below shows

the items common to both the Entry and Exit Questionnaires.

Entry Exit

Develop Drama skills 4.3 2.1

45

Create social inclusion 2.1 0.0

Confidence building 2.1 4.2

Enhance class as a community 0.0 0.0

Motivation to attend school 0.0 0.0

Develop Drama knowledge 0.0 0.0

(‘Enhance risk taking’ becomes ‘Allow pupils to experience safe risk-

taking’ in the Exit Questionnaire: the two scores are 0.0 and 2.1

respectively)

Intrinsic drama skills and knowledge become considerably less

important than Drama’s cross curricula potential. For teachers, the

role of drama is not necessarily associated with P.H. S. E or inclusion

but with its potential to enrich the curriculum. There is a difference

here between teachers and pupils, with pupils making clear (pages

31 - 33) how Drama benefits all who take part. There is also a

difference between the findings here about inclusion and confidence

and the views earlier in the evaluation, which show that 70.8% of

teachers think that Drama has a place in Citizenship.

A third way to investigate the extent teachers believe Drama is

important for the development of thinking is to look for

combinations within the teachers’ choices of the five purposes of

Drama. Table 5.1 shows that an eighth of the respondents have a

grouping of four purposes:

Develop creative thinking skills

Enhance learning in other subjects

Enjoyment

Non academic route to learning.

Just over 10% of respondents have the following two groupings of

four purposes:

Develop communication and expressive skills

Develop creative thinking skills

Enjoyment

46

Non academic route to learning

and:

Allow pupils to contribute positively and co-operatively

Develop communication and expressive skills

Develop creative thinking skills

Non academic route to learning

These three groupings are a cluster of thinking, communication and

expressive skills dominate teachers’ views of the principal purposes

for Drama. Two items, ‘Develop creative thinking skills’ and

‘Develop communication and expressive skills’ appear in three

quarters of the groupings of three purposes of Drama (Table 5.3).

The quantitative data indicates that, for teachers, a combination of

creative thinking, communication and expressive skills are now the

most important purposes of Drama.

How far teachers believe Drama is associated with thinking is

clarified further in Appendices 6.14 and 6.15. These rank the

teachers’ choices of the most important engagements in a Drama

activity. Appendix 6.14 shows the five choices of engagements. The

first five in rank order bring together purposeful thinking, forming

their own questions and generating ideas. The presence of these as

a cluster, together with the choice of purposeful thinking as the

most important engagement, is an example of the extent teachers

value Drama because of its potential to help children become

thinkers. Purposeful thinking is the highest scoring individual

engagement (Appendix 6.15); it is chosen by nearly a quarter of the

respondents, with empathy as the second choice and scoring 19.5%,

or nearly a fifth. These two engagements score nearly half as much

again as the next grouping of engagements. Collaboration, forming

their own questions and generating ideas are chosen by only just

over a tenth of the respondents.

47

Three school based projects illustrate the impact of whole class

Drama on learning and creative outcomes. They are another

perspective on the quantitative findings about teachers’ ideas about

the connections between whole class Drama and thinking. The

projects show teachers making relationships between the

development of thinking, expression and ways of collaborative

working. There is extended use of whole class Drama as a cross

curricula means to stimulate and develop children’s intellectual

capabilities. Pupils participate in teaching and learning that fosters

purposeful thinking, empathy, collaboration and the generation and

formation of ideas.

At the same time, the projects are evidence of how differently three

teachers work with the idea of purposeful thinking in whole class

Drama. Each is distinctive: one shows how mathematical thinking

within Drama benefit each other; a second looks at speculation and

hypotheses making in a Reception class and a third generates

affective response to non fiction. All three are matched against the

QCA Creativity Criteria (see Tables 6, 7 and 8) to show that ‘Drama

for Learning and Creativity’ meets these criteria as stipulated in the

Bid Specification and the ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

Success Criteria (Appendix 2).

The projects also demonstrate the significance of a developed,

imagined context for whole class Drama. In each project the sense

of setting is integral to the Drama: place is realised as part of the

thinking, expression and working together that propel the whole

class activities. To adapt Heathcote’s terms, [1980] the foreground

of the intellectual and emotional engagement that is the whole class

Drama has a realised sense of life background without which pupil

engagement fails.

48

The first project is Planet Perfecton. Mathematical thinking is

integral to a whole class Drama which is set on an imagined planet.

Table 6 shows pupils and their teacher as they move in role

between the five QCA Creativity Criteria. Episodes 1 and 2

encourage pupils to continually refocus and refine their ideas before

the mathematical thinking introduces a detailed discussion of the

planet’s ecology. The four episodes show that, in this project, the

Creativity Criteria are not a sequence or hierarchy. The process of

creativity is a flux: in role work sees children continuously revise

their ideas as they share and recognise different opinions in

structured, collaborative group work. The pupils’ thinking collects

and questions ideas. They gather and marshal thoughts to connect

what is emerging with what is known. The internal sorting and

manipulation is an example of purposeful thinking in which pupils

search for explanations, reasons and justifications as opposed to a

single answer. It is thinking that helps them begin to gain access to

the underlying principles of their arguments.

In a second sequence of lessons from Planet Perfecton (Table 6,

Lesson 2) mathematical thinking enables children to visualise one of

the planet’s creatures. After seeing some footprints, “taking photos,

swabs and samples in role” and feeding back to the class – all done

in role – the children receive information in the form of a ratio. This

gives them a way to assess the animal’s height. Staying in role, they

return to measure the footprints and then report back with their

calculations. Once the measuring is done, an out of role discussion

leads into an extended sequence of language-based movement.

This creates a whole class sculpture of the wounded animal. The

teacher comments how repetition of:

“weak, weak, weak acted as a pulse…. cold sounded

like chattering teeth…anxious was a shusshing sound

like blood pumping and … agony formed a moan.”

49

In her diary the teacher records how one pupil comments, “This is

amazing. It’s like we’re inside its mind.” In Heathcote’s terms

[1980], mathematical thinking provides background that enables

the foreground of the planet to be sharpened in the children’s

imagination. Ratio, calculation and measurement are necessary to

the children’s envisioning of Perfecton. Numerical thinking

intertwines with the verbal and physical to create a context in which

thought and feeling are equal. The substance of the planet, and

thus the children’s engagement, comes from all areas of human

thinking and not solely the verbal.

Planet Perfecton illustrates the potential of whole class Drama to

produce creative outcomes through cognitive and affective learning

which merges verbal with numerical thinking. In this example,

purposeful thinking includes measurement, calculation, movement

and the emotive response to and use of language. A realisation of

the animal’s shape and size is how the children come to share the

wounded animal’s perspective (“It’s like we’re inside its mind”). As

the narrative continues, the children’s thinking addresses

successive problems through a mixture of the physical and mental.

They collaborate in different ways of thinking to generate ideas and

feelings, including a sense of implications. The continuous re-

shaping of their ideas and feelings develops the children as

thinkers. They communicate in as well as out of role, expressing

themselves across a spectrum of different medium in a way that

allows extensive collaborative working.

In Planet Perfecton, whole class Drama makes a narrative in which

mathematical thinking is inseparable from the explanation,

justification and prediction that underpin the work. It depends on a

collaborative approach to learning. At one point in her diary the

teacher writes:

50

“…the class are, although well-behaved and

essentially polite, very poor at listening to others.

They all want to be heard (or most of them anyway).”

The issue of listening helps her decide to have labelled pebbles in

jars, with each group having one jar. Whoever’s pebble is drawn

leads the current “working party.” As well as making the pupils

aware of “the convention of addressing the chair and canvassing

opinion” which they need for the forthcoming School’s Council, the

pebbles also give the children different status roles in the missions.

They have to lead and be led. The teacher records:

“’But we have no voice now.’ [When their leader was

out of the room. There was a palpable sense of

frustration at this but not a negative feeling, more

one of (the) value of their leader when he/she

returned.]”

On a further occasion she notes:

“Shall I speak for you?” - on spotting that group had

lost their leader on a “mission” – another meeting

leader sought the group’s opinions and was in a

position to feed back.”

The pebbles give pupils ways of working collaboratively in which

they have to take on roles of different status. The roles see the

pupils coming to understand deeper responsibilities of leadership

(“another meeting leader sought the group’s opinions and was in a

position to feed back”) as well as the effects of being led (“(“(the)

value of their leader when he/she returned.]”). Whole class Drama

allows children to identify, articulate and assess the implications as

well as consequences of successful collaboration. Purposeful

thinking includes children learning about how they learn

collaboratively, which is an important but often unrecognised

contribution to their knowledge of themselves as learners.

A consultant writes in her journal about the impact on the teacher of

action research in whole class Drama. The consultant describes

51

what happens to the teacher’s thinking when she combines Maths

and Drama:

“Whereas the teacher had set out to explore how

Maths and Drama could be brought together through

the use of a problem-solving pedagogy, she found

herself working across the curriculum and valuing

the potency of this cross curricula approach. Drama

was serving as a link between literacy and numeracy,

enriching both areas, and developing children’s

thinking, social and communication skills.”

The teacher allows learning to lead the action research. The original

plan is to connect Maths and Drama through “a problem-solving

pedagogy.” It initiates cross curricula work which blends literacy

and numeracy in a way that deepens the children’s learning

(“enriching both areas”). At the same time it extends children’s

capacity as thinkers and increases their “social and communication

skills.”

The teacher’s view of Drama and Maths change as her action

research continues (“she found herself working across the

curriculum and valuing the potency of this cross curricula

approach”). She begins to transform her ideas about subject

boundaries as she works with Drama on action research that brings

together two subjects, Drama and Maths, which are not often

connected. It is an instance of how ‘Drama for Learning and

Creativity’ research teachers work in an almost subconscious way

with the QCA Creativity criteria. In this example, a teacher

questions and explores (“found herself working across the

curriculum”), makes connections and sees relationships (“explore

how Maths and Drama could be brought together through the use of

a problem-solving pedagogy”). The research seminars encourage

critical reflection that challenge as well as extend their ideas about

the curriculum. The action research undertaken for ‘Drama for

52

Learning and Creativity’ is a scaffold for the teacher. It helps her to

think how the combination of Drama with subjects like Mathematics

takes much further her own interpretations of creativity.

Owl Babies is a literacy-centred project in a Reception class. The

shared reading of the book up to the point where Mummy Owl

disappears is the start of their whole class Drama activities. Through

the Drama, the pupils build an internalised alternative text as a

basis for writing in role. The Drama centres on speculative thinking:

the children predict what might happen by looking back at what has

happened. In talk groups their speculations and hypotheses are a

framework for discussions about their own and others’ readings of

Owl Babies. The teacher writes about another concern. She

comments how she is not convinced that the class:

“…had developed their speaking and listening skills

to the extent where they could build on each others’

ideas creatively.”

As with Planet Perfecton, collaboration is important. In this project

collaboration is thought to be part of the children’s thinking and

listening development, with the inter-change of imaginative ideas

(“build on each others’ ideas creatively”) seen as essential for their

progress as writers.

Table 7 is the sequence for the Owl Babies work. In the Drama the

focus is speculation about the fate of Mummy Owl. The pupils’

thinking is supported by extended work on the setting. There is

whole class movement and stillness to establish an imagined place

in which children can locate the characters with precision. Verbal

language and movement combine to create a mental space for their

hypotheses about what might be happening to Mummy Owl. At the

start of Lessons One and Two the children freeze to “form the shape

of a tree with one point of contact with the nearest person.” Next,

the children hot seat the teachers, who are in role as the three baby

53

owls Sarah, Percy and Bill. Physical whole class Drama creates a

setting; Hot seating places them in role within the setting. The

foreground of the search for Mummy Owl works with a background

that the children experience and realise imaginatively through

movement.

The questioning, challenging and exploring of ideas about Mummy

Owl keeps the book open and starts the pupils’ hypotheses making.

Their talk groups then “gave more children a chance to give an

opinion and to build on each others’ thoughts.” The inter-change of

ideas is how they test their hypotheses. This leads into:

“… electing a group to walk through the wood. This

will give the children the idea of the setting when it

comes to searching the wood.”

The children carry the setting in their minds as they take part in a

Decision alley (an “Opinion Wood,” see Table 7 Lesson 2). In role

they voice their hypotheses and listen to those of others. As trees,

the children are “whispering what might have happened to Mummy

Owl”; as police officers they are “listening to their ideas.” The

Decision alley makes the children bring their hypotheses about

Mummy Owl to a point. The teacher records how:

“…by the time the children came to draw the wood

they had been in it, saw it, described it and heard

other children’s descriptions of it.”

Later, when the children draw the wood, the teacher writes:

“…the images are powerful and striking in that

unusually for this age group they do not contain

characters in the setting. T’s picture almost exactly

matches ‘The tall trees were scary. They were like

spiky monsters.’

The forest is alive for T. The purposeful thinking creates a

foreground and background that enable him to visualise the setting

verbally and in drawing. The forest is where, in role, he tests his

54

hypotheses about what happens to Mummy Owl. Afterwards, out of

role, collective talk encourages him to speculate in a reasoned way.

He builds and shares possible alternatives that come out of what he

knows, thinks he knows and would like to know about Mummy Owl.

The speculative thinking that encourages his hypotheses testing

and revision draws him further into the book world, where he

pursues his ideas through movement, stillness, and being in role.

When he writes and draws he is inside the forest and inside one of

the baby owls.

In Lessons One and Two, the pupils’ collaborative talk is part of a

transition from Drama to scribed writing. In the first lesson the

pupils discuss what the baby owls would say to each other, make

still pictures of them and then write speech bubbles of what they

think Sarah, Percy and Bill say. The teacher records the impact on

the children’s language of this prolonged work on the setting. They

begin to show an understanding of how to express reasons:

Pupil A

“Bill’s important because he’s the baby and babies

need looking after.”

Pupil B

“Sarah is important because she did the looking

after, she’s the oldest next to Mum and was the

biggest.”

The speculations that pupils try out, elaborate and refine are formed

gradually into hypotheses about Mummy Owl. Pupil A connects

reasons; “because he’s the baby” and “babies need looking

after”express cause and effect that bring together knowledge of the

book with her/his knowledge of the world.

Pupil B does the same but also elaborates their reasons. The first

reason (“because she did the looking after”) connects with the

second (“she’s the oldest next to Mum and was the biggest”). There

55

is a chain of reasoning as the first and second reasons leads to the

third (“and was the biggest”). The first reasons is supported by a

second and then joined to the third (“was the biggest”) by a

conjunction - “and”- that suggests that they have equality for the

pupil. The making and testing of hypotheses enable Reception class

pupils to produce language which contain purposeful thinking that

shows an understanding of cause and effect and how to build up a

chain of equal reasons.

The writing the pupils produce leads this teacher to include the

following from one pupil in her log:

“’IWonMIMUMNoM IWonMuM Rire. Ples’

He read it back in role as ‘I want my mum. I want my

mum. Really. Please.

This is the first piece of writing that he had done

independently, both in the thinking and the writing.

He was very keen to say what he thought and it was

the first time that I have observed him settle on task

at the same time as the other children.”

The ‘Owl Babies’ classroom-based research indicates the potential

for writing of whole class Drama. T’s exposure to Drama, which

requires him to be in role in a setting he visualises, engages him

intellectually and emotionally in the lives of the baby owls. In his

imagination he carries a character within a place. When he writes he

moves beyond making marks on the page to become a meaning

maker who draws on the setting he sees and his feelings for the

baby owls, verbally and in writing. The whole class Drama pushes

forward this child’s intellectual capabilities through participation in

purposeful thinking. His reasoned speculations embrace empathy,

collaboration and the formation and generation of ideas. When he

writes, T is a writer who thinks and feels as he experiences the need

to communicate meaning.

56

Table 8 and Appendix 7 are from a cross-curricula project called

Rainforest. It integrates Geography with Drama and is an instance of

how purposeful thinking generates an affective response to non-

fiction. An introductory video leads into whole class Drama where

the teachers create a setting. They take the children “on an

expedition (through) the rainforest” in which they “explore and

feedback on sights and smells etc.” Like Planet Perfecton and Owl

Babies, a visualised, imaginary setting becomes more than a

background for the Drama. There is a joining of the intellectual and

emotional through a closely observed environment.

The children have a reason to research information about

rainforests:

“The children were told by Professor X (teacher in

role) that they were not allowed back to the

rainforest without some facts to share.”

The background is given the status of foreground: the information

collected by pupils is to be shared by everyone to develop the

setting. From the beginning there is collaborative, purposeful

thinking. Their “facts” are to become part of a multi sensory

foreground in which the internal collection, sorting and preparation

of ideas continues mentally and physically.

The whole class Drama continues with Hot-seating:

“…plants, creatures and tribal people [teacher in role

first] and then the children became living things in

the forest and they were hot seated.”

Hot seating includes questioning, challenging and becoming “living

things in the forest.” Through their roles, the pupils make

connections with previous learning and step outside themselves to

compare and contrast others’ lives with their own. In these episodes

the teacher moves the children through the QCA Creativity criteria

in a manner that confirms that in whole class Drama they can be

57

neither a sequence nor a hierarchy. For example, there is a cyclical

inter-relationship between the exploration of ideas and making

connections throughout the ‘Rainforest’ activities.

The teacher writes:

“The drama techniques really involved the children in

the topic because they were there in the rainforest.

They had a reason to research facts because their

interest had been captured and they knew they

couldn’t go back to the rainforest without more

facts.”

The pupils’ emotional engagement (“they were there in the

rainforest”) is the cognitive basis for questioning, challenging and

exploring. The cognitive and affective demands are a mixture of the

sensory, physical and intellectual (“brushing past people and

whispering in their ears,” “think for themselves” and “they had to

think on their feet to ask questions and when questions were fired

at them”) in which the five specified criteria for creativity are all in

evidence. The multi-sensory movement that underpins this teaching

episode harnesses the cognitive and affective to take children out of

themselves. As it does so it broadens their intellectual and

emotional horizons.

The Rainforest project illustrates how whole class Drama develops

specific subject knowledge through a strong identification with

issues:

“The children really felt the loss. You can try to make

the children understand the impact humans have

had on the rainforests through books, discussion and

video but the drama put them into the situation.”

The learning means something to the children. The Drama “put

them into the situation” and helps them towards a deeper

58

understanding than one based on more traditional curriculum

approaches. Similarly, pupils who take part in a History activity

write about how Drama helps them learn.

“It helps me remember instead of just writing about

it. Also it is fun”

“It feels like you’re at that time”

“It puts me in their shoes so I know how that feels”

Two things happen. The Drama positions pupils within the emotional

life of another (“It puts me in their shoes so I know how that feels”).

They are in the moment of another time (“It feels like you’re at that

time”). A teacher writes how in Drama pupils:

“…become totally focussed and engrossed and really

believe in the situation – remember the activities –

can relate incidents many weeks later! Many children

go on to do their own research. Encourages empathy

and awareness of situations they would never

experience.”

The creation of another world which requires a suspension of belief

as well as emotional attachment is seen to be a valuable learning

experience. It takes children beyond their horizons (“awareness of

situations they would never experience”), motivates them to

become independent learners (“Many children go on to do their own

research”) and improves their ability to accurately recall their

involvement (“can relate incidents many weeks later!”).

In the Rainforest and History examples the cognitive and affective

are inseparable partners in children’s purposeful thinking. As a

result, they become engrossed with their work at a deep cognitive

and affective level that enables them to recall significant learning on

future occasions. There is a sustained emotional engagement with

learning. It results in children retaining more of the content of a

topic. Simultaneously, they are willing to be more connected - as

well as involved - with their learning on a personal level.

59

Furthermore the Rainforest and History examples are evidence of

how whole class Drama encourages and values creative outcomes

that that are held within the individual and are not just for

presentation in external, assessable forms.

The shared characteristics of Planet Perfecton, Owl Babies and

Rainforest confirm the quantitative finding that teachers attach

considerable importance to purposeful thinking (including the

formation and generation of ideas), empathy and collaboration.

They show the contribution made to whole class Drama by a

carefully thought out setting in which the foreground and

background work together.

The three action research projects are different perspectives on

purposeful thinking. The mathematical thinking in Planet Perfecton

is embedded in the setting: ratio, calculation and measurement

blend with movement and the emotive use of language to

encourage the pupils’ poetry writing. The formation and generation

of ideas is cognitive and affective. Numerical and verbal thinking are

not separate but seen as co-dependent in the whole class Drama. As

a result, the poetry comes from the wholeness of the pupils’

thinking, and not the verbal or the numerical separately. In Owl

Babies the pupils’ informed speculations into what may or may not

be happening to Mummy Owl involves making and testing

hypotheses. All this takes place within an imaginary forest which the

pupils explore collaboratively. Their ideas become reasons which

have the accuracy and power to explain where Mummy Owl is. Their

cognitive and affective engagement with character and setting

enables them to step simultaneously into the forest and the life of

the three baby owls.

The Rainforest example is different again. A setting places the

pupils inside a contemporary environmental issue. Video and

60

information resources support whole class Drama in which

emotional engagement (“they were there in the rainforest”) is

brought about by a combination of the sensory, physical and

intellectual. The setting is the issue: emotional attachment to the

setting gives strength to the pupils’ cognitive questioning,

challenging and exploring. The settings for Planet Perfecton, Owl

Babies and Rainforest are more than a backdrop. The inter-

dependence of foreground and background is a complex mental

construction with which the pupils engage to adapt and transform

their thoughts and ideas.

A second shared characteristic of the three projects is an explicit

commitment to the affective. The pupils interiorise what it is to

inhabit the life of another; for instance in Rainforest to step into

another’s shoes covers human, animal and plant life. In Owl Babies

it is the separation of baby birds from their mother. Through their

roles, the pupils make connections with previous learning and step

outside themselves to compare and contrast others’ lives with their

own. In Planet Perfecton, the pupils experience roles of different

status. They interiorise what it is to lead and be led; the whole class

Drama creates the opportunity for the pupils to be on the affective

‘inside’ of at least two different perspectives. In Bruner’s terms

[1960], the reflection that forms part of the collaboration on Planet

Perfecton enables pupils to turn round and tell themselves what

they know about a number of perspectives, each with its own

uniqueness. There is not a final answer. In all three projects, the

pupils’ emotional engagement involves personal interpretations of

issues, ideas and characters. The projects bring out the value of and

need for pupils to compare and contrast the fullness of a lived

moment from both their and other peoples’ world views. Whole

class Drama has an impact on cross curricula learning and creative

outcomes through making every child feel their voice is part of the

issues which are brought out by communal, shared work.

61

There is extensive qualitative and quantitative evidence that

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is influencing learning and

creative outcomes in schools. Whole class Drama is now in use in

20% more of the curriculum than at the start of the fieldwork. There

is evidence from schools to show that Literacy, Citizenship, History,

Geography, Dance/P.E. and the Visual Arts now include Drama as a

recognised teaching methodology. The involvement of Maths and

Science in Drama remains low, suggesting that the project has had

far less an impact on approaches to mathematical and scientific

thinking. A similar figure for I.C.T. suggests that teachers’

perceptions of creativity do not, as yet, extend to include the

bringing together of I.C.T. and Drama.

On average, schools surveyed now spend over 20% more time

teaching through whole class Drama compared with the start of the

fieldwork. Over one third of schools now use Drama explicitly for

more than an hour a week. This figure has to be read in conjunction

with the rise in the curriculum areas where Drama is used and the

extension in the range of Drama conventions which teachers use in

order to gain an understanding of the change in classroom practice.

Pupils now have far more regular cross curricula opportunities to

speculate, stand in another person’s shoes and take an active as

well as reflective part in imaginary experience.

This rise in the chance for pupils to take part in whole class Drama

occurs at a moment when there is a shift in what teachers see as

the purposes of Drama. At the start of ‘Drama for Learning and

Creativity’ teachers see Drama in terms of a network that brings

together imagination, meaning-making, collaborative cross-curricula

thinking. The Drama activities that support this emphasis feature

Drama as making through acting out, role play and freeze frame. By

the finish of the fieldwork two changes are taking place. First,

62

teachers begin to see whole class Drama as a means to foster

pupils’ thinking and develop expression through collaborative,

purposeful work. Second, the more widespread use of an increasing

number of conventions like Teacher in role and Hot seating

encourages the internal sorting and elaboration of ideas as well as

conscious reflection.

The three action research projects make clear the two-fold

movement in whole-class Drama teaching. They also show the

diversity of approaches in the research schools as a whole. The

mathematics-based project Planet Perfecton uses in role work based

on an imaginary planet. It helps children to see the importance of

the continual adaptation of ideas when they are involved in the

sharing and recognising of different opinions. Here, structured,

collaborative group work enables pupils to gather and marshal what

is emerging with what is known. For this teacher, purposeful

thinking involves pupils in the shared search for explanations,

reasons and justifications and not the one answer.

The Rainforest project is an example of whole class Drama that

develops subject knowledge through a strong identification with the

issues that surround an environmental topic. Thinking has a multi-

sensory dimension: movement is a way to bring together the

cognitive and affective to take children beyond their immediate

selves. To place them so clearly and evocatively in another place

broadens their intellectual and emotional horizons. This project

highlights the necessary role of the affective in thinking. Emotional

involvement helps pupils to retain more of a topic’s underlying ideas

for use in the future, something that has a bearing for pupil

performance in standardised tests and examinations.

In common with Planet Perfecton and Rainforest, Teacher in role is a

basis for the Owl Babies project. Like them it also features

63

collaborative work. The whole class Drama stretches the pupils’

intellectual capabilities as they speculate about the fate of Mummy

Owl. Such reasoning involves empathy, collaboration and the

generation of ideas. The regular exchange of ideas is viewed as

essential to becoming a writer who thinks and feels that they have a

genuine need to communicate meaning.

The evidence points to ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ having a

significant effect on whole class Drama teaching. As teachers gain

confidence in their abilities they begin to explore a broader range of

Drama conventions with their classes and spend longer each week

working with Drama. One result of the increase in time and

curriculum expertise is a perceptible move in teachers’ ideas about

Drama. They now see it to be important for the development of

pupils’ cognitive and affective thinking.

Publications

Between the start of the project and now several publications have

come out of the project. Although the time-scale is demanding, the

following have been achieved. This is a further example of how the

project is meeting its stated intentions and justifying its financial

support:

In November 2005, The Times Educational Supplement runs a full-

page feature.

The NESTA web site hosts a section that covers ‘Drama for Learning

and Creativity’. The National Drama web site also has an active link

to the project and the QCA web site for English 21 Playback shows it

supports the project and is interested in its findings. All these came

into place in January 2006.

64

A seminar at the National Drama Conference in April 2006 attracts a

large audience from both Great Britain and abroad. The professional

journal of National Drama is to run an issue in which the project is to

feature prominently.

A research paper is to be presented to an international Arts and

Creativity conference to be held in Paris in January 2007. The status

of the conference can be gauged by the presence of Howard

Gardner as a key note speaker. Education officers from European

Union government, along with senior academics from major

European universities are attending. Further research seminars in

the United Kingdom are anticipated, with one already confirmed for

November at the University of Brighton, School of Education.

A CD ROM and accompanying teacher resource materials, including

ideas for lessons and longer projects is near completion as this

evaluation is written.

Moving On

The ways in which ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ meets the

criteria in the Bid Document are listed in the Foreword on pages two

to five.

This Section also comes out of the evaluation. It has a different

purpose as it puts forward possibilities for future work. They come

from the data reviewed for the preparation of this report and the

process of writing it.

65

1. The project management team should give thought to how to

continue to work with the research schools during 2006/7 and

onwards. For example, the possibility of research school

teachers themselves setting up their own group of schools in a

similar way to ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is one

possibility to help maintain the project’s impetus. This

requires a level of support from the consultants, something

which has cost implications. One advantage in its favour is

that it represents an opportunity for the research school

teachers to initiate and manage a small-scale research project

by and for themselves. This is a potentially valuable part of an

individual teacher’s as well as a school’s collective continuing

professional development.

2. To follow on from (1), the project management group should

consider ways in which teachers in the research schools can

receive credits for ‘M’ level or other professional qualifications

for their work on ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity.’ There is

a level of expertise that may be lost if it is not seen to be

valued as part of the teachers’ continuing professional

development. One step would be the creation of a nationally

recognised qualification in Drama. Teachers could produce

portfolios of evidence which demonstrate their classroom

practice and its theoretical underpinnings.

3. As part of their own development, the project management

group need to reflect on how and why action research works

in the ways it does in ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity.’

There is evidence within the data to suggest that the inter-

connection between teachers working on their own research

question (and not on an imposed or centrally agreed one), a

planned consultant’s role and the shared review with a

teacher (backed up with high-quality seminars which reflect

66

critically on the action research) has implications for future

patterns of continuing professional development.

This is especially relevant if the project’s dissemination stage

is to work with the educational infrastructure, including

literacy consultants, members of subject associations and

bodies connected with school management and leadership. A

study programme, that includes extracts from the CD ROM

and materials from the action research, would be a basis that

would have relevance for a much larger audience. In turn, this

has the scope to be expanded to cover North America and

Australia, where Drama already has a place in the school

curriculum.

4. Points 2 and 3 are an argument for a broader examination,

probably at national level, of what is needed to make sure

that teachers across the curriculum have the knowledge and

skills to implement whole class Drama teaching. Within this

are two further issues for Drama.

First, Drama may need a more prominent place in initial

teacher education. As one teacher writes:

“If drama does have a significant impact on children’s

learning and creativity should it be highlighted as a specific

area for teacher training??”

Second, local authority courses remain significant for

maintaining and enhancing the skill levels of the teaching

profession and retaining the sense of enthusiasm that is

necessary for successful Drama teaching. For example, the

data from this evaluation suggests that there is an evident

need for the current year-long course in the sponsoring local

authority to be taken further and validated by an awarding

body such as a university or professional association.

67

5. Allied to 4 (above) is the question of confidence. The project is

very successful in raising teachers’ confidence to work with

whole class Drama. But this has to be put into perspective.

One primary teacher writes:

“Having gained confidence with the Drama course

and the D4LC project I felt I wanted to give this a go

and prepared a skeleton of three sessions with a

view to being quite flexible as to where it would go.

I adopted a planning grid, which I found useful in

that it reminded me of the different drama

conventions at the start. I was a little uneasy about

this set of lessons as I knew that the children would

[and was half prepared for it] move the Drama on

in a different direction that they chose and I felt

insecure about letting go.”

The training, action research methodology and support for

‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ both motivate this teacher

(“I felt I wanted to give this a go”) and give her the confidence

to teach Drama. There are two things that worry her. There is

a possibility that the children and their learning would lead the

lesson, not her plan (“the children would [and was half

prepared for it] move the Drama on in a different direction”).

The feeling that goes with this is unsettling (“I felt insecure

about letting go”). The teacher’s concerns highlight that an

essential part of teaching Drama is a willingness to accept

that the lesson may go beyond a teacher’s plan. It is

something for further investigation. Feeling confident, being

well-prepared and supported by a research project may not be

enough by themselves for teachers. In Appendix 7, a teacher

comments how “Some still do not feel confident using drama

and feel that children may be wary of it too.” If a teacher is

not confident in teaching Drama then the pupils, too, are not

68

confident or secure. Learning more about teachers’ thoughts

and feelings about the confidence to take risks, work with the

unexpected and value what happens - and how this compares

and contrasts with their experiences of teaching other

subjects - may help to clarify why Drama is thought to be so

demanding and, for a minority of the teachers in this survey,

something that is extremely difficult to teach.

6. A number of factors beyond the immediate scope of this

evaluation may be relevant to the I.C.T. return reported in

Section 6. Turkel [1998] argues that the original 1980s

conception of I.C.T. in schools is as a mathematically-oriented

way of thinking. This legacy may still influence teachers,

particularly those whose careers embrace both before and

after the emergence of new technologies. A second influence,

and which may be related to the first, is the Curriculum 2000

Programme of Study for Key Stages 1 and 2 in I.C.T. During

Key Stage 2 [DfEE 1999: 100]:

“…pupils use a wider range of ICT tools and

information sources to support their work in other

subjects. They develop their research skills and

decide what information is appropriate for their

work. They begin to question the plausibility and

quality of information.”

The National Curriculum offers an information-based view of

I.C.T. It might be that teachers’ conceptions of creativity in

Drama are incompatible with their conception of creativity in

I.C.T. Any difference in their expectations for Drama and I.C.T

may reduce the possibilities for their creative integration in

the classroom. This is an important point. With the QCA

mapping future curriculum possibilities which are based less

on subjects and more on finding the common ground between

ways of thinking, there is a need to identify reasons for this

69

perceived difference between I.C.T. and Drama. The aim

would be to find ways in which they can be brought together

to benefit the whole curriculum.

Similar comments are applicable to Mathematics and Science.

The findings from the surveys point to gaps similar to that

found between I.C.T. and Drama. The exception of a project

like Planet Perfecton shows the possibilities for relationships

between mathematical and scientific thinking and the thinking

that is part of whole class Drama.

7. ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is evidence for further

work into whole class teaching. One line of thinking about the

National Literacy Strategy is that teachers have become “very

successful in making their literacy teaching more interactive”

since its inception [English et al 2002: 22]. However, although

it “increases the rate of pupil contributions” it reduces the

opportunities for extended interactions; a “rapid pace of

interaction does not engender cognitive advance” [English et

al 2002: 24]. There are fewer opportunities for pupils to

question or explore ideas as teachers show little variation in

their discourse style [Mroz et al 2000]. Hardman et al [2003:

212] argue there is “an increase of whole class teaching which

is dominated by teacher-led recitation.”

The findings of this project suggest the contrary. They show

that cognitive advance is made through whole class teaching

and that pupils have opportunities to question as well as

explore ideas. Two features of whole class Drama teaching are

relevant here. The first is Teacher in role. There is little work

on the discourse of teachers who are in role in whole class

Drama. A comparison and contrast between teacher

discourses in teaching episodes in a literacy lesson (for

70

example, whole class shared text work and guided reading or

writing, for example) and a whole class Drama lesson with

Teacher in role is an example of a research area which would

take further understanding both literacy and Drama teaching.

A second feature for exploration is the sequence of activities

in whole class Drama teaching episodes. Freeze – pupils in

role - Hot seating is an example of a combination of three

strategies which is found within ‘Drama for Learning and

Creativity,’ and in schools more generally. The question is

whether certain combinations of Drama activities, rather than

others, are more likely to lead to improvement in writing.

Barrs [2000] uses t unit analysis to measure improvement

following Drama that came out of reading polysemic texts.

This is one of the few systematic, classroom-based studies

which acknowledges and demonstrates the role of Drama. But

there is a gap in the research into writing. Drama is often

assumed to lead to rising standards of performance. The

action research projects in ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’

offer further evidence that Drama does improve writing and

further investigation into Drama strategies, supported by t

unit analysis, is a way to see if measurable improvement in

writing can be attributed to particular Drama conventions.

Bibliography

71

Ackroyd J, 2004, Role Reconsidered: A re-evaluation of the

relationship between teacher in role and acting, Stoke on Trent,

Trentham Books

Barrs M and Cork V, 2000, The Reader in the Writer, London, C.L.P.E.

Bruner J, 1960, The Process of Education (first edition), Cambridge,

Massachusetts, Harvard University Press

Cohen L and Mannion L, 2002, Research Methods in Education (Third

edition), Routledge, London

DfEE, 1999, The National Curriculum: Handbook for primary

teachers in England London DfEE/QCA

DfES, 2005, Every Child Matters, London, DfES

Dick A, Accessed July 29th 2006, Your action research project,

http: // www.scu.edu.au/schools

English E, Hargreaves L and Hislam J, 2002, ‘Pedagogical Dilemmas

in the National Literacy Strategy: primary teachers’ perceptions,

reflections and classroom behaviour’, Cambridge Journal of

Education, Vol 32, No 1

Hammersley M and Atkinson P, 1995, Ethnography: Principles in

Practice, London, Routledge

Hardman F, Smith F and Wall K, 2003, ‘Interactive Whole Class

Teaching in the National Literacy Strategy’, Cambridge Journal of

Education, Vol 33, No 2

Heathcote D, 1980, Drama as Context, Huddersfield, NATE

McKeganey N and Barnard 1996 M, 1996, Sex Work on the Streets:

Prostitutes and their Clients, Buckingham, Open University Press

McNiff J, Accessed July 29th 2006, Guide to Action Research,

http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1

Mason J, 1996, Qualitative Researching, London, Sage

Mroz M, Smith F and Hardman F, 2000, ‘The Discourse of the

Literacy Hour’, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol 30, No 3

NACCE, 1999, All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education,

London DfEE (The Robinson Report)

72

Neelands J, 1990, Structuring Drama Work, Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press

QCA , 2005, Creativity: Find it; Promote It, London, QCA

Riley J, 1992, Getting the most from your data: A handbook of

practical ideas on how to analyse qualitative data, Bristol, Technical

and Educational Services Ltd

Schon D, 1985, Educating the Reflective Practitioner, London, Sage

Silverman D, 1993, Interpreting Qualitative Data, London, Sage

Turkel S, 1995, Life on the Screen, London, Orion

Van Maanen J, 1998, Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography,

Chicago, University of Chicago Press

Appendices

73

74