| Click here for the PDF document Click here for the proceedings page |
AWAKENING THE DRAMATISING IMAGINATION |
Catalysing a boundless resource |
| This paper will offer an account of some interim findings concerning the role of Drama in education in the apparent activation and education of the imagination of primary school teachers in the post-war educational context of Bosnia & Herzegovina, as a prerequisite for its use as a conscious educational tool in the activation and education of the imagination of the child. Drawing on the presenter’s current PhD work, she will consider the significance of the imagination for practitioners working in so-called ‘development’ education contexts by: • Examining the process and outcomes of the Drama in education strand of the work of the PAX Project1 in Bosnia & Herzegovina in order to identify to what extent it has activated and educated the imaginations of primary school teachers and their students. • Hypothesising as to why, how and the extent to which the introduction and use of this methodology have produced marked improvements in the teaching/ learning dynamic as well as the educational outcomes for the teachers involved. • Tentatively identifying which causal events, of those offered by the researcher and her peer-educator colleagues in pursuit of the activation of the imagination, had quantitative and qualitative bearing on the outcomes of the work so far. • Attempting to articulate some theoretical principles that have underpinned the observed and reported success of this process and generalising the implications for assisting transferability to other educational contexts where no-resource or low-resource conditions apply. Tag (Mary) McEntegart Senior Lecturer Centre for International Development and Training (CIDT) The University of Wolverhampton, U.K. 1 The PAX Project is an initiative of CARE International, one of the major non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in humanitarian endeavour and social reconstruction & development during and after the war in the countries of former Yugoslavia. Between January 1997 and June 2001, the presenter was employed as a Drama in education and Theatre in education consultant, working with teachers and students in Bosnia & Herzegovina and Croatia on this Education for Peace-Building project. The project has two strands - its TIE work, operational in non-formal educational contexts with youth and youth leaders; and its DIE work, operational in the formal school context with teachers and school students. The work is experimental as there are no directly comparable models and few co-relative models. AWAKENING THE DRAMATISING IMAGINATION Catalysing a boundless resource in no-resource or low-resource educational contexts It’s fantastic to be sharing this work with fellow-enthusiasts of the power of the imagination in teaching and learning. As I’m still working on my PhD, I’m hoping that your participation and responses will reciprocally feed my work as well as this paper contributing something to the development of our collective understanding of the imagination. I often feel that I must be mad…especially trying to write my PhD as a part-timer, whilst working full-time - wrestling with the data-snakes and trying to prevent them from tying themselves into a Gordian knot! On top of that, there is the lunacy of choosing the imagination, a Hotly Debated Human Phenomenon, as the focus of my study, when everyone from Aristotle to John Lennon has an opinion on it. Then, to cap it all, there is the foolhardiness of attempting an ex-post facto study which means that there are mountains of data…but not generated for specifically honed research purposes. This offers positives and negatives, of course, meaning that the data is less likely to be contaminated by assumptions or bias, but also means that it is more vulnerable to variables and gaps. But I’m getting ahead of myself. To go back to the beginning, or at least a beginning, I first came across Kieran Egan’s work in 1990 when, as a mature student, having spent fifteen years working as a facilitator and director in the field of Theatre in Education and having worked with students from 3 – 73 years old, I went back to university to study for a teaching certificate. (It’s an odd anomaly that, in the UK, you can be a peripatetic teacher or a university lecturer for decades without any teaching qualification, but to teach in schools you need a PGCE – a Post-Graduate Certificate of Education.) One of the most inspiring and stimulating books I came across in my PGCE year was the collected papers from a conference held in 1988 called ‘Imagination and Education’. Two crucial quotations that stayed with me from that book and kept me tracking Kieran’s work thereafter are as follows: Stimulating the imagination is not an alternative educational activity to be argued for in competition with other claims; it is a prerequisite to making any activity educational. (Egan, K. and Nadaner, D. eds. 1988. p.ix.) (my emphasis). …what if the imagination is the very font of thought? What if the imagination is what permits thought to work by providing it with the images and metaphors that give it direction? What if the imagination is primarily not mere fancy or imitation, but is itself thought’s direction?” (Sutton-Smith, B. in Egan, K. and Nadaner, D. eds. 1988. p.7.) (my emphasis). Couple these two stimulating ‘depth-charges’ with two other observations. The first, as explorers of the imagination, probably well-known to you : The Possible’s slow fuse is lit by the Imagination. (Dickinson, E. 1960) The second, Gavin Bolton’s observation on the impact of working in drama on the participant as : A sense of it is happening to me…and I am making it happen. (Bolton, G. 1979. p.53) In the combination of these four ‘foundation stones’, as they have underpinned my work over the last twelve or so years, lies the ground of my study that : • the imagination is a prerequisite of productive education, whether in a formal or informal context • imagination is the well-spring of thought and indeed consciousness • it is the imagination that enables human beings to ‘see ahead’ of ourselves and thus to plan and intervene towards particular creations or changes – productive or unproductive ones - and that this process actively begins, socially and individually in childhood play • in harnessing the ‘as if’ world of the imagination, we replicate, safely but richly, the central paradox of life – that we make life happen and that it happens to us – we are, at one and the same time the subject and object of our own story, actor in and audience of our specie’s drama. Incidentally, there’s a discussion I’d really like to have with Kieran Egan about his theoretical work on ‘binary opposites’ because I wonder if what he is really identifying are objective contradictions in the world in constant movement and change, rather than theoretical constructs – hence the potency of their power in young people’s imaginations….but that’s for another day or another conference! An Australian trades unionist once told me that any public speaker worth his or her salt should “Tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em. Tell ‘em. Then tell ‘em what you’ve told ‘em”! So in this paper I’m going to aim to give you a window on the following: •The Research Context –Process, Outputs & Outcomes •Theoretical Principles –The Imagination –Play, Artifacts and Mediation –Drama in education •Methodology –Indicators –Research tool for assessment of indicators •Indicative Trends •Challenges Arising The Research Context – The Process – Part 1 Why an ex-post facto study? The necessarily ex-post facto nature of this study, I would argue, can be justified with reference to its unrepeatable nature. There are times when events occur which provide the researcher with unique opportunities. The events themselves, of course, will not be unique; they will be instances of a class of such events. The opportunity to study such events, however, may be unique. Situations which could not be planned or created present themselves as ‘one-off chances’. At one level, this could take the form of social catastrophes, such as war, famine or natural disaster. . . Researchers, though, will have little choice over which instances they select as their cases and will necessarily find themselves homing in on such events as and when they occur. (Denscombe, M. 1998 p. 35) ‘NGO-land’ - the world and nature of development. I went to Bosnia & Herzegovina as a freelance education consultant, or ‘technical assistant’ in development-speak, in the wake of the Dayton Agreement of 1995, which brought about a cessation of violence in that conflict. My mandate was to work with teachers on the devising of a manual of lessons for use in classrooms that would promote peace- building and I was employed both for my Drama and Theatre in education expertise and because I had a track-record in producing ‘teacher-friendly’ educational materials. However, the reality on the ground, like so many experiences in the world of “development” was like tight-rope walking - trying to keep one’s balance between the demands of the donor and/or implementing agency and the needs of the “beneficiaries’/‘stakeholders”. For the donors, the crucial component of the project was the peace-building – hence the reason it was called the PAX Project. For the teachers, however, the “peace-building” was of far less importance - (“We’re ‘peace-built’ up to our necks!”, they said) - than gaining new knowledge and experience in active participatory education methodology and practice. This was seen by them as a necessity, if they were to rejoin the professional “family” of European educators and hold their own in the 20th, let alone the 21st century. However, given the distance that donors generally are from the field, the positive within this tricky balancing act, is the relative freedom one has to work flexibly and reflexively! Specifics of the PAX Project & post-war Bosnia & Herzegovina. The PAX Project is an initiative of CARE International, one of the larger non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in humanitarian emergency work and social reconstruction & development during and after the war in the countries of former Yugoslavia. My employment with CARE ran from January 1997 to June 2001, and I worked with teachers and students throughout Bosnia & Herzegovina and some parts of Croatia, from all ethnic backgrounds, all ages and experience, from both rural and urban schools and all age phases. The project has two strands - its Theatre in education work, operational in non-formal educational contexts with youth and youth leaders; and its Drama in education work, operational in the formal school context with teachers and school students. The work is experimental as there are no directly comparable models and few co-relative models, which is one of the reasons why this study is potentially of significance. The Research Context – The Process – Part 2 The Sequence of the Work - 1997 - 2003 •Fieldwork (11 months) This was carried out, on a voluntary, expenses only, basis, with 55 teachers who were all located within 150kms of Mostar, where the project was based. This is because the project was small and had insufficient funds for me to make overnight stays out of Mostar. Thus all participating teachers had to be reachable within a day’s return travel from there. I worked with teachers in any way that made it possible for them – in or out of school time; at weekends, lunchtimes or in the evenings; with one teacher or a whole staff of a school. All the material that made its way into the manual was chosen, from the Bosnian curriculum (The Plan and Programme), by the teachers themselves and all the lessons devised by us were ‘road-tested’ in their classrooms and/or with colleagues in the workshops that we held throughout the time. •Writing the Manual (7 months) The work of the 55 strong group was shaped and written by me as rapidly as possible, using a framework that showed explicitly how the expectations of both donors and teachers were being met through the lessons that the teachers and I had jointly created and tested. (see separate document, Appendix A: The Map of the Manual) •National Training (6 months) Once the manual was printed and launched in January 1999, a series of national training workshops were held in six different cantons (electoral and administrative districts) across the country to introduce the manual, its methodology and its practice to around 180 more teachers. This was still on a voluntary basis, but this time, involving the cantonal Ministries of Education in the process of setting up the work. At these workshops, all participants were asked if they would be interested in taking on some peer-education work, introducing a minimum of four colleagues – either in their own, or a neighbouring school or both – to the manual through a similar series of practical workshop sessions such as they themselves had experienced. The national group of volunteers that was identified through this process met twice. The first workshop involved them in preparing the teaching sessions that they would implement with their colleagues. There then followed a period of implementation, both with colleagues and in classrooms. The final workshop pulled together the wealth of experiences and practical lessons that had resulted from this intensive period of training in six different parts of the country, allowing everyone to benefit from the collective “bank” of materials generated. •Peer-Education “Cascade” Work (12 months) This emergence of a peer-education cascade model of dissemination and training proved to be very successful indeed. Once the ball was set rolling, the “pay-offs” of better social health, between teachers and students, students and other students and teachers and fellow-teachers, as well as improved academic performance were their own reward. This meant that the work rapidly became self-sustaining, as the peer-education work continued largely by word of mouth. This phenomenon was supported and encouraged by the formal accreditation by the Ministry of Education of the Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina of the manual for use in B&H schools. During this period of time the work reached around another 320 teachers and their students. •Secondary Dissemination (12 months) Throughout the next year, the ongoing work of the national group and their colleagues continued to be sustained and developed and seemed to have generated its own momentum. Perhaps because of the slowness of the “top-down” ministry route in providing any professional development opportunities for teachers, or perhaps because the more collegiate and less competitive model of training was more suited to the mood of the times, the “cascade” of teachers passing on their experiences practically to each other continued to “flow”. •Sustained Self-generating Work (on-going) Despite a glowing external evaluation report to the donors and to CARE, disappointingly, new funding applications for a next phase of development of this work were unsuccessful. A small sum of money was obtained, however, that enabled a short video (30 minutes) of the work, called ‘Just Imagine’, tracking one group of teachers from their first experience of a workshop through to the implementation still occurring in their classrooms two years later, to be made. All the participating teachers in the national group received a copy, supporting them in their ongoing work with parents, school governors, colleagues and ministerial politicians. Despite a very real need for advanced education of this group, they continue to offer a lead to others sustained by nothing more than their experience that, on every level, it improves life in the classroom. The Research Context – The Process – Part 3 Rationale and Concerns By now, you may well be asking why, when research was not the purpose of my involvement in the project, did I decide to embark on a PhD with this work as its focus? Good question and one that I have had reason frequently to ask myself in the last four or so years! Well, the first answer is that it quickly became obvious, in the light of the lack of resources in schools, that the imagination of teachers and students was the one resource that didn’t cost anything. It therefore emerged as the obvious key focus for the Project’s work. Not only was my longstanding interest in the imagination propelled into a new dimension by the challenge both of the environment and the people with whom I was working, but the quality of the work that was emerging and the enthusiasm and motivation of the teachers was really striking. I felt it could be important for other educators working in other low-resource or no-resource contexts to have access to what we had stumbled into more by good luck than good management. But, of course, for such transferability to have educational credibility, it needed to be systematically researched. The second answer is that CARE International staff indicated that the project, in its systematic pedagogical approach to education, was breaking new ground in the field of, what is called, in Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) work, “social reconstruction”. This internal assessment, made at various stages during the life of the project was confirmed by the independent end-of-project evaluation. CARE, itself, then, is also interested in knowing whether this project has wider and deeper application within the field of social reconstruction. As a result of the “stir” of excitement around a “warm trail”, from reasonably early on, sensitivity was exercised to the academic protocols of research. This built on the professionalism already being exercised, as the PAX Project progressed through its various stages, to design, collect and keep both qualitative and quantitative data as required by CARE’s own monitoring and evaluation systems. There is, thus, a viable, large and systematic bank of data, collected over the first eighteen months of the PAX Project’s work, as well as that generated once the research was officially instigated. Indeed, were it not for the existence of this early data the viability of the study might have been questionable. As noted, this was added to more consciously and consistently over a further period of two and a half years and it is the totality of this material through which case studies can be conducted, using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Outputs For those interested in the number-crunching, the official outputs of the PAX Project’s formal education work were: • The distribution of 1000 copies of the manual in local language in Latinic script • The distribution of 1000 copies of the manual in local language in Cyrillic script • The distribution of 350 copies of the manual in English • A total of 410 teachers educated in the theory, methodology and practice of the manual • A total of 6000 students reached by teachers educated in the theory, methodology and practice of the manual Outcomes For those interested in results, firstly, 95% of all the manuals printed were disseminated through the training programme, i.e. not just delivered to schools. Even though the devising of the manual had happened through a much more ad hoc, grassroots-up process and through work that was led by an international NGO, the manual was accredited by the Federation of B&H Ministry of Education as an officially approved text-book for use in schools. Finally, and perhaps most significantly for the impetus to carry out and complete this research, sustained self-generating on-going work by the majority of the national core group of 30 teachers and many of the next ‘generation’ of teachers reached by them, despite intermittent pay and national strikes, is still going on and shows no sign of abating. I had reports just three weeks ago of the attendance of a small delegation at a conference of teachers in Croatia where they were sharing their current work with other colleagues from the Southern and Eastern Europe region. Theoretical Principles The Imagination I’ve already indicated the four “foundation stone” insights on imagination – from Keiran Egan & Dan Nadaner, Brian Sutton-Smith, Emily Dickinson and Gavin Bolton - that are giving shape to the study. However, the single most challenging theorist whose work is stimulating and informing the study is the poet and playwright, Edward Bond. This is especially because his steady and brilliant theoretical work on the imagination is helping to provide some clarity about the limitations of previous definitions, and especially concerning imagination’s relationship to self-consciousness. Historically, I would contend, theories of imagination have tended more often to arise as sub-theories of some other phenomenon rather than directly addressing the phenomenon itself. Thus, Aristotle, in theorising about discourse, laid out the distinction between dianoia and phantasia – the principles of analysis and synthesis (Schofield, M. 1978). M. Bakhtin, for example, invokes the imagination in his exposition of dialogism (1981). Language & linguistics and their relationship to thought has proved to be a rich vein for theories of imagination (White, A.R. 1990). Imagination in relation to philosophy, ideology and morality have been the concern of some. (Warnock, M.1994; Wilhelm, J.D. & Edmiston, B. eds. 1998). Then there is a body of work concerning the ‘image’ element of imagination and the physiology of the eye/brain connection, (Thomas, N.J.T. 1997 & 1999; Booth, D. & Martin-Smith, A. eds. 1988, Chapter 12). In the disciplines of the arts, the study of creativity has often been seen and used synonymously as the study of the imagination (Rugg, H. 1963; Abbs, P. 1994; Greene, M. 2000), whilst some psychological and psychical studies of empathy and sympathy have located those emotional capacities in the imagination (Witkin, R. 1974; Goleman, D. 1998; Arnold, R. 1991; Henry, M. 2000). This approach has also informed a certain strand of the scholarship on imagination within education, where it is linked to the promoting of socially desirable values such as tolerance and respect for diversity, etc., in the school population (Gardner, H. 1983). I am not for a moment arguing that these various strands of investigation are irrelevant to the study of the imagination or that so much important scholarship is to no avail. But part of the problem for those of us seeking to convince those with power over public policy of the importance of the imagination – say, in education – or to gain credibility for our research is, contradictorily, that the co-existence of both the diffuse and narrow accounts of the imagination make it roughly the conceptual equivalent of a wet bar of soap – that is, almost impossible for an average person to grasp. In addition to its “slipperiness” as a concept, we battle the legacy of the Romantics’ ‘Heroic model’ of the imagination, as John Ralston Saul calls it. As he explains, in his stimulating book, On Equilibrium, the Romantics rehabilitated the imagination from its previous ‘Age of Reason’ disfavour, and laid the basis for the current common sense attitude to the imagination as “a good thing” – prized in the having of it, regretted in the lack of it. However, in this model, it is understood by way of ‘the belief that a healthy imagination is reserved for a few superior people’ or its variation ‘that imagination is at its strongest, in fact only really functions fully, in marginal, rather unstable people. Pure scientists and artists are the usual examples.’ (Saul, J.R. 2001. p.128). It is little wonder that, as proselytisers of the importance of the imagination, we are often marginalised - treated with suspicion, amusement or thinly veiled contempt. Why should this positive, albeit limited understanding of the imagination, as Saul goes on to explain, be ‘one of the most dangerous mechanisms of marginalisation’? This ‘romantic slur’, as he calls it, means that ‘imagination has been romantically ennobled to get it out of the way of real life. Of business. Of self-interest. Of looking after ourselves.’ (ibid. p.129) If romanticism is the ‘property of a difficult elite’, then we needn’t bother to ‘imagine the other’. We can feel superior or admire and distract ourselves with the elites’ artistic musings, extending ‘our charity – our noblesse oblige – to those in need whether the suffering or the artists.’ (ibid.) Taking his argument even further, and whilst acknowledging the progressive intentions and the artistic genius of many of the romantics, Saul spells out the reactionary impact of ‘the shadow life of reason’, as he calls romanticism, thus: ….because the romantic is so profoundly obsessive and operates in a shadow-life of rational methodology, it is not naturally inclusive or open. Left to its own logic it quickly becomes exclusive and closed in upon its particular truth….The romantic leaderships of the nineteenth century became dictatorships. We saw the worst modern form of this with Mussolini and Hitler. The romantic nationalisms became terrifying forces. The ‘romantic impulse’ justified every action, from imperial conquest to scared borders to racism. (ibid. p. 131) Topically, for example, much publicity was given to the observation that the events of September 11th 2001 indicated “a failure of the imagination” on the part of the perpetrators, the implication being that, had they been able to envisage the carnage and emotional horror to which their actions could/would lead, then they could not have done the deeds. Conversely, I would assert, imagination suffused every aspect of those terrible events - from the conceiving of the idea itself, through the meticulous years-long planning, training and coordination, coalescing in the enactment of the sequence itself, to the religious ideology that inspired those who died to ensure that it happened. Yet this idealised notion that somehow the imagination is “a good thing” per se and thus, having lots of it is also “a good thing” persists. In contrast to other definitions, stressing one or another aspect of imagination, Edward Bond argues for a much more fundamental and profound position, but one that speaks to the heart of September 11th 2001, which is that ‘Imagination creates reality, that is the source of our humanness and our human problem.’ (Bond, E. 2000. p.124). He explains what he means thus: Imagination creates reality by investing it with Value and so with consequential meaning. Value does not exist in reality, only in imagination, but it is real because it is necessary to self-conscious apprehension and use of facts. Physical and instrumental systems have the meaning of their consequences, not only as practical assessments, but as judgements, structures in creativity. That is why unlike animals we may choose to act paradoxically and accept martyrdom, sacrifice, celibacy. (ibid. p. 121) Far from being merely a feature of our specie’s abilities, Bond understands it as the defining quality that makes human beings human: Only humans have imagination. Other animals have no use for imagination, they live naturally according to their instincts. They have no culture and make choices only in relation to facts – ‘Do not leave cover, predators are near.’ Unlike humans they do not invent enemies. Non-human animals are concerned with what and when but not with why. Imagination is needed to ask why. Imagination and not reason makes us human. We are self-conscious. Imagination and self-consciousness cannot exist without each other, they are aspects of each other. (ibid. p. 113) (my emphasis) Building on over a decade of work exploring the nature of the way in which human beings come to know the world they live, Bond credits children with the most profound closeness to their humanness. …young children, when they are small, ask the profoundest questions. Every child asks the questions of the great philosophers. They ask the questions of Plato, Spinoza – any philosopher you like, a child asks those questions – very, very basic questions. Why? What? Wherefore? Where from? Questions as profound as that. So even a young child is asking these enormous questions which actually adults really can’t answer. But if you’re going to meet people’s needs, you’ve got to have some answer, you’ve got to have some explanation of what the world is about. (Bond, E. 1990. p.8) In Notes on Imagination, Bond’s artistic and systematic struggle for a holistic theory is expressed thus : There is no homunculus in the brain, no ‘ghost in the machine’, no soul in the imagination, no centre in the psyche. The brain is a complex nexus of relations to the world and itself. The brain structures a map not a person. There is no unified ego, instead there is a ‘chorus’ which is collectively the self. Imagination is an aspect of the brain’s ability to function consciously, at first at the needs of the child’s body and later also of its mind. (Bond, E. 1995 p. ix) But he warns, Imagination is not of itself creative. Art does not express imagination, or imagination express justice – it seeks it. Imagination is not transcendental. Imagination also expresses triviality, destructiveness, genocide, serial killing, torture, cowardice, treachery, pettiness – imagination may corrupt by ideology (the abuse of reason) …Art is not revelation, there is nothing to reveal, everything is already seen – what is missing is meaning. (Bond, E. 2000 p. 146) Imagination is either creative or destructive. There is no passive state in between. We need to imaginatively understand human problems so that they – and we – do not become destructive. We solve them only by being creative. It is not the vitality of our imagination that makes this necessary: it is the urgency of the problems. This makes imagination the basis of human education; because nothing else teaches the imagination other than the imagination – the images, language, emotions, stories, records, which are the substance of imagination. (Bond, E. Private correspondence. 06-03-96) Teachers and students who had lived through a hugely destructive war had experienced at first hand the destructive power of the imagination of which Bond is writing. The urgency of the problems of the post-war period was what drove the process of collaboration between the teachers and the researcher. Perhaps because ‘nothing else teaches the imagination other than the imagination’, the harnessing of imagination for progressive ends was ultimately what revived or kindled the creative imagination in both teachers and students. Certainly, there seems to be a body of evidence emerging from the data collected by the researcher that this hypothesis - that the imagination is fundamental to consciousness and to thought and therefore lies at the basis of human education - is at work in the changes reported by the teachers and observed by others. Children’s Play, Artifacts and Mediation One of the firmest theoretical groundings of both the PAX project and the study is the brilliant theorising and practice of Lev Vygotsky, his colleagues and the many scholars who have both learnt from and developed his work. In particular, his essay, ‘Play and its role in the Mental Development of the Child’ (in Bruner, J., Jolly, A and Sylva, K. 1976), which I first came across in 1979, was and is crucial in the making of the manual and the elucidation of the results of the research. In that essay, he elucidates the use made by children of objects and mimetic actions to mediate the meaning-making of abstract concepts in their play and the role of this behaviour in the mental development of the child. The notion of the ‘pivot’, as Vygotsky calls it, (which may be an object or an action), in children’s play - to stabilise and prevent the meaning of the playing from ‘evaporating’, i.e. to enable children to conceptualise and ‘hang onto’ abstract or absent objects or ideas or feelings during the course of playing, was crucial to the development of the work with the teachers. Extending the purpose of the ‘pivot’ into the consciously constructed fictional contexts made available in the manual, thus encouraging ‘movement in the field of meaning’, as a phenomenon into the classroom, seems to have given new impetus and relevance to teachers’ and students’ work throughout, but especially to the more abstract aspects of the curriculum, e.g. multiplication. The self-regulatory rule-governed nature of play also stimulates children into behaviour in the classroom that enables them to be, as Vygotsky says, ‘a head taller than themselves’. In other words, to be unable to sustain the rules, which might be very normal for that particular age stage when not playing, would break the “world” created by the fictional context, thus “spoiling the game”, so, children become capable of more mature behaviour in relation to each other and the work they are doing when the work is being mediated through dramatic play in a fictional context. One of the advantages of harnessing these strengths of play is that classroom work thus capitalises that which the child brings to it as strengths, and that in which s/he takes pleasure and has confidence, rather than emphasising what s/he can’t yet do and is not yet good at. However, this is not an argument for reductivism. Any amount of new material and any number of alien approaches or complex abstract concepts can be introduced and mastered by children within a framework of an appropriate task-oriented social practice, rather then a didactic memorising one. Anecdotally, for example, I once taught and learnt from a group of twelve-year-old girl “god and goddesses” who drew up an alternative constitution for the governance of Olympus, once they had decided that Zeus’s approach to leadership was inadequate for both the humans’ and their needs! As the research has progressed, Michael Cole’s work on cultural psychology, in his book of the same name, (Cole, M. 1998), particularly Chapter 5, ‘Putting Culture in the Middle’, has illuminated what was initially a much more intuitive and less thoroughgoing approach to the concepts of ‘artifacts’ and ‘mediation’ in the study. Drawing on Marx Wartofsky definition of artifacts, including tools and language, as ‘objectifications of human needs and intentions already invested with cognitive and affective content’ (Wartofsky, M. 1973 p.204), he further develops Wartofsky’s three levels of artifacts into : • Primary Artifacts – those directly used in production which ‘correspond closely to the concept of artifact as matter transformed by prior human activity….although I do not distinguish for current purposes between production of material goods and production of social life in general.’ (Cole, M. 1998 p.121) • Secondary Artifacts – which ‘consist of representations of primary artifacts and of modes of action using primary artifacts.’ These ‘play a central role in preserving and transmitting modes of action and belief. They include recipes, traditional beliefs, norms, constitutions and the like’ (ibid.) • Tertiary Artifacts - are imaginative ones and include all forms of imagined worlds ‘in which the rules, conventions and outcomes no longer appear directly practical, or which, indeed, seem to constitute an arena of non-practical, or ‘free’ play or game activity’ (Wartofsky, M. 1973 p.208) including works of art and artistic processes. Cole elaborates this tertiary category thus. ‘Such imaginative artifacts, [Wartofsky] suggests, can come to colour the way we see the ‘actual’ world, providing a tool for changing current praxis. In modern psychological jargon, modes of behaviour acquired when interacting with tertiary artifacts can transfer beyond the immediate contexts of their use.’ (Cole, M. 1998 pp.121-2) Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to elaborate the relevance of this work and its connection to Vygotsky’s work on play, I hope it is possible to glimpse the way in which the Project’s work, using everyday objects, representatively and symbolically, to make meaning in imagined worlds contains and uses all three level of artifacts. This intrinsic richness and density seems to have indeed made possible ‘modes of behaviour’ which ‘can transfer beyond the immediate contexts of their use’. Drama in education Investigation in respect of this theoretical strand of the work here concentrates on the three main elements of “scaffolding” which gave shape to the work of the PAX Project and the manual, as well as, in relation to the study, the indicators of “imagination in practice”, i.e. fictional contexts, role play and use of objects / artifacts. The work of many theoreticians and practitioners has influenced and developed these elements of Drama in education methodology especially across the period of the last forty or so years. Dorothy Heathcote’s work on the use of role as she has “grown” it over that time – in particular through the ‘Mantle of the Expert’, ‘Rolling Role’ and ‘Commissioners’ models - is fundamental to this study. (Heathcote, D. & Bolton, G. 1995) The other key theoretical material that links across all three sides of the “theoretical prism” illuminating the study is the work she did – subsequently developed by Geoff Gillham - on ‘Levels of Explanation’ in drama work. (Gillham, G. 1997) Excitingly, there is potential cross-fertilisation of theory emerging between this work and Kieran Egan’s work on the cognitive tools of children’s imagination Whereas Heathcote’s work illuminates the layers or levels of psychological and emotional universals present in any human action, which, in the dramatic fiction, are consciously being (re)created – i.e. Action, Motivation, Investment, Model and Stance - Egan’s work on the role of the imagination in cognitive development – identifying Somatic, Mythic, Romantic, Philosophic and Ironic “layers”, (Egan, K. 1997) - is recognising the recapitulation of the socio-cultural history of the species in cognitive development. Brought into relation to each other, they offer important possibilities for enriching the theoretical understanding of both the imagination and Drama in education methodology at work in the PAX Project and the study. Gavin Bolton’s theoretical grasp of the productive paradoxes for participants involved in drama experiences – actor/spectator; actor/reactor; actor/reflector - encapsulated in the oft-referenced phrase, ‘A sense of it is happening to me…and I am making it happen.’ (my emphasis) (Bolton, G. 1979. p.53) gets to the heart of one of the most important catalysts for teachers involved in the PAX Project to (re)take the professional initiative in the face of the disempowerment of war. Meanwhile, Geoff Gillham’s identification of the different but necessary relationship of ‘play for the teacher’ and ‘play for the children’ (Gillham, G. 1974) has undoubtedly illuminated the reciprocal relationship between teaching and learning, both in the PAX Project in action and in the study. The study is also benefiting greatly from the work of David Davis & Bill Roper, (Davis, D. & Roper, B. 1993 and 1995), Michael Fleming’s work for novices to drama in the classroom (Fleming, M. 1994), Jonothan Neelands’s and Cecily O’Neill’s work on process drama (Neelands, J. 1990; O’Neill, C. 1995) and specifically in terms of form and structure in drama work, from the lucid theorising of classroom practitioners such as, for example, Tony Grady, Margaret Higgins and Maggie Hulson. Expressed at its simplest, these three main elements enable teachers and their students, through the art form of dramatic storytelling, to hold the immenseness of the real world – in time, past, present and future; space; intensity of sensuous, emotional, psychological and social experience; impact and implication of cause and effect; the individual in the universal and vice versa - in specific and particular microcosmic dramatic worlds. I’m referring here not to the microcosms of miniaturisation – as Geoff Gillham puts it, ‘….DIE methodology creates the real world in small. But it is not only a question of scale.’ (Gillham, G. 2000. p.11) Metaphorically speaking, the microcosms I would look for are those with the powerful ‘density’ of, for example, a seed (holding its whole genetic history and the ‘instructions’ for its potential growth); a diamond (‘encoding’ its place in the periodic table of chemical elements and the form of carbon in which it exists); a snowflake (telling the story of the crystalline structure of water when it changes form in temperatures below freezing) or a laser (encrypting the physics of light in a powerfully focussed way). Thus, a mute refugee girl called Amela, with her box of humble treasures, is all voiceless, unheard refugees who have to carry their whole histories with them and who, despite that voicelessness, “speak” and convey the meaning of their lives to us through the “pivots” of the choices they have been forced to make of what to take and what to leave behind. If you decide to come to the workshop on Saturday morning, you’ll have the chance to meet the invented authenticity that is Amela ! Identifying in the curriculum material itself such potential powerfully dense microcosms, as could be used to create fictional contexts in which teachers and students could ‘play’, was the key to the success of the manual. The analysis of the data is revealing how and to what extent the teachers were able to bring their imagination(s) to bear in grasping such an approach and making it their own. Methodology Case Study The data that underpins this research is very substantial in quantity and quality and thus, one of the challenges has been to find a way of rendering it useable for the purposes of analysis. The approach of the research has been to identify, from the total mass of data, a purposive sample of case studies that can be studied in depth, via triangulation. In purposive sampling, the researcher handpicks the cases to be included in his sample on the basis of his judgement of their typicality. In this way, he builds up a sample that is satisfactory to his specific needs. (Cohen, L. & Mannion, L. 1989. p.103) To this end, in conjunction with the sequence of the work itself, initial analysis of the data has enabled it to be divided into three phases : •Phase A – 410 participating teachers providing ‘yes/no’ evidence of imaginative activity •Phase B – 32 teachers evidencing breakthrough progress •Phase C – 8 teachers evidencing substantial development Through these eight “case-study” teachers, the research is aiming to trace progression from the “unlit” or “dormant” imagination, through the process of “lighting” the imagination, to the study of the teachers’ development over a period of twenty-four months, including implementation of the work in their classrooms. It is also important that the data was gathered using a number of different methods - questionnaires, observation, journals, interviews, documents, letters, lesson plans, reports, video and audio tapes - each of which offers a “facet” of the prism - a different perspective on the study in question. Triangulation thus presents itself as the most satisfactory approach, with data not just from the main group from which the eight case studies will be drawn, but also, as complement and contrast, from the teachers who were the recipients of that peer- education and from some of the children taught by teachers within both groups. Indicators In line with the ex-post facto nature of the study and the fact that it was essentially action research, indicators were sought that would be, as far as possible, practical and demonstrable, i.e. it would be possible to identify, objectively, in the planning and the execution of the teachers’ work, whether the indicators were absent or present, and if present, to what degree. A satisfactory pattern seems to be emerging whereby the richest indicators are modelled on the three core imaginative approaches of the manual itself : •Fictional Contexts – creating an ‘as if’ world Are the teachers able to imagine what will make dry and/or unpromising syllabus material, as Edward Bond would say, ‘storyable’? What fictional world could be created that would attract the students to become involved with the material ? •Role(s) for Teacher/Students - implying or inviting task(s) Do the teachers seem able to identify what people, embodying appropriate educational challenge, might belong in the chosen fictional world ? Does the role/s for the students seem to imply a practice with which they can enthusiastically engage and which takes them into the heart of what is to be taught and learnt ? •Use of Objects / Artifacts - harnessing everyday “universals” Do the teachers show clear evidence of the ability to “see” the practical / metaphorical / symbolic / “deep significance” potential in everyday objects when they are combined with a fictional context and role play ? Can they create conditions for their students to become similarly proficient in this kind of ‘seeing’ and practical use in their work? (See Fig 1.) As you can see, the starting point, at the bottom of the table, seeks to analyse teachers’ ability to copy a modelled piece of practice. Gradually, as we move through the bands, shifts beyond this modelling are being sought, towards complete independence, where teachers are able to apply the principles they have learnt to devise their own unique, original and maybe locally appropriate (although still universalising) fictional contexts. The same banded scale is also being used for the other two indicators – i.e. role(s) for the teacher(s)/student(s) and use of everyday objects. Each of the three is looked at separately, however, because different teachers may show evidence of development in one aspect, but not necessarily in the other two. Measuring tool for indicators Faced with the task of how to capture, both quantitatively and qualitatively, both the ‘breakthrough progress’ of the Phase 2 thirty teachers and the “substantial development” of the Phase 3 eight case-study teachers, to be able to cross-reference between the phases and to be able to defend the placing of any particular teacher in what the data seems to indicate as the most appropriate and relevant band, the researcher has developed a 15-point scale for measuring the facility of these teachers in their use of the three indicators. For the purposes of identification of the cohort of 30 from the original group of 410 – i.e. in DESCRIPTORS FOR APPLICATION OF INDICATORS ABILITY TO USE PRINCIPLES AND TO DEVISE NEW / ORIGINAL FICTIONAL CONTEXTS BAND 4 AUTHORITATIVE GRASP, SIGNIFICANT ORIGINALITY AND INSIGHT SOME MINOR LIMITATIONS BAND 3 SOUND AND ABOVE AVERAGE UNDERSTANDING OF CONCEPTS, METHODOLOGY AND CONTENT SOME INSIGHTS / SOME ORIGINALITY BAND 2 A GRASP OF FICTIONAL CONTEXTS & ASSOCIATED KEY CONCEPTS MODEST DEGREE OF INSIGHT / SOME ADAPTATION OF MODEL / NO SERIOUS OMISSIONS OR IRRELEVANCIES BAND 1 ADEQUATE USE OF MODEL BUT IN DERIVATIVE OR COPIED FASHION MAY BE SOME MISUNDERSTANDING OF ASSOCIATED KEY CONCEPTS / MAY BE OMISSIONS AND/OR LIMITIATIONS BAND 0 LITTLE OR NO ABILITY ABILITY TO USE MODELLED FICTIONAL CONTEXTS Fig 1. the sifting of the shift from Phase 1 to Phase 2 - only the five main Bands - 1,2,3,4 and 5 – have been used and not the graduations in between. In trying make the visuals for this paper as uncluttered as possible and the font size readable on a screen, the chart offered here is the latter, simpler one, but if anyone is interested in seeing the tool with the full 15 bands, please contact me and I’d be happy to supply a copy. Indicative Trends As you can imagine, there are a number of indicative trends that are tentatively beginning to emerge from this data analysis and preparing this paper has been a very useful discipline for focussing the mind on some key themes, rather than getting bogged down in the detail. So, the three main strands, thus far, seem to be : • the significance of the conscious use of play for the teacher and the child • the multi-layering of the PAX Project’s work - Structural - Ontological - Societal • shifting the teachers’ emphasis from negative to positive, passive to active, “acted on” to actor, “victim” to enabler/ facilitator The significance of the conscious use of play for the teacher & the child The way in which the work “harnessed” the imagination, of the teachers initially and then, by them, that of the students, seems to have been able to tap into the seriousness and significance of play for the child in three ways – • through the imaginative manipulation of the child’s most important experiences of the world in symbolic action, the child is able to explore and explain to him/herself his/her place in the world and the meaning of his/her experiences, (e.g. through use of dolls / space under tables / sticks etc.). This is a form of empowerment available to pre-school age children in free play, that here, for the purposes of teaching and learning, is made use of consciously, through structured dramatic play. In this context, it ‘plays to’ children’s strengths to connect the world of the classroom to the personal, social and cultural experiences of the child. In the post-conflict context of the Project’s work, this is emerging as a key contributory factor to the (re)animation of the energy of teachers and students in B&H classrooms. • because play is the mode through which the child learns to submit him/herself voluntarily to social rules through submission to the rules of games, and in the process integrates / re-integrates him/herself into society and thus, teachers and students who have been war-torn and fragmented by the shattering of their society are brought together and begin to re-integrate themselves in a shared, socially purposive practice – one which is both fictional and real at the same time. • because there seems to be a way in which the “scaffolding” offered by the project to the teachers to assist them in developing their own approach to active and participatory work reawakened their relationship to their own imaginations and their own experiences of childhood play – not least by giving them not only permission to play, (both physical and ‘mind-play’), but active encouragement to do so. The multi-layering of the PAX Project’s work Geoff Gillham’s evaluation of what he calls the ‘multi-layered’ nature of the PAX Project’s use of a Drama in education approach to the work is proving a very rich framework of theory for analysis and development of the thesis’s main area of exploration (Gillham, G. 2000). Just as children’s games integrate individuals into the social group through submitting themselves to the rules of the game, so the participants who have been war-torn and fragmented by the shattering of their society have been brought together by the Project and begun to reintegrate themselves in a shared, socially purposive practice – one which is both fictional and real at the same time. (ibid. p.7) He locates the genesis of all of the features of the PAX Project’s approach to peace-building, education and social reconstruction in play and children’s games and stresses the fact that the features are not discrete, but are functioning on ‘many planes at the same time’ (ibid. p.8.). He takes issue with the Project staffs’ description of the work as ‘holistic’, indicating: …even that is too limiting a concept to express the nature of the methodology. I would sooner refer to their approach as multi-layered. That is to say most, if not all, of the features I have identified are to some extent and to varying degrees present at the same time in any given piece of practice. (ibid.) His broad categorisation of the twenty-three features of the work that he identifies into the structural, the ontological and the societal is particularly useful, addressing as it does, the form and content of the work in its own integrative and multi-layered way. Structural – Drama in education methodology enables the participants to structure their experience for themselves. 1 Like play, it combines playfulness and seriousness. 2 It functions through what might be called “productive distraction”. 3 It thus provides safety - emotional and sometimes physically – to the participants. 4 The real is always dealt with in the form of fiction and/or symbolisation. 5 It concerns itself as much, if not more, with process(es) as with product: 6 It operates from two positions – the experiential and the reflective. 7 It operates on two levels – the affective and the analytical, frequently at the same time. It is a feature of the methodology that yields real, or “embedded”, understanding. 8 Anything we might normally understand by knowledge is learned, taught, gained as an integral part of …DIE methodology. (ibid. p. 8-9) Ontological - Drama in education methodology centrally concerns itself with the nature of being, with identity and meaning, with the questions “Who am I?” and “What does everything mean?” 9 It concerns itself with the meaning of life and of our lives. 10 In the field of meaning it operates at once on two levels: the personal and the universal. 11 It exists in and addresses the disparity between the self’s (or society’s) needs and desires. 12 It connects or reconnects people (the participants) to history, the present and the future. 13 It approaches conflict and antagonisms either indirectly or from a cohesive point of view. 14 It creates and/or activates empathy. (ibid. p.9) Societal - Drama in education methodology is quintessentially a social art form. Individuals create a fictional context as members of a group. Equally, the methodology concerns itself principally with the social world – the world of human society. 15 The methodology is task-oriented. 16 It therefore requires collaboration by people (adults with adults; kids with kids; kids with adults.) 17 Collaboration requires communication. Real talk, as distinct from empty talk, becomes both necessary and possible between participants. 18 It is cohesive of participants in a common endeavour. 19 It creates a democratic ambience. In the fictional context all are actually equal once with another and each had a useful contribution to make – even when fictional differences of status are dramatised. 20 It invites and requires on the part of participants the exercise of responsibility and power (individually and as a group) with understanding towards (usually societal) goals. 21 Experience within the fictional context changes perceptions and conceptions producing changes in attitudes and/or values, which in its turn changes behaviour. 22 It produces a sense of activated or enlivened well-being in the individual and in the group that creates, or releases blocked, energy for living (and for changing reality in however ‘small’ ways). 23 It is at once therapeutic and socially (re)constructive. (ibid.p.10) In the data analysis so far, the detail contained in these twenty-three features has already proved its use in helping to develop new theory from the often-intuitive praxis that informed much of the work as it was happening. But perhaps most significantly for the study, it is the overall theoretical dimension that Gillham brought to his evaluation, especially in its elaboration of the multi-layered nature of the methodology, which is providing a very exciting conceptual link between the three theoretical strands of the research. Shifting the teachers’ emphasis from negative to positive, passive to active, ‘acted on’ to actor, ‘victim’ to enabler/ facilitator At the simplest level, shifting the emphasis for the teachers from ‘what you don’t have’ and/or “what you once had, but have lost” to engaging their imaginations to envisage “the potential that can be unlocked from what you do have”, both in terms of the intrinsic capacities of the human species and the objects and spaces around you, seems to have provided conditions for a shift of outlook in a significant number of teachers. Not surprisingly, the legacy of the war combined with the inflexible, memory-based utilitarian nature of the education system and a lack of any other models on which to draw meant that teachers were caught in a double bind. The “old” curriculum, which had simply been reinstated at the end of the war, was effortless to execute, simply requiring a teacher to turn up and know which page to ask the children to turn to! However, it was also mind-numbingly tedious and the relationship of many students to life in the classroom was somewhere on a spectrum between boredom (if you could keep up), or fear (if you couldn’t). (See McEntegart, T. 1999. for a fuller account of this double bind.) Demonstrating how, without adding to a teacher’s workload, and still taking the curriculum as written (a teacher’s legal obligation to teach), it was possible to change the approach to curriculum material - i.e. to engage the imagination to arouse curiosity, offer relevance, make it fun, open up investigations rather than lecture didactically, connect up disparate bits of the curriculum through fictional contexts that require all subject disciplines to be engaged simultaneously, etc., this shift from the negative to the positive seems to have been accomplished. Implication & Application of Findings Inevitably, because this study is still work in progress, comment on the implication and application of findings can only be tentative at this point. However, certain very basic observations are possible to make (even before being able fully to explain the “why” of them!) that certainly do have potential application in other contexts. • Using this approach, demonstrable progress was made by teachers and students in B&H classrooms, both because of and despite the post-conflict nature of the context –Cognitively / Intellectually –Socially –Emotionally –Psychologically • Teachers with experience only of a utilitarian model of education (i.e. in many cases, no other models even read about or observed, let alone experienced in practice) embraced active/participatory methods and successfully ‘customised’ them for their own contexts / students • The project’s structure (i.e. the peer-education cascade model) enabled very efficient use of “resources” – so-called “human”, financial, time and training – and perhaps more importantly, the emotional, psychological, social, cultural and historical wellsprings of human beings whose previous professional and civic relationships with each other had been shattered by war. • Imagination was the core and key resource, which, activated by the researcher’s Drama in education expertise and combined with the teachers’ local expertise, catalysed productive qualitative developments, which are still resonating, in the life of the classrooms into which it reached Other post-war or ongoing low-level conflict contexts, where resources are similarly low or non-existent, are the logical cases where application is most obviously appropriate. But there is also potential for this approach in classrooms of the so-called ‘South’, where the negative impact of low or no resources can be exacerbated by low teachers’ morale, sometimes as a result of their low status and/or that of education; on other occasions because of comparisons being made (by outsiders, education ministry and/or school officials or themselves) with other, usually Northern and/or Western models, which are touted, aspirationally, as the “norm” or the “best”. Additionally, however, early feedback, from colleagues such as yourselves, is also suggesting potential transferability to Northern and Western classrooms with low emotional / psychological resources and/or poor social health amongst teachers and/or students, raising the fascinating possibility of my Bosnian colleagues bringing their peer-educator skills to bear on UK or Canadian teachers! Challenges Arising It’s been hard to know where to begin and where to end with this heading…so it’s here that my self-discipline has had to strive for maximum efficiency and I’ve settled on two to represent a whole clutch of them. The first, I’m sure, is well known to all of you who are involved in research, where it is not your actual paid employment. That is simply the difficulty of creating the quantity and quality of time and concentration needed to study for a PhD and hold down a demanding full-time job at the same time! A graph of my “progress” over the last four years would look like some kind of volcanic-proportioned seismic event, lurching from pit of inactivity and paralysis, to peak of frenetic activity and modest breakthrough. But I have plenty of friends and colleagues amongst the part-time PhD student body at my university to know that I can’t claim any special status for this pattern. More seriously, the second challenge has been to find appropriate models of research in order to elucidate, from the data, appropriate indicators and to devise flexible yet credible research tools to do justice, particularly to the qualitative nature of the field of study, whilst also satisfying the need for scientific rigour. So far, the indicators and the tools seem to be bearing up under the weight of the data that is being thrown at them. But I’m not sure yet that the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the oncoming train! Incidentally, although this is not the topic of this paper, there is another whole discussion opens up out of this second challenge, concerning the need for a more flexible and reflexive research approach to the science of the arts and humanities, rather than the borrowed straightjacket of so-called ‘pure’ science research methodology – more akin to the Imaginative Art of Science, perhaps ! Finally, ‘tell ‘em what you’ve told ‘em’….. I was fortunate to have had the opportunity, at an unrepeatable moment in Europe’s history, to work with a group of teachers by whose resilience, courage, persistence and collective imagination I have felt and continue to feel truly humbled. Together, reciprocally catalysed and maintained primarily by our imaginations, we were able to combine our respective expertises and spark each other to reach, individually and collectively, far into our ‘zones of proximal development’ (Vygotsky, L. 1978). Despite the difficulties and setbacks, it is the chance to capitalise this work in ways that might make its productiveness available to others that is keeping this PhD going. If this paper has interested you or touched a chord of fellow-feeling in some way, I actively want to make contact with other practitioners and researchers, especially to tackle the two challenges mentioned above. Therefore, I’m delighted to have had the opportunity to attend the conference and hope that I will hear from some of you again and make contact with other colleagues, too. Tag (Mary) McEntegart Senior Lecturer, Centre for International Development and Training (CIDT) The University of Wolverhampton, Telford Campus. TF2 9NT. U.K. Telephone: +44 (0)1902 323019 Fax: +44 (0)1902 323212 CIDT email: cidt@wlv.ac.uk Direct email: T.McEntegart@wlv.ac.uk Website: www.wlv.ac.uk/cidt INDICATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbs, P. (1994), The Educational Imperative: A Defence of Socratic and Aesthetic Learning, London: Routledge Falmer. Anderson, Mary B. and Woodrow, Peter J., (1989). Rising from the Ashes: Development Strategies at Times of Disaster. Westview Press, Boulder, USA and UNESCO, Paris. (Reissued 1998) Lynne Reinner Publishers, Boulder, USA. Arnold, R. (1991), ‘Educating for Empathic Intelligence’, Public Lecture at the University of Melbourne, 23 August 2000, on http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/LLAE/new/Lecture.htlm accessed on 03/11/00 at 14:00. Bakhtin, M. (1981), The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. M. Holquist, ed. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bolton, G. (1979), Towards a Theory of Drama in Education, Harlow: Longman, U.K. Bolton, G. (1994), New Perspectives on Classroom Drama, Nelson Thorns Bond, Edward (1990), ‘The Fight for Drama, The Fight for Education’, Keynote Address, Proceedings from The Fight for Drama – The Fight for Education NATD Conference 1989, Newcastle upon Tyne: Printers Inc Ltd. Bond, E. (1995). ‘Notes on the Imagination’ in Bond, E (1995) Coffee, London: Methuen Drama. Bond, E (1996), Private correspondence, 06-03-96. Bond, E. (1998). ‘We imagine therefore we are. But how do we learn? By Drama and Music, stupid, so give us back our lessons’. The Observer newspaper, 31st May. Bond, E. (2000), The Hidden Plot: Notes on Theatre and the State, London: Methuen. Booth, D. & Martin-Smith, A. eds., (1988), Re-cognizing Richard Courtney: Selected Writings on Drama and Education, Ontario: Pembroke Publishers Limited. CARE International East Africa/Middle East Regional Management Unit. (1999). Benefit-Harms Handbook - June 28, 1999. Cohen, L. & Mannion, L. (1989). Research Methods in Education. 3rd Edition, Routledge, London. Cole, M. (1998), Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Davis, D. & Roper, W. (1993) ‘Taking the Right Eye Out Completely’ in NATD Broadsheet, 10:3. pp. 36-49. Davis, D. & Roper, W. (1995) ‘A Reply to Jan Szatkowski’s Postmodernist “Dramaturgical Turn”’ in NADIE Journal, 19:1. pp. 89-100. Denscombe, M. (1998). The Good Research Guide for Small Scale Social Research Projects. U.K.: Open University Press. Dickinson, Emily (1960), ‘The Gleam of an Heroic Act’ in T.H. Johnson ed., The Complete Poems, Boston: Little Brown Egan, K. and Nadaner, D. (eds.) (1988). Imagination and Education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Elkind, D. (1981) The hurried child: Growing up too fast too soon. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley, in Egan, K. and Nadaner, D. (eds.) (1988). Imagination and Education. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK. Fleming, M. (1994) Starting Drama Teaching. London: David Fulton. Gardner, H. (1983), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence, New York: Basic Books. Gillham, G. (1974) ‘Condercum School Report’ for Newcastle-upon-Tyne Local Education Authority: unpublished document. Gillham, G. (1997) ‘What Life is For: An Analysis of Dorothy Heathcote’s ‘Levels’ of Explanation’ in SCYPT Journal, 34: Autumn 1997, pp 9-17. Gillham, G. (2000) PAX Project: A Multi-layered Approach to Peace-Building and Social Reconstruction in Bosnia & Herzegovina. CARE Bosnia & Herzegovina/Croatia. Goleman, D. (1998), Vital Lies, Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self-Deception, London: Bloomsbury. Greene, M. (2000), Releasing the Imagination: Essays on Education, The Arts and Social Change, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Heathcote, D. & Bolton, G. (1995), Drama for Learning, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Henry, M. (2000), ‘Drama’s Ways of Learning’, Research in Drama Education, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 45-62. Johnson, L. & O’Neill, C. eds. (1984) Dorothy Heathcote – Collected Writings on Education and Drama, London: Hutchinson. Lenhart, V., Kesidou, A., and Stockmann, S. (1999) The curricula of the “national subjects” in Bosnia & Herzegovina. UNESCO. McEntegart, T. (1999), ‘Gradgrind past, present and future: A comparative look at the utilitarian curriculum in Britain and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Education and Social Justice, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 24-30. McEntegart, T. (2000) The PAX Project - ‘building for a peaceful future’ - Drama in education Report 1997 - 2000 CARE Bosnia & Herzegovina/Croatia. Neelands, J. (1990) Structuring Drama Work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Neill, C. (1995) Drama Worlds, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Prescod, C. ed. (1998) Zapping Through Wonderland - Social Issues in Art for Children and Young People. The Netherlands: Royal Tropical Institute and the European Cultural Foundation. Rugg, H. (1963), Imagination - An enquiry into the sources and conditions that stimulate creativity. New York: Harper & Row. Saul, J.R. (2002) On Equilibrium, Camberwell, Victoria: Penguin Books Australia Schofield, M. (1978) ‘Aristotle on the Imagination’ in G.E.R. Lloyd & G.E.L. Owen (eds.) Aristotle on the Mind and the Senses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 99-140. Sutton-Smith, B. (1988) ‘In Search of the Imagination’, in Egan, K. and Nadaner, D. (eds.) 1988 Imagination and Education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Thomas, Nigel .J.T. (1997) ‘Imagery and Coherence of Imagination: A Critique of White’, The Journal of Philosophical Research, vol. 22, pp. 95-127. Thomas, Nigel J.T. (1999) ‘Are Theories of Imagery Theories of Imagination? An Active Perception Approach to Conscious Mental Content’ in Cognitive Science, 23, pp. 207-245. Vygotsky, L. S. (1976), ‘Play and its role in the Mental Development of the Child’ in Bruner, J., Jolly, A. & Sylva, K. Play: its role in Development and Evolution. Penguin Vygotsky, L. S. (1978), Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986), Thought and Language, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Warnock, M. (1996), Imagination and Time, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Wartofsky, M. (1973), Models, Dordrecht: D. Reidel. White, A.R. (1990), The Language of Imagination, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wilhelm, J.D. & Edmiston, B. (1998), Imagining to Learn: Inquiry, Ethics, and Integration Through Drama, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Witkin, R. (1974), The Intelligence of Feeling, London: Heinemann Educational Books. |
