Drama on the Run: A Prelude to Mapping the Practice of Process Drama

Author(s): Pamela Bowell and Brian Heap

Source: Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 39, No. 4, Special Issue: Aesthetics in Drama and
Theatre Education (Winter, 2005), pp. 58-69
Published by: University of Illinois Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3527392
Accessed: 05/01/2010 10:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Aesthetic Education.

http://www.jstor.org

Drama on the Run:A Prelude to Mapping the

Practiceof Process Drama
PAMELA BOWELL AND BRIAN HEAP

In the current educational climate prevailing in a number of countries, increased emphasis is being placed on the concept of "the artist in schools."
Funding is being channeled to support a range of initiatives and schemes
that are designed to bring arts professionals from all the art forms into the
classroom where they place their artistic talents, knowledge, and insights
alongside the pedagogic skills of the teacher.
We see exciting projects in which artists work with children in schoolvisual artists to create murals, musicians to compose and perform operas,
dancers to choreograph new ballets, and actors and directors to devise plays.
Many of the outcomes are of high quality, and the children who have been
fortunate enough to be involved have enjoyed the experiences and have
gained a great deal from them. This would seem to be a state of affairs to be
applauded unreservedly, as such projects surely enrich the lives of the pupils
and schools in which they take place. In one sense, of course, this is undeniably true, and we have no intention of suggesting otherwise. However, in
reality, this is a much more complex situation. It raises a number of key issues
for us as educational practitioners who work in the field of applied theatre,
sharing with others, as Judith Ackroyd describes, "a belief in the power of the
theatre form to address something beyond the form itself."l
The most critical issue is the perceived separation of the artist from the
teacher that can sometimes be encouraged by artists in schools projects. We
sense a dangerous precedent here. It becomes all too easy for two erroneous
assumptions to be made, namely that teachers cannot be considered to be
artists in their own right, while artists on the other hand can be accorded
Pamela Bowell is Principal Lecturer in Drama Education in the School of Education
at Kingston University. For many years she was Chair of National Drama, the leading professional association for drama educators in the United Kingdom. She has
also worked extensively internationally. She co-authored Planning Process Drama
with Brian Heap as well as a range of articles, most recently focusing on mapping the
practice of process drama and on using process drama in HIV/AIDS education.
Brian Heap is Staff Tutor in Drama at the Philip Sherlock Centre for the Creative Arts
at the University of the West Indies. In addition to collaborating with Pamela Bowell
on a number of publications, he co-authored ProcessDrama:A Wayof ChangingAttitudes
with Anthony Simpson.
Journalof Aesthetic Education,Vol. 39, No. 4, Winter 2005
?2005 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

Drama on the Run

59

the status of teacher.In our own experiencetoo, the nature of educational

funding can be extremelyvolatile, subjectto all kinds of shifts in the prevailing politicaland economicclimate,as well as adjustmentsto the ways in
which funding is applied accordingto the social and educationalpriorities
of the time.Too frequently,educationfalls victimto what mightbe described
as "the-flavor-of-the-month
syndrome."
Thosewho are involved with teachereducation,both pre- and in-service,
make superhumanefforts to respond with alacrityto the new demands as
courses are reviewed and reorganizedaccordingly.The traineesof the next
generationfind themselves with a new "partyline" to toe as their courses
conform to the new priority.This is all well and good-until the priority
changes and gaps suddenly appear in the knowledge or skills or understanding of teachers.What was received wisdom becomes a deficit model
as focus changes,and the circleis now expectedto be squared.
Underthese circumstances,it would seem a more prudentpolicy to train
teacher-artists
who would have the abilityto meld their pedagogical underand
skill with an aestheticcraftand sensibilitythan to rely on visstanding
artists
the "natural"or "normal"providers of arts education.This
as
iting
would ensurenot only that teacherswould make better,more informeduse
of visiting artistsbut also that children'sexpertlyguided engagementwith
the artswould be a permanentand enduringaspect of their regularschooling ratherthan a "special"event subjectto the vagaries of arts funding or
policy. This might seem an easy statementto make for people such as ourselves, who have spent whole careersworking as teacher-artistswithin the
field of dramain education.But it might seem an altogethermore daunting
prospect for teachers,or intending teachers,who are not specialists in the
arts.
Having spent a great deal of our respective careersworking in teacher
education, we are very conscious of this possibility. To this end, our research collaborationhas been centeredon exploring and coming to understand more fully, clearly,and preciselyhow the teacherfunctionsas an artist within the particulargenre of applied theatreknown as process drama.
Embeddedwithin the increaseof our own understanding,there resides the
potentialfor increasedsuccess within our teachereducationprograms.
So What Is Process Drama?
The term "processdrama"is used to describethe genre of applied theatre
in which the participants,togetherwith the teacher,constitutethe theatrical
ensemble and engage in drama to make meaning for themselves: " ... par-

ticipantsin process dramawill not normallybe involved with learningand

presentinglines from a pre-writtendramatictext . . . but will be 'writing'
their own play as the narrativeand tensions of their dramaunfold in time
and space."2It is a genre, essentially improvised in nature, that takes its

60

PamelaBowell and Brian Heap

form from the dramatic action, reaction, and interaction of the participants.
The external audience of the theatre is replaced by an internal audience, so
that the participants are both the theatrical ensemble that creates the "play"
and the audience that receives it. In short, it is recognized by practitioners
as a form of theatre applied within an educational context in which learners, in collaboration with the teacher, create dramas for exploration, expression, and learning.3 As such, process drama can be found in classrooms
across the world.
This creative and educational collaboration is empowering for participants. Process drama is a potent means by which perception and expression
may be heightened. It provides a framework for the exploration of ideas
and feelings. Through the unique, quintessentially dramatic process of "enactment," learners develop as artists and, through this, refine a means by
which they come to know more about themselves and learn more about the
world around them. As such, process drama demonstrates itself as a genre
of theatre in which the human need and desire to make symbolic representations of life experiences, explore them, and comment upon them are central.
One of the most critical elements of this genre then is the essential, creative, and artistic role played by the teacher. Together with the students,
she is integral to the creative process, both in terms of enabling learning
about the art form and the meaning generated through it. Given our belief
in the educational potency of process drama, it follows that we see that this
role has critical implications for the training of the teacher-artist, especially
the nondrama specialist. Although many drama specialists embrace process
drama wholeheartedly, it is true to say that many nonspecialists, particularly those teaching in elementary grades of school, can feel daunted by the
prospect of taking on the role of the teacher-artist within process drama.
While we are aware that the training of teacher-artists may be a complex
undertaking, the rewards, we fervently believe, are commensurate with the
effort involved. As teacher educators responding to these challenges, our
continuing work together is an attempt to deconstruct the process in order
that the role of the teacher (and the role of the learners) becomes clearer and
therefore more accessible.
One of the essential elements of process drama is the teacher working in
role within the drama with the learners. From this position at first glance, it
seems obvious that the teacher-artist within process drama is actually the
teacher-actor. However, delving more deeply into this genre, it becomes
evident that the successful teacher-artist in process drama actually needs to
function as playwright, director, and actor, as well as teacher. In essence,
this means that training programs need to teach beginning teachers to be all
of these things. However, it is our contention that too frequently, not least
because of time and curricular constraints and the current encouragement of
artist-in-schools projects, especially at the primary level, training programs
give high priority to teaching how to be a teacher but lower priority to the

Drama on the Run

61

other functions-playwright, director,and actor.This is not to suggest that

teacherswho wish to use process dramaneed professionaltheatretraining,
but we do propose that, frequently,assumptionsare made abouttheirprior
learning in these areas that lead to gaps in what is made explicit during
their teachereducationprograms.
In our firstattemptto addressthese issues,we conceiveda text very much
at an entry-levelmode, which concentratedon taking the less-experienced
practitionerto the startingpoint of a process drama.4It was deliberatelya
pre-action text, designed to lay the foundations upon which a process
dramacan be built. In it, we set out what we considerto be the most important questions a teacher must ask herself before engaging with the action
phase of the drama,namely:
* With which area of human experiencedoes the teacherwish the pupils to engage?(Theme)
* What particularfictionalcircumstanceswill be createdby the drama
to explorethe theme?(Context)
* Who are the teacherand pupils going to be in the drama?(Role)
* Which viewpoint will the roles have in order to createtension in the
drama,and how distancedwill the roles need to be? (Frame)
* What artifacts,personal items, sounds, images, and so on will be
needed to bring significanceto the drama?(Sign)
* Whatways of working will be used in the drama?In which combinations?Forwhat purpose?(Strategies)5
By their scope and focus, these questions encompass the concernsof all of
the four functions in the planning stage-playwright, director,actor, and
teacher.
Working Principles in Action
However, in order to give close examination to each of the six planning
principles so as to do justice to them, it becomes necessary to discuss them
sequentially. The difficulty that arises from this is that, although this makes
for clarity about each principle, it makes less clear the actuality of them
working together simultaneously.
Moreover, given the pre-action focus of this examination, it does not
fully convey the range and complexity of the systems and dynamics at
work as the drama unfolds in action. The key examples we selected were
carefully developed to illustrate the planning process and to provide a
means by which to indicate the interrelatedness of the principles. We chose
to foreground the dynamics at work within the selection of strategies as being the most tangible and the most readily managed by the beginning drama
teacher in creating successful dramas with her pupils. However, given the
pre-action phase focus of the text, the examples are of necessity streamlined

62

PamelaBowell and Brian Heap

and certainly do not convey fully the range and complexity of the systems
and dynamics at work as a drama unfolds in action.
So in furthering our work, the need to move beyond the entry level, preaction mode in order to focus more sharply on the complexities of the process in action-while the drama is happening-becomes imperative. Once
again, the approach will be of necessity similar, in that not everything can
be dealt with at once-not least because the process becomes more complex. However, by moving beyond the first layer and attempting to map the
practice of process drama, we hope to illuminate the possibility of alternative pathways through the drama and how the teacher and pupils together
carve out their creative journey toward meaningful artistic and educative
outcomes.
Moving to the Next Layer
As teachers, we all know that the acquisition of human knowledge and understanding is not an immediate thing. It is gained slowly, in action, often
over a period of many years. Those who set out to enable such acquisition
need to recognize this and understand that success for their pupils will grow,
incrementally, step-by-step, layer-by-layer. In promoting process drama as
a vehicle for such development, we recognize that the nature of process
drama is itself incremental and subtly layered. The poet and artist William
Blake wrote, "He who would do good to another, must do it in minute particulars . .. For Art and Science cannot exist but in minutely organised
particulars."6
Stimulated by this thought and informed by our own practice, we have
set ourselves the task of trying to identify the sorts of "minute particulars"
that a teacher needs to "organize" in order to build an incremental, subtly
layered process drama. However, in beginning this task, we have become
particularly aware of the difficulties inherent in developing a truly dynamic
model for process drama as it "unfolds in time and space and through
action, reaction and interaction."7
In effect, we see three distinct but utterly interrelated sets of increment
and layering taking place as teacher and learners become ever more sophisticated in their engagement with process drama. The first lies within the
learning of the pupils, in terms of the content of the drama but also in terms
of their understanding and confidence in aesthetic engagement with the art
form. The second lies within the unfolding structure of the process drama,
and the third within the continuing development of the teacher's ability to
create a process drama. To become confident and subtle in the structuring
of learning experiences for and with her pupils, the teacher needs to have a
grasp of all of these things.
The difficulties facing any researcher in attempting to develop a model
for the dynamic of process drama are the same as those faced in developing

Drama on the Run

63

a model for theatregenerally.It seems to be an impossibletask to produce a

general model of process drama,since it would have to negotiate not only
all the variables of theatre and all the variables of education but also the
variablesof the broadercommunityand cultureand those of individualpupils. Recognizingthese difficulties,it seems sensible to take Blake'sadvice
and to apply the notion of incrementaldevelopmentto the task we have set
for ourselves.
Using the concept of a map as an analogy to help visualize the problem,
we perceive our earlierwork as offeringa detailedbut large-scaleoverview
of the planning phase of the drama,and we now feel the need to alter the
scale and focus of our scrutiny.So the next phase of our work will attempt
to move beyond the pre-actionphase, peeling off the outer layer in orderto
reveal and address some of the dynamics at work duringthe drama,in an
attemptto map the practice.
It needs to be emphasized here, however, that this does not contradict
CecilyO'Neillwhen she assertsthatprocessdramapractitionersare "guides
to new worlds, travellingwith incompletemaps ... trying to lead the way
while walking backwards,so that they do not become intent on reachinga
predetermineddestination as quickly as possible."8For us, too, a process
dramarepresentsa journeyinto the unknown or at least an unknown route
to potential destinations.We heartilyconcurwith her when she goes on to
say that in process drama "the experienceis the destination."We are not
suggesting it is desirable(or possible) to fill in the gaps in the "incomplete
maps" of the terrain of drama stories, but we are attempting to map the
terrainof theprocessthat makes the unfolding of those storiespossible.
The Challenge of the Map
The first challenge encountered then in mapping the process is the selection
of the starting point from the wide range of possibilities that are available.

However, in making our decision, we have chosen a place that for us lies at
the heart of the issue-the simultaneity of function and attendant action
that springsfromthe ways in which teacherand pupils need to engage with
process drama in order that it can happen.

As hinted at earlierin this article,part of the complex landscapeof process drama results from the teacher taking on the mantles of playwright,
director, and actor, but actually it is made more complex because the partici-

pantstake on these, too. This situationcreateschallenges,not least because

these functions are generally engaged simultaneously yet are driven by po-

tentially different needs-the teacher being learning-objectivedriven and

the pupils narrative driven-but the teacher also recognizing that in order
for the learning objective to be met, the narrative of the drama must create
the imperative in which the learning can take place.

64

PamelaBowelland BrianHeap

This is even further compounded by the spontaneous, essentially improvisatory nature of process drama in particular and the temporal nature of theatre in general. It happens in what Dorothy Heathcote termed "now time"on the run, if you will-and this presents a particular kind of challenge to the
teacher, who needs to be equipped to make creative and educative decisions
with confidence in the present moment of the drama.9

QuadripartiteThinking
It seems to us that, under these circumstances, the teacher or facilitator of
the drama needs to adopt a kind of quadripartite thinking in order to manage this complex, creative, educative process. This approach appears to
resonate with notions of "quaternities" as outlined by Richard Courtney"Quaternity methods generate multiple meanings, spatial and inclusive."10
But if we take a sort of Wurzel Gummidge analogy for a moment,1 then the
teacher requires
* the head of the playwright needing to think about how to help the
children craft the narrative so the story unfolds in a way that carries
within it the learning;
* the head of the director needing to steer the children to the learning
within the narrative through the best dramatic performance structure;
* the head of the actor needing to give a performance that engages and
beguiles the children and supports and challenges them in the creation
of their own roles;
* the head of the teacher needing to hold all of the other thinking simultaneously, together with knowledge and understanding of the
real context of the children, classroom, school, community, culture,
and curriculum.
But, unlike Wurzel Gummidge, she needs to wear all the heads at once, in
the metaxis between two worlds and four functions.
We believe that, for the teacher, establishing the quadripartite thinking is
actually the starting point for successful process drama, and getting to that
point involves much of the preparation outlined in our earlier work about
the pre-action planning phase. During this planning process, the principles
of theme, context, role, frame, sign, and strategies all actually require the
teacher to address them from the standpoints of the playwright, the director, the actor, and the teacher. The importance of this is that the distillation
of the teacher's planning in these areas results in the creation of a river
flowing through the dramatic experience where the narrative will unfold
and where the desired learning objective may be reached-a process that
we have described as "thehourglassdilemma."12
However, as she moves on from the pre-action phase and she and the
participants enter into "now time" and the drama begins, the teacher needs

Drama on the Run

65

to maintainthe four viewpoints in orderto provide support,challenge,and

guidance to the participantsso that the dramais sustained and developed
and broughtto its denouement.As the riverflows, it is the teacher'scontinuing thinking,in symbiosiswith thatof the pupils, thatshapes the exploration
of the landscapethat is now being created.
Given that to create a process drama is to work within the art form of
theatre, it becomes clear that the teacher will need to maintain the playwright/director/actor dimensions of her thinking as the drama unfolds.
As JonothanNeelands reminded us in his keynote address at the second
InternationalDramain EducationResearchInstitute:
Actorstrainso thatthey can controlgesture,time and space ... Directors learnto weave all of the temporal,spatialand physical actionson
the stage into the illusion of anotherworld. Playwrightsfill the artistic dimensionsof time, space and presencewith living and immediate
representationsof human behaviourand experience.
These are theatreskills that process dramademands of the facilitator.However, the fourth dimension springs from the understanding that process
drama is an educational genre of theatre. While, of course, we recognize
that all experienceof theatreis in a sense educative, process drama is explicitly a teaching theatre and demands the fourth skill-that of teacher.
This means then that the "four-headedness"we referredto earlieris a key
featurenot only of the pre-action,planningphase for the teacherbut also of
the active,now-time phase of the drama.
Yet there is a fifth dimension that we have still to mention. It is of as
greatimportanceas the others,and yet it does not stand alone, but ratherit
is melded inextricablywith each of them. It is the dimension of the selfspectator, and it seems to us that in order for the teacher to work in the
quadripartitemannerwe have suggested she needs a criticalawarenessof
herselfas she operatesin each function.
We are all familiarwith Boal's crucialidentificationof the "spectactor"
as the key conceptualizationof the participantin forum theatreand recognize the insight this has given to us as process dramapractitioners.14
What
we are proposing here is that while the teacherof process dramaneeds to
see herself as a "spectator-actor,"
she alsoneeds to see herself as a "spectaand "spectator-teacher"
in order
tor-playwright"and "spectator-director"
to createthe particularand essentialreflexivityrequiredto enableher pupils
in the drama.
Quadripartite Response
However, so far we have not yet referred to another equally important set
of considerations-those of the other participants in the drama-the pupils.

In symbiosis with the quadripartitethinkingof the teacher,the pupils need

66

Pamela Bowell and Brian Heap

to be able to make a quadripartite response to what is happening within the

drama so that they are in creative partnership with the teacher. The pupils
* learn how to contribute to the extension and deepening of the play
they are in and to feel sufficiently empowered to initiate further
developments of the narrative;
* learn by acquiring knowledge of the art form by doing it (as well as
knowledge of content) to have the confidence to initiate and implement
directorial decisions;
* learn how to respond and adjust behavior within fictional circumstances, adjusting and demonstrating behavior within that "other"
reality;
* make sense of the layering of experience as it moves toward the
possibility of some kind of self-transformation in the real context.
Of course, this quadripartite response also has embedded within it the
self-spectator, and because the pupils and teacher are engaged in a creative
ensemble, activating the "spectator-actor," "spectator-playwright," "spectator-director," and "spectator-learner" within the pupils is equally essential,
not least because, as Dorothy Heathcote pointed out in the video Pieces of
Dorothy, to be engaged in process drama is to be engaged in a process of
"education for self-direction."15 So the result of the quadripartite thinking
of the teacher, when experienced during the "now time" of the drama,
elicits a reciprocal quadripartite response from the pupils and initiates a
spiral of creative exchange whereby both experience the transformative
power of drama (Fig. 1). In this multifaceted spiral of creative discourse,
pupils provide feedback to the teacher, who in turn responds. The exchange
continues-pupils become teachers, the teacher learns, and all are affected.
This exchange relationship, generated as it is by the spiraled input/
feedback interchange of feelings, ideas, and perceptions between pupils
and teacher, creates the topography upon which shifts in the shape and direction of the drama can be initiated by both pupils and/or teacher. However, rich though this relationship is, there are further elements that impact
upon it and add further to its complexity. There are a host of other potential
shifts in the theatre/learning continuum that may derive from really quite
small adjustments to the building blocks of the drama-Blake's "minute
particulars" if you will.
The detailing of all such shifts, even if we were at all confident that we
had identified them all, is beyond the scope of this article. It is this task that
forms the basis of our ongoing collaborative research. Our continued enquiry will be into how these adjustments are identified, decided upon (or
rejected), initiated, and sustained, and for what purpose. We are also exploring what impact they have upon the dramatic structure of the process
drama, its unfolding narrative, and the learning outcomes that might

Drama on the Run

Teacher/Factitator - quadripartite thinking
- helpscraft
Spectator-Playwright
- storyunfolds
fols and
narrative
carraties
thler
.cares
thelearing

67

Pupl/Participant - quadripartite response

- learnshowto contribute
to
Spectator-Playwright
theextension/deepening
of theplaytheyarein andto feel
to
initiate
further
of
empowered
sufficiently
developments
- feedsbackto teacher..
narrative

...who is challengedto establishconsensuson the

nextstepandfeedbackto thepupils
- steersparticipants
to learning
Spectator-Director
bestdramatic
structure
through
- learnsby acquiring
Spectator-Director
knowledgeof theartformby engagingin it (and
to fictional
'^^-<^of
content)andappliedskillsof directing
^^~)~~
- feedsbackto theteacher...
circumstances
... whois furtherchallenged
to weavepupilresponse
intodramaandfeedbackto pupils

- givesa performance
whichengages,
Spectator-Actor
beguiles,supportsandchallengesthepupils
Spectator-Actor- learnshow to respondand
adjustbehaviourwithinfictionalcircumstances,
behaviour- feeds back to the
demonstrating
teacher...
... whois further
to respond
challenged
withherperformance
(andpossibly
newsetof negotiations)
andfeedbackto participants
- holdingeverything
Spectator-Teacher
togethertherealcontextof pupils,classroom,
school
and
curriculum
curriculum

~~anal~d

,,

-'

Spectator-Learner- makes sense of what is

Spectator-Learner
~goingon andrefinesknowledge,skills, attitudes
feedssomething
of this
and,in beingtransformed,
backto theteacherthroughperformance
...

to evaluate,extendthat
... whois further
challenged
transformation
andfeedbackto participants

Figure 1. Spiral of Creative Exchange.

emerge from the experience. Significantly, since actively pursuing our particular line of enquiry into the nature of this particular form of aesthetic engagement, we have been encouraged by the discovery of not entirely
dissimilar ideas about learning from researchers working more generically
in education that appear to lend support to our approach.
The "colleagueness" between pupils and teacher generated by the cocreativity of process drama resonates with what Gordon Wells describes as
"a community of enquiry."16 In exploring processes of learning, he identifies "the spiral of knowing" and proposes that " ... for new information to
lead to enhanced understanding, it must be individually appropriated and
transformed; this . . . occurs through collaborative knowledge building."17

68

Pamela Bowell and Brian Heap

It seems to us that this is precisely what process drama has the capacity to
enable; further enhanced, indeed, by the presence of the aesthetic. Moreover, in her discussion of the hallmarks of the "creative professional" in
education, Kate Ashcroft proposes a "model of reflective action" that suggests that the creative professional " .. . undertakes a systematic and critical diagnosis of the context for action."18This, we feel, could at least in part
describe the quadripartite thinking of the process drama practitioner.
Our earlier work was an attempt to take beginning drama teachers
through the pre-action phase of their planning. But extending this work
into the action phase of the drama presents a somewhat more daunting task
simply because there are so many more variables at work-the variables of
theatre, the variables of education, the variables of community and culture,
as well as the variables of individual difference in pupils and in teachers.
We acknowledged implicitly the quadripartite thinking that the teacher
must undertake, and elements of this thinking-that of spectator-playwright, spectator-director, spectator-actor, and spectator-teacher-are inherent within the planning elements of theme, context, role, frame, sign,
and strategies.
However, things become more complicated when attempting to reveal
how this quadripartite thinking in the teacher draws out a reciprocal quadripartite response in pupils. This response in turn initiates a spiral of interchange and dialectic simultaneously in each of these areas that drives the
drama forward, all of which is unfolding in the dimensions of space and
time. The selection of one from the many potential paths along which the
unfolding drama might move is sometimes determined by very small choices
made-those minute particulars that are capable of shifting the dramatic
action along a "spectrum of circumstance," thus profoundly affecting the
quality and direction of the learning outcomes offered by the experience.
The teacher, without losing sight of her commitment to her chosen learning
objectives, is faced with exchanges with pupils that not only demand a clear
and immediate response but that may further influence the direction of the
drama.
And so, the teacher, in addition to carrying the responsibility for coordinating the constantly changing theatre elements, including her own performance and register in and out of role, as well as forging a satisfying drama
experience in creative partnership with the pupils, must base everything in
praxis. Through this action with contemplation all these disparate elements
may be held cohesively together and simultaneously moved forward toward meaningful dramatic resolution and the release of the learning potential
inherent within it.
Our initial premise advocated the development of teacher-artists as a
means of mitigating the uncertainties of changing government priorities
and ensuring an ongoing, developmental arts education for children. We

Drama on the Run

69

recognized the value of teachers and visiting artists working together to

provide rich and fertile aesthetic experiences. We conclude by suggesting
that teachers who become adept process drama practitioners are teacherartists. By its nature, this genre of applied theatre draws teacher and learners into a creative, aesthetic, and educative crucible in which a powerful,
artistic partnership is forged. The dramas produced are by definition temporal; they exist only in the present moment. But the effect they generate
endures; both teacher and children are touched as the work they have created together as artists affects them all.

NOTES
1. J. Ackroyd, "AppliedTheatre:Problemsand Possibilities,"AppliedTheatreResearcher1, article 1, (2000), http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/cpci/atr/joural/
articlel_numberl.htm.
2. P. Bowell and B.S. Heap, Planning ProcessDrama (London: David Fulton
Publishers,2001),7.
3. For example, P. Taylor, "Afterthought:EvaluatingApplied Theatre,"Applied
TheatreResearcher,
3, article6 (2002),http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/cpci/atr/
joumal/article6_number3.htm.
4. Bowell and Heap, PlanningProcessDrama.
5. Bowell and Heap, PlanningProcessDrama,10.
6. W. Blake,Jerusalem:
TheEmanation
of theGiantAlbion(London:W. Blake,1804),
Chapter3, plate 55,1. 60.
7. Bowell and Heap, PlanningProcessDrama,7.
8. C. O'Neill, DramaWorlds:A Framework
for ProcessDrama(Portsmouth,N.H.:
Heinemann,1995),67.
9. L.Johnsonand C. O'Neill,eds., DorothyHeathcote:
Collected
Writingson Education
andDrama(London:Hutchinson,1984),162.
10. R. Courtney,Play,DramaandThought,4th ed., rev. (Toronto:Simon and Pierre,
1989),191.
11. Wurzel Gummidge-scarecrow characterfrom the classic children'sbook by
BarbaraEuphanTodd (1936)put on differentheads correspondingto the sorts
of thinkinghe needed to do.
12. P. Bowelland B.S. Heap, "TheSpectrumof Circumstance:TheInterconnectivity
of Context,Role and Framein ProcessDrama,"NJ DramaAustraliaJournal26,
no. 1/ IDEAJournal2 (2002),73.
13. J. Neelands, "ThreeTheatresWaiting:ArchitecturalSpace and Performance
Traditions,"TheResearch
(Victoria,B.C.:IDEA
of Practice,ThePracticeof Research
Publications,1998),149.
14. A. Boal,Theatre
(London:Pluto Press,1979).
of theOppressed
15. D. Heathcote,Piecesof Dorothy,videotape (Newcastle:Universityof Newcastle
upon Tyne, 1995).
16. G. Wells, "Inquiryas an Orientationfor Learning,Teachingand TeacherEducation,"in Learningfor
Lifein the21stCentury,ed. G. Wellsand G. Claxton(Oxford:
BlackwellPublishing,2002),200.
17. Ibid.,201.
18. K. Ashcroft,"Enquiryand the CreativeProfessional,"in TheCreative
Professional,
ed. K. Ashcroftand D. James(London:FalmerPress,1999),178.