Oldal 59 [59]
CHAPTER ONE: LIVING THROUGH DRAMA
of significance. Fleming’s criticism also raises the question if structuring
the lessons in advance — as we have seen in the case of both Bolton and Davis
— makes the risk of failure smaller.
The question raised seems to be one that is useful to ask in relation to
any educational process or event. Whether a process is ‘worth’ the invested
time and energy can be seen very differently from different points of view.
Fleming for example explains that as a young teacher he learnt a lot from
the ‘disasters’, which can be seen as a positive outcome in the long term for
the teacher, but perhaps not as useful for the students as could be. In other
cases it could be the other way round in case the teacher is unable to achieve
his/her learning objectives. I return to this issue in the last chapter to see how
the findings of the research reflect on this question.
LTD: inaccessible and vague
Hornbrook says that “the narrow sectarianism of its methodologies together
with a lack of curiosity concerning the intellectual or artistic world beyond
its own very limited bibliography” led educational drama out of the subject¬
based curriculum “into the wilderness”.!°! In the same book he also argues that
Heathcote and Bolton have become vague and unclear in their writings bringing
an example of Heathcote drawing a face to describe what theatre is.!°?
Neelands sees his role as democratising drama teaching by making
accessible the work of “great but often mysterious drama educators”.!”
Fleming also refers to the implicit assumption among authors writing from
a living through approach that there is a highly skilled teacher involved in
realising the lessons.'** Davis on the other hand, argues that teacher training
and literature published in the field of drama education does not provide
enough theoretical support for teachers to be able to create living through
experiences of drama. In his recent book he provides a number of theoretical
inputs that relate directly to the practice of drama teaching.’ These are
examined later.
This issue opens much ground for subjectivity. While conducting this
literature survey I found dozens of clearly formulated and well written
publications, dating back a couple of decades, that offer theoretical and
methodological guidance on facilitating drama. On the other hand I have
experienced the problems caused by a formulaic approach to drama in my own
practice. Because of its complexities this critique can only be discussed together
181 Hornbrook: Education, 40.
Referring to an image in Heathcote-Bolton: Drama for learning.
Neelands: Prologue, xvii.
Fleming: Teaching drama in Primary and secondary, 9.
Davis: Imagining the Real.
193
194
195
s 58 e