Page 59 [59]
OCR
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 subjectbased 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
