Drama: The Productive Pedagogy

J. O’Toole
{"title":"Drama: The Productive Pedagogy","authors":"J. O’Toole","doi":"10.1080/17508480209556401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How things change. And how attitudes to change change. Twenty five years ago I started teaching drama in Queensland though the word drama did not exist formally in the schools or in any curriculum documents, other than two yellow supplementary pages in the four hundred page Language Arts Syllabus. The first school I went into, the Principal greeted me with a guffaw and 'Drama oh there's no shortage of drama in my school!' meaning that there was no drama at all but a lot of behaviour problems. A depressing number of class teachers would meet me defensively with 'Oh these children aren't very creative, I'm afraid', as if this was normal. All that meant was that the teacher was not trained or expected to notice creativity, certainly not to nurture it; 'creative' behaviour meant 'problem' behaviour. In my first year there was a big row in the Education Department over whether the phrase 'education for change' could be used in a curriculum document. The phrase was dropped because of severe government pressure. Social change, or students even thinking about it, was something that the Queensland National Party Cabinet of 1976 did not want, consisting as it did of thirteen elderly men, mostly farmers, who had all left school before they were twelve, except one who had stayed till thirteen so they made him Minister for Education. Every new government through the whole period since then, five of diem in all, has responded to ongoing public concern about education by public rhetoric promising renewed emphasis on 'Back to the Basics' or 'The Three Rs'. Nevertheless, often surreptitiously or even accidentally at first, change has been happening, until now it is perhaps the central word in the new rhetoric of education. The often unconsciously positivistic, hierarchical and behaviouristic assumptions that have underlaid schooling systems since the acts of the 1870s when they were founded are under siege from the realities inside and outside the schools that contradict the simplistic political refrain of 'the basics'. The curriculum and the organisation of schooling have been challenged from inside and outside. The education systems are trying to catch up with the rhetoric and the scholarship of education as process and education for change. This has been a fairly congruent common academic currency at least since Dewey, who is significantly coming back into fashion. This currency is expressed in a range of paradigms and educational settings, often embodied in vigorous debate.","PeriodicalId":347655,"journal":{"name":"Melbourne Studies in Education","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Melbourne Studies in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480209556401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

How things change. And how attitudes to change change. Twenty five years ago I started teaching drama in Queensland though the word drama did not exist formally in the schools or in any curriculum documents, other than two yellow supplementary pages in the four hundred page Language Arts Syllabus. The first school I went into, the Principal greeted me with a guffaw and 'Drama oh there's no shortage of drama in my school!' meaning that there was no drama at all but a lot of behaviour problems. A depressing number of class teachers would meet me defensively with 'Oh these children aren't very creative, I'm afraid', as if this was normal. All that meant was that the teacher was not trained or expected to notice creativity, certainly not to nurture it; 'creative' behaviour meant 'problem' behaviour. In my first year there was a big row in the Education Department over whether the phrase 'education for change' could be used in a curriculum document. The phrase was dropped because of severe government pressure. Social change, or students even thinking about it, was something that the Queensland National Party Cabinet of 1976 did not want, consisting as it did of thirteen elderly men, mostly farmers, who had all left school before they were twelve, except one who had stayed till thirteen so they made him Minister for Education. Every new government through the whole period since then, five of diem in all, has responded to ongoing public concern about education by public rhetoric promising renewed emphasis on 'Back to the Basics' or 'The Three Rs'. Nevertheless, often surreptitiously or even accidentally at first, change has been happening, until now it is perhaps the central word in the new rhetoric of education. The often unconsciously positivistic, hierarchical and behaviouristic assumptions that have underlaid schooling systems since the acts of the 1870s when they were founded are under siege from the realities inside and outside the schools that contradict the simplistic political refrain of 'the basics'. The curriculum and the organisation of schooling have been challenged from inside and outside. The education systems are trying to catch up with the rhetoric and the scholarship of education as process and education for change. This has been a fairly congruent common academic currency at least since Dewey, who is significantly coming back into fashion. This currency is expressed in a range of paradigms and educational settings, often embodied in vigorous debate.
戏剧:多产的教育学
事情是如何变化的。以及对改变的态度是如何改变的。25年前,我开始在昆士兰州教授戏剧,尽管戏剧这个词在学校和任何课程文件中都没有正式出现,除了400页的《语言艺术大纲》中的两张黄色补充页。我去的第一所学校,校长用一阵狂笑和“戏剧哦,我们学校从不缺少戏剧!”也就是说,除了很多行为问题外,根本没有什么戏剧性的事情发生。令人沮丧的是,很多班主任见到我都会带着防卫的语气说:“哦,恐怕这些孩子不太有创造力”,好像这很正常似的。这一切都意味着,老师没有受过训练,也没有被期望去注意创造力,当然也没有被期望去培养创造力;“创造性”行为意味着“问题”行为。在我的第一年,教育部门就“教育变革”这句话是否可以用在课程文件上发生了很大的争吵。由于政府的巨大压力,这句话被删除了。1976年的昆士兰国家党内阁不希望发生社会变革,甚至不希望学生们想到社会变革,因为内阁中有13个老人,大多数是农民,他们都在12岁之前离开了学校,只有一个人一直待到13岁,所以他们任命他为教育部长。从那以后的每一届新政府,总共有五届,都以公开的言辞回应公众对教育的持续关注,承诺重新强调“回归基础”或“三个r”。然而,一开始常常是秘密地,甚至是偶然地,变化一直在发生,直到现在,它可能是教育新修辞中的中心词。自19世纪70年代学校制度建立以来,经常无意识地构成学校制度基础的实证主义、等级制度和行为主义假设,正受到学校内外现实的围攻,这些现实与“基础”的简单政治克制相矛盾。课程和学校组织受到了来自内部和外部的挑战。教育系统正试图赶上修辞和学术教育的过程和教育的变化。至少从杜威开始,这已经成为一种相当一致的共同学术货币,他正在显著地回归时尚。这种货币表现在一系列范例和教育环境中,通常体现在激烈的辩论中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信