Performing ‘Hope’: Authentic Story, Change and Transformation in Teacher Education

  • Peter WrightEmail author
Part of the Explorations of Educational Purpose book series (EXEP, volume 22)


This chapter describes the processes used to develop a collaborative project where the arts are used to both enquire into and express student’s lives in performative ways. It considers issues of identity and culture in the context of education, where pre-service teachers increasingly encounter enforced emphases on specific knowledge and where young people struggle to see a place for them. These collaborative performative processes strengthen communities, build trust, social and cultural capital, and build capacity within those who participate. The project provides a model of inclusivity for those who are rarely heard in contrast to those always heard. Drawing together person, context and content in performative ways allows opportunity for students to ‘see things as if they could be otherwise’ through issues that engage, stories that matter, and a deep understanding that flows from a pedagogy of making, thinking, feeling and creating as selves are made and remade.


Pedagogical Principle Somalian Woman Palestinian Woman Creative Possibility Peaceful Life 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Apple, M. W. (2011). Democratic education in neoliberal and neoconservative times. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21(1), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayers, W. (2002). Creating the teacher and changing the world. In E. Mirochnik & D. C. Sherman (Eds.), Passion and pedagogy: Relation, creation, and transformation in teaching (pp. 37–51). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  3. Barone, T., & Eisner, E. W. (2011). Arts based research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Boal, A. (2006). The aesthetics of the oppressed (A. Jackson, Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Boler, M. (1999). Feeling power: Emotions and education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Newly betwixt and between: Revising liminality in the context of a teacher education program. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 37, 110–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, J. H. (2008). Why our schools need the arts. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative Research, 1(1), 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dissanayake, E. (2007). Pleistocene and infant aesthetics. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 783–798). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisner, E. W. (1977). On the use of educational connoisseurship and educational criticism for the evaluation of classroom life. Teachers College Record, 78(3), 325–388.Google Scholar
  12. Eisner, E. W. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4–10.Google Scholar
  13. Eisner, E. W. (2003). Concerns and aspirations for qualitative research in the new millennium. In N. Addison & L. Burgess (Eds.), Issues in art and design teaching (pp. 52–60). London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  14. Finley, S. (2003). Arts-based inquiry in QI: Seven years from crisis to guerrilla warfare. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flecha, R. (2011). The dialogic sociology of education. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21(1), 7–20. doi: 10.1080/09620214.2011.543849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Ramos, Trans.). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Education.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1971). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  18. Gordon, G. (2007). What is play? In search of a universal definition. Retrieved from Accessed on 17 Jan 2010
  19. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Greene, M. (2001). Variations on a blue guitar: The Lincoln centre institute lectures on aesthetic education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Haseman, B. (1991). Improvisation, process drama and dramatic art. The Drama Magazine – The Journal of National Drama (July), 19–21.Google Scholar
  22. Keifer-Boyd, K. (2011). Arts-based research as social justice activism. International Review of Qualitative Research, 4(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  23. Kincheloe, J. L. (1999). Cultivating post-formal intra/interpersonal intelligence: Cooperative learning critically considered. In S. R. Steinberg, J. L. Kincheloe, & P. H. Hinchey (Eds.), The post-formal reader: Cognition and education (pp. 313–328). New York: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  24. Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of the arts in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). The phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  26. Millar, S. (1968). The psychology of play. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  27. Neelands, J. (1990). Structuring drama work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pinar, W. F. (2004). What is Curriculum Theory?. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Pinar, W. F. (2006). The Synoptic Text Today and Other Essays: Curriculum Development After the Reconceptualization. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  30. Peters, R. S. (1967). The concept of education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  31. Sontag, S. (1967). The aesthetics of silence. Aspen no. 5+6, item 3. Retrieved from Accessed on 17 Aug 2007
  32. Sontag, S. (1987). A Susan Sontag reader. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  33. Spolin, V. (1999). Improvisation for the theatre: A handbook of teaching and directing techniques (3rd ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Todres, L. (2007). Embodied enquiry: Phenomenological touchstones for research, psychotherapy and spirituality. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  36. Turner, V. (1967). Betwixt and between: The liminal period in rites de passage. In V. Turner (Ed.), The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Willis, P., & Trondman, M. (2000). Manifesto for ethnography. Ethnography, 1(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wright, P. R. (2002). Playing ‘betwixt’ and ‘between’ learning and healing. Playback Theatre for a troubled world. In B. Rasmussen & A. Ostern (Eds.), The IDEA dialogues 2001 (pp. 140–149). Bergen, Norway: International Drama Education Association.Google Scholar
  39. Wright, P. R. (2009). Teaching in arts education. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 1049–1060). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wright, P. R. (2011). Agency, intersubjectivity and drama education: The power to be and do more. In S. Schonmann (Ed.), Key koncepts in theatre/drama education (pp. 111–115). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wright, P. R., & Palmer, D. (2009). Big hART at John Northcott estate: Community, health and the arts. The UNESCO Observatory, Refereed E-Journal. Multi-Disciplinary Research in the Arts, 1(4). Retrieved from
  42. Zournazi, M. (2002). Hope: New philosophies for change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arts Education and Research MethodsMurdoch UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations