Abstract
Arguments have been made about the need for more active and creative teaching and learning in higher education (Tepper S, and Lindemann D, Chang Mag High Learn 46:20–23, 2014); yet higher education often uses transmission focused forms of education like lectures and tests. Recent research on embodiment in sociology, philosophy and cognitive sciences suggests conceptual linkages between embodied ways of knowing, lived experiences and creativity. This exploratory, cross-case study uses thematic analysis to consider the use of performative embodiment as a creative teaching and learning approach in an arts integration course for undergraduate students. Through a process-tracing analysis of key course assignments, grading notes, and post-course interviews, I construct and compare three separate “cases” of students’ experience of learning in the course over time. Findings suggest that using performative embodiment in an arts integration course may provide a dialogic, multimodal way for students to increase their sense of belonging in the classroom, to explore the value of the arts in education, to understand the importance of the body in learning, and to understand themselves as learners in education and professional contexts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I use the combined term drama/theatre in this chapter to recognize my use of drama pedagogy (non-performative theatre methods which explore character, conflict, and story) and theatre practices (the skills and techniques of making and interpreting theatrical performance) in this study.
- 2.
Data was collected for all 43 students throughout the semester through the common course assessments and in-class assignments. As a researcher, I did not know which students had self-selected to opt into the study until after final grades were submitted to avoid any bias towards students in class or during the grading of assignments.
- 3.
Efforts were made to find the three cases of the four that were “most different” or diverse for comparison amongst participants’ reported identity demographics (George and Bennett 2005, p. 165). Race/ethnicity of students was not reported in this study though it is self-identified in students’ work. Gender identity and gender expression (e.g., personal pronouns) were reported in a student intake form. Gender identity and expression were consistent across all four participants; all four participants identify as cis-gender women so this was not a point of difference in the study sample, which is a limitation of the study.
- 4.
Key factors in Anna’s final grade for the course were two missing assignments and one incomplete assignment. The work that was completed was of high quality.
- 5.
Unfortunately, I don’t have documentation of the facilitated verbal reflection that occurred after each performance.
- 6.
Based on this discovery and larger class sizes, in subsequent semesters instructors required all students to work in groups for their Recipe performances.
- 7.
In the current course structure, students end Module Three through a role play. Each student is given a $250,000.00 grant to award to the most deserving organization. After students select their organization (it does not need to be their own) they create a collective, embodied performative argument to defend their choice. Faculty have found that the dialogic meaning-making aspects of this revised role play help to synthesize and illuminate student understanding in productive ways.
References
Anderman, L. H. (2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of change in middle school students’ sense of school belonging. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(1), 5–22.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Aukerman, M. (2013). Rereading comprehension pedagogies: Toward a dialogic teaching ethic that honors student sensemaking. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, A1–A31.
Berdayes, V., Esposito, L., & Murphy, W. (2004). The body in human inquiry: Interdisciplinary explorations of embodiment. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
Bresler, L. (2004). Knowing bodies, moving minds: Towards embodied teaching and learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Buskist, W., & Saville, B. K. (2001). Rapport-building: Creating positive emotional contexts for enhancing teaching and learning. APS Observer, 13(3). Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/rapport-building-creating-positive-emotional-contexts-for-enhancingteaching-and-learning
Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Crouch, M., & McKenzie, H. (2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483–499.
Dawson, K. (2015). My Alaskan education: From service to sustainability. In P. Duffy (Ed.), What was I thinking: A reflective practitioner’s guide to (mis)adventures in drama education (pp. 129–145). London: Intellect.
Dawson, K., Cawthon, S., & Baker, S. (2011). Drama for schools: Teacher change in an applied theatre professional development model. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 16(3), 313–335.
Dawson, K., & Lee, B. K. (2018). Drama-based pedagogy: Activating learning across the curriculum. London: Intellect.
Dewey, J. (1938). Art as experience. New York: Collier Macmilliam.
Edmiston, B. (2014). Transforming teaching and learning with active and dramatic approaches: Engaging students across the curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning: Media architecture pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gilmore, P., & McDermott, R. (2006). And this is how you shall ask: Linguistics, anthropology, and education in the work of David Smith. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37(2), 199–211.
Hall, R., & Nemirovsky, R. (2012). Introduction to the special issue: Modalities of body engagement in mathematical activity and learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 207–215.
Ivinson, G. (2012). The body and pedagogy: Beyond absent, moving bodies in pedagogic practice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(4), 489–506.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688.
Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2012). Rereading “a pedagogy of multiliteracies”: Bodies, texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), 22–46.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case studies as qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.
Perry, M., & Medina, C. (2011). Embodiment and performance in pedagogy research: Investigating the possibility of the body in curriculum experience. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 27(3), 62–75.
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York: Grossman.
Plucker, J., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2006). Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, K. (2011). What makes good teachers great? In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and Improvisation in creative teaching (pp. 1–24). London: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511997105.
Sawyer, R. K. (2013). Zig Zag: The surprising path to greater creativity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Silverstein, L. B., & Layne, S. (2010). Defining arts integration. The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts: ArtsEdge. Retrieved from http://www.kennedy-center.org/education/partners/defining_arts_integration.pdf
Smith, L. (1978). An evolutionary logic of participant observation, educational ethnography and other case studies. In L. Schulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 316–377). Ithaca: Peacock.
Tepper, S., & Lindemann, D. (2014). Perspective: For the money? For the love? Reconsidering the “worth” of a college major. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(2), 20–23.
Tobin, J. (2004). The disappearance of the body in early childhood education. In L. Bresler (Ed.), Knowing bodies, moving minds: Towards embodied teaching and learning (pp. 111–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Torrance, E. P. (1974/2008). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing Service.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wilcox, H. (2009). Embodied ways of knowing, pedagogies and social justice: Inclusive science and beyond. NWSA Journal, 21(2), 104–120.
Acknowledgements:
I acknowledge the intellectual and creative efforts of my faculty colleagues and co-designers of FA 308: Arts Integration for Multidisciplinary Connections at The University of Texas at Austin: Dr. Christina Bain, Dr. Tina Curran, and Prof. Lara Dossett, along with the many talented graduate students who worked with FA 308 over the years. I also acknowledge the efforts of UT graduate student Hillary Vincent who conducted the post-course interviews as part of her master’s thesis work with our FA 308 data set. The labor-intensive rewards of FA 308 continue to be generously supported by the College of Fine Arts Dean, Dr. Doug Dempster, and the Associate Dean of Fine Arts Education, Dr. Hunter March. Without their ongoing belief in arts-based approaches to innovation, FA 308 would not exist.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dawson, K. (2018). Performative Embodiment as Learning Catalyst: Exploring the Use of Drama/Theatre Practices in an Arts Integration Course for Non-Majors. In: Burgoyne, S. (eds) Creativity in Theatre. Creativity Theory and Action in Education, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78928-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78928-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78927-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78928-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)