This initial evaluation of D4LC was of Phase 1 of D4LC (Drama for Learning and Creativity) and was carried out by Dr David Simpson of Brighton University in 2005. Since then the methods of evaluation have changed, Please visit the website to read more www.d4lc.org

1. ‘Drama for Learning and
Creativity’
[September 2005 – July 2006]
An evaluation for National Drama, NESTA and Norfolk
County Council
Dr. D A Simpson (University of Brighton, School of
Education)

2. Foreword
‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ has been a learning journey for all the
teachers and consultants involved. The success of the project is due to their
individual and collective energy. There is a passionate commitment to whole
class Drama as a teaching and learning medium throughout the three phases
of the fieldwork period. Without exception, there is a determination to move
children’s learning forward. The participants recognise that the project also
represents a way to improve their own and others’ understanding of what it
is to be a teacher in the early part of the twenty-first century.
‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is successful in meeting the criteria set
out in the Bid Document.
The findings to support this judgement are presented in the following groups
of bullet points.
The management of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
• The management and structure of the action research ensures there is a
clearly identified, evidence-oriented and manageable core for each of
the schools’ projects. It is a very strong feature of the project.
Use of funding
• The use made of the funds available is entirely appropriate to the
demands and needs of a research project.
• There is evidence of careful forward planning for the dissemination of
the project’s findings.
2

3. Research methodology
• The research methodology that underpins the school-based action
research enables teachers and consultants to collaborate in sustained,
thoughtful ways. It sees the teachers assume responsibility for the
direction of their fieldwork. There is consistent evidence that this
responsibility has a profound effect on the teachers’ thinking about
whole class Drama teaching, and its practice in the classroom.
• Two related parts of the school-based action research are highly
effective. The seminars to bring together teachers and consultants help
both parties to realise their roles. They are a major contribution to the
excellent working relationships between teachers and consultants.
Second, the precise allocation of consultants makes sure that expertise
is matched with schools. This deepens the first two school-based
phases of the fieldwork.
• The teachers’ initial research questions are adapted, discussed with
consultants and developed in ways which add depth to the action
research. The evidence available shows that one outcome of such
deliberation is whole class teaching which stimulates and engages
pupils of all ages and abilities.
The impact of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
• The entry and exit questionnaires are evidence that an increasing
number of schools now use Drama regularly as a methodology. Over
90% of schools surveyed state that Drama is influencing their
development plans. Drama is now a significant priority for over half
the schools in the survey, an increase of over 15%.
• The exit questionnaire shows that all schools in the survey (100%) now
have Drama in their improvement plans.
3

4. • ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ influences head-teachers as well
as teachers. This suggests that the schools in the survey are developing
both the policy and practice of whole class Drama teaching, with over
80% of the primary and middle schools surveyed now having a teacher
responsible for Drama.
• Over 90% of the teachers surveyed report an increase in their
confidence to teach Drama.
• The data points to a connection between confidence, knowledge and
skill that has implications for the future of Drama teaching, especially
at Key Stages One and Two.
• The teachers’ journals show that pupils respond positively to what
whole class Drama offers them as learners. There is consistent evidence
that pupils think that it provides them with opportunities for affective
and cognitive engagement with their learning.
• By the time of the end of the project over 95% of the teachers surveyed
are working with Drama in an increasing number of subjects.
• There are equally firm quantitative indicators that the increase in the
curriculum areas which feature Drama is matched by a rise in the time
allocated on a regular basis to Drama. Over a third of schools now
allocate more than an hour a week to Drama.
• Teachers now work in the classroom with a significantly increased
range of Drama conventions. Teacher in role, Hot seating and Thought
tracking are far more evident in teacher’s work. As a result there is a
different Drama ‘diet’ emerging which has the potential to broaden
significantly children’s learning opportunities.
• Drama is now viewed to be a means to develop pupils’ thinking.
Teachers associate it with creative thinking, communication and
expressive skills. Examples from three projects show that pupils take
part in speculation, hypothesis making and testing, searching for
reasons and making justifications rather than looking for the ‘right’
4

5. answer. They experience standing in another person’s shoes and the
exploration of other viewpoints than their own.
Publications
• The project is meeting its targets of producing high-quality
publications directed at a range of audiences. For example, there has
been print media coverage in the Times Educational Supplement, a
web site became operational in January 2006 and an academic paper is
to be presented at a major European conference on creativity. A CD
ROM, which has accompanying materials, has been completed.
Communication with the management group of ‘Drama for Learning and
Creativity’ during the period September 2005 – July 2006
The ease of communication with the project management group means there
is no difficulty with gaining access to any material necessary for the three
phase evaluations. One result is the availability of a substantial body of data
for this report. There are, therefore, quotations from teachers and pupils as
well as references from teachers and consultants’ writing in the main body of
the report.
Regular contact with the project management team not only makes writing
the fieldwork’s three phase evaluations easier but it also enables me to act
more as a critical friend to the project. This gives me an opportunity to
undertake a learning journey too. It encourages me to think about how I see
the role and shape of Drama teaching, especially in the light of government
proposals for initial teacher education, and the school curriculum more
generally.
5

6. As with the three phase evaluations, the writing of this report is actively
encouraged and supported by Lorraine Harrison, Head of the School of
Education.
D A Simpson
University of Brighton, School of Education,
Falmer, Brighton BN1 9PH
ds116@bton.ac.uk
01273 643376 October 2006
6

7. Contents
Page
Foreword 2
Contents 7
Tables and Appendices 8
Introduction - ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ 10
Evaluation Methodology 15
Results from ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ 22
Moving On 63
Bibliography 69
Appendices 71
7

8. Tables and Appendices
Tables
Table One The original research questions
Table Two The subject areas where Drama is in use by the end of ‘Drama
for Learning and Creativity’
Table Three The combinations in teachers’ choices of the five purposes of
Drama
Table Four Drama conventions in the classroom
Table Five Combinations in the teachers’ choices of the five purposes of
Drama
Table Six Planet Perfecton
Table Seven Owl Babies
Table Eight Rainforest
Appendices
Appendix 1 Funding for ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
Appendix 2 Success criteria
Appendix 3 Evaluation schedule
8

9. Appendix 4 Are more schools now using Drama?
Appendix 5 Teacher confidence and Drama teaching
Appendix 6 What impact is Drama having on learning and creative
outcomes?
Appendix 7 Extracts from a research teacher’s diary
Appendix 8 Extract from a research teacher’s log
9

10. 1. Introduction - ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
Introduction
‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is initiated by Norfolk LEA. NESTA
provides a major source of financial support. There is assistance on a much
smaller scale from the University of Brighton School of Education who fund
release from teaching for its evaluation and dissemination.
The project investigates the capacity of whole class Drama to initiate, sustain
and enhance children’s creativity and learning. It involves 60 schools in
Norfolk LEA during the academic year 2005/6, with evaluation and
dissemination running from June 2006 to May 2007. At its centre there are 14
schools which are designated as research schools. In these primary, middle
and secondary schools, teachers work with consultants on a variety of whole
class, teacher-initiated and managed projects. They are designed to stimulate
creativity through Drama-based teaching and learning.
The project’s structure and organisation
‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is a collaborative venture. Teachers and
consultants concentrate on how Drama can develop children’s creative
capabilities. There is a management group of three, all of whom act as
consultants to the schools in the project. It is led by Patrice Baldwin, Advisor
for the Arts (Norfolk LEA) and Chair of National Drama, with two
consultants, Pam Bowell (Kingston University and a former Chair of National
Drama) and Kate Fleming (Drama Consultant and Vice Chair of National
Drama). All three are experienced, highly-regarded Drama teachers with
substantial classroom backgrounds. All have taken part in small-scale Drama
and Arts projects before and are published widely in this field. Advice and
support for the project management team comes from the Executive
10

11. Committee of National Drama, the principal subject organisation for Drama
in the United Kingdom.
The funding allows for two levels of involvement, an inner group of 14
chosen research schools and an outer looser grouping of over 50 schools
(fuller details of the funding and expenditure are in Appendix 1). The inner
group is made up of schools from Key Stages One to Four, with pupils from
Reception to Year 10 taking part. Both the inner and outer levels of
involvement work on investigations into Drama teaching and learning. The
first seminar for the inner group of research schools (November 2005)
emphasises the collaborative nature of the project. Teachers from the
research schools work with the consultants to shape the wording and form of
their project. Following the seminar the consultants spend half a day in each
school on the research school’s chosen investigation. This takes several
patterns. For example, in some schools a consultant leads a teaching session
whilst in others the teaching is shared or the consultant joins the Drama in an
agreed role. In the period from January to May 2006 the consultants make a
second visit to their delegated schools, and both teachers and consultants
meet for a further twilight seminar. Throughout the fieldwork teachers and
consultants are in regular contact via email, phone and the exchange of longer
documents.
The outer group, which comprises over 50 more schools, are also visited twice
between November 2005 and May 2006. Visits are made by either Patrice
Baldwin, a Drama consultant or a local authority advanced skills teacher. Like
the inner group, the outer group have two visits and are offered help and
advice. However, they do not work to an agreed research question.
The project management team meets on a number of occasions. It also meets
with the executive of National Drama which enables reports on work in
progress, as well as questions about the fieldwork, to be discussed fully with
11

12. leading members of the Drama subject community. As each phase of the
fieldwork finishes, the project evaluator reports on how far and to what
extent the project is meeting its targets (see Appendix 2). This sets up a
dialogue between the evaluator and project management team that lasts for
the length of the fieldwork.
Background to ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
The project is the first in depth, classroom based Drama research project
initiated by a national drama subject association – National Drama – in
partnership with a local education authority.
The project focuses on the relationships between whole class Drama teaching,
creativity and learning. It comes from the project management group’s belief
in Drama as something which is highly engaging to pupils. In their view
Drama:
• Develops pupils’ inter-thinking and learning;
• Stimulates creativity through role play and sustained imaginative
experience;
• Enables visual, auditory and kinaesthetic access, understanding
and expression;
• Focuses on engaging empathically in ways that combine the
cognitive and affective.
[Bid Document, Section B4]
Drama is seen as an inclusive, multi-faceted agency for the holistic
development of children as learners. For the project management team, it is a
learning medium that utilises a range of intelligences. They believe these
engage all learners in ways which often go beyond the prescribed methods
and formal teaching that dominate the current curriculum [Bid Document,
Section B4].
12

13. The management team’s view of Drama is in sympathy with ‘All Our
Futures,’ the 1999 government report into the Arts. This report provides a
definition of creativity which they support and use in their bid application.
Creativity [NACCE 1999: 12] is:
“Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes
that are both original and of value.”
The management group adopt this definition for two reasons. The local
authority’s schools work within a curriculum framework that endorses this
report. The ‘Every Child Matters’ policy [DfES 2005] draws on ‘All Our
Futures’ and shares its commitment to a creative curriculum in which
imaginative enquiry are part of all pupils’ entitlement. ‘All Our Futures’ itself
refers to its description of creativity as a democratic one. This is in keeping
with two key, related areas of the project, what happens in the classroom and
the sharing of ideas between teachers and consultants. The interplay between
classroom and discussion - which is led by ideas rather than by either
teachers or consultants - is a sharing, supportive one that is part of the
approach to the Arts championed by ‘All Our Futures.’ It relies upon equal
voices in and out of the classroom.
‘All Our Futures’ goes on to state that creative thinking and behaviour is
always imaginative, purposeful, original and valuable. The management
group take this further in order to identify what they consider to be the
”features” of drama within a context of creativity and learning [Bid
Document, Section B5]. They choose five features of creative thinking and
behaviour from the QCA document ’Creativity: Find it, Promote it’ [QCA
2005]. These are:
• Questioning and challenging;
• Exploring ideas, keeping options open;
• Making connections and seeing relationships;
• Envisaging what might be;
• Reflecting critically on ideas, actions and outcomes.
13

14. The five “types of behaviour” are to be exemplified by the processes and
outcomes of the research schools’ projects [Bid Document, Section B5].
The success criteria for ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
The success criteria come from the Bid Document. They are arranged under
three headings, Classroom Centred, Drama Subject Community and
Influence on Government Curriculum Policy (Appendix 2).
The QCA Creativity Criteria [QCA 2005] are referred to extensively in Section
3.6. This Section is where the impact of Drama on learning and creative
outcomes is analysed in detail. The QCA criteria are assumed to be part of the
success criteria.
The production of high quality publications is seen as an important
contribution to debates about Drama and learning at the start of the twenty-
first century, and a way to influence government curriculum policy. The
management team feel that whole class Drama does not have the profile
which it deserves within education. They believe there is a need to raise the
profile of Drama overall, both as a subject and an area for research.
Consequently they attach importance to the quality of the written outcomes,
as well as recognising that there are a number of audiences who may well
require different publications.
14

15. 2. Evaluation Methodology
‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ seeks to explore how whole class Drama
enriches teaching and learning. At the same time it aims to raise the
educational profile of drama.
The evaluation of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is scheduled to run from September 2005
until May 2007. The school-based action research, which is the fieldwork part
of the project, takes up the academic year 2005/6. This length of time, coupled
with the diversity of activities that take place during the fieldwork, leads to a
two-stage evaluation. In stage one, each phase of the school-based action
research – evaluative, formative, and summative - is evaluated immediately it
finishes. The phase evaluations focus on how the work proceeds, as well as
providing information for the funding agencies. They also show the
management group how much has been achieved (Appendix 3 is an overview
of the evaluation schedule).
The second stage of the evaluation is based on data analysis. There are two
sources of data; replies and responses from questionnaires and teachers’
writing undertaken as part of the action research. An entry questionnaire is
completed at the start of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ in September
2005 and an exit one at the finish of the classroom-centred action research in
the summer of 2006. The entry questionnaire is a snap-shot of drama teaching
with separate questionnaires for head-teachers and teachers. The head-teacher
questionnaire concentrates on the overall presence and organisation of Drama
in the school and its wider curriculum. 45 replies are received by the end of
October 2005. The teacher questionnaire looks at the classroom and use of
Drama by teachers. 76 replies are received in the same period. The exit
questionnaire has a number of different questions. It follows up issues raised
15

16. by the entry questionnaire (for example, the time allocated to Drama within
the school). This is because one purpose is to give comparative data to enable
‘before’ and ‘after’ to be included in this evaluation. But it is also designed to
be a response to both the on-going action research in schools and the entry
questionnaire. A number of ideas from the second and third phases of the
fieldwork do feed into the action research. They provide information that
helps to re-formulate a number of the exit questionnaire’s items, in particular
those which ask for written replies of one or two sentences or longer. 43 head-
teachers and 45 teachers reply to this questionnaire.
The second source of data is an extensive sample of written materials
collected from the research school teachers and consultants. The qualitative
data from the teacher logs and diaries is coded and categorised using
standard research approaches [for example Mason 1996; Riley 1992]. An
identical method is used with the teachers’ replies to the open ended
responses from both questionnaires. It ensures that all prose is analysed in the
same way and makes it more likely that the final writing is accurate and
reliable. All the categorised data is then read against the quantitative data for
comparative purposes.
The qualitative and quantitative data are brought together in the evaluation.
The intention is to present a rounded analysis that captures a sense of the
daily life of contemporary whole class Drama teaching. It is also a way to
work with data whereby the voice of teachers and pupils can be heard. This is
necessary if the evaluation is to capture the flavour of how the project meets
its stipulated criteria.
The technique brings with it matters of permission and confidentiality.
Participating teachers and head-teachers are expected to return the
questionnaires, and – as far as possible – are guaranteed confidentiality. A
similar assurance is given for the teachers’ logs and diaries. However,
16

17. individual, informed consent from pupils to use what they say or write in the
documents written by the teachers is implicit and assumed to be included
within the explicit teacher permission. An assumption is made about
permission to quote from the pupil work that is submitted by a teacher as part
of their action research. Questions about such assumptions are ethical issues
that confront any writer who wants to portray the lived experience of a school
[Hammersley and Atkinson 1995]. Mason [1996: 31] warns against using the
“least stringent set of moral criteria” in order to justify a duplicitous action.
For Hammersley and Atkinson [1995] what is appropriate and inappropriate
depends on the context. A writer has to decide if there are necessary and
sufficient grounds for believing that he has, in good faith, permission to print
quotations from children’s written and spoken words.
There is also uncertainty about confidentiality. Although teachers and pupils
are not identified in the evaluation, there are indications of the location of
schools and teachers within the data. For example, a school’s project may be
known to the parents and possibly, via the school’s web site, to a literally
universal audience. For this reason the extracts from the teachers’ logs and
diaries which are to be found in the Appendices are edited to remove as much
identification as possible. It is the reason why the pupils’ comments are
excluded from the Appendices. Therefore, direct references to pupils and
teachers are kept to a minimum to avoid invalidating the evaluation or
breaching the moral code expected of a writer who deals with material that is
confidential. It would be easy to refer to the quantitative data alone, and so
avoid some of the features of the debates about permission and
confidentiality. To do so would present an incomplete as well as false picture
of what the project sets out to achieve.
It is hoped that readers of the evaluation bear these issues in mind, and
understand the reasons for the limited presence of supporting extracts from
teachers’ logs and diaries.
17

18. Research Methodology of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
The principal methodology of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is
classroom-based action research. Data collection and interpretation are
carried out by teachers and consultants who work together on whole class
teaching and the reflection that stems from this teaching.
Action research is a group of research methodologies that simultaneously
pursue action (or change) and research (or understanding)
[http://www.scu.edu.au/schools]. They are methodologies based upon a
Plan-Act-Observe-Reflect cycle or “spiral process which alternates between
action and critical reflection.” Action research:
“….tries to work towards effective action through good processes
and appropriate participation. It tries also to collect adequate data,
and interpret it well. At its best, action research is done so that the
action and the research enhance each other.”
[Dick: http: //www.scu.edu.au/schools]
Action research is a continual interplay between action and reflection [Searle
2004]. McNiff refers to this inter-relationship as a form of self reflective
practice [http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1]. As those working on an
action research project begin to effect change, so the data collection methods,
the data itself and earlier interpretations are reviewed and revised [Cohen
and Mannion 2002] ‘in the light of understandings developed in the earlier
cycles of the process’ [http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/]. The collaboration
between teachers and consultants in this project relies on action research to
inter-relate action and reflection; teachers and consultants, action and
reflection all guide and shape each other in a mutually responsive as well as
dynamic manner. The active and the reflective are central, equal elements of a
collaborative research process that underpins the project.
18

19. Three issues in the evaluation of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
In addition to debates about permission and confidentiality, a further issue
for an evaluator of an action research project is whether it is possible to
remain an outsider during the period of data collection. In any project where
data gathering and reflection are combined, the direction the work takes may
well be determined by a combination of “accident and happenstance” as well
as planning [Von Mannen 1988:2]. McKeganey and Barnard [1996: 15] write
about a comparable situation:
“Looking back at this period of field research it is apparent
that a good deal of what was achieved was arrived at
through a process of trial and error. There was no blueprint
for us to follow….The mix of research methods was largely a
response to the particularities of gathering information in
the context of street prostitution.”
McKeganey and Barnard’s discussions about the data collection resonate with
the action research cycle for ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity.’ The planned
combination of the active and the reflective may initiate changes to the
individual school’s research question, methods of data collection and thus
their eventual analysis. Like any research project, the action research that
forms a central part of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ can be influenced
by everyday circumstances (for example, unexpected time constraints in
school) as well as things like potential changes in patterns of teacher co-
operation (for instance, creating times to meet a consultant or attend the
twilight seminars). The “happenstance” factors in any research project have
the potential to affect the scope, content and outcomes of the drama teaching
at the heart of the project, and, as a result, influence the substance of some of
the reflection of the teachers and consultants. To have access to the inside of
this part of the fieldwork process is, therefore, an important part of an
evaluation. It helps an evaluator to gain a fuller insight into the thinking
behind the decisions, thoughts and feelings of the teachers and consultants as
19

20. they plan, carry out and review their drama teaching. To evaluate a project
like ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity,’ with such a pronounced
commitment to action research requires an evaluator to work from within the
project.
One way in which evaluation from the inside of ‘Drama for Learning and
Creativity’ manifests itself is through what can be called the evaluator’s
stance. In this case, to adapt Schon’s term, the evaluator is a “critical friend”
[Schon 1985: 27]. Such a role helps an evaluator avoid becoming too near to a
project because to become so closely identified with the participants in a
project can invalidate any findings [Silverman 1992]. Writing about
ethnographic research, Hammersley and Atkinson [1995: 75] argue that rather
than engage in “futile attempts to eliminate the effects of the researcher we
should set about understanding them.” An evaluator can be part of a project
but has to retain a sense of detachment to write a report which is based upon
published criteria. This stance gives an evaluator the opportunity to meet the
consultants during the action research. It allows the evaluator to put forward
ideas about issues like data collection, teacher researcher diaries and how to
record reflective discussions. For ’Drama for Learning and Creativity’ “critical
friend” is more to do with the processes of data collection than content. It
enables the evaluator to offer support over questions about the overall
methodology of the action research. It is one way to help the project maintain
sight of issues which have the potential to take it forward.
An evaluator also has to respect the personal involvement of those doing the
action research. McNiff [http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1] argues that
action researchers “enquire into their own lives” as an investigation such as
that undertaken for ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ is “an enquiry
conducted by the self into the self.” The action researcher has to think about
her/his own life, something that asks her/him to think about their own life,
why they do the things they do and why they are the way they are. To
20

21. evaluate a project with action research as the chosen methodology is to place
an evaluator in the position of having to recognise that professional
judgements and decisions are personal ones as well. What teachers,
consultants and an evaluator bring to the project is not just their expertise as
teachers and lecturers but, to adapt McNiff’s phrase, their ‘selves’ as well.
21

22. 3. Results from ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
Introduction
This section reports on how the success criteria are met (Appendix 2). The
results are organised under seven headings. They are:
1. Use of funding and allocation of expenditure;
2. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the project’s action research
methodology;
3. Are an increasing number of schools using Drama as a methodology?
4. Teacher confidence and Drama teaching;
5. Pupil attitudes towards Drama;
6. What impact is Drama having on learning and creative outcomes?
7. Publications
1. Use of funding and allocation of expenditure
The use made of the funds available is appropriate to the demands and needs
of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity.’ In particular the seminars and
deployment of the consultants are thought by both teachers and head-
teachers to be very effective.
The seminars which bring together the teachers and consultants for sustained,
focussed discussion and on-going review of the classroom projects help both
parties to realise their roles. They are also a telling contribution to the
excellent working relationships between the teachers and consultants. The
match of consultant to school enables them to work in their specialist fields,
something that adds weight to the fieldwork and the resultant writings by
teachers and consultants. The visits to schools are seen as highlights and
benefits of the project by teachers. A number of head-teachers see these visits
22

23. as catalysts for change and comment on how the consultants’ expertise feeds
into the research teachers in their schools. For example, it allows a speedy,
non-threatening cascading of ideas to colleagues previously reluctant to use
Drama.
The next phase of the project is a dissemination phase. Conferences and
publications are planned as part of a concerted drive to publicise the project
and demonstrate the effectiveness of Drama as a learning medium. Given the
volume of research and teaching materials, ideas and approaches produced
by teachers and consultants during the school-based action research, they are
both necessary and important for project’s success. Furthermore, the
preparation for the proposed conferences and meetings is careful and justifies
the costs attached to them.
2. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the project’s action research
methodology
The choice of action research as the research paradigm is appropriate for three
reasons. It matches the management team’s insistence on the creation and
maintenance of collaborative relationships between teachers and consultants.
Second, it makes it possible for the schools’ research questions to be kept
under continual review and revised to meet any changes that arise during the
fieldwork. Third, the use of this research paradigm with all 14 research
schools makes certain that there is a clearly identified, evidence-oriented and
manageable core for all the school-based work.
It is the research school teachers who work with consultants on the questions
identified at a research seminar held in November 2005 (Table 1). The further
40 schools who also take part in the project are supported differently. They
are not asked to devise a research question but are entitled to visits from a
consultant or local authority advanced skills teacher. From the beginning
23

24. there are two clearly defined levels of participation. The support allotted to
the research schools, and that available to the outer layer of schools, is
appropriate to their respective levels of participation in the project.
The first seminar for the research schools generates revised questions that
match up with the project’s criteria on creativity and learning. It also
encourages the teachers to explore their question in ways they think are
suited to their schools. The emphasis in the initial questions is writing, with
10 proposals referring explicitly to En 3 Writing in National Curriculum
English (for example ‘Can the use of drama strategies impact on the quality of
different genres of writing?) or the development of literacy skills (in the role
play area, for instance). Although the project management group are uneasy
at this tendency, discussion with the research teachers leads to an agreed
decision to make the questions tentative. The consultants stress the need for
the continual revision of priorities in the action research as it develops in
school.
There is evidence of the success of this approach in Appendix 7. A teacher
writes:
“So I changed my research question into “How does drama
influence children’s creativity?” I felt this was much more
manageable. But what is creativity? Is it just as complicated
as writing? A product of a long process? The work we have
done this year provides some answers to these questions but
it also raises more questions.”
For this teacher, an original question moves towards a broader issue,
creativity, which she sees as a further question in itself (“But what is
creativity?”) that makes her eventually reach a further, specific issue that joins
creativity with writing (“Is it just as complicated as writing? A product of a
long process?). By accepting the need for the continuous review of the
question as a way to direct the action research this teacher recognises the
24

25. perpetual cycle that is at the heart of action research (“The work we have
done this year provides some answers to these questions but it also raises
more questions.”). This is an example of how reflection modifies the content
and direction of action research. It confirms that the on-going review of the
fieldwork has to be initiated by teachers for teachers.
Other research questions show different emphases. For instance, one question
brings together aspects of motivation and engagement with features of
successful learning (“Can drama empower children to become self motivated
learners (cross curricula drama)?”). It is directed to the whole curriculum,
unlike the questions that focus on English and literacy. Another question
(“Does drama extend children’s ability to solve problems and articulate their
methods and reasoning in maths?) concentrates on the connections between
the pedagogy of problem solving and whole class Drama in mathematics
teaching. The questions reflect a diversity of interests and concerns, with an
understandable focus on writing which is, in one teacher’s words in the entry
questionnaire, “at the forefront of our minds.” There are broader questions
that aim to investigate Drama’s potential for the curriculum and its capacity
to engage children fully in their learning.
To support the research school teachers, funding is used to secure teacher-
release, two visits from a consultant and finance for further research seminars
in Spring and Summer 2006. It is a level of support that extends as well as
deepens the teachers’ contact with their consultant. The consultants work
within the action research framework, offering encouragement, help and
guidance where they are wanted and needed. One result is the development
of learning partnerships which the teachers believe are a valuable
contribution to their action research.
The use of action research is both appropriate and effective. It gives the
teachers a dynamic and reflective way to devise and develop their initial
25

26. questions. Because their questions evolve as the project continues, teachers
own their research questions and feel able to adapt them as they see fit. One
of the project’s strengths is that there is no single question which the teachers
feel obliged to answer. They can, and do, direct their energies, enthusiasms
and skills towards something they believe is important for their school. In this
respect, the consultants are seen as part of the action research methodology
and not an addition to it. The relationship between teacher and consultant is
based on equality and a shared desire to develop Drama teaching within the
context of each individual school’s needs. It is another strong feature of
‘Drama for Learning and Creativity,’ as well as an appropriate, effective
research methodology.
3. Are an increasing number of schools using Drama as a methodology?
Appendix 4.1 shows that 22.1% of primary schools taught Drama as a
timetabled lesson in 2004/5. Over three quarters of schools choose not to use
Drama in this way, preferring to use it in Literacy, as well as part of a
curriculum “carousel” or in cross curricula work (Appendix 4.2). More
broadly, schools also see its role in terms of public events like assemblies or
seasonal presentations (for example, Nativity plays or pantomimes). It
indicates that Drama is considered to be a learning medium whose role and
value relates to the teaching of Literacy and, more broadly, to the curriculum
as a whole, including the corporate life of the school. Furthermore, Drama is
more likely to be envisaged as cross-curricula rather than to be thought of as a
separate, defined subject. At the start of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
qualitative and quantitative data shows that Drama is present as a classroom-
centred learning medium which has an active part in the corporate life of
schools.
Rather than repeat this question in the exit questionnaire, head-teachers are
asked for their views about the extent Drama influences their development
plans for 2006/7, the year following the project. The entry questionnaire
26

27. (Appendix 4.3) shows that for 2004/5 drama is part of 67.5% of primary
school development plans. Following the project, 92.3% of primary schools
state that Drama is influencing their development plans (Appendix 4.4) and
become a significant priority for over half the schools in the survey (Appendix
4.5). As Appendix 4.5 shows further that all schools in the survey see Drama
as part of their improvement plans, there is evidence that Drama is now part
of the curriculum in all the authority’s primary schools and that, therefore, the
project meets this criteria.
Nearly half of the replies to open-ended questions in both the entry and exit
questionnaires refer to the same two things. They are the expertise and
knowledge to teach Drama and confidence. In the entry questionnaire, head-
teachers and teachers alike express worries about their professional abilities in
Drama. Comments like “I’m not very good at Drama” and “I’m not confident
because I don’t have the same knowledge that I have in Maths or R.E”
indicate their concerns. At the same time, the entry questionnaire reveals that
there are already a number of teachers who have strong backgrounds in
Drama (“I’ve always been involved with Drama both in and out of school”),
believe in its potential (“Drama is a way to unlock children’s learning”) and
want to use it more in the classroom (“It has potential for everything we
teach”). There is a duality of worry about and commitment to Drama which is
an expression of a tension in teachers’ views about their capabilities to teach
Drama.
One factor here may be that, prior to the start of the project, only a third of the
primary and middle schools have a teacher with school-wide responsibility
for Drama. Appendices 4.6 and 4.7 indicate one way in which primary and
middle schools are addressing the combined issues of expertise, knowledge
and confidence. Appendix 4.7, which comes from the exit questionnaire,
shows that from September 2006 the number of primary and middle schools
with a named teacher responsible for Drama will have more than doubled. It
27

28. is anticipated that from this date, 80% of such schools will have a teacher with
an explicit remit for Drama.
Some of the increase in the number of teachers who are willing to take on a
responsibility for Drama may stem directly from the project. In an email sent
to a consultant after the teacher-led action research in his school one primary
head-teacher writes:
“We’re really excited and enthusiastic about drama – thanks
to you and the project – if only we had received good quality
drama education during teacher training and at school I’m
sure it would have been an integral part of my teaching –
but I’ll make sure it is from now on. Who said ‘you can’t
teach old dogs new tricks?’ rubbish !!!!”
The comment indicates that part of the success of ‘Drama for Learning and
Creativity’ lies with its commitment to a combination of increasing teacher
knowledge and expertise and raising confidence, together with the project’s
action research methodology. Personal contact between consultant, head-
teacher and teacher which is established through action research (“you and
the project”) is seen to be a powerful influence by an experienced teacher
(“Who said ‘you can’t teach old dogs new tricks?’ rubbish !!!!”). At the same
time the head-teacher’s statement is further evidence that action research is
an appropriate methodology for the project.
The quotation also echoes a criticism from teachers and head-teachers which
occurs throughout the entry and exit questionnaires. Appendix 4.8 shows that
although two-thirds of teachers receive Drama as part of their initial teacher
education, one third does not have Drama in their course. Two recently
qualified teachers write in the entry questionnaire how Drama is “one
afternoon” of their course and how it is “something that was added on more
or less at the end.” A number of other teachers, who attend short and year-
long local authority Drama courses, write of the “inspirational courses” which
28

29. they “wished had been part of their (teacher) training.” “We need courses like
this all the time” is how another teacher writes in the exit questionnaire to
summarise her/his need for continuous professional development in Drama.
The evidence in this Section confirms that ‘Drama for Learning and
Creativity’ is meeting its criteria about ensuring an increasing number of
schools use Drama as a methodology. There are also indications that it is
influencing head-teachers as well as teachers. Increasingly, Drama is part of
school development plans. To accompany the change, over four fifths of the
primary and middle schools in the survey are putting in place a post of
responsibility for Drama.
4. Teacher confidence and Drama teaching
The entry questionnaire provides limited evidence about teacher’s confidence
to teach Drama. The question has a ‘middle’ reply which indicates that just
over half of the teachers (55.6%) are confident to teach their own class some
aspects of Drama (see Appendix 5.1). The 9.7% of teachers who are confident
to lead Drama confirms the previous Section’s view of the existence of a core
of teachers with the capacity to lead Drama in their school. When the
percentage of teachers who indicate they are confident only with play-scripts
is added to those who say they have no confidence to teach Drama, a total of
more than 12% of teachers express a lack of confidence in their ability to teach
Drama. It supports further the idea of a duality between worry and
commitment that is reported in the previous Section. What is more, there are,
at the start of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity,’ more teachers who are
concerned about having to teach Drama than those who think they have the
skills and confidence to lead their colleagues in Drama teaching.
The influence of the project on teacher confidence can be gauged by data
collected from three items in the exit questionnaire. In total over 90% of the
29

30. teachers involved as either research schools or as part of the project’s outer
layer report an increase in their confidence to teach Drama (Appendix 5.2).
There are no negative returns for this question. When asked about their
confidence to teach classes other than their own, over 60% of the teachers
believe that they can. If this is placed alongside the indication that 88.7% of
teachers believe they have a range of new Drama teaching ideas and
approaches (Appendix 5.3), it suggests that the development of confidence is
allied with the acquisition of knowledge and skill. One primary school
teacher writes:
“It’s much more rewarding working with the whole class in
the hall than I expected. I’m becoming more confident each
time.”
Working in the way that Drama demands can surprise teachers and take
them aback (“It’s much more rewarding working with the whole class in the
hall than I expected”). With her newly acquired knowledge and skills this
teacher is “becoming more confident each time” she teaches Drama. Writing
about the duality of worry and enthusiasm another teacher writes:
“I am covering more along with excitement, fun and
developing imagination. I am feeling less and less anxious
each time. I am feeling more successful each time.”
With confidence comes a sense of relaxation (“I am feeling less and less
anxious each time”) that creates a potent learning context for children that
brings together “excitement, fun and developing imagination.” With the
continuous use of Drama this teacher is “feeling more successful each time.”
Again there is reference to how long it takes to acquire confidence. It is seen
as a gradual process. But as she continues to use whole class Drama, and her
confidence to do so grows, this teacher thinks Drama enables her to exceed
the prescribed curriculum (“I am covering more “). Some of the rewards for
working more frequently with whole class Drama teachers include increased
feelings of confidence and success. There is less concern with covering
30

31. objectives and more belief in the role of Drama to generate an imaginative,
broader curriculum.
The project gives the teachers who take part the confidence to work
effectively with whole class Drama. Although there remain a number of
anxieties for teachers, the data contains clear indications that the enjoyment
experienced by teachers and pupils can outweigh the worries that accompany
teaching Drama.
5. Pupil attitudes towards Drama
The teachers’ journals from two of the research schools have the following
pupil comments about Drama.
“When is our next History lesson? (because we do drama)”
“When I read it I don’t get it, but when I do it, it sticks.”
“I love it when you pretend to be someone else, Miss.”
“Can we do drama, today?”
“I think Drama is important because it grabs people’s
attention. It’s a fun way to learn.”
Another teacher writes:
“The children like drama….a lot. It’s nice to be stopped in
the corridor nearly every day and have conversations like
this –
Pupil: When’s our next drama lesson?
Teacher: Thursday
Pupil: Cool
Teacher: Do you like Drama?
Pupil: It’s wicked”
The data in the fieldwork journals read for the preparation of this evaluation
all show that pupils like Drama. They respond positively to al that it offers
them as learners. There is a sense of anticipation (“Can we do drama, today?”)
31

32. that their learning is to be different in Drama (“It’s a fun way to learn”). They
enjoy Drama (“It’s wicked”), find that it makes the retention of what is being
learned more accessible and long-lasting (“When I read it I don’t get it, but
when I do it, it sticks”) and see their teacher as someone who does more than
set them work to do (“I love it when you pretend to be someone else, Miss.”).
The data also shows that pupils see Drama as a positive influence on the way
they retain ideas. For example, one teacher asks her/his class to think of a
lesson “where drama was used and where you really learnt something.” Pupil
replies include:
“The rainforest…now I know that the rainforest got
destroyed…and we learnt that there are animals dying and
losing their homes.”
“Literacy. Often it is used when we are writing a story and I
don’t understand it.”
“Yes, during History we have done drama and it helps stick
in my memory because of the fun actions.”
“In History because we are learning about the Black Death
and I can remember a lot of information because we did it in
drama not in books.”
The comments suggest a certainty and security of the knowledge learned
through Drama (“now I know that the rainforest got destroyed”) along with a
number of the inter-connections that lie within that knowledge (“there are
animals dying and losing their homes.”). Drama also helps with the
clarification that is part of the meaning making which is integral to writing
(“Often it is used when we are writing a story and I don’t understand it.”).
For a content-heavy topic like the Black Death it helps pupils to recall a
volume of ideas (“I can remember a lot of information”) as well as the details
(“it helps stick it in my memory”). From the pupils’ point of view Drama has
the potential to develop the knowledge retention and application that they
think is necessary for successful learning in content-heavy subjects.
32

33. Data from one school provides an insight into the inclusive nature of Drama.
When asked if Drama “is important to do in schools” a pupil responds with:
“Yes, it is because the children will teach the children to
come out of the dark and into the light.”
When asked to explain what this means the pupil adds:
“When I first did drama I was really nervous but now I
really like it. It helps you express yourself and not hide
away.”
Pupil gain the confidence to find their voice through Drama (“It helps you
express yourself and not hide away.”) and the encouragement to express as
well as share ideas and opinions with his/her peers. Another pupil in the
same school thinks one of the benefits of Drama is that “you get to mix with
other people and share their ideas.” Drama has both cognitive and affective
roles in learning. The pupils’ views indicate that cognitive-led knowledge
acquisition is enhanced and made more enjoyable because it is bound up with
an affective engagement with what is being studied. Drama blends the
cognitive and affective domains successfully and, by doing so, makes pupils
more responsive to the knowledge they have to learn.
One pupil’s reply to the question whether Drama is an important thing to do
is:
“Yes, I think it is because I think I learn more. The reason
why is because I get into it more, but when we are doing it I
do not think I am learning but when we have finished then I
realise.”
Pupil attitudes towards Drama are positive. There is evidence that pupils
think they “learn more” because of a depth of engagement (“I get into it
more”) in which they are not aware they are learning (“when we are doing it I
do not think I am learning”). It is afterwards that pupils begin to grasp they
have been learning throughout the Drama (“when we have finished then I
33

34. realise.”). The evidence gathered for this section of the evaluation suggests
that pupils think that Drama is equally significant for the processes of
learning as it is for the outcome. Their enjoyment of learning is clear, and
indicates that the project is doing much more than just meeting its criteria.
Pupils have positive attitudes towards Drama. They think that Drama helps
them to learn information and be able to retain knowledge securely within
their working memory. They believe it also helps them with the volume of
material they have to learn. In addition, pupils are aware of how Drama
encourages all to contribute, no matter how much they lack self- belief and
self- confidence.
6. What impact is Drama having on learning and creative outcomes?
Appendix 6.1 confirms the extent Drama is found in one subject, English. The
figure of just over a third of schools having Drama lessons is higher in this
table than Appendix 4.1, but this may be because 4.1 refers to “lesson” whilst
the question in Appendix 6.1 is directed more towards the wider curriculum,
including clubs and school plays.
A comparison between Appendices 6.2 and 6.3 indicates that teachers,
particularly those in Reception, Key Stage One and Two and Year 7 classes in
middle schools, now work with Drama in an increasing range of subjects.
Table 2 shows the curriculum areas where Drama gains substantially. It also
shows that there are gains across the primary and Year 7 curriculum. The
nearly 50% gain for Citizenship may also reflect the broad scope of recent
government materials, some of which include Drama, as well as local
authority curriculum initiatives. However, the figures for P.E. and I.C.T. may
be distorted. The difference between Appendix 6.2 and 6.3 shows P.E. to gain
just over 1.0%. National Curriculum P.E. Key Stages One and Two [DfEE
1999: 128 – 133] has Dance as part of P.E. Appendix 6.3 has Drama connected
34

35. with Dance in over half the schools in the exit survey. When this is added to
the P.E. figure in the same survey, it suggests that over three-quarters of the
schools (77.1%) join P.E., Dance and Drama.
Even if there is an overlap between P.E and Dance in the figures, it appears
likely that Drama is perceived to have a marked curriculum connection with
National Curriculum P.E. If this is accurate, then the gains of over 20% in the
subject areas studying Drama at the end of the school-based action research
are Citizenship, Geography, Visual Arts and P.E., all of which can be
associated more with ‘Arts’ than ‘Sciences.’ This is confirmed by Appendix
6.3. It shows Literacy, Citizenship, History, Dance/P.E and Geography to be
the curriculum areas where Drama is used by more than 50% of the schools
surveyed. Appendix 6.6, also from the exit questionnaire, supports this
finding as it shows that 64.3% and 61.0% of teachers think Drama is of either
“some importance” or no importance for children’s learning in Science and
Maths respectively. The scores imply that almost two thirds of teachers do
not, at present, make curriculum connections between Drama and
mathematical or scientific thinking.
The entry and exit questionnaire returns for I.C.T. in Appendix 6.3, 6.4 and
6.6 also have significance for Drama. At the start of the action research only
1% of respondents reply that they use I.C.T. with Drama. Although this rises
by nearly 15% it still means that four fifths of teachers do not associate Drama
with I.C.T. Appendix 6.6 shows that 70.0% of teachers think that Drama has
only some or no importance for children’s learning in I.C.T. By the end of the
fieldwork a maximum of only one-third of teachers are working with Drama
in I.C.T.
Appendix 6.4 is evidence that by the time of the exit survey over 95% of the
teachers work with Drama in an increasing number of subjects. A comparison
between Appendices 6.7 and 6.8 shows that the increase in those curriculum
35

36. areas where Drama occurs is matched by an increase in the time allocated to
Drama on a regular basis. Over a third of schools surveyed now commit more
than one hour a week to Drama, either within English/Literacy or across the
curriculum. This is in contrast with less than 5% at the start of the project. The
rise is over 25%. The number of schools who expect to work with Drama for
between 30 minutes and one hour a week increases by a similar percentage to
60%. Drama now occupies a much more secure as well as prominent place in
the whole primary curriculum.
The range of subjects where drama is used and the amount of time allocated
to it on a weekly basis are both part of a larger picture in which Drama is
increasingly a priority for the primary and middle school curriculum. Over
half the schools see it as a priority and four fifths of all the schools surveyed
want to have a teacher responsible for it. The exit questionnaire findings in
Appendix 6.6 show that Drama is thought to be very important or important
for children’s learning in English, Citizenship, History, R.E. and possibly P.E/
Dance by over four fifths of the primary and middle school teachers in the
survey. For Geography and Music, Drama is very important or important for
60% of schools, with half the teachers seeing Drama as having a similar role in
Art and Design. The areas with least exposure to Drama are Mathematics,
Science and I.C.T. Even with the figures for these last three subjects, whole
class Drama now features regularly in two thirds of the curriculum and is
likely to make up over one hour a week of a child’s learning. There is,
therefore, far greater cross curricula use of whole class Drama than at the start
of the fieldwork.
Further evidence of the project’s impact on learning and creative outcomes
comes from data on the teaching activities found in whole class Drama. Table
3.1 is from the entry questionnaire. It shows that at the beginning of the
project over a fifth of teachers use Hot seating, Role play and Enacting (which
includes ‘Acting out’ and ‘Act out’). When the scores for Role play and
Enacting are added together they make up 42%, which is twice the figure for
36

37. Hot seating and 35.4% more than the next dramatic activity, Freeze framing.
At the start of the project, the data indicates that teachers connect Drama
strongly with Role play and Enacting but far less with conventions like Hot
seating and Thought tracking.
The extent that Enacting and Role play are prominent in whole class Drama at
the opening of the fieldwork is found in examples in the entry questionnaire.
For instance “Acting out the Fire of London” is to “help improve descriptive
writing especially extending vocabulary”; “Acting out the story of Rama and
Sita” is “to enter into and relate to another religious story” and “to promote
questions.” In a History activity called ‘Wifey wifey’ the children are “in role
as Henry VIII’s wives” and “have to defend their case” to “improve
questioning skills, empathy and improvisation.” An example from Numeracy
has children “playing the role of the greedy shop keeper” so that they learn to
“increase prices by (the) set amount” and “total amounts.” The same teacher
has an example from Literacy in which “children take on a character from a
traditional tale” “to generate words that describe their character, their looks,
movements and behaviour.” Although these examples come from across the
curriculum, over 22% are from History, 18% from PHSE, 15.2% from R.E. and
20% from Literacy. Enacting and Role play are most likely to be found in
primarily four curriculum areas when the project begins.
Table 3.2 has a different slant. The same entry questionnaire data as before is
divided into ‘illustrative’ and ‘narrative.’ There is a distinction between
Drama teaching to illustrate ideas or points and Drama as a means to make a
narrative. 80% of the Drama teaching appears to be geared to showing, for
instance, how language works (“help improve descriptive writing especially
extending vocabulary”), how to reason and question (“improve questioning
skills, empathy and improvisation”) and how to calculate (“increase prices by
(the) set amount” and “total amounts.”). In these examples, Role play and
Acting out illustrate procedures associated with a body of knowledge. By
37

38. contrast only 20% of the responses describe teaching in which the pupils
make narratives, from either non-fiction or fiction.
The finding about the illustrative use of Drama can be matched up with the
uses of dramatic conventions like Mantle of the expert, Hot seating and
Freeze framing. In an example from Geography teaching, Mantle of the expert
aims to help the pupils to “find relevant information and present it to others.”
In a History Role play, Freeze framing and Hot seating combine with the aim
of ensuring pupils “understand situation and emotions of different people
during the 1930s.” When ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ begins,
conventions like Hot seating, as well as Acting out and Role play, are all
connected more with the illustration of ideas, concepts and moments than
with the construction of a narrative.
Table 3.3 points to a change between the start and end of the fieldwork part of
the project. Although it is not possible to make a direct comparison between
Tables 4.1 and 4.3, it is clear that by the end of the fieldwork teachers are
working more consistently with a broader array of drama conventions. For
example, the replies show Acting out, Freeze frame and Teacher in role have
become part of all the teachers’ work at some point in the fieldwork (Table
3.3). Conventions like Hot seating and Build an environment have a more
than 90% chance of being used in this period. This is different from the
beginning of the project in which there is a reliance on a narrow range and
infrequent use of Drama strategies (Table 3.1). At that time Hot seating is in
21.3% of the examples, Freeze framing in less than 5% and Conscience alley in
just over 2%. By the end of the fieldwork, four more Drama conventions
(Build an environment, Conscience Alley, Mantle of the expert and Teacher in
role) are regular teaching strategies for over 50% of the teachers. The previous
reliance on Acting out and Role play is in the process of being replaced. The
diet of activity has extended so that Enacting and Role play are now
38

39. partnered by a variety of Drama conventions like Teacher in role and Mantle
of the expert.
While two Drama strategies, Acting out and Freeze framing, continue to be
prominent, the pronounced emergence of Teacher in role is a significant
alteration to the landscape of whole class Drama teaching. Unlike other
dramatic conventions, Teacher in role places the teacher as a character within
the dramatic context. It works through representation [Ackroyd 2004] as the
teacher becomes part of what is to unfold. A teacher mediates the “teaching
purpose” through her/his involvement in the drama [Neelands 1990: 32]. As
the Drama continues, “teachers in role are also writing as they go, because
they have to respond to the moment” [Ackroyd 2004: 161]. It is a strategy,
amongst other things, to provoke thoughts and feelings, direct the course of
the narrative, create possibilities as well as uncertainties, question pupils’
stereotypical thinking and stimulate their involvement. The entry
questionnaire records that 2.2% of the teachers’ examples use this strategy.
However, the exit survey shows that just over half of the teachers say they use
it all or most of the time, and 48.8% some of the time. During the course of
‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ over nine-tenths of the teachers in the
survey experience working with Teacher in role in whole class Drama, which
is an increase of more than 90%.
The nature of the change is evident in two of the case studies submitted by
teachers. For example ‘Owl Babies’ (Table 7) has shared reading and talk
groups framed by a sequence of five Drama conventions. The teacher is in
role as a baby owl and is questioned (hot seated) by the pupils. The questions
and answers are integral to the pupils’ creation of an alternative, speculative
text. Teacher in role takes two forms which are integral to a non-fiction based
whole class Drama, Rainforest (Table 8). In the first form, Teacher in role is a
guide who creates the rainforest through the visual and tactile (“we took the
class on an expedition into the rainforest….to explore and feedback on sights
39

40. and smells”). In the second form, when in role as Professor X, the teacher
controls access to the forest. ‘Rainforest’ and ‘Owl Babies’ have teachers in
roles which are powerful or dominant (as a Professor), equal (a guide to the
rain forest) and weak or sub-ordinate (one of the baby owls). A teacher who
steps into teacher in role moves from spectator to participant in imaginative
work that is narrative or illustrative. They become part of the Drama as
characters (baby owls or a professor, for instance), as writers (replying to
questions when being hot seated) and as narrators (being a guide). Teacher in
role is a way to verbalise the thinking and feeling that lie inside all narrative
and non-fiction writing. This has implications for the teaching of writing, and
thus the raising of standards in schools. The evidence from the end of the
fieldwork suggests that when teachers work as Teacher in role their
interactions with the pupils are verbal models of the cognitive and affective
thought processes that generate the ideas that are at the heart of successful
writing.
Teacher in role is part of the gradual expansion of the conventions that make
up whole class Drama teaching. By the end of the classroom-based action
research, there is evidence that Hot seating, Mantle of the expert and Thought
tracking are an increasing part of teachers’ work in Drama. This perceptible
change is found in the teachers’ combinations of Drama conventions (Table 4).
The two most frequently used pairs of Drama activities (Table 4.1) are:
Acting Out and Freeze
and
Acting out and Build an environment.
As a combination, Acting Out and Freeze is in two fifths of all Drama work,
which is nearly 9% more than Acting out and Build an environment. Teacher
in role appears in three out of the succeeding six combinations. When it is put
together with Hot seating, Mantle of the expert and Thought tracking,
Teacher in role is now found in over 15% of whole class Drama teaching.
Table 4.2, which details the combinations of three Drama strategies, shows the
40

41. start of a change. Freeze framing is in all four of the combinations that score
above 10% with Teacher in role in three of the same combinations and Hot
seating in two. Acting out does not appear in these combinations. This adds
weight to the view that the teaching sequences in whole class Drama teaching
now use a greater variety of activities than at the start of the project. In
particular, Teacher in role is combined with opportunities for pupils to
engage with their learning as questioners and respondents (Hot seating) and
experts (Mantle of the expert) whose points of view as thinkers are valued as
well as respected (Thought tracking). The emphasis on Drama as making
through activities like Acting out and Role play starts to be challenged by
Drama conventions that allow for the internal elaboration of ideas and
conscious reflection.
Table 4.3 shows that a combination of Acting out, Freeze, Movement and
Teacher in role is found in a fifth of whole class Drama. The blend of physical
movement, stillness and making is still prominent, therefore, in whole class
Drama teaching. But the presence of Teacher in role and Conscience Alley in
tandem with Acting Out is a further indication of a movement in how
teachers work in the classroom. With over 10% of Drama teaching now
bringing together making, elaboration and reflection there is more support for
the view that its overall shape is changing. The role of pupil thinking is
coming more to the forefront of whole class Drama teaching.
The idea that teachers may be attaching significance to connections between
whole class Drama and thinking is both denied and confirmed by the initial
focus of the research schools’ projects. Almost two thirds of the research
schools’ projects begin by focussing on writing (Table 1). Appendix 6.5
reveals that over 97% of the teachers think Drama is either central or
important to the development of Listening and Speaking (En1) and Writing
(En3). The same items for Reading (En2) give 53.3%, which indicates that
teachers make much less of a connection between reading and Drama than
41

42. they do between speaking and listening and writing. When this finding is
taken further it shows that over four-fifths of the teachers think Drama is
central to the development of Listening and Speaking, whilst the same reply
for Reading is 15.6% and 37.7% for Writing. Thus the data implies that Drama
is not considered to be significant for the development of reading by over 85%
of the teachers in the survey. For them, Drama is more closely associated with
the English listening and speaking programmes of study. It can be argued
that this denies a connection between En1, Drama and thinking. For example
there is only one reference to problem-solving as a “key skill” [DfEE 1999: 8].
The “Group discussion and interaction” for Key Stage 2 has in its “purposes”
investigating, editing, sorting; planning, predicting, exploring; explaining,
reporting and evaluating. They all seem to be present in Drama conventions
like Teacher in role and Conscience Alley.
There is firmer evidence for the view that teachers are making a connection
between whole class Drama and the development of thinking. It comes from
data collected for questions that cover teachers’ ideas about the purposes of
Drama. Appendices 6.10 to 6.13 show consistently high scores for “Creative
and thinking skills.” This may be caused partly by teachers knowing that the
project’s title of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ carries with it notions of
creativity, learning and thinking. All three are terms found in the title and
publicity. If allowance is made for this, then the data suggest that teachers
may value Drama because it promotes a cluster of verbal, thinking and
collaborative skills.
In the following diagram the Entry Questionnaire returns have ‘Creative and
thinking skills’ as over 15% more than the following two purposes, ‘Enhance
learning in other subjects’ and ‘Communication and expressive skills.’ With
‘Working co-operatively’ less than 3% behind them it implies that - at the start
of ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ - teachers see Drama in terms of a
42

43. network that brings together imagination, meaning-making and collaborative
cross- curricula thinking.
Entry Questionnaire – %age Exit Questionnaire – Leading %age
Leading Five Purposes of Five Purposes of Drama
Drama
Creative and thinking skills 76.3 Communication and 67.2
expressive skills
Enhance learning in other 60.5 Creative and thinking skills 63.6
subjects
Communication and 60.5 Allow pupils to contribute 45.6
expressive skills positively and co-operatively
Working co-operatively 57.9 Enhance learning in other 42.0
subjects
Enjoyment 52.6 Enjoyment 36.3
Confidence building 47.4 Non-academic route to 36.3
learning
Although number of the items change in the Exit Questionnaire, there is still
sound evidence to suggest that by the end of the fieldwork teachers see
Drama’s purposes to be concerned most strongly with the development of
thinking, expression and ways of working together purposefully across the
curriculum.
This finding can be explored in three ways. The single purpose of Drama
chosen by most teachers in the Entry and Exit Questionnaires is ‘Creative and
thinking skills’ (Appendices 6.13 and 6.14). In both questionnaires it scores
substantially more than the second choices, ‘Enhance learning in other
subjects’ and ‘Non-academic route to learning’, by 8.6% and over 16.0%
respectively. Allowing for the presence of learning and creativity in the
project’s title, and the possible distortion this causes, it is more evidence that
Drama is valued because of a capacity to stimulate and develop children’s
intellectual capabilities. And that this role is a cross curricula one.
A second way to explore the findings is to refer to the purposes which either
score lowly (less than 5.0%) or not at all in the choice of the most important
43

44. purpose of Drama. The diagram below shows the items common to both the
Entry and Exit Questionnaires.
Entry Exit
Develop Drama skills 4.3 2.1
Create social inclusion 2.1 0.0
Confidence building 2.1 4.2
Enhance class as a community 0.0 0.0
Motivation to attend school 0.0 0.0
Develop Drama knowledge 0.0 0.0
(‘Enhance risk taking’ becomes ‘Allow pupils to experience safe risk-taking’ in
the Exit Questionnaire: the two scores are 0.0 and 2.1 respectively)
Intrinsic drama skills and knowledge become considerably less important
than Drama’s cross curricula potential. For teachers, the role of drama is not
necessarily associated with P.H. S. E or inclusion but with its potential to
enrich the curriculum. There is a difference here between teachers and pupils,
with pupils making clear (pages 31 - 33) how Drama benefits all who take
part. There is also a difference between the findings here about inclusion and
confidence and the views earlier in the evaluation, which show that 70.8% of
teachers think that Drama has a place in Citizenship.
A third way to investigate the extent teachers believe Drama is important for
the development of thinking is to look for combinations within the teachers’
choices of the five purposes of Drama. Table 5.1 shows that an eighth of the
respondents have a grouping of four purposes:
Develop creative thinking skills
Enhance learning in other subjects
Enjoyment
Non academic route to learning.
44

45. Just over 10% of respondents have the following two groupings of four
purposes:
Develop communication and expressive skills
Develop creative thinking skills
Enjoyment
Non academic route to learning
and:
Allow pupils to contribute positively and co-operatively
Develop communication and expressive skills
Develop creative thinking skills
Non academic route to learning
These three groupings are a cluster of thinking, communication and
expressive skills dominate teachers’ views of the principal purposes for
Drama. Two items, ‘Develop creative thinking skills’ and ‘Develop
communication and expressive skills’ appear in three quarters of the
groupings of three purposes of Drama (Table 5.3). The quantitative data
indicates that, for teachers, a combination of creative thinking,
communication and expressive skills are now the most important purposes of
Drama.
How far teachers believe Drama is associated with thinking is clarified further
in Appendices 6.14 and 6.15. These rank the teachers’ choices of the most
important engagements in a Drama activity. Appendix 6.14 shows the five
choices of engagements. The first five in rank order bring together purposeful
thinking, forming their own questions and generating ideas. The presence of
these as a cluster, together with the choice of purposeful thinking as the most
important engagement, is an example of the extent teachers value Drama
because of its potential to help children become thinkers. Purposeful thinking
is the highest scoring individual engagement (Appendix 6.15); it is chosen by
nearly a quarter of the respondents, with empathy as the second choice and
scoring 19.5%, or nearly a fifth. These two engagements score nearly half as
45

46. much again as the next grouping of engagements. Collaboration, forming
their own questions and generating ideas are chosen by only just over a tenth
of the respondents.
Three school based projects illustrate the impact of whole class Drama on
learning and creative outcomes. They are another perspective on the
quantitative findings about teachers’ ideas about the connections between
whole class Drama and thinking. The projects show teachers making
relationships between the development of thinking, expression and ways of
collaborative working. There is extended use of whole class Drama as a cross
curricula means to stimulate and develop children’s intellectual capabilities.
Pupils participate in teaching and learning that fosters purposeful thinking,
empathy, collaboration and the generation and formation of ideas.
At the same time, the projects are evidence of how differently three teachers
work with the idea of purposeful thinking in whole class Drama. Each is
distinctive: one shows how mathematical thinking within Drama benefit each
other; a second looks at speculation and hypotheses making in a Reception
class and a third generates affective response to non fiction. All three are
matched against the QCA Creativity Criteria (see Tables 6, 7 and 8) to show
that ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ meets these criteria as stipulated in
the Bid Specification and the ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’ Success
Criteria (Appendix 2).
The projects also demonstrate the significance of a developed, imagined
context for whole class Drama. In each project the sense of setting is integral
to the Drama: place is realised as part of the thinking, expression and working
together that propel the whole class activities. To adapt Heathcote’s terms,
[1980] the foreground of the intellectual and emotional engagement that is the
whole class Drama has a realised sense of life background without which pupil
engagement fails.
46

47. The first project is Planet Perfecton. Mathematical thinking is integral to a
whole class Drama which is set on an imagined planet. Table 6 shows pupils
and their teacher as they move in role between the five QCA Creativity
Criteria. Episodes 1 and 2 encourage pupils to continually refocus and refine
their ideas before the mathematical thinking introduces a detailed discussion
of the planet’s ecology. The four episodes show that, in this project, the
Creativity Criteria are not a sequence or hierarchy. The process of creativity is
a flux: in role work sees children continuously revise their ideas as they share
and recognise different opinions in structured, collaborative group work. The
pupils’ thinking collects and questions ideas. They gather and marshal
thoughts to connect what is emerging with what is known. The internal
sorting and manipulation is an example of purposeful thinking in which
pupils search for explanations, reasons and justifications as opposed to a
single answer. It is thinking that helps them begin to gain access to the
underlying principles of their arguments.
In a second sequence of lessons from Planet Perfecton (Table 6, Lesson 2)
mathematical thinking enables children to visualise one of the planet’s
creatures. After seeing some footprints, “taking photos, swabs and samples in
role” and feeding back to the class – all done in role – the children receive
information in the form of a ratio. This gives them a way to assess the
animal’s height. Staying in role, they return to measure the footprints and
then report back with their calculations. Once the measuring is done, an out
of role discussion leads into an extended sequence of language-based
movement. This creates a whole class sculpture of the wounded animal. The
teacher comments how repetition of:
“weak, weak, weak acted as a pulse…. cold sounded like
chattering teeth…anxious was a shusshing sound like blood
pumping and … agony formed a moan.”
47

48. In her diary the teacher records how one pupil comments, “This is amazing.
It’s like we’re inside its mind.” In Heathcote’s terms [1980], mathematical
thinking provides background that enables the foreground of the planet to be
sharpened in the children’s imagination. Ratio, calculation and measurement
are necessary to the children’s envisioning of Perfecton. Numerical thinking
intertwines with the verbal and physical to create a context in which thought
and feeling are equal. The substance of the planet, and thus the children’s
engagement, comes from all areas of human thinking and not solely the
verbal.
Planet Perfecton illustrates the potential of whole class Drama to produce
creative outcomes through cognitive and affective learning which merges
verbal with numerical thinking. In this example, purposeful thinking
includes measurement, calculation, movement and the emotive response to
and use of language. A realisation of the animal’s shape and size is how the
children come to share the wounded animal’s perspective (“It’s like we’re
inside its mind”). As the narrative continues, the children’s thinking
addresses successive problems through a mixture of the physical and mental.
They collaborate in different ways of thinking to generate ideas and feelings,
including a sense of implications. The continuous re-shaping of their ideas
and feelings develops the children as thinkers. They communicate in as well
as out of role, expressing themselves across a spectrum of different medium
in a way that allows extensive collaborative working.
In Planet Perfecton, whole class Drama makes a narrative in which
mathematical thinking is inseparable from the explanation, justification and
prediction that underpin the work. It depends on a collaborative approach to
learning. At one point in her diary the teacher writes:
“…the class are, although well-behaved and essentially
polite, very poor at listening to others. They all want to be
heard (or most of them anyway).”
48

49. The issue of listening helps her decide to have labelled pebbles in jars, with
each group having one jar. Whoever’s pebble is drawn leads the current
“working party.” As well as making the pupils aware of “the convention of
addressing the chair and canvassing opinion” which they need for the
forthcoming School’s Council, the pebbles also give the children different
status roles in the missions. They have to lead and be led. The teacher
records:
“’But we have no voice now.’ [When their leader was out of
the room. There was a palpable sense of frustration at this
but not a negative feeling, more one of (the) value of their
leader when he/she returned.]”
On a further occasion she notes:
“Shall I speak for you?” - on spotting that group had lost
their leader on a “mission” – another meeting leader sought
the group’s opinions and was in a position to feed back.”
The pebbles give pupils ways of working collaboratively in which they have
to take on roles of different status. The roles see the pupils coming to
understand deeper responsibilities of leadership (“another meeting leader
sought the group’s opinions and was in a position to feed back”) as well as
the effects of being led (“(“(the) value of their leader when he/she
returned.]”). Whole class Drama allows children to identify, articulate and
assess the implications as well as consequences of successful collaboration.
Purposeful thinking includes children learning about how they learn
collaboratively, which is an important but often unrecognised contribution to
their knowledge of themselves as learners.
A consultant writes in her journal about the impact on the teacher of action
research in whole class Drama. The consultant describes what happens to the
teacher’s thinking when she combines Maths and Drama:
“Whereas the teacher had set out to explore how Maths and
Drama could be brought together through the use of a
problem-solving pedagogy, she found herself working
49

50. across the curriculum and valuing the potency of this cross
curricula approach. Drama was serving as a link between
literacy and numeracy, enriching both areas, and developing
children’s thinking, social and communication skills.”
The teacher allows learning to lead the action research. The original plan is to
connect Maths and Drama through “a problem-solving pedagogy.” It initiates
cross curricula work which blends literacy and numeracy in a way that
deepens the children’s learning (“enriching both areas”). At the same time it
extends children’s capacity as thinkers and increases their “social and
communication skills.”
The teacher’s view of Drama and Maths change as her action research
continues (“she found herself working across the curriculum and valuing the
potency of this cross curricula approach”). She begins to transform her ideas
about subject boundaries as she works with Drama on action research that
brings together two subjects, Drama and Maths, which are not often
connected. It is an instance of how ‘Drama for Learning and Creativity’
research teachers work in an almost subconscious way with the QCA
Creativity criteria. In this example, a teacher questions and explores (“found
herself working across the curriculum”), makes connections and sees
relationships (“explore how Maths and Drama could be brought together
through the use of a problem-solving pedagogy”). The research seminars
encourage critical reflection that challenge as well as extend their ideas about
the curriculum. The action research undertaken for ‘Drama for Learning and
Creativity’ is a scaffold for the teacher. It helps her to think how the
combination of Drama with subjects like Mathematics takes much further her
own interpretations of creativity.
Owl Babies is a literacy-centred project in a Reception class. The shared
reading of the book up to the point where Mummy Owl disappears is the
start of their whole class Drama activities. Through the Drama, the pupils
50

51. build an internalised alternative text as a basis for writing in role. The Drama
centres on speculative thinking: the children predict what might happen by
looking back at what has happened. In talk groups their speculations and
hypotheses are a framework for discussions about their own and others’
readings of Owl Babies. The teacher writes about another concern. She
comments how she is not convinced that the class:
“…had developed their speaking and listening skills to the
extent where they could build on each others’ ideas
creatively.”
As with Planet Perfecton, collaboration is important. In this project
collaboration is thought to be part of the children’s thinking and listening
development, with the inter-change of imaginative ideas (“build on each
others’ ideas creatively”) seen as essential for their progress as writers.
Table 7 is the sequence for the Owl Babies work. In the Drama the focus is
speculation about the fate of Mummy Owl. The pupils’ thinking is supported
by extended work on the setting. There is whole class movement and stillness
to establish an imagined place in which children can locate the characters
with precision. Verbal language and movement combine to create a mental
space for their hypotheses about what might be happening to Mummy Owl.
At the start of Lessons One and Two the children freeze to “form the shape of
a tree with one point of contact with the nearest person.” Next, the children
hot seat the teachers, who are in role as the three baby owls Sarah, Percy and
Bill. Physical whole class Drama creates a setting; Hot seating places them in
role within the setting. The foreground of the search for Mummy Owl works
with a background that the children experience and realise imaginatively
through movement.
The questioning, challenging and exploring of ideas about Mummy Owl
keeps the book open and starts the pupils’ hypotheses making. Their talk
groups then “gave more children a chance to give an opinion and to build on
51

52. each others’ thoughts.” The inter-change of ideas is how they test their
hypotheses. This leads into:
“… electing a group to walk through the wood. This will
give the children the idea of the setting when it comes to
searching the wood.”
The children carry the setting in their minds as they take part in a Decision
alley (an “Opinion Wood,” see Table 7 Lesson 2). In role they voice their
hypotheses and listen to those of others. As trees, the children are
“whispering what might have happened to Mummy Owl”; as police officers
they are “listening to their ideas.” The Decision alley makes the children
bring their hypotheses about Mummy Owl to a point. The teacher records
how:
“…by the time the children came to draw the wood they had
been in it, saw it, described it and heard other children’s
descriptions of it.”
Later, when the children draw the wood, the teacher writes:
“…the images are powerful and striking in that unusually
for this age group they do not contain characters in the
setting. T’s picture almost exactly matches ‘The tall trees were
scary. They were like spiky monsters.’
The forest is alive for T. The purposeful thinking creates a foreground and
background that enable him to visualise the setting verbally and in drawing.
The forest is where, in role, he tests his hypotheses about what happens to
Mummy Owl. Afterwards, out of role, collective talk encourages him to
speculate in a reasoned way. He builds and shares possible alternatives that
come out of what he knows, thinks he knows and would like to know about
Mummy Owl. The speculative thinking that encourages his hypotheses
testing and revision draws him further into the book world, where he
pursues his ideas through movement, stillness, and being in role. When he
writes and draws he is inside the forest and inside one of the baby owls.
52

53. In Lessons One and Two, the pupils’ collaborative talk is part of a transition
from Drama to scribed writing. In the first lesson the pupils discuss what the
baby owls would say to each other, make still pictures of them and then write
speech bubbles of what they think Sarah, Percy and Bill say. The teacher
records the impact on the children’s language of this prolonged work on the
setting. They begin to show an understanding of how to express reasons:
Pupil A
“Bill’s important because he’s the baby and babies need
looking after.”
Pupil B
“Sarah is important because she did the looking after, she’s
the oldest next to Mum and was the biggest.”
The speculations that pupils try out, elaborate and refine are formed
gradually into hypotheses about Mummy Owl. Pupil A connects reasons;
“because he’s the baby” and “babies need looking after”express cause and
effect that bring together knowledge of the book with her/his knowledge of
the world.
Pupil B does the same but also elaborates their reasons. The first reason
(“because she did the looking after”) connects with the second (“she’s the
oldest next to Mum and was the biggest”). There is a chain of reasoning as the
first and second reasons leads to the third (“and was the biggest”). The first
reasons is supported by a second and then joined to the third (“was the
biggest”) by a conjunction - “and”- that suggests that they have equality for
the pupil. The making and testing of hypotheses enable Reception class
pupils to produce language which contain purposeful thinking that shows an
understanding of cause and effect and how to build up a chain of equal
reasons.
The writing the pupils produce leads this teacher to include the following
from one pupil in her log:
53

54. “’IWonMIMUMNoM IWonMuM Rire. Ples’
He read it back in role as ‘I want my mum. I want my mum.
Really. Please.
This is the first piece of writing that he had done
independently, both in the thinking and the writing. He was
very keen to say what he thought and it was the first time
that I have observed him settle on task at the same time as
the other children.”
The ‘Owl Babies’ classroom-based research indicates the potential for writing
of whole class Drama. T’s exposure to Drama, which requires him to be in
role in a setting he visualises, engages him intellectually and emotionally in
the lives of the baby owls. In his imagination he carries a character within a
place. When he writes he moves beyond making marks on the page to become
a meaning maker who draws on the setting he sees and his feelings for the
baby owls, verbally and in writing. The whole class Drama pushes forward
this child’s intellectual capabilities through participation in purposeful
thinking. His reasoned speculations embrace empathy, collaboration and the
formation and generation of ideas. When he writes, T is a writer who thinks
and feels as he experiences the need to communicate meaning.
Table 8 and Appendix 7 are from a cross-curricula project called Rainforest. It
integrates Geography with Drama and is an instance of how purposeful
thinking generates an affective response to non-fiction. An introductory
video leads into whole class Drama where the teachers create a setting. They
take the children “on an expedition (through) the rainforest” in which they
“explore and feedback on sights and smells etc.” Like Planet Perfecton and
Owl Babies, a visualised, imaginary setting becomes more than a background
for the Drama. There is a joining of the intellectual and emotional through a
closely observed environment.
The children have a reason to research information about rainforests:
54