00001.tif

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content A FIELD STUDY OF THE DRAMATIC EXPERIENCE OF A FIFTH GRADE CLASSROOM USING THREE UNITS FROM CEMREL'S AESTHETIC EDUCATION PROGRAM by Donald Lee Rickner A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Communications-Drama) September 1977 UMI Number: DP22921 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT Dissertation Publ i s hi ng UMI DP22921 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y P A R K LO S A N G E L E S . C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 PK, IX D ’ ~ ! 8 R 5 3 ^ SW-qoQ This dissertation, w ritten by _ Donald Lee Rickner under the direction of h..i.s. Dissertation C om mittee, and approxied by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y Dean D a te.. DISSEKTTATION COMMITTEE Chairm aj This work is dedicated to Teryl, Geoffrey, and Neal. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To those who pointed the way, my Mom and Dr. James D. Young, a heart felt thanks. For guidance along the way, <a special thanks to Dr. Milton Dickens, Dr. Richard Toscan, land Dr. Margaret Smart. A warm thank you to A1 Goldwyn for I I his loving support. For help far beyond the restraints of jduty, a thank you to Felicia Frey, Phyllis Parmet, and Tom Menchus. For the wisdom of my chairman, Dr. James H. But ler, a most hearty thanks. And last, to my wife Teryl, my appreciation for her towering patience, exceptional bravery and loving support. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I DEDICATION................................................ ii t 'ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................... iii I I LIST OF TABLES...............................................viii i ' LIST OF GRAPHS............................................ X Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION............................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM..................... 3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM .............. 6 ASSUMPTIONS .................................. 8 LIMITATIONS .................................. 9 DELIMITATIONS ................................ 10 DEFINITION OF T E R M S ........................ 12 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................... 14 ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THIS STUDY............................. 19 2. PROCEDURES....................................... 21 POPULATION.................................... 24 DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA GATHERING •PROCESS.................................... 24 THE OBSERVER-PARTICIPANT RELATIONSHIP . . 26 PREPARATION OF THE RESEARCH JOURNAL . . . 28 PREPARATION FOR THE QUANTITATIVE DATA: THE OBSERVATION SHEETS . . . . . 29 Chapter 3. 4. I 5. i Page PREPARATION OF THE INTERVIEWS 33 ' PREPARATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROFILES.................................... 36 l REPORT OF THE RESEARCH JOURNAL: A NAR- I RATIVE OF THE DRAMA EXPERIENCE 40 j THE PLACE AND T I M E 41 j CREATING CHARACTERIZATION ................... 42 CONSTRUCTING DRAMATIC PLOT ................. 47 THE ACTOR 55 ■ REPORT OF THE QUANTITATIVE D A T A 78 _ HYPOTHESIS 1 78 ■ HYPOTHESIS 2 .................................. 80 HYPOTHESIS 3 .................................. 80 HYPOTHESIS 4 80 DISCUSSION OF CATEGORIES WITH WEAK COR RELATIONS TO THE TAXONOMY................. 84 DISCUSSION OF THE CATEGORIES WITH THE MOST OBSERVED BEHAVIORS ................... 88 DISCUSSION OF THE AFFECTIVE CATEGORIES , . 89 REPORT OF THE STUDENT INTERVIEWS ............ 91 PREVIOUS DRAMA EXPERIENCE OF THE STU DENTS ......................................... 92 STUDENTS' ABILITY TO CREATE A BRIEF DRAMATIC S C E N E 100 j RETENTION OF THE TERMS FROM CONSTRUCT ING DRAMATIC P L O T ........................... 101 RECALL OF THE PARTS OF CREATING CHAR ACTERIZATION 102 ; RECALL OF THE PARTS OF THE A C T O R 103 j v Chapter I 6. i i Page WERE STUDENT FEELINGS ENGAGED? ................ 104 WOULD THE STUDENTS WANT TO REPEAT THE EXPERIENCE NEXT Y E A R ? .......... .............105 USEFULNESS OF THE EXPERIENCE . ...............106 THE RANGE OF ATTITUDES..................... . . ' 108 THE FEAR OF DRAMATIC PERFORMANCE............Ill STUDENTS' AND TEACHER'S IDEAS ABOUT ACTING......................................... 113' REPORT OF THE RESEARCH JOURNAL AND INTER VIEWS : PROFILES OF MR.. MENCHUS AND THE TWENTY-FIVE STUDENTS .......... .............. 119' MR. TOM M E N C H U S ................................119 ALEX W I N T E R .................................... 128 ANDY HAWKINS ...........................130 j ANN ,fPOWERS.......................................132 CINDY MITCHELL..................................134 CLAUDE DOUGHERTY ................................ 135■ DAN SAKAMOTO....................................138 ; ERIC FLETCHER..................................140 ' ESTHER SCHLESINGER ............................. 142 GEORGE BUGG ..................................144 HARDY S C O T T .................................... 145 I HEATHER SMITH ............................... 147 ’ JIM BURLISS ..................................149 ; JOHN HARWELL.................................... 150 j I JOHN M U R P H Y .................................... 152; JON MENDELSON..................................155 : Chapter Page KATHY HEMPEL....................................... 157' LAURA GOTTFRIED...................................158 LIZ HOWELL......................................... 160; | MATT CLAYBOUR............................... . 162, MATT WOLFF.......................... 164 : I I ! NAT D O H R ................................... 165. I I | RACHEL JOHNSON .............................. 167 I ROBIN POTASH........................................ 169 i | ! ! SHARON MCMURTY -................................ 171, j VICTOR W I L L I S ................................ 172 ■ i ! 7 . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................... 176 \ S U M M A R Y.............................. 176 | CONCLUSIONS ........................................183 I EVALUATION OF THE CEMREL DRAMA CURRICU LUM ................................... 189 ! BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................193 APPENDIXES A. SAMPLE DATA SHEETS...................................197 B. RESEARCHER'S SUMMARY OF THE SHAW CATE GORIES ....................................... 201 C. PREDICTED BEHAVIORS . . . 207, D. DISTRIBUTION OF BEHAVIORS BY TAXONOMICAL CATEGORIES . . . . . . . . . . ................. 234 E. MEDIAN AND RANGE OF TOTAL NUMBER OF ; BEHAVIORS PER STUDENT BY TAXONOMICAL CATEGORIES..........................................238 I vii ; LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Pearson Product Moment Correlations between Number of Behaviors Found by- Shaw and Number of Observed Behaviors, as well as between Number of Behaviors Predicted and Number of Observed Behaviors for Taxonomical Categories: Cognitive . . .................................. 79 2. Pearson Product Moment Correlations between Number of Behaviors Found by- Shaw and Number of Observed Behaviors, as well as between Number of Behaviors Predicted and Number of Observed Behaviors for Taxonomical Categories: Affective....................................... 79 3. Distribution of Students by the Number of Plays in Which They Have Partici pated ............................................ 93 4. Distribution of Students by the Amount of Pretending They Say They Do . . 93 5. Distribution of Students by the Amount of Television They Say They Watch . 93 6. Distribution of Students by the Amount of Help They Needed to Create a Short Imaginary Scene . ............ 94 7. Distribution of Students by Whether They Had Done One of the CEMREL Drama Units..................... . 94 8. Distribution of Students by the Amount of Help Needed to Create an Imaginary Scene ..................... 95 9. Distribution of Students by the Number of Parts Recalled from Constructing Dramatic Plot . . ................... 95 viii Table 10. 11 . . I ' 12. i : 13. I i i j 14. 15. 16. 17. i l ( i i Page Distribution of Students by the Number of Parts Recalled from Creating Character ization ......................................... 95 Distribution of Students by the Number of Parts Recalled from The Actor.................. 96 Distribution of Students by Whether Their ' Feelings Were Involved.............'.......... 961 i Distribution of Students by Whether They ; Recalled Specific Information from The ; Actor Audio Tapes . 96 j Distribution of Students by Which Unit(s) They Would Like To Repeat . . . . . . . . . . 97 Distribution of Students by Whether They ; Made Everyday Use of What They Learned 1 in D r a m a ......................................... 97> Distribution of Students by Whether They Felt Their Drama Experience Was Person- ; ally Important............ 97' Distribution of Students by Whether They Did at Least One of The Actor Homework Assignments....................................... 98. LIST OF GRAPHS Graph Page 1. Histogram: Percent Distribution of Shaw, Predicted, and Observed Behaviors by Cognitive Taxonomical Categories ............ 81 2. Percent Distribution of Shaw, Predicted, and Observed Behaviors by Affective Taxonomical Categories ........................ 82 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION j i i From the inception of creative drama in the 1920's j iand up through the 1950's, it was most important to say [ jclearly what drama could or might be expected to do for , differing kinds of children. The early textbooks are the 1 result of the work of the gifted teacher/artists who laid claim to the widest possible potentials for drama— if only I it were widely used. Descriptions developed by the 1953 and 1960 committees of the Children's Theatre Conference simply reflect a pooling of such broadly conceived expecta-: 1 tions. Piquette's critical analysis of the definitions of creative dramatics not only points up the general agreement. among practitioners but also the glibness of all of the descriptions of drama that were written in the United 2 States up to 1959. 1 See Benjamin S. Bloom, ed., Cognitive Domain, Handbook I, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classi fication of Educational Goals (New York: David McKay Com- pany Inc., 1956); and David R. Karthwell, Benjamin S. ; Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, Affective Domain, Handbook II,i Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., : 1964). ; 2 Julia Camilla Piquette, "A Survey of the Contempo rary Outlook Relative to the Teaching of Creative Dramatics !as Evidenced in Selected Writings in the Field, 1929-1959" 1 '(unpublished PhD dissertation, Northwestern University, 1 1963). 1 It became increasingly important in the 1960's and . 1970's to say what creative drama is not, as well as what it is. This trend in creative drama raised the need for the development of a new kind of definition which would not( I |only serve as an effective communication among practition- j ers within the field but would delimit the field for inter-■ I jested persons in other fields. There was a special oppor tunity, almost a necessity, for descriptions which could be' i ' jmore easily translated into hypotheses and/or educational ; 1 ; jobjectives. Drama scholars responded by analyzing drama philosophically, taxonomically, and by fitting it into cur-. ricular plans. A few pioneering drama researchers have turned to i experimental methodology to seek the needed evidence. How- i ever, experimental methodology has proven a very cumbersome tool for dealing with such a loosely defined, complex, and often subtle human interaction. As a result, conflicting ! results or no results at all have been more the rule than I I I 3 !the exception. In the long term, some kind of quantita- i !tive research under carefully controlled conditions will be, i needed. At present, however, our ability to hypothesize | i the important variables without killing the event makes experimental research especially difficult. Meanwhile, : 3 j See the excellent discussion of this by Mary Elin Wright, "The Effects of Creative Drama on Person Percep tion" (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Minne sota, 1972), pp. 1-27. descriptive studies can help us establish an empirical data! base and may speed the day when more rigorous scientific evidence is possible.4 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM I | Studies of drama in education have only recently I I 1 . 1 ■ used empirical methodology to describe what occurs when drama is used in the classroom. This research applies | field study methodology to the recent drama curriculum developed by CEMREL, Inc., for use by regular classroom teachers. The drama experience is analyzed from four j points of view with three chapters answering one major jquestion each, and one chapter (Chapter 4) analyzing the i findings from four hypotheses: 1. What was the dramatic quality of the experience ! i on'/a day-by-day level? 2. The experience was described quantitatively by applying four hypotheses which predicted that a close rela-i tionship would exist between (a) the cognitive behaviors ' prescribed.in the CEMREL teacher's guides and the behaviors; 5 ithat would be observed in the classroom, (b) the affective. I behaviors prescribed in the CEMREL teacher's guides and the: i ' 4 . i For a recent review of empirical research in the [field, see Judith Baker Kase, "Descriptions of Current |Research in Theatre Education," paper presented to the [American Theatre Association Convention, Washington, D.C., |August 13, 1975. | 5 : i For a description of the CEMREL units, see pp. 14-: 1 6 . ............... 3J I behaviors that would be observed in the classroom, (c) the 1 cognitive behaviors prescribed by drama leaders and what ; would be observed in the classroom, and (d) the affective i behaviors prescribed by drama leaders and what would be . I : i i 1 observed in the classroom. I 3. What was the quality of the drama experience of I ; ' the CEMREL materials by the.class viewed as a whole? | 4. What was the experience of the CEMREL materials i from the point of view of each individual in the class? | The CEMREL drama materials were used in this I research for four reasons. First, they are the only sig- I nificant drama curriculum materials available which attempt to reach the non-specialist classroom teacher. If that |strategy is a viable one, it could revolutionize not only 1 the way drama is handled but how all the arts are handled in the schools. Second, the CEMREL materials lend them selves to systematic description. The teacher's guides are' organized on the concept process method of presentation and: are very detailed. It was possible, by analyzing the ; jteacher's guides, to make predictions of what would occur I in the classroom on a moment-to-moment basis. Third, while the CEMREL materials are tested individually, they have not been tested as a sequence of units. Since CEMREL aimed to j I provide a K-6 curriculum in drama, the ideal circumstance would have been to conduct a longitudinal study so that each unit could be taught at the level for which it was j i 4 I 6 i I designed. However, the present design of placing them all; ! • in a fifth grade was accepted because CEMREL claims that j 't the units work for all levels above the level for which they were designed. Fourth, the CEMREL evaluations were |conducted by evaluators who were not drama specialists. j tSince the present researcher has had training and experi- 'ence in drama in education, he brings that specialized per- ;spective to the research. ‘ | While some quantitative analysis was used in this inquiry, most of the analysis was qualitative. The day-by- i J day dramatic experience of the class was recorded by the iresearcher who visited each session and maintained a daily .journal which summarized the moment-by-moment activity of :the class and the objective as well as subjective.responses I 'of the researcher. The daily journal entry was based on !notes, audio recordings, and memory of each session. The |quantitative relationship between the cognitive and affec- !tive behaviors prescribed by the CEMREL teacher's guides I I for the three units used and what occurred in the classroom i |was examined by analyzing, both using the Shaw taxonomy and isubmitting the resulting quantities to a statistical test I jof significance. Likewise, the relationship between the prescriptions for dramatic activities by leaders of the 6 Brian K. Hansen, A Curriculum Model for Theatre in Aesthetic Education (St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1972), pp. 51-55. i field and what occurred in the classroom under study was I !analyzed using the Shaw taxonomy, and the resulting quanti- i t !ties were submitted to a statistical test of significance. | The individual experience of each student and the teacher I was examined by developing profiles of each person's expe dience based on two interviews, the daily journals, and :quantitative observation sheets. The implications of the baseline data from this study for the development of a ■ future model of drama in education were examined by devel- ■ oping criteria and hypotheses based on the data of the istudy. Thus, the purpose of providing baseline data for the development of a future model of drama in education is accomplished by systematically describing the dramatic .experience of one fifth grade class. SIGNIFICANCE OF. THE PROBLEM ; Creative dramatics is important enough to deserve ,research. Ward offered the first course in creative drama :in the United States at Northwestern University in 1926. Since then, creative drama has grown in courses, the number I 'of practitioners, publications, and impact on other fields. •There are now college courses in over six hundred colleges and universities, over one thousand members in the Chil dren's Theatre Association of America, over one thousand books listed in recently published bibliographies, and other fields are making explicit use of creative dramat- 7 i c s . These other fields include English, social studies, i g early childhood education, and psychology. These outside fields have developed considerable evidence that the uses to which they put drama are causing i I ‘positive results. However, within the field of creative ,drama there is still very little empirical evidence that ,anything of value is being produced as a result of creative ;dramatics, and the empirical work which has been done iremains unvalidated. I This research fulfills a need for empirical data in i I the field by providing baseline data on the classroom drama 7 i For information on the early beginnings of crea tive dramatics, see Moses Goldberg, Children's Theatre: A 'Philosophy and a Method (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- |Hall, Inc., 1974), p. 30ff. For information on current college offerings and membership, see Nellie McCaslin, "Address to the Membership," Theatre News, VIII (September- October, 1975), 16. Two recent and extensive bibliogra- 'phies are Mary Eileen Klock, Creative Drama: A Selected land Annotated Bibliography (Washington, D.C.: American !Theatre Association, 1975), and Rachel Fordyce, Children1s ‘Theatre and Creative Dramatics: An Annotated Bibliography ; of Critical Works' (Boston: g7 K7 Hall and Co. , 1975) . O For an example of creative drama and English, see James Moffett, A Student-Centered Language Arts Curriculum, Grades K-13: A Handbook for Teachers (Boston: Houghton- 'Mifflin Company, 1968). For an example of creative drama |and social studies, see Fannie Shaftel, Role Playing for Social Values (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 11967). For an example of creative drama and early child- ;hood education, see Sara Smilansky, The Effects of Socio- drama Play on Disadvantaged Preschool Children (New York: ‘John Wileyand Sons, Inc7, 1968). For the application of ;role playing in psychology by Moreno and his successors, see Lewis Yablonsky, Psychodrama: Resolving Emotional Problems through Role Playing (New York: Basic Books, 1976). (experience of one fifth grade class. Using one classroom lover one-half year of time is one way to limit the amount i I of data to a manageable size.. Another way of limiting the ;data would be to teach only one curricular unit in several : .different classrooms. However, this method was rejected since the CEMREL evaluation staff has accumulated some f :data on the performance of these units when taught by them selves in different classroom settings. The present study ; lean supplement the CEMREL findings. Teaching one unit in J |several different classrooms was also rejected because this' ■ i . |investigation makes use of Shaw's taxonomy. Since the tax-. Ionomy covers the entire field of creative drama, a better |comparison of the CEMREL units to creative drama could be : I i ! made using all available CEMREL drama units. ! i ASSUMPTIONS ; This research assumed a description of one care- I 'fully selected classroom could produce important insights I I into the nature of the CEMREL materials. And while all the characteristics of this one class experience will not be 'found in a cross section of classrooms using the materials, it is assumed that at least a significant percentage of the ■findings will be applicable to other classrooms. | An assumption has also been made about the validity j of Shaw's taxonomy. Shaw surveyed the drama in education ( literature and counted and classified the stated or implied; jeducation objectives they prescribed. Shaw claims that the I relative number of statements about a concept category means that drama leaders consider that category more impor- | itant than those categories where fewer statements were I found. However, the present researcher assumed for the purpose of this inquiry that the more statements Shaw ■found in a particular category, the more behaviors would be found when one observes drama in the classroom. Until that 'correlation between the number of Shaw statements and the Inumber of classroom behaviors is tested, the correlations jin this study between classroom behavior and the prescrip tions of drama leaders must remain tentative. LIMITATIONS The limitations of this investigation are as fol- j lows : 1. This study does not report on a representative 'sample of fifth grade classrooms or on a representative ■sample of the use of the three CEMREL drama units. 2. It does not provide a control for rater relia- ■bility. 3. It does not report on the socializing behaviors .of the students or behaviors arising from work they may 'have been doing for another area of the curriculum other i ithan drama. I ! DELIMITATIONS j Even if the behavior of the subjects of this I !research was not significantly distorted by the presence of an observer in the classroom, this researcher is unequivo- : cally a biased observer of these materials. Only by a ! .fully conscious confrontation with that fact is the study :likely to be a useful piece of work. On the other hand, I !the researcher's in-depth experience with the materials as | jan author of one unit, The Actor, can also provide the ! ipotential for insights which would not be possible to an (outsider. There is evidence for the position that the per-‘ I 'sons most involved in an event or even a theoretical I approach are in the best position to illumine and learn 9 from the event, in spite of their biases. As Maslow . :observes, the old idea that an observer had to stand off at ;some distance from the event and not care about the outcome * :is being seriously questioned. A new generation of :researchers is coming along who believe that those who care ■most about the outcome make the best observers. But it is, jMaslow emphasizes, a special kind of caring. It is an !altruistic love which wants more than anything else for the 9 John H. Mann, "Experimental Evaluations of Role •Playing," Psychological Bulletin, LIII (1956), 233. For ;the effect of overt involvement in role playing on attitude change, see Irving L. Janis, "Attitude Change via Role ■Playing," Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook, |ed. Robert P. Abelson and others (Chicago: Rand McNally jand Company, 1968), p. 812. (event to be what it most truly is, not what the observer 10 wants it to be. This researcher has kept this concept very consciously in mind as one means of making positive use of his involvement with the CEMREL units. i Two techniques were used to minimize the negative I effects of the researcher's bias. Though the teacher knew i the researcher to be the author of one of the units, the : 11 ■students were not told until the project was completed. I [Their obvious surprise attested to the success of the i I (attempted secret. Second, this research focuses on a I jclear and systematic description of what occurred rather ,than how much. Assuming a positive bias, the researcher asked, "Assuming these materials have some value, in what i ;areas of a drama curriculum are they likely to be most ;valuable?" The areas of greatest value will be assumed to be those in which the taxonomical analysis shows the mate- .rial to be most extensively involved. Subsequent, more ;controlled studies could be conducted to determine whether , the materials are, in fact, valuable in any of the areas in 10 ; Abraham Maslow, "Farther Reaches of Human Nature,"; address to the American Psychological Association Conven- ition, Chicago, 1972. 11 I Two days after the final student and teacher interviews, Mr. Menchus and I joined in taking the students . ifor a celebratory ice cream cone. Upon return to the iclassroom, the students were invited to satisfy their curi- losity about the specific purposes of my presence in their [Classroom. Their '"obvious surprise" refers to their reac tion of cheering and clapping when told I was the author of , [The Actor. which the taxonomy showed them to be focused. DEFINITION OF TERMS • Dramatic Experience 5 Dramatic experience is defined for the purposes of this dissertation as behaviors described in Shaw's taxon omy. Bloom's classic taxonomy of educational objectives ;served as Shaw's model for creative drama taxonomy. An i t ;analysis of the literature in creative drama provided Shaw . ‘with the dramatic objectives to place in the taxonomy, jThus, Shaw's taxonomy represents a systematic compilation iof the descriptions of dramatic experience by creative [drama textbook writers, other practitioners whose work is I reported in articles or books, and the definitions of crea- i jtive drama by committees of the Children's Theatre Associa tion. ;Taxonomy I A taxonomy is a means of systematizing a field : according to natural relationships and inherent properties ! of the field. Bloom, whose taxonomy is widely accepted as jan educational classic, describes a taxonomy by saying: I i A taxonomy must be so constructed that the order of the ; terms must correspond to some real order of the phenom ena represented by the terms. A classification scheme may be validated by reference to the criteria of com- I municability, usefulness, and suggestiveness, while a ' taxonomy must be validated by demonstrating its con- : sistency with the theoretical views in research find- j ings of the field it attempts to order. I It is Bloom's definition and taxonomical work which served as a model for Shaw's taxonomy, which is extensively 13 'applied in the present work. I CEMREL The three CEMREL drama units are (1) Creating Char acterization , (2) Constructing Dramatic Plot, and (3) The Actor♦ CEMREL, Inc., is a regional, non-profit corporation i jlocated in St. Louis, Missouri, for the purpose of doing iresearch and development in education. The three drama units were developed as part of forty curricular units in !the Aesthetic Education Program. Each provides the regular .classroom teacher or non-specialist with a teacher's guide ;and multi-media materials which enables him/her to teach i |the arts in the classroom. Because they attempt to attract ■the non-specialist, they are designed to introduce the most 'fundamental elements of drama in very simple ways. Each is i jdesigned for the elementary level with Creating Characteri sation aimed .at grade three, Constructing Dramatic Plot for jgrade three, and The Actor for grade five. The first two ( i t — — j 12Bloom, p. 17. 13 Ann M. Shaw, "The Development of a Taxonomy of jEducational Objectives in Creative Dramatics in the United 'States Based on Selected Writings in the Field" (unpub lished PhD dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia Univer sity, 1968). are available through Viking Press; The Actor is scheduled for publication in 1978. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE I The most important resources for this inquiry are ■the three CEMREL, Inc. drama units: Creating Characteriza- 1tion, Constructing Dramatic Plot, and The Actor. These 1 14 were the curriculum of the class sessions observed. Each ;of these three CEMREL, Inc. units is a multi-media curricu lar unit. They are three of forty units which were devel oped as part of CEMREL's Aesthetic Education Program, which covers aesthetic elements in all the arts for children K- CEMREL, Inc., a private non-profit corporation, is :one of a dozen regional laboratories for research and I :development in education. The stated purpose of CEMREL1s Aesthetic Education Program is to make the arts accessible to the regular classroom teacher. Each unit contains a teacher's guide which gives very specific guidance to the teacher conducting the units, and the content of the units ■focuses on entry level behaviors. The hope of the program 14 See Bernard S. Rosenblatt, Creating Characteriza tion (St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1971); Bernard S. Rosen- .blatt, Constructing Dramatic Plot (St. Louis: CEMREL, ,Inc., 1971); and Donald Rickner, The Actor (St. Louis: 'CEMREL, Inc., 1976). 15 Creating Characterization and Constructing Dra- jmatic Plot were developed In 1971; The Actor was developed • in 1976 . * y, ■is that after schools have become familiar with the arts I !through the Aesthetic Education Program, they will engage i jarts specialists who will introduce more and more sophisti- * 1 6 icated levels of aesthetic experience. I The forty curricular units are organized into six series. Creating Characterization is a Level II unit in i the series called "The Creative Process." It deals with the process of the actor creating a character. It begins jby showing the child expressive pictures in a book and ask ing the child to identify the emotion exhibited by the pic ture. Later the child is asked to act out the observed t emotions in pantomime. A similar process is followed for ■expressive sounds. The child hears taped emotional expres sions, identifies them, and then is asked to improvise an iemotional expression with sounds. Finally, the child is jasked to use both visual and aural elements to create an emotional expression. Constructing Dramatic Plot is a Level III unit in , the "Aesthetic Elements" series. By means of a game the I jstudents are introduced to the plot elements: character, jsetting, incident, conflict, crisis and resolution. The i igame begins with the child playing with as few as three plot elements. As the child masters these elements, he/she I 16 Manuel Barkan, Laura H. Chapman, and Evan J. Kern, Guidelines: Curriculum Development for Aesthetic Education (St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1970), p. 1. j is encouraged to go to a higher level of the game which i juses more elements. Finally, the students are encouraged j to act out the stories they create and to create stories iwithout using the game at all. The Actor is a Level V unit in the "Artist's Series." By means of audio taped interviews and a play in which students must supply the dialogue as well as movement and gestures, the students are introduced to who actors are ;and what they do. Brief one- to two-minute statements from I professional actors Paul Newman, Will Geer, Luis Valdez, |Mary Lou Rosato, Mary Alice, and Saundra Deacon introduce concepts about the work of the actor. These concepts are explored through acting exercises and then put into prac tice as the students develop the improvisational "play," The Mighty Owl. ; The next most important resource for this investi- I ;gation is Shaw's "The Development of a Taxonomy of Educa- 'tional Objectives in Creative Dramatics in the United (states Based on Selected Writings in the Field." Shaw ana lyzed the literature of creative drama and found that it was possible to classify the implied or stated goals of the .field into a taxonomy patterned after Bloom's classic work. The present study uses the dramatic taxonomy developed by Shaw as a means of classifying classroom behavior. As a .result, it is possible to make tentative comparisons between the quality of the dramatic experience observed in jthis study with the goals of leading practitioners and the orists in the field of creative drama. The taxonomy clarified the statements of the prac titioners in the field by indicating educational implica- I I ■tions of their statements about creative drama. While I Piquette's survey of the field found it loaded with global ! I 'statements of its principles and objectives, Shaw's tax- I onomical analysis of the field provided evidence that spe cific objectives do exist and causes them to be set out I more clearly because they are organized and stated in oper- Iational terms. The taxonomy is also a means of classifying observed behaviors. The taxonomical categories provided a i ;means of systematically viewing a live creative drama experience and classifying the behaviors into taxonomical ,categories. i ; The methodology of field observation used is based most heavily on the work of Smith. Piaget provided a model ifor three aspects of the research design used here: the :open-ended interview technique, the careful journal keeping i ;followed by cautious analysis, and the idea of mixing quan- 17 :titative and qualitative observation. Smith provided a model of the observer-participant relationship and guide lines for keeping discrete the different data sources such ; as direct observation and the memory of direct observation ; ; 17 ■ : Jean Piaget, The Language and Thought of the Child, trans. M. Gabias (New York: Meridian Books, 1957). I *10 |during the process of analyzing the data. 0 Maslow's theory of research is important to this research since he advocates that those who love the subject matter under study may achieve greater insight into the subject than can a detached observer, providing the 19 researcher's love is altruistic, i.e., the researcher I 1 must love what he/she observes so much that he/she wants .most for the subject to be what it truly is. Since the ;present researcher is also an author of The Actor, part of 1 the subject for this study, the application of Maslow's .concept is crucial to the effectiveness of the study, j Four theoretical areas were especially in the mind 'of the researcher throughout this study. The theories of I play, role, creativity and language development provide the 1 ‘rich texture of hypothesis and questions which are an i ; 20 1 important tool of the field researcher. The problem of 18 ! See especially Lou M. Smith and William Geoffrey, The Complexities of an Urban Classroom; An Analysis toward_ ia General Theory of Teaching (New York: Holt, Rinehart and1 iVinston, Inc., 1968). See Chapter I, "The Nature of Class- ■ room Micro-ethnography," pp. 1-20, and the appendix, "Fur ther Reflections on the Methodology," pp. 261-262, for ;descriptions of Smith's approach. 1 19 jMas.low, "Farther Reaches of Human Nature." 20 For a cogent review of the theories of play, see Sara Smilansky, The Effects of Sociodramatic Play on Disad- ivantaged Preschool Children (New York: John Wiley and :Sons, Inc., 1968), pp. 4-28. For role theory in the social 'sciences, see John H. Flavell and others, The Development j Kof Role-taking and Communication Skills in Children (New i York: Wiley, 1968). For role theory in drama, see Fred- ' erick Shyberg, "The Art of Acting," Tulane Drama Review, j the field observer is to simultaneously refrain from con trolling the observed event by imposing a theory, but at the same time to always have a hypothesis in mind which 21 tmight be applicable to what one is studying. ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THIS STUDY In Chapter 1 the problem has been stated and its significance described. The limitations of the study were joutlined, terms were defined, and the literature relevant !to the study was discussed. J In Chapter 2 the procedures are presented. Chapter i ;3, the first of four chapters of findings, addresses the !question, What was the quality of the dramatic experience on a day-to-day level? Chapter 4 presents the quantitative | findings. Chapter 5 answers the question, What was the [quality of the experience of the CEMREL units by the class jvil (Summer, 1961), 56-76; VIII (Spring, 1962), 106-131; JVIII (Summer, 1962), 66-93.. For a study of creativity and [drama, see Brian Sutton-Smith, "The Role of Play in Cogni- itive Development," Child's Play, ed. R. E. Herron and Brian , Sutton-Smith (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971), >pp. 252-260. For a review of creativity theories, see John !p. De Cecco, The Psychology of Learning and Instruction: ^Educational Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1968), pp. 454-463. For drama and language .development, see James Moffett, A Student-Centered Language Arts Curriculum, Grades K-13: A Handbook for Teachers i(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968). 1 21Jean Piaget, The Child's Conception of the World |(Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams and Company, 1965), p. I 9. 1 as a group? Chapter 6 examines the experience from still 'another point of view by addressing the question, What was the quality of the experience for the teacher and for each i student viewed individually? Finally, Chapter 7 provides a isummary and conclusions. 1 Chapter 2 PROCEDURES I < I In this chapter the procedures of the study are j i !presented. The population selected is described and the jdata gathering process is outlined. A description of the I [preparation for the research journal, the daily observation' i 'sheets, the student and teacher interviews, and the indi- |vidual teacher and student profiles complete this chapter. , I POPULATION I The participants in this study were twenty-five i students and their fifth grade teacher, Mr. Tom Menchus. !They were selected because they met the researcher's five I !subject selection criteria: i 1 1. The teacher and principal were amenable to time 1 requirements of the study and to the researcher's presence i ;in all drama class sessions. ! 2. There were at least twenty students in the j class. I | 3. The class was racially mixed; there were twenty jAnglos, four blacks, and one oriental. I 4. The socioeconomic level of the students was i i ■upper-lower to lower-middle class. I 5. The students were characterized by their j 21 iteacher as about average in maturity and intellectual abil- !ity. Mr. Menchus, their teacher, stated in the initial i j interview that in his opinion the class was average or a I little above average in Intellectual ability, and average i 1 or below average in emotional maturity. The class, all fifth graders, was comprised of fif- i teen males and ten females. Mr. Menchus, the teacher, fulfilled two selection !criteria: i ( I 1. He volunteered to participate in the study ‘after being asked by the researcher. His payment-for par- j ticipation was that the school would receive one of the I ;CEMREL units of their choice. i ; 2. Mr. Menchus is a regular classroom teacher with no apparent bias for or against drama in education. He .would have been considered strongly biased in favor of ■drama had he had formal training in drama or had partici- jpated in or directed more than three dramatic events. Such » :activities as teaching a drama unit, directing children in • a play, or playing a major role in a play as an actor, ■designer, or technician would have been considered as par- 1 ticipation in a dramatic event. Mr. Menchus had taught one 'drama unit, Constructing Dramatic Plot; had been in one ; 1 All information attributed to Mr. Menchus in this chapter is taken from the initial interview in his class room at Flynn Park School, University City, Missouri, Sep tember 30, 1975. iplay in college; and had directed one classroom drama event. Mr. Menchus's knowledge of CEMREL was considered a 'possible bias, so the researcher asked him what other units' I ! he had taught and how he evaluated them. When asked which he would teach again, he stated he would teach Point of .View, Constructing Dramatic Plot, and Creating Word Pic- •tures. He stated he would not teach Creating Sound with 'Magnetic Tape, nor would he use the Theatre Game File. The, 'latter he had not taught as a unit but had "tried out" and |felt uncomfortable with it. Thus, the researcher concluded 'that Mr. Menchus was, on balance, favorable to CEMREL work 'but not strongly biased since he rated some CEMREL products 'high and others low. The class was located in Flynn Park School in Uni- ,versity City, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis. Flynn Park .is about one mile from Washington University. The commu- jnity is a racially mixed, urbanized area. The homes around the school are twenty- to thirty-year-old, one- and two- story brick homes. While they are not large or luxurious, .they are generally well maintained and the school and 2 neighborhood are neat and orderly. The teacher and students were interviewed before i I ' ------------------ I 2 ■ Information taken from the initial interview with ■ ■Mr. Robert Slone, principal, Flynn Park School, University i :City, Missouri, September 30, 1975. ! i I : ; _ 231 jand after participating in the drama units. The pre-inter- i I view concentrated on their past experiences in drama and theatre, while the exit interview focused on their experi- jences with the three CEMREL units. I ' DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA GATHERING PROCESS The field observation methods used in this study ■included student interviews, teacher interviews, a daily ( 'record of the dramatic behaviors on data sheets, and daily audio recordings. After each session journal notations 'included narrative descriptions of each day's session, a ;taxonomical review of the dramatic behaviors which compared !the expected behaviors, derived from an analysis of the 'teacher's guide, with the observed dramatic behaviors recorded on the data sheets. Finally, subjective reflec- .tions related the observed events with various theories and !practices in creative drama, theatre and education. After iall data had been collected, it was further analyzed to determine whether significant relationships existed between 'the dramatic behaviors observed in the classroom and the educational objectives of the creative drama field as 3 described in Shaw's taxonomy. The researcher attended each of the forty class 3 See Ed Patrick, Pilot Testing Evaluation Report (St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1971); and Betty Hall, The ;Actor, Hothouse Report (St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1976). jsessions when the drama units were taught. Each observed dramatic behaviqr was recorded on an observation sheet. During discussions involving the whole group, all student and teacher behaviors were noted. When the class broke ,into small groups, the groups were randomly observed using the three minutes on, two minutes off, observation tech- I nique. Random rotation was achieved by assigning each 'group a number, putting these numbers on identical slips of jpaper, and asking a student to draw them "blind" from a {pile on a desk top. | The observation sheets made it possible to record i I iwhich student exhibited a dramatic behavior and to what taxonomical category the behavior belonged. Sample data {sheets are in Appendix A. During the one-minute off peri- I 'ods, "raw notes" were made containing subjective observa- .tions and a record of behaviors which could not be immedi- :ately categorized so they could be later analyzed. i | In addition to the data sheets and raw notes, the 'researcher recorded each session on audio cassettes using a Sony TC-120 tape recorder. And finally, all student prod ucts such as written stories, diagnostic test papers, and ;journals were xerox copied. After each session a,journal entry recorded three {kinds of qualitative observations. First, a narrative of ■the session provided a sense of the whole. The sequence of !events, interruptions, moods and feelings, as well as the (trends of information, were recorded. Second, a prelimin- |ary taxonomical analysis of the session analyzed what cate gories were predicted, which were used, and to what extent ■ each was used. As the researcher listened to a replay of ; the session on tape, he reflected again whether the cate- t gories chosen were correct. Categories were added to clas-1 i ■sify behaviors which occurred that were not predicted from ■the analysis of the CEMREL materials. Third, the :researcher reflected on everything observed and recorded land wrote down reflections, speculations, hypotheses, and I j questions. THE OBSERVER-PARTICIPANT RELATIONSHIP The researcher maintained a friendly observer-par- 'ticipant relationship with the class. He engaged in ■friendly student or teacher pleasantries, conversations about hobbies; listened to voluntary statements by the stu dents or the teacher of attitudes and ideas they held about |their drama experiences; and allowed the students to share ■ the results of their work in other areas of their curricu- jlum. However, questions about the CEMREL drama curriculum I :materials or teaching techniques were avoided. The teacher was given the materials and told to try to teach them as if • i the researcher were not present. The students were told ! i ; ! ’that the researcher was there to record what happened but ' not to direct what happened. | Even so, the presence of an extra adult in the I 1 classroom must be assumed to be a potential cause for changes in behavior. However, the aim of this study is ; baseline data rather than evidence of the existence of a I 1 I particular relationship, so no control for the Hawthorne j 4 i effect of the researcher's presence was implemented. In ' I an exploratory study of this kind, it may be helpful to 'remember that students and teacher do have limits to the I !behavior of which they are capable. Even if they all > i wanted to act perfectly for the benefit of the outsider, ! ! there are several factors which mitigated against it. Theyj were limited by their degree of awareness of the research- ; ; i ler's presence. Role play research has shown that when a j person is asked to act "as if" he is a customer, his behav- |ior can be remarkably similar to what it is when he truly I 5 jis a customer. This ability to act "in role" has been a significant factor in the growth of role playing as a 'research technique. This technique was repeatedly applied j ithroughout the classroom observation period. When Mr. Men- !chus asked, "How shall I teach this?" the researcher i I ............ .. i I 4 ! For a discussion of the "Hawthorne effect," see : jMary Elin Wright, "The Effects of Creative Drama on Person ; ’Perception" (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of i ^Minnesota, 1972), pp. 28-30. ! ^See David 0. Sears and Ronald P. Abeles, "Atti- Itudes and Opinions," Annual Review of Psychology 1969, XX .(1969), 276; and Russell K. Darroch and Ivan D. Steiner, I "Role Playing: An Alternative to Laboratory Research?" jJournal of Personality, XXXVIII (1970), 302-311. 27 jreplied, "Try to teach it the way you would if I weren't here." When student curiosity was drawn to the research er's tape recorder or notes, he would ask the students to I i"pretend I'm not here"; students invariably were able to focus back on their tasks when the request was made in that way. i PREPARATION OF THE RESEARCH JOURNAL i j In the present study, exact language was recorded jby a combination of audio tape and notes. The researcher |wrote down enough of the language along with the name of 1 ■the student speaking so that what was said could be later |identified from the audio tape. i A first function of the notes and tapes was to pro- i jvide the substance for a general narrative of each ses- 1sion's experience.® Because the researcher's time in class .was largely taken up by recording quantitative data, a kind of shorthand was used which focused primarily on key state ments and visual referents. Later, as the tape was ireplayed, these "raw notes" could then be used in tandem .with the audio recordings to develop a narrative of the session which described the feel and flavor or tone, as ;well as the events of the sessions. This journalistic ®Lou M. Smith and William Geoffrey, The Complexi ties of an Urban Classroom: An Analysis toward a General .Theory of Teaching (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, ■Inc., 1968), pp. 251-262. 7 !reporting style was adapted from the work of Smith. A second function of the journal was as a reposi tory for commentary on the quantitative information. The ( purpose of these comments is to provide a link between the ■quantitative data and the purely subjective data by noting , i .what events may have triggered the occurrence of behaviors • in a certain category, and to offer subjectively noted .behaviors which could provide a reason why a certain !expected category of behaviors did not occur. J Third, the journal was a place for questions, {reflections, speculations, and hypotheses. This aspect of , j , |the journal was anticipated to be especially important in ; this exploratory study. It was planned as a means of gen- | r ' Ierating hypotheses and criteria which seemed justified by i ;the observed behaviors. It was also a method of developing 1 a list of interview questions to be asked of the students ,and the teacher at the end of the three drama units. And ;it served as a source for intuitive evaluation of the quan- ;titative data. PREPARATION FOR THE QUANTITATIVE DATA: | THE OBSERVATION SHEETS i Preparation for the quantitative observations pro- i , ------------------------------------------------ I ; y I ; Ibid. See especially Chapter I, "The Nature of ! Classroom Micro-ethnography," pp. 1-20, and the Appendix, , ;"Further Reflections on the Methodology," pp. 251-262. i 29 ceeded through three steps: the analysis of Shaw's taxon omy, the taxonomical analysis of the three CEMREL units, 8 and the preparation of the data sheets. The first step was necessary because the researcher found it cumbersome to (try to refer to the entire Shaw book as a reference in classifying the CEMREL units. Therefore, a very concise ’summary was prepared which provided a thumbnail sketch of 'each category (see Appendix B for copies of these summa- Iries). i Second, a concept-by-concept and action-by-action Janalysis was prepared from the teacher's guides for each of •the three units. Each concept was given a cognitive cate- , :gory number and an affective category number if one of i Shaw's categories could be applied. Where the concept did ;not fit into the taxonomy, no number was assigned and the t ■concept was assumed to be a non-dramatic one. Thus, in Creating Characterization, the first concept, "A charac- ,ter's emotional traits can be physically expressed," is 'given a cognitive classification of 1.31-A. The research er's summary of that category reads: "Behavior of individ- i juals or characters [is] related to physical/emotional Imake-up, e.g., physical state and behavior, emotional state The resultant tools, i.e., the summary of Shaw's categories, the analysis of the three CEMREL units, and the specimen of the observation sheets may be found in the Appendix, pp. 197-232. and behavior are related."9 However, no indication is given in the concept statement, directly or indirectly, for the degree of affective involvement in this concept. Thus, no affective category is given for the concept. However, the actions which the students undertake in connection with, i I this concept do seem to indicate the proposed level of affective involvement. The first student action is that the student "verbally describes emotions of the people in pictures." This is classed as cognitive 1.11-A, which is knowledge of terminology specific to emotional referents and their commonly associated behaviors. Affectively it is classed as 1.3-A. The researcher's summary of this cate gory reads: "Controlled or selected attention for the pur-, pose of a communication, e.g., stating or selecting purpose 10 of a pantomime after viewing." Complete copies of the taxonomical analysis of predicted affective and cognitive behaviors contained in the teacher's guides of Creating Characterization, Constructing Dramatic Plot, and The Actor are in Appendix C. The third step was the preparation of the data sheets. These, to be effective, had to provide a column for the students' names along one dimension and the pre- i 9See Appendix.B, p. 202. ; I dieted categories of dramatic behaviors along another (dimension. Pilot versions of the data sheet included xerox' I jreductions of the researcher's thumbnail summaries, or i !included all affective and cognitive behaviors on one page.[ These versions were found not to provide enough space for recording the behaviors; therefore, the descriptions were < ; dropped and different sheets were prepared for each drama unit. To further conserve space, subcategories were com bined if the analysis of the teacher's guides resulted in a; ;prediction that a very small number of behaviors would be I I observed in that category. For example, in Creating Char- ■ Iacterizat ion and Constructing Dramatic Plot, both lower ; i : elementary level packages, the cognitive and affective ;behaviors are uncombined and the predicted cognitive and i !affective behaviors for one unit were placed on a single i ] ;sheet. For The Actor, an upper elementary unit, cognitive i and affective categories were placed on two pages and some ,cognitive subcategories were combined. (See Appendix A 'for samples of the data sheets of each of the CEMREL units.) I During data gathering, when a behavior was noted in one of i these combined subcategories, it was necessary to add a (letter such as "A," "B," "C," "D" or "E" next to the mark. I iHowever, since the categories where such combining occurred .were those in which few behaviors were predicted, this let- i 'ter adding resulted in only minor inconveniences. | PREPARATION OF THE INTERVIEWS The Student Interviews The purpose of the student interviews was to gain I I subjective insight into the way each student in the class 'thought and felt about his/her drama experience. Inter- 'views were conducted with the students before and after the' I three drama units were taught. The open-ended, problem focused interview was the same the second time as it was r :the first, except that additional questions were asked at I ;the second interview. These interviews were conducted by ; 'the researcher who was, it should be noted, an adult, Anglo i !stranger. These factors have been found to inhibit some I 11 'children. A main reason for conducting the Initial i interview was that it would serve as a warm-up for the ■ final interview. ! The setting for the interviews was the hallway out- t i .side the classroom. Both student and interviewer sat in t , l 'chairs on the same side of the table. The Interviews began i :with the interviewer showing the student a picture of an actor in a very animated body position. The student was I asked a series of prepared questions, focusing detailed !attention on the picture. Then the questioning became more i open-ended as the student was asked, "Can you make up a ; I I___________________ : 11 1 Courtney Cazden, "The Situation in Child Language j iResearch and Education," Language and Poverty, ed. Freder- , jick Williams (Chicago: Markham7 1970), pp. 81-101. J 33 istory to show this feeling to the other members of the class?" If the student seemed not to be able to respond to, such a general directive, more and more specific questions were asked until the child successfully made up a scene. ' After the scene was described, the child was asked ; i some further questions which probed the child's history in I I :relation to creative drama. Such experiences as being in a: ; I 'play, pretending with friends, pretending alone, watching j i or not watching television, and acting training were probedi by further questioning such as, "Would you like to do that i ! j again?" or "Was that fun for you?" "Who else did you do that with?" "What did you pretend you were?" "Did you everi know anyone like that?" In other words, the researcher wasj constantly probing for the ideas and attitudes the child iheld about drama and how these had come to be. ' The second student interview was conducted after the three drama units were complete. After asking the same ' question's as in the first interview, several additional !questions were posed which were drawn from the researcher's journal. In addition, other questions were asked which ■ seemed useful at the time of the interview to draw out the . student's view of his drama experience. The initial interview questions were: i Who is this? j What is he/she doing? * Where is he/she? j When did this happen? ; Why did this happen? ' 1 | I 34 | How can you tell who, what, where, when and why? : Have you ever felt like this? [if answer is "yes"] What did you do? What did you look like? Sound like? Can you make up a story to show this feeling to others? i ,Follow-up questions were used as needed to help the child solve the problem of creating a brief story: Could you make up a story? How would.the story begin? What would happen next? How would the story end? i What would be in the story? j What would this character be doing? I Where would the story take place? Why would you do that in the story? j What would that show? How would the characters look? i !The Teacher Interviews ! The teacher interviews were also prepared to move 'from the more open-ended to more direct questions. The |questions for the initial interview were created with the .purpose of assessing the teacher's interest in and fitness i ! for the project while telling him/as "littie as possible | J ! about the goals of the research. The final teacher inter view questions were: Can you go through student by student and talk about each student's work in these drama units and com pare that to their work in other subject areas? What do you remember of Creating Characterization? Constructing Dramatic Plot? The Actor? Why did you have them write down their Constructing Dramatic Plot stories? When do you play records for the class? Where did you get the idea of doing the cut and paste activity for Creating Characterization? | What were some of the comments students made to you when I was not there to record them? : What was the effect of the poor reproduction qual- ; ity of the Actor Wall? > What did you learn from each of these units? : When things bog down or if discipline is necessary ■ in another subject area other than drama, how do you urge students to do what you want? \ What would you do on an "excitable" day if I had j not been scheduled to come in? Would you still do the lesson or would you do something else? What work do you do in the mornings? What kind of work do you do in the afternoons? What do you.think was different because an observer! was there? I Where in the curriculum do these units belong? , Was this project worth your time and effort? The second day you said, "I pulled teeth for an j hour yesterday. But when we are trying so hard to get through the language arts and sciences and things--I [ mean, I don't doubt anyone's integrity but I really wonder if it's worth it." How do you feel about that statement now? I got a sense that you were rushing sometimes, j especially in Creating Characterization. Did you, or am I just paranoid? . ! Did you read all of the package introductions? ! ! Do you need more preparation time to teach drama? j You said initially that this group was a bit imma- I j ture. Do you think this drama experience helped? (In j what way?) ! Will you teach any of these units again? What will you do differently next time? As with the student interviews, follow-up questions ;were asked wherever there seemed a need for further speci- i jficity for Mr. Menchus to understand the thrust of the jquestion or where there seemed a promise of more relevant [information to the basic research question. I i | PREPARATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROFILES f I I ; The individual profiles are composites of eight : i sources of information: initial student interviews, final i |student interviews, final teacher interviews, quantitative data sheets, journal record, tape recordings, student prod ucts, and memory. The same research questions were posed during the analysis of each of these sources of informa tion: What was the dramatic experience of this student? What dramatic ideas, attitudes and actions did the student exhibit, and did any of these change during the course of the drama units? Does the data from the various sources on an individual seem to form a consistent pattern of dramatic behaviors? The initial and final student interviews were audio taped. The tapes were studied and notes were taken from the tapes of the first interview so that follow-up ques tions could be asked of individual students at the final interview. Notes were also developed following the final interview with special attention to the central research question. The final teacher interview included this question: "Can you describe each student and compare his behavior in this unit with his behavior in other parts of the curricu lum?" The question of most interest here was, "Does the teacher's perception of this student seem to fit with the quantitative and other data?" Of secondary interest was, "Were the students whom the teacher thought did well in this activity those whom he generally found to be the 'top' students, or was there a special kind of student who seemed to fare well in this curriculum?" j The quantitative data sheets were designed to f !record student dramatic behavior by student name. Thus i i ! ' they make it possible to total out all the recorded dra- ; i ;matic behaviors of a particular student for each day, each j i ! :drama unit, or for the entire curriculum. The expectation was that certain students would tend to exhibit some cate- I ' ■gories more than others, and that some students would show ' 'a greater or lesser total number of behaviors. Finally, ; ;these numbers can be related subjectively to the intuitive l * j data so that hypotheses and criteria can be formed about ! jthe observed behaviors of the individuals. J The journal record, which included the names of |students wherever feasible, was studied and student names were underlinedt in red. Then the journal record was stud- iied student by student so that all the entries in reference ■to a single student were studied together. The tape 'recording served as a back-up, so that something only par- f jtially recorded or unclearly recorded in the journal could :be checked again by relistening to the tape. The student products included pre- and posttests .from Creating Characterization and Constructing Dramatic j Plot and the journals from The Actor. These products were I ■studied student by student with the research question in i ■mind as they were compared to the data from other sources. And last, the researcher used his own memory. In I ; I jorder to record the student behaviors by name, it was J 38 | necessary for the researcher to come to the classroom prior to the beginning of the 'drama unit in order to memorize names and faces. Further, friendly conversation not relat- ;ing to the research project was welcomed as a means of l :encouraging a comfortable relationship between class and observer. All of this encouraged and aided the research er's ability to form ideas and questions about individual students. Though memory is a sometimes unreliable research jtool, the researcher cannot ignore the fact that the memo- ries are there. As Smith points out, the important consid eration is not to trust your memory as an accurate reflec- ;tion of what happened; rather it must be dealt with con- ! 12 ,sciously as a memory. With this caution, the research- I ler's memory was also enlisted as he reviewed all the data 'with the question: "Are there impressions or events that I ( !remember about this student that might provide more infor mation or intuitive insight into the pattern or causes of his/her dramatic behavior?" ! 12 ! Smith and Geoffrey, p. 256. 39 Chapter 3 ; REPORT OF THE RESEARCH JOURNAL: A NAR RATIVE OF THE DRAMA EXPERIENCE This chapter reports on the data derived from the I first of the three sections of the daily research journal 'and provides a narrative description of the quality of the I I events in each of the forty sessions observed. First, the i |events of the seven sessions of Creating Characterization :are described, then the ten sessions of Constructing Dra- I 'matic Plot, and last, the twenty sessions of The Actor are I Jdetailed in narrative descriptions. ' The source of the data in this chapter is the i :research journal, which contains about sixty-three thousand ;words divided into three kinds of information. There is a .narrative of the quality of the sessions, which provides a .sense of the moment-to—moment feel of the classroom during ,the drama units. Second, there is information which illu mines the quantitative observations. And last, there are jreflections, speculations, and questions which subjectively ■relate classroom occurrences to theories and principles ;which seemed relevant. It is the first of these three .kinds of information which is summarized in this chapter. The journal record showed the sessions to vary in the intensity of involvement from session to session, or j from one activity to another within the same session. The ■ 40 journal also recorded the way in which the patterns of i [ i iinterest varied between teacher and students. While ' i 1 I |Mr. Menchus preferred the more highly structured elements, |the students preferred the more improvisational elements of: the units. i I ! THE PLACE AND TIME i i i The first day of observation the researcher was ; i I , struck by the classroom setting: j ! I was particularly struck by the liveliness of the room. I counted twenty-three plants hanging, draping or surging up into the room. Some little, several | I three to four feet tall. Wires high across the room : held spatter paintings. Bulletin boards, above black- 1 i boards, on the closet doors; even draping over the blackboards were theme materials from past and present ! units, mostly social studies. A closet burgeoned with j supplies, games., projects, books. A projector and a phono sat in readiness. A large table sat at the "front" of the room. The seats were paired in a gen eral "U" shape facing the narrow side of the room. ; The drama units, with the exception of two sessions; at the end of The Actor, were taught from 1:00 to 2:00 P.M.1 Academic work was completed in the mornings; lunch was over by 12:30 P.M. From 12:30 to 1:00 the students were free to ■work individually at their desks or simply to listen because Mr. Menchus read to them during this time. At 2:00; ! ; !the students went to recess, after which they had only I another half hour before going home. The observations began on October 26, 1975, and I ended March 12, 1976, with sessions held during sixteen of ; the twenty weeks in that period. There.were forty sessions' I total, or an average of two and one-half sessions per week. I |Creating Characterization involved seven sessions; Con- jstructing Dramatic Plot, ten sessions; and The Actor, / itwenty-three sessions. CREATING CHARACTERIZATION Creating Characterization started brightly with I jMr. Menchus joking, "Do you get a prize for being able to ilift the box?" as he placed the box on the front table. ! He handed out the pretest sheets and students quickly set- i I tied down to five minutes of making sixteen written choices ; such as: ! ! 1. Circle the answer you think is right. One of the most important parts of a characterization is: j (a) designs (b) emotions (c) folk music ; The correct answer, of course, is "emotions.'" After collecting the pretest, he handed out the ;emotions book with the comment: i ; These books are heavy. CEMREL spares no expense when it comes to paper. They're so heavy because they are made with good paper. This is the kind of paper they print yearbooks on. He noted he was off the subject, asked, "Is anyone cold?" and adjusted the windows before going back "on task," a .favorite phrase he used. He began going through the book ; i :and asking the students to identify the emotions they got ' [ ! from the faces. There were five to ten hands for each ; jquestion he asked. The room was noisy with the constant j i I t | L 4 2 J jrustle of the pages, as each student had a book and many of them were in continual motion. As they moved on through the books, there were pictures of hands and legs, backs, etc. Three times in this part Mr. Menchus reminded them : 1 that the point was what emotion was being expressed. The ! ;students tended to answer, "Who is this?" rather than "How does this person feel?" After thirty minutes and increas- 1ing restlessness, Mr. Menchus urged them by saying, "We |really better get on with it. We're supposed to be done Jwith this by two o'clock." Nevertheless, the hands were j j fewer and the answers slower, and miscellaneous chatter j |grew louder. ! i ! The second of the seven sessions of Creating Char- ‘ i •acterization began on a very low note but ended with the I students working enthusiastically with the "Emo" masks. I iThe first thirty minutes were devoted to a puzzle activity I t ;in which students were given body parts that they could fit I i !together to form emotional expressions. The students then !imitated the posture and the class identified the emotion. Students did not seem to respond to puzzle feelings but i 1 simply played with the parts, often making patterns with i I just arms or just legs. When it came time to perform the ; | I j :emotions, they quickly put a puzzle together and acted it | I lout. Classmates often had considerable difficulty guessing i I 1 the emotions expressed. i | | Near the end of the period Mr. Menchus collected I the puzzles and passed out the "Emo" masks, which are sim ple plastic masks, one without features and others express-: ing anger, surprise, fear, and happiness. The students immediately became enthusiastic over them. They put them \ on and began acting before Mr. Menchus could tell them whatj they were to do with them. After a couple of students were1 ■ given a chance to act out one of the mask emotions, the period ended with a sense of excitement in anticipation of : I the next session. i t , | | The third session began with Alex, a student, show-j |ing an 8mm science fiction film he bought at a photo store.j j He brought his own projector on which he showed the three- ; |minute film frontwards, backwards, and choice parts in slow| i i ■motion. The class and Mr. Menchus were very responsive to :the film and Alex. Then Mr. Menchus summarized the work to I j idate and passed out the masks. Immediately all but three, I * :including Alex, put the masks on. Mr. Menchus handed out a' icard to each student with an emotion word on it which the [student was to act out. He put all the words on the board 'and defined and used each one until the students knew their, i I I meanings. Immediately he asked Andy to act out his word. I I Andy: What do I do? , Mr. Menchus: Use your body to do the emotions. I Andy acted with some hesitation. There were three wrong : i ! |answers before a correct answer. Then Mr. Menchus told ! i ;Andy to choose someone else. As each came up, there were i |from one to five guesses before a right answer. There were I no questions about how you can tell when the answer is j I right. There was a sense of rushing, a sense of skipping lover anything that might take extra time. In the first session Mr. Menchus did not focus on the "How can you tell the person is feeling that way?" question. In the second session, rehearsals of pairs of students to critique one another and focus on improvements in the imitations of the I puzzles were skipped. After class, Mr. Menchus asked if [the researcher thought he was going too fast. To reinforce i i (the observer role, the researcher replied that it was i I Mr. Menchus' class and he should try to teach it the way he ■would if a researcher were not there. i I At the end of the third session, through the fourth I |and at the beginning of the fifth, the class worked with a i ;record, a filmstrip, and the masks. The students and :Mr. Menchus poked fun at the exaggerated characters of the irecord and film, which are designed to encourage the stu- I dents to understand the role of the body and voice in cre- |ating the emotional expression of a character. At one jpoint a voice on the record says he can make his voice happy by making it very high and breathy, as in "Jumpy, jumpy, jumpy." The second time Mr. Menchus heard this, he chanted with the record, "Phony, phony, phony!" However, when six students were asked about this record in the stu dent interviews, only one of the six students seemed to have written it off. For example: 1 Rickner: Do you remember the filmstrip? : Esther: On the picnic I thought it was kind of a j dumb story but it showed the different feel-, ings people have. And the record, they J exaggerated. It was kinda dumb, but they I got the point across. I ' In the final sessions Mr. Menchus formed the stu- !dents into groups of three or four to develop two improvi- i I ■sations using the masks. The students were noisy but in i ' I i | I circulating about the class, all the talk the researcher ; I ! I heard was centered on the scene. As the groups came up to I ! i jshare their scenes with the class, Mr. Menchus asked, with j 'apparently little confidence in the answers being sensible,; "Why did you use that mask?" But in every case the stu dents provided a reason. Apparently bolstered by their satisfactory work, he assigned them a second scene which i I jcould be about anything but had to use emotions without j ; 'using facial gestures to express them. In both of these assignments the evaluative work \ I was avoided. The teacher's guide suggests pairing to j ;improve the first scene and provides a series of questions | ■for exploring the second scene. There is even a chart withj i ; ;parts of the body to be marked by special critics who are i assigned to each scene. All of this yielded only thirty- ’ l eight comments on twenty-one students in seven groups. i i jTwenty-two of these comments by thirteen students were ! I : detailed descriptions of distinctly showed an awareness of ! a connection between feelings and action. Time pressure I I seemed to have an influence, since the last group performed j after the bell for recess and there were only three criti- j cal comments total on the last two groups. ' < I The final session was devoted to a playful, extern- ! poraneous exploration of color and its connection with ! feelings. This was a satellite or suggested activity, and ■ the day had a very loose, off-task feel to it. Mr. Menchus: was admittedly ad-libbing as he went and seemed most inter-' ested in exploring the technical media. None of his behav-; j iors and only thirty-six student behaviors were classed as ; being dramatic. This compares to the daily average for i Creating Characterization of 202 recorded dramatic behav iors. CONSTRUCTING DRAMATIC PLOT Mr. Menchus asked for a week's interim before beginning Constructing Dramatic Plot, so it began eleven days later on November 24, 1975. As the researcher ; entered, four students (Alex, Matt C., Rachel, and Kathy) gathered around. Mr. Menchus also greeted the researcher I warmly but complained aloud as he passed out the pre-unit diagnostic tests, "This test is very difficult to score, looking for all these things in each story." The diagnos- ■ tic test includes a request for the students to write a 1 story which the teacher is to analyze for the plot elements! iof character, setting, conflict, crisis, resolution, and I I I story continuity. "I will have to take it home to grade it," Mr. Menchus complained. | The students quietly wrote their answers to the I ; I ; test as Mr. Menchus fixed a broken tape dispenser, repotted1 i ! a plant, and talked to the researcher about a stout he ! i : ■tried that was terrible. He pulled down the bottle from | I ' ■ above the blackboard, where he kept a collection of about i ; one hundred beer, ale and stout bottles and cans. The ; I 1 I journal notes: | i My presence has been very intrusive today. He has 1 addressed me directly (during class time) a half dozen j times and there have been many eye contacts .... ' , If today's trend continues, however, a new [classroom] I pattern [of communication] will become established. I j j am becoming a "confidant" for Tom. He tells me these : ! "insiders'" comments on the unit and . . . the day-to- : day annoyances and problems of the teacher. [As a result of the journal entry, the researcher made a t i [point of telling Mr. Menchus again to simply teach as ; 'though the researcher were not present. Also, the j i . I iresearcher made a conscious effort to watch students or be i j ! engrossed in recording data for the next two sessions. As j i ;a result, the eye contacts and side comments were virtually i ;eliminated. i I The first session of Constructing Dramatic Plot was !taken up with twenty minutes of testing. The next session !was filled with organizing the class into eight groups of 1 I !three and getting the game figured out. During both of ; ;these beginning sessions, the class seemed very dull and i (one member, Claude, was overtly resistent. The journal | j notes: ! There were no "Oh, wow's." They went through it with i some inattention, some hubbub— rather non-committal, I thought. I saw nothing from any student indicating enthusiasm. 1 ! For session three, Mr, Menchus took the students to jthe cafetorium and formed them into groups by counting off.j I The process took fifteen minutes. He again reviewed the ; j rules. When the students divided into groups, the tone j I I j .shifted dramatically for most of the class. In group j 'three, the researcher's first stop, Cindy read a character-| i setting card and the other two members of the group, Alex and Dan, both yelled, "Yeah, yeah!" In group one they all ^ went quietly about making their choices. In group two Eric- jnoted he was secretary for the group because he loved writ-, ling. Laura said she hated writing but loved reading. She said she could "care less" about the game because she had ■been up until 12:30 A.M. Meanwhile, group four finished itheir story and Ann read it to the class, getting a hearty I round of applause. ■ I i ' Throughout the class Mr. Menchus circulated from ; ■group to group, urging them to give more specific details to their stories and to make the stories really make sense j land not just be a string of incident cards. He had taught ; this package before, and his confidence in what he was doing seemed markedly stronger than the rambling and skip- 49 ! 1 ping quality which the researcher felt from his direction ^ I in Creating Characterization. Mr. Menchus stopped the class again to emphasize the sample story and conduct the suggested discussion, which encouraged the students to ,identify the theme, characters, setting, and incidents. He had all students work at level 1A, the lowest of ( the nine game variations, though the teacher's guide sug- , | I igests that the diagnostic test be used to place students ini I 1 I competence level groupings. Mr. Menchus told the researcher. I j {after class that he disagreed with this suggestion because ] i I ■each level was short and they could quickly move on from ' I ! the easy ones to the harder ones. In the fourth session Mr. Menchus reiterated the basic directions:' . * 1 1. Make up a good dramatic story. I j 2. Use characters and several incidents. 3. All incidents and characters must jibe--they ;must make sense. ( i 4. Everyone in the group has to agree on all J I ;choices. I 1 5. When the story is finished, the class will i i j share. • Group one provides an example of the kind of work done in this fourth session. At first Jon, the group leader, tried 'to include Claude. Soon he gave up on that, and he and Jim developed a story. Jon read a character-setting card such i i 50 fas "A grandfather, a grandmother and a policeman at a car nival." Jon was ready to accept it but Jim said, "I don't think that would make a very good story." They finally jchose "A policeman, a brother and a sister in a park." 1 ■Next Jon read an incident card, "Someone runs into the street," and he was again ready to accept it. But Jim I 'Said, "That's dumb. Who would do that?" The choice was i rejected. In the various groups this range of behavior was (repeated. Often one member of a group was mostly passive j (Claude, Laura, Heather, Sharon, George); another of the jthree was generally uncritical (Jon, Dan, Hardy, John H.), {while others questioned some choices and accepted some s i I choices. Of those making critical choices, some seemed to i i make them one at a time, accepting or rejecting a particu lar card either because it was consistent or inconsistent with the cards that went before. A few, however, seemed to :imagine and judge the cards on how well they fit into their I story in the making (Jim, Matt C., Kathy, Esther, Alex, !Vic, Eric, Rachel, and Robin). At the end of the fourth i session the students shared their stories by having the I group recorder read it to the class. ! From the fifth to the tenth session, Mr. Menchus I ihad the class stay in the room or work in the hall. He I gave up trying, as he had unsuccessfully tried in sessions three and four, to do two stories a day. In the fifth ses sion he also reorganized the group by naming captains, who i 51 I then chose group members. He assigned them to create a : story and then make pictures of the setting to go with the j story. They were to present story and pictures at the next' session as a culmination of the first three levels of the game. Six of the eight groups worked without problems. ;Group one (Jim, Claude, and Matt C.) took a while to get ; ! i started, but after about five minutes they were on track. : ; Hardy, especially, and Jon in group five were very dis- itracted by the tape recorder. The researcher's presence ; jwas more noticeable in the hall than in the cafetorium, j ( where the students worked at tables. In the hall they worked on the floor, where the researcher's adult size made ' the simple process of getting all the way up from the !floor, moving to another group and sitting down again much j 'more obvious. I Mr. Menchus started session five, then busied him- 1 , self with other work or talked with other teachers during the rest of the session. However, he seemed very pleased • with the stories and pictures which the students shared in session six. After the sharing, he went over the rules for •game 2A; all were attentive. By the end of the period most, I student groups had finished a story. As the period ended, ; 'Mr. Menchus said to the researcher, referring to the plot :elements of the game: | 1 ; It's new to me and here I am a grown man. I never 1 i L_______________________________________________________________ 52_ | knew there were settings and conflicts and things like j that. I can see them now as I watch television and j ! stuff— but it's new to me and I'm sure it's new to all : j of them. i Session seven, because of a forgotten conflict with! i : art, began at 1:45 and ended at 2:00. Mr. Menchus simply told the students to follow the rules on game card 2B. He 'came over to the researcher and said: i You know, I really think this will help them when they get up to junior high and the teacher says, "Write ! a composition." I think it will be a better composi-. j tion. I didn't have it when I was in school; I think j . it would have helped. : |The researcher nodded, "Perhaps so?" and excused himself to; |go observe a group. j Session eight began with the students' sharing the j |stories created last time. Though game two called for the I 'use of conflict, only group four (Liz, Esther, and Sharon) ;had a story with a conflict. Groups five and six had not i I jfinished their story. Again, at the beginning of session j nine, Mr. Menchus had them share their stories from the i i last session by having the recorders read to the class. j jAfter the sharing, Mr. Menchus stapled the rules for games I !3A, 3B and 3C onto the eorkboard. He told them they could ■ choose which of the three they would do for their final story, which would be rehearsed and acted out. Group four ; had already done a level three game, but the others would ! be doing it for the first time. The anticipation of a performance perked up their I flagging interest. In sessions six, seven, and eight there I j seemed to be a growing sense of boredom. Games 1C and 2A I are not very different, and by the eighth session each group had made up five or six stories using essentially the' I same method.. Though the stories were written down and read| i ; ,to the class, there were no critiques or other activities ( which would encourage improvements in the stories except ' what was provided by the game itself. | The tenth and last day was filled with excitement. In group seven Eric and Ann discussed what they should be doing. Ann: I Eric: i Andy: I Rickner: ! Andy: | Rickner: ; Andy: I Rickner: Andy: Mr. Menchus did not get actively involved in the I , small groups after session four. He typically started the i I ; class by asking them to share, pointed up what was new in the new story assignment, and then did other business unre-y : ! ■lated to drama as the small groups functioned on their own.j t By 1:40 P.M. of session ten, Mr. Menchus had assem-b i bled all the groups in the class and had a cassette . ; 1 I recorder ready to tape them. He gave a playfully stentor- 1 ian introduction to each group, such as, "And now, direct ' We have to make it like a play. Yeah. ■[drifts into the group while Eric sorts out the cards] Christmas sure came fast. We said we'd be doing this until Christmas, and here i it is Christmas already. i Are you glad or sad that it's over? I'm glad. We did too much of it this way. What way would you do it? I would do more like what we're doing today. Acting it out? Yeah! jfrom an engagement in University City, here is the pride of: Flynn Park School--group two's Kathy, Cindy and Heather, i Jand five, four, three, two, one," then pointing his finger i I 1 ;for them to begin. ] t I i At the end of the first group's performance he > asked, looking with a smile at the researcher: I Mr. Menchus: What was the crisis? Nat: We forgot. jThe journal records: Note--he looked at me as he said that and asked this group no further questions. Throughout the perform ances the most he asked for was crisis and resolution, ; and that to only the first, second and fourth groups. : • Group four's story was most clear. Two mountain .climbers (Esther and Liz) had an argument over whether to 'climb a mountain because the weather person (Sharon) had ‘predicted bad weather. They did climb and one (Liz) fell i ;and got a head injury. They were rescued by a brave heli copter pilot (Sharon). Mr. Menchus commented, "The crisis was obvious in this. We don't even have to ask." ; THE ACTOR I ; Almost a month after the end of Constructing Pra gmatic Plot, Mr. Menchus began The Actor on January 19, '1976. The researcher and Mr. Menchus greeted each other with warmth and enthusiasm, and several students extended a 1 hearty hello to the researcher. There was a sense that the' researcher had become so much a part of the class experi- i ence that he had been missed. i | The feel of the classroom was unchanged, though it | i jwas rearranged with the table near the windows and Mr. Men- !chus1s desk at one side near the closets. Three magnifi- ; I i cent poinsettias had been added to the tables. Alex, who ' i missed most of Constructing Dramatic Plot because he was ; i ■ traveling in England, was back. And there was a teacher in !training, Mary Ann Mayes, who was observing the class for ! ;one month. ' ! Mr. Menchus set the first three of the Actor Wall J I , jpanels upon the chalkboard tray in front of the students. i jThere are six such panels, each thirty inches by forty iinches. Each has a simple graphic and a question on one I side, and verbal as well as photographic answers to the I !question on the reverse side. The first asks, "Who are t ;actors and what do they do?" The reverse side of the two ;other panels have eighteen photographs of the six actors interviewed for the package under the answer: "Actors are I artists whose work is creating characters for audiences." jThe principal, Mr. Slone, dropped in and Mr. Menchus asked !him if he recognized anyone in the photos. Mr. Slone i :recognized Paul Newman. Then the class was asked whom they, :recognized. Several eager hands shot up and said, "Grandpa ;Walton." Mr. Menchus introduced the other actors: Mary J i i I Lou Rosato, a repertory actress with Lincoln Center; Luis : Valdez, author, director and founder of the Chicano Theatre,, I Teatro Compesino; Mary Alice, an off-Broadway black ] i j ! actress; and Saundra Deacon, a semi-professional actress j from the Los Angeles area. For each actor there was a por-| trait photo and two photos of the actor playing contrasting! i j I i roles. i 1 i j Mr. Menchus asked, "Do you know other actors and i characters not on the cards [Actor.Wall]?" The students ; : began calmly but soon were excitedly suggesting more and ■ I I more names. He put the word "actor" on one chalkboard and "character" on another. Some of those suggested by the i students were: Actor Character Gene Wilder Willie Wonka j Jim Nabors Gomer Pyle Sean Connery James Bond Telly Savalas Kojak Johnny Weismiller Tarzan After five minutes Mr. Menchus stopped them. There was a general groan of disappointment. As Mr. Menchus set up the slide tape of Mary Lou Rosato, the students continued chat-. ! | ting about actors they remembered. i | The slide tape, which Mr, Menchus showed next, was j !listened to by all except Claude and possibly Hardy and I (George. In the slide/tape Mary Lou Rosato talks about lov-- : ing to sit on her bike and pretend as a small child, or how :she got attention by climbing into and getting stuck in a clothes hamper at the age of four. With these statements there are childhood photos of her. Later her ideas of act- ' 57 ing changed from getting attention to generating feelings, and the ten-minute tape explains this transformation from imaginative child to actor-artist. After the slide/tape Mr. Menchus reviewed the con- ' tent of it through questions. Then he asked, "When you .hear the word 'artist,' what do you usually think of?" I There was a chorus of answers, "Painter." Mr. Menchus !wrote, "Actor, an artist who expresses ideas and feelings ! i by creating imaginary characters," on the board. He asked i |if painters use paints and brushes, what materials do * .'actors use, and the students listed: Makeup Script Expression Emotions Co stumes Sets | Cameras | Lights i Properties ; Audiences ; Curtains ! Stage 1 The class ended with an introduction to the "Actor < | ,, ijournal." Mr. Menchus passed out the first pages of ques- jtions for the journal and a tab folder to keep them in. He I told the students the journal was to be their "book on act- :ing." They were to answer the questions but could also add t anything they wanted to about actors and acting. There were three pages for the first day: one for pictures of i .the student, one for pictures of actors, and one with four 'questions based on the Mary Lou Rosato slide/tape, such as j "Mary Lou Rosato pretended to be lots of different kinds of1 I ; people when she was little. What kinds of people have I i i jpretended to be?" ' The second session of The Actor began with Mr. Men-1 chus showing his picture of "Ghost" from a science fiction ! movie of the 1950's. Alex, Cindy, and Robin showed him j they had photos for their journals. Mr. Menchus asked 1 | I 1 review questions on what makes an actor an artist, and ; i ' | then passed out The Mighty Owl books, one per student. He | - ! got mixed up as he set out to establish the subgroupings j i j for The Mighty Owl. First he had six team captains, which ! ’made four to a group; then realized it was supposed to be 1 four groups of six, so broke up two of the groups and added: I ( ' these students to the other four groups. As soon as they met in their groupings, they began reading,and deciding on jwho would play what characters. By the time Mr. Menchus ; j quieted them to hand out name tags (for their character ; I I names) and to tell them to decide on who would play what, i i i ■ most had already decided. . Suddenly Mr. Menchus told everyone to sit down ! ' because he felt faint and had a pain in his left arm. | I I . Everyone was solemn and quiet as they sensed he really j i .needed their cooperation. After about three minutes he i I ( 1 resumed, but the mood was dramatically changed from excite-; 'ment to solemnity. i I Mr. Menchus wrote on the board the three decisions j each group was to make, went over them, and divided them into their subgroups. The three decisions were: i Decide on an acting area separate from the audience area. ! The action in The Mighty Owl centers on.something ; 1 very important to Chris that Terry takes away because ! of something Chris or Chris's pet has done to Terry. What is it Chris has and loses to Terry? 1 Decide why Terry wants to take something from ' Chris. What did Chris or Chris's pet do that made Terry angry? ; i ^ In group three they discussed the second and third I choices this way: j I Hardy: A dog bit Terry. i ' Robin: Maybe Chris slammed the door. ! Rachel: Or Chris slapped Terry. j John: What if Chris pushed Terry in the lake? ; Robin: We could start it with Chris pushing Terry ] into the lake . . . Vic: But that is not in the scene [points to the ! book]. Then they went back to discussing Terry's motive, i The groups went through The Mighty Owl scene once !by the end of the third session. The next session (four) | ithey did the "Second Rehearsal," which again does not give | detailed action or words but a sequence of suggested 1 action. In addition, students are asked to answer ques- ' tions about the feelings of the character before improvis- I ;ing each action. Following is page 25 from The Mighty Owl, second rehearsal: i SITTING ON BED, HOLDS THE _________ . I What is Chris doing with it? NOTE: Stop now and tell your group leader your answer to the question. Terry and Shelley: ENTER. Fast or slow? Sit am door or close it softly? How does Terry feel? How does Terry show us how he! or she feels? How does Shelley feel? Does Shelley know yet what , happened between Chris and Terry? NOTE: Stop now and tell your group leader your . answers to these questions. Continue to stop after I each question and answer it so that everyone in your ; group can hear. > At the end of session three, Mr. Menchus emphasized i that even though they were all using the same scenario, ; ; i ' each group would end up with a different play because of j !what they improvised into the scene. At the beginning of I I I session four, he again modeled how the student leaders were, j to make sure each question in the "Second Rehearsal" was answered: Mr. Menchus: And pretty soon we won't need the books ■ | at all. 1 ; Dan: But, Mr. Menchus, we haven't had time to 1 memorize it yet. 1 Mr. Menchus: Hardy, what are the nine positions on a baseball team? [Hardy gave them easily.] ' Did you sit down and memorize those? j Hardy: No! [laughing] ! Mr. Menchus: Of course not. It will be the same here. Do it enough and it will come naturally. ; As he divided them into their groups to rehearse, 'they were excited. The journal includes this evaluation: i :"There seems to be an air of excitement as they go off to ■group. Evidence? Quick pace of splitting and talking and all groups go directly to work." I A different, distracting excitement dominated ses- j i sion five, however, as the students anticipated giving a j i :party for the departing teacher trainee. The first part of: 6 1 j — - the session was highly structured and all went smoothly, 1 but when Mr. Menchus led them through the acting exercise ; in visual observation, they had difficulty getting focused. By the end of the session the class had listened to and j discussed Will Geer's audio taped biography, Geer's advice ' I on the best beginning for the study of acting which is to I improve your visual observations, and Paul Newman's tape on' I how he noticed and later used the way Bobby Kennedy lis- I i i tened sideways. They had done a brief observation exercisej and had been assigned to do two "homework" observations. | I i This typical session of how most lessons were introduced : was the first of three sessions centered around the ques- ' tion posed on the front of the second panel of the Actor J Wall, "In what special ways do actors prepare their bodies to create characters?" The answer panel states, "Actors prepare their bodies' through imagina.tive use of observa tion, training and practice." In session six the class began by discussing the j homework observation assignments. Only a few volunteer hands went up to offer observations, so a note went into ! the journal to ask the students in the follow-up interview if they "really" did the observation assignments. Twenty students answered that they had done at least one of the j J three. With each of the three observations discussed, Mr. Menchus asked a series of seven questions. Following j is how that discussion went with Victor: Mr. Menchus: What character or person did you watch, Victor? Victop: I watched my brother throw a temper tan trum. Mr. Menchus: What parts of the body did you see used that convinced you it was a temper tan trum? Victor: He got mad through his whole body. I i i saw him throw his arms., kick his feet on . ; the floor and get red in the face. ! Mr. Menchus: Can you show us, Vic? I Victor: Right now? Mr. Menchus: Yes. [Victor gets on the floor and shows the delighted class.] Could you make use i of this observation, or could someone ! else— in The Mighty Owl? ; Victor: Yes— when Chris gets mad at Shelley. !Mr. Menchus reminded the class they had a place in their I journal to record their observations. ; The rest of the period was devoted to listening to i ' 'a. short segment of tape in which Mary Alice talks about the j I 1 !role of training and practice for actors; a class discus- l sion of stereotype versus subtle imitations of what one 'observes; and the class doing a short series of muscle iso-1 jlation exercises. Session seven culminated the sequence on. -the actor's body by asking the students to make three spe- ■ I jcific choices of body image, a body movement and a face or hand gesture, and then to integrate these and anything else :they had learned in this lesson into their playing of a -character in The Mighty Owl. ; - The game was slow to get going. As Mr. Menchus ! I >went over the choices in preparation for the game, there ! 'was rapt attention, but when they divided into their groups [they seemed directionless. Most of the observed discussion in the groups was on the game procedures rather than on the| ___________ _ _ _________j6.3j ["content of the choices. However, by session's end, every one had chosen an image card, movement card, and gesture card and placed the three cards on the holding board. | Excepting the final rehearsals and performances, ' j session eight was the most engaging. It was the first of i ;two sessions on how actors prepare their voices to create |characters. Like the body sessions, it used short segments’ i ! |of tape, thirty seconds to three minutes long, to introduce' ; the professional actors and their key concepts on how the 'actor's voice relates to actor's observations, training and jpractice. Again, the class did acting exercises following 'the tapes and received an observation assignment--this time i j to listen to two voices while closing their eyes or turning' 1 off the video. ! The second segment of tape features Sandra Deacon saying the word "wonderful" twenty-five different ways. ,The journal states: "Attention is good. Students appar ently taken by the .'wonder' segment." : The next section on voice observation continued the; i (high student interest, especially as Mr. Menchus played it ! -a second time, saying, "It's worth repeating." The journal! records: "Their attention is more serious. No one is doing anything but listening most of the time through." The focus question at the end of the tape was, "How does Sandra Deacon create a voice?" The answers came quickly: Eric: She thinks of a friend or goes to see them. : 64 ' Nat: She copies other people. 1 Dan: She picks up things from people. ) J on: She decides what the voice is like. I John M.: Observation. I i 1 Next they reviewed the three key terms— "observa- j i tion," "training," and "practice"— and did a vocal exercise! in wh ich they used one word to express an emotion such as j 1 anger or joy. Several more tape segments and exercises ! ifollowed with student interest continuing to build. | jMr. Menchus got caught up, too, apparently as he said, "I j |can even do a vacuum cleaner," and did a very credible imi-I ! ! ;tation. The journal entry closes with the following com- i ] i | j ment: "As he [Mr. Menchus] finishes the articulation i !assignment at 2:00 rather than 1:50 as he had said he i : ' |wanted to finish, he is smiling and the students are obvi- ; |ously joyous." The ninth session began with a discussion of their observations, continued with the students making three ,choices of voice in the Acting Game, and ended with the class recording their vocal choices for their characters. : Session ten began with a rehearsal of The Mighty Owl, in which they were encouraged to practice using the I : .observations and game choices they made in session nine. ! I Mr. Menchus got out the video tape system and practiced i using it. He stated he wanted to film all the plays at thej end of The Actor. j Session ten was also the first of five sessions of | ; ! ithe new lesson on how actors prepare their minds to create j characters, followed by sessions fifteen and sixteen on i i how actors work with other actors to create characters; j session seventeen on how actors work with other theatre ; people to make theatre happen; and session eighteen on how j I .actors adapt their performances to different places. Since' the elements of these sessions were like those described so' ■far for The Actor, including audio tape segments, discus- i 1 sion, acting exercises, observation assignments, game j i !choices, rehearsals of The Mighty Owl, and writing in the ( i jstudent journals, it is only necessary to focus on a few ; I • I jmoments that help to characterize these nine sessions. i | In spite of Mr. Menchus's enthusiasm in sessions i ; eight and nine on voice, he began the mind lesson unpre- I pared. As he opened the teacher's guide, he said, "Oh, | gee, I've got to put something on the board," following I I i which the class waited for seven minutes. They then dis- i ,cussed motivations and shared some of the things they said 'they wanted in life, but he cut the discussion abruptly and i |moved on to the next question. Throughout the period there' ;was a sense of rushing, and after class he asked the t |researcher to come an extra day that week and from then on < I '"so we can push right on through." ; While he lingered on a long motivation exercise the; j ;next day, session twelve, the researcher heard Mr. Menchus j • say to another teacher, "Thank God, Monday is a holiday--I , 4 need it!" The students were very restless during his 1 I laborious twenty-minute introduction to the game segment. When the class finally divided into subgroups, very little , work was accomplished. Rather, they were discussing the fairness or unfairness of Mr. Menchus's decision to cancel 1 i jtheir Vaientine party that day; it was February 13, a Friday, and a party was to have followed that afternoon's I recess. Session thirteen was refreshingly back on track. 1 The students' contrasting response to two of this session's! 'tape segments alerted the researcher to the subtlety of the, I problem of observing when the students were or were not ,listening to the tapes. As the Newman biography played at the beginning of the session, Mr. Menchus stopped the tape ■ because there was some apparent inattention. He asked a quick content question and got immediate correct answers !from two of the students who appeared to the observer not i 'to be listening. Later in the period the students all i iseemed to be quietly listening, but. when Mr. Menchus asked ja very simple memory question,, he got answers only after I irepeating the tape. i . ; I In spite of Mr. Menchus's statements that he wanted: I I ito "push on through," the class divided into small groups 'in four of the nine sessions under discussion to make game jchoices relating to motivation, imagination, concentration, i iinteracting with other actors, and making use of the four 'technical elements of light, sound, costumes, and props. The mood during the game choice session was generally of ^ low interest or boredom. They did make the choices and record them without prodding from Mr. Menchus. The mood I I during the rehearsals was generally high interest and even j j |excitement. This assessment was later confirmed in the j i interviews. I I ! One sequence of discussion in group three struck i I I !the researcher as especially capturing the most prevalent : i I :attitude toward the game. As they discussed the game sug- jgestions for lighting, Robin read a card to the group. i Robin: "Draw attention to one part of the room by turning out all the lights except in that part of the room." Forget-it. Victor: Let's use a blank card for lights. Let's not use any lights. John M-: Uh uh, not a blank because on a blank it 1 has to be something. It'll be bright. Hardy: Right. Victor: It'll be regular. Hardy: Bright, because it'll be in the daytime. Victor: So, regular . . . Hardy: Okay. Robin: No, wait a minute. In the forest it should be darker. Several: Yeah. Robin: Like bright, and then when they get into the forest someone'll say, "Oh, it's get ting dark," or something like that. Several: Yeah. Rachel: Then we'll close off the lights. John M.: Okay. |So what began as a bored rush to skip over the choice alto gether ended with a plan for a use of lighting the group i .agreed was appropriate to their scene. ■ Though Mr. Menchus indicated as late as session eighteen that each group would perform in a different 68 I I place, as the teacher's guide suggests--one in the cafetor-j i ium, one on video tape, one in the classroom, and one out- i doors— he changed his mind during the final rehearsal proc ess which led to the performances of The Mighty Owl in ses-; 1 sion twenty-two. The performances all took place in a sin-| I i i gle setting in the cafetorium. I 1 i In session nineteen Mr. Menchus made plans for two ! i :or three more rehearsals. He announced that the students ! ! i I |should bring in any props, costumes, or makeup they wanted j ; to use. He noted that the third, fourth, and fifth grade i jclasses had been invited to attend the performance in about! 1 ! i nine days. Then he began summarizing the work to date. I 1 The summary discussion of Creating Characterization and j \Constructing Dramatic Plot was recorded verbatim in the i journal from the audio tape, since it is evidence of some 'of what had been retained. , What was the name of that first unit? What did it involve? Masks. What was the name of the masks? "Emo." It stands for emotion, though, doesn't it? Do you remember' the different "Emo's" we had? "Sad." "Surprise." "Happy," "Hungry." What did we use besides masks to show , emotions? Remember? ; Puzzle with people. I Our body. I Faces. ! Voice. | Yes, we can use our voice. Remember? i Jumpy, jumpy? Remember that? i i 69 Mr, Menchus: Several: Mr. Menchus: Eric : Mr. Menchus: Two Students: Four Students: Three Students: Mr. Menchus.: Unidentified: Esther: Mr. Menchus: Students (chorus) Mr. Menchus: Jon: Mr. Menchus: Jon: Mr. Menchus: Jon: Mr. Menchus: Several: Mr. Menchus: Esther: Mr. Menchus: Esther: Mr. Menchus J ohn M .: Mr. Menchus Esther: Mr. Menchus Jumpy, jumpy, jumpy. What was the next one? Constructing Dramatic Plot. Okay, Jon, what the heck does it mean to construct a dramatic plot? That’s where you play that game— 1 that dumb game. What about the game? Yeah, we had to pick out these i cards. i What was the object? What were you supposed to end up with? A story. What kind of stuff did that ; story have to have in it? , We had like incident cards, and ] conflict cards. , You've gotten a little mixed up. What is one of the things a plot j has to have? i Conflict. | No, not all stories have to have ; conflict. . It has to have a resolution. Not necessarily. [Talks of Phoe-' nix and Griffin, a recent TV special] . . . That didn't have a resolution. A setting. What are the things it could have? Climax, resolution, conflict. Unidentified: Shortly afterwards there was a fire alarm drill which took most of the rest of the period. For session twenty, Mr. Menchus had called for a !morning rehearsal. This was the first time he had done any drama work in the morning hours. The class gathered in the gym and he explained how a setting could be arranged with the help of the art teacher. When he asked for a volunteer! group, there was pandemonium as all the groups yelled for him to choose them. Mr. Menchus encouraged each group to 70 !be self-sufficient. They were to take over the stage and I \ jdo what needed to be done. As Alex's group was about to | start, Alex said, "We have a problem. Mattie is pulling .the curtain and she has to be on stage when the curtain I opens." Mr. Menchus replied, "It's your play; we'll wait j until you work it out. I , I The performance came after two more morning rehearsals. The audience was seated in a neat square on ;the floor about fifteen feet from the front edge of the j ( Istage, which was'raised about eighteen inches above the gym; j i floor level. The teachers were against one wall, the . I lactors on the other. The room was about forty feet by Isixty feet with a twenty-foot ceiling. The floor covering ■ was green vinyl tile, the walls light beige, the ceiling ;light aqua. It was very prone to echo, since all surfaces were straight, hard, and smooth. Mr. Menchus gave a welcome and introduced the show as a unique CEMREL project in which the audience would see 'four plays using the same plot, yet each play would be dif ferent. As the first group began, the dimness of the room ihelped to focus the audience on the stage, which was lit by a white footlight for the bedroom in front of the curtain ;and a red and white wash of light for the forest scene. 'The forest scene was accomplished with three benches run ning up stage at left, center and right, with many flowers from the classroom sitting on them. Against the upstage i wall was a forest drop, apparently the work of the art teacher. The first group, group two, had the very strong focus of the audience. They were interrupted by laughs and 'many little reactions running throughout. They kept the I exposition very clear, and most lines were loud enough to I ‘be heard easily. Without a word from Mr. Menchus, they ;ended with a curtain call which obviously was practiced, and then went back to their place along the walls to watch the other groups. The next group quietly took the stage; when they signaled to Mr. Menchus that they were ready, he j quieted the audience for them., This smooth transition was I repeated for each group. i 1 As the audience became familiar with the plot, they jseemed to focus more on what was unique in each group. i •When the action of a character was the same as what a pre vious group had done, attention seemed to wander, but when isomething fresh happened, they were right back with it. 'The journal record of the flavor of the event after the Iperformance is as follows: i There is joy in the air at the end. There is no I doubt that the audience enjoyed it. The actors are j pleased, with themselves and Mr., Menchus is absolutely i delighted. I ; ■ After a recess there was a brief discussion. The researcher felt this.was a time when his presence was 'especially intrusive. The class seemed ready to simply chat and bask in their victory, but apparently because the ' researcher asked for permission to sit in, Mr. Menchus re tried to do a more systematic kind of discussion of each performer. The dominant mood of joy struggled to prevail ! i I as Mr. Menchus reported the acclaim of the other teachers, 1 j and the students exalted in telling how some of the unique ! 'ideas used in their performance had occurred to them. ; ! The final day of The Actor was an evaluation, ! ; I including the students writing in their journals and a 1 ! group discussion. Mr. Menchus's opening comment set the ! I [tone: And again, I have to say it was very good. And other teachers have come up to me and commented, not so much on the play but how you performed in the , play. My only regret is I wished I had invited the whole school! The final portion of the summary discussion was 'based on five review questions posed in the teacher's j guide of The Actor . Students were always ready with more 1 i I answers, and Mr. Menchus was free from disciplinary behav- : ! iors. The discussion is given here in transcription as an exhibit of the most sustained class discussion of the drama, experience. Mr. Menchus: Alex: Mr. Menchus: Alex : Mr. Menchus: i ; 73 ! What if- you wanna become an actor and ah, how do you get to be one? What do you have to have? What are some of the things you need? You could go to classes and work on emo-, tions and things like that. What would you call that? Practicing. ' Okay, I would call it something else. John M. and others: Mr. Menchus: John M. and Cindy: Mr. Menchus: Cindy: Mr. Menchus: Jon: Others: Esther: Ann: Mr. Menchus: Esther: Mr. Menchus: Esther: Mr. Menchus: Rachel: Mr. Menchus: [Laura says s remember her before.] Mr. Menchus: John M.: Mr. Menchus: Laura: Mr . Menchus: Vic : Mr. Menchus: Unidentified: Mr. Menchus: Training! [shouting] [Reprimands John.] John, you mentioned training. Training shows you how, and Alex mentioned practice. And practice is what? Experience. And you work it over and over? You can practice different facial expressions and different voices. All right, you can practice those kinds of things.. Anyone else--what else would you need to be, to wanta become an actor? I guess there's something in there that we forgot that■s very impor tant . What's the very first thing before even you take training? Oh, be good. Talent. Experience. Like it. You have to like it a lot. You have to what? Want to do it. Let's move on to the next thing. Where does an actor get ideas for a character? Oh! [eagerly] Go ahead, Esther. By watching other people. Good! Watching other people. Yes, Rachel? In their mind. In their mind--that's a good answer, omething about props. Very quiet, I can't ever having said anything in class From the props themselves? No, the props don't have a talent. [Laughter] No, no, you use a prop to create a char acter, but where do you get ideas to create a character in the first place? By what? Watching another person. Watching another person, yes. From watching other performances. From watching other performances. Where else? Observing. From observing. You know, someone failed to mention one thing that I thought would be the first thing men tioned . i Rachel: Robin: Mr. Menchus: Alex: Mr. Menchus: Matt C.: Mr. Menchus: Matt C.: Mr. Menchus: Alex: Matt C.: Jon: Mr. Menchus: Jon: Mr.. Menchus: J on: Mr.. Menchus: Someone: Mr. Menchus: Andy: Mr. Menchus: Esthe r: Mr. Menchus: The script. I mentioned that to Kathy when . . . | From the script, right. Okay, sure, ’ where do you get an idea? It's right , down there [points to Alex]. Yeah. ; Things that you do every day in your life. | Right, look at your own self. Matt? If you're playing an old man, watch a ; real old man and see how he would walk and stuff. Okay. I think that leads us on to our next question actually. And that is, : how does an actor go about creating a | character? How do you create a charac- ; ter? Matt? Get ideas from himself and uses them. ; Ideas from the person yourself? Okay. Another thing would be to watch somebody else who plays a character like that. ' < If you play an old man, you might watch an old man. Study a real man. Yeah, study their background. Study other actors--study a real person.’ If you're going to play a real person, : study them. Sounds like who was it? Mary Alice, was it, who says she goes into their background and studies their biographies and everything? Yeah. Who's the famous character actor on TV who always seems to play characters of ; people who really did exist? [Talks of ■ Holbrook as Twain and Lloyd Bucher in contrast to Columbo.] ; That's someone who could be, though. Let's go back on that thing. What can ; you use— what can you dream about that? ! In your mind. I What do you call it? 1 Imagination. i Thanks, Andy. It's using your imagina- j tion. All right, I think Alex and Matt i both mentioned observation of other I people. Is there any other way to get 1 . . . , we can create a character— we had i it here. ; Facial expression. 1 Those are the means but I don't mean to i use the means, Esther. I mean the ! Matt C.: Mr . Menchus: Esther: Rachel: Ann: Mr. Menchus: Ann: Someone: Nat: Mr. Menchus: John M.: Mr. Menchus: Someone: Mr. Me nc hus: Jon: Mr. Menchus: Esther: Mr. Menchus: "think." Any others? No other ideas? I don't know what„ I was looking for. Okay, now this is ‘ the easy one because this is what we were doing for the whole program, practically, of The Actor. What does the actor use to create a character? Okay, now just think of all the activities. Okay, Matt, what do you say? Voice, movement, makeup, costumes. [Repeats] Esther, costumes and what el se? Facial expression. Script. The background. What do we call the background? The scenery. Set. Gestures. Gestures, yes. What else do we use? Script. What else do we use? Something that no one has mentioned. Props, makeup, costume, sets, lights. Other? Actors. And other people. People that are not actors. Audience! Audience is definitely important in doing a show. The journal narrative concludes with: This whole discussion . . . was perhaps the most sustained I've seen in this class. The last questions flowed along, always with people ready to answer and little or no discipline concern. This chapter qualitatively described the research setting and the events of the classroom viewed on a day-by- day basis. From this perspective the CEMREL units varied considerably In the kinds of behaviors observed on differ ent days, and the effectiveness of the units was seen to vary widely depending on the kind of activity experienced and upon the surrounding events, such as preparation for parties, which influenced the attitudes of the teacher and ■ I the students. The chapter does not, however, provide an insight into the relationship between the experience of this classroom and what drama leaders prescribe to occur, ; I j or the relationship between what occurred and what the ! ! ■ CEMREL teacher's guides prescribed to occur. These rela- ■ I ] t | tionships are described in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 I i REPORT OF THE QUANTITATIVE DATA Though most of the analysis in this study is- j ! qualitative, the nature of Shaw's taxonomy made it possible1 to develop four hypotheses, which were predictions of what would occur in this one classroom when the CEMREL units j r were used. Analysis of the hypotheses revealed that there was evidence of a close relationship between what drama ' i leaders prescribed to occur in the classroom, what the ; CEMREL units prescribed, and what was observed to occur in 0 the classroom when Shaw's taxonomy was used as an observa- , tion tool. Table 1 presents the findings from the four hypotheses. HYPOTHESIS 1 Hypothesis 1 states that no relationship will be found between the number of behaviors predicted and the number of behaviors observed for the cognitive categories. The null hypothesis was rejected' at the .001 level of con fidence. A .94 level of positive correlation was found to occur. While the number of pairs (forty-nine) is statis tically small, the high degree of correlation gives the ; result statistical significance. The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was applied as a test of 7 8< 'Table 1. Pearson Product Moment Correlations between Num- |ber of Behaviors Found by Shaw and Number of Observed Behaviors, as well as between Number of Behaviors Predicted and Number of Observed Behaviors for Taxonomical Categor ies: Cognitive Observed Behaviors Shaw Predicted Significant at 0.02 level of significance. ^Number of categories on which correlation based given in parentheses. Q Significant at 0.001 level of significance. Table 2. Pearsbn Product Moment Correlations between Num- ,ber of Behaviors Found by Shaw and Number of Observed {Behaviors, as well as between Number of Behaviors Predicted I and Number of Observed Behaviors for Taxonomical Categor ies : Affective l Observed Behaviors Shaw 0 .80 (n=16) I Predicted i . 50a (n=18) . 94° (n=49) b b I V ' I statisti.cal significance for this and the next two hypoth eses. i I HYPOTHESIS 2 | Hypothesis 2 states that no relationship will be j ! I found between the number of behaviors predicted and the ! , ^ i 1 number of behaviors observed for the affective categories. , This null hypothesis was also rejected at the .001 level of confidence. The number of pairs was even smaller (six teen), but the high degree of correlation (.80) give the j | result statistical significance. ! j HYPOTHESIS 3 ; i I Hypothesis 3 states that no relationship will be found between the number of behaviors observed and the number of behaviors prescribed for the cognitive categories, by drama leaders. This category is labeled "Shaw" in this discussion and graphs and table. This null hypothesis was i rejected at the .02 level of confidence. The number of | pairs is again small (eighteen) but the correlation is , sufficiently high (.50) to render the results statistically significant. ' j ; HYPOTHESIS 4 j i Hypothesis 4 states that no relationship will be : I ; found between the number of behaviors observed and the num-; I 80 S = Shaw P = Predicted behaviors 0 = Observed behaviors S=10.5% P= 1.9% 0= 2.0% S = 3 P=1 ,8% ,0 % 0=0.5% 4. 10 S= 5.8% P=10.5% 0=11.2% 1 .25 S=3.8% P=1.1% 0=0.6% 4. 20 S= 4.5% P=16.8% 0=12.6% 1.31 to 10 s=o% P = 0% 0=0% 1.32 S=9.0% P= 1•5% 0=0.2% 5.20 S=10.3% P=33.3% 0=23.5% 2.10 S=5.0% P=0.4% n*=o.o% 6.10 S=14.0% P= 7.2% 0=10.5% 2.20 S=3.8% P=0.1% 0=0.1% Q 6.20 S= 6.5% P=4.4% 0=4.2% D 2.30 S= 4.5% S= 8.8% P= 9.2% P= 9.4% 0=14.4% 0=14.2% 1.11 1.12 S=3.5% P=0.7% 0=0.5% 1.21 S=2.5% P=1.2% 0=1.3% 1.22 s=o.o% P=0.1% 0=0.2% 1. 23 S=4.0% P=1.1% 0=4.0% □ m 1.24 Graph 1. Histogram: Percent Distribution of Shaw, Pre dicted, and Observed Behaviors by Cognitive Taxonomical Categories 81 S = Shaw P = Predicted behaviors 0 = Observed behaviors S=13.1% P=69.0 % 0=40.8 % S=14.5% ' R=21.4% ;0=25.1% S=16.8% P„= 9.6% 0=30.3% S = 2 6.3% P= 0.0% 0= 3.7% S=18.2% P= 0.0% ■Oh 0.1% S=10.9% P= 0.0% 0=- 0.0% S P 0 1.3 S P 0 2.1 S P 0 2 . 2 S P 0 2.3 S P 0 S P 0 3.1 3.3 Graph 2. Percent Distribution of Shaw, Predicted and Observed, Behaviors by Affective Taxonomical Categories 82 ber of behaviors prescribed for the affective categories by”' i drama leaders. No statistical measure was applied to this I category because the number of cases which resulted (six) was considered too small to determine statistical signifi- j cance. An intuitive examination of the affective cate- j ■gories reveals that the lower three categories (1.3, 2.1, I i i ! land 2.2) appear to have some agreement while the upper ! three levels (2.3, 3.1, and 3.3) appear to have little or no correlation. The Pearson instrument is a measure of correlations. The correlation measured here was between the number of ! statements Shaw found and the number of behaviors observed in the classroom. The Pearson instrument is also used to 1 (measure the correlation between the number of behaviors ! (predicted on the basis of an analysis of the teacher's .guides and the number of behaviors observed in the class- I room. The empirical use of Shaw's taxonomy, while not specified by Shaw, is consistent with Shaw's view of her , work. Shaw reported the number of statements from the ere- : ative drama literature that she classed at each major level , of the taxonomy as evidence that she had found a signifi cant number of statements for each of the categories she I [ 'included. She discussed the number of statements only if | i j ! : there were a few but not enough to warrant the inclusion of ■ ■ i ,a category, or if there were a very large number of state- I ments. While she did not argue that the specific number of ■ statements found indicated the amount of behaviors creative , dramatists expected to be produced in a particular cate gory, she did argue that the existence of a large number of ' •statements for a category implied that it was considered a Very important part of creative drama.. Further, while Shaw I I imade no claim that her taxonomy has value as a predictor of | ' I classroom behaviors, she did state that a useful taxonomy ! I must be field tested. She advocated that the relationship between the taxonomy and field experience must be explored j i i 1 {as part of the process of refining the taxonomy. Thus, i jShaw.:vimplies a connection between the number of statements jshe found and classroom behaviors. The hypotheses tested 'here provide evidence that there is such a connection. ; The category in which Shaw found the greatest num ber of statements, the 2.10 category, is also the one which ; Shaw believed creative dramatists expected to produce the { most behaviors. It was also the most observed category in ; I this study. DISCUSSION OF CATEGORIES WITH WEAK COR RELATIONS TO THE TAXONOMY } i While general agreement was found between Shaw and the observed behaviors, there are some interesting varia- ! tions. In the cognitive categories, those least correlated ! i to Shaw were 1.11-C, 1.11-E, 1.12-B, 1.12-E, 1.21-A, 1.21-B,! 1.22-B, 1.24-B, 1.25-A, 1.25-B, 2.20-C, 2.30-D, 4.00, 5.00, I 84 I {and 6.00. j The 1.11-C category is "knowledge of terminology j specific to creative dramatics, e.g., pantomime, dialogue, action, pretend, enact, try oh." That the category was low !is in keeping with the journal notes that Mr. Menchus ' I i ■tended to spend little time actually working with the stu- ! jdents with imprOvisational methods, even when this kind of I {behavior was directly called for by the teacher's guide. The second category, 1.11-E, is I knowledge of terminology specific to criteria of evalu ation of creative drama work, e.g., believability, | imagination, plausability, audibility, and intelligi bility of speech. This also fits with several journal notations that Mr. Men- I (chus tended not to engage the class in evaluative discus- i sions of student work. This category is similar to two {others which were also found to be exceptionally low: ‘1.24-B, "criteria or ways and means of evaluating dialogue, 'e.g., audibility and intelligibility, naturalness, appropri- iateness"; and 2.20-C, which is "interpretation as outsider jof the aspects of presented material, e.g., comitant mood, I ^theme, rhythm in scene and in similar 'real life' situa- I |t ions . " i | This is not to say that no description or evalua- > jtive discussions took place. There were 215 behaviors j recorded in the 2.10-C category, "translation of actions, i i images, or internalized speech into oral forms, e.g., seeing’ pantomimed sport and giving detailed verbal narrative _____________________________ 85. jafter." But taken as a whole, learning the terms of evalu- I ation, 1.11-E; knowing the criteria of evaluation, 1.24-A, B and C; and translating or interpreting a scene into a verbal description, this drama experience does seem to have i .generated fewer behaviors than experts in the field advo cate. I The next two categories, 1.12-B and E, were also to ;be expected, based on notes in the journal. Only The Actor ,of the three units generated discussion which drew on the ;child's knowledge of facts from his sensory experiences :(1.12-A), details of materials previously dramatized i (1.12-C), or details of materials to be dramatized (1.12-D). I !Further, all of the units dwell on this resource less I because to draw on this resource would require the teacher ■ to have more skill in working improvisationally with the ;child. The researcher often found it difficult to separate 1.12-A, B and E, tending to categorize all three into the ‘1.12-A category, which had 879 observed behaviors in The j Actor, for example. The confusion for the researcher was ;the 1.12-A category seemed more like a summary of 1.12-B 1 and E than a subcategory. Category 1.12-A is knowledge of ifacts specific to aspects of the physical environment; and '1.12-E is concrete experiences related to abstractions. Categories 1.21-A and B were exceptionally low, primarily because it was difficult for the researcher to separate this category from the 1.25 methodology category. Shaw noted this potential problem which the researcher feels is in need of further clarification. Is 1.21-A "knowledge of conventional ways and means of characteriza tion approaches, e.g., thinking character's thoughts," a j"convention," or is it an improvisational methodology like 1.25-C, "knowledge of methodology of approaches to charac- ! ^terization and plot construction, e.g., animal imitation"? i iThus, perhaps some of the 974 observed behaviors in 1.25-C belong in 1.21-A or B. Category 1.25-A, knowledge of methodology or ways and means for motivat ing dramatic improvisations,, e.g., emotional recall, finding an objective, inventing circumstances, dis tinguishing obstacles, is certainly an important and clear category for creative drama. Neither of the first two units dealt with it at all. Since the first two units are lower elementary level units, it is not too surprising that they do not deal with motivation, though perhaps the idea could have been intro duced in Creating Characterization. There is a lesson on ;the motivation in The Actor, but the lack of a greater num ber of behaviors may be connected to Mr. Menchus' not work- S ling improvisationally very much or his skipping the evalua- i jtive discussions— both of which could have encouraged this 'behavior. i j Category 1.25-B is connected, according to journal Inotes, to the lack of improvisational work, since it is "knowledge of methodology or ways and means for inventing 87 land handling dialogue, e.g., soliloquy or monologue or dialogue." Categories 4.10, 4.20, 5.10 and 5.20 were very small, while in 6.10 and 6.20 there were virtually no : iobserved behaviors. The most numerous of these high level I I behaviors was 5.10-A, just as Shaw found the most state- ; I ; ments at that level among the statements she categorized at , |the 4.00, 5.00 and 6.00 levels. But the next most numerous i ; jhigh level categories in Shaw were 5.20 and 6.10, while ! jamong the observed behaviors it was the lower 4.10 and I |4.20 that followed 5.10 as the most numerous. This may be ! jso because the level of behaviors observed tended to be I |lower than what Shaw found advocated by drama leaders. i I j DISCUSSION OF THE CATEGORIES WITH THE ' MOST OBSERVED" BEHAVIORS i I I The most numerous cognitive categories observed l * jwere 1.11-A, 1.11-B, 1.12-A, 1.25-C, 1.31-A, 2.10-A. Cate- ; gories 1.11-A and B refer to knowledge of terminology relating to the emotions and dramatic structure, respec tively. The CEMREL curriculum addresses these areas very directly; therefore, Creating Characterization produced almost all of the 1.11-A and Constructing Dramatic Plot 'produced most of the 1.11-B behaviors. j | Category 1.12-A is emphasized in The Actor by [encouraging students to remember and use their previous sensory experiences to build character for the improvised 88 J I play. I Category 1.25-C is emphasized in The Actor, which concentrates not only on having students use methods of » approaching characters but has them learning how profes- i !sional actors make use of methods of approaching character- ■ization. » Category 1.31-A would have been substantially more i i numerous, according to the journal, if the lessons of Cre- I ; ating Characterization had been more fully implemented. i Though not very numerous in Constructing Dramatic Plot, jthis principle, "behavior of individuals or characters is i related to physical/emotional make-up," is again very i :prominent in The Actor. j Finally, 2.10-A is the lowest comprehension level !behavior, the "translation of verbal descriptions into a I :mental image, this image into words or into action." According to the journal, this behavior often occurred where the higher level behaviors such as 2.20-A or 5.10-A 1 could have occurred. ' DISCUSSION OF THE AFFECTIVE CATEGORIES i i i [ Among the affective behaviors the first three lev- ;els (1.3, 2.1, and 2.2) were within the range of being up !to three times as numerous as would be predicted based on ' an analysis of Shaw.. ,The number of observed behaviors in the three upper levels (2.3, 3.1, and 3.3) are one-seventh I or less of the projection based on Shaw. Though there were' I not enough pairs to apply a test of significance, it is safe to say that the level of commitment in this experience was lower than what was predicted based on Shaw. While the ■ lower three affective categories show some degree of agree- ; i ment just from a common sense view, the higher affective levels appear not to be positively correlated. However, the level of affective involvement in the classroom was generally higher than what was prescribed by the CEMREL units. A possible explanation for the modesty 1 1 i of the CEMREL affective goals is that the units are I !intended for regular classroom teachers. They are intended :as entry level experiences. | This chapter has provided evidence that what was i - observed in this classroom was not atypical. It was very .consistent with the CEMREL prescriptions and at least cog nitively was consistent with what drama leaders prescribe :for a drama curriculum. The next chapter presents a view of the experience based on interviews with the participants | themselves. . Their qualitative statements provide further i iinsight into which aspects of the experience worked for I ithem or were most attractive. Chapter 5 REPORT OF THE STUDENT INTERVIEWS This chapter describes the quality of the experi ence of the CEMREL drama units by the class taken as a whole. The data for this chapter is provided by two inter views with each student, one done before the units were begun and one done after the units were completed. The interviews are summarized in Tables 3-17 (Tables 3-7 relate to the first interview; Tables 8-17, to the final inter view) . The chapter reveals that the students came to this drama experience with very little previous experience except as television viewers. However, they participated readily, especially when they were directed to improvise brief scenes. The most positive outcomes seemed to be the reduction of stage fright for many students, alteration of their view of acting and, most importantly, encouragement of a positive attitude toward similar experiences in the future. Though one interview was held before the units were taught and one was conducted afterwards, they were not intended as a pre- and post-measurement. The first inter view was a way of preparing the students for the second and a means of gathering information on their previous dramatic experiences. The second interview focused directly on the }class experience in the units. The questions checked on ! 1 i what the students recalled from their experience. It asked them to evaluate specific parts of the experience, and it j explored what new ideas may have been generated by the \ i • iunits by asking follow-up questions. (See Tables 3-17, pages 93-98.) I PREVIOUS DRAMA EXPERIENCE OF THE STUDENTS j I The student interviews revealed information on the ; ! past experience of the students with drama. The students' | j I ,past experience indicated that 76 percent of them had been 1 in at least one dramatic activity such as a play, or had previously done Creating Characterization (20 percent) or ■ Constructing Dramatic Plot (12 percent). None of the stu- jdents had done The Actor. About half (44 percent) of those I who had done plays had done only one, and most of these iwere in a third grade in which the teacher involved all j ;children in a play each year. • Twenty percent of the students indicated they had .had no previous dramatic experience as a participant, while 136 percent, or nine, indicated more than one experience. ;Of these nine students, five had been in two or three •events; the other four had been in five, six or ten. How- ; ever, one student who indicated five experiences described | j i 'classroom skits. Two of the other three students, Alex andj i Matt C., were very much interested in drama. They impro- | 1 i 92 |Table 3. Distribution of Students by the Number of Plays iin Which They Have Participated No Plays:. 2 or 3 4 or More 1 Play Plays Plays Totals 24% (n=6) 40% 20% 16% (n=10) (n=5) (n=4) 100% (n=25) Table 4. tending Distribution of Students by the Amount They Say They Do of Pre- Never Seldom Occasionally Regularly Pretend Pretend Pretend Pretend Totals 20% (n=5) 24% 44% 12% (n=6) (n=ll) (n=3) 100% (n=25) Table 5. Distribution of Students by the Amount vision They Say They Watch of Tele- Never Watch Less than More than Average Average Average Totals 4% 8 % 8 0 % 8% 100% j (n=l) (n=2) (n=20) (n=2) (n=25) I Table 6. Distribution of Students by the Amount of Help i They Needed To Create a Short Imaginary Scene Much Some Little to Help Help No Help Totals 32% 44% 24% 100% (n=8) (n=ll) (n=6) (n=25) Table 7. Distribution of Students by Whether They Had Done One of the CEMREL Drama Units | Unit Yes No 'Creating Characterization 20% 80% (n=5) (n=20) Constructing Dramatic Plot 12% 88% I (n=3) (n=22) I 1 The Actor 0% 100% (n=0) (n=25) !Table 8. Distribution of Students by the Amount of Help ;Needed to Create an' Imaginary Scene Much Help Some Help No Help 28% 2 4% 48% Table 9. Distribution of Students by the Number of Parts |Recalled from Constructing Dramatic Plot All Parts Parts with Parts Iden- Some Not Iden Help f ied tified 0% 20% 5 6% 24% Table 10. Distribution of Students by the Number of Parts Recalled from Creating Characterization 3 or 4 Parts Remembered 1 or 2 Parts Remembered No Parts Remem bered 48% 52% 0% I I i i i | _______ 95 ! I I ;Table 11. Distribution of Students by the Number of Parts |Recalled from The Actor 3 or More 1 or 2 No Parts Remem Parts Parts bered 92% 8% 0% ;Table 12. Distribution of Students by Whether Their Feel- j ings Were Involved Feelings Involved Feelings Not Involved 76% 24% |Table 13. Distribution of Students by Whether They Recalled |Specific Information from The Actor Audio Tapes At Least 1 Tape More than One Tape Remembered Remembered 80% 44% *Table 14. Distribution of Students by Which Unit(s) They jWould Like To Repeat 1 ' Would Repeat Cre- : atin& Charac terization Would Repeat Con- Would Repeat structing Dra- The Actor matic Plot 40% 32% 80% Table 15. Distribution of Students by Whether They Made Everyday Use of What They Learned in Drama Used What They Learned Did Not Use What Learned 52% 48% 'Table 16. Distribution of Students by Whether They Felt 'Their Drama Experience Was Personally Important i I Important ! Not Important I | 60% 1 40% I i I 1 j 97 I { I I j ;Table 17. Distribution of Students by Whether They Did At j Least One of The Actor Homework Assignments Did at Least One Assignment No Assignments 80% 20% j I i i 9 8 j , vised together; Alex took private acting lessons; and they i i spearheaded a film-making project in Mr. Menchus's class. ■ i 1 It is clear from classroom observation and the student and ! ' ■ teacher interviews that Alex was generally viewed as the i best actor in the class. After the students made up the i scene during the first, interview, they were asked which I ■ students they would use in their play. Alex was chosen imost often by far, and his choice was afterwards accompa- | Inied by comments such as, "He's real good," or "He is Jreally funny." Mr. Menchus shared this view of Alex, say ing in the final interview, "Alex is undoubtedly the best ■ i 1 , actor in the class." ; Unfortunately there are no standards for establish- | ; ing what this level of experience means. No statistics are known to this researcher which establishes normative levels ;for drama experience of fifth graders, nor for the influ- !ence of such levels of experience, if any, on performance | |in creative dramatics. i ! The same is true of another factor of experience which was recorded in the initial interview— the amount of ;pretending the students do. Twenty percent of the students, said they never pretend; 24 percent indicated they rarely . i did; 44 percent said they pretended fairly often to once in’ ;a while; and 12 percent of the students (Alex, Matt C., and| I John M.) indicated they pretended a lot or "all the time." I I : Matt C. had makeup, wigs-and costume items in his room, and, jAlex and John M. said they went at least a couple of times 1 per week to Matt's house to do improvisations. There is normative data on the TV watching of U.S. children. The average ten-year-old child watches TV twenty; . hours per week. Thus, those considered average in this i informal survey were students who apparently watched about 1 that much. Eighty - percent of the students seemed to fall into this category. One student, Vic, indicated he "never" ; watched TV. This statement is hard to believe, but even i I jwhen re-questioned he insisted on the word "never." He j jsaid he was too busy with flute, soccer, skating, writing, 'and school work. Two students, Dan and Eric, indicated :they watched considerably less than the average. Two other students, Cindy and Alex, were rated as watching consider ably more than the average, though putting Alex in this ■category is only with qualification. While Cindy indicated ;she watched TV every day in the morning, afternoon, and at ; :night, Alex was included because of his regular attendance i 'at all forms of theatre: TV, film, and the stage. STUDENTS' ABILITY TO CREATE A BRIEF DRAMATIC SCENE What was the general ability of the class, to create ■a brief dramatic scene? Thirty-two percent of the students■ ■ apparently found it difficult to invent a story during the ' ’interview. Forty-four percent had little trouble after . being asked such questions as "Who would be in the story?" I and "What would happen first? Next?" Those who were con- t : sidered to have needed a lot of help were those whom the researcher had to stimulate each step in the story and/or : suggest specific story options, such as "Would you have , :John play the part or Alex?" "Would they keep arguing or i would they stop?" Twenty-four percent of the students j needed very little help. After identifying the picture and being asked, "Gould you make up a story about that that iwould get that feeling across to the class?" they were able to create a story without further specific prompting. The final 'interview again checked on the students' ;ability to create a dramatic scene. As Tables 6 and 8 !show, there may have been some change in the students' lability to improvise a dramatic scene. However, the change ;was not large and it is possible that the improvements that ,did occur were due in part or all to the practice effect. RETENTION OF THE TERMS FROM CONSTRUCT ING DRAMATIC PLOT What was the degree of internalization of the terms, and concepts of Constructing Dramatic Plot? None of the I students were able to recall the concepts without the | ;researcher prodding their memory. After making up their story, they were asked, "Do you remember the game we playedj icalled Constructing Dramatic Plot? If they said yes, the ; researcher would say, "What were the different parts of a I 101 I iplot that you learned in that game?" When the student con-1 ! |tinued to hesitate, the researcher said: | You remember in the game we had the different card | decks and a game board, and we made stories using the I parts of a plot. There was a character-setting deck I and an incident deck. Do you remember what the other I parts of a plot were called? .Twenty percent of the students were then able to answer, '"Conflict, crisis and resolution." Fifty-six percent of the students were only able to identify these terms by giv-, :ing examples of them from either the story they had just : !made up or a favorite story they remembered from the Con- !. i j strueting Dramatic Plot activity. Twenty-four percent of ; 1 the students were unable to identify one or more of the i :plot terms, either in the context of a story or when asked, i ,"What is a . . .?" Mr. Menchus,in the final teacher inter- |view, said all the students knew all the terms and could ianswer a direct question such as, "What are the different parts of a plot?" It is true that the students had not ;played the game for three months, but the class had i reviewed the terms about one week before the interview in a \ . discussion summarizing Creating Characterization and Con- i i structing Dramatic Plot. I j RECALL OF THE PARTS OF CREATING ’ CHARACTERIZATION i j Table 10 provides a summary of the number of ;parts of Creating Characterization the students seemed to | i i i ■ i 102 I have remembered. About half (48 percent) remembered three ■ or four parts such as the mask activity, the puzzle, the ! I I book, the filmstrip, the record, the colored light, or the ' I improvised story. Students were asked, "Do you remember the very first box we did when I first started coming here? It was called Creating Characterization." The student might reply, "You mean the mask thing?" and the researcher ; would reply, "Yes, what do you remember most clearly about [ i I that?" After the student replied, he would be asked, "What1 else do you remember?" When the student did not respond : further, the researcher would suggest activities the stu dent may have forgotten such as, "What do you remember of the story you acted out?" < i Forty-three percent of the students made specific responses to only one or two of the elements. To be counted, the student response had to mention a specific memory of the event. If the researcher said, "Do you remember the body puzzle?" and the student said yes, the student was asked, "What do you remember about it?" Only after answering the follow-up question was the student I assumed to remember the body puzzle. I RECALL OF THE PARTS OF THE ACTOR The same questioning process was used for The j Actor. Twenty-three of the twenty-five, or 92 percent, i remembered at least three activities. Two specific ques- j tions were asked to augment the information on behaviors in I The Actor which were not subject to direct observation. i Students were asked if they did the observation assignment.' t These homework assignments were briefly discussed in class, but only a few students had time to respond in class. t Eighty percent of the students indicated in the interviews that they had done the assignment by saying "yes" and by saying what they had watched or heard. Students were then asked, "Were there some actors on the tapes that you lis- . i tened to more or remember better than the others?" Three j i students, or 12 percent, answered "no," and on further | I i questioning repeated no specific information from the j tapes. The other 88 percent of the students mentioned one j or two actors and gave specific information which they I attributed to that actor's tape. Twenty-four percent chose l Rosato first; 20 percent chose Newman; 20 percent chose ! Geer; 8 percent chose Valdez; 4 percent chose Deacon; and 4 percent chose Alice first. Of the 48 percent who made a I second choice, 16 percent chose Geer; 16 percent, Newman; ' 8 percent, Alice; and 8 percent chose Rosato. WERE STUDENT FEELINGS ENGAGED? j i The students were asked, "Did your feelings get 1 I I involved in doing these drama units?" If the answer was 1 i I yes, the student was asked, "In what way? When in particu-j i lar were your feelings involved? What were you feeling?" | [if the student could detail the feelings he/she named, the 1 answer was considered a "yes." Nineteen students indicated some degree of "feeling"involvement. ; WOULD THE STUDENTS WANT TO REPEAT THE EXPERIENCE NEXT YEAR? ! i When asked if they would want to have this same 1 t drama experience again, only two students indicated that !they would not want the experience repeated the following \ i j ! •year: John H. and Eric. John H.'s profile provides some i ■speculations on his reasons (see page 151). Eric's final i ■ • interview was so generally negative in tone that the ; j researcher asked, "Are you unhappy right now?" Eric , , t ;replied, "It's not that I am unhappy, but I'm tired from !speed skating last night." As the profile will show, he I expressed resistance on several occasions, then would i ‘"plunge in" and become deeply involved in the activity. ’The researcher's intuition is that Eric was "baiting" an i jadult but really enjoyed the drama work. 1 On the other hand, some of those expressing a posi tive view may need qualification. When asked what units, if any, he would vote to do again next year, Jim replied, '"I don't know if I'd do it again because it was all kind of ,boring. The only thing I'd do is the first thing we did ^with the masks." That "first thing" would usually mean Creating 'Characterization. However, when asked what the dumbest 105 : jthing in this drama experience was, Jim replied, "Putting jthat puzzle together of that lady," which is also an activ-: 1 ■ ! ity of Creating Characterization. Thus, he only liked the j i mask activity, which occupied only three sessions. In sum-| i | | mary, 40 percent of the students said they would vote to do I I Creating Characterization again; 32 percent would do Con- i ! , structing .Dramatic Plot, and 80 percent would do The Actor ; i again. ; I r ; USEFULNESS OF THE EXPERIENCE ; The next interview question was, "Have you made use' of what you learned?" Some students (48 percent) could not provide a verbal description of any use they had made of their drama experience. Others readily gave examples. Rickner: Do you watch TV differently now? Jon: Yeah, like on -."Hawaii Five-0," Steve Marco- wics never smiles. [Did Jon mean he was "reading" faces now and did not do so before?] Rickner: You said in the other interview you watched TV a lot. Do you watch TV differently now? Jim: Yeah, I do. You can see what they're doing more better. Rickner: In what way? Jim: Like you're usually listening to the things that they're saying or you don't know what they're doing. But if you don't listen to ; that you can see what they're doing--kind ; of like I was watching "Eddie's Father" : once and I turned it down and he was just ; in his room putting things away . . . Jim went on describing the scene and telling how he j !noticed the boy kept playing with his motorcycle while he j I .was arguing with his father. j i 1 106 1 A change in everyday perception apparently occurred with several students. Rickner: Claude: Do you find yourself using what you have learned here? Yes, sometimes I'll be walking down the street and I can see what people are feel ing You don't have to see the whole Rickner Claude: Rickner Claude: Rickner: Claude: person, maybe just their face. Is that important? Kind of like I was talking about watching people and everything. Like I can tell how people are acting. i Who? : Ordinary people walking down the street andl stuff like my dad, he walks like a duck I almost, and my sister--they both walk with . their feet sliding out. : What did you learn from all that? To watch people and be more observant. Like when you go hunting you always watch ; and you see the animal, but with people you're not really that way because you're around them all the time. But if you , really get down to the basis [sic], you'll ■ notice everybody has something different-- the way they walk, the way they talk or some thing. All the students who gave evidence of finding their drama experience useful were students who indicated their feelings had been aroused. Likewise, the 60 percent who indicated their drama experience was honestly important to them personally were all persons who indicated their feel ings had been aroused. All those who found their experience useful (52 percent) also called the experience important. The student| experience was classed as important if the student's state- ! ments seemed to make a clear connection between a value important to the student and what the student experienced i 107 as drama. On the other hand, a fairly sizeable number, ; nine of twenty-five, or 36 percent, gave no evidence in the: i I interview that the experience had touched their fundamental; !motivations. j I i ! i ; THE RANGE OF ATTITUDES I I i After studying the entire interview, the researcher !chose a single statement that best represented his under- i .standing of that student's attitude toward his/her experi- !ence. The student's own wording often seemed to the i I i 1 j researcher especially apt in capturing the thrust and tone : I ! , of the student's attitude. What follows is an intuitive ; I selection by the researcher of several quotes, which may ' • represent some of the range of attitudes in the class. Ann: I liked the rehearsals and doing it in I front of people. | Rickner: Which one the most? ; Ann: The third one. I l !She apparently did not use what she learned from the tapes,i I | exercises and other teaching aids. As her words indicate, , i I J j it was only the rehearsals and performance that she liked. ; j . Further, it seemed to this intuitive observer that it was a: • i S ! i I lukewarm liking--it was a liking of something that did not | ! I icost much. As George said, "It was kinda fun." 1 i Eric's statement reflects his defiant tone. It was inot possible for the researcher, in the interview at least, j 1 to get beyond that tone. ! 108 Eric: I'll tell you one thing--I take more pic- ' tures than I do pretend. Who said he did not? Some, such as John H. , could no.t see anything more i i than literal acting gains. When asked what was the most \ I ■ important idea he learned about acting that he would tell i | newcomers to acting, he replied they should talk "not too , soft and not too loud." Interestingly enough, this concept ! is relevant to John H. in that he is "soft" in the extreme. I John, however, did not seem to be aware that the concept had special relevance to him. Of the fifteen who labeled themselves as having personally learned something impor- : tant, Robin in her statement sounds almost like John H. Robin: Mostly I learned to scream real loud. i I \ Whereas John H. talked about a concept, Robin had appar- I 1 j : ently internalized it. She continues: "Like when I'm in ; i , close I can talk loud, but when you're in front of people jit's hard." She had considerable difficulty in the ' rehearsals becoming loud enough, but in the performance she was very audible. It seemed to this observer to be a per- : sonal hurdle which she challenged and overcame. Other statements were more obvious. j Alex: When things .have to do with what I really like best, I can really listen. : ! This statement was in response to the researcher's query j i ■ about how he was able to remember so much of what was said \ j i 1 on the tapes. 1 t ' I I 109; John: It's fun, mostly, and you learn. His views gave evidence that he learned a lot. Jon: The first time I was in a play I didn't know what I was doing. 'Jon indicated that he did feel confident of what he was ^ doing this time. 1 I 1 Cindy: I thought it was boring, but now I don't. ' ' This was in response to the researcher's query about why , | i I she had seemed uninterested in the activities at first but j r . seemed to "tune in" toward the end. i I ( i Victor: I learned how to speak on stage. I I Rickner: That was important to you? , | Victor: Yeah. ! Rickner: Why: ' j Victor: Because when I grow up, I will have to j j speak in the court, if I'm a lawyer. j : That's what I want to be. : Hardy, who had done ten plays before but was new to; i > this school, seemed concerned about making a good impres- I ] sion with his accomplished skills. Hardy: I was hoping we could do it in front of ; some people, and we could. i He hoped because he was confident that he would impress i ihis new friends with his accomplished skills of playing in | ! j front of people. 1 I ' ■ Perhaps the most emotionally pointed statement was | | I t Esther's: i Esther: And I would wait every day and I would say, "Is it today?" I Several students were especially aware of the : 110 potential power of the parts of the body to express feel- i ing. It has already been noted how Claude noticed people's feelings as they simply walked down the street. Liz said i she used these perceptions at home in her family improvisa tions. ! I Do you watch TV differently? 1 Yeah. [ What do you see different: I understand the actors better. In what way? Like when they show expression it seems to ; work. I mean, before, you're just sitting j here watching and the actor does something i and you go, "Oh wow," you know. [Indicates! boredom.] But now it seems to come out, toj stand out, you know. Hey, look what he did--he made a face. Has this changed your improvisations? ; What do you mean? The way- you pretend. j . . . when we're pretending and if Scott, he is just, you know, blah, I'll go, "Scotty, you gotta show more expression; you gotta do this or do that." You never would have done that before? * No, I never did that. I could have cared ; less what he was doing. ! i Liz seemed not only to understand but to make use of the ( i idea that feeling can be expressed in parts of the body. ; THE FEAR OF DRAMATIC PERFORMANCE i I I | Five students talked about the ways the experience ! ;helped them overcome their fears of performing. Matt W. • ‘noted that the sum of the units for him was experience. Hej ! I jsaid it "gave me encouragement." He said he noticed that j 1 Geer and Rosato "both talked of being nervous but later i I I into the play not being nervous any more." He brought the I 111 i Rickner: Liz: Rickner: Liz: Rickner: : Liz: i I ! i ! Rickner: Liz : Rickner: ! Liz: Rickner: Liz : subject up again as he said: Matt W.: '1 The play last year and the play and tapes , this year gave me a lot of encouragement. ; Rickner: Can you think of something specific from j one of the tapes? Matt W. : One of the actor's said, "I was really j afraid first starting out, but as I went on; j I wasn't scared at all." That gave me . 1 something. j ! 1 Cindy, John H., and Kathy all seemed to discover that what ! worked for the actors they heard on tape also worked for I them. Kathy: When they're on the stage, they're scared, ; but then they forget the audience is i there. j This is apparently a reference to the comment by actress \ Saundra Deacon: "Really, really putting your consciousness, on the other actor takes your consciousness off yourself ! 1 . ." Cindy had repeatedly tried to get out of being in the performance, but she did not try too hard. Cindy: Rickner: Cindy: Rickner: Cindy: Rickner: Cindy: Rickner; C indy: I liked the play but, oh, I get very nerv ous ! I remember you said in class two or three times, "Do we have to perform in the play?" Are you glad Mr. Menchus made you? Yeah. Did you always want to be in plays? Yes, but as they get closer, I would always: get scared. : So had you ever been in one before this? j No. Do you think you'll keep avoiding them? ■ No, not after this one. It's not so bad once you're out there. ■ Donald Rickner, Teacher's Guide to The Actor (St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1976), p. 70. I Claude's fears ran perhaps strongest of all. He f j had apparently been forced to do a play in first grade I j "and I kept flubbing up." Later he was supposed to be in i , another play, and he said, "Every time I got out on stage, i ; I started cracking up--I started laughing." This time he :had Alex's help. * Claude: I Rickner: 1 Claude: j Rickner: I Claude: I Rickner: ! Claude: Rickner: Claude: Rickner: Claude: Rickner: Claude: Rickner: Claude: i I | Rickner: j Claude: STUDENTS' AND TEACHER'S IDEAS ABOUT ACTING About half of the students made comments in the 1 I last interview which reflected their concept of acting. i « Alex: Rosato is like me. She likes to dress up and as an actor you can do or be anything. These are my two things why I like acting. I love to dress up and pretend to be dif 113 I Everyone knows he's good but like I stum bled when I was coming up the steps. : Were you afraid of forgetting? j Like for a few minutes I was frozen with j stage fright. I couldn't do anything. What happened to unfreeze you? ; I kicked myself in the ankle. ; What do you think would happen next time? j I probably wouldn't get stage fright. I'd ; know what to do if it happened— I'd just : kick myself again. What made you think of kicking yourself? I thought if I don't do something I'm just • going to get in big dutch. : With whom? Mr. Menchus for messing up. So would Alex ' and the group. So there was a lot of pressure on you? Yeah. I remember from your first interview you had a problem with a play you did in first grade. Yeah, I was sitting up there and didn't know what to do. Now you do? Now I could do it. ferent people. Rickner: Have your improvisations with Matt C. changed? Alex: . . . the old kind seem kinda silly. Now we pretend we're stranded on an island. Now we went to a real farm— actually went I with it, built huts. \ I ( This goes along with Matt C.'s discovery that acting is making things real that are not there, like the exercise of 'passing an imaginary ball around and making it "seem" real ; I 1 to those watching. Several students were struck by Paul Newman's com- j ments that you can't fake it (this statement figured prom inently in the concepts of Alex, Nat, John M., Rachel, Vic tor, Kathy, Matt C., Andy, and Esther): ; The biggest change that occurred actually happened j at Yale University. And I had been up until then, very1 guarded, and the emotional things did not come easily to me. And I think the second or third scene that I \ was the priest who comes on stage announcing that Joan of Arc has been burned at the stake, and who breaks down. And when the guy gave me the scene, I just started shaking and figured out if there was some way I - could fake it. And I thought to myself, "Well, here it| is. I mean, either you, you're prepared to show you're, . . . or not prepared to. If you're not prepared to, get out now. So I made the commitment there, and wrenched it up from somewhere. I don't know where it came from, but it was there when I asked for it, and oh, I think that was probably the point at which the commitment to work seriously in theatre occurred.2 These comments support the idea that feeling is central to acting. As Victor said of this drama experi ence, "It helped me to really act surprised instead of just ^Ibid., p. 56 i pretending." This idea is reinforced by several other com ments about the need not to "fake it." Alex, in talking about the mask activity in Creating Characterization, says: Alex: My whole emotion changes to .that one thing, and I really bring it out. I mean, like Paul Newman said, "You go in there and you're not faking it." I really get angry. Rickner: Can you fake it? Alex: It won't come— it just won't come out. Your hands may be like this [clenched] but your face will be doing something different, like smiling. Alex is more articulate than some, but the same idea seemed |to have been in the mind of Victor when he said it "helped I ,me to really act surprised instead of just pretending." "Just pretending" seemed synonymous in some of the students' minds with a mechanical or inhuman kind of acting. For Rachel it seemed to be a threat to her genuineness. ;She said in the first interview that she had been in plays Jbut she did not like it because she did not ever want not I 'to be herself: "Like my dad, he wants a fancy car .... I He1s being fooled by other people .... Like me when I 'was in the fourth and third grade." She saw his wish for a !fancy car as being a reflection of other people but not an expression of her father, and in turn connected this with iher always trying to be like everyone else when she was i 'younger. Rickner: In the first interview you said you always j wanted to be yourself.- How do you feel j about that statement now? Rachel: With the tapes they kinda helped you see ' that you're really trying to really be somebody else .... Actors are people and you have to motivate. You gotta kinda be into the play, to make a false person. Like, as Chris I really have to be Chris-- or I have to be myself. She seemed surprised to find out that actors are people who make "false" people. The ambiguous use of the word "false" instead of imaginary may indicate that the issue was not entirely cleared up. But she was not alone in her old view that actors act without using real feelings. Several students reflected surprise to learn that actors used real feeling i i j but to the end of creating an imaginary person who may or i ! I ! may not be like the actor. Matt C.'s discovery of this j i . idea was particularly dramatic. He knew he had to use | l feelings but he thought professional actors "phoned it in." I ; Rickner: What did you learn from the tapes? | Matt C.: That you have to really feel something. | Rickner: Did you use to think you didn't have to t ; feel anything? j Matt C.: Well, I think it's really neat that actors do. . . . We always did it, but I thought they just pretended .... I used to think it's just a real person, and now I think ' it's, he's really trying to act out the i person he's supposed to play. But he's really trying, like "All in the Family" he ' tries to act really mean and I read in a 1 magazine he's really soft-hearted. He's i | really a nice guy, so he's just trying to ! j act that way. i The idea that actors did not need to be involved emotionally may have been connected with a mechanical view i !of them by students. I J i i i ; Cindy: I think it was Mary Lou Rosato who said how 116 she always dressed up. Rickner: Did you dress up when you were little? : Cindy: Uh hmmm, I have a picture of it. Rickner: Did it surprise you to find out actors did j that? Cindy: Uh hmmm, I just thought that they like, when they were walking down the street or | something like that, a guy calls, "Hey, you wanna be an actor?" or something. Rickner: And now what do you think? Cindy: Now I know that they practice when they are little kids and they do things and then they, when they get older and they know what they want to be, they practice a lot. ;Or as one student summed it up for himself: Rickner: What is acting? j Andy: To make believe you're someone else, you i concentrate on the one thing you are. | Rickner: Is that an old idea to you or a new one to i you? ’ | ! Andy: It is new. ! Rickner: What did you think before: | Andy: I just thought it was kinda boring, I rehearsing and remembering things. | Thus, those students who spoke on the issue of i :actors' use of feelings generally stated that they had not ■ thought of acting before this drama experience, or at j i ! ;least had not thought of actors as alive people when they , ! ; jacted. They were just going through the motions or faking , it. Emerging from the drama experience the students seemed’ to be shifting their view in the direction that actors have ito work just like they do; actors have to get emotionally j involved, and in order to act at their best they must let | 'their real feelings come out. i This study began by reporting the classroom experi ence as a sequence of' events. Then, in Chapter 4, it was .reported as quantities of behaviors. This chapter has i 117 i reported the ideas and attitudes of the participants viewed jas a class. The next and final data reporting chapter shifts the point of view to that of the individual partici- I pants. j t Chapter 6 ! REPORT OF THE RESEARCH JOURNAL AND INTER- | VIEWS: PROFILES OF MR. MENCHUS AND ■ THE TWENTY-FIVE STUDENTS i ! , This chapter describes the drama experience from .the point of view of the teacher and each of the twenty- ,five students. The discussion of each person is in three [parts. First, the variation among the participants in the ]number, range, and concentration of behaviors in the tax- i ionomical categories is described. Second, the partici- ■ pants' own statements are used to develop self-descriptions (Last, the views of Mr. Menchus, other students and the 'researcher are used to modify and supplement the evolving profile. Each profile is headed by a quotation taken from the profiled individual that appeared to the researcher to summarize that person's drama experience. MR. TOM MENCHUS I "I thoroughly believe that in elementary education i. . . [every student] should have exposure to acting . . . I iat least once a year." i ^Quantitative t Mr. Menchus far exceeded any of the students in the number of behaviors recorded. The ratio is about the same 'in each of the three units. Mr. Menchus has six to seven jindividually recorded behaviors for each behavior by the number one ranked student. He has sixteen to seventeen !behaviors for each behavior by the mean ranked student. i The only categories in which the number of behaviors were i 1 ; |similar between Mr. Menchus and individual students is in the 2.10 translation category. His score there would rank ■ i him as about average for the class as a whole. Though it was not surprising that Mr. Menchus, a non-drama specialist,, 'would not do a lot of modeling of improvisation behaviors, j I j j this category also included translation of improvisational ' I : i iactions into verbal descriptions. One would expect such I t ;behaviors to be a prominent part of the evaluation process; however, very little of the evaluation asked for in the teacher's guides of the three units was implemented. The wide range of behaviors by Mr. Menchus also was i 1 in contrast to the narrower range of behaviors recorded for i I 'the students. The mean number of cognitive categories I I recorded for students was three for Creating Characteriza- | Ition, five for Constructing Dramatic Plot, and nine for The■ .Actor. Mr. Menchus has behaviors in eight cognitive cate- ,gories for Creating Characterization, ten for Constructing ; [Dramatic Plot, and sixteen for The Actor. i ; Mr. Menchus's behaviors also included many more of i the higher level categories in which most of the students | ; I |did not have behaviors. This was especially true of the , ; 2 .30 extrapolation cognitive category and the 2.3 "satis- | jfaction" affective level. 1 I 120j i Self-d'- e sc rip t i on 1 Mr. Menchus is a Caucasian male teacher with six- ; I teen years of experience. He had directed one play, had been in a couple of plays, and had taught Constructing Dra-i 1 matic Plot the previous year. He had tried CEMREL's Thea- ^ tre Game File but found himself uncomfortable with it. i Though he thought previous to this dramatic experience that jdoing plays was more trouble than it was worth, he had I | worked with media, videotaped student skits, and made up | slide shows. j He summed up his teaching of Creating Characteriza-< j tion by saying, "I don't think I'll teach that again." [While he thought the mask activity the best, he thought the. I ; ;Emotion Book of questionable value ("You know, that someone can cross their legs and I can tell how they're feeling from that, is a little difficult to understand"). The puz- t I !zle he found not good ("the pictures of the girl just ! weren't convincing enough"), and the filmstrip was not good j !("I mean, the 'jumpy, jumpy, jumpy' was just so phony-- ,nobody talks like that"). ; He summed up his work with Constructing Dramatic i I Plot by saying he would teach it next year, but "definitely1 | it will be part of the English; it will not be part of the ' , i |arts." He found the pre- and posttests hard to score but i ! said he would use them anyway because they provided writing; 1 i |opportunities for the students. He said the unit was j i 121 I structured enough and he understood the goals well enough to be comfortable with it. The goal as he understood it was to learn how to write an interesting story "with more I than this happened and that happened. I looked at it as a j i •writing unit." When asked if he thought the students could consciously use the six basic concepts of the unit, he i said, "Yes, even unconciously . . . I think everybody ! I : 1couldw-even George, because we've drilled it enough." This. I 1 opinion is in conflict with the result of the final student i interviews in which no student voluntarily applied all six ! principles to the creation of a story, only five students | i j i were able to name all six parts even with helpful hints ' j from the researcher, and another fourteen could define the ' i I term on request. The explanation for this discrepancy is I not obvious to the researcher. It may be that Mr. Menchus i :administered the game to the class rather than individual- f ; 1izing it as the teacher's guide suggested. The journal and I 1 observation sheets give evidence that after the initial I organization sessions, Mr. Menchus spent very little time working with the students on the unit. He typically would spend five to ten minutes initiating the day's new game ! ;level; then would fix things, grade papers, or confer with ! r 'the principal or other teachers. He himself felt that he 1 1 learned much from the unit, so he may have simply assumed ' that if the students were exposed, they would learn, too. 'However, the recurrence of student complaints about its I 122 ! jbeing boring, the fact that only eight students stated they. ! wanted to repeat the unit and no student considered it his/i [ ! her favorite unit, leads the researcher to conclude that | the students' affective involvement may have been so low j I that they retained very little of the unit. A key here may be the individualization or lack of it. The unit is i !designed to place students at a level that challenges them.j As soon as they reach the top level, they should be encour aged to improvise stories without the game. Running all 1 students through all levels of the game, as Mr. Menchus ' i ;did, may have kept most of them working below the level i j that would have challenged them. I j j I Mr. Menchus said m summary of The Actor that he 1 i i ■ liked it the best of the three units, and that it had had .a | I very strong impact on him. He felt most comfortable with I ! jthe more structured part of the unit: "The tapes and the i ! , I I iquestions and the drill following the tapes, I was very ; secure with that. I felt least secure with the game." , However, he thought the children enjoyed doing the , play most. In the early part of the unit he did not real- ! ize how it all came together in a cumulative way. The ; . 1 : introduction and early directions did not make that clear, i ; :he said, but by half way through he understood the pattern. 1 I think you should have a beginning, a middle, and ■ | an ending. And [The Actor lessons] had a beginning i which was the tape, a middle which was the discussion I and acting, and an end which was the written follow-up. | And that is the way I've learned to teach . . ... Tell ! I I 123 j \ 'em what you're going to tell 'em. Tell 'em. Then | tell 'em what you told 'em, see? i i | 'His suggestions for improvements were mostly tech- ! nical things. He thought a copy of The Mighty Owl should i 'be included in the teacher's guide, the photo quality of ' i ^ The Actor panels and game board should be improved, the 1 'Mary Lou Rosato slide/tape could be made into a filmstrip, ' the tapes should be put on one or two cassettes, the ' graphics for journal pages ought to be changed, and the j i ■ teacher directions for The Mighty Owl in activity two ' I j !needed to be cut. i i He categorized The Actor as "definitely" part of J ■ the arts curriculum. He liked it best because it engaged 1 i i the students in acting and gave him the confidence to 'direct plays. He considered the play important for three I !stated reasons. First, the play gave the group something !to go for, a goal toward which most students were willing jto work. This particular class, for example, had a lot of 'fine individuals but was tough to handle as a group. The play, he felt, had helped mold them into a creative group effort. Second, the play "put them on the line," and he felt the students needed more of that. Third: I i I thoroughly believe that in elementary education you should have exposure to acting, and I think every room,' every student, should get in front ,[of an audience] at i i least once a year. J What did he learn from The Actor? ! I ! It is a very structured way of teaching kids how toj be in a play rather than getting out a group of plays : and saying, "Okay, kids, we're going to put on this ; play," pass out the scripts and go from there . . . . , That's why I feel free to do a play right now* They've! had all this stuff about body .... So often when kids put on a play it's just memorizing lines. And I : had other teachers say, "They were acting up there j . . ." Mrs. Adams [a third grade teacher] said, "Those: kids had polish and were doing things kids don't nor- : mally do when they act in plays. They were in command i . . ." 1 Mr. Menchus knew the researcher was a CEMREL I employee and author of The Actor. How much of his attitude! is attributable to this knowledge is difficult to judge. He was influenced, especially at first, he said, to do every exercise without questioning. But after a few days his concern for time led him to just go ahead and hurry past things he felt were not working. One influence that remained was that he did not feel free to terminate a ses sion in the middle. He would have done this, for example, if the class was unruly because they were primed for a party that day. He felt there were three such days out of the forty sessions of the three units. .On the other hand, he did direct another dramatic activity before the end of the 1975-76 school year and took pains to get a copy of The Actor for future use. : Others Describe Him The researcher noted early in the journal that Mr. Menchus clearly valued the "academics" over the arts curriculum. He complained about the time involved. He made side comments about "the important stuff" like lan- j guage arts and math. His schedule was also revealing. He ■ j i said he worked "like heck" in the mornings, taking as much ; i time as needed for the "important oral reading, science i I activities, social studies and library time.. In the after-i i I noon we relax a little." The drama units were all sched uled in the afternoon. i i Mr. Menchus encouraged a lot of activity. His room: j i , was full of a-variety of supplies, posters, plants, hobbies, i ! land student work. He tolerated a fair amount of "buzz" in ! i ! |the classroom so long as it was an undercurrent; if he had , I i i : jto compete with it, his most frequent technique was to ] ■ remind the students that they had much to do and little :time to do it in. Though he encouraged a variety of activ ities, he- expressed a distaste for most individualization and spent very little time working in the subgroups during the drama unit; i Mr. Menchus was attuned from the beginning to i iapplying the criterion of honesty or believability (1.24-A) :to student performance. He also was aware of the need for individual expression of feelings (1.31-B). However, he' was not comfortable with what Shaw described as the most used category of the beginning drama student, the 2.10 | l translation category. Thus, while he understood some of ,the basic criteria for judging drama work, he usually did i 1 not implement this knowledge even when asked to do so in |the teacher's guide. The researcher's impression was that ! 126 ; such implementation was skipped because Mr. Menchus thought; I such critical behavior was of secondary importance to sim- ; ply "experiencing" the art. Since he appreciated The Actor. i 1 for introducing him to the process of acting, the I researcher hypothesizes that he would implement more trans lation behaviors connected to evaluation the next time he I ' • teaches the unit. But during the teaching of three CEMREL ■ i i * ( ; units, with the exception of three rehearsal sessions held in the morning hours just prior to the performance of The Mighty Owl, the researcher felt a strong contrast between I the attitude of taking whatever time was needed for the I "academics" and the sense of rushing with which he , approached much of this drama work. ; Mr. Menchus is an able teacher, interested in using | new technology in the classroom. He kept a slide projec- ! tor, record player, and cassette tape available at all ■ times; worked with video tape; helped the students create i 1 slides and arrange them on storyboards; encouraged students i to create a film by drawing on clear film leader; and got a ; small grant to experiment with calculators in teaching math' I i • I for the academic year-1976-77. He also was an avid TV and . i ! film watcher; he once said, "I remember every movie I've j I _ i : ever seen." His view of acting was influenced by his fas- ; | ; cination with media. But his experience with The Actor, he ! i ■ said, had changed his view. He said it taught him that i acting is done by a person. And his techniques and the' things he uses— and not the scenery and not the props--. ; 127 j | but his body and the way he controls his voice and his! j eye contact and that sort of thing for acting, rather ! I than lights and camera, is what it is. That an actor himself can go out on a street corner and do a play, i like Luis Valdez does. ! I I : ALEX WINTER "When things have to do with what I like best, I | I can really listen." I Quantitative i 1 Alex ranked number one in the number of behaviors ! ! ! I recorded for each student in the class. He was especially 'prolific in the 1.12-A cognitive category. He had a very jhigh number of behaviors in this category because of his ‘ ! willingness to share his personal experience, including a [ ' deep background of experience in seeing TV, film and stage ■ I jperformances. The fifty-five behaviors recorded for Alex ! in this category is almost twice as much as the next high- ■ i ! est student, even though Alex's total number of behaviors ; j exceeds the next highest student's total by only 1 percent. ( ' Likewise, his 5.10 cognitive level behaviors are nearly ‘ double those of the next highest student. Affectively, I Alex's behaviors were heavily loaded to the higher 2.2 : level behaviors. He was one of eight students who had ' about 25 percent more behaviors recorded at the 2.2 level j j than at the 1.3 and 2.1 levels. Alex achieved this high : l : number and range of behaviors even though he missed six of j j j ; the ten Constructing Dramatic Plot sessions because of a , family trip to England. Self-description Alex described himself as an aspiring actor who very much enjoyed the drama activities and who participated! !in several drama activities outside the classroom. The son 'of an aspiring actress turned dance professor, Alex took jacting lessons, attended theatre regularly, and engaged in 1 dramatic play with friends about twice a week. Alex said the classroom activity convinced him that if he was to become an actor, "it's going to take studying a lot harder . . . I'm going to have to work at it a lot more." I i I i !Others Describe Him i ! The other students generally liked and respected i Alex, according to Mr. Menchus. This description is sup ported by several journal notes which supported the idea ithat Alex was either a group captain or was one of the first to be chosen, and was viewed by many as the class | standard for acting excellence. Mr. Menchus described Alex 1 as one of the two subtlest and brightest students in the | ,class--the other being Victor. He and Victor, according to | ,Mr. Menchus, were the first to grasp intricate concepts or I I 'to spot busy work. Alex was a top student in everything i ;but math and penmanship. Mr. Menchus described his penman- j :ship as leaving "something to be desired, to say the least.", ' i ! The researcher observed Alex to be a bright-eyed ' l ; I I 129 boy with tossled hair and a quick, pleasant manner. Alex did not take group leadership by urging the other students on. His "actor" group seemed to waste more time than any other, but his performance and the performance of this group showed considerably preparation and purpose. First, Alex chose Claude for his group despite Claude.1 s very nega tive attitude toward Constructing Dramatic Plot. As Claude's profile details, Claude did a positive piece of work in The Actor (see page 137). Further, Alex may have been working much more than his casual appearance led the observer to conclude in early journal notations. The final interview gave evidence that his demeanor was not an accu rate guide to his absorption. As Alex put it, if he was talking to Matt during The Actor tapes, he could still listen, but if he was talking to Matt during math, he would only be talking to Matt. ANDY HAWKINS "I had never before in my life been out in front of people performing." Quantitative Andy's quantitative.profile indicated a very pro lific student with only 1 percent fewer behaviors than Alex. Andy's behaviors, unlike Alex's, were concentrated at the lower cognitive levels. Affectively, he had more 2.1 level behaviors than 2.2 level behaviors in Creating 130 | Characterization and Constructing Dramatic Plot. In The ! f Actor, however, he was one of eight students who had at j i least 25 percent more 2.2 level behaviors than the combined; I total of behaviors below that level. ! I I i ; Self-description { 1 Andy said he had been in no previous plays, that he ■ enjoyed pretending often with friends, watched TV often but jnot for long periods each day, and had no previous experi ence with CEMREL's drama units. He enjoyed all the drama | work except Constructing Dramatic Plot. His numerically ; low participation in that unit ranked him as the twenty- I fourth of twenty-five students in number of behaviors I I observed. This is in sharp contrast to his number two : ranking in both the other units. i 'Others Describe Him Mr. Menchus described Andy as a "Tom Sawyer all !American boy." He was a top student but had trouble get- 1 ting down to work "because his mouth is constantly going." j In fact, when asked who demanded the most disciplinary ■attention in the class, Mr. Menchus replied, "Andy." Thus,' while Andy was the only student who gave a concise defini- . tion of "concentration" in session six of The Actor ("get down to the nitty gritty and stay there"), the researcher , \ saw little evidence that he practiced his definition. He I .was active in discussion and a ready volunteer for perform-! j ances. Though he did his work he saw little connection i between the drama unit and life. When asked to apply one i of his observations of a professional actor to his role in . The Mighty Owl, he saw no connection; and though he stated i that he thought the drama units had real value for his life, his reply to the question of what specific value it j I had for him was: : i Andy: I learned how to act. I Rickner: Is that important to you? I i Andy: Yeah, because everyone sometimes will have ' ; to be in a play. 1 ! ' 1 j The reasoning runs in a circle rather than from art to life., ; ANN POWERS ! "I liked the rehearsals and doing it in front of people." |Quantitative I Ann was the fourth most prolific student for at i jleast two reasons. She self-cast herself as "Chris" in jThe Mighty Owl, which was a leading role. Second, she was i J jsteadily involved in all aspects of the drama units from ! I class discussion to game playing.to rehearsal; she volun- |terred for demonstrations and she performed. This is in i icontrast to Alex, for example, who was less active in ! ; rehearsals and the game situations. Like Andy, Ann's I I behaviors tended to fall into lower categories, though she j !did display at least a few behaviors across the range of [ ‘ I I i I 132 behaviors found in the class as a whole. S el f-d‘ e script ion Ann has been in one play and indicated she was an active TV watcher and enjoyed pretending often with 1 friends. While she expressed pleasure in the drama activ- ' ! ities, she could not give any specific reasons why she thought it was important or useful to her. I :Others Describe Her I \ Mr. Menchus described Ann as nearly as bright and .cooperative as Esther, though she had some trouble with I math. He said she was "arty" with an interest in working iwith clay and playing a musical instrument. I i The researcher observed Ann to be a slight, dark haired girl with doll-like features. She was adept at I drawing very petite cartoon characters and sometimes drew |cartoons while the audio tapes of The Actor were played. I I I She apparently did become personally involved, as evidenced i iby the following from the final interview: Rickner: Did your feelings get involved in these i un its? ; Ann: Yes. I Rickner: When? ! Ann: Throughout, but mostly in the forest scene [of The Mighty Owl]. ! Rickner: Did you use some of your own feelings in i that scene? | Ann: Yes, it reminds me of being lost in Europe and they had those buses that the doors I close really fast .... I took one bus i and my parents took another. 1 In The Mighty Owl, Ann played Chris, who dreams of I 133 entering an enchanted forest in search of something she : lost. While Ann may not have been able to use drama in | I I her life, she did seem able to use her life to make drama. I ! CINDY MITCHELL ! I j "I thought it [drama] was boring, but now I don't.": Self-description i ! Cindy had been in no plays, watched an exceptional ■ ! amount of TV, and enjoyed pretending regularly. When asked, to create a scene based on the picture, she did so with no j ; • i ‘help from the researcher; she was one of seven students j I who did that. While she would repeat only The Actor again , ! next year, she considered the drama work important and gave! I very specific evidence that she was making use of her drama I 'experience. Like Alex, she identified with Mary Lou Rosato, 'who enjoyed playing "dress-up" as a child. She included pictures of herself in dress-up in her journal for The, i Actor. But though she sometimes used a playbook when she i was at home, to pretend with friends, she said she pre ferred watching to doing. She watched TV before and after I school, and in the evening. :Others Describe Her ; Mr. Menchus described Cindy as big, like Rachel. j I iCindy was everyone's friend. He further described her as a ■ :class leader who sometimes was "more in charge than I am I I I ; 134 . . . Sometimes she feels I'm down on her, but she's a leader and I had to settle her down to get to the other kids." Mr. Menchus did not appoint her as a subgroup ileader in The Actor but said, "I should have— she would ; ! ! i ■ have been really good." j Cindy appeared to the researcher to be very ill at • ease performing in the mask and puzzle improvisations in I t , ■Creating Characterization; and twice, as the performance of1 |The Mighty Owl approached, she asked if participation in ! i - * ;the performance was mandatory. But she performed in The : I j |Mighty Owl with a firm, clear voice, though she actually had few words to say. She indicated in the final inter view that her experience had changed her attitude toward participation in drama. ! Rickner: Did you always want to be in a play? | Cindy: Yes, but as they got closer I always got j scared. Rickner: Do you think you'll keep avoiding them [plays]? Cindy: No, not after this one. It's not so bad j once you're out there. : CLAUDE DOUGHERTY i I j "It's kind of strange, but after awhile you get to j ; know how to do it." ' < Quantitative : Numerically Claude was eighteenth in the class. His cognitive behaviors showed surprising strength at the j top of the cognitive levels. He ranked second only to Alex in 2.30 and 4.00 level behaviors. He ranked eighth in 5.10 level behaviors. He, like about half the class, had more 2.20 cognitive level behaviors in The Actor than 2.10 j ilevel. His affective behaviors revealed a very mixed atti tude. In Creating Characterization he had no 2.2 level behaviors. However, the researcher kept track of the times when Mr. Menchus quieted or disciplined any student. Whereas Claude had no such notations for Creating Charac- i terization and only eight for the twenty-three sessions of ■The Actor, he had nineteen such notations during the ten isessions of Constructing Dramatic Plot. Though it may be I that he did not like the unit, the fact that eleven such i :notations were made in the first three days argued against it. Also, in spite of his negative behaviors, he was one 'of only five students who recalled all major parts of Con- | !structing Dramatic Plot. j 'Self-description I Claude described himself as having had one experi ence in drama before. He watched television regularly but did not pretend at home. He said he "froze" in his first play. He tried to be In' a second play, but in the final rehearsals he kept laughing and had to drop out. The sup- i I port he got from Alex, combined with his own determination, is described in the section discussing the interviews (see page 113). Alex chose Claude first for his group with the stated intention of getting Claude to enjoy being in drama. Claude professed not to want to let Alex and his group down, so kicked himself to keep from "cracking up" laughing, as he had done before. Claude reported finding the units very helpful and gave extensive descriptions of his learn- j I ing to observe everyone around him to see how their bodies ; revealed how each expressed his unique feelings (see page 107). I Others Describe Him ; Mr. Menchus described Claude as a below average ; | student who had failed one year. However, he noted : ; Claude's problem was academic because he was chosen on the playground and obviously had many friends. Alex noted in ! | jhis interview that Claude was actually the source for sev- , !eral ideas Alex used in The Mighty Owl. The researcher noted from the first interview that ^ Claude came from- a Seventh Day Adventist family which held that "dressing up" was suspect. His self-denegrating, "I'm almost no good at anything" attitude was a major obstacle to a strong experience in drama. But his early high level I behaviors alerted the researcher to the possibility of a ; I complex pattern of behavior. Claude's subsequent baffling | i -combination of growth, yet negative behaviors, produced a [ i i complex picture Indeed. : DAN SAKAMOTO "I can hop better now." I Quantitative I ; Dan numerically ranked eighth. His cognitive i behavior was distributed over the lower levels about the I way the class as a whole was distributed. He had many more; : 2.10 level behaviors than 2.20, and only four behaviors |recorded over the 2.20 level. Affectively he had about an . 1 'even division of 2.1 and 2.2 level behaviors. Since he had , two group leader positions, the researcher would have ■ expected more behaviors at the 2.2 level; however, his j relatively few behaviors at this level supports, perhaps, I 'the researcher's journal observation that Dan's group looked to him for leadership but he seldom gave any. ]Self-description l Dan, a second generation oriental, told the jresearcher he had been in one play before, enjoyed pretend- ;ing regularly with friends, and watched TV relatively lit- j itle--perhaps a couple of times a week. Dan responded neg- i Iatively to several interview questions aimed at assessing : the kind of commitment which the students had made to their drama experience. He claimed his feelings did not get :involved, that the only unit he would repeat was The Actor, i that he could not remember in detail anything said by the |actors on tape, that he had not used what he learned and i 138 1 did not feel the drama work was important. He did claim, along with nineteen others, that he had done the observa tion assignments and recalled what he had observed. Only j four others had as many negative responses to these ques- ; tions (Eric, Heather, Jim, and George). 'Others Describe Him j Mr. Menchus described him as another "Tom Sawyer" I !boy like Andy. He was an average student. Mr. Menchus I jwondered aloud if Dan got anything from this drama unit. ! He did not do much wrong in school except talk a lot. 'Mr. Menchus said "everyone" liked to be around him and . that he was capable of leadership. ; It is, perhaps, significant that Mr. Menchus said Dan was capable of leadership, because the researcher's journal notes document his lack of noticeable leadership, such as getting a group started or initiating new actions or ideas, or discouraging "off task" behavior. Based on |the journal notes of Dan's rehearsal efforts, class discus- I |sion, and the final interview, the researcher had the | j impression Dan retained about, as little as anyone In the I class from the drama units. His relatively large number of j behaviors may be attributable to his generally verbal per sonality rather than to an excitement about drama. ERIC FLETCHER t "Tell you one thing--I take more pictures than I do pretend." i iQuantitative Eric ranked eleventh numerically. His only behav- ; I 1 iors noted during Creating Characterization were those i j directly requested, so he had only four behaviors categor- > ■ ized at the 2.2 affective level for that segment. He had ^ : had that unit before and indicated in the first interview i I ! I that he did not like it.. In Constructing Dramatic Plot he i <had the highest level of affective behaviors recorded for I ;anyone in the class. Eric indicated in the two interviews , and in class that he very much enjoyed writing stories. 'That prediliction may explain his positive attitude toward !that unit. In The Actor, his affective level behaviors were about average for the class. Cognitively his behav- ,iors were centered in performance in Creating Characteriza- |tion (mostly 2.10), while in Constructing Dramatic Plot I they were distributed about the way the general class was I 1 idistributed. In The Actor his behaviors were spread f throughout the spectrum like the class as a whole, except that he had more high level behaviors (2,30 or above) than all but Alex, Claude, and Vic. Self--description I Eric described himself as having been in three ' plays, not ever pretending with friends, and being too busy; f I to watch very much TV. Like Dan, Eric gave seven negative j I I answers in the last interview. Unlike Dan, he remembered ■ 1 what an actor, Paul Newman, said on tape, but was one of -I five who did not do the observation assignments. Further,, j he would only repeat The Actor again if he could do The • Mighty Owl. i i 'Others Describe Him j Mr. Menchus noted that before this year Eric had l ;been a real problem, because he threw temper tantrums jincluding kicking and hitting. The principal had told Mr. Menchus to do what he could but not to send Eric to ■the office. Eric had improved immensely, Mr. Menchus I f , I noted, but had the background to have done an excellent job; iin the drama experience instead of only a "good" job. |Eric 1s father was a free lance photographer. Eric was an above average student. ' The researcher noted a tendency for negativism in iEric in the first interview. During the drama unit Eric ; ■had several minor conflicts with fellow players and one : major conflict with Mr. Menchus in which he was nearly sus pended from school. The negative statements were so preva-1 I lent in the final interview that the researcher asked: ! | Rickfter: Are you happy right now? Eric: Yeah, I'm happy, but I'm tired from skat ing. ESTHER SCHLESINGER | | "And I would wait every day, and I would say, 'Is it today?'" Quantitative t ■ Esther ranked fifth numerically in the class. She I ; had a very high ratio of 2.2 level affective behaviors to j ;2.1 level behaviors. Esther had a broad spectrum of behav- I i ■ iors in all three units, with the number of high level I jbehaviors exceeded only by Alex, and she had a more even spread of behaviors from 2.30 to 5.20. She had about an ■ equal number to Alex of 2.30 and 4.00 level behaviors. ;She had fewer 5.10 level behaviors than Alex, but had a ■few 5.20 level behaviors--the only one in the class who was |observed to exhibit "production of a unique plan" behav- !iors. I I |Self-description 1 Esther said she had been in one play, enjoyed pre- i ,tending with friends regularly, and watched TV regularly. She gave evidence that she got her feelings involved, retained information from the tapes, made use of what she !had learned, and felt that the drama unit was important. |Her positive attitude showed in her statement about the record for Creating Characterization, in which the "jumpy, I jumpy, jumpy" segment was a point of class ridicule. j Esther: The record, they exaggerated. It was kinda; dumb, but they got the point across. . I When asked if she remembered any of the stories she made up during Constructing Dramatic Plot, she replied, "Yeah, I ! i have a folder full of 'em." When asked what all three ' I drama units were about, she replied: i i Esther: I guess acting and learning how to use your voice and your feelings. How to • express them on your face and your voice. i i Others Describe Her j Mr. Menchus described her teasingly as "just a lit-' tie bug." She was, he said, the smartest girl and perhaps the smartest person in the room. She was very exceptional (eleventh grade level) in reading and well above average in other areas, but she asked questions even when he was sure 1 t she already knew what to do. The researcher observed Esther as a bright, extro verted blond with a sweet disposition. Mr. Menchus kidded I on three occasions about his being Hitler to her Eva, and the researcher felt Esther was a pet pupil for him. She ; participated with seeming enthusiasm in every aspect of the' drama units from class discussion to playing the games, rehearsing and performing. She took a strong, active role I in leading her group. It was her suggestion that her groupj I in The Actor stay in the classroom to rehearse rather than i ] go into the hall. As a result, they were the only group jwith a rehearsal setting that had peace and quiet. Her ; i 1 | verbal strength was balanced by a strong writing interest. ' She saved all her stories from Constructing Dramatic Plot, ; I : and her journal for The Actor was meticulously filled out. ; f 1 GEORGE BUGG ; "Kinda fun." ; Quantitative ; Numerically George was twenty-second in the class. His cognitive behaviors reflected his lack of participation in class or small group discussions. Nearly all his behav iors were performance behaviors at the 2.10-A and 2.20-A 'levels. He did have one 4.00 level and two 5.10 level jbehaviors in the final rehearsals and performance of The I J I Mighty Owl. , ! ( i i Self-description . I George had no previous drama experience as a par- .ticipant, though he said he liked to watch TV regularly and: i I I i !enjoyed pretending with friends regularly. He said he did [ I j ,not get his feelings involved, could think of no ways he ■had made use of his drama experience, and considered it relatively unimportant. i Rickner: Anything important happen to you in these ; units? George: Uh, uh. Rickner: What was this experience? George: Kinda fun. i : __________ „ 144 j J Rickner: Fun is not important? George: Sometimes, j Rickner: But not this time? j George: Uh, uh. : I Rickner: What would have to happen to make it impor-j j tant? George: Someone would have to trip me or something j so I show my emotions. J j Others Describe Him 1 Mr. Menchus noted that George, a black student, was. 1 1 from the special school district because of an extreme 1 I reading problem. George, he said, "amazed me by doing so ! jwell in the play." The researcher found George's curt man-1 I ■ > i |ner of speaking fascinating. However, Mr. Menchus noted 1 that George went around the school "scaring heck" out of t i i the other children by his abrupt, tough talk. Mr. Menchus speculated that George's success in The Mighty Owl may have been due to the fact that he was playing the villain. I j HARDY SCOTT I I i "I was hoping we could do it [The Mighty Owl] in front of some people, and we could." !Quantitative i j Hardy ranked numerically seventeenth in the class. i jAffectively Hardy's 2.1 level behaviors were far more I numerous than the higher 2.2 level behaviors. Cognitively ' : ! |his behaviors were at the lower end of the spectrum, with j i : an emphasis on discussion behaviors but few rehearsal and j ■performance behaviors. Hardy indicated he had been in ten plays success- i ; fully at another school, so hoped he could be in one at i i this, his new school. He said he pretended with friends sometimes and watched TV regularly. He said he had pat terned his character in The Mighty Owl after his grandfa ther, whom he talked to and observed in preparation for the play. He said emphatically that The Mighty Owl was the i best of the ten plays he had been in. I I ! i Others Describe Him ! Mr. Menchus described him as a black student on I 'loan from the special school district because of behavior i I problems. Academically he was "average to weak" in every- ;thing, according to Mr. Menchus, with a special difficulty jin reading aloud. Mr. Menchus felt Hardy enjoyed the pro- I jgram, "maybe because there is no, writing." The fact that i iHardy did not turn in a journal and wrote only one sentence I when asked to write stories in the pre- and posttests for iConstructing Dramatic Plot confirmed the possibility that !Mr. Menchus's hunch was right. i ; Mr. Menchus was not aware that Hardy had had so much drama experience. The researcher noted that, accord- 1ing to Hardy, his performance was a way of showing his new i iclassmates a skill he already had. I HEATHER SMITH r "Yeah, that was fun. I liked that." Quantitative I i --------------- 1 Numerically, Heather ranked twenty-third. The ; I great majority of her affective behaviors were under the 2.2 level. Cognitively, her profile was similar to Hardy's '.with even fewer discussion and rehearsal behaviors and a i i ; lower total number of lower level behaviors. Heather had i I no behaviors above the 2.30 level. ■ Self-description , Heather had been in one drama event that she could s recall, pretended seldom, but watched TV regularly. While she said her feelings were involved, that she would like to 1 do most of it again and had done the observation assign- ,ment, she could not recall anything she heard on the tapes, could not think of any way in which this drama work was |useful in her life, and did not feel it was important. 'When asked what the work was about, she said: 1 Heather: It was about your feelings, i Rickner: What about your feelings? Heather: Your expressions on your face could show : your feelings. She apparently had some enthusiasm for doing The Actor ' .again: Rickner: . Would you like to do Creating Characteriza-: tion again? Heather: Yes. Rickner: Would you like to do Constructing Dramatic Plot again? Heather: No. Rickner: Would you like to do The Actor again? Heather: Yeah, that was fun. I liked that. Others Describe Her f Mr. Menchus described her as a sweet, easily led i I !black girl who was really weak on skills but making good i ; [improvement that year. He said she unfortunately tried to t [ ! ;please everybody. He thought she would benefit in self- ; ' . i confidence from the drama units. i The researcher noted often that Heather talked dur-; ing the listening activities. She did not engage in eitherj a large quantity or a high level of verbal behaviors. How-' ! i lever, her stories for the pre- and posttests of Construct- 1 I ing Dramatic Plot were among the most articulate in the class, and her journal gave further evidence of her strong literary skill. Nevertheless, she did not want to repeat Constructing Dramatic Plot, the most literary of the three units. She gave as a reason that it was too easy, "just putting cards on a board." Perhaps she had really pro- I 1gressed beyond that game and could, as the teacher's guide i |for it suggested, have been encouraged to write stories jwithout the game. In the final interview she was unable to ;identify "incidents" or "crisis," so she may have ignored j I |the unit, not giving it a chance. \ j JIM BURLISS "It was all kind of boring." Quantitative j Jim ranked twenty-first in the number of behaviors j ■recorded. His affective behaviors showed his 2.2 level to I ! |be far outnumbered by the lower level behaviors. Cogni- > tively he took a very active role in the discussion of the i pictures in Creating Characterization, which showed in his having the fourth largest number of 1.11-A behaviors |(knowledge of emotions and their common referents). In ;Constructing Dramatic Plot he had the fourth largest number of 1.24-A behaviors (knowledge of the criteria of believ- ability). However, in all three units he had behaviors in i ivery few categories and especially few in rehearsal and ! Jperformance categories such as 2.10 and 2.20. He entered thoroughly in very few discussions and was silent most of the time except when asked to respond. j 'SeIf-descripti on J Jim said he had no previous drama experience in iplays or school curriculum. He enjoyed pretending regularly i I with his brothers and watched TV regularly. The only one I of the units he wanted to repeat was Creating Characteriza- ,tion, and he denied any involvement of his feelings or J that anything useful or important took place during the ! ' . ! drama units. Jim said he enjoyed most "watching, while I was holding the curtain and the other people were doing our play." iOthers Describe Him Mr. Menchus described him as the student with the !"Einstein" hair. He said he thought Jim was perceptive but ■ unorganized. He was average academically except for poor I 'penmanship. Like Sharon, Esther, and John H., he almost never was a discipline problem. The researcher noted that Jim was a contented lis tener. A member of Esther's group in The Actor, he seemed attentive every time the researcher entered the group, smiling or frowning and leaning forward, but he almost |never entered overtly into the discussions. In confirma- jtion of Mr. Menchus1s view of his perceptivity, he did I ■exhibit a few 2.30 level behaviors; these were very few, 'however. Though Him exhibited enthusiasm for The Mighty Owl and detailed the effect The Actor had on his TV watch ing, with more attention to the visual elements, he denied that drama would in any way be useful to him as an engi- r i |neer. i I JOHN HARWELL i : "Not too loud and not too soft." jQuantitative i John ranked nineteenth in number of behaviors. His i affective behaviors were loaded toward the lower levels. [ His cognitive behaviors exhibited a slightly different pat- I tern from anyone discussed so far. He had an average num- j ber of 1.22 behaviors which, according to journal notes, i ( came from his sharing his memory of TV programs he had seen. He had almost no other 1,00 level behaviors except ; for 1.31, the highest 1.00 level. These behaviors indi— j cated he understood the connection between feeling and ’ physical expression. Perhaps this understanding was con- j nected to his ability to exhibit a few behaviors at the . i4.00 level. His performance behaviors fell mostly into | ithe 2.10 level, with only one 5.10 level behavior noted. Self-description i John said he had no previous drama experience i except that he watched television regularly. He claimed not to want to repeat any of the units again, that he did not get his feelings involved, that the drama experience was not useful or important, and he could not remember spe cific comments from any of the tapes. He said he felt I uncomfortable as the "floating sub" in The Actor. Mr. Men-' I i 1 I Ichus forgot John as the absent twenty-fifth member of the j j i class when he divided,the class into groups in The Actor1s ; i i I second session. Since Liz moved away and John replaced her . I I just before the performance, the researcher asked John if he was comfortable with the drama work at the end, since he' got to perform. He said no, because there was not enough ; ! time to learn the part Liz played. Despite these problems 1 i and the fact he was one of only two students who named less |than three parts of The Actor unit, John's definition of :acting was concise and on target: "Acting is expressing i I ithe feelings you learn from the story." > I Others Describe Him Mr. Menchus described John as a good, average stu- ! dent from math to gym. He shared with Mr. Menchus the j ! I I ' i hobby of beer can collecting. His father was a photogra- ' pher; his mother, an ex-teacher. i The researcher noted that John seemed generally shy: and had the lightest, least audible voice in the class. !Perhaps his comment that this experience taught him to be |"not too loud and not too soft" referred to something very !important to his growth in drama. JOHN MURPHY "It's fun mostly, and you learn." i I Quantitative | John ranked sixth in the total number of behaviors, !though he rated first in Creating Characterization and sec-; !ond in Constructing Dramatic Plot. His ending at sixth was in part due to his minor role as "Sandy" in The Mighty 152! (Owl, because his behaviors were numerically similar to the most prolific class members except in the number of rehearsal and performance behaviors, such as 2.10, 2.20 and' 5.10. Affectively his number of 2.2 level behaviors was ; i 'similar to the numerical class leaders in the first two 1 units, but in The Actor John had an approximately equal ■number of 2.2 and lower, level behaviors. This may be ; j jexplained, in part, by his minor role and membership in the; i group with Esther and Liz, who took major leadership roles. In Constructing Dramatic Plot he was in a group with the i jless assertive Dan and Nat, and exhibited 35 percent more ! |1.25 level behaviors (knowledge of ways and means, proce- j dures) than anyone else in the class. In Creating Charac- , terization his performance behaviors (2.10) were only aver age in number, but his participation in the discussions of feelings and their physical expression in the body gave him, I jabout 35 percent more 1.11-A (knowledge of emotional terms) and 1.31-A (knowledge of the principle that physical expression is linked to feelings) level behaviors than any-; tone else in the class. : i j Self-description i John had been in two plays before, engaged in pre- ttending several times per.week, and watched television reg-j ularly* He needed very little help in making up a story i l 1 I * I from the picture shown to him in the first and last inter- views. John remembered six of the maj.or parts of The Actor unit, would do all three units again, thought them impor tant, and gave exceptionally detailed descriptions of the ways he thought the units were useful. Some of the ways he1 found the drama work useful included learning more sources j :'for getting story ideas (he liked to write stories), how to! I ! jwatch television with special attention to the feelings that are being expressed on the actors' faces, realizing j that professional actors as well as himself had to make usei of their real feelings when pretending. He thought it was i jhelpful to think the thoughts the character would be think- I Iing at a given moment, and his drama experience prepared I \ jhim for a career of playing soccer and studying acting, he j I ' ; !felt. I S i Others Describe Him Mr. Menchus described John as one who had a lot of J fights the previous year, a boy with a chip on his shoulder but one who had become "one of my best boys." Academically, he was just moving into the above average groups. Mr. Men chus thought John was a good listener but a bit lazy. He felt John probably liked the drama unit, because if he was , not doing drama, he might have had to do science or math, : ] which could be harder work. The researcher's notes support Mr. Menchus's opin ion that John was a good listener.. On three occasions John I I jJohn was able to answer questions on The Actor tapes that no one else in class appeared able to answer. He was ■ bright-eyed and energetic. At'one point in Constructing I Dramatic Plot he moved back 'and forth between two groups, , ! apparently helping both. A little later Eric wandered into i l one of John's groups, and John told him to go away because ! t Eric had come to play rather than work. i ' i ! JON MENDELSON * j "The first time I was in a play I didn't know what i jI was doing." 'Quantitative Jon ranked tenth overall in the number of behaviors :but his quantity of behaviors varied greatly from time to time. In Creating Characterization, he had almost no dis- cussion behaviors. However, in the first six sessions of Constructing Dramatic Plot, he was one of the most prolific :discussants in the class. In The Actor his behaviors were I about average or above in all the lower cognitive categor ies which were frequented by the class in general. He had ■an exceptionally high percentage of the 2.30, 4.00, and <5.10 level behaviors. His drop in the quantity of behaviors, .near the end of Constructing Dramatic Plot was perhaps due j i I to his developing a dislike for it. He said in the final interview that it was "boring" and that he "hated" it. The' I 155 I researcher can find nothing in any of the eight sources of his profile to shed light on Jon's lack of participation in the group discussions of Creating Characterization. On the contrary, his affective behaviors throughout the three units were strongly loaded toward the higher 2.2 level I !behaviors. * t t !Self-description I """ ' " ' " m., m ' r " ' 1 1 ' I I Jon had been in one play but said he did not know what he was doing; the next time, he said, would be easier. He said he did no pretending but watched TV regularly. He !said he would repeat only The Actor, in which his feelings were involved. He noted the units had affected his TV per ception for the better and thought that was important. Others Describe Him Mr.. Menchus said Jon had been a problem to all his teachers until this year. Now he was no problem at all, but Mr. Menchus did not have any idea why. Jon was average academically. j The researcher noted that Jon was one of those most !distracted by his presence. Jon inquired about the i jresearcher1s family or tried to play with the recorder. He I appeared to be a student capable of good work (note the l !high level behaviors in The Actor) but one who only worked Jon things he liked. His performance as the "Stream" was one of the highlights of the drama experience for the researcher. Jon, dressed in blue streamers, lay on or } moved lithely across the floor, using his arms to create ani impression of moving water and giving a repeated low ! "swoosh" sound with his voice. He clearly conveyed the j idea of a stream to the researcher and was a big hit with i i I ,his young audience, too. i I j KATHY HEMPEL i ’ "When they're on stage they're scared, but then they forget the audience is there." Quant itative Kathy was sixteenth in the number of behaviors recorded for her. Affectively she had many more at the lower 2.1 level than at the 2.2 level. Cognitively, her behaviors were spread generally lower over the lower to middle level behaviors in a pattern similar to the class in general. Self-descripti on | i ! Kathy reported she had been in two plays, pretended: » |regularly, watched TV regularly, and had been in Construct-j I I ing Dramatic Plot the previous year. In spite of this experience, she needed considerable help in developing a story in- the interviews, and her stories were very brief and simple. She reported her feelings were involved, that ! she would repeat only The Actor, and was not sure if the j 157 \drama work was important. She said she learned that actors; use real emotions. When asked if she did, too, she replied that when as an angry character in the play she was lying in bed, she remembered a time when she got mad at her |brother and slapped him. * | ^Others Describe Her j Mr. Menchus freely admitted that Kathy was his i favorite girl, though she "probably causes me as much I trouble as anyone." An average student, she was very popu- I lar in the class.. She was one who was never caught, but j l "when there's trouble, she's always there," Mr. Menchus said. The researcher noted she was very shy in both jinterviews with a constant giggly grin on her face, as |though half embarrassed and half flattered. The journal i isupports the idea that she was in the middle of trouble; three times as the researcher entered her group, she was busily involved in interpersonal intrigues of note passing jand gossiping. j | LAURA GOTTFRIED I I i I "Not as easy as I thought." ! t i Quantitative I i --------------- I | Laura ranked last in the number of behaviors i ; I (recorded. She participated in the general class discussion i only twice and seldom contributed to small group discus sions, either. The behaviors recorded for her are mostly ; I performance behaviors. Affectively, she had mostly 2.1 j level behaviors or below; however, her enjoyment of the final rehearsals and performance of The Mighty Owl did give her some at 2.2. I I Self-description Laura said she had been in one play before, seldom pretended but watched TV a lot. She said her feelings got involved in the drama experience, that she would repeat only The Actor and did not think her drama experience use- ! |ful or important. The journal notes that Laura twice men- . j tioned she had been up until after midnight reading. She i claimed to hate writing. She felt a special kinship with Mary Lou Rosato because, she said, both she and Mary Lou had a voice that was too high that they had to work on. Others Describe Her Mr. Menchus said Laura, a large, developing young l jgirl, was the butt of many jokes. She was a below average i I student but one who tended to get little criticism or help ' ! ! 'because she sat quietly and often unnoticed. One exception: i I i ito her poor academic standing was her reading, which he i I : jsaid was at a tenth grade level. She used to be the last j I pick on the playground and in the classroom, but now was i i starting to get picked. In these units she was picked I third to last in Constructing Dramatic Plot but was Ann's Jfirst pick for The Actor. Mr. Menchus said in the wrap-up , (session twenty-three) that Laura was a success just by : getting through the performance of The Mighty Owl. I i Laura was very pleased with herself after The i Mighty Owl. She smiled as Mr.. Menchus talked of her and I ,had her hand up twice during the discussion, though unfor- !tunately Mr. Menchus did not see her. I l ! LIZ HOWELL i "It's about what feelings you can show with differ- ! |ent parts of your body." j I !Quantitative Liz ranked fourteenth in the total number of behav iors. However, she moved away after session nineteen of I The Actor and thus missed the final rehearsals and perform ances. The behaviors she had shown before leaving indi cated she was strong in all the categories generally used !by the class. She also had a strong number of the higher ,2.2 level affective behaviors. iSelf-descript ion 1 Liz's departure before the drama experience ended ,may have affected her subjectively as well as quantita- <7 .tively. She described herself as having been in one play; 'enjoyed pretending with her brother and sisters regularly, : : 160! 'watched TV often, and had done Creating Characterization !before. She was one of only four students who said they i would not do The Actor again; the others were Eric and Rachel, who said they would not do any again, and Jim Bur- liss, who found it all "kinda boring." The researcher thought that surprising company for such a bright, positive 'student. Liz said her feelings were tapped in Creating Characterization, and she gave a very detailed description i of how it had affected her TV perception and her ability to I engage in improvisations with her brother and sisters. i i Others Describe Her i I Mr. Menchus described Liz as one of his top stu- !dents but one who seemed, especially at first, to have a 'listening problem. The researcher noted that Liz and Esther had worked 'exceptionally well together. Also, there were comments in 1 the wrap-up of The Actor that undiplomatically let John H. <know that Liz would have been a lot better in the role and was much missed by her group. Liz did seem to work hard and improvised freely, had a strong voice and command of her role. John was difficult to hear, did what was planned by others, and was rather timid in a brash, villainous 'role. Unfortunately, the contrast was too obvious to I j escape notice. MATT CLAYBOUR I "I used to think it's just a real person. And now I think he really is trying to act out the person he's sup posed to play." ; I I |Quantitative ! Matt ranked seventh in the quantity of behaviors i ! jnoted. His cognitive behaviors were loaded more toward the |translation behaviors and away from the knowledge behaviors I i |as contrasted to most of the class. He did have a few ! behaviors at the 5.10 level but almost none at the 2.30 or 4.00 levels. Affectively, his behaviors were about evenly balanced between 2.2 and the lower level behaviors. Self-description Matt counted up six plays that he had been in. He i |also had Creating Characterization the year before and pre- i I itended an exceptional number of times, mostly with Alex. i |He was able to create a scene from the picture shown to him ! i !in the interviews with little or no help. In spite of his jinterest in drama, he was able to remember only two parts of Creating Characterization and did not identify all six I I of the key terms in Constructing Dramatic Plot. He indi- , cated his feelings were involved, that he would do all j three units again, that he found them useful and considered ithem important, and could recall specific taped comments by l his favorite actors, Luis Valdez and Paul Newman. Matt j t E 162 I found many things in the drama unit he liked. He liked The1 Actor game cards because they stimulated him to change his ; mind about how he was going to play the character Mattie. He liked the tape because he learned that actors had to j I |feel things to play their characters. He liked the journalj i (because he planned to add it to a whole scrap book of j jactors' pictures he had at home, and he liked the masks in ' i |Creating Characterization because they helped him think I l 1 {about composing his face for a role. !Others Describe Him I I ' .......... , J According to Mr. Menchus, Matt had been a lot of ; trouble until Alex took a trip to England in December. { Until then Alex could "get him going." Since then he j seemed to be "holding his own." An average reader and j 1 speller with poor penmanship and an excellent student in I I math and science, Matt was often in a kind of daze. Mr. Menchus said he had sometimes been at the blackboard and would turn around to find Matt wandering aimlessly i :around the room. I The researcher noted that Matt often talked to Alex i jor played with something when The Actor audio tapes were jon. Like Alex, however, he was still a regular participant i ' |in the discussions of the tapes and was able to recall spe- Jcific details of what was said on the tapes. ! ! i i i i i 163 MATT WOLFF 1 "The play and tapes this year gave me a lot of encouragement." | I !Quantitative I I--------------- ! . Matt was thirteenth in the number of behaviors ' i !recorded. He was very active in Creating Characterization and in the creation of stories in Constructing Dramatic I Plot, but did little evaluation (1.24) or translation of the stories into performance (2.10 and 2.20). In The Actor' he participated little in the discussions and therefore had low levels in 1.12, 1.24, 1.25, and 1.31. He was very active in The Actor as a member of Esther's subgroup. He ' I I played "Leslie," the stream, so had many translation behav- jiors (2.10), interpretation behaviors (2.20), and had one 1 of the highest numbers of behaviors in the creation of a unique expression category (5.10). Taken together, he i came up with an average number of behaviors for all but the !2.30 and 4.00 level categories, which were more numerous i than most others in the class. Self-description Matt had been in three plays but did not pretend ; i j i with friends. He had a strong memory of all three units j and answered positively to all the categories in the final | i Interview. Matt indicated he would like to be a comedian | I I I l 164 jsome day and that he had started practicing on his family. | I Matt expressed a special affinity for Geer and Rosato who, ’ i < he said, talked about being afraid at first but lost their 1 !fear as they got into a performance. 1 I ' ; I , 'Others Describe Him j ! ' Mr. Menchus described Matt as an average to high j l [average student who was generally pleasant and who [responded to correction well. i | i The researcher noted that Matt took a role in The : I --- 1 Mighty Owl that had very little written out for it and I !turned it into a sizeable role. Matt retained the idea I even after the drama unit that a day in the life of a come- !dian is being on television. He was not enticed to look !behind the image of the TV comedian to find out how that image was created. i NAT DOHR | "I liked doing the play." Quantitative i Nat ranked third in the total number of behaviors. While he professed to like only The Mighty Owl, he partici-' pated in every major part of the experience. He ha.d very few behaviors at the 2.30, 4.00, or 5.10 levels, however. ! lAffectively his behaviors were evenly divided between the i 2.2 level and the lower level behaviors. 165 j ISelf-descript!on Nat had been in one play and only occasionally pre-: tended with friends. In the initial interview he needed a : lot of help to make up a story from a picture, but in the jfinal interview needed no help. Since Nat was shy, this ' I change" may have been due to his having become more comfort- ( iable with the interviewer by the time of the second inter- i jview. While he indicated his feelings got involved and he i i |could remember some of what his favorite actors, Geer and 1 I i Newman, said, he wanted no more tapes, would repeat only The Actor, saw no practical use for his drama experience, thought it unimportant, and was one of only five who said they did not do the observation assignment. Others Describe Him i | Mr. Menchus thought Nat did not enjoy the unit very. I I t ( |much because being in front of people frightened him. Nat I : |was, according to Mr. Menchus, an average student who would: jdo what he was told but nothing more. j I j The researcher observed Nat to be a playful child , I I who did not take things very seriously. The researcher i ; I Jagreed with Mr. Menchus's assessment that Nat did only what; i ihe was told. However, Mr. Menchus1s assessment that Nat. i |disliked being in front of people was at odds with Nat's I statements that the play was what he liked best. The i jresearcher's intuition is that the structure and discipline’ jof the other parts of units demanded too much of Nat. Nat I 166 | wanted to play, and the parts other than the play which tried to deepen and discipline his play with understanding ; and purpose may have been superfluous to him. RACHEL JOHNSON ; i "You gotta kinda be into the play to make a false ■ person." Quantitative Rachel ranked ninth in the total number of behav iors recorded. Affectively, she had many more 2.2 level than lower level behaviors. Cognitively she participated very little in the large and small group discussions in Creating Characterization or Constructing Dramatic Plot. ,However, in The Actor she exhibited an above average number I jof behaviors in those categories: 1.11, 1.12, 1.24, 1.25, i land 1.31. She had many more of the higher interpretive !level behaviors in The Actor than she had in the first two i jdrama segments, and the largest number of 2.30 level behav-• jiors of anyone in the class. However, she had very few | i 1 I 5.10 level behaviors even though she played "Chris," the ; lead role in The Mighty Owl. ' Self-description Rachel had been in five plays, said she pretended I regularly with friends, and had done Creating Characteriza- tion the previous year. She created a story even in the 167 i first interview with little help from the researcher. i [Rachel was one of three students who said she would not want to do any of the units again; however, her reason was jmore positive than that of Eric or John H. j Rickner: Would you like to do any of these again next I year? 1 Rachel: No, I would want to do something new. | i ; Rachel said in the first interview that she wanted i ■ ! ' |to "help people," and one could not help people if one was ; fake, not real.. In the final interview she was still con- ! !cerned with the issue of genuineness. However, she said ' \ i jthe tapes convinced her actors have to be real even when ; ■they are playing a role. She said she had not separated • ithe actor from the role, previous to this drama experience, j 1 Rachel: If I would see them [actors] on the street 1 before, I'd say like, "Hi, Fonzie." But I now he is, "Hi, Henry." . I i i I jOthers Describe Her I j i Mr. Menchus described Rachel as the most unpopular I jgirl in the class because she, a large girl like Cindy, beat up people and swore like a sailor. After a recent theft in class, the students blamed Rachel even though there was no evidence that she was the thief. Mr. Menchus ' said he was pleased Rachel's group in The Actor had turned i 1 [out so successfully after such a shaky start. "Rachel j j i [needed a positive experience like this," he said. She was ! Ibetter than average academically but very negative, and led! jsome of the "please everybody" girls like Heather and Kathy [ 168 i into trouble. The researcher noted that Rachel often sought to gain his special attention by reminding him that her father; ! had worked at CEMREL, Inc., too. In Constructing Dramatic j j Plot i Rachel created what the researcher felt was the best ■story in the class, yet she was reprimanded by Mr. Menchus I j ^because her story had "monsters and stuff like that" in it.- i She offered no more monsters. It was difficult to know if it was Mr. Menchus1s generally negative attitude toward Rachel, his not knowing how to make monsters work on stage,, or some other reason that influenced him to reject her mon-^ ]ster story. ! ' ' ROBIN POTASH "Mostly, I learned to scream real loud." Quantitative Robin was twelfth in the number of behaviors I recorded. Affectively she had many more 2.2 than lower level behaviors. Cognitively she showed a heavy emphasis in the 1.24, 1.25, and 1.31 categories and had many more of the higher 2.20 interpretive behaviors than she did the |2.10 translation behaviors. This emphasis may be attribut-: < I ;able to her very enthusiastic participation in the | i I jrehearsals for The Mighty Owl. She had no 2.30 or 4.00 j . i !behaviors and only a very few 5.10 level behaviors. Jour- i I ' < ! : jnal notes confirm that Robin was an expediter in her group | _____________ 169 j but was not especially analytical or inventive. Sel f-'de script ion Robin had been in one play and pretended only occa- i !sionally. She was able even in the first interview to gen- erate a story with little help from the interviewer, and i !her stories for Constructing Dramatic Plot were some of the imost interesting in the class. However, she said in the final interview that she would not repeat Constructing Dra- imatic Plot and she remembered little of Creating Character- ' ization. She said her feelings were involved in The Actor,: and she found it important.. She was able to give espe- I cially detailed descriptions of how she thought it was use- ; i ful. Though she pretended only occasionally, she said she pretended a lot when she was younger and now has a friend who came over to play "native lands." She felt a special kinship with Mary Lou Rosato, who said she daydreamed a lot as a child. Perhaps it is this background of "daydreaming" !that gave her her story writing ability. i i I ! i ^Others Describe Her | Mr. Menchus described Robin as a "cutie" who drove \ i i |him buggy with her chit chat but who was so pleasant he ! ;could not really get angry with her. She was a mostly ! ! lave rage student who was above average in reading and math. ! ! ' I ;He noted that she wrote "good stories." The researcher noted that, mostly with Robin’s lead- ership, her group for The Mighty Owl could easily have invented a whole new story. The journal also noted that i Robin was impatient with the tapes and other activities if i they delayed the rehearsals. On at least two occasions in | class and three occasions with the researcher before class, she asked, "Are we going to rehearse our play today?" SHARON MCMURTY Sharon: I liked the first one Rickner: Second, too? Sharon: Uh uh. Rickner: Third? Sharon: Probably. Rickner: Which one the most? Sharon: The third one. Quantitative Sharon ranked twenty-fourth in the number of behav iors recorded. Affectively she had about an even number of: 2.2 and lower level behaviors. Cognitively she had very few behaviors except in. the 2.10 translation and 2.20 interpretation levels required to rehearse and perform. Even those categories were not numerous compared with other ■ i ; 'members of the class. i ' Self-description ' Sharon said she had been in no plays or other drama ; 'curriculum, seldom pretended but did watch TV regularly. | l While she expressed an interest in doing all three units I the next year, she did not remember them, or .was reluctant | I----------------------- ' ■ ' - - - - - - - , I to talk about them, and gave no evidence that the work was 1 useful or important to her.. Sharon said in the first interview that she liked to scare her little brothers by- pretending to be a witch. Follow-up questions about that > I in the final interview were met only with silence. 1 I i 'Others Describe Her l ' Mr. Menchus described Sharon as a "so quiet" but Jintelligent black girl who would just as soon not be noticed. He noted she was not vocal but wrote well. Her ; loud scream as "Sandy" in The Mighty Owl was the loudest sound he had ever heard from her. j j The researcher noted that while Sharon was virtu- : j ' ially unable to make up a story during the interview, she idid write very competent stories for the Constructing Dra- I jmatic Plot tests. VICTOR WILLIS ! "I have learned how to speak on the stage." I 1 Quantitative j ' i Victor was fifteenth in the number of behaviors > 'recorded. While his numbers were not large, affectively he !had many more at the 2.2 level than at the lower levels, 1 < and cognitively his behaviors are spread over all the cate- | i gories exhibited by the class, except the 2.30 and 4.00 .levels. | Self-descript ion Vic had been in two plays, occasionally pretended ; with his brother, and had done Constructing Dramatic Plot I ithe year before. In spite of that, he still needed help > i I to identify the six major parts of Constructing Dramatic ; : t Plot in the final interview. He said he loved to write I I ‘ stories and was editor of a fourth grade newsletter the . I ■year before. Though he liked The Actor best and had, by ; [ the time of the second interview, done Constructing Dra matic Plot twice, he wanted to do it again. He said his | j i |feelings were involved and that the work was somewhat {important and useful. For example, when asked if he con- I i sciously thought of the plot parts when he wrote a story, i 'he replied without hesitation, "Yeah, the crisis was when i !. . ." Victor's attitude about The Acting Game summarized ! ; what several others had said in various ways: Victor: It helped but it wasn't much fun. Rickner: How? Victor: The actions I thought of, but it gave me the idea of talking slow and that's what every- ; one liked about me [as Mattie the computer].; |He went on to say, however, that he would have been better ! Jas Terry the villain because "I have a very bad temper." ; He said the experience was useful anyway, because he planned to be a lawyer and this experience would help him ; to stand up and speak in court better. Finally, he noted I I that some students from other classes who had seen The ;Mighty Owl said he was their favorite character. i I I 173 I Pothers Describe Him Mr. Menchus noted that Victor had until the previ- ! ous year thrown the "wildest” temper tantrums. He further described Victor as one of the two smartest pupils in the j |class (the other was Alex). Academically Victor was tops ; in everything except penmanship. He and Alex were deeply I ! 'perceptive, not just knowledgeable, according to Mr. Men- ! 'chus. j You can't pull the wool over their eyes. You know, you. J give them some busy work just so you can sit down for a minute, and they say, "Mr. Menchus, is this busy work?" j and I have to say, "Yeah." !But they cooperated so that he could sit down for a minute, anyway. The researcher noted that Victor was a very busy and competitive young person. He was active in sports, music, and writing, in addition to his regular school activ-i i i ities. His role as Mattie the computer appeared to be very jcarefully put together with deliberate choices to create jdesired effects. In Constructing Dramatic Plot, he and lEric worked very closely and excitedly to put together sev- . t Aral stories which Eric would write down while crediting i Victor with the ideas. i i This chapter has provided individual profiles of i |Mr. Menchus and the twenty-five students in his class as a ' I jfinal viewpoint from which to examine the drama experience. ; The profiles evidence an array of attitudes and behaviors I i by the various students. The next and final chapter will 1 174 I Ipull all the findings together in chapter-by-chapter sum- i maries, a general list of conclusions, and an evaluation the effectiveness of the three CEMREL drama units. j Chapter 7 j j SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | 1 SUMMARY i ! The purpose of this study was to gather baseline : data which could be used in the development of a future ! .model of drama in education. This chapter reviews the j i |major findings and discusses their more important implica tions. The study as a whole attempted to answer three major questions and posed four hypotheses. The questions were: 1. What was.the dramatic quality of the experience ;on a day-by-day level? 2. What was the dramatic quality of the drama 'experience of the CEMREL materials as viewed by the class as a whole? 3. What was the experience of the CEMREL materials .from the point of view of each individual in the class? f j The four hypotheses explored the relationship i |between what drama in education leaders say should happen !in the classroom, what the CEMREL units prescribe for the 'classroom, and what was observed to occur in one classroom.; I ’ : i Three terms were crucial in this research. "Dra- ; I ■matic experience" was defined to mean behaviors described I jin Shaw's taxonomy. A "taxonomy" was defined as a means of systematizing a field according to natural relationships and inherent properties of the field. The three CEMREL drama units used were Creating Characterization, Construct ing Dramatic Plot, and The Actor. ! Chapter 1 stated the problem, described its signif- I :icance, set out the limitations and assumptions, defined i i (the special terms, reviewed the literature, and described I ithe organization of the remainder of the study. Chapter 2 described the procedures followed includ ing the selection of the population and the data gathering process. It also described the development of the instru- t ments and, materials used in the investigation including the preparation for the research journal, the development of the daily observation sheets, the preparation of the two jinterviews with both teacher and students, and the prepara- I ition of the individual profiles. i ; Chapter 3 reported the findings relative to the I [question, what was the quality of the dramatic experience i viewed day by day? The question was answered by describing [the classroom setting and the forty sessions of the three 'CEMREL units. I i The classroom setting was a very lively one with student work abounding on the walls and hanging from wire i llines; posters and other visual aids; a library of novels, I [texts and games; and two dozen plants both large and small. The first session of Creating Characterization began in excitement as the students took a pre-test and | began a discussion of the Emotions Book. In session two : students treated the body puzzle as a visual design problemj rather than a means of exploring body expressiveness. In j session three and parts of the remaining four sessions the | i ;students enthusiastically improvised using the "Emo" masks, | I iwhich forced them to use parts of the body other than their faces to express a wide variety of emotions. The class jgave limited attention to a filmstrip, a record, and colored j I media, which focused attention on non-verbal expressive- j i |ness in sessions four, five and six. But the interest was : thigh as the class improvised two scenes based on the Emo j j ! Imasks. ; Constructing Dramatic Plot began on November 24, 1975. The first three sessions were taken up with Mr. Men- ; chus organizing and reorganizing the class into subgroups t jand teaching them to play the game. Throughout the remain- ' ider of the sessions, some students made critical game : i ,choices based on an imagined story, others chose game cards ; isimply because they made sense sequentially with the preced- i jing card, and some students made careless choices. After ieach group finished a story, that group's recorder read it :to the class. A growing attitude of boredom was dramati- i !cally reversed in the final sessions, nine and ten, as the i students rehearsed a story and acted it out for the class. 178 On January 19, 1976, Mr. Menchus's class began The Actor with an enthusiastic discussion and they listened to : ! a slide-tape. In session two some students had begun keep-, ing the assigned "Actor Journal," Mr. Menchus divided the ! I t •students into subgroups, and they worked through The Mighty; i Owl. Sessions five through eighteen included taped seg- j I I ments, acting exercises, observation assignments, the jour- i :nal, and repeated integration of the new concepts with the jcharacters of The Mighty Owl. The concepts were concerned t I jwith how actors use their bodies, voices, minds, other I ; actors and other theatre people, and how they adapt to dif ferent performance conditions. In sessions nineteen to twenty-one the class worked out performance problems such as getting on and off stage, or attempted to improve their visual and vocal projection. Session twenty-two was the performance for the third, fourth and fifth grade classes of the school which culmi nated in verbal and non-verbal expressions of joy by Mr. Menchus and his students. Session twenty-three was a j ' jfollow-up discussion based on five questions. I | i Chapter 4 analyzed the results of four hypotheses 1 'which were applied to predicting the behaviors of the sam- tple class. Hypothesis 1 stated that no relationship would ;be found’ between the number of behaviors predicted by ana- j i lyzing the CEMREL teacher's guides and the number of behav- 1 i ; iors observed for the cognitive categories. Hypothesis 2 I stated that no relationship would be found between the num ber of behaviors predicted and the number of behaviors observed for the affective categories. Hypothesis 3 stated I that no relationship would be found between the number of | I ; j behaviors observed and the number of behaviors prescribed < for the cognitive categories by drama leaders. Hypothesis ! • 4 stated that no relationship would be found between the . number of behaviors observed and the number of behaviors . i prescribed for the affective categories by drama leaders. j I l No statistical measure was applied to Hypothesis 4 because ' I the number of instances was too small... Hypotheses 1 and 2 I were rejected at the .001 level of significance, and 1 hypothesis 3 was rejected at the .02 level of significance.. The results provided evidence that a relationship exists, at least in the cognitive domain, between what drama lead- ■ ers prescribe, the CEMREL curriculum, and what occurred in the classroom. The chapter concluded by discussing in ; greater detail those categories which had a low correlation those categories which were observed in the classroom to be most numerous. | Chapter 5 answered the question., what was the qual-' J ity of the dramatic experience of the CEMREL units by the i | class viewed as a whole? The data source for this chapter j contained information from two series of interviews with i j Mr. Menchus and the students. The first interview focused 1 i | on two questions, what was the ability of the class to I j i j improvise an idea for a dramatic scene, and what dramatic I 180 |experience had the students had? Only 10 to 20 percent participated actively in drama except on rare occasions, though 80 percent of the students were considered average ttelevision watchers. t ! ( The second interview asked nine questions. Most significant among the findings was that none of the stu- I Jdents remembered the key terms from Constructing Dramatic » Plot without some memory prodding by the researcher. |Three-quarters of the class had some of their feelings i jinvolved during the drama units; 80 percent wanted to 1 'repeat The Actor; 40 percent would repeat Creating Charac terization ; and 32 percent wanted to repeat Constructing Dramatic Plot. I | The experience had a positive effect on at least I |five students' ability to handle stage fright. About half of the class made comments which reflected new ideas about actors and acting. Some discovered that actors were like them in liking to play dress-up as children. Others dis covered that professional actors considered using their real feelings essential to their acting. j Chapter 6 addressed the question, what was the Jdrama experience of the teacher and each student in the iclass? To answer this question, the chapter presented i individual profiles of Mr. Menchus and the students drawn from three sources: the quantitative data, the statements jby the students about themselves, and comments by others | ! 181 including Mr. Menchus and the researcher. Mr. Menchus's self descriptive statements gave evi dence that he had little drama experience before this study [began, that he would not teach Creating Characterization ; I ; iagain, that he would use Constructing Dramatic Plot as part 1 of his English curriculum, and that his favorite of the 1 t [three units was The Actor. t I ! The personal profiles of each of the twenty-five ! ! students were presented student by student. First, the quantitative data on the student was presented. The rank of the student was given by the number of behaviors observed. Particular categories were noted for students who were observed to exhibit an atypically large or small ; quantity of behaviors in that category. The range of jbehaviors for the student was noted relative to whether the I student's behaviors were mostly low, unusually high, high- low, or evenly spread across the spectrum of behaviors observed in the entire class. The second category for each student discussed the student's comments about his/her experience. This section j noted the student's previous experience with drama and pre-^ i ‘tending, pointed up comments that intuitively explained : 1 'some of the patterns of behavior recorded in the quantita- . ■ i 'tive section, and described the attitude of the student | toward his/her experience by pointing up comments that |represented prominent features of the student's experience ! [with this drama project. i | j The third section of each profile viewed the stu- j I dent from the perspective of Mr. Menchus and the researcher.; t Mr. Menchus gave a general description of each of the stu- | | i .dents as a person and as a student in the drama work as i ■ well as other curricula,. The researcher then discussed any I I t ■discrepancies between his own and Mr. Menchus1s observa- | jtions of a student's experience and explored any special i problems or strengths of the student. CONCLUSIONS A narrative description.of each session in a unit i |was presented to provide an intuitive feel of the events as. I they occurred. The results of the narrative description follow. i ( t I Creating Characterization ! 1. Students readily responded to the emotional 'expressions derived from pictures of faces, but had diffi- ! culty identifying emotional expressions from pictures of the torso, arms or legs. They tended to answer questions j based on these body pictures in terms of the social role of: j the pictured person rather than the emotions which may have; ! 'been expressed. i I 2. The use of a body puzzle to convey the concept ‘ I ;that emotions can be expressed through differing body con- \ |figurations tended not to be used for teaching this con- j __________________________________________________________ 183 [ Icept, but rather to be treated by the students as a problem in visual design using the shapes of the puzzle pieces. ! I 3. Students and teacher were sensitive to the believability or seeming genuineness of visual and vocal | expressions.. Such expressions, even when perceived to be exaggerated, as those in Creating Characterization were, 1 ( ,still were an effective means of conveying a concept. I I j 4. Masks were a stimulus to the students to take jon the affective quality of the mask worn and to interact freely in character with other mask wearing students. , 5. Analytic and evaluative discussions of experi- i ences tended to be treated cursorily or not at all by the j non-drama specialist teacher. j Constructing Dramatic Plot Students became bored quickly when asked to create 1 j l 'stories using a game format designed for children at a i i |lower cognitive level, when the creation of the story was i i.not directly linked to improvisational performance of the i 1 story. ^The Actor i i . . - - i . i j 1. Students were not fully aware of but were read- lily able to discuss and understand the difference between j i ; I an actor and a character. : I 2. Students listened attentively to short audio j tape segments of actors talking about themselves and key | 184 concepts of their work when these audio segments were enhanced by discussion, acting exercises, and application of the concepts to classroom and homework assignments, i 3. The teacher was most at ease with the highly istructured, teacher-centered, dramatic activities. ! 4. Students were most enthusiastic about less 'structured, improvisational dramatic activities. i ■ 5. The teacher tended to avoid analytic or evalua tive discussions during or following improvisational dra matic activities. 6. Students and the non-drama specialist teacher responded positively when given alternative choices to character building for body or voice actions; character motivations; points of concentration; imaginative concep tions of the character's background or situation; elements (of scenic lighting, sounds, costumes or props; and ways of i 'adapting to various performance conditions. 7. Students and the non-drama specialist teacher i i (made use of a dramatic form which provided a detailed plot •and character actions but which did not provide dialogue, ! character motivations, blocking or business. I j 8. Students and the non-drama specialist teacher were often confused by a game which asked the students to •follow its directions on their own. The Quantitative Results This study used quantitative observation of tax- ‘ onomically categorized behaviors to determine two relation-■ ships. First, what was the relationship of the number of | i ;predicted behaviors in the various taxonomical categories ' to the number of behaviors observed in those categories? ! I ! Second, what was the relationship of the number of observed. I behaviors to the number of behaviors prescribed for the | various categories by drama leaders? The results are as i ; j follows: ! I j i 1 . , . The researcher was able to predict the relative, number of behaviors that were to be observed for most cog nitive and affective categories by analyzing the three detailed teacher's guides. 2. The three CEMREL drama units, taken together, provided a positive correlation to the number of cognitive I behaviors prescribed by drama leaders for the different 1 categories. i 3. The three CEMREL drama units, taken together, ! did not provide a statistically significant correlation to | ithe number of behaviors prescribed by drama leaders for the; I : various affective categories. t ! < ; 4. The lower three affective categories may show ai I jpositive correlation to the prescriptions by drama leaders f I for these categories, but the higher three affective cate- ; gories apparently do not show a similar correlation. 186 j Interview Results This study used two teacher and two student inter- > i j views to determine the dramatic history and abilities of ; the students and to record the qualitative reactions to the jdrama experience. j • 1. Students were found to have spent a significant! I amount of time in passive dramatic activities such as TV i !watching, but only about half of the students actively engaged in drama on more than a very occasional basis. 2. Students recalled best the elements of the junits they liked most. | 3. Most students did not learn the six plot terms I I used repeatedly in Constructing Dramatic Plot. ! 1 . . . I i 4, Given the opportunity, 32 percent of the stu- \ |dents would repeat Constructing Dramatic Plot, 40 percent i ' | jwould repeat Creating Characterization, and 80 percent 'would repeat The Actor. i i 5. The teacher would repeat Constructing Dramatic 1 Plot and The Actor but not Creating Characterization. j \ i 6.. The experience in these units, especially The ! I — — i i ;Mighty Owl activity, helped students overcome stage fright.1 i 7. The three CEMREL units were affectively involv-j i :ing for most students. ; I ; 8. Over half the students could name specific ; j 1 'effects that the dramatic experience had on their daily i lives. ' 187 9. The experience in these units, and especially with The Actor, altered student and teacher attitudes away , from a mechanical view of acting and toward a view of act- I ing as a process of transforming one's real person into an j ;imagined character. j i |Profile Results i ! This study used individual profiles to gather ; I j information on the individual variety of experiences. The ] i results were as follows: j 1. The students varied on the number of behaviors j I observed per student from about one and a half to about seven and a half observed behaviors per session, with a ■ I ; |mean of about four behaviors per student per session. j i | 2. The kind of cognitive behaviors varied by stu- I I dent with some students exhibiting only lower to middle level behaviors at the 1.00 to 3.00 levels. Others exhib- j ited some low level and some high level behaviors, with few' middle level behaviors. Other students exhibited behaviorsj across all levels of behavior but with a preponderance of 1 i (lower and middle level behaviors.. Finally, a few students (exhibited a proportionately larger number of behaviors in class discussions with fewer performance behaviors, while ! I I others exhibited a larger number of performance behaviors | jas compared with behaviors occurring during discussions. j ] 3. .The teacher exhibited a quantity of behaviors i seven times greater than the most prolific student and six-! teen times greater than the number of behaviors by the mean student. 4. The teacher exhibited behaviors ranging over all cognitive levels, but with relatively smaller numbers iof performance behaviors such as 2.10-A or 2.20-A. t i 5. The non-drama specialist teacher valued drama I I as recreation, so did not persist as strongly to get a con- !cept across to students as he would have if the concept t ! were one from math or language arts. EVALUATION OF THE CEMREL DRAMA CURRICULUM i The conclusions just presented provide the basis jfor several general conclusions^about the effectiveness of !the CEMREL curriculum in drama. These conclusions are ten- , i itative because they are based on the experience of only one \ jclassroom. While the classroom appeared to be a not unu- t jsual fifth grade classroom, it cannot be considered a ran- Jdom sample of the fifth grade population, nor is one teacher t [a random sample of fifth grade teachers. On the other hand, Imany of the quantitative and qualitative results were very unequivocal in regard to this one classroom. Strengths of the CEMREL Curriculum The CEMREL drama units have six major strengths in the opinion of this researcher: 1. All three units take their artistic task seri- ously. They confront major dramatic or artistic concepts and treat them in a way that is respectful of both the con cept and the students and teachers. Cheap solutions to the problems of presenting the concept, or condescending tones !in the manner of presenting the concept are the exception rather than the rule. i 2. All three units allow the students and the !teacher to feel positive about their work because they have I been able to accomplish the tasks the curriculum set for ! !them. I i j 3. The highly directive design of the materials I makes it possible for the units to be directed by the non- I drama specialist teacher. The units are capable of serving jas entry level curriculum in drama. | 4. Some of the activities of all three units are I capable of stimulating strong dramatic participation by students and teacher. 5. The interesting variety of media in the units, including masks, a game, audio taped interviews, and a special kind of scenario, lead both teacher and students i into greater participation in the units. 6. Creating Characterization and The Actor are 'drama curricula closely akin to the curricula prescribed by idrama in education leaders. I Weaknesses of the CEMREL ' Curriculum ] The CEMREL drama units have five major weaknesses j in the opinion of this researcher: i 1. Only teachers with exceptional dedication and 'creativity would be successful using either Creating Char- 'acterization or Constructing Dramatic Plot at the upper ' I ;elementary levels. This finding is in contradiction to the; claim of the Aesthetic Education Program that the units , i I |can be used at any level above the level for which they I I i iwere designed. j I 2. A few of the activities in the units are weak ; r in their ability to stimulate meaningful dramatic behaviors,, at any level. Especially weak are the body puzzle and ^ i !media experimentation in Creating Characterization. i i 3. Constructing Dramatic Plot does not distinguish i -------------- ------------------ dramatic plot from other literary forms. The unit could be accurately titled Constructing a Plot. 4. All three units could be greatly reduced in ’ price if non-essential media elements were eliminated. The ! I [presence of such high cost media, unless it is essential, i t is in contradiction to the Aesthetic Education Program goal . of providing entry level activities in the arts. In Creat- 1 ing Characterization, all but one of the Emotion Books, the . body puzzle, the filmstrip and the media and texture mate- J I ; I irial could be eliminated. In Constructing Dramatic Plot ! i f 191 the sample game cards, twenty of the thirty game boards, 1 and twenty of the thirty rule sheets could be cut. In The j Actor the Actor Wall and the Actor Game could be removed. The game elements could be just as effective combined into l I the teacher's guide and the journals. | 5. The CEMREL units are weak in their ability to i ; 1 .stimulate the improvisational dramatic process. This I ! ;weakness could be reduced by giving the teacher additional : jessential evaluative and creative tasks which could be per-J f j formed during the rehearsal periods and, where, possible, i t i combining the units with teacher workshops which especially: I i ifocus on the techniques and importance of the improvisa- i i Itional processes. i BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS | .Abelson, Robert, ed. Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Source Book. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1968. I ( Andrews, M. F., ed. Aesthetic Form and Education. Syra cuse: Syracuse University Press, 1958. , 'Barkan, Manuel, Laura H. Chapman, and Evan J. Kern. Guide- 1 ; lines: Curriculum Development for Aesthetic Education. j | St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1970. , ! I ! Bloom, Benjamin S., ed. Taxonomy of Educational Qb.jec- j i tives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Hand- 1 book I, Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Com- I pany, Inc., 1956. I jCourtney, Richard. Play, Drama and Thought, the Intellec- j . tual Background to Drama in Education. 3d ed. New York: Drama Book Specialists/Publishers, 1974. i De Cecco, John P. The Psychology of Learning and Instruc tion: Educational Psychology. Englewood Cliff's, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 'Douglass, Malcolm P., ed. Claremont Reading Conference Yearbook. No. 31. Claremont, Ca.: Graduate School : Curriculum Laboratory, 1971. Drama Framewood Committee. Drama/Theatre Framework for California Public Schools. Sacramento: California I State Board of Education, 1974. iFlavell, John H., and others. The Development of Role-tak ing and Communication Skills in Children. New- York: 1 Wiley, 1968. ‘Fordyce, Rachel. Children's Theatre and Creative Dramat ics: An Annotated Bibliography of Critical Works. 1 Boston: G. K. Hall and Co., 1975. j i Goldberg, Moses. Children's Theatre: A Philosophy and a Method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., ; 1974. ! jHansen, Brian K. A Curriculum Model for Theatre in Aes- J thetic Education. St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1972. I Herron, R. E., and Brian Sutton—Smith, eds. Child's Play. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971. Klock, Mary Eileen. Creative Drama: A Selected and Anno tated Bibliography. Washington: American Theatre ' Association, 1975. Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, eds. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II, Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Company, ! Inc., 1964. I ; McCaslin, Nellie, ed. Children and Drama. New York: ! David McKay Company, Inc., 1975. 1 iMoffett, James. A Student-Centered Language Arts Curricu- j lum, Grades K-13: A Handbook for Teachers. Boston: ' Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1968. Mussen, P., and M. R. Rosenzweig, eds. Annual Review of ; Psychology, 1969. 27 vols. Palo Alto: Annual Review Inc., 1972. ;Overton, Grace Sloan. Drama in Education, Theory and Tech nique . New York: The Century Co., 1926. 'Patrick, Ed. Pilot Testing Evaluation Report. St. Louis: i CEMREL, Inc., 1971. .Piaget, Jean. The Child's Conception of the World. I Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams and Company, 1965. The Language and Thought of the Child, trans. M. Gabias. New York: Meridian Books, 1957 Rickner, Donald. The Actor. St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1976. I Rosenblatt, Bernard S. Constructing Dramatic Plot. St. : Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1971. i ' __________. Creating Characterization. St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1971. Shaftel, Fannie. Role Playing for Social. Values. Engle wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. i 194 ! I iSmilansky, Sara. The Effects of Sociodramatic Play on Dis- | advantaged Preschool Children. New York: John Wiley ! & Sons, Inc., 1968. I i jSmith, Louis M. The Child's Aesthetic Experience: An Interim Report and Position Paper. St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1974. , and William Geoffrey. The Complexities of an I Urban Classroom: An Analysis toward a General Theory of Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1968. , and Sally Schumacher. Extended Pilot Trials of the Aesthetic Education Program: A Qualitative Description, Analysis and Evaluation. St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1972. Williams, Frederick, ed. Language and Poverty. Chicago: Markham, 1970. Yablonsky, Lewis. Psychodrama: Resolving Emotional Prob lems through Role Playing. New York: Basic Books, 1976 . PERIODICALS .Darroch, Russell K., and Ivan D. Steiner. "Role-Playing: ! An Alternative to Laboratory Research?" Journal of Per- ■ sonality, XXXVIII (May, 1970), 302-311. Mann, John H. "Experimental Evaluations of Role Playing," Psychological Bulletin, LIII (May, 1956), 227-235. : McCaslin, Nellie. "Address to the Membership," Theatre News, VIII (September-October, 1975), 16. Schyberg, Frederick. "The Art of Acting," Tulane Drama : Review, VII (Summer, 1961), 56-76. "The Art of Acting," Tulane Drama Review, VIII (Spring, 1962), 106-131 . "The Art of Acting," Tulane Drama Review, VIII ; (Summer, 1962), 66-93. i Smart, Margaret E. "What Piaget'Suggests to Classroom Teachers," Childhood Education, XLIV (January, 1968), i 294-300. UNPUBLISHED SOURCES Piquette, Julia Camilla. "A Survey of the Contemporary Outlook Relative to the Teaching of Creative Dramatics as Evidenced in Selected Writings in the Field, 1929- ; 1959." Unpublished PhD dissertation, Northwestern I University, 1963. ! i Shaw, Ann. "The Development of a Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in Creative Drama in the United States 1 Based on Selected Writings in the Field." Unpublished i PhD dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia Univer- ! ' sity, 1968. j : ! ’Wright, Mary Elin. "The Effects of Creative Drama on Per- ■ | son Perception." Unpublished PhD dissertation, Uni- j ! versity of Minnesota, 1972. i PUBLIC SPEECHES 'Kase, Judith Baker. "Descriptions of Current Research in Theatre Education." Paper presented to the American Theatre Association Convention, Washington, D.C., August 13, 1975. (Maslow, Abraham. "Farther Reaches of Human Nature." I Address to the American Psychological Association Con- i vention, Chicago, 1972. Tom Menchusi All | Vic 1 Sharon I Robin 1 Rachel | Nat 1 MattW. 1 Matt" C.. | tr H- N Laura 1 Kathy I Jon ] J ohn M . I o V 3 | &jf Heather 1 Hardy j George ] Esther i Eric | Dan j Claude 1 Cindy j uuv Andy Alex w i - 3 C a M a i - 3 COGNITIVE 1.11-A Emotions 1,11-D Character . 1.12-D To be dramatized 1,21-A Approaches 1.31-A Connection 2,10-A Verbal to 2.10-C Action to AFFECTIVE Ii3-A Purpose of comm. Ii3-B Medium 2..1-A Discussion 2.1-B Techniques . 2.2-B Sharing Per. SAMPLE DATA SHEET— CREATING CHARACTERIZATION Tom Menchusj | IIV Vic 1 Sharon I Robin i Rachel I Nat 1 K P c+ r t Matt C . | Liz 1 Laura 1 Kathy 1 Jon 1 J ohn M . I John H. | J im 1 Heather 1 Hardy I George 1 Esther I Eric I o a 3 Claude 1 Cindy I > 3 3 Andy I Alex 1 STUDENT COGNITIVE 1.11-A Terms of emotion 1.11-B Structure 1,11-C Methodology 1..12-A Previous experience 1 . - . 2 2-A Structure as sequenc 1,24-A Believabilitv 1*2S-C Approaches to char. 1,31-B Individuality ' 2.10-A Verbal-image-action 2.,10-B Verbal-character 2,10-C Character-action 2.30-A Inferences, future 2,30-C Gaps 9.20-B Dramatic story 5.10 Unique * AFFECTIVE 1,3-A Purpose of comm. 1.3-C Literary qualities 2,1-A Discussion 2,.2-A 2*2-B Sharing personal .2.3-C 2.3-D SAMPLE DATA SHEET— CONSTRUCTING DRAMATIC PLOT I SAMPLE DATA SHEET— THE ACTOR (COGNITIVE) I COGNITIVE , B , C , E Terms Terms, role play Previous experience Previous drama ,D,E Facts , B Conventions , B Sequencing ,B,C Criteria ,8,0 Methods , B Principles Translation , C Translation Interpretation , C Interpretation ,B,C,D Interpolation , B Analysis , , B Analysis of rel. , B,C Unique , C Unique plan ,B Eva!., internal ,b Eval., external < Q < O ca < < < < < < 03 < CQ < < < < < < < T—1 rH CM ■r - 4 C\J CM CM CM CM ^r CM ID CM r-f CO O rH 0 r-4 O CM O CM O CO O T “t O CM O O CM O O CM r-i cH rH 1 —4 T—1 CM 04 04 CM CM tO IDCO iO STUDENT Alex Andv Ann Cindv Claude Dan Eric Esther George Hardy Heather J im John H. John M. Jon Kathv Laura Liz Matt C. Matt ¥. Nat . Rachel Robin Sharon Vic All Tom Menchus 199j 200 Tom Menchus | All I Vic I Sharon 1 Robin I Rachel | Nat 1 s p c+ c t Matt C. | Liz | Laura 1 Kathy | Jon | G O 3 3 35 John H. I J im 1 Heather 1 Hardy | George ] Esther 1 Eric | Dan | Claude | Cindy I Ann | Andy | Alex | C / l h3 G O M 3 ►a AFFECTIVE 1,3-A Purpose of comm. 1,3-B Mediums of actor ~ 1,3-C Literary qualities 2,,1-A Discuss and improv. Acting tech. 2,.1-C Audience 2,,.2-A Improv. volun. 2 ,,2-B Sharing personal 2,2-C Group work 2,2-D New material 2,3-A Eager personal 2.,3-B Choosing hard 2,,3-C Group., overcoming 2 ^3-D CD as fun 3.1 3.3 * SAMPLE DATA SHEET— THE ACTOR (AFFECTIVE) APPENDIX B RESEARCHER'S SUMMARY OF THE SHAW CATEGORIES 'k n o w led g e tl.ll TERMINOLOGY SPECIFIC TO . . A. emotional referents/commonly associated behaviors B. dramatic structure e.g. plot, scene, climax, resolu- | tion, conflict I C. methodology of CD e.g. pantomime, dialogue, action, pretend, enact, try on D. role playing or character building, e.g. objective, dominant mood, motivation, physical state, emotional state E. criteria of evaluation of CD work e.g. believability, imagination, plausibility, audibility, and intelligi bility of speech. 1.12 FACTS SPECIFIC TO . . .: A. previous sensory experiences of e.g. actions, objects, people, events, j B. aspects of physical environment e.g. seasons, weather, • buildings, urban-rural settings. C. details of material previously dramatized. D. details of material to be dramatized. E. concrete experiences related to abstractions e.g. happiness, loyalty, courage. 1.21 CONVENTIONAL WAYS AND MEANS OF . . A. characterization approaches, e.g. thinking charac- i ter's thoughts. I B. audience belief dependency on actor belief, e.g. ! feeling the part vs. self-consciousness. '1.22 TRENDS OR SEQUENTIAL WAYS AND MEANS OF . . .: A. dramatic structure, e.g. it is a sequence of action. B. time in drama, e.g. unity. 1.23 EXCLUDED: e.g. classifications and categories, classes, sets, divisions, arrangements. 1.24 CRITERIA OR WAYS AND MEANS OF EVALUATING . . .: j A. believability e.g. situations, actions, dialogue j plausible with character, situations, circumstances, i B. dialogue e.g. audibility and intelligibility: natu ralness, appropriateness. C. principles and procedures e.g. ensemble, visibility, balance, unities, conflict, rhythm. 11.25 METHODOLOGY OR WAYS AND MEANS FOR . . .: 201 A. motivating dramatic improvisations e.g. emotional recall, finding an objective, inventing circum stances, distinguishing obstacles. B. inventing and handling dialogue e.g. soliloquy or monologue or dialogue. C. approaches to characterization and plot construction e.g. animal imitation. 1.31 UNIVERSAL OR ABSTRACT PRINCIPLES OR GENERALIZATIONS THAT . . .: A. behavior of individuals or characters is related to physical/emotional make-up, e.g. physical state.and j behavior, emotional state and behavior related. ; B. individuality of response is desirable in creativity I and CD, e.g. finding your own way vs. copying. ; 1.32 EXCLUDED: theories and structures, e.g. -:body and I interrelations. COMPREHENSION '2.10 TRANSLATION OF . . .: j A. verbal description into a mental image, this image j into other words or into action, e.g. haughty self- j centered person into stance, gesture, walk, j B. verbal description or sounds into character action or ! inflection, e.g. into tone of voice given a line and j verbal description of the tone of voice. I C. actions, images, or internalized speech into oral j forms, e.g. seeing pantomimed sport and giving detailed verbal narrative after. 2.20 INTERPRETATION . . .: A. as one's self a central idea, e.g. eating a bowl of soup with difficulty. B. as an other a central idea, e.g. Tom Sawyer in the "whitewash" scene. C. as outsider the aspects of presented material, e.g. comitant mood, theme, rhythm in scene and in similar "real life" situation. D. as actor in a scene the idea and actions of others, e.g., his response is consistent in the scene. 2.30 EXTRAPOLATION OF . . .: A. inferences of future outcomes based on material, e.g. given a problem situation, predicting outcome and two possible solutions. ! B. factor in the past of a character or situation, e.g. i stating three plausible causes for Midas' change _in I behavior. C. gaps within the material, e.g. suggesting a unified scene from an outlined problem. jAPPLICATION— Described only ANALYSIS OF . . .: 14.10 ELEMENTS OF . . .: A. character, e.g. dominant physical characteristic, emotional state and primary motive for the Musicians of Bremen. B. material or scene, e.g. who, what, where, why of the Musicians of Bremen. j C. the structure of a story or scene, e.g. inciting | j incident, turning point, climax, resolution of The ! Musicians of Bremen. ; ,4.20 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN . . .: I A. personality aspects and behavior of characters and ' , relate this to real people and/or vice versa, e.g. : the self-deception by the Emperor in The Emperorfs j New Clothes to peron in the news. j B. elements and/or outcomes of a scene and motivations and events, e.g. causes in the Emperor? and person in | the news are inferred and known and unknown is j clearly distinguished. 4.30 EXCLUDED: organizational principles, e.g. explicit ! and implicit organization, systematic arrangement j and structure. j SYNTHESIS ; 15.10 PRODUCTION OF A UNIQUE COMMUNICATION . . .: ; j A. with two or more, enact a plausible scene improvisa- ! tionally e.g. communicate character identity and ! feeling in surprising way. : B. alone, enact original or nearly original scene, e.g. { a scene based on a personal experience with fear. i i C. of a total impression of a character from minimal ; j material, e.g. a character based on a 10-minute ; , observation in a bus station with distinguishing i j physical state, emotional state, objective, and prob-' : lem-obstacle. j 5.20 PRODUCTION OF A PLAN, OR PROPOSED SET OF OPERATIONS j FOR A . . .: ! A. theatrical ground plan with, e.g. exits and entrances, I windows, fireplace, table, etc. B. dramatic structure from an idea or story, e.g. The i Stone in the Road into dramatic form with no narrator and three scenes. ; C. selecting and using of characters, e.g. construct four characters for The Stone . . ., each with objec tive and plot function. ;5.30 EXCLUDED: derivation of a set of abstract relations, j ! e-g* to explain data\ or phenomena or deduce from I : basic propositions or symbolic representations. i !EVALUATION IN TERMS OF ! I 6.10 INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT . . .: 203 | A. words, diction and actions are plausible and appro priate, e.g. that "yeah, man, you'd better believe it," doesn't belong in First Thanksgiving scene. B. characterization is consistent throughout a scene, e.g. perceiving an actor maintaining body shape and limp for Rumpelstilskin. C. the actors work in ensemble, e.g. playing the "white wash" scene together, sharing responsibility. 16.20 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT . . .: A. enacted scene met aesthetic criteria for visual I balance and use of space, e.g. playing areas well ! spaced, actors communicated across areas. ! B. dramatic structure meets aesthetic criteria, e.g. ! perceiving a delayed inciting incident and unclear ! resolution. I C. presentation met aesthetic criteria, e.g. class pre- | senting panel critique of a scene including clarity, | believability, and temporal qualities. SHAW SUMMARY AFFECTIVE RECEIVING (ATTENDING) 1.1 EXCLUDED, awareness, i.e. given the opportunity, 1. 2 1.3 A, B , I C will be conscious without specific percep- willingness, not learner t ion. WILLINGNESS TO RECEIVE, i.e. neutral avoiding but giving attention. CONTROLLED OR SELECTED ATTENTION FOR THE . . .: purpose of a communication, e.g. stating or selecting purpose of a pantomime after viewing. mediums of communications an actor uses, e.g. through specific senses, receiving ing actions, dialogue, relationships. selected literary qualities, ity, balance, individuality sensory perceptions; send- vocal inflection, spatial e, or m rhythm, an e. e universal- , cummings poem, RESPONDING unusual words. m of an lmprovisa- purpose of ;2.1 ACQUIESCENCE IN RESPONDING TO . . .: . A. discussions and improvisations when asked, e.g. doing , pantomime of sports activity. | B. using particular acting techniques tion, e.g. statement and pantomime keeping new shoes dry on a wet day. C. audience behavior rules established watches others perform and refrains comments. 204 m group, e.g, from derisive 2.2 WILLINGNESS TO RESPOND TO . . . : A. improvisation opportunities, e.g. volunteering when asked, "Who would like to try action (or character or scene)?" B. sharing personal experiences and ideas, e.g. in dis cussion of feelings-action connection, child offers example or analogy. ■ C. group work as participant and audience, e.g. after not being a selected volunteer watching selected group attentively. D. new material, e.g. verbal and active enthusiasm 1 toward using three of twelve objects as basis for scene. ■ J 2.3 SATISFACTION IN RESPONSE TO . . .: A. personal experiences shared in discussion and improv isation, e.g. eager statements in response to description of human dilemma. : B. his ability to improvise with illusion, e.g. given choice of old or hard new materials, he usually chosses the hard new material. C. group art responsibilities and constraints, e.g. stating how he made apparently unfitting remark in an improvisation, work. D. CD as fun, e.g. stating that it is fun. i |VALUING I |3.1 ACCEPTANCE OF A VALUE FOR . . .: | A. group work responsibility and belief in own ability, j e.g. a group selects leader, all help plan, each I states protest if excluded. < B. projecting self into another person or character and hypothetic situation, e.g. in discussion, states "I'm trying to think what it would feel like to be the Queen ..." C. improving skills in improvisation and communication, e.g. after being told he can't be heard, asks them to■ check his audibility next time. 3.2 EXCLUDED: preference for a value, i.e. internaliza tion between acceptance and commitment or conviction. 3.3 COMMITMENT TO . . .: A. exploration and expression, within social limits, of j self-uniqueness, e.g. exploring topical subject of conflict by role playing the people he disagrees with. - B. creative dramatics expression, e.g. given opportu nity, all students bring in material to work on or I rehearse outside of class. I EXCLUDED: organization. j 4.1 EXCLUDED: conceptualization of a value, i.e. the consistency and stability of 3.0 plus abstraction. 4.2 EXCLUDED: organization of a value system, i.e. real ity complex even disparate values to achieve con stancy, harmony, or dynamic balance. EXCLUDED: characterization by a value or value complex. 5.1 EXCLUDED: generalized set, i.e. basic orientation or persistent and consistent response to a family of related situations or objects. 5.2 EXCLUDED: characterization, i.e. basic set toward everything known or knowable, Weitenschauung, encom passing as to characterize almost completely. APPENDIX C PREDICTED BEHAVIORS: CREATING CHARAC- TERIZATION Affec- Cogni tive tive !Lesson I 1.31-A I ' ' j1.3-A 1.11-A I 2.1-A 1.31-A Lesson II 1.3-A 1.12-D ! 2.1-A 2.10-C I i ! 2.1-A 1.31-C • 2.1-A 2.10-A (1.3-A 1.11-A '2.1-A 1.31-A | 2.1-A 2.10-C ■2.1-A 1.21-A i ! ! 2.1-A 2.10-A i |1.3-A 1.11-A j 2.1-A 1.31-A '2.1-A 1.31-A |2.1-A 2.10-A I [2.1-A 1.11-A A character's emotional traits can be ! expressed physically. .Verbally describes emotions of people in pictures. Uses emotion word list. Looks at part of body and answers, "How can you tell how he feels?" (same concept as Lesson I) i Recalls expressions from review of emotion ■ book. Arranges characterization picture compos ites to express emotions. "How can you tell from parts?" Imitates physical posture and facial expression of one composite. (Variance: translates non-verbal part into non-verbal whole and then this image into words or actions.) Works in pairs to evaluate and improve imitation. Answers, "How am I feeling?" Answers, "How do you know?" Answers, "What am I doing that tells you?" Answers, "Can you tell by looking at my eyes, mouth, hands, etc.?" Puts on mask and creates appropriate move- ; ments with all parts of body. Answers evaluation questions, "How is Emo ' feeling?" Answers, "How can you tell from what he is doing?" Answers, "How can you tell by the way Emo moves his head, arms, legs, body?" I Plays evaluation guessing game. ' Selects blank mask and an emotion word. Uses body to communicate drawn word. Audience answers, "What was it about move ments and gestures that told you what the emotion was?" ! Affec tive Cogni tive 2.1-A 1.31-A "What did Emo do to express the emotion?" Lesson 1.31-A A character's emotional trait can be III expressed vocally. !2.1-A 2.10-C Listens to record (side A) voices for qualities expressive of emotions and dis- | cusses the qualities. ,2.1-A 2.10-C Listens again and discusses. ;1.3-A 1.11-A Listens to record (side B) and verbally i identifies main emotional characteristics i of voices. |2.1-A 1.11-A Selects Emo mask and states emotional I characteristic. j 2.1-B 2.10-A Creates character voice for chosen mask attempting to consciously use rhythm, pitch, tone, rate and volume. 2.1-A 1.11-D Answers evaluation questions with physical descriptions. 1.3-B 1.11-A "What is the emotion of your Emo mask?" j2.1-A 1.31-A "Does the voice express this?" 2.1-A* 1.31-B "Why do you think this?" |Lesson ;IV 1.31-A A character's emotional trait can be j expressed through the combination of voice | and movement. I1.3-A 1.11-A Selects and names one Emo mask. j2.1-B 2.10-A Creates character voice using body and ’ voice (1.11-A and D). Works in pairs to improve. 1.3-A 1.11-A Answers, "What emotion am I expressing?" 2.1-A 1.31-A Answers, "Does combination of voice and movement express it?" 2.1-A* 1.31-A "Why?" 2.1-A* 2.10-A "How make better?" Repeats with other masks. Views and discusses film strip. 1.3-A 1.11-A What emotion shown? 2.1-A 1.31-A "How can you tell?" 2.1-A 1.31-A "What do characters do to show emotions?" (1.11-A) "Their reasons?" (Background indicates emphasis on uniqueness, not causality.) 2.1-B 1.31-B "What colors are the characters' costumes? Do the colors seem to fit or belong with the emotions? Why?" 2.1-B 2.10-A Do scene based on picnic film strip. ■Or 2.2-B 208 Cogni tive 2.10-C Three students evaluate ! » A f f ec- tive 2.2-B APPENDI'&k.C ^continued ) PREDICTED BEHAVIORS: CONSTRUCTING DRAMATIC PLOT Affec- Cogni- ■ tive tive Game 1: Concepts 1.25-C A dramatic plot begins by linking a series, of incidents. 1.25-C A dramatic story includes characters and a setting. Ob.i ec t ives 1 . 25-C The student will use a card deck to select characters and a setting. 1.24-A The student will use a card deck to select and link incidents to create a simple but logical story. Rules 1.3 This is a game in which the players work together to make up the best possible dramatic story. One, two or three may play. 2 . 1-A 2.10-A Set up the game. 2 . 1-A 1.25-C Choose one of the character-setting cards. 2 . 1-A 1 . 22* Decide who goes first. 2.1-A 1.25-C Player 1 chooses one of the incident cards. All the players must agree. 2 . 1-A 1.25-C Player 2 does the same. 2.1-A 1.25-C Player 3 does the same thing. All the players must agree with choice. 2 .1-A 1 .22* Keep taking turns. 2.1-A 1 . 22-A Incidents must make sense together. 2 .1-A 1.24-A Incidents must make sense with the charac ters and setting. 2 .1-A 1.24-A All the players must agree that incidents, characters, and setting make sense together. 2 . 1-A 2.30-C You may use an imagination card. 2.1-A -------- 1.11-B When finished, show it to your teacher and answer these questions: Who are the characters? *A or B. 210' Affec- Cogni tive tive What is the setting? What are the incidents? 3.1-A Try one of the "For Fun" ideas! Explanat ion Here is an example of a simple dramatic j plot. (Aram and Neal story) j Dramatic plot is a story that has charac- ; ters, a setting, and incidents. Can you imagine what the setting looks like in the story about Aram and Neal? Can you describe it? Can you describe what Aram and Neal look like? What are they wearing? , Can you imagine the incidents happening? : What are characters? j What is a setting? I What are incidents? i Characters are people in the play story. j Setting is where the play story happens. ! Incidents are things that happen in a play story. Try These for Fun Act out your dramatic story. ' Write your own story by making up your own, setting, characters, and incidents. Make a picture or a model of your setting. Share your story with some friends. Game 2: Concept Dramatic plot includes conflict. Objectives Student will select specific characters, setting, conflict. Student will use the card decks to create a simple story with characters, conflict, setting, and incidents. Students may act out their play. Rule s This is a game in which the players work together to make up the best possible dramatic story. One, two, or three may play. Set up the game board. Choose any one of the character-setting cards for your story. All players must 1 . 3-C 1 .25-C 0 1 00 • 1.11-B 1 : 2.1-A i 2.10-A IV h -1 I > 2.10-A 2 . 1-A 2.20-A 2 . 1-A 1.11-B j2 . 1-A 1.11-B 12.1-A 1.11-B j 1 .3-C 1.11-B j1.3-C 1.11-B ■ 1.3-C i 1.11-B ! i 1 2 . 1-A 2.10-A i2.2-B ! 5.20-B 2 . 2-B 2.10-A 2 . 1-A 2.10-A 1.25-C i i ! 1.25-C 1.25-C 2 . 10-AE 1 .3-C 2 . 1 -A, 2.10-A 2 . 1-A 1.25-C Affec Cogni tive tive agree. 2 .1-A 1.25-C Choose any one of the conflict cards. All players must agree-. 2 .1-A 1. 22* Decide who goes first. ;2.1-A 1.25-C Player 1 chooses incident card. All the players must agree. 2 . 1-A 1.25-C Player 2 does the same. '2.1-A 1.25-C Player 3 does the same thing. ;2 .i-A 1.25-C Keep taking turns until you finish. 12.1-A l 1 1.22-A The incidents in the story must make sense together. |2.1-A 1.24-A The incidents must make sense with the characters and the setting. 2 . 1-A 1.24-A The incidents must make sense with the conflict. 2 . 1-A 1 i 1.24-A All the players must agree that the inci dents, characters, conflict, and setting make sense together. 2 . 1-A 2.30-C You may use an imagination card and make up your own incident. 2 . 1-A 1.11-B When you have finished, answer these questi ons: What is the setting for your story? Who are the characters in your story? What is the conflict in your story? What are the incidents in your story? 3.1-A Try one of the "For Fun" ideas! Explanat ion 1 .3-C 1.25-C Here is an example of a simple dramatic plot. (Aram and Neal story) 2 . 1-B 1.11-B A dramatic plot is a story that has a setting, characters, conflict, and inci dents . What is a setting? What are characters? What is a conflict? What are incidents? 1 .3-C 1.11-B Dramatic plot characters are people in the play story. 1 .3-C 1.11-B A dramatic plot setting is where the play story happens. 1 .3-C 1.11-B Dramatic plot incidents are things that happen in a play story. 1 .3-C 1.11-B Dramatic plot conflict is when the charac- ters do not agree and only one can have his way. 212 1 i Affec Cogni tive tive Try These for Fun 2 .1-A 2 .10-A Act out your dramatic story. 2 . 2-B I i 5.20-B Write your own story by making up your own setting, characters, conflict, and inci dents . 12.2-B 2.10-A Make a picture or a model of your setting. : 2 .1-A i 2.10-A Share your story with your friends. ! Game 3: Concept | 1.24-A i i A dramatic plot should have an organic pattern of beginning, growth, crisis, and resolution. Objectives 1 .25-C i i i The student will use the card decks to create a simple plot with a setting, char acters, a conflict, incidents, a crisis, and a resolution. ! 2.10-A 1 1 The students may act out their play. Rules !1.3-C 1 This is a game in which the players work together to make up the best possible dra matic plot. One, two, or three may play. i 2.1-A 2.10-A Set up the game board. 2.1-A 1 . 25-C Choose any one of the character-setting cards. 2 . 1-A 1 .25-C Choose any one of the conflict cards. 2.1-A 1.25-C Choose any one of the crisis cards. 2 . 1-A 1.25-C Choose any one of the resolution cards. 1.25-C Decide who goes first, second, and third. 2 . 1-A 1.25-C Player 1 chooses any one of the incident cards to start the story. 2 . 1-A' 1.25-C Player 2 does the same. 2.1-A 1.25-C Player 3 does the same thing. 2 . 1-A 1.25-C Keep taking turns until you finish. 2.1-A 1.22-A The incidents in the story must make sense together. 2 . 1-A 1.24-A The incidents must make sense with the characters and setting. 2.1-A 1.24-A The incidents must make sense with the conf1ict. 2.1-A 1.24-A The incidents must make sense with the crisis and the resolution. 2.1-A 1.24-A The conflict must make sense with the cri- sis. ! 213' Affec tive 2 .1-A 2,1-A 2 .1-A ■ 2 .1-A I 3.1-A • 1.3-C ' ' 1 .3-C t j1.3-C i ;1.3-C i ;i.3-c 1 .3-C 2.1-A 2 . 2-B I 2.2-B | 2.1-A I i 1.3-C '2.1-A Cogni- tive 1.24-A The crisis must make sense with the reso lution . 1.24-A All the players must agree that the set ting, characters, conflict, crisis, reso lution, and incidents make sense together. 2.30-C You may use an imagination card. 1.11-B Answer these questions: What is the setting for your story? Who are the characters in your story? What is the conflict in your story? What is the crisis in your story? What is the resolu tion in your story? What are the inci dents in your story? Try one of the "For Fun" ideas! 1.11-B Dramatic plot characters are the people in the play story. 1.11-B A dramatic plot setting is where the play story happens. 1.11-B Dramatic plot incidents are things that happen in a play story. 1.11-B Dramatic plot conflict is when the charac ters do not agree and only one can have his way. 1.11-B A dramatic plot crisis is when something must happen to make the story come out. 1.11-B A dramatic plot resolution is the end of the story. It tells how the story came out. Try These for Fun 2.10-A Act out your dramatic story. 2.10-A Make a picture or model of your setting. 5.20-B Write a play! 2.30-A Here is an example of the beginning of a simple play--try to finish it! (Aram and Neal story) 1.11-B Did you notice how the setting is des cribed? Who are the dramatic characters? Did you notice where the characters' names are written? What is the conflict in the play? Will you remember to include other incidents? A crisis? A resolution? 214 APPENDIX :C (continued) PREDICTED BEHAVIORS: THE ACTOR 1 Affec- Cogni 1 t ive tive Lesson I i1.3-A 1.11-D Actors are artists whose work is creating characters. 1.3-A 1.25-? Actors' skills are developed by experience and training. Activity 1 (one session only): Mary Lou Rosato Becomes an Actor 1 .3-B I 1.25-? Purpose: Initiate awareness of actors as artists who create characters via experi ence and training. Procedure: Direct few students to put up actor wall. j | 2 .1-A 1.12-A Do you recognize any actors? 2 .1-A 1 .12-A What other actors do you know? 2.1-A 1.12-B What have you seen them? 2 . 1-A 1 .12-B Give examples of actors and characters. 2 .1-A 1.23-? What's the difference? 2 . 1-A 1 . 31-A How can imaginary characters seem so real? ;1.3-A 1.25-A Actors can remember and act out feelings. | 1.3-A 1.31-A Now you'll see one actress and changing ideas of acting as she matured. (Tape and 72 si ides.) 2.1-A 1 .12-A Did her childhood surprise you? And what do you know new about acting? j 2. 2-B 1.12-C Who have you pretended to be? : 2.1-A 1.12-A What did she think of acting as a child? 12.1-A 1.12-A What did she think as a high schooler? 2 .1-A 1.12-A or 1.31-A What does she think now? !2.2-B 1.31-B What did you have in common with her? 2. 1-A 1 .11-? Who is an artist? 1.3-A 1.11-E Actors also use imaginations. 2 .1-A 1.12-A What does artist (painter) use? 2 .1-A 2.10-? What does actor use? 2 .1-A 1 .12-A Other artists? 215' I 1 1 Affec tive Cogni tive 5.00 4.00 i !1.3-A 1.31 J i1.3-A I 1.3-A j 1 .3-A 5 .00 1 .31 & 1.12-A 1 . 25 11.3-A I 1 .3-A 11.3-A 2 .1-A 1.12-D 1.12-D 1.25-C 2.30-C 2.1-A 2 .1-A 2 .1-A 2.10-A 2.20-A 2.30-A 1 .3-A 1. 3-A • 1.31-A 1 .3-A 2.10-A 2 .1-A 2.2-A 1.31-A 5.10 1 .3-A 2 . 1-A 2 .1-A 2.1-A 2.2-A (if volun teer ) 1.12-D 2.10-C 2.10-A 2.10-C& 2.10-A Introduce journals. Your own book about actors. Answer questions. u Activity 2: The Acting Game Session l--Purpose: Build on definition. Establish groups. Prime interest by show- art icle . Remind students to do journals. Review discussion of who actors are and what they do. Explain purpose of acting game. Begin the game by passing out book. Read summary. Choose characters. Explain new dramatic form. Make three decisions. First rehearsal Follow directions in Mighty Owl. Create dialogue and action that fits image. Add or change characters or plot. Activity 2, Session 2 Link actor's work and student's Mighty Owl work Introduce (actor wall) concept that actors create characters using their own imagina tions, bodies, and voices. Help students imagine the look and sound of characters. Who has a different idea? Continue until imaginations have been primed. Notice added questions. Answer each question. Act it and use it. Use a group to model Second Rehearsal 2.1-A 2.10-A Follow directions. 2.1-A 2.20-A Answer questions. 2.1-A 2.30-A Make it yours. I 216; 'Affec Cogni tive tive Activity 2, Session 3 Third Rehearsal 2 . 1 2.00-A Repeat own through until familiar with plot to 2.20-A Make it yours. 3.1 2.30-C Add and change. 5.10-A Put yourself into it. 1 Lesson II !1 .3-A 1 .31 Actors prepare themselves to create char acters for audiences through the imagina j tive use of observation, through training, | and through practice. t Activity 3, Session 1: Preparing the Body for Acting 1.3-A 1.12-A Actor Wall: Introduce the three actors again. 1 .3-A 1.31-A Key on question. 2 .1-A 1.12-A Play Geer childhood tape. 2 .1-A 1.12-A Where and when d-i-d Geer act? 2 .1-A Compare the two pictures of Geer. 2 . 1-A 1.12-A Same person? 2 . 1-A 1.12-A What's different? 2 .2-B 1.25-C Do changes affect your feelings? or 1.11-A or -D 1.3-A 1.25-C Actor must watch and listen carefully. 1 .3-A 1.11-D Introduce three key words. 1. 3-A 1.31-A Play tape of Geer on sense training. What is first thing actors should learn? Direct body observation exercise. 1.3-A 1.25-C This is means of learning to observe. 2 .1-B 2.10-A Sit usual way. 2 .1-B 2.10-A Look at partner and imitate. 2. 1-B Repeat and reverse partners and repeat. 1 .3-A 1.12-E Give Newman background to tape, The Drown ing Pjs ol. 2 .1-A 1.31-A Ask focus question. Assign watching observation. 1.3-B 1.31-A Assignment to help you observe more care ful ly. 2 .1-B 1.12-A Choose actor. 2 .1-B 4.10 Ask questions about the relation of body and feelings. 1 .3-B 4.10 Describe as exactly as you can. 217 lAf fee j tive I 1.3-B '2 .1-A 2.. 1-A 2 . 1-A 2 .1-A 2 . 1-A 2 .1-A '2. . 1-A 2 . 1-A 1 .3-A ■1.3-A 1 .3-A 1.3-A 1.3-A ; 2 ,1-A 2 .1-A 2 .1-A 2 .1-A 2 . 1-B 2 . 1-B 2 . 1-A Cogni- _ tive 2.10-C (If above related, to parts only.) Activity 3, Session 2--Questions 1-3 1,. 31-A If they made detailed observations, they completed assignment. (Questions, indicate observations must be tied to ideas and feelings.) 1.12-A (Detail only— no connection to ideas and or 1.12-C feeling.) 2.10-C Question 4--What did you see? Give care ful elaboration of narrative. 2.20-C (If total mood and character described.) 2.10-A Question 5— Can you show us? Question 6— Can you use it in The Mighty Owl? 2.10-A (If an element is given.) 4.20-A (If from total relationship of observed and Mighty Owl character is given.) (See journals for more records of observa- | tions.) Introduce Mary Alice on "Training and Practice." | 1.12-A Look at pictures. Remember. Play tape. 1.31-A Start with self. 1.31-A You learn how to be someone else in act ing. It has to begin in class and be repeated to get creativity. 1.31-A. Have to practice refining your own body. 1.31-A Acting compared to other arts. All have drilling over and over. ; 1.31-A Focus question: Why must an actor train j and practice? ! Discuss three pictures of girl. ! 2.10-A Can you show me first? 2.10-A Can you show me middle? 1.31-A Can you show me third? How? (Implies | relating physical to emotional.) j f Conduct body training exercise for muscle i solation. 1.31-A This is an exercise for actors to train their bodies for control. 2.10-A Do isolations. Make a connection between this exercise and work with Mighty Owl. 1.12-C Think about characters. 218 Affec tive Cogni tive 2 .1-A 2 .1-A 2 .1-A 2 .1-A 2 . 1-A 2 . 1PB 2.10-A 2.10-A 2.20-B 4.10-A 1.31-A !2.1-B I 1.31-A 1.3-A 2 .1-B 2 .1-B 2 .1-B or 1.25-0 1.25-0 1.31-A 2.10-A 2.20-A 2.30-A 1.3-A 1.3-A 1.31-A 2 .1-B 1.31-A 2 .1-B 2 .1-A 2.1-A 2 . 10-A- B-C 2 . 00-A- B-C 3 .00-A- B-C 1 .3-B 1.31-A 1.3-B 1.12-A 1.3-A 1 . 22 or 2 .1-A 1 .12-A 2.30-B 1.3-B 1 .3-B 1.31-A 1.31-A 1 How would you make face for Chris? What would be different for Mattie? (If isolated parts and cliche.) (If total description is given.) (If two totals are analyzed.) How would this exercise help you as make face changes more easily? Activity 3, Session 3 The goal is to find and practice interest-; ing and appropriate ideas for your charac-' ter's body. • Go over directions. ! Divide into groups and follow directions. Make decisions. Practice. I actor j (Decisions may involve 4.10-A.) . (Creation of character may involve 5.10-C.)! Hand out journal. ; Activity 4, Session 1: Preparing the f Voice for Acting Purpose of session: Awareness of actor's preparation for voice performance. Participate to understand that voice qual ity expresses feelings. They will discuss observations, play game,. and complete journal. (most likely 2.10-B&C) Procedure Read, "In what special ways do actors pre-. pare their bodies?" Deacon and Rosato will help answer this question. First you will hear how Deacon became I interested in acting. ! How did Deacon become interested in act ing? ; Introduce activity concept. ; Refer to the two Geer pictures. Just as ( he looks different, actor can sound dif ferent . i 219! Affec Cogni tive tive 2.1-A 2.10-B Try word "wonderful." 1 .3-B 1.31-A Saundra Deacon changes voice with "wonder.". 2.1-A 1.12-C What are the changes you heard? 1 .3-B 1.25-C These are a few ways to change voice. There are more. 1.3-B 1.25-C You can observe with ears as way of chang-, ing voice. l Play tape. i 1.31-A Pepe Lepeu exemplifies that voices are expressions of attitudes and feelings. j 1.31-A Actors are chameleons. i 2 .1-A 1.25-C How does Deacon create voices? 2 .1-A i 1.25-C What are special ways actors prepare voices? i | 2'. 1-A 1.11-D Three key words. ! 2 .1-B 1.31-A Exercise using sound to express feeling of, anger with voice. 2 .1-B 2.10-B Say "angry." 2 . 1-B 1.24-B Did you believe? i 2 .1-B j 2.10-B & 1.24-A Change word and repeat. 1 ! 1.3-A 1.12-A Look again at Mary Lou Rosato. 1 1. 3-B 1.12 She will talk about voice training and 1 | 1.25 practice. i 2 . 1-A 1.31-A Why was it important that Rosato got vocal training? ! 1 . 3-B 1 .25 Play Rosato on practice tape. 1.3-B 1. 25 A c t o r s have to practice voice as well as observe and train. 2 . 1-A 1.25 What does Rosato do to keep her voice ready? PQ I • CO Direct vocal relaxation exercise, (optional) ■ 2 . 1-B 2.10-B This half say, "Ha," six times strongly. 1.3-B 1.12-A Listen carefully to the way it feels and sounds. 2 .1-B 1 . 25 Yawn th re e t ime s. ; 2.1—B 1 . 25 Again say one "Ha!" (It will be more relaxed because throats are more relaxed.) 2 . 1-B 1.25 Repeat with other half of class. 1.3-B 1.12-A Direct vocal articulation (optional), to become more aware of articulation. ! 1.3-B 1.12-A Sentence on board— read slowly. 2 .1-B 1 .12-A Go faster. 2 .1-B 1 .25 Do, "Buzz, buzz," twenty-five times. 2 . 1-B 1.25 Repeat sentence and notice improvement. , 1 .3-B 1 .25 If practiced, you will increase speed and ; accuracy. ( 2 20; Affec Cogni tive tive 1.3-B 1.25 Direct vocal breathing exercise to make you more aware of how your character breathes and how actors use breath con trol. (optional) 2 .1-B 1. 25 Count as far as you can in one breath. I 2.1-B 1.12-A Remember your count. '2.1-B 1. 25 Make forceful, "Ha, ha, ha!" sound to | exercise diaphragm. !2.1-B 1 .25 Count again aloud, farther. ■2.1-B 1 .12-A How far? i1.3-B 1 .25 Summarize--slight improvement and the need i 1 for practice,. 1 .3-B 1 . 25 Only lifetime actor practice keeps vocal working well. 1.3-B 2.30-A Your improvement indicates potential. 1.3-B 2.10-B Assign listening observation to find ideas you can use in Mighty Owl. 1.3-B 1.31-A Assign to "watch" actor with ears only and person for expression of feeling through vo ice. 1.3-B 2.30-B Does it come from personality of voice or speech, pitch, loudness? 1.3-B 2.10-C Describe as exactly as you can. Activity 4, Session 2 Discuss listening observation. 2 .1-A 4.20-A Who heard something they can use in The I Mighty Owl? 2 . 1-A 1.12-A What character or person picked? 2 .1-A 1.12-A What idea or feeling expressed? 2 .1-A 2.30-B What part of voice expressed it? 2 .1-A 2.10-C Describe exactly what conveyed the idea or feeling via sound. 2 .1-B. 2.10-B Gan you show us? 2.1-A 4.20-A How can someone use what you found? 2 . 1-A Who else? (Repeat questions 1-70 1.3-A You have place to record so we'll hear only five now. (See journal.) Direct acting game. 1 . 3-A 1 . 25 Go over rules. ; 2 . 1-B 2.10-B Model, if necessary. i 1.3-B 1 . 25 The goal is to find interesting and appro priate voice ideas. 1.3-B 1.25 Go over directions. 1.3-B 1 . 25 You'll divide into groups. : 1.3-A 1. 25 You will read and follow directions. 1.3-A 1 . 25 You will practice using the ideas. Go over directions. ________________________________________________ L 2 Aj Affec Cogni tive tive 2 .1-B 1.31-B Circulate and help students make interest ing choices. 2 .1-B 1.24-A Help students make appropriate choices. J 2.1-B 1 .25 When their selections are on boards, tell them to practice using choices. j 2.1-B 1.31-B Evaluate for interesting choices. .2.1-B 1.24-A Evaluate for appropriate choices. !2.1-B 1 1 . 25 Student leader--find three decks and give one bag per pair. j2.1-A 1. 25 Make sure actors follow directions. 12.1-B ! to 2.10-A 2.20-A Rehearse. Pass out journal sheet. 2 . 1-A 2.10-B Three cards I chose. 2 . 1-A 1.31-B I chose "sounds like" because (or, other or 1.24-A two cards). 2 . 1-A 1.12-A Names of persons observed. 2 . 1-A 1.12-A I tried to ignore words and to hear sound. 2 . 1-A 2.10-C Describe what you heard that showed you to 4.10-A the idea or feeling. 1.3-B 1.25-A Purpose: Understand actor must have char acter's motives to create believable action. 1.3-B 1.21-A Actor must imagine cle.arly and concentrate on details of character. Activity 5, Session 1: Preparing the Mind, for Acting 1.3-A 1.31-A Introduce Valdez biography. 1 .3-A 2.30-B Play biography of Valdez tape. 1.3-A 1 .12-A (if students give bold facts) 1 .3-A 1 . 22 (if students put facts into sequence) 2 . 1-A 1.12-A Discuss wealth. Do you think Valdez rich or poor? is 2 .1-A 1.12-A Are most actors rich or poor? 1.3-A 2.30-B If most don't get lots of money, why they act? do 1.3-A 2.30-B What kinds of personal feelings led into acting? (Valdez tape 2) Introduce motivation. Valdez 1 . 3-A 1.31-A A character's reasons are important 1.3-A 1.11-D This is called motivation. 1. 3-A 1 .31-A How does motivation affect actor? (Deacon tape 3) 2 .1-A 1.31-A How does motivation offset the way a acter looks or sounds? char- 2 .1-A Discuss inside/outside. 2 . 2-B 1 .31-B Motivation relates to action. (Get iety of actions from students.) a var- 222 jAffec Cogni tive tive 2 .1-A 1.12-C Are there Mighty Owl characters who try to avoid something? 2 . 1 -A 1.12-C What does avoid mean? 2 . 1-A 1.12-C Which characters avoid and what do they try to avoid? ;2.2-B 4.20-A Can you use your experience of avoiding to 1 play a character who avoids? ■ 2.2-B 1.31-A Discuss "I want bicycle," and the variety 1 of student actions to get one. ; 1 .3 -A 1.31-B Notice how same motivation, produces a var i iety of actions. 2 .1-A 1.12-C What do Mighty Owl characters want? 2 . 2-B 4.20-B How can you use your experience of wanting to play these roles? Activity 5, Session 2 Direct motivation exercise. 1.3-A 1.25-A You will do exercise to help you under stand how actors use motivation. 2.2-A 1.12-D Get four volunteers to play the four char acters . (Directions for scene) 2 . 2-A 1.12-D Summer. 2 .2-A Assign Don Sataco. 2 . 2-A Assign Don Coyote. 2 . 2-A Assign El Patron. 2 . 2-A 2.10-A Practice this action. 2.2-A 2.30-C Create motivations. 1.3-A 1.12-A We talked of avoiding punishment and want ing bicycle. 2 . 1-A 1 . 31-B What do these characters want? 2 . 2-A 1.31-B Help each volunteer pick from the motiva tions suggested by the group the one he or she likes best. 1 . 3-A 2.10-C Turn motivation into a single sentence. 2 .1-A 1.24-C Repeat scene. Did characters show motiva tions clearly? 2 . 1-A 1.24-C Did you understand what each wanted? 2 . 2-C 1.31-B What else could they do to show their motivat ions? Help students begin and end scene. 1.3-A 1 .12-D Remember what the character wants. 1.3-A 1 .25-C As soon as he/she gets it or can't get it, clear stage. 1.3-A Introduce Valdez. 1.3-A 1 .12-A Here are pictures on Actor Wall of Valdez and his audience. 1.3-A 1.31-B Valdez will describe how he thinks of the 2 23 tive tive 1.3-A 1.3-A 2 .1-A 1 . 12-A 1.31-B 1.31-B 1.3-A 1.3-A 1.31-B 1.31-A 1.3-A 1.3-A 1.31-A 1.31-A 2 . 1-A 1.12-C 1.3-A 1.31-A 2 .1-A 1.12-A 2 . 2-B 2 .1-A 1.11-A 2.30-A 2 . 1-A 2.30-A 2 .1 — A 1.12-A 2 . 2-B 2 . 2-B 2 . 2-B 2 . 2-B 1.12-E 4.20-A 5.20-0 5.20-C 2 . 2-B or 1.31-B 5.20-C 1.3-A 1.25-C 2 . 2-A 2 . 2-A 2.30-B 2.10-A 2 . 2-B 1.12-A 2 . 2-B 2 . 1-B 1.31-B 4.20-A scene you just did. Scene is from .... Play Valdez tape,, segment 4. ; What does Valdez say each wanted? Is it, ; the same as ours? All trying to show story of farm worker. . Sotaco shows the joy of bounty and disap- ' pointment at getting so little. Coyote shows how he tricks farm laborers. El Patron shows how the land owner gets money without work. j Pass out journal sheets. ; Compare and contrast Valdez's view with : the way the group saw the scene. What did Summer want in our scene and in > Valdez 1s? : Do the same for Don Sotaco, Don Coyote, : and El Patron. They were different because characters wanted different things. Have you seen a favorite actor of yours on TV be replaced? Did your feeling change? In Mighty Owl, will all scenes look the same ? Why not? Use Mattie to show how different students with same role will be different. What kind of character is Mattie? What does he/she want? What are your feelings about being stupid? Can a computer show your feelings? ! How could Mattie show us those feelings? Is there another machine that could show these feelings better? Encourage students to make changes for better personal fit. Conduct Acting Game. Go over directions. Demonstrate influence of card choice. : Use one group as a model. , A person in model group chooses. i How would your character show that in the I first moment on stage? When have you felt like that? How do you show it? How else might it be shown? Which is most interesting and appropriate for character? !Affec tive Cogni tive 2 .1-A 2.1-A or !2.2-B 2.30-B 2.10-A 2.30-B 4.20-A 5.20-A 4.20-A 12.1-B 1.25-A S 2.1-B !2.1-B i2.1-B i * , 1.25-A 1.12-A 2.30-B 2 . 1-B i 4.20-B 1.3-A 1.25-C 1 .3-A 1.25-C 1.3-A 2 . 1-A 1.12-A 1.12-A 1 .3-A 1.3-A 1.11-D 1.25-A 1.3-A 1.25-C 1.3-A 1 . 3-A 1.25-C 1.25-C 1.3-A 1.31-B 1.3-A 2 . 1-A 1.25-C 1.12-A 2 . 1-B 2 . 1-B 2 . 1-B 1.12-A 2.30-C 2 .1-B 1.3-A 1.25-C 1.25-C Repeat until mastery is achieved. Have all make choices. Direct work on Mighty Qwl. Evaluation: All should look and sound different if actors' feelings are used. i Student leader should read a card and pass: i t on. Directs others to read, pass and choose. Card I chose is . . . . j The little things character wants from i moment to moment. I There was time when I felt what character j feels. Activity 5, Session 3 Today we'll learn about two other ways actors prepare: imagination and concentra tion. Paul Newman will tell how he got into act-1 ing. Play Newman biography tape, segment 5. At what point did he say he became an actor? Introduce imaginat-ion and concentration. You've seen an actor must motivate the character. i Now you will see actor imagines things and; concentrates on character. Write words on board. Mary Alice will tell us how she uses ques-, tions to help her imagine character. ‘ Notice pictures (Actor Wall) of how dif ferent one actor can look. Play Alice on imagination tape, segment 6. What does Alice do to help imagine the character? Apply several questions to the characters , in Mighty Owl. ' What was one question? ‘ All playing Chris (or other character) answer. How can doing this help? i After knowing the look and sound of a : character, the actor must concentrate on expressing. Effec Cogni tive tive 1.3-A 1.25-C Direct concentration exercise. 1.3-A 1.11-D Refer to word and define. 1.3-A 1.25-C Tell them how to do exercise to develop ability to concentrate. 2 .1-A 1.25-C Form circle. i2 .1-A 2.10-A Pretend to hold ball. Imagine character istics. j 2.1-A 2 .10-A, Pass from student to student. ;2 .i-A 2.10-A Contrast raw egg. 2.1-A 2.10-A Pass egg. 2 .1-A 1.24-C Pass both— can you tell which is which? :1.3-A 1.2 5-C Play Deacon on concentration tape, segment 1.3-A 1.25-C / . What things does she concentrate on? Introduce Newman on concentration tape, segment 8. 1.3-A 1.21-A Newman tells what is the most important thing to concentrate on. 1.3-A 1.12-A He refers to Drowning Pool. 1.3-A 1.12-A A character is locked in a shower room. 1.3-A 1.12-A See picture on panel 6b of Actor Wall. 1.3-A 1.21-A Play tape segment 8. 2.1-A 1.21-A What does he say is most important to con centrate on? 1.3-A 1.25-C Conduct thinking in character exercise. 2.2-A Ask for volunteers. 2 . 2-B 2.30-C Volunteer, think your,own thoughts, then your character's. 2 . 1-B 2.30-B We'll try to see if we can tell which is which. 2 .1-B 2.30-B Could you tell? 2 . 2-B 1.12-A What were your thoughts? 2 . 2-B 1.12-C Character's thoughts? 2 . 1-B 2.30-C How could he/she be more convincing? 1.3-A 1.21-A Forget self; concentrate on character. Session 4 2 . 1-A Conduct review discussion. 1.3-A 1.11-D Make sure students know meaning of key words as actors use them. 2 .1-A 1.25-C In what special ways do actors use their minds? ; Conduct acting game. i 2 .1-B 1.25-C The goal is to practice using concepts of imagination and concentration. ; 2 .1-B 1.25-C Review concept. : 2.1-B 6.10-B Evaluation: If they imagine biography j and you can clearly hear and see the : object of. their imaginings. j 22 6, 1 Affec Cogni tive tive 2.1-B 6.10-A Concentration: They're successful if you see character, not students. Pass out journal sheet for Imagination and. Concentration. 2 .1-B 1.25-C Mary Alice uses questions. 2 .1-A 2.30-C What is your character's biography? : '2.2-B 1 1.21-A What are my thoughts as contrasted to my character's thoughts? 2 . 1-B 2.10-B Rehearsal j to i i 2.20-B Lesson III: Actors Perform 1 . 3-A 1.25-C Lesson concept: An actor's performance is! influenced by other theatre people, the place of performance, and the audience. 1. 3-A Activity concept: The purpose is under standing the necessity of cooperative effort between actors. 1.3-A 1 .22-C Students will listen to Mary Alice biogra-' phy. 1.3-A t l ! 1.2 5-C Alice, Geer and Deacon talk of necessity of actors watching and listening and responding (on tape). Activity 6, Session 1: Working with Other: Actors 1.3-A 1.12-A We've heard Alice before but not her act ing biography. i 1.3-A 1 . 22 Play Alice biography tape, segment 1. i 2 . 1-A 2.30-B Why did Mary Alice become an actor? , Assemble 5a and 4b of the Actor Wall. ; C I CO 1.25-C As pictures show, actors work closely and m o v e m e n t s must be coordinated. 1.3-A 1.25-C Deacon picture illustrates how actors act like long-time acquaintances. 1.3-A 1.25-C You will learn about actors working with one another, watching, etc. 1.3-A 1.25-C They must learn to trust to work well. 1.3-A 1.25-C Play Alice on trust tape, segment 2. 2 .1-B 1.25-C How does Mary Alice say trust helps? 1.3-A 1.25-C This exercise will help you feel how j actors use trust. | 2 .1-B 1.25-C Set up chairs; divide class in half; pair j of f. 2 . 1-B 1 .12-D. Decide which is blind or lame person in each pair of students. 2 . 1-B 2.10-A Cross through the maze. 2 .1-B 1.12-A Others are to watch to see that no chair | 227j Affec tive 2 .1-B 2.1-B I 2.1-B :1.3-A |1.3-A i2.1-A |1.3-A 1.3-A 2.1-B 1.3-A 1.3-A 2 .1-B '1.3-A j1.3-A i 2.1-A I1.3-A 2 . 1-B 2.1-B 2 .1-B 2 . 1-B I 2.1-B !2.1-B !2.1-B I 2 .1-B 2 .3-A 2 . 1-B 2 . 1-B 2 . 1-B Cogni- tive is bumped. . 1.2 5-C There are no winners; the point is to feel' trust. 1.25-C Discuss, "How did you feel? At first? ; Later?" i 1.2 5-C "Was it easier with trust?" ; 1.12-A Mary Alice, told of problem. Now Will Geeri talks about problems between generations of actors. 1.12-A Play Geer tape, segment 3. 1.12-A In what ways is it difficult or different ; for children and adults together, acting? 1.25-C After trust is established, actors use one another. . 1.2 5-C Play Alice tape, segment 4. 1.12-A How does she use actors on stage? . 1.2 5-C One way is a way to fight against self- j consciousness. { 1.25-C Play Deacon tape, segment 5. 1.12-A In what ways does concentrating on other actors help her? Conduct mirror exercise. 1.25-C The mirror exercise is a way of working better with other actors. 1.25-C Other actors can help you. 1.11-D "Respond"--define the word. 1.11-D Put, "Respond, do something back," on board. Tell everyone to get a partner and sit on the floor. Decide who is a "1" and who is a "2." 1;. 12-C All "1' s" think of a character move and the motivation. 2.10-A Do pantomime. or 2.20-A (if pantomime is of whole character) 2.10-A "2's" mirror the "l's." 2.30-B Try to get inside the feelings of the num ber "l's." 1.25-C Warning; gently but firmly encourage con centration . 1.25-C You must expose self or it won't work. 2.30-B Encourage concentration in the neck, i shoulders, etc. j Reverse and repeat. ! 1.25-C Discuss: If actors exercised this way, j what could be gained? ! Answer: Understanding others better on j stage. - I 1.25-C How do you imagine using this? •22J Affec- Cogni- tive tive Assign observation. 1.3-A 1.25-C Watch how actors work with each other-- actors, not characters. Activity 6, Session 2 I 2.1-A 1.12-A Whom did you observe? !2.1-A 1.12-A Were you able to see the actors at work? 2.2-A Choose student volunteer. !1.3-A & '2.2-A 2.30-A What if an actor punched and there was no i response? Like this, i2.1-A Get volunteer's group up front. I 2.1-B 2.20-A Begin play. 2.1-B 1.24-C When someone sees actor not responding, hold up hand. Focus discussion on actors responding (not students). Sample questions: When Terry walked in, did we see Terry or student's body, voice? Did Terry see Chris or just walk in to fulfill plot? Did Chris respond to Terry or was it stu dent to student? (if students apply techniques to get into the role) Did Shelley really show caring? When Chris finds computer, is he/she sur- | prised? Summarize. When watching artists, it's easiest to see characters; when watching students, it's easiest to see the actor. So goal will be to get into character, so people see character. Pass out journal page. What I saw or heard other characters do (left column). What I responded (right column). Conduct Acting Game. Goal: Watch, listen and respond better to other actors in your group. What are others doing, thinking, and feel ing, and what is your response? Go over questions. Get sample answers until understanding is established. Have students in subgroups fill out cards. 2 . 1-B 1.24-C 2 .1-B 1.24-C 2 .1-B 1.24-C 2 .1-B 1.24-C 2 .1-B 1.25-C 2 .1-B 2 .1-B 1.24-C 1.24-C 1 .3-A 1.3-A 1.21-A 1 . 3-A 1.25-C 2 .1-B 4.20-A 2 . 1-B 4.20-A 1 . 3-A 2.20-D < r CO • 2.20-D 1.3-A 2.1-B 1.25-C 2.10-A 2.1-B 2.10-A 229 jAffec tive Cogni tive 2 . 1-B 2 .1-B 2.10-A 6.10-C 2.1-B 1.25-C 2 . 1-B 2.10-A 1.3-A 1.25-C 1.3-A 2 .1-A 1 . 22 1 .31 2 .1-A 1.3-A 1 . 25-C. 1.3-A 2 .1-A 2 .1-A 1.25-C 2.10-A 1.24-C 2 .1-A 2 .1-A 2 .1-B 2.1-B 2.10-A 2.10-A 2.10-A 2.20-A 1.24-C 2 . 1-A 2 .1-B 2. 1-A 2.10-A 2 .20 2.30-C 1.3-A 1.31-B 1.3-A 1.3-A 2 .1-A 1.31-B 1.25-C 1.31-B 2 .1-A 2.1-A 1.31-B 1.31-B i Have them practice using new ideas. ! Evaluation: Do students see what is new and respond improvisationally? . Student leaders give out cards and pen and make sure they answer. Fill in cards. | Activity 7 (one session only): Working with Other Theatre People Purpose: Become aware of other contribu tions by designers, etc. Review: We've looked at ways actors pre pare . We've looked at ways actors become actors. Is stage performance possible with one actor plus audience? ; Who else helps? (Put on board.) ! Conduct Acting Game. I Goal--to acquaint you with choices of I other theatre people and their effect on 1 actors. | Go over directions. i Divide and help with decisions. Draw on memory of "background" section to , focus on aesthetic decisions. i Group makes choices. Figure out how to achieve choices. ■ ' Practice chosen technical elements. ' Evaluation: Choices should be interesting1 and appropriate. Student leader: Read choices. Choose interesting and appropriate. Decide how to achieve choices for Mighty Owl. Activity 8, Session 1: Working in Differ ent Situations Purpose: Awareness that where actors play and who the audience is affects them. Have a group put up Actor Wall. j Actors act in different places. How do they adapt? I List performance places and audiences near, you. Name places. | 1.31-B What kind of audience goes there? 230 Affec tive Cogni tive 1.3-A 1.3-A 1.3-A 1.31-B 1.25-C 1.25-C 2 .1-A '2.1-B j1.3-A 1.25-C 1.25-C 1.25-C 1.3-A 1.31-B j1.3-A 1.25-C 2 . 1-B 1.25-C 1.3-A 1.25-C 2 .1-B t f 1.25-C 1.3-A 1.31-B 1.3-A ;2.1-B i 1 ,11-C 1.25-C 2 .1-B 1 6.10-C f 1 i 2.1-B 2.30-C i ' 2 . 1 - B 1 2.30-A |2.1-B 2.30-C 12.1-B 2.1-B 2.1-A ■ 2.30-A 2.10-A 2.20-A 1.12-A 1.3-A 4.10-A 1.3-B 4.10-A 1.3-B 1.3-B 4.10-A 2.10-A Summary: We've listed and described. Let's think how actors adapt. Geer will tell us feeling needed by actor toward audience. Play Geer tape, segment 1. How does Geer feel about the audience? What part does he concentrate hardest on? People may be most important, but so is place. Actors must adapt to places like stage, TV, film. Play Newman and Alice on film and TV tape, segment 2. How do actors adapt to stage vs. TV or f i lm? Large to small is also key to adapting to theatre size. Play Deacon tape, segment 3. How does Deacon adapt to larger or smaller theatres? Activity 8, Session 2 Direct Acting Game, final rehearsal. Goal: Adjust improvisation to particular p 1 ac e . Next time is dress rehearsal. Help them choose. Help them practice adapting, using new ideas. Evaluation: Use adapting to place while keeping characters and improvisation. Student leaders: Read and help choose appropriate adapta tions . Discuss how choices will affect your per formances. Students— choose appropriate adaptations to p1ace. Discuss implications. Rehearse. Refresh your memory. Sharing scenes. Hand out and read through discussion j guide. 1 Divide group so they are especially watch-! ing a certain character. ! Divide order of sharing. Performance 231! 1 Affec tive Cogni tive 1.3-B 2.1-A I 2.1-B 2 .1-B 2.20-A 5.10-A 1.12-C 4.10-A 4.20-A 2. 2-B or 2.30-C 5.10-C 1.3-A 4.10-A 1.3-A or 5.10-A 2.30-C 1.3-A 1.31 1.3-A 1.31 2.1-A 1.31-B i I 2.1-A 1.31-B IV) • f —* i > 2.10-C 2 .2-B 1.12-A 2.1-A 2.1-B 1.22 1.25-C 2 .1-B 2 . 1-B 1.25-C 1.25-C Discussion after performance. What did you like best? Was it appropriate to character and scene? Was student allowing character to come to life? Do you have suggestions for improvement? Discussion Guide Purpose (l): Help you see more as you watch scenes. Purpose (2): Improve scenes. Lesson IV: Looking Back at The Actor Concept: Actors are artists who create and perform characters for audiences. Activity 9: Sharing Student Journals Purpose: Review and reinforce concepts worked with in The Actor. Put journals in special place and invite students to read in free time. (first alternative) Sharing is voluntary; get students' per mission. Fold over "private" pages. Give journal to someone near, then exchange, Discuss. What was different in other journals from what you put in your journal? Especially, did you find important ideas you forgot? Activity 10: Summary of The Actor Purpose: Review and reinforce concepts. Students— answer journal pages. Write story of how you created and per formed your character. What you liked best about The Actor. Second sheet: How does person get to be an actor? Where does actor get ideas for creating a character? How does an actor create a character? What does an actor use to create charac ters? 232 Affec tive Cogni tive 2.1-A 2 .2-B 2. 1-A '1.3-A 1 i 1 1.12-A 1.12-A 1.12-A 2. 20 What were the most important things you .hearcLfrom the tapes? If you could, talk to a professional actor in person, which one would you choose and what would you ask? Convene whole group to share. Summarize areas of agreement and disagree ment. Suggested Extension Activities (optional) 1.3-A 1.31 Live theatre is temporary except for mem ory. 2.1-A 2 .10 Recording experience 2 . 1-A 5.10 Encouraging students to record. Meeting actors in person. Bring actor to classroom to: 2.1-A 1.31-A Have lunch. 1.3-A 1 .31 Answer questions about who they are and or 1.25-C what they do. 1.3-A 1.31-A Bring pictures of childhood and roles 1.31-B played. 1. 3-B 1.25-C Demonstrate exercises. 2 .1-B 1.25-C Lead group in exercises. 1.3-A 1.31-B Perform very wide variety of characters. Plan and visit a theatre. Tour the facility. Spend time in one department. 2 .1-A 1.31-A See matinee, then have lunch with actors. 1.3-B 1.25-C Visit warm-up, rehearsal, or during make up . 2.1-C 1.31-A See classroom visitor in performance. Stay in dressing room during one act. Be in dressing room after the play. 2 .1-A 2 . 10 Meet with one or more actors to ask ques to 6.20 tions . i i 233 APPENDIX D DISTRIBUTION OF BEHAVIORS BY TAXONOMICAL CATEGORIES Category Shaw* (Cognitive) Predicted Observed # % # % # % 1.11A 685 7 . 671 561 6.262 1.11B 45 .504 495 5 .525 1.11C 10 .112 2 .022 1 .1 ID 80 .896 213 2 .377 1 . H E 5 .056 21 .234 1.11A-E 18 .045 825 9 . 2 1248 14.4 1 .12A 705 7.895 1030 11.497 1 . 12B 5 .056 0 0 1 . 12C 70 .784 139 1 .552 1 . 12D 45 . 504 89 .993 1 . 12E 10 . 112 .179 1.12A-E 35 .088 835 9.4 1274 14.2 1 . 21A 65 .728 43 .480 1 . 21B 0 0 0 0 1.21A-B 14 .035 65 . 73 43 .48 1 .22A 105 1 . 176 112 1 .250 1 .22B 0 0 0 0 1.22A-B 10 .025 105 1 . 18 112 1.3 1 . 23 0 0 5 .06 15 .17 1 . 24A 60 . 672 225 2 . 511 1 . 24B 0 0 36 . 402 1 . 24C 40 . 448 93 1 .038 1.2 4A-C 16 .040 100 1 .1 352 4.0 1 . 25A 15 .168 27 .301 1 . 2 5B 0 0 0 0 1 . 25C 92 b' . .358 . 974 .872 1.25A-C 23 .058 940 10. 5 1001 11 .0 *Shaw only counted for the major categories. Category (Cognitive) Shaw* Predicted Observed # % # ■% # % 1.31A 1325 14.838 960 10.715 1 . 31B 175 1 . 960 173 1 . 931 1 .31C 0 0 0 0 1 . 31D 0 0 0 0 1.31A-D 18 .045 1500 16.8 1133 12 . 6 1.32 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . 10A 2085 23.348 1719 19.187 2.10B 300 3 .359 169 1 . 886 2 . IOC 590 6. 607 215 2 .400 2.10A-C 41 .103 2975 33.3 2103 23.5 2.20A 575 6.43 9 588 6. 563 2 . 2 OB 70 . 784 292 3.259 2 . 20C 0 0 62 . 692 2.20A-C 56 .14 645 7 . 2 942 10.5 2 . 30A 80 . 896 81 . 904 2 . 3 OB 165 1 . 848 73 . 815 2.30C 150 1 . 680 221 2.467 2.30A-C 26 .065 395 4.4 375 4.2 4.10A 90 1 .008 40 . 446 4.10B : ;° 0 5 . 056 4.10A-B 15 .04 90 1 . 1 45 . 5 4. 20A 70 .784 58 . 647 4. 20B 30 1 . 1 0 0 4.20A-B 15 .04 100 1.1 58 . 6 5.10A 170 1 . 904 184 2.054 5 .10B 0 0 0 0 5. IOC 0 0 0 0 5.10A-C 42 . 105 170 1 . 9 184 2.1 5.20A 0 0 18 . 201 5 . 2 OB 125 1. 400 2 .02 2 5.20C 10 . 112 0 0 5.20A-C 36 .09 135 1.7 20 . 2 *Shaw only counted for the major categories. j Category Shaw* Predicted Observed .(Cognitive) # % # % # % 6.10A 25 .280 2 .022 6.10B 10 .112 1 .011 6.10A-B 20 .05 20 .4 35 0 6. 20A 10 .112 5 .056 6. 20B 0 0 0 0 6.20A-B 15 .04 15 .1 10 .1 *Shaw only counted for the major categories. Category Shaw* Predicted Observed (Affective) # % # % # % 1.3A 760 8,498 528 5 . 877 1 .3B 1155 12.915 1449 16.129 1.3C 0 0 283 3.150 1 .3A-C 20 .146 1915 21.4 2260 25.2 2.1A 3778 42.245 3158 35.151 2 . IB 2390 26.725 506 5 . 632 2.1C 0 0 0 0 2.1A-C 18 . 131 6168 68. 9 3664 40. 8 2.2A 430 4. 808 1629 18.132 2 . 2B 420 4. 696 224 2 .493 2 . 2C 10 .112 712 7. 925 2. 2D 0 0 153 1 . 703 2.2A-D 23 .168 860 9.6 2718 30.3 2.3A 0 0 195 2 .171 2.3B 0 0 54 . 601 2.3C 0 0 71 . 790 2. 3D 0 0 11 . 122 2.3A-D 36 . 263 0 0 331 3.7 3 .1 25 .182 0 0 11 . 1 3.3 15 . 110 0 0 0 0 *Shaw only counted for the major categories. APPENDIX E MEDIAN AND RANGE OF TOTAL NUMBER OF BEHAVIORS PER STUDENT BY TAXONOMICAL CATEGORIES COGNITIVE CATEGORIES Category Range Median Category Range Medi< 1.11A 0-33 7.3 2,2 OA 8-60 17.0 1 .1 IB 0-2 0.2 2.20B 1-11 3 . 9 1 .11C 0-0 0.0 2 . 20C 0-2 0.1 1 .11D 0-16 2.3 2.30A 0-7 1.0 1 .12A 1-55 15.3 2 .30B 0-5 0.2 1 .12B 0-0 0.0 2.30C 0-5 2.1 1 .12C 1-7 2 . 4 1 . 12D 0-5 1.7 4.10A 0-3 0.5 1 . 12E 0-1 0.0 4.10B 0-0 0.0 1. 21A 0-1 0.1 4. 20A 0-6 0.6 1 . 2 IB 0-0 0.0 4. 2 OB 0-3 0.1 1 . 22A 0-7 0.8 5 . 10A 1-34 2.0 1. 22B 0-1 0.0 5 .10B 0-0 0.0 5 . IOC 0-0 0.0 1.23 '7 1 O 0.4 5 . 20A 0-8 0.2 1. 24A 0-23 4.4 5 . 2 OB 0-0 0.0 1. 24B 0-3 0.3 5 . 20C 0-0 0.0 1 . 24C 0-5 0.7 6.10A 0-1 0.0 1.25A 0-5 0.5 6.10B 0-0 0.0 1 . 25B 0-0 0.0 1.25C 1-25 8.3 6. 20A 0-0 0.0 6. 20B 0-0 0.0 1.31A 0-12 4.8 1 .31B 0-3 0.3 2 .10A 19-121 41. 8 2.10B 0-6 3.8 2. IOC 0-33 6.8 *Range means the minimum and maximum number of behaviors per student in a category. j ___________________________________238j AFFECTIVE CATEGORIES Category Range* Median 1.3A 0-12 2.9 1.3B 0-17 4.8 1.3C 0-2 0.0 2.1A 21-98 58.3 2 . IB 12-56 21.8 2.1C 0-0 0.0 2 . 2A 14-128 38 . 0 2. 2B 0-17 1.3 2.2C 0-30 7.3 2 . 2D 0-34 1. 7 2 . 3A 0-0 0.0 2.3B 0-4 0.1 2.3C o-l 0.1 2. 3D o-l 0.1 3.1 0-1 O • o 3.3 0-11 0.2 *Range means the minimum and maximum number of behaviors per student in a category.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets