Exploring teacher–student interactions and moral reasoning practices in drama classrooms

Abstract

The research reported here brings together three settings of conceptual and methodological inquiry: the sociological setting of socio-economic theory; the curricular/pedagogic setting of educational drama; and the analytic setting of ethnomethodolgically informed analyses of conversation analysis and membership categorisation analysis. Students from two schools, in contrasting socio-economic areas, participated in drama lessons concerned with their future. The study found that process drama allowed them to overcome the rhetoric and abstract nature of the theorising of controversial issues by allowing them to become actively involved in testing theories, developing ideas, and finding solutions to controversial problems through their work in the dramatic context. Within this paper three aspects of the study are drawn out for particular attention: the settings for such an inquiry, the varying kinds of talk found in drama lessons, and the key contrasts and similarities between the two research sites. These three aspects highlight the particular ways in which talk in drama classrooms may have powerful implications for the ways in which moral reasoning is built and shared by students. IntroductionThis paper summarises aspects of a more extensive study that used the detailed analysis of classroom interactions to explore relationships between drama in schools and socio-economic status as both topic of talk and resource for interpretation. Three aspects are drawn out for particular attention in this paper: the settings for such an inquiry, the varying kinds of talk found in drama lessons, and the key contrasts and similarities between the research sites. These three aspects explored together allow for an investigation into the particular ways talk is structured in drama classrooms, and the implications of this for the ways moral reasoning is built and shared by students.

Talking drama into being: types of talk in drama classrooms

“…5. the topic relevance; and 6. the productiveness of the moral reasoning practices (Freebody, 2010).…”

“… monitoring the reasoning and justification of others; and  negotiating aspects of moral reasoning (Freebody, 2010).…”

“…Exchanges: the Warwick Research Journal, 1(1), Oct. 2013 107  producing interactions that have retrospective relevance to the SCT that formed the pretext and planning phases of the unit; and  producing interactions that are appropriate for the institutional context 'in-school' (Freebody, 2010).…”

Face-work in teacher-in-role: Acting at the interface between artistry and pedagogy

“…1 It seems that CA is a rarely used method in drama research outside of a few studies (e.g. Freebody 2010;Jyrämö 2013;Viirret 2013). The focus in using CA here was to analyze the construction of interaction: turn-taking, sequential organization and the interactional procedures through the lens of face-work.…”

Dialogicality in teaching process drama: three narratives, three frameworks

“…At its basis, one cannot be and become human without 'You'. This kind of dialogical attitude is ideal for process drama because it fosters commitment, openness for 'living through', cooperation, improvisation and equality among both students and teachers (O'Neill 1995;Taylor and Warner 2006;Freebody 2010). Bakhtin's (1984, 293) conceptualisation suits the drama context well because it supports that '[t]o live means to participate in dialogue' in which 'a person participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, lips, hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds'.…”