 |
 |
Engaging Critical Reader Response to Literature Through Process Drama
For a printer-ready version of this article, click here. Use your browser’s “back” button to return to the Reading Online site.
| Abstract
This article describes an action research project in a Year 5 class of 10- and 11-year-old students in a suburban school in Sydney, Australia. Although many Australian syllabus and curriculum documents suggest drama as a teaching and learning activity to examine the meaning of a book, it is usual for it to follow reading of the text. This article provides examples of how process drama methodology was used as a teaching and learning activity during the reading of Onion Tears, a young adult novel by Diana Kidd. In reporting the findings, prominence is given to the children’s voices as they indicate why and how drama engaged them in a critical interpretative reading of the themes and issues explored in this book, while at the same time it enabled or sanctioned genuine response. |
Related Postings from the Archives
|
Introduction | Process Drama | Engagement and Critical Reading | The Study | The Strategy | Findings | Conclusion | References
Introduction
You can decode and comprehend and still not care. You can become adept at answering thought questions without really responding from the heart or the creative mind.... Even now [responding to literature is] often limited to talk talk talk. It ought to lead to humanities in literacy education, including creative drama and dramatic play, story telling and interpretive oral reading, music and dance, the visual arts. In many places these extensions of response are as scarce as the snow leopard. In many curricula they are first to get bumped. I think that’s a mistake. (Sebesta, 1997, pp. 545-548)
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how teaching and learning activities that involve drama can be bumped back into book talk sessions that occur during reading rather than as an extension activity on completion of a book. When drama is used in this way, it engages children in critical reading practices and at the same time sanctions genuine response (Hertzberg, 2000a). This is in contrast to many suggestions for drama activities that recommend children replay their favorite section of a story or consider an alternative ending -- usually through role-play -- as an extension activity at the conclusion of reading the book (see, for example, Board of Studies NSW, 1998).
I argue that for a drama activity to enhance children’s critical reading skills, it must engage the children in a thorough reading of the story. Whilst “acting out” sections as a retell or recall exercise may consolidate children’s understanding, these strategies may not develop children’s ability to challenge and interrogate text in a significant way. My research suggests that this is because the necessity to reread or respond to specific excerpts in depth is not the primary purpose of many recall and retell drama activities; rather, a summary of the whole story is acted. As such, the underlying themes and issues at various points are either not explored or are responded to at a superficial level. In contrast, however, when drama activities occur during the reading of a book, students cannot avoid transacting with themes or issues within the text at that point in the story.
There are many drama strategies that can be used (see Booth, 1994, and Neelands, 1999, for suggestions). In this article, I demonstrate how one drama strategy, called “still image,” has been used with students during the reading of the early chapters of the narrative text Onion Tears (Kidd, 1989). I hope that teachers new to drama or hesitant about how to use drama strategies can transfer the ideas presented here to the language arts classrooms where they read books with students. I also present findings that illustrate the learning possibilities of using process drama methodology as a teaching and learning activity within literature-based reading programs (see Hertzberg, 2000a, for an expanded discussion).
Process Drama
Process drama, also called educational drama, differs from drama methodologies in which the performance of a play is the focus. Heathcote (1984, p. 49) defines the method thus:
A broad definition of educational drama is “role-taking”, either to understand a social situation more thoroughly or to experience imaginatively via identification in social situations. Dramatic activity is the direct result of the ability to role-play -- to want to know how it feels to be in someone else’s shoes.
The art of drama is central to process drama methodology. At the same time, the focus is on using this art form as a learning medium to explore different viewpoints through the process of enactment. As such it is often used as a teaching and learning activity in various subject areas. Although it is possible to develop a drama experience into a play to be performed for an external audience, the initial focus of process drama (and certainly the focus in this article) is to develop cognitive and aesthetic learning as students engage with a narrative text.
The process of feeling what it is like “to be in someone else’s shoes” is related to metaxis, a term used by drama theorists to mean “seeing two worlds at the same time” (Bolton, 1992). This notion provides perhaps one of the most powerful reasons for using drama to explore and respond to themes and issues in narrative texts. Not only does metaxis enable students to see things from different perspectives, to experience someone else’s reality, but it may also allow better understanding and communication of feelings about their own experiences. The term role-to-speak, which Mirelli Farrell, my coresearcher in this project, and I coined, helps explain this idea further. Role-to-speak enables many children to express their feelings and experiences about difficult issues while in role. This is evident, for example, in the comments of a student interview in the study, who indicated that she liked drama “’cause you can say things that are you, but nobody has to know because you are acting someone else.”
Engagement and Critical Reading Practices
Integral to critical literacy is the concept that the social, political, cultural, and linguistic background of both the author and the reader must be considered and acknowledged (Comber & Simpson, 2001; Cope & Kalantzis, 1999). This concept has influenced pedagogical approaches taken in reading education in recent years (see, e.g., Harris et al., 2001; Weaver, 1998). Developing students’ critical thinking is central to helping them achieve critical literacy.
The ability to go beyond the surface meaning of a visual, spoken, or written text -- to unpack its themes and issues -- is seen as important because every text is a product of the particular context in which it is created (Barthes, 1977; Kress, 1985). Furthermore, the genre of a text predicates the way it is to be read (Halliday & Hasan, 1985), and hence influences the role of critical literacy practices. However, as Knobel and Healy (1998, p. 2) state, “Critical literacy is something of a chameleon, changing from context to context and from one educational purpose to another.” Clearly, many components contribute to the whole of what consitutes critical literacy. Just as the modes of listening, speaking, reading, and writing should not be presented in segmented fashion to students, neither should the varying aspects of critical literacy.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of explaining how the drama lesson described in this article relates to critical literacy, I have selected the components listed in Shor’s (1992, p. 32) definition to highlight the way that narrative text can be analyzed and evaluated:
... [A]nalytic habits of thinking, reading, writing, speaking or discussing which go beneath surface impressions, traditional myths, mere opinions, and routine cliches; understanding the social contexts and consequences of any subject matter; discovering the deep meaning of any event, text, technique, process, object, statement, image, or situation; applying that meaning to your own context.
To engage children actively as critical readers and thinkers, educators need to plan teaching and learning experiences that involve students in an exploration of the issues and then provide opportunities for them to make public (if they choose) their genuine responses and opinions. It is how teachers tap into this potential that is important: How can we encourage children to read literary texts critically, and by implication empathize with others, without the lesson turning into an activity about moral dilemmas that is both teacher centred and teacher led? Process drama methodology, I argue, is just one way of achieving this goal. By adopting roles, children can explore situations from different angles, as demonstrated in the following report of one drama session.
The Study
Research Context
The drama session described here was one lesson within a larger project (Hertzberg, 2000a) that was based on both action research and case study methodologies (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). The overall purpose of the larger project was to investigate how a variety of dramatic forms and techniques could be used to enhance students’ language and literacy development when reading a range of narrative texts.
Three different drama plans were written in consultation with Mirelli, my coresearcher and the teacher of the Year 5 class. The excerpt from the Onion Tears plan reported here was deliberately designed to analyze how drama strategies employed during the reading of a narrative text might serve to develop critical reading skills (in this case, revolving around issues dealing with cultural diversity). Other drama plans within the overall investigation included the use of Readers Theatre to enhance interpretative oral reading skills (Hertzberg, 2000b) and of teacher dramatic improvisation and playbuilding for reading the images in picture books (Hertzberg & Ewing, 1998).
My role in the classroom was as both teacher and researcher. While Mirelli and I planned the activities together, I facilitated the teaching of each session in the classroom. During this time, Mirelli observed and took field notes. Other data-gathering techniques included videotaping, semi-structured audio and video interviews with all students and with Mirielli, and written work samples from children and researcher reflective journals. In accordance with action research methodology, these techniques were selected to adhere to the principle of triangulation (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988).
Data Analysis
Audiotapes were transcribed and each drama strategy or form was distinguished and coded. A similar process was also undertaken with all reflective journals. I then viewed the videotapes, noting examples from both the teaching sessions and interviews that related to language and literacy practices in general and critical literacy development specifically. Not only did the video remind me of what happened, it showed me things that I did not see while in the action. Confucius is believed to have said, “Keep your eyes on things you cannot see.”
The Strategy
The drama strategy of still image was one of seven strategies used in the five teaching sessions for the Onion Tears plan. One 60-minute session, during which still image was the main strategy, is reported here to highlight how this technique enhanced critical reading of the beginning of the book. For more detailed information, I refer readers to Hertzberg (1997) for the complete drama sequence and Hertzberg (2000a) for a detailed report on findings.
In what follows, first I explain the drama strategy and its implementation; the general procedures of showing, viewing, reflection, and de-roling used during any drama process are also explained. Second, a synopsis of the book and the purpose of the drama plan are provided. This is followed by the data analysis, with links to the theoretical underpinnings that inform both literacy and drama pedagogy to qualify points made. Prominence is given to the children’s voices through examples of their writing, drawing, and comments recorded as part of interviews. These demonstrate not only the children’s reaction to using drama as a teaching and learning activity, but also how they achieved a critical interpretation of the text.
Preparing to Use the Strategy
Still image is also referred to as “frozen moment,” “depiction,” or “tableaux.” It involves participants creating a still or frozen image with their bodies to portray a dramatic moment (see Figure 1 for examples). The analogy of a still photograph is useful when explaining this strategy to children. Photographs record something in time, depict an idea, or capture a dramatic moment. The meaning is conveyed using body language; in particular, facial expression, gesture, and body position. When explaining this strategy to children for the first time I use two photographs taken at a child’s birthday party. One depicts the birthday child surrounded by friends and family, blowing out the candles on the birthday cake. This explains the notion of a moment in time. The other shows a child at the same party “receiving” a water bomb during one of the birthday games. This illustrates a dramatic moment.
Figure 1
Children Performing Still Images
|
|
Before groups begin work on their still images, the exemplar (Figure 2) should be displayed on an overhead transparency. This helps to explain that when creating a still image, the drama elements to be emphasized are facial expression, gesture, posture, and placement in space (position, levels, and so forth).
Figure 2
Overhead Transparency of Exemplar
Drama Language to Be Emphasized in a Still Image
STILL IMAGE
|
Then, to help students prepare their interpretations, I write the following questions on cardboard and display them prominently (where they remain for the duration of the drama activities). We call them the “drama framework” questions.
I usually ask children to choose their own groups to work in, because this alleviates many management problems (Reid, 2002). Drama requires children to negotiate their ideas, and they are more likely to listen constructively and engage in give and take in this environment. At times, it is useful to suggest that one person in the group take notes as the others discuss their ideas. It is crucial to allow enough time for planning, as this enables students to really explore and discuss their interpretation and, by implication, the issue or theme. However, it is equally important to encourage the students to get up and rehearse, as it is in the doing that most refinement occurs.
Viewing
A significant part of any drama is the viewing stage. Not only is it important to allow enough time for all of the groups to show their work to others, but this process also allows the class to see how the nuances in each group’s performance make all interpretations slightly different -- an important part of critical literacy. However, if a group does not want to show its work, it should not have to. This reticence happens occasionally -- usually when a group does not feel it has finished its work to a satisfactory standard.
I suggest that each group show its work in the space in the room where it has been rehearsing. This way they do not need to rearrange themselves or meet the demands of an unfamiliar space. As a group prepares to show its work, I ask the remaining children to close their eyes. One member of the performing group counts down from 3 and, on the count of 1, the audience opens its eyes to see the prepared still image. This is a useful procedure because the audience is not watching the preparation, but rather can focus on the still image itself.
Reflection and De-roling
Reflection is the discussion phase, in which students present their thoughts about what they have learned and compare their experiences. Open-ended questions from the teacher are useful to begin these sessions. For example, one could ask, “How do you think the still images reflected some major issues this excerpt addresses?”
De-roling involves disengaging from the role that was taken on. This process is essential when a drama activity involves taking on a role that evokes strong emotions or thoughts for that person. Questions such as “You took on the role of the bully. How did you feel in that role?” are appropriate. Often de-roling occurs as part of the reflective discussion, as is evident in the examples that follow from the study. The distinction between the two may not be important for children, but teachers must be aware of it and ensure that both aspects are covered.
For the discussion and de-roling phase, it is preferable that the children and teacher sit in a large circle (often called “the drama circle”), so that eye contact can be made among all speakers. I always sit on the floor with the children to diminish the power or status effect. It is also important that all children have ample opportunity to speak their thoughts. For this reason, I have found whole-class discussion desirable when beginning to address key issues. I open the discussion and then go around the circle, giving each child an opportunity to say something. In this way, all children (and not just the more gregarious) have an opportunity to talk. If children do not want to participate at that moment, they say “pass” and the next person has a turn. I avoid giving any opinions during these sessions, so that children are not tempted to give responses they think I want to hear. After this we often break into friendship groups of about six for further discussion, or children write their thoughts in their reflective drama journals. This session often leads naturally to other activities, such as retelling of the story from the point of view of another character.
Using Drama in a Critical Reading of Onion Tears
In Diana Kidd’s Onion Tears, a Vietnamese refugee girl, Nam-Huong, arrives in Australia without her immediate family. She lives with an adopted “aunt” and attends the local school, where her reticence about joining in or talking to the other children is misunderstood. Although this book is based on circumstances surrounding the migration process experienced by many refugees from Vietnam and a major focus is cultural difference, it is universal themes of isolation, identity, friendship, betrayal, and emotional abuse that are highlighted in the story.
The purpose of the drama sequence in this part of the study was for children to make links between reality and fiction by using strategies that engaged them in making explicit and implicit connections between their own lives and the story world (Booth, 1994; O’Toole & Dunn, 2002). This was intended to help them read and interpret the recurrent themes of displacement and cultural difference more critically.
First, I read from the beginning of the book to page 14. At the same time, the following excerpt from the text was displayed on an overhead transparency:
Everyone at school keeps asking me what my name means.
“Does it mean princess?” Mary says.
“COCONUT!” Tessa shouts.
“Butterfly!” “Dragon!” They all try and guess.
“I know,” says Danny. “It means DIM SIM!”
But I just shake my head. One day I’ll tell them what it means. My Mum loved my name. She said it was very special. (Kidd, 1989, p. 9)
The children then formed friendship groups of four to make a still image of this scene, assuming the roles of Nam-Huong, Danny, Tessa, and Mary. Each group worked through the showing, viewing, reflection, and de-roling stages. Examples of their still images are shown in Figure 3. It is interesting to see how each group interprets the scene in slightly different ways. Note also how the language of drama (facial expression, gesture and posture, space and levels) communicates the meaning.
Figure 3
Still Images of a Scence from Onion Tears
 |
 |
|
|
Findings
The excerpt from the text quoted above was selected for children to unpack because it is the first critical event in the book to address the recurrent themes of isolation and identity. By selecting the excerpt I was controlling the content to be analyzed, and there was the risk that children’s responses could be of the “guess what the teacher wants to hear” variety. However, for children to have the opportunity to read Onion Tears critically, these themes do need to be highlighted. Selecting this passage for the still image strategy presented one way of doing so without explicitly directing or stressing the intent in a the way that a discussion might. In interviews, students noted that they learned more by doing drama than they did in whole class discussions. As Rachel put it, students can improve understanding of the book “a little bit” through discussion activities, “but not that much because you’re not in that position -- you’re just talking about it.”
It was clear to students that this scene was a portrayal of emotional abuse, but through assuming roles and then planning the still image, they were able to explore the physical nuances that contribute to the development of both the characters and the themes. Students not only analyzed the author’s meanings, but they brought to the text their own voices and experiences. Using drama and, by implication, paralinguistics as a means for interpreting a point of tension, helped because children were able to “represent more than they would be able to communicate through words alone” (Neelands, 1999, p. 19). The following comments from various audio and video interviews are representative of the class’s view about still image:
Bill:
Yeah, acting out that character, like, it makes you feel like you are them. You know more about the character.
Jake:
You can understand it, ’cause you’re the one who’s, like, in the shoes sort of. And you’re the one who’s doing it, so you understand it.
Kate:
You can use as much body and facial expression as you want to, so people watching us can see who our characters are.... By the expression on your face and the way you’re sitting and moving around, people can tell how you feel.
John:
Because it, like, helps you in reading, writing. Helps you understand heaps of stuff that you never understand, as well as if you don’t do drama. Usually, like, when you read books, you don’t understand it but when you’re doing drama you understand why they’re feeling and how.
Luke:
[I like still image] ’cause I like working in groups.... It’s, like, interesting to hear all the ideas that other people have, and you learn to cooperate and combine your ideas with theirs.
Students also indicated that they reread the text to delve more deeply into the meaning. Of interest was the amount of discussion about the roles of Mary and Tessa that this rereading prompted. By page 14 of the oral reading of the book, students were aware that Mary was trying to include Nam-Huong, but they were not quite as sure about Tessa’s intentions. The following discussion, which took place in one group of four boys who were in the process of planning their still image, illustrates their interpretation of meaning through attention to linguistic form:
Chris:
Yeah, but Mary was asking her to come bike riding, remember. So she is nice.
Tim:
What about Tessa?
Chris:
I don’t know.
Sam:
Hey, but look: Coconut is in capitals, so she’s shouting at her. I don’t think that’s nice.
[The group moves closer to read the text on the overhead transparency.]
Chris:
Yeah, and princess is nicer than saying coconut or dragon.
The group then began positioning itself and decided that Nam-Huong would be seated toward the front, with Mary nearest to her because she was trying to be kind. Tessa was positioned further away, whilst Danny was placed furthest away and stood in an upright and aggressive posture.
In the viewing and reflection stages, this was discussed further. At this stage, “students are taken out of the action of the plot and into the action of the theme” (Morgan & Saxton, 1988, p. 36).
We viewed each group’s still image and discussed what it was saying. From their comments, it was evident that children were attending to both the drama and the English teaching and learning focus by using reflective processes. In particular, the children were attending to the multiple interpretations each individual brings to a reading of a text. As Ned said, “I really liked watching everybody else...to see what interpretation they have of it.”
Although there is a distinction between reflection and debriefing, often the two are intertwined. This was the case with this use of still image. After several children had made comments on the drama process itself and the meanings they were portraying, students were asked to contemplate how they felt in their particular role or to give their opinions on the messages being conveyed in their interpretations. In this session, it became apparent that many children were responding personally to the text, though from an “as if” because of the process of enactment. For example, Clive said, “Like, if you were Nam-Huong, you’d feel really sad.” It is significant that Clive rarely volunteers his thoughts in larger groups. I encouraged him to continue by asking,
Researcher:
How did you feel [as Nam-Huong]?
Clive:
Sad. [pause] I didn’t actually feel sad, but I acted sad.
This gave Clive the opportunity to put the situation into the past tense. Whether he felt sad or just acted sad was something that only Clive knew, but the drama did seem to give him a “role to speak.” Within the protection of that role, he could express an opinion in front of his peers that he may not have felt comfortable about in other circumstances. That is, he could either pretend or clarify in front of peers how he felt (real life) by being in role as Nam-Huong (fictional context). Furthermore, it might be that he responded quickly because drama helped him form his thoughts. As he said later in the interview,
[It’s] good to act out...so you just don’t talk about it. You can just, like, do it, so you can like actually do more about it. Like, you can act it out more and you can do more than talk.... Because when you’re just talking about it, you’re just talking about it -- you’re not actually doing anything, you’re just sitting there and talking. But when you’re acting, you’re standing up and doing something, so it gives you more opinion [about] what you’re doing. It’s more interesting to do things like that.
As well, children justified the positions of various characters and events within the book. Although all children felt Danny’s actions were inappropriate, the actions of Mary (particularly) and Tessa were another matter, as indicated in these comments:
Clara:
Mary wasn’t being mean. She was just calling her a princess and butterfly -- nice things which isn’t mean, and compared to Danny.... Well, Danny could get in trouble for teasing her and if he was her he wouldn’t like it.
Rob:
Clara said Mary was being nice by saying she was a princess but she was being sarcastic by saying “oh well, she’s a princess”
In terms of critical literacy, this discussion is interesting. Multiple interpretation of meaning is acceptable because individuals respond to a text based on their own unique experiences and sociocultural background (Campbell & Green, 2003). This scene comes at the beginning of the book, so both viewpoints are feasible and important because the issue continues to be prominent throughout the text.
Danny’s character and the concept of bullying in general were also explored. The discussion provided evidence that many children were moving beyond surface impressions to discover and penetrate the deeper meaning of the issues both in the book and in their own situations. In response to one child’s comment that Danny was a bully, almost all children wanted to give reasons as to why children bully. The links between fiction and reality were evident in this session, as the following comments demonstrate:
Rachel:
I reckon that bullies reckon they’re tough, but they’re not really tough. Like, they reckon they are so good and everything, but they’re not really good. I bet you they’re scared inside, but they want to be really tough like some other people who are tough, so they bully other people to make them feel down and out and to make them[selves] look really tough.... I reckon he [Danny] was just showing off in front of the other girls like Tessa, and just trying to make other people feel bad to make him feel good about himself.
Eloise:
Well, usually bullies pick on people who are smaller or not as popular or “whimpier”...and they think that just because they’re bigger and taller -- and, like, Danny, he’s the person.... Like, he has a normal name ’cause he comes from Australia so all the Australians probably think Danny’s a normal name. But when they go [to Vietnam] Danny might be the weirdest name there.
Debbie:
If you think about it, really lots of kids do actually get put in the position that Nam-Huong is in every day at school. So really, there isn’t much pretending for some kids.
At this stage, the drama seemed to move from the text itself to a point of metaxis. It was then that Mirelli said that she thought the drama seemed to give the participants “a voice to speak,” both in terms of their own experiences and those of the characters in the book.
After this reflection and de-roling session, children returned to their desks and were asked to consolidate and reflect on their learning by doing the following for their drama journal:
Draw your group’s still image and write the names of the characters underneath each figure. Write who you were by writing “me” underneath that character. Write what each of the characters said in a speech bubble. Write what you think the characters were thinking in a thought bubble.
Figure 4 is representative of the children’s responses to this activity.
Figure 4
Izram’s Drawing of Still Image Scene
During this activity, Mirelli alerted me to Izram’s work. Izram was learning English as an additional language. Mirelli wanted to show me the detail in his drawing, because she said she had already noted how engaged he had been in the drama activity. “He is a bright child, but [in previous book response sessions, he] usually just sits there and I’m never sure how much he understands or what he thinks. But now, after this session, I could see that he was understanding,” she recorded in her field notes.
Of interest, for example, is the drawing of a skateboard and ball alongside Danny. The book does not say that Danny does either of these activities. When asked why he included these items, Izram said he thought Danny “was the sort of kid who’d do those things.”
Conclusion
Izram’s viewpoint demonstrates one of the fundamental aspects of critical literacy. He is transacting with the text and delving below surface impressions to scrutinize the character. In so doing, he brings his own social and cultural context to explain the meaning for him. It cannot be known whether the same depth of understanding would have happened without the preceding drama activity in which he had engaged. Nevertheless, he did participate in this drama, and it was evident that Izram understood the deeper meaning of this excerpt. Understanding this excerpt from Onion Tears was important so that the character development of these protagonists could be better understood as the story continued. The above drama session helped in this process and illustrates how such activities can precede talking, listening, reading and writing activities or be interwoven with them. Drama does not need to be an add-on, an “if there is time to do it retell role-play” undertaking.
The power of metaxis through enactment that aids in connecting the real world to the fiction of the book is the unique quality that process drama can bring to a critical reading of a text. By making personal connections to events in the book, children can more deeply explore issues both within and beyond their immediate lives. Furthermore, the protection of being in role allows many children to feel they have a “role to speak.” Children can debate and challenge their own thoughts and the thoughts of others from an “as if” stance. As one child said after participating in the drama activity, “They might be being bullied in the story and the same thing’s happening to you, so there’s a link between reality and fiction.”
References
Barthes, R. (1977). Introduction to the structural analysis of narratives. In Image-music-text. London: Fontana.
Back
Board of Studies NSW. (1998). English K-6 syllabus. North Sydney, Australia: Author.
Back
Bolton, G. (1992). New perspectives on classroom drama. London: Simon & Schuster Education.
Back
Booth, D. (1994). Story drama. Reading, writing and role-playing across the curriculum. Markham, ON: Pembroke.
Back
Campbell, R., & Green, D. (Eds.). (2003). Literacies and learners:Current perspectives (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Prentice Hall.
Back
Comber, B., & Simpson, A. (Eds.). (2001). Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1999). Multiliteracies. London: Routledge.
Back
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Back
Harris, P., Turbill, J., Fitzsimmons, P., & McKenzie, B. (2001). Reading in the primary school years. Katoomba, Australia: Social Science Press.
Back
Heathcote, D. (1984). Role-taking. In L. Johnson & C. O’Neill, Dorothy Heathcote, collected writings in education and drama. London: Hutchinson.
Back
Hertzberg, M. (1997). Drama programs for novels and picture books. In R. Cusworth & J. Simons (Eds.), Beyond the script: Drama in the classroom (pp. 75-84). Newtown, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
Back
Hertzberg, M. (2000a). How does educational drama enhance children's language and literacy development? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Sydney, Australia.
Back
Hertzberg, M. (2000b). “So we can learn something as well as doing something fun”: Learning about reading through Readers’ Theatre. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 23(1), 21-36.
Back
Hertzberg, M., & Ewing R. (1998). Developing our imagination: Enactment and critical literacy [monograph, PEN 116]. Newtown, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
Back
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Back
Kidd, D. (1989). Onion tears. North Ryde, Australia: Angus & Robertson.
Back
Knobel, M., & Healy, A. (1998). Critical literacy. Newtown, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
Back
Kress, G. (1985). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Back
Morgan, N., & Saxton, J. (1988). Enriching language through drama. Language Arts, 65, 34-40.
Back
Neelands, J. (1999). Structuring drama work: A handbook of available forms in theatre and drama(2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press.
Back
O’Toole, J., & Dunn, J. (2002). Pretending to learn: Helping children learn through drama. Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia: Pearson Education.
Back
Reid, J. (2002). Managing small-group learning. Newtown, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
Back
Sebesta, S. (1997). Having my say. The Reading Teacher, 50(7), 542-549.
Back
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Back
Weaver, C. (Ed.). (1998). Reconsidering a balanced approach to reading. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Back
About the Author
 |
Margery Hertzberg is a lecturer in drama and English as a second language (ESL) at the School of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University of Western Sydney (Bankstown Campus Building 4, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia; e-mail m.hertzberg@uws.edu.au). Before taking up this appointment, she was both an ESL and mainstream teacher in a diverse range of elementary, primary, and secondary schools. Her current research interest is in the area of how process drama methodology enhances children’s language and literacy development, particularly among ESL children in mainstream classes. She is now researching the concept of student engagement: What does it look like and how do we know if students are engaged during process drama teaching and learning activities? |
Note: The author warmly acknowledges the contribution of Mirelli Farrell and the children in her coresearcher’s 1998 Year 5 class. Written permission to reproduce and report on all aspects of this project was provided by children, parents, and teachers, and the author received an ethics clearance for the study from her university. This documentation can be produced on request.
For a printer-ready version of this article, click here.
Citation: Hertzberg, M. (2003, June). Engaging critical reader response to literature through process drama. Reading Online, 6(10). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/international/inter_index.asp?HREF=hertzberg/
Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted June 2003
© 2003 International Reading Association, Inc. ISSN 1096-1232