Drama in Education and Constructionism
Polyxeni
Simou, xeniasimou@hotmail.com
Drama in Education, Trinity College
Dublin
Abstract
This paper examines the similarities of
two innovative pedagogies, Drama in Education (DIE) and Constructionism. It
will be highlighted by theory and research that although they use very
different means to achieve their goals, they both have a common objective,
which is a more profound education where learning is achieved by ‘making’. They
both value the context in which learning is taking place and the artifacts with
which learners engage in conversation. The description of a drama/theatre based
learning experience will show how process drama and the creation of a theatre
performance resemble with Papert’s computer projects and ‘constructions’.
Keywords:
drama in education, arts,
constructionism, education, play
Introduction
The question is about how scientists and
educators intend to best educate young people for the future. Ackermann (2001)
wonders “who are we to tell the children of others what they should learn and
how?” And continues arguing that no one knows what is best for the others.
However, historically, many educational
systems throughout history were designed to support authoritarian and male
dominant social structures. It was the kind of education that was “appropriate
for autocratic kingdoms, empires and feudal fiefdoms that were constantly at
war” (Eisler, 2000). Teaching methods were used to prepare young people to obey
those who had the power. The same philosophy, also, underlay the traditional
industrial model, which prepared workers by providing segments of knowledge, so
they could find their place in the system and its hierarchies without
questioning either (McCammon, 2002). Such models that do not invest in
conscious, independent citizens who have their own sense of control, are not
compatible with the emerging educational needs in our multicultural societies
and are not viable anymore.
Additionally, for years a false polarity
has dominated the education of the Western world to a great extent. Since the
17th century, the positivist, scientific way of research and knowing
has excluded feeling from the sphere of true, genuine knowledge and has focused
on the cognitive, intellectual modes of perceiving the world. This prejudice
about the superiority of cognition had a disastrous effect on education. The
affective domain was rejected, an alternative way of approaching experience,
the intuitive approach, was disregarded and students lost opportunities to have
deep, profound, dynamic experiences of knowledge through another channel, that
of ‘cognitive feeling’, felt intuition and felt understanding (Reid, 1976).
This led to fractured meanings and to students’ limited and partial
intellectual explorations and, as a result, education was deprived of a whole
world of values and quality.
The two approaches described above
inevitably drove educators to design programmed curricula with a pre-determined
‘body of knowledge’ where students were recipients, treated as vessels to be
filled. According to Paulo Freire (1972) this is ‘the banking concept of
education’. As a result, students are dependent on their teacher to learn
pieces of knowledge, so knowledge remains the property of the teacher (O’
Sullivan, 2003). Students are supposed to live in democratic societies, but the
final aim of the political systems which regulate education and invade local
school communities is for students to serve the power games of the people who
rule the world. It is as if dark forces undermine our schools, our homes and
our lives. Teachers too, instead of educating students and helping them to
become independent and revolutionary, “recycle the packages that others have
generated” (Taylor, 1996) and serve the educational policies of their
governments and of the dominators of the world, often unintentionally.
Moreover, given the competitive world which emphasises excellence and personal
achievements, most forms of education are individualistic and social aspects of
education are neglected.
The necessity of a new educational
philosophy
Another important issue is that in the
above described model, students’ differing needs and different learning styles
were not usually taken into account. Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple
intelligences suggests that there are eight different forms of intelligence
which are equally important: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial,
musical, kinaesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and environmental (Gardner,
1999). Each of these intelligences means a preferred learning style for each
student. According to Gardner (1983), we deprive students when we are
interested only in linguistic and logical – mathematical intelligence, and as
educators we deprive ourselves of the possibility of building a whole child.
As a result of the above situation, some
pessimistic people assume that young people only want to hang out and have fun,
but this is not true. Young people crave experience and productivity. They want
to try new things, to take inspiration from different sources and create new
combinations of materials, ideas and people (Fiske, 2000). Thus, today’s
schools are expected to engage the whole personality and good education has to
be rooted in a real life context. This pedagogical idea is known as holistic
education (Vappula, 2004).
The fundamental ideas of the philosophy of
holistic education are briefly explained below. Firstly, students come to
school carrying with them their previous life, their experiences, attitudes,
skills, knowledge, culture, needs and the characteristics of their
personality. All these are important parts of a student’s personality and
cannot just be ignored, but have to form the basis of a child’s education
(Heathcote as cited in Vappula, 2004). Secondly, we are aware that the truth
has many faces and students must be educated in a way that will enable them to
see as many of these facets as they can. This process is very important in our
post-modern society which is characterised by cultural variety and diversity.
Thirdly, learning is not only a matter of what we know, but also a matter of
what we are, how we feel and how we behave. According to Heathcote (as cited in
Vappula, 2004), school must bring together three elements: the mind of people, the
manner of being and the matter of doing, as we must live in the world of both
the scientific right hand knowing and the mythical left hand.
Finally, Vygotsky’s theory (1962), known as
social constructivism, came to support another fundamental and necessary
element of post-modern educational systems, the theory of cooperative learning.
According to him, learning occurs because of the communication of the person
with his/her social environment. Vygotskians believe in cooperation as a
context in which peers inform, explain and intervene in a scaffolding way to
attain new knowledge (Mercer, 1995 as cited in Matsgouras, 2004). The members
of each team, working together, exceed their personal limits and this is
Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of the zone of proximal development. They take part in
collective thought and actions, make the new knowledge familiar and individual
and are gradually led to personal development and maturation.
In the light of the above theories
education policy and curricula must be reformed in order to avoid separation of
the brain hemispheres and the separation of people. The world must be seen as
an inseparable whole, whose structural elements interrelate and interact in
every possible way. At the same time, it must be seen as a field of multiplicities
and in this way horizons will be broadened and new worlds will appear, ready to
be questioned and explored (Greene, 1997). Maybe then, school would become a
place of exploration, a place to share feelings and ideas, a community where
educators, students and parents cooperate to ensure that each child will be
respected and educated to live in more conscious, democratic and peaceful ways
and to feel empowered to change the bad course of his/her life and the life of
the world around him/her (Eisler, 2000).
Drama in education and constructionism:
similarities
All the above
theoretical foundation seems to underpin both Drama in Education and Papert’s
Constructionism. Both pedagogies imagine new environments for learning, put new
pedagogical tools at the service of students and are interested in the dynamics
of change. “They remind us that learning, especially today, is much less
about acquiring information or submitting to other people’s ideas or values,
than it is about putting one’s own words to the world, or finding one’s own
voice, and exchanging our ideas with others” (Ackermann, 2001).
Therefore, this
paper is guided by theory and research that suggest that drama in education and
constructionism as methodologies for learning share many common ideas. “The key terms of
drama pedagogy (focus, framework, conventions, questioning technique,
conciliation, dramatic forms of assessment, etc.) are the more peculiar
representatives of the constructive character of drama” (Zalay, 2008). Such
techniques help students to be open, discover their hidden features, structure
their knowledge, build upon this knowledge and shape their ‘own personal
world’. Drama in education and the arts in general
“can provide a rich and emotionally stimulating learning context in which
students become personally engaged in their work through exploration, active
involvement, and engagement of their particular activities” (Eisner, 2002).
According to Heathcote (2008), the great DIE pioneer, in every society, there
should be no greater priority than the need to reach young people and “create
for them avenues for exploration”. The ultimate aim for such a choice should be
to empower young people to learn the ‘old’ knowledge and then to enable them to
feel free to explore their own opinions in order to produce innovative designs,
new applications of theory, ‘new’ knowledge and finally to make the transition
to new beginnings.
Drama pedagogy can provide both
teachers and students with the joy of creation. It is a conscious construction that
considers alternatives and wishes to achieve concrete pedagogical objectives in
the framework of a well-designed and continuously reflected structure.
According to its intentions the participants can experience the experiential
and situative learning process, that can develop or change their understanding
of the world and as a result, practices of everyday life can be refracted and
transformed. There is no brainwashing, no manipulation, no intimidation but
playful and exploratory learning (Zalay, 2008).
Papert (1991),
on the other hand, suggesting a ‘catchy version’ of the idea of constructionism
thinks of it as a self –directed, active “learning by making” which means
building knowledge structures in a context where the learner/student, in
interaction with his/her world, is consciously engaged in hands-on
explorations that construct a public entity. He is interested in how learners
engage in a conversation with artifacts and “stresses the importance of tools,
media and context in human development” (Ackermann, 2001). Constructionism,
like drama and theatre in education emphasises creativity, discovery learning,
building understanding and synthesis. Problem solving is also a fundamental
idea for both practices, as using the categories of analysis and design, is
closely related to creative thinking and involves producing a new response to a
new situation, which is a novel outcome (Antonenko and Thompson, 2011).
What is most important is that design activities for both educational
approaches demand learners to be engaged cognitively, affectively and
kinesthetically. The difference is that for the same purposes constructionists
use tools like LEGO/Logo or Scratch to help students learn important
mathematical and scientific ideas, while drama and theatre in education use dramatic and
theatrical tools like narration, improvisation or
rehearsal either to teach students school subjects or to make them socially or
aesthetically/artistically literate.
Play
In addition, DIE and constructionism share
another common element which is their penchant for playful learning. Henry
Caldwell Cook, another of DIE’s pioneers, placed emphasis on ‘play’, ‘doing’,
‘being active’ and ‘following one’s heart’ in order to free his students
(Bolton, 1998). The desire to link education and ‘play’ was fundamental to the
development of drama and theatre in education. Peter Slade (1954) was the one
who undertook the great challenge and managed to give ‘play’ in education
professional status and propose it as the basis of Child Drama (1954).
Papert and Harel in the introduction of
their book Constructionism (1991) also argue about the playful facet of
their methodology. What is of great importance at this point seems to be the
fact that, Papert was inspired to ‘construct’ constructionism from a
soap-sculpture art class. He writes: “I want to be a person who puts math and
art together”. What he mostly liked was that the art students were dreaming,
gazing, imagining, talking to other people, waiting and thinking, trying and
dropping ideas before constructing a work of art. He wanted to unite fantasy,
imagination and science in his own work, too. That’s why he writes that “those
who like to play with images of structures emerging from their own chaos,
lifting themselves by their own bootstraps, are likely predisposed to
constructionism” (Harel and Papert, 1991).
Imagination is important to Papert’s work.
Citing a project at Hennigan School in Boston as an example, he highlights the
fact that children trying to make a snake out of LEGO/Logo were constructing
the content of their work through the free expression of their imaginations
(Harel and Papert, 1991). Vygotsky (1998) argues that “everything that
requires artistic transformation of reality, everything that is connected with interpretation
and construction of something new, requires the indispensable participation of
imagination” and again “imagination is a transforming, creative activity
directed from the concrete toward a new concrete”.
In using the arts, drama
in education releases the imaginative capacity, breaks down barriers, opens up
situations and frees people and leads them to see beyond what is termed normal
or common sense. Developing the formal and aesthetic structures of their
devised drama they create their own dramatic meanings. Thus, drama provides
people with opportunities to discover new possibilities, new beginnings and new
avenues for action (Greene, 1995; Doyle, 1993; Wagner, 1999).
Constructions
and situated knowledge
The arts have always been a means of casting
new light on the familiar, in order to see the world differently. Artists
generally hold a mirror to society, but they do not simply represent and
reflect reality. Instead, they restructure and reformulate conventional
patterns, thereby uncovering the unrealised potential in society and
establishing alternative visions (Doyle, 1993; Greene, 1997). Artists replace
conformism with consciousness and reveal the inner needs of people.
More specifically, taking
into account that children learn better by making and doing (Neelands, 1984),
drama and theatre create a safe framework for the students within which they
can identify themselves with imagined roles, test reality, plan and reflect on
several actions that resemble real life actions, handle situations, explore
issues, events and relationships, imagine and create, become critical, make
decisions, solve problems. In other words they can try out life itself. When using drama, logical and intuitive thinking are stimulated and
knowledge is personalised while aesthetic pleasure is dominant. A dynamic unity
of body, mind and emotion is used to achieve students’ goals and this fact
leads them to meaningful learning, to empowerment and to a sense of completion.
Finally, given that drama and theatre are social forms of work, group and
social skills are fostered in the participants.
A very special feature and
a great attraction of both drama and theatre is that they are creative media
that do not limit themselves in one form of expression or exploration. In this
way, every student is encouraged to find his/her own style of learning,
communication and interaction. In this sense, drama and theatre in education
can play a vital role in promoting democracy, especially in post-modern
multicultural and multilingual societies.
All of the above remind us of many ideas
underpinning constructionism. Papert (1991) proclaims “vivent les differences”
and argues that people prefer to think in their own way rather than in the
‘best’ way. According to him, his interest in differences and different
intellectual and learning styles “set the stage for the evolution of
constructionism”. Papert’s “bricolage” is almost the same as a devised theatre
performance. Both are intellectual adventures of knowing and creating. In both
cases students cannot stay with a pre-established plan. Both theories promote
different ways of thinking and doing things and of constructing and giving form
to their ideas. The result is always a personalised construction.
This view about individual people’s ways of
knowing and relating is also behind Papert’s view of situated knowledge.
Situated knowledge or learning is similar to living-through drama experiences.
It means that certain knowledge cannot be detached from specific situations or
context. In other words, cognition is grounded, experience- based and
subjective (Ackermann, 2001).
Feminist
approach
Finally, both
DIE and constructionism value the feminist approach in education. According to
feminist scholars “many
women [and/or scientists] prefer working with more personal, less detached
knowledge and do so very successfully. It this is true, they should prefer the
more concrete forms of knowledge favored by constructionism to the
propositional forms of knowledge [favored by traditional epistemology]” (Harel and Papert,
1991). Papert puts empathy at the service of intelligence and his ‘child’
“remains in touch with situations for the very sake of feeling at one with
them” (Ackermann, 2001).
The arts and DIE, in
particular, are considered to be an especially powerful setting for the
emotional development of young people. Researchers have found that in art, the
affective dimensions interact with cognitive dimensions and influence the
quality of learning and life (AEP, 2004). Some neuroscientists and educators
contend that learning cannot even occur without the presence of emotions and
that emotional connections are necessary for memory, reasoning and deep
understanding (LeDoux, 1996). In drama experiences, greater feelings and
sensations unknown to the students are explored, “qualities and emotions that
leapt the centuries” are touched, aesthetic satisfactions are felt and, in this
way, the construction of personal meaning is facilitated (McCarty et al.,
2004). Indeed, the discussion here is not about the direct pursuit of pleasure,
in a utilitarian way, but rather about what Csikszentmihalyi (1997, as cited in
McCarthy et al., 2004) calls emotional stimulation of creativity.
Concluding, DIE can unite
the scientific and mythical levels of life, engage the whole human being, offer
factual knowledge and also stimulate human interest and mystery (Vappula,
2004). Thus, a balance can be maintained between closeness and separation,
openness and closure, mobility and stability, continuity and diversity, change
and invariance (Ackermann, 2001). Through this lens DIE and constructionism
complement each other and share similar goals.
A drama/theatre based learning experience
I will describe below a drama/theatre based
learning experience, which was integrated into the school timetable, with 14
adolescents aged between16-18 years old, for one school year, in a Senior High School (Lyceum) in Palaio Faliro in Athens. The actual project
and the research findings will provide evidence to support the idea that DIE is
congruent with constructionism.
Methodology
The research was conducted in the light of
changing methodologies and patterns of research in education and the
humanities, which consider the two dominant approaches, quantitative and
qualitative, complementary. The paradigm of critical educational research is
also taken into account, in the sense that the purpose of this research “is not
merely to understand situations and phenomena but to change them” (Cohen,
Manion and Morrison, 2000).
Action research appeared to be the most
suitable research methodology for the current project as drama and theatre in education is a newly introduced field
in the Greek secondary school and the students are not only unused to this
methodology, but also unused to the pedagogical philosophy that underlies it.
Three data collection methods were used:
both structured and semi-structured questionnaires, semi-structured interviews,
before and after the intervention, and participant, unstructured, overt,
on-going observation. Moreover, materials produced throughout the project were
used as data resources in the final analysis.
Research
design
The arts’ based experience involved a
mixture of drama/theatre activities and games, process drama, theatre
attendance, theatre rehearsals and theatre production. In the first phase, the
students were engaged in two sessions of warm up drama/theatre games and
exercises aimed at creating a comfortable atmosphere to help them relax, begin
developing communication skills and build trust within the group. Some of these
games also focused on developing initial skills in drama and theatre.
The same research process was followed in
the third phase of the work, which consisted of preparation for a theatre
performance and its attendant rehearsals. The students worked on all aspects of
the production: scenery, costumes, sets and props, make up, coiffure, sound, lighting
and publicity. The rehearsal process was enriched with more drama activities to
stimulate creativity and to hold their interest (Wooland, 1993), to present an
alternative approach to putting on a play and, last but not least, to reinforce
the educational and aesthetic character of the experience as the aim was not to
produce a professional performance but for the students to have a quality arts’
experience.
Research
findings
The participants in this study were invited
to participate in the arts, to decode works of art and to respond and react to
them in their own way. All the students stated that this experience was
something completely new for them and that they came out of it with many new
understandings and insights of themselves, of the world and their perception of
it and of the existing relationships. Constantina said the whole work was very
much more than a simple performance: “…we discovered and expressed our best
self…”, and Olga said that it was even more than a journey and its destination.
Christina continues her thought saying: “It was a deep experience. We did not
stay on the surface, we understood things…And then we did the performance to
express something, not to just do a performance”.
It was observed by both the
teacher/researcher and the critical friend that focused perception,
internalisation, interpretation, building insight, discernment, understanding
consequences, abstract and concrete thought, fluency, originality, problem
solving, and the ability to make decisions were some of the skills that were
developed during the process. Students were very perceptive, penetrating,
discriminating, discerning and analytical when creating their own scenes or
stories and when reflecting and commenting on them. They had created scenes and
perceived the characters, before formally meeting them in the plays, in unique
ways that young people have of perceiving the world. In this way, they were
given the chance to search deep into their own personal resources, to find and
use their personal knowledge and existing experience in the process, to develop
their own ideas and to become active meaning makers and creators (Neelands,
1984). They had a deep experience by drawing into experiences where knowledge
is embedded rather than explicitly stated.
This process made them very excited, as
they had discovered a way to give value to their previous personal experiences
by transforming them into a significant arts product. This sense of ownership
was unique for them. Other examples can be found at the moments when they
started taking initiatives in every aspect of the drama and theatre work (their
roles, music, costumes, make up, props and sets, scenery, publicity etc.),
developing their own ideas, and expressing themselves with every means. They
took several risks and finally created their own performance where almost
everything that was presented was their choice. As a result, they considered it
to be something that belonged to them and they carried through this work
firstly for themselves and then for everyone else.
Expanding their imagination was another
important result of the project. Christina noticed in her reports: “…using only
our imagination we created an entire performance. Think what else we can do
with it”. The students experimenting to incarnate their characters tried at
their own initiative, plenty of body stances, movements, gestures, facial
expressions and tones of voice in order to provoke the laughter of their
audience.
Moreover, the drama and theatre based
experience under discussion offered plenty of opportunities to the participants
to develop their inter-personal skills and to discover or construct aspects of
their personal identity in order to make successful transitions to adulthood.
All the students referred to the impact of the programme on the personal
domain. Sophie was the student who stressed more than anyone else in her final
questionnaire that the experience helped her acquire personal growth. She
talked about building insights, personal development and expression in new
ways. Building a sense of responsibility to the group and the project, setting
and meeting goals, sharing a sense of common purpose and finally making friends
were some of the results of the team work referred to by the participants and
their parents. Improvisations where students came closer and co-acted, and
discussions where they clarified their different aspects of reality assisted in
the creation of a particular group’s dynamics, where differences tended to be
smoothed out by changing the balance of the group and its social health. Arts
based experiences can also encourage students to search for alternative
perspectives and to respect differing points of view, thereby teaching them to
extend, to renew and to “hear more on normally unheard frequencies” (Greene, 1995).
All the students in the sample referred to
the emotional stimulation and meaning which was provided to them by the arts
experience they engaged with. They testified that they explored their own
feelings and those of other people, either their co-participants’ or their
roles’ feelings and that offered them personal insight. Some students noted
that their relationship to the arts became more positive because they realised
that the arts provoke a lot of emotions and free the person to explore and
express them.
In conclusion, through the process of the
drama and theatre based experience, the students developed an ability for
creating art, acquired several technical/artistic skills in the arts and the
art form, learnt to select, shape and organise material for performance, to
compose imaginative works and to handle small details in artistic works that
make the difference. As a result, they were empowered as art creators.
Conclusion
The above findings highlight the strengths
of the programme because as Slade (1954) puts it, the aim of drama and theatre
in education is “a happy and balanced individual”. The participants in this
study did not get stuck on their acting skills and roles and on the production
of the performance. They enjoyed themselves, achieved the fullness of their
personality developed and cherished a remarkable experience in the realms of
education.
These findings, also, are congruent with
the relevant literature and research in constructionism (Ackermann, 2001; Harel
and Papert, 1991; Antonenko and Thompson, 2011) and support the idea that the two educational practices share the
same vision. An educational system which can offer deeper meaning to young
people, opportunities to be engaged in situations and through this process
achieve moments of inspired creation and personal construction of knowledge.
Perhaps the co-operation of the two pedagogies is an important challenge facing
educational research and reform today.
References
AEP et al. (2004) No
Subject Left Behind. A Guide to Arts Education Opportunities in the 2001
NCLB Act. Accessed on 23rd of November 2007, from http://www.aep-arts.org
Ackermann, E.
(2001) Piaget’s
Constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the difference? Accessed on 1rst May
2012, from learning.media.mit.edu/content/.../EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
Antonenko,
P.and Thompson, A. (2011) ‘Preservice teachers’ perspectives on
the definition and assessment
of creativity and the role of web design in developing creative potential’. Education
and Information Technology, 16:2, 203-224.
Bolton, G.
(1998) Acting in classroom Drama. A critical analysis. Stoke on Trent:
Trentham Books.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K.
(2000) Research Methods in Education. London:
Routledge Falmer.
Doyle C. (1993) Raising Curtains on Education:
Drama as a Site for Critical Pedagogy. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Eisler, R. (2000) ‘Education for the
Twenty-First Century’. The Humanist, 60:1, 5.
Eisner, E. (2002) The Arts and the
Creation of Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fiske, E., ed. (2000) Champions of
Change: The impact of the arts on learning. Washington, DC: Arts Education
Partnership and the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.
Freire, P.(1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The
Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999) Intelligence
Reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York:
Basic Books.
Greene, M. (1995) Releasing the
Imagination: Essays on Education, the Arts, and Social Change. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greene, M. (1997) ‘Metaphors and Multiples:
Representation, the Arts, and History’. Phi Delta Kappan, 78:5, 387+.
Harel, I. and Papert, S. (1991) Constructionism. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Heathcote (2008) Process Drama, Mantle of
the Expert, Rolling Role, Chamber Theatre. Master Workshop. Athens.
Lorca, F.G (2002) Theatre and Poetry.
4th ed., Athens: Patakis Publications. First Published 2000.
LeDoux, J. (1996) The
Emotional Brain. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Matsagouras, H. (2004) Cooperative
Teaching and Learning. Athens: Grigoris Publications.
McCammon, L. (2002)
‘Deconstructing Youthland: Problems and Possibilities for Drama/Theatre
Education’. Stage of the Art, 14:3, 7-11.
McCarthy, K. et al. (2004) Gifts of the Muse. Reframing the Debate about the Benefits of the Arts.
RAND Corporation. Accessed on 23 of April 2008, from www.rand.org
Neelands, J. (1984) Making Sense of
Drama. A guide to classroom practice. Oxford: Heinemann.
O’Neill, C. (1995) Drama
Worlds. A Framework for Process Drama. Heinemann.
O’Sullivan, C. (2003) Curriculum Studies. Education for Empowerment/Pedagogy of The Oppressed. Class Handout
distributed on June 2003 at Trinity College, Dublin.
O’Toole, J. (1992) The
Process of Drama. Negotiating Art and Meaning. London: Routledge.
Reid, L. (1976) ‘Feeling and Aesthetic
Knowing’. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 10:3/4, 11-27.
Shakespeare, W. (2000) A Midsummer
Night’s Dream. 5th ed. Athens: Kedros Publications.
Slade, P. (1954) Child Drama.
London: University of London Press LTD.
Taylor, P., ed. (1996) Researching Drama
and Arts Education: Paradigms and Possibilities. London-Washington DC: The
Falmer Press.
Vappula, K. (2004) Dorothy Heathcote’s
Living through Drama in General and in Religious Education. Accessed on 25th of May 2004, from http://www.farmingtonacuk/documents/new
reports/TT36.html
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society:
The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Vygotsky, L S. (1998) The
Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky. Volume 5 Child Psychology. Translated by
M J Hall, Cognition and Language. New York & London: Plenum Press.
Wagner, B.J. (1999) Dorothy Heathcote: Drama as a Learning Medium. 2nd edition. Portland, Maine:
Calendar Islands Publications (1976).
Zalay,S. (2008) Constructive Drama Pedagogy: Main Findings of the Thesis
(PhD). Pannon University.
