Advertisement

Performative Embodiment as Learning Catalyst: Exploring the Use of Drama/Theatre Practices in an Arts Integration Course for Non-Majors

  • Kathryn Dawson
Chapter
Part of the Creativity Theory and Action in Education book series (CTAE, volume 2)

Abstract

Arguments have been made about the need for more active and creative teaching and learning in higher education (Tepper S, and Lindemann D, Chang Mag High Learn 46:20–23, 2014); yet higher education often uses transmission focused forms of education like lectures and tests. Recent research on embodiment in sociology, philosophy and cognitive sciences suggests conceptual linkages between embodied ways of knowing, lived experiences and creativity. This exploratory, cross-case study uses thematic analysis to consider the use of performative embodiment as a creative teaching and learning approach in an arts integration course for undergraduate students. Through a process-tracing analysis of key course assignments, grading notes, and post-course interviews, I construct and compare three separate “cases” of students’ experience of learning in the course over time. Findings suggest that using performative embodiment in an arts integration course may provide a dialogic, multimodal way for students to increase their sense of belonging in the classroom, to explore the value of the arts in education, to understand the importance of the body in learning, and to understand themselves as learners in education and professional contexts.

Keywords

Performative embodiment Creativity Creative teaching Arts integration Undergraduate education Dialogic meaning-making 

Notes

Acknowledgements:

I acknowledge the intellectual and creative efforts of my faculty colleagues and co-designers of FA 308: Arts Integration for Multidisciplinary Connections at The University of Texas at Austin: Dr. Christina Bain, Dr. Tina Curran, and Prof. Lara Dossett, along with the many talented graduate students who worked with FA 308 over the years. I also acknowledge the efforts of UT graduate student Hillary Vincent who conducted the post-course interviews as part of her master’s thesis work with our FA 308 data set. The labor-intensive rewards of FA 308 continue to be generously supported by the College of Fine Arts Dean, Dr. Doug Dempster, and the Associate Dean of Fine Arts Education, Dr. Hunter March. Without their ongoing belief in arts-based approaches to innovation, FA 308 would not exist.

References

  1. Anderman, L. H. (2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of change in middle school students’ sense of school belonging. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Aukerman, M. (2013). Rereading comprehension pedagogies: Toward a dialogic teaching ethic that honors student sensemaking. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, A1–A31.Google Scholar
  5. Berdayes, V., Esposito, L., & Murphy, W. (2004). The body in human inquiry: Interdisciplinary explorations of embodiment. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bresler, L. (2004). Knowing bodies, moving minds: Towards embodied teaching and learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buskist, W., & Saville, B. K. (2001). Rapport-building: Creating positive emotional contexts for enhancing teaching and learning. APS Observer, 13(3). Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/rapport-building-creating-positive-emotional-contexts-for-enhancingteaching-and-learning
  8. Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Crouch, M., & McKenzie, H. (2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawson, K. (2015). My Alaskan education: From service to sustainability. In P. Duffy (Ed.), What was I thinking: A reflective practitioner’s guide to (mis)adventures in drama education (pp. 129–145). London: Intellect.Google Scholar
  13. Dawson, K., Cawthon, S., & Baker, S. (2011). Drama for schools: Teacher change in an applied theatre professional development model. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 16(3), 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawson, K., & Lee, B. K. (2018). Drama-based pedagogy: Activating learning across the curriculum. London: Intellect.Google Scholar
  15. Dewey, J. (1938). Art as experience. New York: Collier Macmilliam.Google Scholar
  16. Edmiston, B. (2014). Transforming teaching and learning with active and dramatic approaches: Engaging students across the curriculum. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning: Media architecture pedagogy. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gilmore, P., & McDermott, R. (2006). And this is how you shall ask: Linguistics, anthropology, and education in the work of David Smith. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37(2), 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall, R., & Nemirovsky, R. (2012). Introduction to the special issue: Modalities of body engagement in mathematical activity and learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ivinson, G. (2012). The body and pedagogy: Beyond absent, moving bodies in pedagogic practice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(4), 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2012). Rereading “a pedagogy of multiliteracies”: Bodies, texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), 22–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case studies as qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perry, M., & Medina, C. (2011). Embodiment and performance in pedagogy research: Investigating the possibility of the body in curriculum experience. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 27(3), 62–75.Google Scholar
  28. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York: Grossman.Google Scholar
  29. Plucker, J., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2006). Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Sawyer, K. (2011). What makes good teachers great? In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and Improvisation in creative teaching (pp. 1–24). London: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511997105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sawyer, R. K. (2013). Zig Zag: The surprising path to greater creativity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  34. Silverstein, L. B., & Layne, S. (2010). Defining arts integration. The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts: ArtsEdge. Retrieved from http://www.kennedy-center.org/education/partners/defining_arts_integration.pdf
  35. Smith, L. (1978). An evolutionary logic of participant observation, educational ethnography and other case studies. In L. Schulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 316–377). Ithaca: Peacock.Google Scholar
  36. Tepper, S., & Lindemann, D. (2014). Perspective: For the money? For the love? Reconsidering the “worth” of a college major. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(2), 20–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tobin, J. (2004). The disappearance of the body in early childhood education. In L. Bresler (Ed.), Knowing bodies, moving minds: Towards embodied teaching and learning (pp. 111–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Torrance, E. P. (1974/2008). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
  39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wilcox, H. (2009). Embodied ways of knowing, pedagogies and social justice: Inclusive science and beyond. NWSA Journal, 21(2), 104–120.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Texas at Austin, Theatre and Dance DepartmentAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations