The importance of Synthesis as a pedagogic process is that you are using it to encourage student to apply and develop existing skill or to independently establish and acquire new skills .
In the case of Dramatic Synthesis, as we have defined it within the Department; we are creating performance through the synthesis of Form and Content for a specific Audience. The location of audience within the dramatic transaction is cause of much debate amongst Theatre Drama practitioners and educators and is not to be elaborated upon here.
Important to note at this point however; our definition of Audience does not excluded any form of theatre, ritual or dramatic experience; Shakespeare to fireworks and back again.
Not only is subject content (Dramatic Literacy, in our case) acquired and developed during Synthesis, so too is the meta-cognition of the process of Collaboration and Synthesis. From this reflection students will improve their ability to create collectively with their peers.
We have defined the Disposition of Collaboration earlier to give our student a scaffold by which they will de-construct and develop Collaboration skills. It is vital then to identify the stages or Actions of Dramatic Synthesis.
Again I turned to the corporate HR and management training to look for definitions. De Bono's lateral thinking underpins most theories, but I was looking for something a little more staged. I discovered Creative Problem Solving Process Osborn-Parnes and Tim Hurson Productive Thinking Model a development upon the earlier model.
These models were ideal. The first stages in these models (of defining the problem, assessing the capacities needed to solve the problem and the establishment of success criteria) are aspects that students often neglect and were important to maintain as the model evolved.
The main consideration however is that within the Theatre Drama context we are not only designing solutions we are simultaneously implementating. After the problem and success criteria are defined the participants in Dramatic Synthesis are then continually engaging in a cycle of creative and critical thinking.
Underpinning this repeating cycle are 2 definitive stages of divergent and convergent generation of ideas. The shift between these stages is characterised by the critical thinking shifting from an 'In the moment' position to an 'Out of the Moment' position as the creators consider the appropriateness of new material in reference to previous ideas that have started to coalesce towards a solution. This will be discussed further in future posts of Reflection.
Also during the convergent stage creators maybe actively seeking material to fill in gaps, elaborate, connect or clarify existing material.
Another aspect that is vital and often neglected by students and professional practitioners alike is the Finishing stage. This is the simple period of 'drill' when the whole performance is run (perhaps with additional technical aspects added) so all involved know what to do, when to do it and where they should be when they do it!
So the here is the working model of the Actions of Dramatic Synthesis the department will use as it moves into the next academic year. Most importantly is that it is inclusive of the unique and similar demands of the 3 types of Synthesis we engage with; Devising, Responding to text and Theatre Script. It is also scalable and could be applied to a 10 minute preparation for a brief class presentation to a whole school production ranging over 12 weeks.
Once the Actions of Dramatic Synthesis are defined it becomes possible to highlight the Disposition of Collaboration who should dominate during various Actions as here.
The final step is to then make the Dispositions of Collaboration one axis and the Actions of Dramatic Synthesis the other and generate a series of Reflections appropriate to each stage and person involved in the process.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Values into Action 3 - Explicit teaching of Dramatic Synthesis
Values into Action 2 - Explicit teaching of Collaboration
I particularly like that discovering the a means by which the act of Collaboration might be de-constructed into teachable components was in itself because of collaboration.
I had work with De Bono's Thinking Hats before and had found it very effective, but they seemed too connected to phases of Synthesis or problem solving; rather than with 'Dispositions' that might permeate collaboration itself.
It was in this discussion that a colleague directed me to Improvisation Learning through Theatre D W Booth/C J Lundy 1985. In this text book the writers identify 20 types of people needed for successful 'Devising' - 10 focussed on Group (Inter/intra-personal) management and 10 focussed on Task completion.
| Group Function Encourager Harmonizer Tension Reliever Communication Helper Emotional Temperature Taker Process Observer Standard Setter Active Listener Trust Builder Interpersonal Problem Solver | Task Function Info & Opinion Giver Info & Opinion Seeker Starter Direction Giver Summarizer Coordinator Diagnoser Energizer Reality Tester Evaluator |
While there was some redundancy amongst the 'Dispositions' I really liked the way that the writers had divided the 2 areas of collaboration into social and task management. It is a vital distinction when diagnosing problems with students' collaboration - it is often vital to establish not only the what they are disagreeing about but the how they are disagreeing. To become empowering then it is also vital distinction to make as they start to manage their own collaboration.
After a former colleague and mentor dropped in while the department were discussing these character types, he suggested I look up Belbin (Dr Meredith Belbin to be precise). After a quick Goog I discovered this great HR site and discover the 'Characters' Belbin developed for Collaboration on the private sector.
Belbin Model
Coordinator
Shaper
Plant
Monitor-Evaluator
Implementer
Resource Investigator
Team Worker
Completer-Finisher
Specialist
In terms of teaching I now had more than enough to teach 11 - 19 yr olds; possibly too much. Identifying Dispositions and their roles and responsibilities during Collaboration seemed much more effective than devising or rehearsal techniques on their own. Most excitedly it gave the method application beyond the specificty of the Theatre Drama department.
Working on a Rule of 7 (items in the short term memory) in synthesised the list down eliminating redudancy and emphasising reiteration between the 2 models.
| Group Focus Motivator Harmonizer Translator Interpersonal Quality Controller Active Listener Process Observer | Task Focus Chair Out-of-the-boxer Clarifier Evaluator Shaper Finisher Specialist |
Again to aid memorisation of these Dispositions of Collaboration I created new titles from the first letter of the phrase Theatre Process
| Group Focus Translator Harmonizer Energizer Active Listener Total Observer Relations Manager Excellence Controller | Task Focused Polisher Reality Tester Out-of-the-boxer Chair Evaluator Shaper Specialist |
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Values into Action 1 - Out-Think by Out-Source Thinking
I posted some months ago about the success of a values exercise as an effective foundation to all that we do within the Theatre Drama Department I lead. Subsequently I followed up with a post of the final values and subsequent assessment criteria and rubrics we established. Through the year the department has been working through developing the curriculum and using the agreed criteria with increasing confidence and specificity.
A common approach to Theatre Drama education (and one we have formalised) is to deliver skills (e.g. Physical Comedy/Clowning); then have students engage in an independent devising/rehearsal stage (create a short 2/3 person scene similar to Chaplin silent film); leading to a performance/presentation (varying levels of formal/summative/peer/self assessment).
This pedagogic approach is dynamic and engaging; and is often at the heart of why students enjoy practical subjects over traditionally content driven subjects. A lot of good AFL practice is part of this approach as we challenge students to reflect in the moment on the quality of work and the social dynamics creating this work.
We had identified the 4 areas of Collaboration, Dramatic Synthesis, Dramatic Literacy and Reflection and were using them to articulate and identify challenges, targets and progress in a much more efficient way then previously in my teaching.
However, like a Japanese factory boss in the 80's I started to feel like we were reaching full efficiency as teachers and just didn't know where to go from here.
To varying success in the past this practical approach to learning has been layer with medium term targets to differentiate individual development, but these targets were often too generalised and were lost in the spontaneous process of shaping dramatic work.
What was need was a further refinement of the criteria in to clarify the language of learning in Theatre Drama and create specific and durable targets so students could become pro-active.
As teachers our brains were 'maxed out' so we had to create a scaffold to 'outsource thinking' to our students. While the pedagogic delievery in Theatre Drama is essetnial a co-constructivist model, it was still largely reactive.
I realised that through the specific teaching of Collaboration, (Dramatic) Synthesis and the Reflection assosiated with these process it would make the students much more proactive. This would also benefit students in developing research skills as they would be able to assess and identify the skill/knowledge (Dramatic Litaeracy) needed to complete a project.
The aspects of the criteria were then defined as
Dispostions of Collaboration
Actions of Dramatic Synthesis
Fluency of Dramatic Literacy
Positions of Reflection
See presentation below for how thinking eveloved.
The approach we have designed is a Collaborative Creative Model which could be used to deliver any curriculum content where a Synthesis outcome is desired. It is its emphasise on the means by which the process is made efficient and demarcated which give it universal application. I am not saying that it is a major shift in pedagogic practice but it certainly provides clarity that I have not seen in any other models.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
2012 – Get Digitally Literate or it is the end of the World
Googled ‘Monster vs. Aliens this morning to show my youngest daughter that the ‘badie’ was no scarier then the tiger in Kung-Fu Panda and that Mummy (who actually wants to go shopping) didn’t need to come to the cinema tomorrow. Sprog 2 convinced and mother pleased (do only dads do animation? – save that for another post) I turn my attention to what ‘pop-up’ next.
2012. Now while tsunamis, particularly ones as high as K2, give me the jitters I steeled myself to dig deeper. I have been aware of have been aware of the winter/summer solstice 2012 since about 10am on the 01.01.2000, when a friend told me he always knew that that Y2K was not the real apocalypse and that it was still to come on that date.
Now of course along with the Mayan calendar ending there is a rare convergence of doomsday prediction on that date. But that could be said for most days of the week depending which prophecies you choose to read and how you interpret them. Equally most of the scientific theories put forward (even Planet X or an aberrant celestial body) probably include one or two ways in which the earth will eventually end.
Like a good 50s Cold War SciFi (On which Mars Attacks beautifully satires) it take a little science (“Well Johnny every four years Mars and the Earth’s orbit bring them to a position where they are closest. In fact let me check my . . . oh my God that’s right now!”) and a lot of fiction (“And if were a Martian wanting to invade earth this is when I would launch my attack”) We are not even talking about correlation here, let alone causation!
All that said 2012 is obviously a movie and this is a superb piece of imbedded marketing. From the ‘This is the end’ blog run by Woody Harrelson character to the Institute of Human Continuity site with its various simulations and lottery sign up for those who want to survive.
Beyond the official site for the movie, the Wikipedia and imdb listing all other 2012 Googs are anything from official ‘New Age’ sites to teen remixs of History Channel Documentary. Apocalypse may be on its way, but it will be the impact of educational neglect leading to a tsunami of digital illiteracy.
The issue Digital Literacy is a bad cold war sci-fi. It is always the teenagers who encounter the alien or monster first and have to respond unprepared for what now approaches them. There is usually some ‘hinting strangeness’ that the responsible adults blame on ‘youthful high jinx’. The young people plead with their elders, but to no avail and they are all sent home with a reprimand.
There is usually one adult, a fringe dweller or outsider, who considers the teenagers plea worth investigating. Usually he is the first victim of the baddies consumed or assimilated - I’ve felt like that at a couple of staff meetings!
After the body count or missing persons numbers go up, eventually all are aware of the presences of the evil beings, now usually willing to reveal them self and complete their domination.
This is where Digital Literacy and the 1950s Sci-Fi/Horror diverg. There will be no ‘visiting scientest camping close to town’ or US military might to subdue the evil doers.
As the Internet and commercial influences within it grows and becomes more sophisticated it will like ‘The Blob’ continue to consume the ignorant. Should we be leaving to chance our students’ capacity to prevent this impending doom. Or should we be explicitly teaching them the skills they will need to survive?
Professional Blogging, Social networking Responsibility before Benefit or don’t bother
The latest stream of the edublogs on my feeder brings another plethora of post about teacher/students online relationships and conflict over teachers’ blogging about their schools. There is criticism of ‘Luddite’ administrators’ and school boards, and more bad news for FaceBook!
It is time for a lot of teachers and administrators to take a more evolved attitude towards publishing and interaction through social networks and blogging. Clay Shirky’s post about the future of newspapers has a great quote
“Society may decide that it does not need newspapers but we will still need journalists.”
The minute you put finger to keyboard you are now a ‘publishers’ your words and images go beyond you as a representation of you and your work. It does not matter if it is an academic blog or a careless twitter (Sound like a George Michael song) you are closer to a journalist than you are to some analogy with a private conversation. The digital permanency and plasticity of your text and images means that it is both an entitlement with huge benefits to the whole school community and a responsibility for all those users.
This is where the debate for me stagnates. Too much is being promotion of Web 2.0 connectivity and too little dialogue between all parties about what would be our responsibilities.
Is it responsible for administrators to just shut it down? Is it responsible for teachers or parents to openly criticise their school via web 2.0 applications and communities?
In the private sector the last 5 people I know who defamed their employer in media do not have jobs!
What is responsible on-line conduct for a teacher in their transactions with students, peers and parents? Most importantly where are the boundaries of discourse with others? Is it appropriate to seek worldwide collaboration to solve an educational problem and by divulging it on your blog you create a negative opinion about your school?
When I read the accounts in the press and blog posts from some schools of teachers’ online behaviours, administrators’ reactions and parental outrage it is difficult to know where to start with what seems in many schools to be an impasse.
No matter where you can brakes into the cycle, what ever ears are left to genuinely listen you need to have a dialogue about responsibility of the constituents of your school community before you promote the benefits of the technology.
I would add no one is going to take you seriously if you talk about the educational benefits of FaceBook. It is not because users of FaceBook score lower on standardised tests, because kids who spent more time doing anything but studying scored lower. Strike one up for the ‘claiming causation when its correlation’ bad science award. Did they test those kids back in the 50s who listen to that ‘danga rock and roll’? Did they test Gen Xs who watched too much TV and spent too much time talking on the phone (plug in the wall type)?
Stop trying to educate on FaceBook or as I call it DisgraceBook because at best it is the school playground or at worst it is a party where you watch your students copulate on their parents’ bed whilst under the influence of a cocktail of drugs!
Equally access to your FB/Twitter account by your students, their parents and your line managers, provides them with data that could be misconstrued, misrepresented, de-contextualised and/or re-edited and published elsewhere.
If you start with the responsibility of maintaining an appropriate relationship with your students, then you must become sensitive to the context of the environment in which you transact. More importantly is the context your students set for the networks they use. You are arriving in a location that is already defined by others, your students.
The users define the social transactions on FaceBook, My Space and Second Life and unless you are clearly defining the boundaries of your interaction, (your audience and content) within a strict partition within those networks, then you run a risk of being considered inappropriate.
To use an old media analogy – it does not matter how good the journalism is in Playboy, no one ever believes you buy it for the articles!
There are other platforms as easy to use where you can define the context of ‘learning’ not socialising. I think any teacher who say they need to be on FaceBook because ' . . . that is where the kids are’ is only fooling them selves. The ‘kids’ might also be out under-age drinking outside the local shopping centre – are you going to set up a science experiment there?
Evolve your on-line practice from your current schools professional code of conduct, even use aspect referring to Learning and Professional Development to leverage leadership to re-evaluate their attitudes towards technology. Also consider the codes and practices that have evolved in good media institutions for the last 100 years and use them as reference to how you might evolved an effective approach to publishing and collaborating on-line.
