Drama Teacher ICT Survey

DRAMA AND TECHNOLOGY: TEACHER ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS
BY KIM FLINTOFF
B.A. (Theatre and Drama), Grad Dip Ed (Secondary Drama)
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award
MASTER OF EDUCATION
At the School of Education, Edith Cowan University 2005

The author believes that there is “a changing paradigm in Drama education” (Flintoff, 11) and Drama teachers are reluctant and/ or unprepared to incorporate ICT in their classrooms. In this study, he surveyed drama teachers in an attempt to gather feedback that would describe their attitudes toward ICT. None of his respondents were staunchly opposed to ICT in general, but were “reserving judgment” (Flintoff, 92) until they understood the issues better or evidence was clearer; under half of the respondents were using any ICT in their classrooms (Flintofff, 93). Among many concerns, access to technology and insufficient training or knowledge were identified. I identify quite strongly with this population, and I wonder how much just the act of discussing their attitudes for this study prompted these teachers to reflect on them, as reading the report has prompted me to do.

Flintoff points out that this study does not attempt to say whether ICT should be taught in Drama classrooms; in fact he acknowledges that “there may be equally valid arguments suggesting that technology may be anathema to Drama education, indeed it may even prove to undermine the very nature of Drama education” (Flintoff 15).

The author sees new possibilities with the use of ICT in drama classrooms: “To begin with, physical laws need not apply, bodies and voices are optional, gender is not fixed, and space becomes one of the elements we construct rather than simply that in which we work. This is one sure way to extend and diversify the scope of Arts, and specifically Drama, practice” (Flintoff, 12). I would argue that everything in this statement is essentially true of the imaginative “space” of theatre with or without ICT. Drama is all about these conceptual leaps, and I’m not persuaded that our imaginations are any more free in a digital context. Suspension of disbelief has worked like a charm for millenia; we like to be told stories, and we know they’re not exactly real, but we want to be told them anyway. Gender has never been “fixed,” bodies and voices can change miraculously in performance, and the literal and figurative construction of “space” in theatre is nothing new either.

Flintoff engages briefly with this question of space, asking rehetorically, “What happens to drama when it is removed from the physical and temporal – does Drama still happen if it can somehow occur independent of the here and now?” (Flintoff, 32) For me, it’s an essential question we must try to answer. The ephemeral, here-and-now quality of theatre cannot be replicated, approximated or simulated. There may be other, wonderfully teachable kinds of drama than live theatre, but it’s still the original human experience of storytelling, and in the end, much less esoteric and specialized than anything that requires the use of tools.

He offers a lengthy list of ways in which computers can be used before, during, after, and in the drama (Flintoff, 28), e.g., to research, to write script material, to practice role-play in games, etc. I imagine this list might be very useful for someone like me, with a pretty skeptical position on ICT in Drama classrooms, based on some knowledge of the subject and a lot of ignorance about the technology. Maybe I’ll find something I can really use, and improve my outlook. It’s clear that having a bad attitude about it isn’t good pedagogy.

Reference:

Flintoff, K. (2005) Drama and Technology: Teacher Attitudes and Perceptions. Master of Education Thesis, Edith Cowan University.

Accessed 18-4-2011 at :

http://www.drama-education.com/site/file.php/1/drama_and_technology_teacher_attitudes.pdf