Emplazamiento de los sitios

When answering the research question, “What is the nature of dramatic engagement in process drama for language education?” exploration into characteristics and behaviours of aesthetic engagement can be made. Discussion in this chapter attempts to explore what are the essential and basic traits of aesthetic engagement in process drama in language education. Understanding the aha moment during aesthetic engagement was a motivating factor in designing this study. Upon analysis in the previous data chapters of three elements, three processes and three catalysts of dramatic engagement, a working definition of aesthetic engagement can now be explored. It is proposed here that dramatic engagement in process drama for language education may be likened to a chemical reaction. This analogy has emerged from the findings. There are fundamental elements that may need to be present for it to occur (such as narrative, role and tension). There are specific and unique processes that can occur during dramatic engagement (such as playbuilding, roleplaying, sensemaking). There are catalysts that could intensify the process (such as metaxis, metacognition and meta-emotion). Examples of these reaction sequences are examined in this chapter with participant cases Mateo, Hiro, Mee and Kang.

During dramatic engagement, participants in this study aligned group, individual and drama narratives. They seemed to experiment with different types of roles: learner, actor, director, audience and in this study, teacher. They experienced different types of tension, most notably tension related to intimacy, culture and performance. Findings indicated that dramatic engagement involves metacognition, metaxis and meta-emotion. In this study, there is evidence to suggest participants’ level of engagement increased when one of these three states occurred.

Findings from Chapter Four of this thesis were used to propose a model for how narrative, role and tension interact in process drama for language education. Participants of process drama who were dramatically engaged seemed to be balancing narrative, role and tension in a sophisticated way. They were cognisant of multiple narratives and how these interacted with one another, reinforced each other and evolved in this process drama. Participants had their own individual narratives – their history, their experiences and their lived stories that they brought to the drama. They participated in the narrative of the drama, engaging with their character’s storyline and arc. They also operated in the group’s narrative. This was both the real narrative of a group of international participants studying English in a higher education context in Australia and the imagined narrative of a group of gold-seekers leaving London to look for gold in Sydney. dramatic engagement occurred when these narratives aligned. In multiple cases,

participants made connections between their own journeys of seeking education in Australia to their characters’ journey of finding gold. This engagement was also heightened when participants switched between the multiple roles available to them in the process drama without breaking momentum or drawing too much energy or focus. If the participant switched between the role of learner, performer, audience, director and teacher at the right moment in the process drama and this moved the drama forward, they may have increased their capacity for dramatic engagement. Understanding of narrative and role involved an understanding of tension. This was dramatic tension such as surprise, conflict or a dilemma presented in the drama, or was tension created by the environment and circumstance external to the drama such as the tension of intimacy, culture or performance. There needed to be an appropriate amount of tension. In this study, there is indication that these three components of dramatic engagement combined with one another and weren’t activated in isolation.

At a granular level when looking at the findings from Chapter Four through the first lens: narrative, role and tension, participants who reported being engaged with the process drama:

1. Understood the power of ceremony, symbols, props and ritual; 2. Built character (both fictional and their own);

3. Told stories to co-create the narratives in the classroom and the drama;

4. Operated on several of these five dimensions at once: learner, director, audience, actor and teacher;

5. Manipulated tension;

6. Appreciated the teacher-in-role, accepted and worked with the facilitator taking a role in character in the classroom.

Participants who were dramatically engaged exhibited positive verbal and non-verbal communication. There was high repetition, rapid interaction cycles, changes in type of language and multiple turn-taking. Participants transferred new vocabulary and language devices, self-corrected and demonstrated active listening by checking and clarifying and addressing misunderstanding. Participants made strong eye contact, gestured for meaning often, and made use of mime to aid meaning. There was strong physical contact and emotive gestures used to communicate. There was also a lot of laughter, having an impact not only on enjoyment but also lowering stress and aiding vocabulary retention.

In Chapter Five, playbuilding, roleplay and sensemaking were identified through phenomenographic reduction as three processes that utilised the three elements explored through the first lens: narrative, role and tension. Participants were noted as experiencing dramatic engagement if they were connected with the art form of process drama and had an appreciation and understanding of language learning. At a granular level, the findings showed that participants who were dramatically engaged:

1. Appreciated the art form and pedagogy of language, drama and engagement; 2. Were willing participants in the teaching / learning cycle;

3. Responded to different learning and teaching strategies, specifically playbuilding, roleplaying and sensemaking;

5. Understood and appreciated the power differential in the classroom and were comfortable in changes;

6. Sequenced and reverse planned, guessed or predicted the direction the lesson may be taking and their place in how they might affect the lesson.

These demonstrable outcomes of quality communication were underscored by playbuilding, roleplaying and sensemaking processes. Activities that were open in design allowed for maximum participant contribution, empowerment and agency. Activities that transitioned from heavy scaffolding to minimal scaffolding and afforded the participants and facilitator space to incorporate emergent learning opportunities were present during dramatic engagement in this study. Activities that encouraged internal reflection and exploration such as writing in role also were present. Poetry, symbolism and metaphor were leveraged during the process drama to encourage poetic and reflective action. Teaching and learning activities that encouraged risk taking such as teacher-in-role also prevailed during key dramatic moments.

In Chapter Six, findings were used to explore the relationship between metaxis, metacognition and meta- emotion. With regards to the third lens applied to the data, these states occurred when the participants managed both content and form, in both drama and language use. The participants needed to balance this well to maintain engagement. Dramatic engagement occurred when the participants placed themselves in a larger context with the group and the classroom ecosystem. It occurred when they took a systems perspective on approaching learning and analysis of learning in the classroom. A participant who was successful in achieving a dual state awareness in process drama shared learner agency and efficacy amongst other participants. Agency may be a core component to engagement. The participants practiced metaxis, metacognition or meta-emotion and self-regulated emotion, language, communication and the process of learning. They helped others regulate theirs. Dramatic engagement occurred through regulation and moderation of their learning, linguistically and artistically.

To achieve one of the three dual states the participants operated on multiple levels, figuratively, mentally, emotionally and physically. Analysis of dramatic engagement was viewed from these perspectives. Multiple forms of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation may be conducive to dual state awareness as well as a curiosity about learning, other people, and the pedagogy and art form of process drama and language education. A fundamental component of the three forms for dual state awareness was the ability to manage distance appropriately. Dramatic engagement may very well be reliant on successful manipulation of distance, and as such needs to be considered when creating learning experiences.

From this research, key theories about metaxis, meta-emotion and metacognition have emerged. During metaxis participants experienced more than just a tension between two roles. They were engaging in a complex process. A participant could be engaged with the art form of drama through experiencing narrative, role and tension. However, for this engagement to elevate into dramatic engagement that has the potential to be transformative, this engagement may need to be coupled with observation of what

is happening to one’s own self, in action. This reflection-in-action may be aided by one or more of three elevated states of being, thinking or feeling. The difference between a lower order of dramatic engagement and a more intensive level of aesthetic engagement may be when one or more of these elevated states occurs.

Through the third lens at a granular level this research showed that participants experiencing metaxis exhibited one or more of the following behaviours:

1. Utilized multiple tensions between multiple roles; 2. Thought and felt in role;

3. Identified metaphor; 4. Respected the ‘stage’;

5. Interacted with dramatic forms; 6. Managed ‘what is’ and ‘what if’.

During metacognition in dramatic engagement, participants exhibited a sophisticated understanding of the way they learnt language, with specific references to the elements of narrative, role and tension. Participants experiencing metacognition exhibited one or more of the following behaviours:

1. Demonstrated understanding of teaching, task based learning and critical thinking; 2. Self-regulated emotion, language, communication;

3. Shared learner agency and self-efficacy;

4. Generated inferences, questions and explanations; 5. Reflected in-action and on-action on success;

6. Were curious with regards to personal development.

Meta-emotion included awareness of emotions the participants were experiencing as they were experiencing them in the process drama classroom. The components that have been highlighted in this research relating to meta-emotion are also related to role, narrative and tension, within roleplaying, playbuilding and sensemaking. Participants experiencing meta-emotion exhibited one or more of the following behaviours:

1. Problem solved, set goals, regulated their emotions; 2. Experienced two or more emotions at a time; 3. Showed interest and curiosity in emotions; 4. Were confident in success and failure; 5. Communicated, facilitated and affiliated; 6. Were open to social sharing.

These three states of being can contribute to an enhanced definition of dramatic engagement. Evidence in the teacher interviews showed that the facilitator could sense that engaged participants in this process drama were connected, emotionally present and had an elevated sense of awareness. They could see how they were connecting to the narratives in the process drama. This research suggests that the facilitator was looking to encourage these dual states of awareness and prepared extensively for creating interesting narratives tackling universal themes. The facilitator prepared process drama

activities and sequences that built tension to draw the participants even further into the dramas. They devoted time and effort in the process drama to help characterisation for the participants and drew on multiple dramatic devices to make engaging participatory theatre. They scaffolded and supported mechanisms for language into the process drama including pre-text, writing-in-role, reflection and time for deconstruction, reflection and sensemaking. The facilitator built into their process dramas opportunities for participants to develop awareness around metaxis, metacognition and meta-emotion by encouraging explicit activities focusing on recognising the acts of being, thinking and feeling. They practiced metaxis, trained in metacognition and developed meta-emotion by inclusion of these elements into their process dramas. They aimed for maximising the dramatic engagement in their process drama and provided more memorable and potential dramatic experiences.

It is interesting to note that when the lens of narrative, role and tension are applied to dramatic engagement, connection in dramatic engagement presents itself. When the lenses of metaxis, metacognition and meta-emotion are used, the elements of heightened awareness present more fully. When the lenses of playbuilding, roleplaying and sensemaking are used, animation features more strongly. This may indicate that it is from within dramatic engagement, dramatic engagement can be activated.

Dramatic engagement may lead to change and transformation. Findings indicate that dramatic engagement may require artistry and sophistication in providing opportunities for the experience of dramatic engagement and multiple dual states of awareness. Participants’ key experiences occurred when they engaged with the narrative, adopted different roles and leveraged tension. When they experienced key components of dramatic engagement simultaneously, that is metaxis, metacognition or meta-emotion, they moved from being aware of and practicing dramatic engagement to being aware of and fully using dramatic engagement to help them learn a language. This is extrapolated from Mateo in this study who by his accounts was the only participant who reported having a transformative experience through aesthetic engagement.

I think that something was broken, and me and the rest of the men, really, we were free to express ourselves. (Mateo, Spanish male, 32)

Kang contributed to the narratives in the process drama and conveyed a sense of enjoyment with the activities. He became dramatically engaged through strong narratives and dramatic plot. He was emotionally engaged but did not practice meta-emotion (that is he reported feeling emotions but not being fully aware or able to control them).

Kang seemed to be only able to access one dual state awareness and therefore may have been limited with his dramatic engagement. He could experience the art form in the process drama and adopt different roles. Moving Kang through the process of becoming aware and practicing other forms of dual state awareness, as well as having him engage more with the narrative and leverage more tension, could

have allowed him to experience key components of dramatic engagement simultaneously and thereby have a transformative experience. Kang reported experiencing dramatic engagement but did not report transformation.

Acting is just - you can be another person I think - just not be yourself […] So you are more willing to express your ideas. It is also fun to create a character and imagine something crazy (Kang,

Chinese male, 23)

Hiro displayed a high level of metacognition combined with an awareness of body and self. It is thought he contributed to dramatic engagement through intellectualisation of the experience. He was intellectually engaged and could experience appreciation of teaching and learning. He was also able to adopt roles. He could experience metacognition but may have been limited in his potential to be dramatically engaged because he could only operate in one dual state. For Hiro to be dramatically engaged, he may have needed to become more aware of and practice meta-emotion and metaxis.

The first time we were nervous because I don't know what to - what do I do, this workshop […] It's breaking; it's good, very good. (Hiro, Japanese male, 43)

Mee emoted freely, enabled other participants’ emotions, and demonstrated a high level of awareness and use of meta-emotion. She became dramatically engaged through connecting to the emotions of her characters. Her engagement occurred when she engaged with the narrative through adopting different roles. She had metacognition and meta-emotion as options to experience key components of dramatic engagement simultaneously and therefore may have had the potential to have a heightened experience. However, this would have required her to move from being aware and practicing dramatic engagement, to being aware and fully using dramatic engagement. Mee reported on being dramatically engaged but did not report on having a heightened experience in this study.

We really felt that it is real drama because we know the situation and we know - so maybe I real because I really enjoyed it so I left there so lovely I think. (Mee, Korean female, 22)

During this research, these four participants revealed that a ‘light bulb’ moment happened when they could think and feel in dual worlds of two roles. Through this metaxis, they suddenly made sense of the aesthetic world, realised the true meaning of the metaphor they were acting in and experienced agency. If the activating state was metacognition and the participant began to operate on more than one level with their language learning and began to think and feel about being in these two states simultaneously within the process drama ecosystem, then there was a shift in their perception and they began to reflect in-action and on-action. Dual state awareness may have occurred in dramatic engagement when the participant applied critical thinking concepts to their thinking and feeling processes. This seemed to be critical for dramatic engagement. They were able to regulate their language learning without censor and renew a greater sense of self-efficacy. Lastly, if the participant was activating their dramatic engagement through meta-emotion and they began to think and feel in multiple emotions simultaneously in the drama, then there may have been an impact on their confidence. If they remained curious to this

experience and let it expand, then this could be followed by a catharsis and aesthetic engagement in process drama for language education.

Mateo was the only participant in the process drama who reported experiencing transformation through aesthetic engagement in process drama for language education. Three other participants were engaged but seemed to progress no further. Other participants had fun, reported learning something, or enjoyed the ‘acting’ in the workshops. However, perhaps because of Mateo’s ability to leverage his emotions, his logic and his role, he had a deeper experience. The rubrics listed in this section for each of these three lenses may allow facilitators to observe the outward demonstrable behaviours that pre-empt dramatic engagement and provide more opportunities in workshops and classrooms for participants to be aesthetically engaged. Rather than happening haphazardly in the classroom, this piece of research can give some guidance on how to create these opportunities for aesthetic engagement in process drama for language education from a considered theoretical and practical framework.

Conclusion

In summary, this thesis has explored the following research question.

What is the nature of dramatic engagement in process drama for language education?

The research sub-questions explored in the previous chapters were:

1. How do narrative, role and tension contribute to dramatic engagement in process drama for language learning?

2. How do playbuilding, roleplaying and sensemaking contribute to dramatic engagement in process drama for language education?

3. How do metaxis, metacognition and meta-emotion contribute to dramatic engagement in process drama for language education?

This thesis explored these questions by developing a theoretical framework that emerged from the literature review and was refined through consequent phases of phenomenographic data analysis. This framework highlights how participants dramatically engaged through three key elements in the process drama: narrative, role and tension. These elements in this study are thought to be experienced through three key processes: playbuilding, roleplay and sensemaking. Metaxis, metacognition and meta-emotion may act as catalysts for the participants and provide the right environment for dramatic engagement to occur.

In addressing the first research question about the contribution of narrative, role and tension to dramatic