Heroes Aren’t Hard to Find: Playback Theatre and Character Education
Results
Focus Groups
Teacher Focus Group
After collecting all of the consent forms, I held a focus group interview with the fifth grade teachers in order to determine current school climate, attitudes toward character education, student behavioral problems and parent involvement in character development. I conducted this interview on February 15, 2005, and all four classroom teachers attended. Two of the teachers were African-American females and two were Caucasian males. I asked questions concerning current practices at the school in character education, and inquired about their opinions of its effectiveness. I also included questions about issues related to character development they would like to see addressed in the Playback Theatre performances. The teachers ultimately determined the topic of each of the three performances. The complete Teachers Focus Group Interview Guide may be found in Appendix D.
All of the staff reported they had received some training in character education. This ranged from formal to informal workshops and motivational speakers. While they all agreed that character education is important to healthy child development and learning, they believed that it must be supported by parents, and it is difficult to promote if children aren’t receiving appropriate guidance at home. They also stated that character education should be part of the school improvement plan, and all school staff should be responsible for implementation. However, I found it significant that none of the teachers were familiar with their school’s specific character education program goals, including the teacher who sits on the character education committee.
Some of the difficulties the teachers cited in teaching character education were lack of parental involvement, only partial staff “buy-in,” different family values, and a lack of time. They felt lack of time was a greater challenge as their school is an “Equity Plus” school, and therefore requires more paperwork than other schools. They also cited the lack of training for support staff and assistant teachers, and the fact that none of them had received any instruction in character education in their college classes.
The teachers reported the predominant social and emotional factors affecting students’ character development were poverty, homelessness/constant movement from one relative’s home to another, parental abandonment, or substance abuse, and unsafe neighborhoods. They cited concerns about students’ self-esteem, cheating, bullying, cliques, peer pressure, gangs and intolerance/prejudice. They chose responsibility, self-esteem and bullying as the topics to be addressed in the PBT performances.
The school measures success of the current character education program by increases or decreases in the number of disciplinary referrals, the number of awards given to students, and staff surveys. None of the methods cited involved input from the students or their parents nor did they demonstrate any behavioral changes (as evidenced by a decrease in disciplinary referrals) would be directly attributable to students’ acquisition of good character.
Other comments of note from the teachers included:
- lack of religion in the schools has led to immoral behavior
- elimination of corporal punishment has also contributed to moral decline
- parents have no respect for others as evidenced by behavior at student events where they leave after their kids have performed but before the event is concluded
- parents don’t trust teachers (noted defensiveness on this topic and little insight apparent as to why this may be so)
- parents label their kids and appear to give up on them.
Some of the teachers believed that character education is a covert way to bring Christian religion into the schools. Comments were made that character education is Bible-based, and that prayers and hymns were effective in schools in the past because parents were religious. This was followed by the comment that “…our kids don’t go to church, you can tell.”
Analysis
Even though the teachers had extensive knowledge of their students’ social and emotional ills, their comments suggest a lack of empathy for the students in relation to their behavior or academic performance. They clearly understand, on a cognitive level, the poverty and other social problems their students must cope with, yet they failed to acknowledge (verbally or affectively) the ramifications such conditions have on students’ ability to function socially and academically. This could be explained by what Weissbourd (2003) described as the result of teacher disillusionment and depression. They may feel overwhelmed by the social problems of their students and detach emotionally as a coping mechanism. They also appeared to be somewhat biased against parents’ lack of involvement, but offered no empathy for their economic or other social ills. One teacher did state that he might be contributing to the parental mistrust by only calling parents to discuss problems, rather than to compliment students or build rapport.
I also noted some incongruent behavior during our discussion on student and parent disrespectfulness. One of the teachers left with no explanation during the interview and then returned a few minutes later with drinks and snacks, which she proceeded to eat noisily during the remainder of the interview. She and another teacher carried on side conversations while one of their other peers or I were talking. This type of behavior would undoubtedly be considered rude and disrespectful if exhibited by a student or parent during a meeting or instructional time.
Student Focus Group
I held a second focus group interview with eight fifth-grade students on February 17, 2005. The group demographics included six girls and two boys, six African-Americans, one Latina and one Caucasian. A staff member was present (the literacy teacher) to observe as was dictated by the school system, and this may have had some influence on the students’ responses.
The students were asked to define character education, describe specific character education activities at their school, and to describe how they believe character education benefits students. They were also asked to name specific character traits they had learned, and to comment on adult modeling of these traits at their school. They were also asked about school climate, and ways that students, teachers and parents might improve their school. For the Student Focus Group Guide please see Appendix E.
The students defined character education as a program that teaches one how “to do the right thing,” how to deal with bad situations, and how to respond to fellow students in a caring way. They enthusiastically described some of the character education activities at their school including a play they performed on the school’s morning news show, lectures given by the school principal on different character traits, character coupons (these are given by staff for good behavior and are traded in for rewards like pencils), reading character pledges, having one’s picture displayed on a bulletin board and a monthly activity in their “specials” classes (i.e.; art, music, media, technology, physical education). They cited an increase in appropriate behavior, motivation and self-confidence as the result of participating in character education activities. Specific comments by the students included: “It helps people who aren’t as good as others know how to act; it motivates them to have more confidence; It helps Spanish-speaking kids learn character education.” The student clarified the last comment was not meant to imply that Latin-American students were lacking in good character, but rather the program helped them learn this school’s behavioral expectations.
They also named all of the character traits that their school promotes. Some of the students noted their teachers model good character, commenting that Mr. H. “is caring and respectful…he doesn’t talk about you, he’s nice and makes you laugh,” and “ Ms. Z and Mr. H. make teaching fun, he [sic] makes a good situation out of a bad one.” They complained about the cafeteria workers and the custodians, describing them as sometimes mean, sarcastic and inconsistent in their treatment of students. One child mused that they behaved as if “they don’t like kids.” They described some of their peers as being disrespectful at times and cliquish, and stated that jealousy at awards ceremonies was evidenced by some students booing recipients. When asked to describe relations between students and teachers, many of them felt that teachers don’t respond empathically to them. They also yell too much and hurt their feelings when discussing grades. One student said, “Teachers don’t listen to what you’re saying if you are frustrated, they will yell at you and then you have to have a conference, and it hurts when they are all talking about your grades.” There was consensus among the group that teachers often talk about students behind their backs, and the comments are often critical of their appearance and behavior. They wished that teachers would be more respectful to kids, refrain from discussing students’ attire, be consistent, make lessons more interesting and treat students the way they [the teachers] want to be treated.
Analysis
The interview ran over the allotted time due to the vigorous and multiple responses from most of the participants. They appeared to enjoy being asked their opinions and discussed them freely. It is important to note that I did not introduce the term or concept of empathy with the students, and it is not one of the character traits that they study at school. Their comments indicate their perception that some teachers and staff lack empathy and to a lesser degree, respect, for students. This is consistent with my findings with the teachers’ focus group. The students clearly enjoy being rewarded for demonstrating good character as well as engaging in active learning of character traits such as the puppet show they created and performed. They also indicated that they appreciate teachers whom they perceive as caring and invested in making education enjoyable.
Student Survey Cards
The students were asked to fill out a brief survey card immediately after each of the three performances. The cards were identical for each performance with the exception of the topic, which changed with every performance. Please see Appendix F for a sample survey card.
As was indicated in the focus group interviews with both the students and the teachers, the teachers appeared to lack empathy for the students and their real life issues. To determine if Playback Theatre experiences would promote empathy between students and teachers, which was my primary research question, I developed a working definition of empathy to categorize the responses on the survey cards and the in-depth interviews. Eisenberg, et al. (1998) offer this definition for empathy: “...an affective response that stems from the apprehension or comprehension of another’s emotional state or condition, and that is identical or very similar to what the other person is feeling or would be expected to feel” (p.506). They further describe empathy-related responses such as sympathy, personal distress, and cognitive perspective taking. Sympathy is defined as concern for another without experiencing that person’s feelings. We may express sorrow over someone’s loss however, we do not experience an affective reaction within ourselves. A personal distress response is “a self-focused, aversive emotional reaction to the vicarious experiencing of another’s emotion.” This response may result in rescuing behavior, where the respondent attempts to fix the problem in order to alleviate their own discomfort. Cognitive perspective taking occurs when a person attempts to understand another by mentally placing themselves in the other’s situation or experience. As a counselor, I often try to imagine what a client must be feeling and experiencing in the current situation, in order to better understand them.
I created a spreadsheet to record the students’ responses on each set of survey cards. I then sorted the responses to the first question (What is one moment you remember?) with the categories being 1 – sympathy, 2 – empathy, 3 – personal distress, 4 – cognitive perspective taking, and 5 – other or no response.
The second question, “Did you learn anything about [responsibility, self-esteem or bullying] or the tellers who shared stories?” was sorted into one of three categories;
A - Response reflected content learning about character trait
B - Response unrelated to content
E - Response related to entertainment/theatre
For the responses to the third question, “How do you think you and other students might benefit from this show?” I used the categories for both of the previous questions.
Analysis
The results from the three sets of survey cards (see Table 1) indicate that seventy-six percent of the students liked the first show “a lot” and 24% liked it “a little”. The second show was less popular with students. The last show’s response was similar to the first.
Table 1
Comparison of Audience Satisfaction of each Show
Shows |
Liked "A lot" |
Like "A little" |
Like "Not at all" |
1st |
76% |
24% |
0% |
2nd |
45% |
49% |
6% |
3rd |
71% |
25% |
4% |
An obvious difference between the second performance and the other two was that none of the classroom teachers attended, and therefore, none of them were tellers. There were also two new actors, neither of whom had attended the original rehearsals or had previous PBT experience, which may have affected the overall quality of the performance. I also suspect that the topic for the second show, which was self-esteem, may have been uncomfortable for the students, as they were asked to tell stories regarding what they liked or disliked about themselves. Following are the results for each question on the survey card for each of the three shows.
Question One: What is one moment that you remember?
Table 2
Comparison of Empathic Responses to Question One
|
|
Shows |
Empathic Response |
1st |
38% |
2nd |
47% |
3rd |
13% |
The responses from the survey cards to the Question One (see table 2) indicate that for the first show, thirty-eight percent of the students gave an empathy-related response. This number increased to forty-seven percent for the second show, but drastically decreased for the third show to thirteen percent.
Question Two: Did you learn anything about (responsibility, self-esteem, bullying) or the tellers who shared stories?
Table 3
Comparison of Content Learning Responses to Question Two
|
|
||
Shows/topics |
Content Learning |
Unrelated to Content |
Theatre related |
1st responsibility |
53% |
47% |
0% |
2nd |
37% |
63% |
0% |
3rd |
46% |
54% |
0% |
The responses for Question Two indicated that for the first performance, fifty-three percent of the students demonstrated content learning. For the second performance the content learning decreased to 37 percent, but for the third show it rose to 46 percent. It is interesting to note there appeared to be an inverse relationship for the first and third shows with content learning and the rate of empathy responses, with the most congruent rates occurring with the second show, which was reportedly the least popular.
We experimented with some different Playback Theatre forms and even a few other theatre styles or formats, and this could explain the response differences. It could also be due to random chance, however, the second show offered the most “pure” Playback Theatre format. Further studies might determine if the differences were due to form and format, or simply chance or the previously noted concerns about topic or lack of teacher involvement.
Question Three: How do you think you and other students might benefit from this show?
Table 4
Comparison of Empathic and Content Learning Responses to Question Three
|
|
|
||
Shows |
Empathic Response |
Content Learning |
No Content or Empathy |
Theatre related |
1st |
20% |
50% |
9% |
0% |
2nd |
38% |
14% |
36% |
8% |
3rd |
16% |
47% |
22% |
0% |
In relation to Question Three (see Table 4) regarding the potential benefit of the first performance for themselves and other students, half of the responses indicated that the students had learned more about responsibility. Twenty percent gave an empathy related response regarding one of the tellers, and eleven percent gave no response to this question. For the second show, only 14 percent felt that they or their peers had learned more about self-esteem in general, but 38 percent made an empathic response about a teller. Responses to the last performance indicated that 47 percent felt they or others had learned more about bullying, while 16 percent gave an empathic response about the teller. For this last question the inverse relationship between empathic response and content learning was consistent for all three performances.
The writing skills of the students may also have affected some of the responses. Some students wrote little or nothing on their cards for the open-ended questions. Others appeared to have copied a neighbor’s response. A few of the responses were difficult to decipher, most likely due to the language barrier that some of the Latino/a experience when they are in the early stages of learning English.
Teacher Evaluations
Ten staff completed evaluations of the program after the third performance (see appendix G for evaluation sample). Four of them were classroom teachers, four were “specials” teachers (art, physical education, music and technology), one a literacy teacher and one an administrator. Their experience as educators ranged from 3-28 years with thirty percent having worked at the school for one to three years, and seventy percent having worked there five or more years.
Eighty percent of the teachers attended the performances on responsibility and bullying (first and third shows respectively) and sixty percent attended the self-esteem performance. Twenty percent of them reported they had been a teller at one of the shows. Overall, 40 percent of the staff felt that the students responded “very positively” to the shows, while another 40 percent felt the student response was “somewhat positive” and 20 percent felt the student response was “neutral.” They reported that staff response was all positive with 40 percent “very positive” and 60 percent “somewhat positive.”
While fifty percent of the staff reported they subsequently expanded on the topics or stories from the performances, only two gave a specific example of how they did this. One stated, “We talked about how being responsible carries over to many other areas. We identified responsible and irresponsible behavior in the novel we are reading during literacy.” The other staff member wrote, “Use [sic]examples from performance to help students dealing with similar situations in class. Also to help students find appropriate ways to deal with each other.”
The staff’s responses indicate they felt there were several positive results for students resulting from the program including: application of ideas generated during performances, reflection and discussion of stories or topics, increased interest in drama, and increased interest in character education concepts. Their reported influence on staff was much less significant. Only one respondent indicated s/he had overheard negative
comments from students, and no other negative result was reported. Seventy percent of the staff reported that the performances were “very effective” in promoting understanding of the character traits presented.
Suggestions to improve the program included: use student actors (50%), include other grades (50%), more audience participation (40%), involve parents (40%), decrease length of performances (20%), increase length of performances (20%), and invite other staff (10%).
Some of the individual responses to the seventh question, “What, if anything, did you learn about someone who was a teller?” indicate some level of empathy or increased understanding of the students or their personal lives. Examples include:
It helped to see how the teller interacts with people at home.
The dramatic feed/playback was powerful. It helped the students visualize the situation and think more carefully about the details.
Willingness to share personal information
They had a message to send.
That everyone can relate in some way to the teller’s story.
Analysis
It is possible that the empathy rate would have increased if all of the staff had attended all three performances. It may be significant that the four classroom teachers missed the second performance which had the highest rate of empathy responses in the student survey cards. It may also have made a difference if the introduction to Playback Theatre teacher workshop had been held as was originally planned. Issues with staff buy-
in and valuing of character education were a problem cited by the teachers in the focus
group, and they are reportedly overwhelmed with extra paperwork due to their school’s Equity Plus status.
Since half of the respondents felt that students should be used as actors and half also cited more audience participation as a way to improve the program, it seems logical to conclude this type of drama has good potential as an active teaching method. The staff reported only 40 percent of the students responded “very positively” to the shows, however, this seems inconsistent with the reported follow-up. Only two of the ten appeared to have engaged the students in some reflection of the performances, so I am unclear as to how they determined whether students’ responses were “very positive” or “somewhat positive” or just “neutral”. As these percentages were similar to their responses of how they felt about the shows, I suspect some of them may have projected their own reactions into the question regarding student response.
Student Interviews
After the third performance, two students, both of whom had participated in the focus group session, were interviewed together (due to time and space constraints at the school) to ascertain their impressions of the program, and to further explore its effect on the school. One student was an African American female (F) and one a Caucasian male (M). Both students reported limited exposure to live theatre, and confirmed they had enjoyed their few experiences.
I began the interview with a brief explanation for the purpose of the interview and placed emphasis on the importance of their offering authentic opinions and assurance that my feelings would not be hurt if they shared their negative reactions or opinions. The first questions (see Appendix H for interview guide) were about their school’s character education activities, and their opinions on how effective those activities are for teaching the character traits. They both felt recognition and reinforcement were powerful in supporting the character education program at their school. They reported they thought all the program activities were meaningful, but did not single out any of the content activities.
The next few questions I asked them regarded their ideas about the Playback Theatre performances. F was a teller during the first performance, and M had not been a teller at any of them. They both attended all three shows, and agreed that the last show was their favorite. F reported “…I like that we could express what happened to us…” and M then commented that he liked improvisation better than scripted plays. M also stated that the first show was his least favorite. However, F reported that the second show was her least favorite, although she quickly added “But I liked it.” M said that he thought the acting was better in the second and third shows, but F said that she had been teased when she was a teller because our conductor had mispronounced her name.
When asked what stories they remembered, F recalled a story told by one of the teachers at the first show. They both enjoyed the teachers’ performance, which occurred during the final show when we needed several people to portray kids on a playground. They also discussed the concept of empowerment, and the precept that a bully is really just insecure. We had presented both of these ideas at the final show on bullying. F also commented that, “It’s hard to believe these teachers were once kids.” M responded “That was pretty weird.” in relation to hearing the teachers share their stories. They also indicated that the whole experience was humorous and F stated, “…even the teachers were laughing…,” suggesting that they don’t share too many moments like that with the staff.
They weren’t certain if the teachers had learned anything from the performances but reported this was because they feel that it’s difficult to know what teachers think.
They did recall that they had extended their learning from each show by discussing it with peers and family. F stated, “Every time after every performance we talk about it.” M added, “We will be singing little songs that ya’ll had[sic]in. I told my mom about it and my friends.” They also stated that they had heard some of the staff discussing the performances in the lunchroom and at breakfast.
Both students cited the interactive format of PBT as a positive aspect of the shows. They also felt that the program had influenced the students, particularly the final performance on bullying. They stated that gossiping, scape-goating, name-calling and exclusion were common at their school, but this had occurred less frequently since the last show. They named a specific student who had a history of bullying the same female student daily in the lunchroom, claiming, “He don’t really do that no more. It’s like since you did that last one, the third one, he hasn’t been calling anyone names or messing with anybody.”
When I asked who else should be invited to a program like this, F stated there was another boy who bullies everyone, including teachers, “I think he should come and see that play, see how it makes people feel.” This statement supports the student’s belief that PBT promotes empathy. They also felt that other students could benefit from some of the ideas that were generated in relation to empowerment. This led to their idea to have our company come back for an encore performance after they completed their “End of Grade” testing (EOGs). More specifically, they stated it would be fun to have several tellers and then create one performance from a series of stories about the school year. They also reported it would be helpful to have a performance related to test anxiety right before they took their EOGs. This idea also indicates their understanding of Playback Theatre’s potential to build community and openly address issues in a respectful way. F described this process as “It’s like kids can tell their problems but they do it in a fun way and they won’t get embarrassed.” She added the Playback Theatre performances were a better solution than just telling a teacher when one has a problem.
I asked them as a follow-up if they thought it was important to hear other people tell their stories. F responded by saying “If you want people to listen to you, you should listen to everybody else…..instead of laughing or talking while they are doing it.” They indicated that PBT might help kids become better listeners.
Their suggestions for improving the program included more audience participation and teaching PBT techniques to kids and using them as actors in performances. M stated, “I think there should be like an acting class that people can take in school.” Clearly they enjoyed the theatre experience and see potential for drama as part of the curriculum.
For the encore performance, I did include the eight students who had participated in the interviews. I conducted an hour and a half workshop with them a week prior to the additional show. This twenty minute performance was given as part of an awards ceremony for the third and fourth grade students, and they were asked to share favorite memories of the school year.
Analysis
The interview results indicated that the project likely had more of an in-depth effect on the students than could be discerned by the written surveys and evaluations. The findings also indicate the students continued to process the performances well after the show, with a few of them apparently applying some of what they learned to real-life situations. While it is possible their responses may have been somewhat different if they had been interviewed separately, the findings are encouraging. Their statements would appear to support Playback Theatre as a viable method for building community, promoting social change and increasing empathy.
Teacher Interviews
Following the student interviews, I interviewed two of the fifth-grade classroom teachers (see Appendix I for Interview Guide). Both of them had participated in the focus group interview prior to the first performance. One of the teachers was an African-American female (Ms. L) with 19 years of teaching experience with the two most recent years at this school, and the other was a Caucasian male (Mr. A) with eight years of experience, all of it at this school. There was a third teacher who initially interrupted our discussion to request paperwork from Ms. L and Mr. A. Mr. A. appeared embarrassed by
this behavior, and when he returned he apologized and stated that he did not understand why we had been interrupted as the paperwork was not past due. This same teacher joined us later in the interview and shared a few (mostly negative) comments.
The initial questions I posed were about the most difficult and most rewarding aspects of their jobs as teachers at this site. Ms. L stated that she feels that it is no longer politically correct to “get personal with the children” because it may be misconstrued. She mentioned that she felt she couldn’t even place her hand on a student’s shoulder as it was too risky. Mr. A responded that the lack of trust between parents and teachers, and parents’ lack of reinforcement of what teachers are promoting at school were the most frustrating for him. He also reflected on the defensiveness of parents when he calls home to discuss disciplinary issues, stating, “It wasn’t like that when I was a child.” He explained that his parents would punish him if his teacher called to report disciplinary problems. On the positive side, they both said they enjoyed working with the children and that teaching is gratifying when, as Ms. L. stated, “a light bulb goes on” and they saw that the students are learning.
In relation to teaching character education, they both felt that it was part of the everyday routine. Mr. A said that he emphasizes courtesy and manners, and Ms. L said she stresses the “golden rule” of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. They both felt it is important for teachers to model good character for their students, but Mr. A remarked that “…we as teachers need to do a better job of it and then our expectations of children need to be pretty much the same.” He went on to add that the modeling of good character is not consistent across classrooms due to some teachers devaluing of character education. He again noted that parents don’t appear to reinforce these concepts at home.
Of the character education activities that the school engages in, Ms. L felt that the Playback Theatre performances had a positive influence on the students because there was modeling of good character. She believes that even students who “know right from wrong” may be unduly influenced by peers and choose not to behave appropriately. Mr. A believes that the rewards and recognition are very important, citing the character coupons as an excellent way to do both, but again remarked that consistency was an issue at their school. Ms. L then added that students also are recognized at the awards ceremony. They both felt that the “character bulletin board” was the least effective character education activity.
Both teachers reported they attended the theatre at least once a year and they had seen two of the three Playback Theatre performances at the school. They had both been tellers at the first performance, and Mr. A was an actor in the third performance. They each had at least one student who was a teller as well. Mr. A stated he was surprised his student had volunteered to be a teller, and he was impressed by her courage. He said, “I could tell she was nervous when she was up there but she did a good job.” Ms. L reported she felt one of her students was empowered by his acting role in the third performance as he has been a victim of bullying in the past.
In response to the question of how the students may have been affected by the teachers’ stories, Mr. A said that he thought it might humanize them [the teachers] and help the kids realize that they have problems, too. He hoped the students might relate to them a little more, and that it would encourage a stronger connection. Ms. L seemed surprised at this comment and added she had not noticed but she thought the students had found their stories and participation humorous. They had a more difficult time responding to how the students might have been affected by their peers’ stories. Mr. A commented that they may have viewed some of the student tellers in a different light afterwards, and that some of them seemed to have a positive response to seeing their peers acting on the stage. He stressed that the kids who had been actively involved in the performances appeared to get the most out of them, and Ms L agreed emphatically.
At this point a third teacher, Ms. B, joined us briefly. She responded to my question about how listening to the students’ stories may have affected the teachers by stating she had not heard anything she didn’t already know, “except some details” [in reference to student stories]. Mr. A pointed out that the specials teachers who only see the students for 45 minutes per week probably learned more about the tellers during the performances. He also felt that the administrators who attended probably learned some new information as well.
Mr. A felt that the students in general feel comfortable sharing with the teachers, but he believed that the experience of Playback Theatre had influenced the students somewhat. He said that he had noticed some of the concepts that were presented were being implemented by the students, and one student in particular had changed her behavior since she had participated in the program. Ms. L concurred with Mr. A but did not elaborate. Ms. B disagreed, suggesting that the students may have experienced the program as a “temporary fix” and she wasn’t sure whether any ramification had been experienced by the students.
In response to the query of what other topics they thought the program should address, Mr. A suggested that involving the students more during the planning process would make sense. It was also suggested that puberty might be addressed in this type of format. They all felt that other grade levels should be included, and they agreed they would be willing to participate in future programs of this type with Ms. B adding the caveat, “ If I don’t have to act.” Mr. A also stated an interest in learning more about how to use drama as a teaching tool. He stated that being involved in this program had given some of the students an opportunity to try different responses to situations. Ms. L added that role reversal for bullies and their victims might be effective in promoting empathy and understanding for their victims.
Their only suggestion for improving the program was to increase student involvement either as actors or tellers. Mr. A concluded, “…I think you guys do a very nice job. It’s very organized and you come in and do a great job.”
Analysis
The teachers’ responses were not as enthusiastic as those of the students, perhaps due in part to their absence at the second show. Of the three teachers’ who participated in the interview, the least encouraging of the group was also the only one of the three who had not been a teller or an actor. I believe it is also significant the teachers interviewed missed the performance that had the greatest number of empathy responses from the students and was the “purest” example of Playback Theatre. These findings suggest that direct participation and consistent attendance may increase the effect of Playback Theatre performances on teacher empathy.
Informal Data
Although it was not officially part of the project, our Playback Theatre company gave a brief encore performance at the students’ requests. These requests came during the student interviews. After obtaining their feedback, as well as that of the teachers during their interviews, I decided to conduct a brief (90 minute) Playback Theatre workshop with the eight students who had participated in the focus group. My plan was to then involve those who were willing in the encore performance the following week.
I began the workshop with theater games and found the students hesitant to join in and play along. They appeared to have a high level of anxiety about acting foolish or silly in front of each other. They were not familiar with some of the drama terminology so I regrouped and offered some basic drama education. By the end of the workshop they were practicing the tableau (a series of frozen scenes) format for retelling well-known fairytales. It was clear from my observations these students were not experienced in expressing themselves non-verbally. They appeared to feel awkward and uncomfortable in using their bodies to communicate. I also noticed that they were quick to judge and criticize each other. Given the luxury of more time I would have taken them to a larger space and facilitated some creative movement activities with them to address these inhibitions.
The following week when I returned for the encore performance, I came early to conduct a warm-up for the ones who wanted to perform. Some of the students did not want to switch from their current activities, but were coerced into doing so by their teachers, who threatened a loss of privileges for those choosing not to participate. Initially these students were angry and resistant; even though I assured them I had no issue with them backing out of the performance. They declined to return to class, and by the time we finished our warm-ups they were all smiling and laughing and ready to get up on stage. Even though their part in the performance was limited to demonstrating the game called “Construction,” and then being part of a playground crowd in the replay of a teller’s story, they seemed to enjoy the opportunity to perform for their peers.
Some of the students were asked to write thank-you cards to our PBT company and while most were pretty standard, a few of the cards had insightful messages. Some of these responses were:
I learned that you can use the way you feel and act it out.
I really enjoyed all your [sic] acting. I really like the responsibility day because it teached me to be more responsible.
I want to thank all of the people who are working with the playback theatre. I personally enjoyed helping them out with they’re program.
It taught us what to do when something happens.
Thank you for coming to our school. We had a great time and we appreciate your lessons.
Thank you for performing at our school. We enjoyed you very much. I hope you can come again next year and teach us about drama.
That was great how you did a play of kids that came up on the stage.
Thank you for coming to our school and acting for us. I would probably fit in there. I like making people laugh and I like acting out scenes of movies I’ve watched. Please come again.
I enjoyed watching you act out people’s stories, they’re funny and exciting. I hope you come again next year and teach us about drama.
Their notes illustrate that some of them were interested in learning more about theatre. Some students indicate they gained knowledge or skills in relation to the topics presented, which supports the notion that PBT is a viable vehicle for teaching character education concepts. There were also a few messages that demonstrate self-empathy, which is a precursor to empathy for others. It should be noted these responses were not from the students who were interviewed in either the focus group or the follow-up session, and included some fourth graders who only attended the encore performance.
While talking with the site coordinator after the official conclusion of the program, she relayed her belief that our performances had stimulated the students intellectually, creatively and emotionally. She did not feel that the effect had been as great on the teachers, although she believed this was, in part, attributed to their absence at the second show, and partially due to the elimination of the teacher workshop that was to precede the performances.
The actors also shared their empathic experiences during discussions of the performances during the project period. We were all moved by the stories students told and by their courage in doing so in front of their peers. Several of the actors commented on their observations regarding the body language of some of the teachers during the performances (i.e.: crossed arms, side-talking and blank facial expressions) and the negative influence this might have had on some students. It is likely that these behaviors were more noticeable to those of us who are parents and have confronted challenges with our children’s teachers in the past.
Analysis
While not part of the formal study or data collection, I do feel that the informal discussions with the other actors and the site coordinator were informative and insightful. I was gratified by the students’ thank you notes, particularly the ones that were not scripted responses due to teacher instruction. I don’t want to suggest criticism of those types of responses, as I believe that written expression, indeed any individual expression, for many of these children is quite challenging. Those who were able to express their own thoughts, however, lent support to my belief in the potential of Playback Theatre to promote empathy and a sense of community in schools. They also revealed some of the joy and excitement the performing arts may bring to all of us.