Leading view papers – Days 1 to 7

‘Nothing that can be taught is worth knowing’: a case study

 

 

This article is based on the case study of a specific class or, more to the point, a small group removed from a class due to their disruptive behaviour and refusal to engage with the work.

The class has been notoriously difficult since year 7 across all subjects. In drama, where group identity and social interaction skills are so vital, class members were extremely challenging.

In the end, even when taught by two members of the teaching staff, they still proved incapable of sustaining commitment or even cooperative behaviour.

In the end, a group was removed by one of the staff. Faced with a term with the group, realised he urgently needed a strategy to survive and offer them an educational experience.  His situation was to abandon the ‘discipline’ policies and refer back to departmental philosophy - give them ownership and let them take responsibility for their own learning - by asking them: ‘Okay, what do you want to do?’

The answer was surprising and, at first, he thought the students were joking. ‘We want to do some Shakespeare.’  Oh yeah right!  But he persevered – ‘Romeo and Juliet’ Mmm? Really? But this was the start of an amazing turn-around.

The group quickly began work improvising around key scenes but also requesting scripts and debating the issues of re-writing Shakespeare in the modern idiom or sticking with the original text – ‘the proper language’ – ‘It’s famous and people know it, so we should use it.’ I heard one girl say.  I had been invited to sit with the group for five minutes during one of the sessions, while the teacher concerned photocopied one of their re-written scenes.  All my previous experience of the group had been as head of department, when I had been called in to discipline and reprimand them.

I arrived that afternoon and sat stony faced, as the students sat in a semi-circle in front of the stage.  They were relatively quiet, I’d give them that. ‘Well, are you going to do something’, I demanded, expecting the usual argument or moans. ‘Oh yes, we’ll run the scene for you’ came a pleasant reply. ‘We’re just deciding whether to use the script or not.’ ‘We’ I thought?  ‘But Mr T isn’t here?’  And then I heard one girl make her point.

It was one of those ‘floor opens up and swallows you’ moments.  I was sure I must be dreaming.  But no, they got on stage and began to rehearse Romeo’s arrival at the party.

Okay, they had some way to go in terms of performance skills but the commitment was obvious, and the self-evaluation and desire to improve was forthright and self-directed.

Mr T arrived with the photocopies but I still could not believe it and challenged him on what was going on. He explained how he’d asked them what they wanted to do and how they have taken ownership and responsibility for their own learning.

Oh, those buzzwords of the past coming back to haunt me!  Those words I had entrenched into the department philosophy and seen buried beneath national curriculum, General Certificate of Secondary Education, attainment targets, data and teaching and learning strategies, ICT initiatives, and the rest!

Here was a group of mixed ability, difficult students working toward a common ‘self-directed’ goal, with their teacher as a facilitator. There was no formal lesson structure, no ‘chunking’, no special attention being given to boys’ achievement, or the gifted and talented, or special educational needs registers - just excellent education.

The transformation of the group was neither magical nor simplistic.  There were still some behaviour issues, and management of a group like this still takes skill and determination from the teacher. However, the work I saw them producing, and their commitment to their own learning, was an eye-opener and a sharp reminder of the value of returning ownership to students in a real and meaningful way.

What better way to promote lifelong learning that encourages and facilitates learning; it was much more effective than trying to force students to jump through pre-arranged hoops.

Surely, as teachers, especially those of the Arts, have a duty to encourage critical autonomy and debate; to alert students to the validity of their meanings and understandings and, in challenging them, extend them and make them think ‘outside the box’. Unfortunately, like trying to teach the small child colouring in, we are more and more demanding students stay within the lines! 

Meeting tick box requests and fulfilling criteria may have its place but it is not conducive to lifelong learning, critical autonomy and creative thinking.

The year 9 class continued working till the end of the summer term, preparing to record their version of the scene ‘so that other classes can use it in English’, by their own choice and decision. The work they were doing was not in the drama syllabus for year 9; they are not meeting the targets I laid down, and the teacher cannot tick the boxes necessary for assessment of the skills we are supposed to be testing this term. And that says a lot more about the current state of education than needs spelling out here!

I end with a quote from a headteacher at a meeting I attended recently.  It filled me with hope.

‘We can’t let school get in the way of education!’

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mr Anthony Gears is Director of Performing Arts and Head of Drama and Media Studies at Egglescliffe School, in the United Kingdom. He also lectures at Durham University and is an advanced skills teacher for Stockton on Tees.

 Go to top of page      Go to online discussion       Go to Leading views menu