British Educational Research Journal Vol. 41, No. 1, February 2015, pp. 102–121 DOI: 10.1002/berj.3130 Drama and learning science: an empty space? Martin Braund* Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa Constructivist teaching methods such as using drama have been promoted as productive ways of learning, especially in science. Specifically, role plays, using given roles or simulated and improvised enactments, are claimed to improve learning of concepts, understanding the nature of science and appreciation of science’s relationship with society (Ødegaard 2001, Unpublished Dr. scient., Dis- sertation, University of Oslo). So far, theorisation of drama in learning, at least in science, has been lacking and no attempt has been made to integrate drama theory in science education with that of theatre. This article draws on Peter Brook’s notion of the theatre as the ‘empty space’ (Brook 1968, The empty space, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books) to provide a new theoretical model acting as a lens through which drama activities used to teach science can be better understood and researched. An example of a physical role play is used to ground the theory. The paper concludes by suggesting areas for further research. Introduction It has been claimed that engaging in arts subjects such as music, dance and drama contributes to general cognition and can enhance learning in other subjects (Deasey, 2002; Dana Foundation, 2008). There is emerging evidence from neuroscience that these claims have some backing. Studies using functional magnetic resonance imag- ing (fMRI) to establish differential cognitive activity in the brain, for individuals car- rying out tasks on creative thinking and problem-solving, show advantages for those who have been involved in arts training such as, in music (Moreno, 2009), in dance (Cross & Ticini, 2012) and in drama/theatre (Hough & Hough, 2012). One specific area of arts activity, drama, has a long tradition of being used to help people with dys- function or suffering from trauma. For example drama has been used therapeutically to help recovery from addictive behaviours (Brooke, 2009), with victims of abuse (Silverman, 2009) and school pupils with learning disabilities (Crimmens, 2006). In schools, drama has been advocated as a way of advancing learning in other areas of the curriculum, most notably for learning languages (Heathcote & Bolton, 1994) and in humanities subjects to stimulate debate and to empathise with individuals in another place or time (Jackson, 2002; McNaughton, 2006). In science subjects drama has been said to help pupils learn concepts, appreciate the nature of science and learn more about science’s interactions with society (Ødegaard, 2001). In spite of a great deal of curricular activity and these claims for drama as an effective learning strategy, there has been little research into drama education in the area of science to *Centre for Innovation and Research in Science Education, Alcuin College ‘D’, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. Email: [email protected] © 2014 British Educational Research Association Drama and learning science 103 uncover what specific aspects of teaching lead to learning successes for pupils (Henry, 2000; Ødegaard, 2003). Coupled with this there has been little attempt to theorise drama to stimulate research that might illuminate the planning and execution of drama tasks that assist learning in science and other subjects (Ross, 1996; Henry, 2000; Ødegaard, 2003; Boujaoude et al., 2005; Peleg & Baram-Tsabari, 2011). It has been claimed that the relatively low level of research effort in drama may be partly due to the lower status attributed to the arts in both the curriculum and research com- pared with other subjects such as language, mathematics and science (Anderson, 2004). In science education there have been efforts to promote classroom activities relying on high degrees of pupil interaction. However, the actual frequency of methods in which the teacher promotes or uses methods through which pupils’ share meanings through group work, including uses of drama, compared with more traditional direct methods of instruction, using board and book work, has been questioned (Tytler, 2007; Braund, 2010). As drama may be a powerful method available to teachers in the constructivist paradigm, it is alarming to note how little attention it often receives. For example, at one of the world’s largest international science education research confer- ences in 2011 (of the European Science Education Research Association [ESERA] in Lyon, France), of 700 papers presented only two were in the field of ‘drama’, whereas there were over 100 papers in the field of ‘discussion and argumentation’. In the face of this lack of theorisation in education, it is helpful and appropriate to draw on richer fields from drama and theatre, mainly the ideas of Peter Brook. Brook’s series of essays, collected in his work The empty space (1968), part of the title of this article, drew on ideas of the most significant theorists of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries including, Grotowski, Artaud, Brecht, Beckett and Ibsen. As a coherent set of ideas on how drama connects with and engages theatre audiences they have potential to shed light on how drama might function to engage and improve learning for a different audience, pupils in schools. As Fels and Meyer put it, ‘drama in theatre and science share some common ground… both seek explanations of the world through real, imagined or vicarious experience’ (Fels & Meyer, 1997, p.75). The new theorisation for drama education presented here is not an empty intellectual exercise nor to proselytise or promote a personal view of how drama should be used in science. In the tradition of Skemp (1979), who maintained there was ‘nothing so practical as theory’, theory formation is a prelude to action; in this case a call for more and specific research. Skemp saw three advantages for developing and using theories. They tell us what is going on beyond those things that are immediately observable, they reduce ‘noise’, allowing us to concentrate on what is relevant, and they enable us to make new paths outwards from our thinking (Skemp, 1979, p. 182). Bearing in mind Skemp’s uses for theory, I propose a theoretical model drawing on Brook’s notions in The empty space to clarify what is needed to better understand how drama benefits learning science. The theoretical model is then used to set an agenda for research. Insights are at an epistemological level dealing with efficacy of drama for knowledge acquisition, seeing science as a broad enterprise based on contention and debate, and, at a pedagogical level, providing for better task design and teaching tech- nique. Before explaining and exemplifying the theoretical model, two areas of litera- ture, in drama and science education and about Brook’s ideas and how they link with © 2014 British Educational Research Association 104 M. Braund possible practices in science classrooms are reviewed. To ground theory in practice, I show how it can be interpreted for one example of a drama-in-science activity. The paper concludes by suggesting an agenda for research activity. Although discussion is seated in science education, ideas about drama use, particularly for simulated role plays, are relevant in other subjects. Perspectives from drama in science education In science education, a dominant view of teaching and learning is that the science world of knowing conflicts with the learner’s world of knowing. Some ‘construction’ or re-construction of what is in the learner’s head, rather than mere transmission of knowledge, is required to deal with these conflicts. Aikenhead and Jegede (1999) argue that, for many school pupils, learning science is like navigating between two sub-cultures. In contrast to everyday experiences and language, the sub-culture of sci- ence is characterised by abstract ideas relying on conceptualising invisible compo- nents (energy, molecules, electrons, biological cells and so on) and is communicated through a symbolic and semiotic language using, for example, equations, chemical symbols and graphs (Braund & Leigh, 2013). This makes learning for pupils, already having a number of alternative views of how the world works, even more problematic. Rationalising between these two worlds, the science and the everyday, requires differ- entiation between and integration of two ways of explaining and seeing (Scott et al., 2011). Differentiation requires recognition of the differences in meaning and expla- nation, for example between the everyday idea that energy is a consumable entity and a scientific concept of energy as transformation and degradation (to heat) in various systems. Integration of ideas, on the other hand, requires accommodation of new ideas with those already held that provide more workable, rational and generalisable explanations of the world. To achieve integration means making abstract ideas and theories of science more plausible often by the use of analogy and metaphor (Lawson, 1993; Duit & Treagust, 2003; Aubusson et al., 2006). For example analogues, sup- posedly from real world experience such as the hot water system of a house or a ski lift, have been used to explain concepts of current, voltage and resistance in electrical circuits. The problem here is that the analogues themselves may not be fully under- stood by pupils, confer even more alterative ideas on them or are not fully negotiated or explained as being merely part-models of reality (Harrison & Treagust, 2006). It is here that drama, especially in the form of acted out simulations, for example where pupils play the parts of particles or components of food webs, may offer more plausi- ble and accessible alternatives for understanding abstract ideas. Drama is most often included in lists of what educators refer to as ‘active approaches’ to learning (O’Loughlin, 1992). By ‘active’ what is often meant is that the learner plays an integral part in the construction or re-construction of knowledge, often by interaction with other learners and the teacher.