ICTs for Creative Practice in Drama:

Creating cyberdrama with young people in school contexts

Susan Elizabeth Davis

Bachelor of Arts
Graduate Diploma of Teaching
Graduate Diploma of Administration
(Arts) Master of Arts (Research)

Queensland University of Technology

Creative Industries
Drama
March 2010

Submitted in full requirement for the award

of IF49 Doctor of Philosophy

ii
Approvals

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or
diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge
and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by
another person except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date:
Acknowledgements

To complete a work of this nature requires the commitment of time and energy and
the support of many. I would like to sincerely thank the following:

 My husband Ray and son Jackson for their patience during the hours when
I’ve been absent or had my head in a book, in front of a screen or pouring
over mountains of paper
 My supervisors: Dr Sandra Gattenhof – for her unswerving belief in me and
responsive feedback and Prof Allan Luke – for the library in his head, the
depth of his knowledge and academic rigour. His suggestion that I try and
read everything I could by my key theorist led to my discovery of Vygotsky’s
illuminating work on creativity and art
 The schools, teachers and students who worked with me and engaged in the
creative projects, in particular to Sean Lubbers and Hayley Linthwaite
 My work colleagues, who have also lived with this project for several years –
especially Kathy, Jo, Ellen, Mike and Emeritus Professor John Dekkers
 My friends (knitwits included) and drama colleagues – especially those who
came to my final seminar
 Assoc Prof Penny Bundy and Assoc Prof Felicity McArdle for attending my
final seminar and for the feedback provided which greatly aided in the final
drafting of this thesis.
Abstract
This study explores young people’s creative practice through using Information and
Communications Technologies (ICTs) ‐ in one particular learning area ‐ Drama. The
study focuses on school‐based contexts and the impact of ICT‐based interventions
within two drama education case studies. The first pilot study involved the use of
online spaces to complement a co‐curricula performance project. The second focus
case was a curriculum‐based project with online spaces and digital technologies
being used to create a cyberdrama. Each case documents the activity systems,
participant experiences and meaning making in specific institutional and
technological contexts. The nature of creative practice and learning are analysed,
using frameworks drawn from Vygotsky’s socio‐historical theory (including his work
on creativity) and from activity theory.

Case study analysis revealed the nature of contradictions encountered and these
required an analysis of institutional constraints and the dynamics of
power. Cyberdrama offers young people opportunities to explore drama through
new modes and the use of ICTs can be seen as contributing different tools, spaces
and communities for creative activity. To be able to engage in creative practice
using ICTs requires a focus on a range of cultural tools and social practices beyond
those of the purely technological. Cybernetic creative practice requires flexibility in
the negotiation of tool use and subjects and a system that responds to feedback
and can adapt. Classroom‐based dramatic practice may allow for the negotiation of
power and tool use in the development of collaborative works of the imagination.
However, creative practice using ICTs in schools is typically restricted by
authoritative power structures and access issues. The research identified participant
engagement and meaning making emerging from different factors, with some
students showing preferences for embodied creative practice in Drama that did not
involve ICTs. The findings of the study suggest ICT‐based interventions need to
focus on different applications for the technology but also on embodied experience,
the negotiation of power, identity and human interactions.

Keywords: drama, creativity, creative practice, learning, digital technologies, ICTs,

Vygotsky, activity theory, arts education, pedagogy, engagement, cybernetics
Key Terminology
Working definitions for some key terms are provided in this section. These include
a number of terms used in this study to refer to the use of computers and recording
technologies, the Internet and mediated communication tools.

Activity system – this describes the structure of key elements of human activity
utilised to achieve objects by subjects. Activity systems describe collective activity
whereby multiple subjects engage in related activity over time as they work towards
achieving a certain object or goal. Activity system analysis recognises contextual and
cultural factors, interactions and the heterogeneity of collective activity.

Activity theory – a body of theory which has its roots in Vygotsky’s cultural‐
historical psychology. This theory recognises that cognition and learning are
grounded in human activity. Frameworks are used to analyse the cultural and
technical mediation of human activity, through artefacts and instruments to achieve
objects or goals.

Blackboard – this is a particular educational e‐learning program that many schools

use – it is available to Department of Education schools to access through the
Learning Place.

Corporeal, somatic and embodied learning – these terms are used within the case
studies and draw attention to a focus on learning experiences where bodies are
present in live, situated contexts as flesh and blood, sentient beings.

Creative practice – includes the social practices, experiences and interactions which
participants engage in for creative purposes. In this sense creative means to
generate something new or different for a specific purpose, through forms other
than the purely propositional. These often involve sensory, expressive and artistic
modes. Meaning cognition and learning are not seen as separate from practice but
embedded in it and emerging from it.
Cyberspaces/online spaces – the term cyberspace is used to describe the virtual
world of computers – and includes the realm of human/computer interface. It
refers to the space created across networks of computers which enable
communication, storage and retrieval of information i.e. the Internet. For this
study the term refers to the virtual spaces utilised through communications tools
using the Internet ‐ the term online space is used instead at times.

Digital literacies – Digital literacies include the ability to use digital technology,
communication tools or networks to locate, evaluate, use and create information
and to evaluate and apply new knowledge gained from digital environments. In
activity theory terms they can be called cultural tools or toolkits.

Digital technologies – Digital technologies are electronic technologies that

generate, store, and process data in binary form. When information, music, voice
and video are turned into digital form, they can be copied, edited, and moved
without losing any quality. Digital technologies utilised for this study primarily
involved those used to record and transmit visual imagery and sound though photos
and video.

Drama – as used in this study drama refers to either the curriculum subject (Drama)
studied in schools, or as a particular arts practice which involves elements including
role, situation and enactment (drama/drama education). Drama is not necessarily
equated with formal performance or theatre in this sense, though it can include
that.

ICTs – Information and Communications Technology (or Technologies) is an

umbrella term that includes any communication device or application. While the
term is often used in relation to computer technologies, it can also refer to mobile
phones, videoconferencing, radio, television and so on.

The Learning Place – This is the Queensland Department of Education and

Training’s e‐learning platform. This is available for use by all state school teachers
and students. Facilities include project rooms, which are spaces for sharing content
and hosting discussion forums, blogs, online chats and so on. There are also
sections with a repository of curriculum materials for teachers, learning objects for
students and community boards for educational groups.

Web 2.0 ‐ is a term used to describe the new generation of web‐based tools which
are characterized by a number of features including the “web” as the platform for
the software and the creative space (in that a user does not have to download the
software and install it), spaces harness collective intelligence and get better the
more people use them.

Wikispace – The word wiki comes from Hawaiian language, meaning "quick or fast."
A wikispace is a kind of web site that lets any visitor or member (if it is a private
wiki) become a participant. Users can create or edit the actual site contents without
any special technical knowledge or tools. A wiki is a living collaboration whose
purpose is the sharing of a creative process and product by many.

ABBREVIATIONS

CHAT – Cultural‐Historical Activity Theory

CMC – Computer‐Mediated Communications

FtF – Face‐to‐Face

GBD – The Great Big Drama project – the title used for the pilot case study project

ZPD – Zone of Proximal Development

Contents

APPROVALS.................................................................................................................................. III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................. IV
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................... V
KEY TERMINOLOGY....................................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................... XI
LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................. 0
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 RATIONALE FOR THE RESEARCH STUDY.............................................................................................................................1
1.2 THESIS OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................................................................4
1.3 EDUCATIONAL FUTURES – REVOLUTIONARY OR NOT?................................................................6
1.4 COMMUNICATIONS, CREATIVE CONTENT, CREATIVITY AND DRAMA............................................................................10
1.5 POSITIONING THIS STUDY................................................................................................................................................15
1.6 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................................................15
2. CONTEXTUAL REVIEW – DRAMA PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE..................................................17
2.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................................17
2.2 GENERATIONAL CHANGE – YOUNG PEOPLE AND TECHNOLOGY...................................................................................17
2.3 DRAMA AND CYBERDRAMA.............................................................................................................................................24
2.4 EXPLORING NOTIONS OF CREATIVITY AND CREATIVE PRACTICE.....................................................................................41
2.5 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE CONTEXTUAL REVIEW..................................................................................................60
3. A VYGOTSKIAN FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING CREATIVE LEARNING..............................62
3.1 VYGOTSKY ON LEARNING AND ZPD......................................................................................................62
3.2 KEY CULTURAL‐HISTORICAL THEORY TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTS...........................................................................64
3.3 GROUP LEARNING PROCESSES AND ACTIVITY THEORY...................................................................................................70
3.4 VYGOTSKY ON CREATIVITY AND AESTHETIC EDUCATION................................................................................................79
3.5 TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF CREATIVE PRACTICE AND CREATIVE LEARNING....................................................84
3.6 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................................................86
4. METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 87
4.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH STUDY......................................................................................................................87
4.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM......................................................................................................................................................89
4.3 POSITION OF THE RESEARCHER.......................................................................................................................................91
4.4 RESEARCH STRATEGY – CASE STUDY...............................................................................................................................93
4.5 RATIONALE FOR CASE STUDY CREATION AND SELECTION..........................................................................................100
4.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH...................................................................................................................................103
4.7 RESEARCH METHODS.....................................................................................................................................................106
4.8 DATA ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................................................................114
4.9 RESEARCH PLAN.............................................................................................................................................................115
4.10 RESEARCH ETHICS/STATEMENT..................................................................................................................................116
4.11 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................................................117
5. PILOT STUDY: THE GREAT BIG DRAMA – ICT INTERVENTION AND CONTRADICTION.................118
5.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................................118
5.2 THE CONTEXT FOR THE GREAT BIG DRAMA PROJECT.................................................................................................119
5.3 THE ACTIVITY SYSTEM AND COMMUNITY.....................................................................................................................120
5.4 THE INTERVENTION.......................................................................................................................................................130
5.5 KEY ISSUES AND EVENTS FROM THE PROJECT..............................................................................................................136
5.6 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................................145
6. FOCUS CASE: THE IMMORTALS ‐ INTERACTIONS, CO‐ARTISTRY AND IDENTITY ACTIVITY..........148
6.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................................148
6.2 CONTEXT FOR THE IMMORTALS PROJECT....................................................................................................................149
6.3 THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY SYSTEM.........................................................................................................................153
6.4 NATURE OF THE INTERVENTION...................................................................................................................................161
6.5 CONTRADICTION AND CRISIS.........................................................................................................................................165
6.6 CREATIVE ACTIVITY THROUGH CYBERDRAMA..............................................................................................................178
6.7 EXPANSIVE LEARNING – SELF AS A LEADING ACTIVITY AND THE CYBERNETICS OF SELF.............................................199
6.8 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................................204
7. CONCLUDING THE JOURNEY.................................................................................................. 207
7.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................................207
7.2 HOW CAN ICTS BE USED TO CREATE DRAMA IN SCHOOL CONTEXTS?.....................................209
7.3 HOW DOES THE USE OF ICTS CONTRIBUTE TO CREATIVE PRACTICE AND LEARNING?............214
7.4 WHAT KINDS OF PROCESSES AND INTERACTIONS APPEAR TO BE MOST EFFECTIVE?.............219
7.5 HOW CAN CULTURAL‐HISTORICAL THEORY BE USED TO RESEARCH DRAMA AND ICTS?........223
7.6 RESPONSE TO THE RESEARCH QUESTION.....................................................................................................................230
7.7 LIMITS OF THE RESEARCH..............................................................................................................................................232
7.8 CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ON CURRENT POLICY AND FUTURE PRACTICE.................................................................233
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 239
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................... 260
APPENDIX A – DATE COLLECTED FOR THE RESEARCH STUDY............................................................................................261
APPENDIX B – FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW – PILOT QUESTIONS.......................................................................................270
APPENDIX C – SAMPLE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT................................................................................................................273
APPENDIX D – GBD REVISED FIRST SURVEY TOOL............................................................................................................275
APPENDIX E – GBD MID‐POINT SURVEY...........................................................................................................................276
APPENDIX F – GBD FINAL SURVEY....................................................................................................................................278
APPENDIX G – IMMORTALS SURVEY...................................................................................................................................279
APPENDIX H – JOURNAL EXTRACT......................................................................................................................................283
APPENDIX I – IMMORTALS STUDENT PROFILING EXTRACT................................................................................................286
APPENDIX J – SAMPLE PARTICIPANT CONSENT PACKAGE..................................................................................................288
APPENDIX K – SAMPLE WIKISPACE DATA (FORMATTED AND FIRST LEVEL OF ANALYSIS).............292
APPENDIX L – GBD WATER STORY PERFORMANCE SUMMARY.......................................................................................294
APPENDIX M – WIKI NETIQUETTE RULES...........................................................................................................................296
APPENDIX N – THE IMMORTALS DRAMA OUTLINE............................................................................................................297
APPENDIX O – THE IMMORTALS SAMPLE SITE DOCUMENTATION....................................................................................299
List of Figures
FIGURE 1 THE ELEMENTS OF DRAMA (HASEMAN & O'TOOLE, 1987, P. VIII)........................................................26
FIGURE 2 COMPARING ARISTOTLE'S DRAMATIC ELEMENTS WITH HASEMAN & O'TOOLE'S..................................................27
FIGURE 3 CSIKSZENTMIHALYI'S SYSTEMS MODEL OF CREATIVITY (CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, 1999).....................................45
FIGURE 4 VYGOTSKY'S MEDIATION TRIANGLE.............................................................................................................................71
FIGURE 5 THE STRUCTURE OF A HUMAN ACTIVITY SYSTEM (ENGESTRÖM, 2003)....................................................72
FIGURE 6 TWO INTERACTING ACTIVITY SYSTEMS (ENGESTRÖM, 2001, P. 136)......................................................74
FIGURE 7 EXAMPLE OF CONTRADICTION IN AN ACTIVITY SYSTEM.............................................................................................75
FIGURE 8 PROPOSED ACTIVITY SYSTEM FOR CREATIVE LEARNING.............................................................................................85
FIGURE 9 ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE (KEMMIS & MCTAGGART, 2005).................................................................97
FIGURE 10 ENGESTRÖM’S CYCLE OF EXPANSIVE LEARNING (ENGESTRÖM, 2009, P. 70)..........................................99
FIGURE 11 ACTIVITY SYSTEM FOR THE GREAT BIG DRAMA PROJECT.....................................................................................121
FIGURE 12 INTERNET ACCESS AND USE BY GBD PARTICIPANTS.............................................................................................123
FIGURE 13 STUDENT ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES FROM THE GBD PROJECT............................................................................126
FIGURE 14 DIFFERENT ENTRY POINTS TO AN ACTIVITY SYSTEM..............................................................................................127
FIGURE 15 SAMPLE WIKI PAGE..................................................................................................................................................131
FIGURE 16 ONSCREEN RESPONSE WHEN ACCESS TO BLOCKED SITES IS ATTEMPTED.............................................................132
FIGURE 17 CONTRADICTIONS, SHIFTS AND POSSIBILITIES FOR EXPANSIVE LEARNING...........................................................139
FIGURE 18 ACTIVITY SYSTEM FOR THE IMMORTALS CYBERDRAMA PROJECT........................................................................153
FIGURE 19 IMMORTALS STUDENT PRIOR CREATIVE EXPERIENCE............................................................................................155
FIGURE 20 IMMORTALS PROJECT ‐ STUDENT INTERNET USE...................................................................................................156
FIGURE 21 TEXT OF THE EMAIL PRE‐TEXT FOR THE IMMORTALS............................................................................................164
FIGURE 22 CONTRADICTION IN ACTIVITY SYSTEM FOR THE IMMORTALS...............................................................................169
FIGURE 23 CONTRADICTION IN ACTIVITY FOR HARRISON.......................................................................................................169
FIGURE 24 SHIFTS IN ACTIVITY FOR THE IMMORTALS.............................................................................................................176
FIGURE 25 CHARACTER PAGE CREATED ON THE NING SPACE FOR ‘KEELEY’...........................................................182
FIGURE 26 STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH DIFFERENT HUMAN INTERACTIONS......................................................................184
FIGURE 27 LEXIMANCER CLUSTERS DRAWN FROM IMMORTALS SURVEY AND FOCUS GROUP..............................................195
FIGURE 28 DIFFERENT LEARNING COMPONENTS FOR THE IMMORTALS PROJECT.................................................................197
FIGURE 29 DRAMA CLASS WORKING WITH COMPUTERS.........................................................................................................212
FIGURE 30 DRAMA CLASS CREATING PHYSICAL IMAGES..........................................................................................................213
FIGURE 31 ACTIVITY SYSTEM FOR CREATIVE PRACTICE AND LEARNING..................................................................................227
FIGURE 32 SUBJECT ACTIVITY WITHIN COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY..................................................................................................229
List of Tables
TABLE 1 PHASES OF RESEARCH, QUESTIONS AND KEY LITERATURE...........................................................................................98
TABLE 2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DATA..............................................................................................................................106
TABLE 3 RESEARCH PLAN..........................................................................................................................................................115
TABLE 4 STUDENT ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES FROM THE IMMORTALS....................................................................................158
TABLE 5 ONLINE SPACES AND TOOLS USED FOR THE IMMORTALS..........................................................................................160
TABLE 6 NARRATIVE OFFERS, DEVELOPMENTS AND SCAFFOLDING FOR THE IMMORTALS....................................................163
TABLE 7 SEQUENTIAL STRUCTURE OF LEARNING BY EXPANDING...........................................................................................177
TABLE 8 STUDENT OPINIONS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY USE FOR THE IMMORTALS PROJECT......................................................180

0
1. Introduction

Since the future has in store not only a rearrangement of mankind (sic)
according to new principles, not only the organization of new social and
economic processes, but also the "remolding of man," there seems hardly
any doubt that the role of art will also change. It is hard to imagine the role
that art will play in this remolding of man ... There is no question, however,
that art will have a decisive voice in this process. Without new art there can
be no new man (sic). (Vygotsky, 1971, p. 259)

1.1 Rationale for the research study

This is an era where longstanding institutions, schools and communities are
grappling with and embracing a range of new technologies. With the changes to
technology however come changes to social structures, ways of thinking and, as
Vygotsky identified over seventy years ago, new forms of expression, of art and of
being. As new digital media and online communications tools have become
available, more opportunities for young people to engage in creative practice have
also become available. Within education a range of initiatives and reports have
called for schools to change to be able to incorporate and accommodate these new
opportunities and new tools. However there are a range of competing and at times
contradictory discourses at play about the nature of learning and preparation of
students for the future.

Within Australian educational contexts a central discourse about preparing students

for the future has focussed on the provision of more computers and technology,
with a strong emphasis on Information and Communications Technologies
(hereafter, ICTs). A key platform for the Australian federal government’s digital
revolution proposal has been a major funding program to increase the number of
computers in schools, particularly in the secondary years:
The Australian Government is investing $2.1 billion through the Fund, to
provide for new or upgraded information and communications technology
(ICT) for secondary schools with students in years 9 to 12. The aim of the

1
 Fund is to achieve a 1 to 1 computer to student ratio by 31 December 2011.
(DEEWR, 2008c, para. 2)

The use of ICTs in education is also promoted as a key to greater engagement for
young people in schooling (Gillard, 2008). Within these kinds of discussions the
learning area of drama – traditionally associated with live communications and
interactions – is never mentioned. In recent national policy documents and
proposals, drama and the arts were not included in the original plan for curriculum
development. Through considerable political lobbying from arts professional
associations, celebrity artists, the arts industries, and Peter Garrett as the Federal
Minister for the Arts (a celebrity politician with a background in popular music) the
arts have now been included within the framework. A key rationale for this has
been recognition of the potential of arts education programs to increase children’s
creative potential and the nation’s capacity for innovation. Education for creative
capacity is thus linked to aspirations about our preferred future and economic
development.

These two discourses about aspiration and preparation for the future, one about
increased use of ICTs in education and the other concerned with creative education,
are both significant in regard to the scope of this research study. As an educator
who has worked in the field of drama education for over twenty years I have been
curious about how various ICTs and technologies can be utilised in drama to support
significant engagement and learning. For this research I began from the premise
that working with drama processes and ICTs through emerging forms such as
cyberdrama could provide students with significant learning activities and
experiences. I was particularly interested in how ICTs could be used to promote
creative practice and learning, rather than just ICTs being used in a generic sense to
promote learning.

In searching to explore the space for and relevance of drama education in this
landscape, a range of questions have emerged for me. The central research
question that this work has been concerned with is “How can ICTs and drama be
used to facilitate creative practice and learning?” The work of this study has
explored the nature of practice and learning processes as experienced through two
school‐based drama projects, with a particular focus on the use of digital
technologies and online spaces.

This work by necessity draws on research and theory across a number of fields
including drama education, digital arts, communications theory and educational
psychology. The primary theoretical framework is based on the writings of Lev
Vygotsky, drawing on his early work on the psychology of art and aesthetic
education (Vygotsky, 1930/2004, 1971) as well as his widely cited work on cognitive
development and learning processes (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978, 1998). This socio‐
cultural or cultural‐historical framing emphasises that learning processes involve
social interactions, and that individual internalisation of concepts and learning relies
on external interactions and engagement. These interactions involve more
knowledgeable others, various tools, signs, media and the wider culture. This
framing therefore requires a focus on the nature of processes and interactions that
occur across activity systems.

For this reason qualitative research methods have been predominantly used to
enable the collection of data from both live and mediated communications and
interactions. From this data I have sought to build an understanding of the nature of
interactions emerging from these processes and what kinds of learning might occur
with a particular focus on what might be called creative practice (see key terms). In
part this research seeks to formulate an understanding of creative practice using
ICTs, how the use of digital technologies might impact on drama and how the use of
drama strategies might impact on ICT use.

The question of validity must be raised in a research study of this nature. In this
case, the findings from this research are contextually valid; however, they cannot be
generalized to other programs and schools. They may provide the basis for building
new theories and models of drama and creative practice for a digital age. My aim
here is to contribute to understandings of the ways that drama processes and
learning might be able to contribute to young people’s education in the
contemporary world.
Two cases were explored for this study, one as a pilot and one as a focus case.
These cases were based within schools contexts, including curricula (as part of the
formal curriculum for a Drama subject) and co‐curricula (with the work occurring
outside of the formal class learning time). I played an active role as a co‐artist and
researcher in creating the projects or components of the projects that the cases
were based on. In doing so I sought out projects where ICTs could be utilised within
drama projects involving secondary school‐aged students. This age group (15‐17
year olds) was focused on for a range of reasons, which included the availability of
drama studies at this level of schooling, and the significant use of ICTs by young
people of this age group. The selection of schools and groups was also based on
access issues and therefore sites within South‐East Queensland were chosen where
I had personal contacts to help facilitate entry. Data collected throughout the
projects includes interview transcripts, journals, fieldnotes, surveys, computer‐
mediated communications and video footage of creative works. The data has been
coded and analysed, with a focus on identifying aspects of engagement, interaction,
learning and the impact of ICTs.

1.2 Thesis overview

Chapter 1 explores policy initiatives that inform the context for this research and
introduces two key discourses that have emerged in regard to school education for
the future. The first relates to initiatives promoting computers in education and the
second about creativity in education. Drama education as a possible site for
realising the potential of these two discourses is proposed.

Chapter 2 provides a contextual review for the research. The introduction identifies
some key features of the landscape for the work, looking at the use of digital
technologies by young people and implications for learning contexts. The following
sections of the review then focus on scoping the field of drama in education: the
use of ICTs in drama and emerging forms of online drama. The concept of creativity
is then explored with a focus on socio‐cultural explanations of creative processes.
Some key concepts and issues are identified with regard to goal orientation,
interactions and participatory forms.
Chapter 3 introduces the conceptual frame for the work. This is achieved through
reviewing key concepts about learning and development from Vygotsky’s work and
socio‐cultural theory. From there the nature of the application of this theory to a
drama educational context is interrogated and the complex nature of the collective
learning context is identified. The concept of activity theory is proposed as a means
for understanding the way that the social relations of multiple human agents can be
considered within a drama learning process. This is linked to Vygotsky’s work on art
and aesthetic education. A frame for understanding creative practice and learning
is proposed, drawing on these two bodies of theory.

Chapter 4 states the research questions and outlines the methodology and research
design. The research paradigm is identified with reference to Vygotsky’s original
corpus and affiliated current cultural‐historical paradigms of knowledge. The
research strategy of case study is presented and justified, with the process
identified as an inquiry model. The research design includes key questions aligning
with research methods and data generated. Limitations of the research are
described and the research ethics and consent process is outlined.

Chapter 5 introduces the pilot case study. This case was co‐curricula in nature and
involved nine school groups in creating a live drama performance over a period of
three months. The online component of this project involved one cluster of three
schools mainly posting material to a forum discussion board on a wikispace. The
nature of the activity system is explored and the implications of the ICT intervention
analysed. Difficulties and issues emerged throughout this project, which identify
the important role of contradiction and crisis in relation to ICT usage and issues
identified in regard to creative practice in drama.

Chapter 6 presents the focus case study. This case was situated within the formal
school curriculum and involved one teacher and her class of students enacting a
cyberdrama unit. This project involved live and online drama interactions and the
creation of digital content to be shared, both live and online. The data drawn upon
for this case includes survey data, wiki and blog postings, journaling, fieldnotes,
interview transcripts and video material. For this case, the notion of contradiction
and crisis is identified through the experiences of two students and a teacher. What
emerges from this analysis are shifts in activity generated by the introduction of the
ICTs and the concept of different leading activities. The nature of the different tools
and interactions involved in the enactment of the cyberdrama are identified, with a
focus on those involving the technologies, the narrative and other humans.

Perceptions of student learning are investigated to identify how identity or self as a

leading activity shapes students’ potential for creative learning. The nature of
creative practice and learning involved is unpacked and the concept of ICT tool use
or digital literacy is broken down into different toolkits, including multi‐media
literacies, e‐learning and computer‐mediated communication toolkits. This chapter
concludes with a summary of findings specific to this particular case with a focus on
the kinds of interactions involved in cyberdrama as a form of creative practice and
the importance of considering a cybernetics of self to facilitate creative learning.

Chapter 7 draws together the findings and identifies key concepts and issues in
relation to the notion of creative practice using drama and ICTs. This is organised
around the research questions. The implications of this work are then considered
as well as limitations of the research followed by final reflections on government
policies and programs.

1.3 Educational futures – revolutionary or not?

In Australia, recent government initiatives within education have been promoted as
central to an Education Revolution. This was part of electioneering discourse and
the banner for major programs that have attracted significant budget allocations.
Two major programs are now being funded, one which is focused on physical
buildings (called Building the Education Revolution) and another focusing on
computers and network infrastructure called the Digital Education Revolution.
According to the government website overview:

Through the Digital Education Revolution initiative, the Australian

Government aims to bring substantial and meaningful change to teaching
 and learning in Australian schools. It will prepare students for further
education and training, jobs of the future and to live and work in a digital
world. (DEEWR, 2008a,)

It is worth reflecting here on the use of the term revolution and considering what
kind of revolution politicians are promoting, if indeed it is a revolution at all.
Revolutions are often characterised as involving social uprising, new political orders
and changes to social, economic and cultural institutions. Marx argued that
revolution was not just about changing political structures but changing
fundamental social relations and relationships to the means of production – a
quantum shift in human self‐consciousness (Marx & Engels, 1845).

In his review of revolutionary theory Kraminick highlights how revolutions often

involve illegal change because during these times the existing social and political
order is challenged in fundamental, abrupt ways:
Revolution refers to change which reaches the fundamental norms; and
since it changes those norms which themselves give legitimacy, the
revolutionary change is itself considered illegitimate from the perspective of
the previous set of basic norms. (Kraminick, 1972,p. 32)

Revolutions feature rapid and radical change, and shifts in paradigms, norms, ideas
and ideals. It is worth considering therefore the nature and extent of the current
education revolution.

In Australia, at the federal government level, the key focus of the Digital Education
Revolution initiative has been the provision of funding to buy computers (DEEWR,
2008). In 2008, $400 million was allocated towards buying computers for schools.
However only $11.25 million, or less than 3%, was allocated towards school‐based
professional development for teachers (DEEWR, 2008b).

An examination of the policy and funding documents regarding resource allocation

and policy direction for the implementation of ICTs in Queensland schools indicates
that the primary focus is likewise on information management systems and
hardware. Of an $84 million budget in 2006‐2007, $76 million was for computers,
cabling and a standardized computer operating environment (Queensland
Government, 2006). There was no specific mention in key budget papers or
strategies about initiatives to promote communications, pedagogy or professional
learning. At times some key policy documents include statements about the
importance of pedagogy and people, however these are not translated into
significant budget allocations or strategic priorities.

When professional development is identified in strategic plans, it is reduced to 1.5

hours of teacher relief per teacher for training in how to use the school record
application system and $50 per teacher for professional development (Department
of Education, Training and the Arts, 2007b). Even pooling these funds, it is hard to
imagine $50 worth of professional development leading to revolutionary changes.

The official discourse around these ICT initiatives suggests that increased use of
computer technology is the key to increased student engagement, quality learning
and positive outcomes. There have been claims to the contrary though, with a
growing body of research indicating that increased access to computers alone is not
leading to any significant increase in student learning outcomes (Cox et al., 2003;
Cuban, 2001; Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Goddard, 2002). Other reviews of
the use of technology from within the digital arts domain have also identified a
need to move beyond fetishizing “the technology without regard for artistic vision
and content” (Dixon, 2007, p. 5).

These critiques recognise that teaching with technology is not just about how to use
the hardware and the software, but is also very much about people, processes and
a range of different interactions. However, the people and interactional
components of ICT usage are rarely the focus of key education discourses at
present.

In a speech made to a 2008 Computers in Education conference, the Federal

Education Minister, Julia Gillard, outlined two case studies of classrooms. One
classroom was described as technology rich and the other as technology poor, the
technology rich classroom is depicted as obviously being the more engaging and
innovative classroom:
Amanda attends a school that has embraced ICT in every aspect of its being.
In this school, students, staff and parents are connected via a broadband
network which is truly the lifeblood of the school. Today, her morning starts
with a field trip with a geologist based in a rural property in the highlands of
East Gippsland. Amanda’s participation is facilitated through the use of an
interactive whiteboard allowing a realtime connection with specialised
support and a visual link providing a unique, yet cost effective experience.
Her teacher has already uploaded worksheets and study notes to her
workspace and has sent a message to her parents’ inbox informing them
that an assessment task on this topic is due in a weeks’ (sic) time.

Two suburbs away at Sam’s school computers are only available in the
school library. He has to book a computer, and his access is rationed to 1
hour a week. His school possesses one interactive whiteboard, paid for by
numerous fundraising drives by the P&C, and access is strictly rostered
between classes. Today, his morning starts with watching an in‐class science
video on a 20‐year‐old television wheeled in from the staff room. It takes
just five minutes for Sam to mentally log out of the lesson and begin thinking
about the player moves he will make when coaching his virtual AFL team
that night. (Gillard, 2008, p. 3)

What is significant in these examples is that in neither case are interactions

explored: between the teacher and the students, between the students themselves
or with the geologist being beamed in through technology in Amanda’s school. In
both cases the students seem to be positioned as passive receivers of knowledge
but the technology rich classroom is described as the more dynamic. However the
pedagogy involved still has students completing worksheets and reading study
notes. The focus is limited to information retrieval or reception of information
about an assignment. It is also unclear why staying in the classroom and having a
geologist conduct a field trip via technology is in any way superior to the live
experience of going on a field study. This discussion shows little regard for
 pedagogy, for interaction and for exploring the communicative or creative
possibilities that both live and mediated experiences may provide. The focus is very
much on the information retrieval affordances provided by computer technologies.

What type of revolution is being proposed through these kinds of initiatives? Is it in

any way similar to other revolutions that have occurred? The political system
remains intact and the instrumentality is directing the nature of change.

The cultural practices of schooling remain unquestioned, with key changes in

practice related to students spending more time looking at a computer screen –
whether at home or school. This revolution is also one which does not seem to be
about changing the hierarchy and voices involved in decision making. The mass of
the populous involved, students and teachers, are not involved in any decision
making. In fact directives and decisions about expenditure are made at the top of
the government hierarchy and passed down through the states to be implemented.
Principals have no discretion about fund expenditure and clauses included in the
funding agreements limit principals from making any negative comments (Wallace,
2009). Tensions, upheavals and debate are not allowed to be part of this
revolution, with the focus on provision of one particular technological tool to be
used for a fairly restricted set of educational purposes.

1.4 Communications, creative content, creativity and drama

It interests me that in school educational contexts, drama is not seen as being a
learning area which is relevant to educating young people for participation in a digital
age. It seems that the information and technology part of Information
Communications Technologies dominates and the communication part of it (which is
something drama is very much concerned with) is not fully acknowledged or
explored. For example, the Australian National Assessment Program of ICT Literacy
(NAP‐ICTL) is organised around three strands: working with information, creating and
sharing information; and using ICT responsibly (MCEETYA Performance Measurement
Reporting Taskforce, 2008). An analysis of the proposed tasks reveals that the focus
is more on information processes and written text creation than on communication
with others through the Internet or creating works that are not solely information‐
based. Substantial research in the United Kingdom has indicated that children and
young people themselves are more interested in the communication opportunities
afforded by ICTs and the Internet, however educational authorities and programs still
tend to focus on information finding as a key use of computers and the Internet
(Livingstone & Bober, 2004).

There is little recognition at a policy level that educational ICT use should also be
concerned with young people’s content creation and sharing (Livingstone, 2004,
2005). This does not seem to acknowledge studies which have identified the growing
industry areas of digital content and creative content (Allen Consulting Group, 2003;
CIRAC & Cutler & Co, 2003). These industry studies have identified that creative
content development is a growth area not only within the Creative Industries sector
but across most other industry sectors as well (Cunningham, 2006). For educators
concerned with teaching and learning processes, this means that areas traditionally
seen as creative (including drama) may actually have a significant role to play in
educating for the digital age. This indicates more of a shift in focus from decoding‐
receiver processes and learning to encoding‐producer processes and learning (Hall,
1980).

Within education the ICT agenda is rarely linked to the creativity agenda in an explicit
way, and both are realised through different programs and with different levels of
support. In Australia there is, for example, nothing like Futurelab in the United
Kingdom, which explores innovation and technology in education. Discipline areas
such as Drama are generally positioned outside of the ICT agenda and on the edge of
the creativity agenda. This study, however, focuses on the creative and
communications side of using ICTs through the creation of drama. It seeks to explore
how this kind of work might contribute to student learning and creative practice. An
overview of policy and program developments in relation to creativity is useful to be
able to arrive at an understanding of what creative practice using ICTs might be like
and why it is worth studying.
1.4.1 Creativity in education
Recently in Australia there have been a number of official statements made which
focus on notions of creativity and creativity education. 2009 was designated the Year
of Creativity for Queensland state schools and in April 2009 The Arts were added to
the agenda for national curriculum development. A key argument for this being:
Creativity, interpretation, innovation and cultural understanding are all
sought‐after skills for new and emerging industries in the 21st century. Arts
education provides students with the tools to develop these skills. (Garrett,
2009, para. 3)

Pronouncements at a federal government level about the future of schooling also

include a focus on creativity as a desirable general capability (National Curriculum
Board, 2009). To some degree Australia has come late to the global table in regards
to work in creativity and education, especially the most recent wave.

Early creativity research and programs from the 1950s and 60s and are often said to
have been initiated by Guilford’s APA Presidential Address where he challenged
psychologists to focus on creativity as an important but neglected attribute in human
behaviour and intelligence (Guilford, 1955). During World War II Guilford worked for
the US Air Force Psychological Research Unit and formed an aptitude project, so early
creativity research was focused on finding ways to create tests to identify the most
creative talent ( Feldman, Csikszentmihalyi, & Gardner, 1994). This research
recognised different intellectual processes, with Guilford in particular developing the
concept of “divergent thinking”. Various psychometric and IQ tests were developed
(Guilford, 1954; Guilford, Christensen, Merrifield, & Wilson, 1978; Torrance, 1988)
which sought to identify those individuals who possessed particular creative thinking
aptitudes. It has been argued that these kinds of measures proved insufficient for
identifying those who would go on to be successful and creative in recognised or
productive ways (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen,
1993; Feldman et al., 1994).

A resurgence of interest in creativity research and creativity in education has been

underway for a little more than a decade now. A number of countries and educational
authorities have identified the need to do something different to help prepare
students for participation in the knowledge society/knowledge economy. In the
United Kingdom, several major enquiries and projects focused on the importance of
developing creativity through schooling (National Advisory Committee on Creative
and Cultural Education, 1999; Roberts, P., 2006) with a recognition of the major role
creative industries play in the British economy.

The British initiatives crossed over different government departments and have had
significant impact, within the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The suite of initiatives
began with the formation of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and
Cultural Education (NACCCE) and their report All our Futures. The definition of
creativity from that report is one that is regularly quoted and states that:
Our starting point is to recognise four characteristics of creative processes.
First, they always involve thinking or behaving imaginatively. Second,
overall this imaginative activity is purposeful: that is, it is directed to
achieving an objective. Third, these processes must generate something
original. Fourth, the outcome must be of value in relation to the objective.
We therefore define creativity as: Imaginative activity fashioned so as to
produce outcomes that are both original and of value. (National Advisory
Committee on Creative and Cultural Education, 1999, p. 30)

A range of projects and other reports that flowed from the work of the NACCCE were
the Creative Partnerships (CCE, 2008) and Artsmark projects, whereby the Arts
Council funded artists in schools projects, and initiatives where creative professionals
worked with young people. The Quality and Curriculum Authority has also been
active in developing a range of curriculum materials, case studies and publications
including Creativity: Find it, Promote it. Another report which affirmed the focus on
creativity was the Nurturing Creativity in Young People report (Roberts, P., 2006)
arising out of the Ministry of Culture, Media and Sport. More recently the Creative
Britain: New Talents for New Economies report includes an educational focus from
which a Find your Talent program will be established. This program focuses on five
hours of cultural education per week for children and young people and this includes
engagement with museums and cultural institutions as well as arts‐based experiences
(Department of Culture, 2008). A significant difference between these programs and
the Australian ones has been the substantial funding allocated towards programs
conducted in schools – for example the English Creative Partnerships program has
been allocated £110 million core funding for 2008‐ 2011 (Arts Council, 2009).

While these initiatives originated in England, other UK initiatives have also arisen in
Scotland and Ireland. Learning and Teaching Scotland has developed a range of case
studies about school practice and developed a handbook for teachers. 2009 was
declared a Year of Creativity and Innovation across Europe (European Commission,
2009) – and this both recognises the importance of education but moves beyond that
to the broader economy and society. Outside the UK, in countries such as Singapore
there have been government initiatives within education which have focused on
creativity, lateral thinking and problem solving. These developments in education
have been seen as an economic imperative (Ministry of Information Communication
& the Arts, 2004; Tan & Gopinathan, 2000).

Within Australia the focus to date has largely been driven from the federal
government level through the Creative Nation cultural policy in 1994 (Australian
Government, 1994) and from a range of initiatives from the Australia Council for the
Arts (Australia Council for the Arts, 2004, 2005a, 2005b). Considerable excitement
was generated about the potential of the arts to promote national creativity at the
time of the Australia 2020 Summit in 2008. Key recommendations from the Towards
a Creative Australia focus group focused on the important role the arts in education
can play in promoting creativity. One of the top ideas put forward was that the
Australian Government should:
mandate creative, visual and performing arts subjects in national curricula
with appropriate reporting requirements for schools. Explore new
opportunities for extension and development such as Creativity Summer
Schools, pre‐service and in‐service training for teachers. (Department of the
Prime Minister & Cabinet, 2008, p 301)

In the Queensland educational realm there has been little specific focus on creativity
until now. The suite of Years 1‐10 syllabus documents in the late 1990s‐early 2000s
included attributes of a lifelong learner though, and one of these was the role of a
responsive creator as one of seven key characteristics. Research and writing about
creativity has generally been linked to Early Childhood and Primary school education
(O'Rourke, 2007; Wright, 2003). There has been minimal funding allocated for
research or school‐based programs. Policy and program support for exploring
creativity through ICTs and the arts is almost absent from educational discourse in
Australia. It is this particular nexus which is of interest to me for this research study.

1.5 Positioning this study

This research study aims to contribute new knowledge in several ways. Currently
there is minimal empirical research which focuses on the use of ICTs in educational
drama. Secondly the focus on creativity and drama is also a new direction. Several
studies about drama and creativity have been published in the past decade or so
(Bailin, 1996; Gallagher, 2007; O'Farrell, Saebo, McCammon, & Heap, 2009) and there
is new research emerging out of Asia, Scandinavia and Canada, however the literature
is limited. The particular nexus of this study focuses on drama, ICTs, education and
creativity extends into a new research domain. Furthermore the application of a
Vygotskian frame adds a new lens to the scope of drama research. To date the main
developments in this realm have been from the United Kingdom, with work by Anton
Franks (Franks, 2006; Franks & Jewitt, 2001) and an article by Roper and Davis which
proposed that Vygotsky was a more appropriate theorist for drama educators to
draw on than Gardner (Roper & Davis, 2000). Cultural‐historical activity theory is also
drawn upon for this study. There has been minimal application of this theory to
drama, previous drama studies have focussed on dramatic play and on early
childhood settings (Gulpa, 2007; Van Oers, 2008).

1.6 Conclusion
This chapter has outlined the structure of this thesis and set up the focus for the
inquiry. Key developments and policies regarding educational futures have been
introduced with a focus on Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) and
creativity. It has been identified that the current government proposal for a
supposed educational revolution translates in practice to a narrow top‐down
approach with a focus on technical tool provision. The strategies allow no room for
interference by the “masses” (such as students and teachers) or engagement with
social practices, ideas and ideals. The government focus is on information and
technology tools and virtually silent on that of communications. The lack of focus on
communications and creativity through ICTs and the possible role drama education
could play in this realm has been canvassed as a key site for this study to investigate.
Key concepts for this study to focus on are the links between ICTs, drama, creative
practice and learning. The following chapter reviews the context and literature from
relevant fields and identifies key themes that inform the methodology and the study.
2. Contextual review – drama past, present and future

2.1 Introduction
New technologies have fundamentally changed the lived experience for young
people. Computers, smart phones, the Internet, social networking applications and
user generated content sharing Web 2.0 technologies have all changed information
retrieval and organisation, communications channels and creative making and
sharing possibilities. It is worthwhile to reflect then on what the implications might
be for the field of drama, which is an artform with the most ancient of roots. How
does the creative practice of drama education change in response to this dynamic
era? In considering possible shifts in practice and tool use within educational
contexts this contextual review will canvas several key spheres. First this review will
outline some key cultural shifts regarding young people’s use of technology
especially in regard to Internet use and implications for schooling. Secondly it will
explore drama education in the Queensland context and forms and processes of
drama that are emerging which utilise ICTs. Following that the creativity literature
will be canvassed to help formulate a concept of creative practice and learning. This
will then be drawn upon as relevant socio‐cultural theory is scoped in the following
chapter and analytical frames for the research constructed.

2.2 Generational change – young people and technology

A range of reports, books and articles clearly document this generation of young
people as experiencing a generational shift of culture (McQueen, ND; Net Ratings,
2005; Prensky, 1998, 2001; Roberts, D. F., Foehr, & Rideout, 2005; Rushkoff, 1997;
Tapscott, 1998; Twenge, 2006; Zemke & Filipczak, 2000). At the heart of this shift is
access to and use of a range of Internet‐based and mobile communications
technologies and shifts to social practices. There are obvious differences in various
parts of the world regarding rates of take up, and access to different technologies
and systems. The concept of the digital divide has emerged and describes the gap
between access to computers, the Internet and broadband by different groups or
cultures. Castells, Fernandez‐Ardevol, Oiu and Sey (2007) make the point, however,
that in some cases with the uptake of mobile technology some developing countries
are able to “leap‐frog” communications technology, through using mobile and
wireless technology and not ever installing fixed line technology. Much of the
discussion that follows will focus on the context for work that is currently possible
in Australia and many other countries. There is no assumption here that there is
universal access to the same technologies for all young people globally, nor is there
any devaluing of other kinds of drama which privilege live processes. The concern
of this study is with the kinds of technology‐driven revolutionary shifts which are
occurring, their impact on human experience and drama education practice.

Whilst there is an extensive literature on the use of computers and e‐learning in

education, this section focuses more specifically on young people’s use of
technology. Studies of interest include academic research studies as well as those
conducted by philanthropic organisations and some commercial agencies. The data
from the latter are often the most up to date as it is used by commercial
organisations to feed into marketing and advertising strategies. Whilst it may not be
as rigorously researched, it is still pertinent to consider common trends.

Livingstone, Hasebrink and others have been involved in a number of major

research projects in the United Kingdom and for the European Union focused on
researching young people’s use of the Internet and various media (Hasebrink,
Livingstone, & Haddon, 2008; Livingstone, 2008; Livingstone & Bober, 2004). For
example, one major study, the Economic Union (EU) Kids Online Project (Hasebrink,
Livingstone, & Haddon 2008) has involved researchers from 21 countries conducting
empirical research on children (of up to 18 years) and associated Internet use and
risks. The researchers have developed common questions and strategies for
collecting data and have been analysing common themes as well as differences
across countries.

Some relevant findings include a problematising of the notion of digital natives and
assumptions that all young people use the Internet more than their parents and are
more proficient. Children whose parents use the Internet are more likely to use it,
and those who use it at home are more likely to use ICTs at school (Hasebrink et al.,
2008, p. 116). Elsewhere Livingstone has elaborated on how many parents and
children celebrate children’s superior computer and Internet skills, but that these
skills often relate to quick competent use in a narrow range of sites or applications
(Livingstone, 2008). Through empirical research she has identified how, when
young people are required to move beyond these applications, they may have
limited skills for working out how to use new ones. She argues that a concept of
Internet and information literacy education needs to be a concern in education and
that this includes focusing on information literacies, critical literacies and also
creative literacies.

Of relevance to this study is also some research about the use of ICTs and the
Internet for user‐created (and creative) content development. What the EU report
(Hasebrink et al., 2008) identifies is that creative user‐generated content
participation is less common than use of the Internet for information searching,
entertainment or social networking. The report suggests that children climb a
“ladder of online opportunities”. This ladder begins with: “information‐seeking,
progressing through games and communication, taking on more interactive forms
of communication and culminating in creative and civic activities” (Hasebrink et al.,
2008, p. 116).

The importance of communications and creative expression has also been identified
through other studies. A major international study conducted by Yahoo in
partnership with Ipsos survey research and OMD Media Communications (Yahoo &
OMD, 2005) focused on 11 different countries including the U.S.A. and Mexico, the
United Kingdom, selected European and Asian nationals and Australia. Research
methods included online surveys, focus groups and in‐home ethnographies. They
summarised young people’s Internet use as relating to personalisation and
communication needs, with the Internet being used to assemble, share and use
media for self‐expression. These core needs are seen as being met by the use of
traditional and new media, with key technology uses revolving around music, the
Internet and mobile devices (Yahoo & OMD, 2005).

In the United States major research includes that conducted by the Kaiser
Foundation (Roberts, D. F. et al., 2005), the MacArthur Foundation (Ito et al., 2008)
and the ongoing PEW and American Life Project (Lenhart & Madden, 2005, 2007).
This research documents the increase in young people’s Internet use, recognising its
place in relation to young people’s ongoing use of traditional media. New media
use does not necessarily replace traditional media use (such as television) but is
added into the media mix with many young people engaging with multiple media
forms at the same time through multi‐tasking (Roberts, D. F. et al., 2005).
MacArthur Foundation ethnographic research and PEW research highlights the
popularity of online social networking sites with teens, particularly by girls. This
research highlights the significant use of the Internet for communications and
friendship‐driven practices, with most young people using these sites to associate
with people they know offline (Boyd, 2007b; Ito et al., 2008).

In the Australian research, similar trends are identified in regard to young people’s
Internet use. The Internet is being used for homework or study, then
entertainment (games, music, video watching) and communications (emailing,
instant messaging and social networking) (Australian Communications and Media
Authority, 2009b; Net Ratings, 2005). The increase of Internet use in the teenage
years is noted once again, with a recognition however that in the later teen years
Internet use may reduce as teens have more freedom and are able to go out and
meet their friends face‐to‐face (Australian Communications and Media Authority,
2009a). Data about young people’s creative content engagement online does not
appear to be readily available to date.

A key development in Internet use over the past decade is the rise of participatory
culture and the idea of the producer/user or produser (Bruns, 2007). With the
availability of ever cheaper (and free) software and technology, more young people
are becoming producers of content which is readily shared through social
networking spaces and online communities (Bruns, 2007; Jenkins, Clinton,
Purushotma, Robinson, & Weigel, 2006). The growth of digital content creation is
significant not only in social personal contexts but has also been identified as a
major growth area within the Creative Industries sector and other industry sectors
as well (Allen Consulting Group, 2003; CIRAC & Cutler & Co, 2003; Cunningham,
2006). An extensive array of Web 2.0 applications which allow for users to create
and edit video, imagery, animation, music and so on is increasingly available online
for free. However, it is important to question to what degree young people are
embracing digital content creation and in what forms?

As for young people’s creative participation online, one PEW report investigated
teens as content creators. This research involved phone interviews, focus groups
and online surveys. Young people were questioned about content creation and
sharing activities. Findings included one third of online teens (aged 12‐17) reporting
that they have shared online self‐authored content including artwork, photos,
stories or videos. In a similar finding to the EU study, it was reported that more
frequent Internet users are more likely to create and share their own content and
that girls were more likely to share original content compared to boys (Lenhart &
Madden, 2005).

A concern of governments and some researchers as identified in the literature

regarding young people’s Internet use is related to risks, how to protect children
online and what kinds of risks children are exposed to (Australian Communications
and Media Authority, 2009a, 2009b; Hasebrink et al., 2008; Net Ratings, 2005;
Ofcom, 2008). In fact when searching for reports and information on children and
the internet on various search engines and data bases, this combination most often
brings up search results which include mention of safety, cybersafey and
cyberbullying. International research has indicated that those young people who
engage in high level Internet use do experience increased exposure to inappropriate
content and unsolicited social communications, and therefore a higher potential for
risk. The response by most governments and schooling authorities has been to
protect young people from exposure to pornography, predators and unwelcome
communications by limiting and censoring Internet access and use. This restricted
Internet access at schools generally also means restricted access to sites which
allow social networking and content sharing and related Web 2.0 applications (such
as YouTube, Flickr, Facebook and so on). It is noted in the EU research that reducing
risk at school also reduces opportunities (Hasebrink et al., 2008). This is therefore
an issue for those students who are already experiencing the digital divide and have
restricted access at home to computers, the Internet and broadband. Restricted
school computer access means restricted possibilities for creative practice
opportunities through ICTs as well.

It is important to note however that while Internet use is a key focus for this
research study that the communications tool that has been most enthusiastically
embraced by young people is the mobile phone. Young people have embraced
mobile phone communication as a key component of their culture. The use of
mobile communication provides them with constant connection with others, with
the creation of intimate family‐like communities and around the clock
communications and interactions (Castells et al., 2007). Mobile phone usage in
school contexts is, however, often viewed with suspicion and many schools have
policies which restrict student usage while at school. Significantly as more students
access smart phones with Internet facility school control of student Internet activity
becomes problematic.

As noted in the introduction to this thesis, the rhetoric about computers and
technology use in education tends to promote the use of technology in itself as
somehow linked to improved educational outcomes and economic superiority. The
rhetoric is not matched by the reality with an ever growing number of researchers
and academics identifying the importance of social practices and technology rather
than just the technology in itself (Buckingham, 2007; Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes,
2009; Kritt & Winegar, 2007; Seiter, 2005; Thurlow & Bell, 2009). Loveless (2002)
has explored creative uses of new technologies and reviewed a range of studies and
literature. She asserts that digital technologies provide tools that can facilitate
active learning and creative endeavour. She suggests that the potential for creative
learning lies not in the technologies themselves “but in the interaction with human
intention and activity” (Loveless, 2008, p. 64).

ICT use for creative practice requires more than just providing an ICT facility. In her
Futurelab literature review of Creativity, New Technologies and Learning, Loveless
identifies five key processes for using ICTs for creativity:
 Developing ideas: supporting imaginative conjecture, exploration and
representation of ideas
  Making connections: supporting, challenging, informing and developing
ideas by making connections with information, people, projects, resources
 Creating and Making: engaging in making meanings through fashioning
processes of capture, manipulation and transformation of media
 Collaboration: working with others in immediate and dynamic ways to
collaborate on outcomes and construct shared knowledge
 Communication and evaluation: publishing and communicating outcomes
for evaluation and critique from a range of audiences. (Loveless, 2002, p. 4)

It is these final three in particular that move beyond a lot of the ICT and Internet use
that school‐based ICT use is often concerned with. More recently she has reiterated
these processes and elaborated upon what creative learning using ICTs might
involve. She discusses how creative learning with ICTs involves learning about the
characteristics and limitations of the media (e.g. hypertextuality, iconic association
and interactivity) and techniques for using the tools, how to fashion imaginative
ideas and links to conceptual domains (Loveless, 2008).

These shifts in technology and culture present drama educators with a range of
threats and opportunities. Digital technologies, Internet based communicative and
content creation applications can provide students with new ways to engage in
creative practice. Many of the uses of computers and the Internet that are perhaps
of most relevance to drama education (content creation, social networking and
communications) are restricted in school contexts because of concerns for student
safety and behaviour. It would appear that not all students are necessarily as
familiar with content creation applications of technology as common digital native
discourse (Prensky, 2001) would suggest. Therefore to restrict access and
educational engagement with content creation and social networking tools means
an exacerbation of the digital divide for some students. To further explore the
possibilities for emerging practice in this realm, the following section will outline the
context for drama education in Queensland and the uses of ICTs for drama creation.
2.3 Drama and cyberdrama
2.3.1 Drama in Education in Queensland
Drama in education can be conceived of in several key ways: as a pedagogical
strategy, as a component of English language studies, as a form of co‐curricular
activity with students performing in theatrical events and as a subject or discipline
area studied in its own right. This research study is most concerned with the final
two conceptions of drama, particularly the discipline subject study of drama in
secondary schools. The inclusion of Drama as a specific subject within the
Queensland curriculum has a history that is now over thirty years old. Drama
(initially known as Speech and Drama) was introduced as a secondary school subject
in the early 1970s when schools began to offer it as an elective course of study
available from years 9 ‐ 12. Drama as a curriculum area has developed over this
time to become a popular subject studied in the secondary school years but offered
at a school’s discretion.

Approximately one fifth of Queensland students studying a senior secondary school

Authority Subject study Drama in year 11 or 12. Of the 60 or so Authority Subjects
offered in 2006 Drama was the ninth most popular subject after: English, Maths A,
Maths B, Biology, Physical Education, Chemistry, Business Communications and
Technology and Visual Arts (Queensland Studies Authority, 2006).

It is also important to explore how drama has been positioned as a knowledge

domain and field of practice in Queensland and Australian schools. What is
significant about the development of drama curriculum in Australia, and in this case
Queensland, is that the schisms that have fractured practice in other countries, such
as the United Kingdom have not been a feature of practice here (Haseman, 2001b).
Australian drama curriculum has been in practice a melting pot of different drama
and teaching philosophies and discourses. Curriculum documents recognise and
value drama as a pedagogical tool or process as well as being a discipline area
concerned with theatrical tradition and performance. Early discourses about the
processes of drama enabling personal development and self knowledge
characterised in the writings of Brian Way (1967) and Peter Slade (1954) can be
identified in some curriculum documents, but Queensland curriculum documents
also had a strong focus on theatrical traditions, forms and texts. These documents
therefore identified the potential for different kinds of drama learning: learning in
drama, learning about drama and learning through drama (Department of
Education Queensland, 1986).

Drama as described and practised in Queensland syllabus documents values various

theatrical traditions (predominantly of the Western world) including the study of
key texts and dramatic movements. Drama also utilises processes whereby young
people can explore issues and ideas of relevance to them and helps them to shape
and present these ideas in individual and collaborative presentations. Critical skills
and understandings are also a key feature of drama work, with students engaging in
analysing and evaluating their own work and that of professional practitioners. This
focus on creating work, presenting work and analysing work is described through
the three key process of Forming, Presenting and Responding (Queensland Studies
Authority, 2007).

A key focus for drama curriculum has been the identification of certain elements of
drama which are those features of the art form that set it apart from other artforms
and curriculum areas. Drama educators and academics Haseman and O’Toole both
witnessed some of the overseas debates and the split between theatre and
improvised drama practitioners in the UK. They wished to find the glue that bound
these different areas together and so set out to identify what became known as the
elements of drama (Haseman, Interview transcript, 21/01/2008, p. 3).
Figure 1 The Elements of Drama (Haseman & O'Toole, 1987, p. viii)

These core dramatic elements were then identified as human context, focus,
tension, space, time, movement, language, mood and symbol (Haseman & O'Toole,
1987). They were represented in a model which mapped a relationship between
the elements leading to their realisation as dramatic meaning (see Figure 1).
Haseman and O’Toole both acknowledge that they are by no means the first to have
talked about there being some key components to the artform of drama. They
acknowledge the foundational work of Aristotle’s Poetics (c. 300 BC) with Aristotle’s
elements described as including: plot, character, thought, diction, melody and
spectacle. Comparisons could be drawn between these two frameworks as O’Toole
described to me in an interview (see Figure 2).
 Haseman & O’Toole’s Elements of
Aristotle’s Elements of Drama
drama
Character Role in Human context
Plot Situation in Human context
Thought Tension
Diction Language and movement
Spectacle Aspects of place, space & symbol
Language, (rhythm & contrast
Melody mentioned by O’Toole but not explicit in
their model)

Figure 2 Comparing Aristotle's dramatic elements with Haseman & O'Toole's (O'Toole, Interview
transcript, 21/01/2008)

The work of Dorothy Heathcote (1975) and Gavin Bolton (1984; Davis, D. &
Lawrence, 1986) has also influenced the notion of dramatic elements. From
Heathcote’s work aspects such as situation, role, focus, tension, light/darkness,
movement/stillness and sound/silence were identified as key components and
ground rules for helping form dramatic learning experiences. Other versions of
dramatic elements are to be found in curriculum texts such as Burgess and Gaudry’s
A Time for Drama (1985) and Morgan and Saxton’s Teaching Drama: A Mind of
Many Wonders (1987) . A key feature of the artform of drama is that participants
commit to the world of “what if” to what Coleridge called a “suspension of
disbelief”. This means that participants are able to explore human roles, worlds and
experiences that are fictional. Aspects may reflect real life and impact on real life
but there is a distinction and that can provide a safety net and potential for
exploration and learning (Bolton, 1984; Davis, D. & Lawrence, 1986; O'Toole, 1992).

Within education, a key form that has emerged is process drama (Bolton, 1992;
Haseman, 1991, 2001b; Heathcote, 1975; O'Neill, 1995; O'Toole, 1998; Wagner,
1976). Some detail will be outlined here as it is a form of drama which will be
referred to in the discussion about cyberdrama later in this chapter. With process
drama there is often no intention of creating a piece of theatre as such, the learning
relates more to exploring human experience through dramatic form and episodes.
Key aspects include the notion of role‐taking, with the leader or teacher often
acting in‐role to help stimulate the narrative and manage it from within the drama.
The concept of narrative is generally driven by the introduction of dramatic tension,
inviting the participants to investigate and problem solve. This often requires an
active engagement which ideally helps strengthen and build commitment to the
roles and the fiction. While there may be a final performance product to such a
process, the focus is mainly on the meaning making and experience of participants
as they help build fictional worlds, taking on various roles within specific frames.

These processual forms of drama allow for heightened levels of engagement

through students participating in creating the text through a structured but open
form of text creation. The notion of the open form is drawn from Eco’s work,
whereby he identified developments in some twentieth century artworks whereby
the author or creators had deliberately left some sections unfinished, and open to
the individual artist or performer to complete the end product. He emphasised that
this did not just mean open to interpretation (Eco, 1979). Process drama is used to
varying degrees in school contexts, often in senior secondary years as a way into
exploring theatre texts, though sometimes as a form of drama studied in its own
right.

In the 1990s two seemingly contrasting paradigms were influential in drama

education with the work of Abbs (1989a; 1989b) and Boal (1979;1992) impacting on
syllabus documents and classroom practice. Whilst Abbs focussed on aesthetic
education emphasising the importance of including drama learning in heritage,
forms and styles, Boal’s work emphasised participatory drama processes and drama
as empowerment.

These different influences can be seen at play in McLean’s aesthetic framework

from the early 1990s. She argued that drama educators need to understand a
range of philosophical positions and ways of thinking about aesthetic experience
including conservationist aesthetic, critical theory, and post‐structuralist. She also
introduced the notions of co‐artistry and teacher‐artist (McLean, 1996). At that
time McLean was in a particularly influential role in terms of Queensland curriculum
and drama education in practice. She was a lecturer at one of the major teacher
education training institutions and throughout the 1990s she was also Chair of the
State Review Panel for Senior Drama. This panel oversees the accreditation of
Senior Secondary school curriculum programs and moderates the standards of
student assessment work across the state. Through introducing terms such as co‐
artistry and teacher‐artist in the syllabus document for Drama (which all schools
who teach senior secondary Drama must use) her work had significant impact on
curriculum and drama education praxis. In her monograph she uses the terms
teacher‐artist and co‐artist and these terms were significant in recognising the
teacher working creatively as an artist within the classroom, as well as taking on
other roles such as instructor, facilitator or manager of learning. In her explanation
of key aspects of drama pedagogy she identified:
The importance of experiential learning and teacher/students working as co‐
artists…. This personalised experience occurs in a highly complex
relationship, oscillating between teacher/student as initiator and controller
of form, and student/teacher as controller of ideas. (McLean, 1996, p. 14)

She also drew on Abbs to justify this way of working: “It is the [teacher’s] function
not only to initiate aesthetic activity but also to enter it directly as creative agent, to
develop it and deepen it” (Abbs in McLean, 1996, p. 52). The notion of co‐artistry
recognises that this is not just about the teacher as director of student artistry but
teacher working alongside students, operating with notions of power sharing and
collaboration.

The 1990s also saw the concept of dramatic conventions enter into curriculum
documents and drama praxis. The notion of conventions here is similar to genres
and recognisable patterns. The introduction of dramatic conventions was heavily
influenced by the work of Jonathon Neelands (Neelands & Goode, 1990, 2000)
which itself drew on the work of Williams on conventions of drama to structure
feeling (Williams, 1968). This addition of dramatic conventions helped provide
teachers and students with clearer parameters of how drama could be shaped and
structured.
More recent shifts impacting on drama curriculum reflect developments in
contemporary performance. The work of Schechner (2002) in performance studies
and the impact of post‐dramatic theatre (Lehmann, 2006) has led to a questioning
of the notion of a set of elements of dramatic form and a rethinking of notions of
text, role and tension as arising from narrative causality. Whilst not many school
curriculum programs may reflect this directly, there has been a lot more work
focused on physical and visual aspects of performance and less focus on text‐based
work in schools.

In summary, drama education can be seen as a form of study that has emerged as a
discipline in its own right and is widely practised in Queensland secondary schools.
The field of educational drama is related to theatre practice but has developed its
own sets of elements and forms, including that of process drama. Drama education
is an experiential learning area which utilises participatory models and allows for
content creation and co‐artistry between students and teachers. As an artform that
is highly focussed on human experience and presence, it is at times seen as being a
learning area where ICTs in education are not so important (Flintoff, 2005).

Moving on from this summary, this question defines the next section: What new
kinds of drama and ways of working with various digital and information
technologies are emerging though? This following section seeks to canvas some of
the developments and possibilities.

2.3.2 Drama in a digital age – unpacking cyberdrama

The use of ICTs for creative practice in a generic sense involves “processes of
capture, manipulation and transformation of media” (Loveless, 2002, p. 4). This
may include students having to “select the medium for the message and use a
combination of sound, text and picture to present their ideas” (Ordidge, 1999, p.
58). Descriptions of digital creativity often identify participants having faculty with
selecting, editing and transforming text, images, music (Loveless, 2002). The next
section considers what drama might become in this context.
Many of the key elements of drama such as the human context, role and narrative
are evident in many media forms and on the Internet. What is important though is
the notion of the dramatic frame, that it is a fictional event, and the notion of
enactment and audience (O’Toole, 1992). Drama is generally shared within a group
dynamic and is performed for an audience, whether that be for the participants
themselves as produsers or spectactors (Boal, 1992) or for others.

In drama, the overlay of purpose, frame and audience is important (Esslin, 1987;
O'Toole, 1992). The notion of audience appears to be essential to many young
people online as well. The framing of the experience and the potential for an
audience heightens experience and provides a sense of being in the world (Boyd,
2006, 2007b). How these ICT‐based opportunities can be utilised to facilitate drama
in school contexts presents ongoing challenges which drama practitioners have
been exploring for over 15 years now.

An early work by Neelands (1993) identified the need to focus on different kinds of
human interaction through technology. Through practical and theoretical work
Anderson, Carroll and Cameron have since driven a number of research projects in
school and university settings and published key texts in the field (Anderson, 2005;
Anderson, Carroll, & Cameron, 2009; Carroll, 2005; Carroll, Anderson, & Cameron,
2006; Carroll & Cameron, 2003b, 2005). C & T (the name of a theatre company that
specialises in using drama and new media and work predominantly in schools) from
the U.K. are a drama and media education group who work in school contexts and
have conducted a range of projects including the Living Newspaper project (see case
study in Carroll et al., 2006) Lipsynch and Historama. Through these projects they
use various media to capture and share dramatised work in forms that are engaging
for young people, and require them to participate and take action. The use of ICTs
in drama studies has also been promoted by Nicholls, who has created an e‐learning
course about theatre history (Philip & Nicholls, 2007) and used blogging and forums
for student playbuilding work and conducting theatre critiques in communities.
Raphael managed a major multi‐user project whereby individual students and
drama groups could use blogs to document their playbuilding and reflective
processes (Drama Victoria, 2006). Flintoff has been an enthusiastic ICT leader in the
drama education field exploring drama educator attitudes towards technology
(2005) and experimenting with a range of different ways to utilise computer
technology in drama (Anderson et al., 2009; Flintoff, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009;
Flintoff & Sant, 2006; Loveless, 2002). Most recently his work has focussed on
facilitating drama processes in the virtual world of Second Life.

What these kinds of research and practice‐based projects have demonstrated

includes the use of virtual spaces to talk about drama, using cyberspace to create
and share drama and using virtual spaces to learn about and see various forms of
drama. On the other hand this work has also explored how forms, conventions and
processes drawn from drama education (such as process drama, Heathcote’s
mantle of the expert and so on) can be adapted and effectively used in cyberspace.
What I have been interested in is the way that cyberdrama may be created and
enacted using pervasive (or common place) technologies and cyberspaces to build
roles, dramatic action and performance. The creation of drama in this way can be
used to support live interactive processes or can be seen as a form of drama in its
own right.

It is useful at this stage to look at what might be meant by the term cyberdrama.
Janet Murray is credited with coining the term in her seminal work Hamlet on
the Holodeck: the Future of Narrative in Cyberspace and she described it as such:
I have referred to these various new kinds of narrative under the single
umbrella term of cyberdrama because the coming digital story form... Like
the novel or the movie, will encompass many different formats and styles
but will essentially be a single distinctive entity. It will not be an interactive
this or that, however much it may draw upon tradition, but a reinvention of
storytelling itself for the new digital medium... As a new generation grows
up, it will take participatory form for granted and will look for ways to
participate in ever more subtle and expressive stories. (Murray, 1997, p.
271)

Another way of putting it is to say that cyberdrama is the process of participants

taking on role, engaged in a fictional world with the potential for interaction in the
development of a story or narrative in a digital space. A key aspect here is that as a
drama it unfolds over time, this relates to the important concept of narrative as
being central to drama, it is not just an image. Another key feature of work that is
experienced through the Internet is the possibility for participants to interact. This
can occur in different ways, from participants being co‐creators of content that is
posted and developed, through to participants mainly experiencing the drama as an
audience, but with the possibility for commenting or responding to the work (such
as what occurs on sites such as YouTube).

It has been proposed that the principal form of cyberdrama that has emerged is the
massive online role‐playing games (such as Myst and World of Warcraft) as well as
other kinds of computer games (Wardrip‐Fruin & Harrigan, 2004). In considering
what may qualify as cyberdrama a consideration of the distinction between games
and drama may be useful. Chris Crawford was a games designer who now creates
interactive stories. He says that games focus more on what you do with objects,
whereas stories are about what happen to people (Crawford, 2005). So perhaps at
its simplest cyberdrama could be defined as stories about people performed on the
Internet.

These kinds of dramas can be realised in a range of ways, utilising 3D persistent,

virtual worlds and avatars such as Kim Flintoff’s work in Second Life, or through
creating simple avatars which perform on a virtual stage for an online audience such
as the work occurring using UpStage (Jamieson, 2008). I have been interested in
exploring the creation of narrative based drama online, or what are also called
webseries, webisodics or cybersoaps. These involve creating digital video and audio
clips and building and complementing the world of the drama through using social
networking spaces (such as MySpace or Ning). Various cyberspaces can be used for
role building and sharing content as well, including synchronous and asynchronous
communications such as blogs, wikis, forums and online chats.

A scan of the history of these kinds of cybertexts reveals a period of intense activity
in the commercial sphere in the late 1990s. Most of these cyberdramas were quite
short‐lived and have been critiqued for trying to imitate televisual forms
unsuccessfully (Chwastiak, 1998a, 1998b; Penenberg, 1997). Some of the issues
identified for the development of commercial cyberdrama relate to how to
generate revenue, the form (mix of text, graphics etc) accessibility for users and
download issues. In more recent times a range of web‐based dramas (variously
called video series, webisodes, YouTube series etc) have emerged, with the most
well known possibly being the Lonely Girl 15 series (Beckett, Flinders, Goodfried, &
Goodfried, 2006; Garfield, 2006). This series utilised over 140 video clips uploaded
on YouTube and MySpace with the characters interacting with their audience
through comments pages, blogs and email.

Technologically the potential for this market has exploded in recent times, with
some new development in the commercial field (see for example the web series
Sanctuary and the web series category on Veoh). There is ongoing debate about
the success of this form and whether it can work as a stand alone format or can only
succeed when associated with commercial television productions and promotions
(Hale, 2008; Heffernan, 2008). There have been some explorations of cyberdrama
forms within educational contexts where there is not the same pressure for
generating commercial funding and sponsorship. Examples of these are To the
Spice Islands and Planet Jemma (Carroll et al., 2006; Carroll & Cameron, 2003a; XPT
& NESTA, 2003). This work is more similar in nature to what I have been involved in
exploring.

In 2005 I set out to explore how it might be possible to create an on‐line drama that
utilised cyberspace as the space for its enactment. This became the online drama
1 www.cleo‐missing.com, a project created collaboratively with a small team of
university students. A website was created for the drama and over a period of 3
months various materials were uploaded, including short video clips, text, photo
stories and audio clips. A narrative developed about a girl who went missing from
university. I participated as the drama leader, managing the development of the
drama from within through the role of Cleo’s friend, Ivy. Since the conclusion of
this project I have been involved in doctoral studies and facilitated three other
cyberdrama projects working with young people, mainly in educational contexts
(see www.cyberdrama.org for details on The Immortals, Noosa Scrubs and The
1
Secret Society of Shapeshifters). In developing these projects I have worked
collaboratively with teachers, students and young people using processes that draw
very much on aspects of process drama.

As previously outlined, process drama is an open form which offers up enormous

potential for creating structures and processes which allow for participant
engagement and creativity. It is a form whereby roles such as playwright, actor,
character and spectator are blurred (O'Neill, 1995; O'Toole, 1992) and where a
framework is determined that can offer narrative coherence as well as elements of
user or participant freedom.

A cyberdrama may be shared in different textual chunks or lexia. The term lexia is
often used in cybertext discussions to describe different sections of text and draws
on Barthes’ term as used in his work S/Z (Barthes, 1974). Different lexia used
include video clips, audio, emails, images, animations, role profiles and so forth. In
planning and running a cyberdrama, different conventions are also used (as in live
process drama) to help generate material which can then be experienced live or
through mediated forms. Conventions may include using a digital pre‐text or digital
artefact (e.g. video clip, audio clip, email etc) which acts as the springboard for the
drama or a component of the drama. This contains a call to action, a problem, a
question and the suggestion of roles that participants might fulfil and create. This
draws on the notion of pre‐text as outlined by O’Neill (1995) and others since.
Other lexia may include interviews, time lapse images, photostories and montages.
One of the key considerations when working in process drama or cyberdrama is the
way these lexia and conventions can be used to stimulate, respond to or enact
interactions. These interactions are of varying kinds, and can be between
participants, between participants and audience/users and so forth. The nature of
cyberdrama as process drama, suggests processes which acknowledge and respond
to the offers of different participants (Haseman, 2001a) to create a satisfying
experience for them. This implies a certain kind of interactivity.

2.3.3 Interactivity in cyberdrama

The term interactivity is one that is commonly used in relation to discussions about
the nature of human interaction with computer interfaces and about the kinds of
user experiences that are most satisfying (Laurel, 1993; Meadows, 2003; Ryan,
1999). In one of the first works written about the possibilities of combining
drama/theatre sensibilities and computing design, Brenda Laurel explained that
human‐computer activity was based on the experience of interactivity:
I posited that interactivity exists on a continuum that could be characterized
by three variables: frequency (how often you could interact), range (how
many choices were available) and significance (how much the choices really
affected matters)… Now I believe that these variables provide only part of
the picture. There is another more rudimentary measure of interactivity:
You either feel yourself to be participating in the ongoing representation or
you don’t. (Laurel, 1993, pp. 20‐21)

At that time Laurel critiqued the view that designing such interfaces was only about
technical and scientific knowledge. She proposed that those from artistic disciplines
such as theatre and drama may in fact have a lot to offer in terms of designing
effective experiences for people who are interacting with computers.

In his extensive review of different forms of digital performance Dixon (2007)

identifies four different kinds of interactivity which feature in various kinds of
interactive art and performance pieces:
1. Navigation – users make choices about where they go within the space.
They might choose from multiple branches of a story, or which character to
follow. All the options are pre‐programmed
2. Participation – users may participate, as in a game like form
3. Conversation ‐ two or more users are involved and interacting within the
space or system
4. Collaboration – users collaborate to actually alter the structure,
architecture and activities of the game or drama world. (Dixon 2007, p. 563)

What is interesting here is that the first two kinds tend to suggest interaction mainly
with the computer or system, whereas the last two require interactions between
people, between active human participants. This focus on interactions and
collaboration reflects similar factors identified for process forms of drama and by
Loveless (2002) as key processes for supporting the use of ICTs for creativity.

To look more specifically at the nature of interactivity that might be possible for
users through the Internet, an exploration of the concept of cyber offers some
insights. The term cyber is generally regarded as referring to computers and the
human‐computer interface – the digitised space whereby physical barriers of
appearance, geographical space and form disappear (LeNoir, 1999). The term cyber
in itself does not refer only to computers and computer/human interactions. Cyber
is derived from cybernetic which derives from Greek kybernetes, meaning to steer
or navigate. This term came into common use in the 1940s in relation to the field of
cybernetics and Norbert Wiener’s concept of goal‐directed systems (Weiner,
1948/1965). A significant focus of this work is the notion of feedback loops. This
means that there is a systemic goal, there is an input and resulting action and there
is a feedback loop. Effective cybernetic systems receive feedback and respond
appropriately to ensure the goal is reached. Whilst cybernetics has often been
applied to computer and artificial intelligence systems, it is also of relevance to
understanding living organisms and their interactions with environments. Bateson
(1972) also wrote about the field of cybernetics and was particularly interested in
how it could be utilised to understand the mind. In this sense, the organism
receives feedback and processes information to maintain a goal orientation. This
may involve self correction and adaptation in response to information received.
Information in Bateson’s account is defined as “a difference which makes a
difference” (Bateson, 1972, p. 315).

In a cybernetic machine, the role of the governor is important as it is the part of the
system that has control, that senses the difference and then transforms that into
messages which prompt adaptive action (e.g. the engine is running too fast, the
governor senses this and adapts the amount of fuel being fed into the engine to
regain equilibrium). In a machine certain parameters are set which determine how
much difference can be tolerated and what the responses might be to maintain
equilibrium and achieve the systemic goal.
One of the key issues for developing this form of interactive drama is the
management of the process (or who or what takes on the governor role) and what
are often seen as the competing demands of creating satisfactory narrative as well
as engaging interactive experiences. In human terms, it is about balancing the
control and management constraints with scope for participant input and freedom.
In interactive drama as well as traditional process drama literature, it has been
identified that a person or a program function (for an artificial intelligence system)
needs to take on this role. This has been variously called the playwright function
(Laurel, 1993), the drama manager (Crawford, 2005) or in traditional process drama,
the leader or teacher in‐role (Haseman, 2001a).

In terms of computer‐based narrative systems, Laurel talked about an interactive

fiction system able to manage the playwright function identifying a set of thirteen
principle functions (Laurel, 1993, p. 138). Marie‐Laure Ryan also proposed a story‐
generation system which could utilise aspects of narrative taxonomies within a
constraining rule structures which could allow for participant input (Ryan, 2001). A
key consideration is how to predetermine the possible pathways and options which
may allow a user a sense of having real impact through interactive possibilities.
Crawford proposed the creation of a drama management system which could
maximise interactive potential through a cyclic process of listening, thinking and
speaking. His system also drew on various narrative typologies and indexes to
create interactive systems that might generate satisfying narratives as well as
interactive experiences for participants. In another relevant project Façade
developed by Mateas and others (Mateas, 2001), a computer program provides the
user with a responsive experience within a narrative frame, several characters to
interact with and who respond with a range of possible programmed responses.

The form of interactive process drama utilised for this study still relies on the
playwright function being maintained by a person or group who set certain
parameters for the drama. They then weave together the various narrative threads
that participants may contribute. This playwright function benefits from having
knowledge of dramatic content and processes including narrative typologies,
dramatic genres, styles and characters. The management of the process draws
heavily on improvisational techniques such as the making of offers, accepting and
extending (Johnstone, 1979; Pierse, 2007). Dramatic knowledge needs to be
utilised in combination with skills in the management of interactive processes and
multi‐media content development – bridging the live experiences and those to be
shared in mediated and online spaces.

An additional issue for cyberdrama that is cybernetic, working with a goal

orientation and is responsive, is the involvement of participants and a wider
audience. While participants may wish to engage an audience beyond the
immediate participant group, this may have implications, with other audience
members having expectations about their interactive involvement too. As LeNoir
warns:
The promise of vast audience connected worldwide by the Internet to
experience performances is tantalizing to artists. But the problem is that the
audience demands involvement in the performance, because the digital
connection goes both ways. (LeNoir, 2003, p. 125)

A dilemma then for the cyberdrama manager or creator is whether it is possible to

achieve participant/user input and interactions and narrative coherence and
satisfaction. The issue of how to create coherent or pleasurable narrative while
providing for user input has also been identified as an issue by Ryan and Laurel:
A rewarding interactive experience requires the integration of the bottom‐
up, partially unpredictable input of the user into the top‐down design… of
the storyteller. (Ryan, 2001, p. 244)

If everybody is let on stage, how can interaction among so many people be

coordinated into a performance that will be pleasurable for all? (Ryan,
2001, p. 304)

The experience may mean more for participants who have helped create the drama
than for the other online users. In discussing a mediated improvisation process that
had an audience as well as the participants, Laurel observed: “As theatre viewed
from the outside, the entertainment value of the improvisations was largely
mediocre. In contrast, the interactors’ experiences were dramatically quite
powerful” (Laurel, 1993, p.191).

If the process is to be shared only within the participating group, the level of
collaboration and interactivity may be quite high and the experience very satisfying,
but in drama, participants often desire the recognition of an audience. The nature
of the quality of the experience for makers appears to be different for those who
are audiences. To create cyberdrama that is a rewarding interactive experience for
all users, does narrative coherence have to be compromised? In a learning context
what is the most important experience for participants, to contribute or to be part
of a cohesive artistic performance?

This dilemma is one that has to be considered in the creation of drama and
narrative to be experienced through the interactive interface of the computer. It
would appear that the creators of Quarterlife (Herskovitz & Zwick 2007) tried to
address this through the creation of the interface and concept for their project.
Their site allows for users to create their own accounts and encourages them to
upload personal creative material. This material is acknowledged and viewed by
the site’s creative team and they send regular emails to users with links to a
selection of best user‐generated content. It is important to note that most of the
content does not relate to the actual drama that the producers initially shared on
their site. The recognition of user‐generated content does help build a sense of
community and user commitment to the site, however. There have been critiques
of the actual drama the producers created and problems with the producers trying
to create a hybrid show to work on the Internet and television (de Moraes 2008 &
Zap2it.com. 2008). The user‐generated content sharing aspect of their project was
well received though and at the time of writing was still continuing.

Providing opportunities for user participation is a feature that should be considered

by anyone hoping to create successful cyberdrama. The ideal would therefore
seem to be to aim for a collaborative form of interaction that maximizes user offers
within a managed framework. Successful cyberdrama forms appear to allow for
collaborative interactivity with participants, allowing users to feel that effort
expended will have some impact on the drama. The management of the drama is
an issue, as identified in terms of cybernetic systems, cyberdrama and process
drama literature. To what degree a teacher or drama leader should manage this
process or share it with participants is a question that needs to be continually
revisited, especially in a learning context. This is especially so where the creative
development and learning of students is a primary goal.

2.4 Exploring notions of creativity and creative practice

A key focus of this study is to explore the ways that ICTs might be used to support
creative practice and learning. The choice of these terms is significant and
highlights that the focus is clearly on the practice and learning of participants or
students. It is not about identifying a capacity that some people may possess that
others do not and the cultivation of gifted students. Part of the inquiry of this study
is concerned with the nature of creative practice using ICTs and how it may be
possible to support this through the use of drama and digital tools.

To help conceptualise creative practice and creative learning requires an

engagement with some of the creativity literature. Whilst there is little in the way
of literature that talks specifically about creative learning or creative practice, there
is an extensive literature on the concept of creativity, and some of this relates to
creativity in education. As the paradigm I am working from is a cultural‐historical or
socio‐cultural frame, the focus in the following section is on accounts of creativity
that adopt that perspective. It examines accounts of creativity that explain how
creativity is constructed and influenced by the context and the society in which a
subject operates. Contemporary creativity researchers such as Csikszentmihalyi and
R. Keith Sawyer have developed this approach and will be explored, as well as
writings by Vygotsky himself and neo‐Vygotskian researchers (Gajdamaschko, 2005;
John‐Steiner, 2000; Lima, 1995; Moran & John‐Steiner, 2003; Smolucha, F., 1989;
Smolucha, L. & Smolucha, 1986; Vygotsky, 1998, 2003). Finally the concepts of
creative practice and creative learning will be explored in the literature and key
concepts drawn from this.
2.4.1 Key concepts about creativity
A plethora of definitions exist about what creativity is. Common to many of them is
the notion of creating or making something that is different, novel or original and
which may be appropriate or meet some purpose. Creativity is not just about
thinking or learning something new, it is generative (Craft, 2005) and requires some
application, product or action. A key aspect is the idea of bringing together two
phenomena that may not have been associated in the past (by that individual or
contextually or culturally). Arthur Koestler introduced the concept of bisociation for
this concept. In his account creativity arises as a result of the intersection of two
quite different frames of reference (Koestler, 1964). Florida also identifies the
significance of what he calls combinatory play and recognises the importance of the
sifting and evaluation processes which occur to identify those “combinations that
are new and useful” (Florida, 2002, p. 31). He sees the output as finding form in
various ways including devices, theories, insights, works of art and so on that can be
applied to solve a problem.

The notion of creativity being a generic characteristic that some people possess and
others do not is rejected by many, with creative activity recognised as arising from
working within specific domains or areas of practice. This is especially so as creative
practice moves from what has been termed little c creativity, which is when people
might do something novel and different for themselves within their everyday life,
and big C creativity, which is recognised within a domain or culture as being original
and innovative (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Gardner, 1993).

Other accounts recognising differences between everyday creativity and the

creativity which is recognised by a field and transforms current practice can also be
found in the work of Necka, Grohman and Slabosz and their identification of four
levels of creativity. Their notion of little c creativity is called fluid creativity and this
does not require any former preparation. After that they identify three other forms
of creativity: crystallized, mature and eminent. Crystallized creativity requires some
knowledge and skills and relates to solving a problem in a domain without moving
outside of that context. Mature creativity requires thorough field‐specific
knowledge or expertise and happens less frequently. Eminent creativity is the big C
form of creativity and leads to fundamental changes within the chosen area. These
take considerable time to be developed and to be recognised and judged (Necka,
Grohman, & Slabosz, 2006, pp. 274‐5).

The conception of creativity as being either a generic capacity or arising from

considerable domain knowledge has been the subject of some consideration.
Milgram and Livne propose a “4 x 4” creativity model (Milgram & Livne, 2006) that
recognises domain‐specific ability as well as general creative thinking ability,
academic domain ability and general ability. Boden asserts that creativity is
possible within a domain or specific area but that more transformational forms of
creativity move across different domains but rely on having learnt the rules and
possibilities within a domain or space too (Boden, 2001, p. 96‐97).

In Vygotsky’s outline of the process of creativity, he explained how initial concepts,

experience and emotion go through a range of processes to become crystallized and
transformed into products of the imagination. Vygotsky identified this as a process
of “dissociation and association of the impressions acquired through perceptions”
(Vygotsky 2004, p. 25). The experience is broken up into parts and elements,
certain ones are isolated and therefore dissociated from the original experience.
This involves selecting and shaping the material and concepts of the eventual
creative work. Specific ideas or elements are then combined and changed.
Elements may be exaggerated, minimized and then combined with other elements
in ways that are different – new associations are made. To complete the process of
crystallization however requires externalisation in some embodied form. Vygotsky
notes that at a certain stage children and adolescents move beyond creative
expression as a spontaneous self‐initiated activity and it becomes associated with
having certain skills and mastery of material. Vygotsky talks about having technical
skills, knowledge of certain processes and technologies. Vygotsky’s view of
creativity does not disregard the possibility of individual talents and abilities but
recognises that creative expression requires engagement with the tools and
artefacts of the culture and learning how to express ideas and emotions through
mediated forms. While he acknowledges the importance of play especially in
childhood, his view of creativity for adolescence emphasises the importance of
interactions with the rich cultural artefacts of the arts throughout history.

Vygotsky and other cultural‐historical theorists have also identified that the creation
of personality or identity is also a key creative work (Vygotsky, 1998). Moran and
John‐Steiner explain that through engaging with experience, interactions with
others, concepts and tools in creative activity, individuals “create the self as well as
external artefacts” (Moran & John‐Steiner 2003, p. 78). Materials and objects may
be transformed but so may the subject as they explore possibilities beyond the
given situation.

Moran and John‐Steiner (2003) assert that the work of Csikszentmihalyi aligns well
with Vygotsky’s views on creativity and that the interplay of the creative individual,
society and culture is common to both:
Vygotsky’s approach also shares some important features with
Csikszentmihalyi’s (1988) systems model, as they both recognize the critical
role of social processes in creativity. In stressing the transformation of
interpersonal activities into intra‐personal ones, Vygotsky provided the
dynamic mechanisms for how the three nodes of Csikszentmihalyi’s model –
the individual, the domain, and the field – affect each other. (Moran & John‐
Steiner, 2003, p. 62)

Csikszentimihalyi is one of a number of more contemporary creativity researchers

who recognised that creativity was not the product of individual genius, but that
“creativity is a phenomenon that is constructed through an interaction between
producers and audience” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999, p. 313).

His research identifies how creative work of individuals and groups is created
through interactions with others and the culture (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999;
Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993). He therefore recognised the importance of a range of
other factors beyond individual talents and capacities upon the development and
recognition of creativity. In the systems model of creativity he outlines three main
elements: the individual, the domain and the field (See Figure 3).
Figure 3 Csikszentmihalyi's systems model of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999)

Other versions of systems, otherwise known as confluence models are also to be

found and these include some different factors, though the focus on interactions
between the individual and the environment are common (Amabile, 1996; Gruber &
Wallace, 1999; Sternberg, 1999).

Whilst individuals may stage creative acts, creativity is really fully realised or
recognised through interactions with a field or community. As Sawyer says: “In
addition to novelty, to be creative an idea must be appropriate, recognised as
socially valuable in some way to some community” (Sawyer, 2006, p. 27). The
concept of creativity as arising through collaborative processes has also been
supported by McWilliams’s work analysing higher education learning contexts with
the concept of second‐generation creativity being linked to “an external world of
team players, social processes and organisational settings” (McWilliam, 2008, p.
28).

The concept of collaboration (already identified as relevant to process drama and

the use of ICTs for creativity) is important to various accounts of contemporary
creativity. It has been recognised that the creative industries require individuals
with expertise but who interact and collaborate to generate productive ideas (Flew,
2002; Florida, 2005). Successful collaborations have been studied with a view that
collaboration means much more than having people work together in groups.
Group activities do not necessarily lead to collaboration and in John‐Steiner’s work
she identified characteristics of collaboration including long‐term engagement,
voluntary connection, trust, negotiation and jointly chosen projects (John‐Steiner,
2000). The work of Moran and John‐Steiner (2004) builds on this and describes the
ways that those in successful collaborations process tension and differences and
work in complementary roles. Moran and John‐Steiner researched the nature of
collaboration and creative partnerships between practitioners such as artists,
dancers, scientists and social scientists. They identified the importance of relational
dynamics including three characteristics of effective collaboration:
complementarity, tension and emergence. This work recognises that collaborators
have different perspectives and expertise and the interaction of these forms the
foundation for collaboration. Tension is recognised as having the potential to lead
to new learning if it can be fruitfully harnessed and experiences of emergence can
arise when the collaborative outcomes end up being greater than the sum of all the
parts ( Moran & John‐Steiner, 2004, p. 13). How subjects may engage in creative
activity, what makes people want to pursue creative practice and learning is also
important and will be considered in the next section of this chapter.

2.4.2 Motivation, engagement and flow

Creativity study has often included a focus on motivation, what it is that drives
people to want to create, invest effort and learn. The work of Amabile has been
particularly influential here and she has researched creativity with school and
university students, artists and members of organisations. She has researched
individual creativity and how life inside organisations influences people and
performance. In her earlier work Amabile identified the importance of intrinsic
motivation for creative activity. She argued that those who were intrinsically
motivated were more likely to produce creative works than those motivated by
external motivating factors (Amabile, 1985).

However, in some of her more recent work on motivation, Amabile has identified
that extrinsic motivators can also work in positive as well as negative ways. She
identifies that controlling forms of extrinsic motivation such as surveillance,
contracted‐for‐reward‐tasks and competition can undermine the creative process.
She notes however that some of these factors can be positive if they are
informational, recognise accomplishments and provide guidance about how to
improve skills and competence (Collins & Amabile, 1999).
The concept of engagement has more often been used in drama education and this
describes what could be considered as motivation in action. Morgan and Saxton
have described the ways that students engage as a taxonomy of personal
engagement. This taxonomy was based on the physical and/or verbal appearance of
participation by students in drama work within education. This taxonomy includes:
 attention and interest
 involvement and engagement
 responsibility and commitment
 internalisation
 interpreting, and
 evaluating. (Morgan & Saxton, 1987)
Morgan and Saxton suggested that this taxonomy is cumulative and students must
progress through these levels to achieve meaningful learning. Significant
engagement therefore shifts beyond just being present and giving a teacher one’s
full attention, it involves deep levels of commitment and involvement by students.

In her dissertation research Bundy analysed her own responses, as well as those of
participating students, in a drama playbuilding process. She also described a series
of different experiences which could be called engagement. These included
experiences such as: acceptance, personal surrender, attentiveness and playful
engagement (Bundy, 2003a). She further explored a state of connection with work
and experience that she called the tension of engagement. With this form of
engagement she identified certain defining characteristics as being present, with
these related to participants feeling a sense of connection (to the idea of the work),
animation (feeling more alive) and heightened awareness. She believes these
needed to be present in the aesthetic response of spectators and participants to the
drama (Bundy, 2003b). She identified the importance of participants connecting to
the ideas in the work and being able to relate it back to their own lives. Significantly
she also found that unless participants (and spectators) felt a sense of trust: in the
leader, the group, the process, themselves and so forth, they could not connect to
the idea of the work (Bundy 2003). The state she describes as animation in the
aesthetic experience – with features of invigoration, connection and heightened
awareness, signals a specific kind of engagement and fulfilment.
Bundy’s description of aesthetic engagement appears to have much in common
with Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow, experiences which he has found common
to the work of countless creative people. Through extensive research with hundreds
of different creatives (across fields including the sciences, business, the arts and so
forth), Csikszentmihalyi identified experiences of intense engagement where
people feel so involved and engaged by what they are doing that they lose track of
time as they engage in often risky but rewarding work. This state requires a
substantial skills base, and a balance between new challenge and subject capacities
for the flow experience to be realised. He proposed that this state incorporated
features such as:
 clear goals
 concentration and focus
 loss of a feeling of self‐consciousness
 distorted sense of time
 direct and immediate feedback
 a balance of ability level and challenge
 a sense of personal control
 the activity is intrinsically rewarding and
 action and awareness merge. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996)

Csikszentmihalyi (2000/1975) also asserted that experiences of this nature are not
only desirable for elite creatives, but for everyone . This includes young people who
are at risk. Research Csikszentmihalyi and others have been involved in has
indicated that people who had difficult life experiences and turned their lives
around often had found something they could immerse themselves in. Hence, they
were able to experience flow (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984; Csikszentmihalyi et
al., 1993) .

The experience of engagement or flow can be a motivation for learning and ongoing
activity. As Csikszentmihalyi describes it, this optimal experience includes:
A sense that one’s skills are adequate to cope with the challenges at hand in
a goal directed, rule bound action system that provides clear clues as to how
 one is performing. Concentration is so intense that there is no attention left
over to think about anything irrelevant or to worry about problems. Self‐
consciousness disappears, and the sense of time becomes distorted. An
activity that produces such experiences is so gratifying that people are
willing to do it for its own sake, with little concern for what they will get out
of it, even when it is difficult or dangerous. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 71)

Similar descriptions about intense experiences of engagement can also be found in

the literature concerned with computer technology use, in particular in relation to
the concept of immersion. Engagement at deep levels requires depth of
connection, to an activity, to a learning area, to an idea, to a group or leader. It is
these kinds of experiences which educators therefore seek to facilitate in creative
learning contexts. Learning of this nature also requires participants to take creative
risks and challenge themselves, however, these kinds of experiences may lead to
outcomes that are less rewarding but no less important.

2.4.3 Crisis and failure

In Csikszentmihalyi’s work, including a five year study into the experiences and
engagement of “talented teens” (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde & Whalen 1993), he
identified that engaging in creative activity involves risks and challenges. Creativity
requires pushing beyond what is currently known and is comfortable. However,
when the challenge is too great, when it is beyond the skills level of the subject, or
is not recognised by a field, the resulting action or product may not be successful or
positively received by others in the field (Csikszentmihalyi 1996). To progress in
their creative activity, a creative person needs to overcome feelings of self‐
consciousness and fear of failure. These issues have also been identified in studies
in England reported by Craft (2005). She reports on NESTA funded creativity labs
and fellowships with young people (10‐21) and signals that issues that impact upon
young people’s creativity and their withdrawal from some sponsored programs
include fears about exposure, of not succeeding, of being judged and standing out
from their peers and being different (Craft, 2005).
Burleson (2005) quotes research by Schank and Neaman (2001) which has explored
ways to minimise the impact of failure and these include lessening humiliation,
minimizing the consequences of failure and providing motivation to distract from
the unpleasant aspects of failure. Counter strategies used have included questions,
stories and anecdotes and engaging with successful experts in a field to help
learners understand ways to work through failure. In socio‐cultural terms this
would indicate providing access to stories and artefacts from the culture and
engaging in self talk and internal reflection to maintain individual motivation
towards creative activity.

Engeström (1987, 1996) draws on Vygotsky’s developmental creativity processes

(Vygotsky 1930/2004) to signal that creative learning arises out of existing activity
but through disruptions and contradictions to the existing order. Whilst
Engeström’s notion of contradiction focuses on disruptions at a systemic level, at a
subject level, the notion of crisis as identified by Vygotsky has similar
characteristics. In both cases what is identified is a state of disequilibrium and
disruption. Vygotsky identified that there were also certain times in life when these
disruptive experiences were characteristic of that age, with one of these being that
of adolescence. For Vygotsky the notion of crisis is used in relation to key
transitional stages that children and adolescents experience. These can be seen as
potential turning points for creative development, in a similar way to the
adolescent crisis described as such:

Development takes on a stormy, impetuous, and sometimes catastrophic

character that resembles a revolutionary course of events in both rate of the
changes that are occurring and in the sense of the alterations that are made.
These are turning points in the child’s development that sometimes take the
form of a severe crisis. (Vygotsky, 1998)

To work through crisis and experiences of failure when undertaking creative

challenge requires processes for dealing with disruptive experiences. For a new
state of equilibrium to be reached subject experience must be processed for
productive meaning making to emerge and be internalised. This highlights the way
that creative learning requires a consideration of how failure and crisis at a subject
level, and contradiction at an activity system level,are experienced and processed.

The notion of being open to failure and disequilibrium has also been recognised in
organisational management literature as providing opportunities for change and
innovation (Miettinen, 2006, p.175). Some of this literature identifies how some
organisations welcome or encourage these incidences as key to creative
development:
but crises provide for periodic opportunities to engage in system wide
learning if creative solutions are put forward which allow the crisis to be
resolved. Crises can affect both the allocation of resources and the
delegation of authority to teams to pursue more novel approaches. The role
of critical problems or crises emerges from this study as central to the
process of creativity and organizational learning. (Kazanjian, Drazin, &
Glynn, 2000, p. 293)

The response to the disruptive experience can lead to expansive learning for the
activity system (see key terms) and creative and personal learning for the subject.
Personal transformation and systemic or cultural transformation may all emerge
from experiences of failure, crisis and contradiction. As Engeström, Miettinen and
Punamaki explain:
In fulfilling the activity, the subjects also change and develop themselves.
The transforming and purpose character of activity allows the subject to
step beyond the frames of a given situation and to see it in a wider historical
and societal context. It makes it possible for the subject to find means that
go beyond the possibilities given. (Engeström, Miettinen & Punamaki, 1999,
p. 39)

This discussion implies that creative learning involves subjects and participants
within an activity system developing an understanding of the productive potential
of experiences of crisis and contradiction and having different strategies for working
through these disruptive experiences. It also suggests teachers and other managers
of education need to be open to failure and disruption as possible opportunities for
innovation and learning.

Drawing together the key points of the last two sections, this work indicates that
creative learning and practice involve experiences of engagement and flow but also
the capacity to work through disruptive experiences of failure, crisis and
contradiction. The potential for disruptions to be the source of future development
reflects a dialectic movement with seemingly opposing forces generating the
coming into being of the other.

2.4.4 Creative practice, creative teaching, and creative learning

The use of the term practice is a significant one to ponder for this study. Definitions
of practice draw from Aristotle’s writings to more recent socio‐cultural theory. In
The Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle described three different kinds of knowledge:
 Episteme – theoretical knowledge which is universal but which can be
gained from analysing and contemplation;
 Techne – practical knowledge which draws on general laws and principles
but is learnt through practice, training and experience; and
 Phronesis – practical knowledge which is a kind of active competence
related to the enactment of an ethical life. This draws on knowledge of
general and particular matters. (Aristotle, 1999 & Saugstad 2002).
Whilst in this sense practical and theoretical knowledge require different types of
learning, practice is not empty of knowledge (or theory).
All practical knowledge… bases itself upon life experience and practice and
displays itself as a personal competence/expertise… Although practical
knowledge is learned by practice, it differs from purely experience‐based
knowledge, because practical knowledge also presupposes insight into
general principles, in as much as this knowledge consists of the ability to
apply general knowledge to particular situations. (Saugstad 2002, p. 379)

The notion of practice in socio‐cultural theory emphasizes the importance of human

practical activity and know how with the assertion that concepts and thinking arise
from action and social relations between subjects, objects and tools (see the
following chapter). Thought in this sense is not separate from or superior to action
but arises from it and from practice. Lave (1993) explains that “Traditional cognitive
theory is ‘distanced from experience’ and divides the learning mind from the
world.” (p. 7). Lave and Wenger (1996) propose that learning is socially situated
and emerges from participation and social practices involving cerebral and
embodied activity, abstraction and experience.

Brown and Duguid (2001) argue that “We learn how ‘by practice’… knowledge is
two‐dimensional and practice underpins its successful circulation” ( p. 204). To
practice then infers subject agency and engagement, interactions and experience,
focused attention, thought and action. This is something that is not just a one‐off
experience, or memorization of a body of knowledge, but something that requires
ongoing engagement, interaction with others and artefacts of culture.

Creative practice is a term that is widely used but not often defined. In particular, it
is used in discussions about the work and processes utilised by artists and creative
practitioners. A scan of academic literature mainly reveals the term being used in
relation to arts‐based practice. In her justification of arts‐based research and
practice Grierson (2005) says “Essentially the arts work through practice – theirs is a
practice‐based or materially‐based knowledge formation” (p. 2).

Creative practitioners are often therefore identified with arts and creative fields and
tend to have worked at and practised within a domain to such an extent that they
internalise the rules, tools, symbols and cultural practices of the domain. This
indicates the importance of learning in some depth in knowledge and tool facility
within specific domains as being critical to the creative process. Gardner (1993), for
example, in his exploration of the lives of revolutionary creatives such as Picasso,
Martha Graham and Ghandi identified what he called the “ten year rule” for
significant creative breakthroughs. He found that most of these creatives had
worked solidly for ten years in their fields before they had their most significant
culture changing breakthroughs. Gladwell (2008), likewise in his analysis of
research about successful and creative people, has identified the 10 000 hour rule.
Gladwell traced the careers of Bill Gates, the Beatles and elite musicians and notes
that their major breakthroughs came after 10 000 hours of work and practice. For
people to be creative in the most significant and meaningful ways requires
commitment and practice, internalisation of the theoretical knowledge, signs and
symbols of a domain and the use of imagination through experimentation,
repetition and exploration.

An issue for education however is whether there is the time and capacity within the
curriculum for students to develop the depth of knowledge and related practice
needed to create in a domain, and whether the different domains that students
may be interested in are available to them through their educational experiences.
Another issue is the depth of practice that the teacher or leader may themselves
have and their capacity to be able to facilitate learning experiences to build depth
of practice in others. The role of the teacher in regard to creative practice and
learning has been raised as significant in the literature concerning creative teaching
and learning.

Two key terms discussed in some of the literature are creative teaching and
teaching for creativity. These can be defined as such: Creative teaching is
concerned with “using imaginative approaches to make learning more interesting
and effective”. Teaching for creativity is focussed on the learner and encompasses
“forms of teaching intended to develop young people’s own creative thinking or
behaviour” (National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education, 1999,
p. 90).

While they can be identified as two different kinds of activities they are not
mutually exclusive. While not all creative teaching leads to creative practice by
students “Young people’s creative abilities are most likely to be developed in an
atmosphere in which the teacher’s creative abilities are properly engaged”
(National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education, 1999, p. 90). This
active engagement of students in their learning and reflection is also reflected in a
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority publication on creative learning. It
identifies five elements of creative learning including: asking questions, making
connections, imagining what might be, exploring options and reflecting critically
(Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2005).
Craft has researched creativity in schools and written extensively in this field (Craft,
2003, 2005, 2006; Craft, Jeffrey, & Leibling, 2001). She believes that the term
creative learning is useful for understanding the important interplay of creative
teaching and teaching for creativity and that they:
All involve a high level of pedagogical sensitivity and skilfulness in being alert
to the meld of environment, learner engagement and experience, moment,
domain and so on, as well as adopting appropriate strategies to support
creative learner engagement. (Craft, 2005, p. 49)

In considering how this might be realised the notion of shared control, of co‐
participation and co‐artistry is one that has been described in some of the literature
about creativity learning (Craft, 2005) and as previously mentioned in drama
education literature (McLean, 1996). Craft has acknowledged in her work the
importance of teachers sharing ownership and construction of knowledge with
students to develop their creativity through:
… dialogical frameworks for learning which place interactions between
learners, teachers and artists at the heart of learning, and which offer each
participant ownership in the learning process, which itself is conceived of as
a creative one. (Parkes and Jeffery cited in Craft, 2005, p. 143)

This implies a shift in pedagogy that includes input and ownership by students but is
not just about free exploration and play. This notion of creative learning positions
the teacher in an active role, as being skilled and knowledgeable but also able to
recognise when to step back and let students lead. McWilliam argues that this role
shifts from the dualism of either being the “guide from side”, or the “sage on the
stage”, to becoming the “meddler in the middle” (McWilliam, 2005, 2007).

Craft (2005) has also identified that this involves skill and sensitivity. To facilitate
creative learning includes learning experiences that may be teacher directed, which
build required skills and knowledge but also allow for student input and exploration:
Finding the right balance between telling and exploring, between adult and
learner framework, between “knowing that”, “knowing how” and
“wondering” about these is challenging. It requires sensitivity to many
factors, including individual learners’ meaning‐making. (Craft, 2005, p. 125)
The concept of creative learning implies a shift in focus from that of the teacher
always leading to the teacher also listening, creating and responding. The student
role is an active role with the student being actively engaged in contributing,
practicing and reflecting on their own learning. However, the teacher’s role is still
crucial. They are not seen as obsolete or just a facilitator but a skilled artist and co‐
constructor of practice and meaning. Creative learning in these accounts emerges
from creative practice, and for significant learning to occur, this requires ongoing
engagement with a field. In learning contexts the role of teacher as interactive
creative partner emerges as important.

2.4.5 Creativity the arts and learning contexts

Recent initiatives which aim to promote creativity in education often include
statements asserting that creativity isn’t just about the arts but applies across all
areas (Craft, 2003; Department of Education & Training, 2009). It is therefore
important to look at why it is that arts educators feel that they do have a
particularly affinity with creativity.

Research evidence indicates that arts learning often requires students to go beyond
straight recall of facts and information, to engage with knowledge and transform it
through problem‐solving processes. Empirical studies that have looked at trying to
measure any difference between the creative skills of students who have and
haven’t had arts experiences have found that there would appear to be some link
between arts learning and creativity. One of the studies documented in the
significant US Champions of Change report on the impact of the arts in education
identified that students who had high levels of arts experience across their
schooling demonstrated significantly higher levels of creativity:

The researchers found the young people in “high‐arts” groups [high in the
range of exposure to different arts experiences, not in status assigned to arts
activities‐ my comment] performed better than those in “low‐arts” groups
on measures of creativity, fluency, originality, elaboration and resistance to
closure – capacities central to arts learning. Pupils in arts‐intensive settings
 were also strong in their abilities to express thoughts and ideas, exercise
their imaginations and take risks in learning. (Burton, Horowitz, & Abeles,
1999, p. 36)

Another more recent study by the Dana Foundation (Asbury & Rich, 2008) arrived at
similar conclusions when looking at the kinds of learning that appear to be
developed through the arts. A range of studies were conducted across different
arts areas including one whereby the researchers looked at cognitive differences
between performing arts (music and theatre) and non‐performing arts students.
This research used versions of tasks which aimed to investigate differences in
reasoning processes concerned with problem generation, responding to problems
and so forth. What they discovered was an indication that performing arts students
rated more highly on tasks related to “the generation of novel ideas” more so than
tasks related to the responding to novel ideas (Dunbar, 2008, p. 90). Performing
arts student (who in this case had studied drama or music) were more likely to
generate new and valuable ideas.

It is important to recognise that significant learning and creative opportunities are

often provided for young people through their engagement with a range of co‐
curricula arts experiences accessed through schools and outside of schools.
Involvement in events such as school musicals and Rock Eisteddfods provide
important opportunities for young people to pursue interests (sometimes ones that
are not available through the curriculum) and put their knowledge and skills to work
in applied settings. These kinds of events have been identified in a number of
research studies as being important learning sites and with the potential to engage
students within a school community (Fullarton, 2002). Shirley Brice Heath’s
research into after‐school participation in various organisations by students from
low SES backgrounds has revealed some significant findings. For example students
involved in after‐school arts programs were more likely to stay at school, improve in
their academic achievements and continue on to post‐school study (Deasy, 2002;
Heath & Roach, 1999).

Researchers such as Jenkins (2006), O’Hear and Sefton‐Green (2004) have also
identified the importance of the ways that online communities can act as informal
learning communities. Sefton‐Green has researched the ways that some young
people seek out affinity groups through the Internet and through these are able to
share their work, receive feedback and participate in active learning communities.
Engagement with these kinds of communities may be particularly important for
young people who wish to extend their creative practice beyond that available
through disciplines and domains as taught in schools.

What is evident from this research is that creative learning may be cultivated
through a range of creative and cultural experiences outside of school time. Access
and availability to these may impact on the learning and potential for creative
development available to young people. It also highlights the importance of various
arts curricular and co‐curricula school experiences as sites for significant creative
practice and learning.

2.4.6 Creativity in drama

It has been noted by Gallagher (2007), Bailin (1998) and a consortium of
international drama educators (Bailin, 1998; Gallagher, 2007; O'Farrell, Saebo,
McCammon, & Heap, 2009) that very little writing and research in the realm of
drama education has specifically focussed on the concept of creativity. Bailin
(1998), like other creativity researchers, critiqued romantic views of creativity which
seem to emphasis and value characteristics such as spontaneity and intuition and
downplay the role of teaching technique (or ‘domain’ knowledge), critical thinking
and the use of constraints. She identified that whilst dramatic forms such as
improvisation may appear to be the most creative, that in fact, creative decision
making was involved in interpreting existing work as well. Gallagher (2007) accepts
this to some degree, though asserts the importance of spontaneity, imagination and
playfulness to creativity in drama.

Through student‐directed conversations during an ethnographic research study

Gallagher notes that students wished to speak about their own creativity and some
key points emerged. The concept of community and the influence of seeing how
others work emerged as significant. Creativity in this drama work also had to do
with “representing oneself: that is making an imaginative work of one’s own
circumstances or experiences” (Gallagher, 2007, p. 1236). Creativity also had
something to do with self invention and creation and the focus on the body, on
active learning and building on each others ideas.

In their international research study O’Farrell, Saebo, McCammon and Heap (2009)
have investigated drama/theatre teachers perceptions of creativity and they have
found that teachers believe that creativity is a personal attribute, a process, a
product and an ethical commitment. They also identify the importance of collective
approaches to creativity in drama.

Another researcher who has looked at a particular form of drama in terms of

creativity and creative practice is R. Keith Sawyer (2006). He has studied the
experience of collaborative creativity in a range of different contexts, including the
creative interactions of jazz musicians and theatre improvisation groups. What he
has found is that performance creativity is a collaborative form of creativity of the
highest order. During a drama process or performance participants have to make
countless creative decisions about voice, action, pause, transitions and so on.
When a group is working together in these creative processes they can at times
achieve a group mind through carefully watching, listening closely to each other and
building on each other’s offers, suggestions and actions. Each individual needs to
be prepared and focused to be able to participate effectively in this group
collaborative process. In these group contexts, the actual creative process and
product is realised in minutes, but it is relying on a solid base of skills and
understanding of human interaction.

If creativity involves the bisociation of different elements, what might be selected

and edited in drama includes a complex array of elements and components drawing
from human experience through to human and mediation presentation possibilities.
This is perhaps why Vygotsky (1930/2004) claimed “Thus, drama is the most
syncretic mode of creation, that is, it contains elements of the most diverse forms
of creativity” (p. 71). The literature to date suggests that drama as a domain for
creative practice is significant for the fundamental use of human experience as the
material and substance for practice, and the human body as the primary tool for
mediating and realising creative practice. Dewey called these kinds of arts the
‘automatic arts’ in contrast to the ‘shaping arts’ which “depend to a much greater
extent upon materials external to the body” (Dewey, 1934, p. 236). The physical
enactment of drama though can draw on creative combinations from across
different domains and fields.

These different accounts of creativity and creative practice are useful for
considering activity within educational contexts. It is possible to recognise the
importance of school activity as initially being concerned with supporting students
in exploring little c creativity in different domains. As they find a domain where
they have some interest and potential, school‐based activities can help scaffold
more crystallized or mature forms of creativity. They also engage in creating
versions of the self. These accounts help build an understanding of the need for
young people to be able to engage in some depth with cultural tools and artefacts
to achieve significant creative practice within a field or culture. The concept of
culture, collaboration and community are crucial for recognising how young
people’s creative work can be supported through interactions with others, to be
realised and evaluated. Drama as a collaborative artform also requires a
considerable of social interactions and attention given to how to harness the
collective imagination to achieve emergence.

2.5 Conclusions regarding the contextual review

The contextual review has explored the nature of the changing environment and
the context in which young people are now operating. The impact of the change
being brought about through digital technologies has been canvassed, with a
particular focus on young people’s Internet use, content creation and possible
relevance for drama education. The availability of digital technologies and online
spaces has opened up new realms for the creation of drama and a range of
interactive processes that may complement drama learning. Student experience
with and access to ICT‐based creative applications is not as widespread as ICT use
for information gathering and communications. Restrictions on school‐based access
to content creation and communications applications for students may constrain
opportunity for ICT use for creative practice and learning. In considering drama
forms that allow for interactive possibilities for participants and other possible users
the field of process drama offer up structures and processes which appear to be
quite useful. The experience for participants and any other kinds of user/audience
need to be carefully considered though, and it may be difficult to balance concerns
for narrative coherence with participatory interactive potential.

To consider how these kinds of processes may contribute to learning it is necessary

to explore creative practice and learning in drama. From the review of the
literature in the drama, cyberdrama and creativity, the concept of participatory
interactivity emerges as an important one. The role of a leader or narrative
manager is also significant with competing claims arising regarding to what extent
they should constrain and shape the dramatic action or creative learning. From the
drama education and creative teaching literature, the notion of the teacher as a co‐
artist emerges as significant, as someone who can lead, but also participate and
follow. Participants must engage in the activity though and feedback helps build
understanding and maintain a goal orientation if cyberdrama is considered as a
cybernetic system. How people deal with feedback, failure and tension is also
important for creative learning to continue.

From this review some key concepts emerge. These include the notion of
collaboration, the role of the teacher or leader and the process of learning arising
through practice and interactions. These kinds of concepts find their parallels in the
work of Vygotsky and it is from his work that theoretical frames for understanding
and analysing learning in this study will be built upon. His writings about thought
and cognition as well as aesthetic education and creativity are reviewed to draw out
ideas of relevance for framing this study. These will be used to inform the analysis
of the case study research.
3. A Vygotskian framework for understanding creative
learning

… we should emphasize the particular importance of cultivating creativity in

school‐age children. The entire future of humanity will be attained through
the creative imagination; orientation to the future, behaviour based on the
future and derived from this future, is the most important function of the
imagination. To the extent that the main educational objective of teaching is
guidance of school children’s behaviour so as to prepare them for the
future, development and exercise of the imagination should be one of the
main forces enlisted for the attainment of this goal. The development of a
creative individual, one who strives for the future, is enabled by creative
imagination embodied in the present. (Vygotsky, 1930/2004, pp. 87‐88)

Educational programs are concerned with learning and about ways to support
student learning so they may acquire socially valued knowledge. To be able to
analyse the nature of the learning that might occur throughout this research, a
theory of learning is therefore required. As Vygotsky argued 70 years ago, learning
programs should all include creative learning that promotes the use of the
imagination to help prepare students for their participation in an uncertain future.
The theory of cognitive development proposed by Vygotsky, which has been
explored and elaborated upon by many others since, will be used as the basis for
interrogating the cyberdrama case studies and exploring notions of creative practice
and learning.

3.1 Vygotsky on learning and ZPD

Lev Vygotsky was a Russian who was born in 1896 and died in 1934. His major
works contributed to the fields of psychology and education in particular. When he
died in 1934 he left a significant body of work that had not been published and
much of it was it was suppressed for over thirty years. Consequently the majority of
his work did not get translated and published in English until the late 1970s and
1980s and the impact of it since then has been considerable, especially in the field
of education.

One of the most influential concepts to have arisen from Vygotsky’s work is that of
the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). With this work, Vygotsky critiqued other
views of development and learning such as Piaget’s which argued that learning
should match a child’s developmental level and that this was somehow innate.
What Vygotsky argued was that learning in fact led development and that there was
a difference between what the child had already mastered and what could be
achieved with the assistance of more experienced mentors. This difference was the
ZPD. This was the zone he believed educators should be operating within to be able
to identify and develop children’s learning. The Zone of Proximal Development was
explained as:
… the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as
determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86)

This concept was premised on Vygotsky’s belief that learning was a social process
and that it emerged out of a range of interactions with others, with cultural tools
and artefacts. More knowledgeable others are the adult guides or more capable
peers involved, not as those who dispense knowledge, but as active collaborators.
His experiments identified that learning began with externalised activities and
through interactions with tools which are external to the subject (and include
technology), but also human cultural tools such as skills and signs, a series of
transformations occurred. These resulted in the development of internalised
concepts, and what he called higher psychological functions. These higher
psychological functions are not necessarily those typically associated with higher
order thinking (e.g. analysing, evaluating etc) but are more about the development
of concepts and categories. Concept formation and sign use were significant for
Vygotsky as he identified these functions as central features of human thinking.
Humans are able to think of concepts and visualise objects, and this activity does
not need to be stimulated by the actual outside stimulus, it can be self‐generated.
Once established, the symbolic concept does not rely on the concrete experience to
be activated. For this to happen a series of experiences and interactions need to
occur.

Vygotsky proposed that higher psychological functions appeared on two planes,

first on the social plane between people as an interpsychological category, and then
within the individual child as an intrapsychological category (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57).
It is important to note that this interaction on the external/social plane does not
only mean interacting with other people directly. It can mean interacting with the
artefacts of accumulated human knowledge and experience, so in contemporary
contexts this might mean with media texts, websites and so on. In learning contexts
it is important to consider what kinds of external and social experiences, artefacts
and interactions students may be exposed to and the process of how experience
and activity translates to internalised learning.

3.2 Key culturalhistorical theory terminology and concepts

3.2.1 The concept of activity
Activity is the term that is used for the external process that the learner engages in,
this is about the way the physical body is engaged in activities and actions as well as
the way the learner perceives and experiences the environment. In some respects
it can be a very sensory experience:
Activities are composed of actions, which are systems of coordination in the
service of goals, which represent intermediate steps in satisfying the motive.
As he [Leontiev] puts it, “an activity is usually carried out by some aggregate
of actions subordinated to partial goals, which can be distinguished from the
overall goal. (Cole, M, 1985, p. 152)

There is a difference here between the sensation, perception of the experience, and
meaning or generalised reflection of reality. It is important to see that activity is not
completely separate from the mental activity, they are related and inter‐relate,
however, they are different. People may have the same experience or sensation,
but that real experience can be reflected in meaning and thought in different ways.
Vygotsky was interested in understanding the process of this shift:
 We have tried to study experimentally the dialectical transition from
sensation to thinking and to show that reality is reflected differently in
thinking than in sensation, that the basic distinguishing characteristic of the
word is the generalised reflection of reality. (Vygotsky cited in Wertsch &
Stone, 1985, p. 168)

In a learning context the challenge therefore is how this shift may be facilitated,
from the sensation and experience to learners developing internalised concepts and
thinking that fulfil the prescribed learning intentions. Students may emerge with
very different meanings from the same activity, however reflective activities may
help scaffold and crystallize more common concepts and learning.

3.2.2 Activity to internalisation

Higher psychological functioning according to Vygotsky relies on a shift from natural
or eidetic memory and a mere response to external stimuli, to individuals being able
to use self‐generated stimuli as the means for remembering and organising
concepts. In an account of the significance of Vygotsky’s work Cole and Scribner
draw on Luria and identify the differences between these higher psychological
functions and their relationship to in human activity:
[Vygotsky] tried to take account of both the general unchanging aspects of
thinking processes and their specific, historically changing aspects by making
a distinction between elementary psycho‐physical processes such as
“sensation, movement, elementary forms of attentions and memory [which]
are undoubtedly natural functions of the nervous tissue” and “higher
psychological functions (voluntary memory, active attention, abstract
though and voluntary movement) [which] cannot be understood as a
direction function of the brain” (Luria, 1971, p. 260). These higher processes
are organized into functional systems, which arise in the course of
historically determined practical and theoretical activities and change with
the nature of the activities. (Cole & Scribner, 1974, p. 31)

Higher psychological functioning emerges out of the interweaving of external,

biological functioning including interactions with people and tools
(interpsychological) and internal (or intra) psychological functioning through a
process that relies on a series of different interactions. To understand this process
some of the key terms are elaborated upon to explain the way that tools, signs and
concepts develop in relation to the function of memory:

Tools – in cultural‐historical theory tools are not just seen as the objects that
humans may use to achieve certain goals, but tools also are the sets of practices
that humans have developed to solve certain problems. These are passed on within
cultures and accumulate over time. Therefore tools can be physical objects but also
skills and ways of doing things.

Signs/concepts – over time people build up categorised perception of objects and

activities and come to recognise that certain words and signs are linked to a range
of real objects. People develop schemas to recognise what features are
characteristic of objects of that category and what are not. Vygotsky used the
example of a clock and described how one comes to know that an object that is
round, with two thin black lines is a clock and that colour, shape and other
characteristics may vary, but a person still recognises it as a clock. In this case the
person has formed a concept or schema and their perception is shaped not only by
the real experience and the visual stimulus but also by schema they have
internalised and the sign which in language is the word clock. Clocks can then be
thought about and the word used to communicate about the object without it
having to be in the person’s immediate view. In Vygotsky’s (1978) words: “…the
field of attention has detached itself from the perceptual field and unfolded itself in
time, as one component of a dynamic series of psychological activities” (p. 36).

The function of memory is then drawn upon to be able to do this, with Vygotsky
making a distinction between natural memory and sign operations. Natural memory
“arises as a direct influence of external stimuli” whereas for “sign operations – the
central feature is self‐generated stimulation; that is, the creation and use of
artificial stimuli which become the immediate causes of behaviour” (Vygotsky,
1978, p. 39). This is an important feature of higher psychological functions (that
some people with brain injuries and other brain malfunctions are not capable of)
with humans being able to picture and discuss objects and actions that are not
immediately perceived or visible. The function of memory is important in relation to
concepts of learning and what it means to have learnt something. To have learnt
something means that the concept, tools or signs have been internalised,
memorised and able to be recalled, focussed and utilised at will.

The nature of these developmental events and interactions is important for

educators trying to set up the right kinds of external activities, with interactions that
will connect to and build internalised concepts. While it may be possible that the
same kinds of experiences may be provided for different learners, the question
remains about how it may be possible to ensure the same kinds of educationally
valued concepts might arise for different learners.

Another issue of consideration here is whether it is important for students to know

what they know. For example through the experience of a range of written texts
throughout their life, a child may have internalised certain grammatical rules and
narrative structures. They may be able to apply these in their own writing without
consciously knowing what they are. Vygotsky suggests (drawing on Thorndike’s
work on transfer) that higher order functions and their application do require
conscious knowing. “All the higher functions have in common awareness,
abstraction and control” (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 96). This kind of learning implies a
need to move from the unconscious to the conscious so that the learner becomes
“aware of what he is doing and learns to use his skills consciously” (Vygotsky, 1962,
p. 101). This is important when considering learning that may occur in areas such as
drama, where perhaps the focus is often on the experience and learning through
doing. So do the students actually know what they have learnt and are they able to
apply their learning with a sense of intent and control? Vygotsky’s work suggests
that to reach this stage of conscious knowing requires various interactions and
feedback, firstly externally, but then internally so that the learner is able to think
about and use what they know intentionally.

3.2.3 Feedback and interaction with the other

The role of feedback has been clearly established educationally as being a key factor
in learner engagement, development and improvements to learning (Black &
Wiliam, 1998; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Hattie, 2003; Marzano, Gaddy, &
Dean, 2000). In terms of Vygotsky’s work it becomes important in relation to the
ZPD and the nature of the interactions that occur between the more knowledgeable
other and the learner. Feedback originally occurs externally, and then the learner
begins to self‐regulate and commentate upon their actions, with concept
development later being accompanied by an internal monologue. This is what
Wertsch calls the voices of the mind (1991). This relies on the internalisation of the
kinds of feedback, critique and commentary that might at first be experienced
externally.

Interactions with the more knowledgeable other help identify aspects that may
need to be modified, revised or clarified and so the voice is originally external. With
concept development and mastery, the voice becomes an inner voice, but still
retains aspects of the social, the other. A subject’s concept and sense of self relies
on interactions with others and the notion of the other, with this at first being
experienced externally, but gradually becoming internalised into our inner voice or
own voices of the mind (Wertsch, 1991). In educational contexts this is why the
notion of reflection is important, including teacher feedback and self assessment
processes. Through these processes external feedback can help provide a subject
with a view on their work as compared to other cultural artefacts, concepts, signs or
models. Self assessment and reflection then relies on a subject internalising the
critical voice and being able to evaluate his or her work, performance or ideas.

What becomes pertinent in the current environment is who may provide the
external interactions and feedback and how. The use of interactive technologies
and possibilities for students to engage with more knowledgeable other in diverse
networked communities of practice opens up the potential for a wide range of
feedback. Dialogic processes can be entered into with teachers, other students and
communities but also with various cultural artefacts and texts. The question here
though is why this occurs, and hence the role of goal orientation within learning
processes must be considered.
3.2.4 Goal orientation or motivation for adolescent learners
Vygotsky himself noted that learning and the development of concepts was about
more than just remembering words, but was about a process that was initiated
through the individual having a goal and a purpose:
Memorizing words and connecting them with objects does not in itself lead
to concept formation; for the process to begin, a problem must arise that
cannot be solved otherwise than through the formation of new concepts.
He goes on to say…
… The main question about the process of concept formation – or about any
goal‐directed activity – is the question of the means by which the operation
is accomplished… We must consider as well the use of tools, the
mobilization of the appropriate means without which work could not be
performed. To explain the higher forms of human behaviour, we must
uncover the means by which man learns to organise and direct his
behaviour. (Vygotsky, 1962: 55‐56)

Significantly the learning of concepts is not the end in itself, the eventual goal is for
the individual to internalise the social rules and concepts to then be able to manage
and direct their behaviour – to be able to interact and impact on their world.

The motivation for learning and engaging (or not) in schooling contexts can vary
enormously. The drive to engage with learning and thinking for adolescents in most
cases may not have the level of need as compared to some of Vygotsky’s
experiments with, for example, parents and young children. He acknowledged
however that motivation is key to the development of thought and that it has a
strong basis in emotions and the affective domain:
Thought itself is engendered by motivation, i.e., by our desires and needs,
our interests and emotions. Behind every thought there is an affective‐
volitional tendency, which holds the answer to the last “why” in the analysis
of thinking. A true and full understanding of another’s thought is possible
only when we understand its affective‐volitional basis. (Vygotsky, 1962, p.
150)
Vygotsky asserts here that intent and emotion are central to thinking and hence
motivation to learn. It is important to ponder therefore the nature of experience
and the kinds of issues that may generate the motivation for young people’s
learning. The goals might vary considerably, as may what is transferred from
perception to internalised concepts. This implies that it is possible to motivate
learning – and perhaps facilitate some similar kinds of conceptual learning for a
group – if their emotions are engaged as well as thinking processes.

3.3 Group learning processes and activity theory

To revisit some key points already made, it has been stated that it is highly likely
that the concepts being developed through a specific learning activity may vary
substantially for individual participants. In a group learning process whilst there
might be a stated overall learning goal, different participants may learn different
concepts from the same learning experiences and these concepts may be
concerned with dramatic form and/or process, about the world, about culture,
about themselves, about a form of media and so forth. Unlike some of Vygotsky’s
experiments which involved very small groups or one‐on‐one interaction with a
more knowledgeable other and learner, in the classroom teachers operate with
large groups and their focus has to be on the ZPD of many.

To help understand how it might be possible to harness the individual ZPDs and
activities within this complex context, it is also helpful to consider the concept of
activity theory and the notion of activity systems (and interpsychological processes).
This work grew out of concepts drawn from Vygotsky’s work and other cultural‐
historical theorists such as Leontiev (1977, 1978). The original concept involved
developing an understanding that human interactions with environment were
mediated by tools and signs. It has been developed more recently through the
work of Cole and more extensively by Engeström (Cole, 1996; Cole & Engeström,
1993; Engeström, 2001, 2003, 2005).

Activity theory began with what has been called Vygotsky’s mediation triangle (see
Figure 4) involving subject, object and tool. Activities in this sense involve subjects
or participants working towards achieving objects and outcomes, through mediated
action involving signs, tools and artefacts.

Figure 4 Vygotsky's mediation triangle

Contemporary activity theory pays homage to the work of Vygotsky, though

generally it is Leontiev’s work that is identified as the key foundation (Leontiev,
1978, 1981; Tolman, 1988).

Leontiev explained the circular nature of activity and consciousness, external and
internal processes. He identified reflection as a core process whereby the external
practical activity is made sense of by the subject. What he called the subject’s
personal meaning (Leontiev, 1977) is specific to the individual, but it is shaped by
the external activity, the social relations and the overall object meaning of the
activity. Individual subjects may subscribe to the overarching collective objective for
an activity while still having their own personal motive and hence personal meaning
or mental image of the activity and how it is understood. There can be a duality of
meaning about the activity for a subject. There can also be contradictions between
these meanings and also between different subjects’ personal motives and
meanings.

What is now called 2nd and 3rd generation activity theory recognises that activity is
often collective in nature and therefore more key elements are required to
understand how it occurs. Cultural Historical Activity Theory, or CHAT has been
developed through the work of Cole, Engeström & others ( Cole & Engeström, 1996;
Engeström, 2005). This work on activity theory has provided tools for exploring the
ways that activities involve communities, multiple perspectives, voices and
interacting activity systems. To help understand how a community engages in
collective activity, the bottom half of the activity triangle in CHAT includes other key
components which help identify how individual actions and a community may be
regulated and directed towards an object and outcome. The models that have been
developed since (see Figure 5) include these features. This is generally known as 2 nd
generation activity theory.

Figure 5 The structure of a human activity system (Engeström, 2003)

The work of Engeström (1987, 2001, 2003, 2005) has been particularly influential in
the development of CHAT and been used to analyse and understand change. Other
studies of relevance to this research include those that have involved the use of
activity theory in educational contexts. Activity theory has been used to analyse the
use of learning technologies in higher education (Scanlon & Issroff, 2005), and ICT
use in schools and small workplaces (Bottino, Chiappini, Forcheri, Lemut, & Molfino,
1999). Key findings relate to the likelihood of contradiction arising when new ICT
tools are introduced into an organisation. Lin has also identified the important role
of micro level interactions to analyse why pedagogical practices can be difficult to
change. This useful research combines the use of CHAT and conversational analysis
to explore contradictions and tensions (Lin, 2007). Barab, Schatz and Scheckler
(2004) used activity theory in combination with sociotechnical interaction network
(or STIN) theory to analyse web‐based inservice for mathematics and science
teachers. These studies identify the value of CHAT for providing a framework for
analysing activity and systems, and for identifying tensions and design issues. The
following section draws upon CHAT and Engeström’s work and elaborates upon
features of the CHAT activity system that have been adapted for this study.
3.3.1 Features of culturalhistorical activity theory (CHAT)
Activity theory identifies human activity as the basic unit of analysis. The
components and actions that are involved are often represented by activity
triangles and these are useful for mapping the key components of an activity
system. It needs to be recognised that activities are dynamic and shift and change in
action, and the interactive experience of activity and learning is not well
represented by such static diagrams. However there is value in identifying the
features of the activity especially as a means of understanding the movements
across the system as subjects act to achieve objects.

Activities in this sense involve subjects working towards achieving objects and
outcomes, through mediated action involving signs, tools and artefacts. Collective
activity involves subjects acting as part of communities, with those actions mediated
by rules. For the community to achieve their goal requires division of labour
through determination of roles and responsibilities. To describe an example for
drama, a group of students (subjects) might play a drama game at the start of a
lesson (object) to achieve an outcome which might be to warm up for ongoing
physical activity. They revisit the rules about how to play the game and what it
means to achieve success and how to form the required groups (community). The
teacher takes on the initial leadership role and explains some roles (division of
labour) about who will be “up” and what each group must do. The instruments in
this case are the bodies of the participants themselves. As they play the game, and
engage in the activity, movements around the system (see the arrows in the triangle
in Figure 5) continue.

The activity model as described identifies key aspects of the activity system at a
macro level. However, each participant may experience a different version of it.
How these differences are negotiated is of major concern for group activities.
Engeström has proposed that in action this activity system is replicated for each
participant and that interactions involve the negotiation of various features of the
activity system (see Figure 6). For example individual subjects may have different
personal objects or goals, or they may have different rule structures they wish to
operate within. In a third generation activity theory model, different objects are
identified for different subjects (represented as Object 2 in Figure 6) but they
overlap. A collective learning activity would therefore aim to have as much overlap
as possible (as represented by Object 3) to be able to achieve a common outcome
or goal. This kind of model has been referred to by Engeström as third generation
activity theory.

Figure 6 Two interacting activity systems (Engeström, 2001, p. 136)

In relation to considering the outcomes of activity in schooling contexts Engeström

identified that learning activity within schooling is nearly always concerned with
activity which is subject‐ producing (Engeström, 1987, 2001). In this case there may
be an overarching object for the activity (and this could be for example, that a
group create a drama performance outcome), but there could also be subject
related objects as well, such as a student wanting to have an enjoyable social
experience, or achieve a ‘lead’ role. Different subjects within activity systems that
are situated within schooling contexts might have varying personal objects or goals
and these can lead to contradictions and conflicts. There may also be
contradictions that arise from other changes within an activity system.

Within activity theory, disruptions and contradictions are seen as key opportunities
for learning. As Engeström explains:
Contradictions are historically accumulating structural tensions within and
between activity systems… When an activity system adopts a new element
from the outside (for example, a new technology or a new object), it often
leads to an aggravated secondary contradiction where some old element
(for example, the rules or the division of labour) collides with the new one.
Such contradictions generate disturbances and conflicts, but also innovative
attempts to change the activity. (Engeström, 2009, p. 57)
In terms of using activity theory for analysing a system it therefore becomes
important to identify and analyse possible contradictions, particularly when new
tools or practices are introduced into an activity system. Rather than these being
dismissed, these sites of tension are important for then exploring the possible
learnings that might emerge. Engeström asserts, however, that contradictions are
not the same as problems or conflicts, but are structural ruptures and in response,
organisational shifts can occur. These contradictions may be identified and
represented in an activity system triangle (see the left hand side of Figure 7). Once
they are identified, possible shifts in activity may be identified as occurring or as
potentially occurring.

Figure 7 Example of contradiction in an activity system

It is important to acknowledge at this point that the philosophical roots of this

analysis of contradiction and the importance of seeing human activity as central to
development of thought and consciousness extend back to Marx and Engels and
before that to Hegel and other philosophers. Engeström acknowledges the heritage
of their work, in particular to Hegel’s work on scientific dialectics:

For Hegel, dialectics was the form and method of thought that included the
process both of elucidating contradictions and of concretely resolving them
on a more profound level of understanding the object. In other words, the
 contradictions could be solved only in the course of developing science,
industry and all the spheres Hegel called the “objective spirit”. The practical
outcome of dialectical thought was not individual adjustment but collective
societal development and qualitative change of material human culture.

Hegel’s essential superiority to the modern proponents of formal dialectics

lies in two facts: (1) Hegel pointed out and defended the objectivity of
logical forms of thought, their origination in the universal forms and laws of
development of human culture – science, technique and morality; (2) Hegel
introduced practice, the process of activity on sense objects that alters
things in accordance with a concept, into our conception of thought and
logic. (Engeström, 1987, p. 48)

While there is no attempt here to try and capture the complexity of Hegelian
philosophy, it is important to note that the concept of contradiction as used in
activity theory draws on Hegel’s concepts, with movement between seemingly
opposing forces or states of being as being central to notions of becoming, truth or
synthesis.

3.3.2 Limitations of activity theory

There have been a number of critiques of activity theory and Engeström’s version of
activity theory. One area that has emerged as problematic is the notion of power
and the limited discussion of it in activity theory accounts (Avis, 2009; Hogan, 2002,
Langemeyer & Roth 2006). Whilst Engeström’s account of expansive learning
includes key questions which acknowledge the multivocal nature of activity and
accounts of power (Engeström, 1987, 2001), the exercising of power is not explicit
in the activity theory models as often utilised.

In her analysis of a community‐based learning program whereby students were

engaged in community learning projects, Hogan found that authentic learning
practices do not necessarily lead to meaningful learning, participation and
transformative learning. In this case, students engaged in what was for them
initially meaningful activity and generated ideas for action from their activity.
However, the enactment of their plans was curtailed by an authority figure who
exercised power to restrict the development of their activity. She identified how
dynamics of power differentials can limit student experiences and potential for
learning and development. These can include structural and situational constraints,
external contingencies, attitudes and the exercise of dominance and authority
(Hogan, 2002).

Avis (2009) acknowledged that Engeström situates the notion of contradiction as

central to activity and transformative learning, but critiques the assumption that
this occurs in an un‐problematic way. He identifies the importance of managerial
relations of power (which when played out may not be in the best interest of all
participants) and also the possibility that primary contradictions may be situated
beyond the particular cluster or activity group and possible transformative activity.

Langemeyer and Roth (2006) draw on case studies Engeström had previously
published to highlight some issues with the application of activity triangles and
analysis. A large component of this critique addresses examples described in
Engeström’s work and highlights the limited recognition of the impact of power
relations in Engeström’s accounts:
We rather want to highlight that it represents the official discourse within
these institutions but not the different individual perspectives of the
practitioners and the families. Their beliefs and views (their interpretive
horizons) may have been in agreement with the official lines, but we cannot
take this for sure. (Langemeyer & Roth 2006, p. 35)

They focus on Engeström’s recommendation in activity analysis to apply a set of

questions and principles to identify possibilities for expansive learning. This refers
to a model Engeström developed which is based on four key questions and five
principles (Engeström, 2001, p. 133). The five principles are:
1. Activity system as the unit for analysis – with this being a collective, artefact‐
mediated and object‐oriented activity system, seen in its network relations to
other activity systems.
2. Multi‐voicedness – an activity system is always a community of multiple
points of view, tradition and interest. It is a source of trouble and a source of
innovation, demanding actions of translation and negotiation.
3. Historicity – activity system problems and potentials can only be understood
against their own history.
4. Contradictions are a source of change and development – contradictions
generate disturbances and conflicts, but also innovative attempts to change.
5. Expansive cycles of transformation – as the contradictions of an activity
system are aggravated, some individual participants begin to question and
deviate from its established norms. In some cases, this escalates into
collaborative envisioning and a deliberate collective change effort.
(Engeström, 2001, pp. 136‐7)

In particular Langemeyer and Roth (2006) query the recognition of the polyvocal
nature of activity and how power relations are negotiated and suggest that
Engeström’s analysis lacks a consideration of both the subjective perspective as well
as recognition of the wider societal plane in which the activity and contradictions
occur. In Engeström’s defence, though, it should be acknowledged that whilst the
activity triangles are the most commonly used set of models in activity theory, a
review of Engeström’s original thesis research (1987) reveals his proposal that a
number of different models can be used for analysing activity, expansive learning
and developmental research. Models used in that 1987 work included categorical
frameworks for identifying and analysing types of activity systems and instruments
of learning, with reference made to authority and exercising of power. (see
Epilogue, Engeström, 1987)

In various research to date, little use of Engeström’s 1987 models have been made,
however, some of these may prove useful for various forms of analysis in case study
work. A consideration of other social‐cultural work which addresses issues of power
and authority mayh complement this. Wertsch is one socio‐cultural theorist who
has drawn attention to the operations of power in activity. He argues that
“sociocultural settings inherently involve power and authority; any analysis that
focuses on cognitive‐instrumental rationality alone would have to be viewed as
having essential shortcomings” (Wertsch 1998, p. 64). Drawing on Bakhtin he
makes a distinction between “authoritative” and “internally persuasive” discourse.
With the authoritative discourse or word, a position is assumed which generally
allows for no dialogue, feedback or change. These kinds of positions are often
assumed in religious, political and educational institutions. Internally persuasive
discourse, however, encourages dialogue between agents, allows for responses,
exchange and change in what is said. He also explains how the mediational means
and various cultural tools can also impact on the exercise of power, authority and
relational dynamics. These reflections on power are therefore considered within
the analysis of activity that this study engages with.

From the perspective of creative practice and learning, there also appear to be
other aspects missing from the activity theory triangles which are relevant to this
study. For example, where is physical experience in this model, where are emotions
and imagination? These were identified by Vygotsky as significant in relation to
learning and motivation. One study by Franks and Jewitt (2001), which draws on
socio‐cultural theories of action and activity, has identified that research and theory
within this field has often paid scant attention to the role of physical action, bodily
posture, groupings and movement through space. They explain how this kind of
embodied action communicates meaning and constructs meaning within specific
frames. Their analysis draws attention to the role of physical action and gesture as
tools and signs rather than only spoken and written language, advice which is
directly relevant to a drama‐based study. The place of imagination and emotion can
be considered, though, by returning to Vygotsky’s work and a body of his work
concerned with creativity, the arts and aesthetic education.

3.4 Vygotsky on creativity and aesthetic education

To this point the chapter has outlined some key Vygotskian and cultural‐historical
ideas regarding the development of concepts and higher order functions and how
this may occur within group learning processes. In the context of this study the
kinds of learning and concepts that are the focus of consideration relate to creative
learning and dramatic learning. To understand the nature of artistic and creative
learning, some of Vygotsky’s early work which focussed on creativity and aesthetic
experience is illuminating.

Vygotsky was himself a lover of theatre and literature and was a theatre critic and
teacher of literature early in his career. His initial academic work was concerned
with the Psychology of Art (Vygotsky, 1971) and aesthetic (or esthetic) education
(Vygotsky, 1926/1992, 2003). This work is less well known but of relevance to any
discussion of drama education. He also wrote several papers on creativity,
exploring the creative development of children and adolescents (Vygotsky,
1930/2004, 1931/1998). In the work he was involved in just before his death, he
had returned to a focus on emotions and the affective domain and appeared to be
drawing together some concepts from his early work and that on consciousness and
higher mental functions (John‐Steiner & Mahn, 2002; Leontiev, 1979/1997). In this
later work he revisited Spinoza’s work on the passions of the human mind and
recognised that emotional‐affective domains were central to children’s engagement
in activity and concept formation. These works are not as commonly referenced in
educational contexts so this next section will attempt to draw together concepts
regarding the development of learning and creative thinking. This analysis will be
used to inform the theoretical terrain which will be referred to throughout the
analysis of the case study chapters.

Vygotsky believed that the aesthetic experience of creating and perceiving art
works involved “brain work” but what made it distinct was that art works were
largely about the embodiment of emotions in particular forms: “Art is the work of
the intellect and of very special emotional thinking…”(Vygotsky, 1971, p. 48). His
discussion of “works of art” identified issues of form, content, ideas and materials
and acknowledged that mastery of these can be important. What he said though
was that “In a work of art no element is important in itself: it is merely a key. It is
the emotional reaction it generates that is important” (Vygotsky, 1971, p. 206). It
could be argued that a description of art as the expression of “emotions” could be
seen as a fairly naive view of the aesthetic experience. Vygotsky, however, clearly
outlined how expression of this emotion draws on the social conditions and
experiences of the creator and on those of the perceiver. He identified how the
expression of ideas and emotions through art is not only “an embellishment or
ornament of life” (Vygotsky, 1971, p. 249) but is important for everyone and a
healthy society. He adds “Art is the social technique of emotion, a tool of society
which brings the most intimate and personal aspects of our being into the circle of
social life” (Vygotsky, 1971, p. 249).

Within his description of the aesthetic experience he identifies the seemingly

contradictory aspects of distancing but also connection. He contends that a subject
perceiving an art work is able to see the embodiment of emotions and ideas outside
of themselves, they use their imaginations to connect with and empathise with
what is contained in the work. They know it is not real, but their own real emotions
can be activated. This leads to experiences which involve both thought and
emotion which can be cathartic (Vygotsky, 1971). For Vygotsky, this artistic
engagement involved the imagination for both the artist and the perceiver, in the
creation of art works and in the apprehending of them.

These ideas were later developed in his work on creative thinking whereby he
described four different ways that the imagination relates to and impacts on reality.
Of particular significance is his assertion that works of art (which he calls
crystallised imagination) are powerful means of communicating and can have
significant impact on human understanding of the world. In particular he draws a
connection between the importance of works of art as the means of influencing an
individual’s internal world in the same way that technology influences the external
world: “Indeed, why do we need works of art? Do they not influence our internal
world, our thoughts and feelings just as much as technical equipment influences the
external world, the world of nature?” (Vygotsky, 1930/2004, pp. 21‐22)

Vygotsky argued therefore that arts‐related esthetic education provided children

with opportunities to express their ideas and emotions and these kinds of
experiences were essential, positive ways of dealing with life and experience. These
experiences were important for all children, and not just those judged as being
artistically talented:
That esthetic education, interpreted as the creation of permanent skills for
the sublimation of the subconscious possesses an extraordinarily important
 and autonomous value, is, therefore, entirely understandable. To educate
someone in esthetics means creating in that person a permanent and
properly functioning channel for the diversion and abstraction of the inner
forces of the subconscious into useful skills. (Vygotsky, 1930/2004, p. 8)

Vygotsky identified some key issues for what he called esthetic education, including
the importance of access for all students to arts education, the relevance of skills
development and arts appreciation, with these being informed by culture and
history. The way he describes the positions and arguments for each case is
significant in so much as similar debates about the role of arts education continue
to this day.

He asserted that through art, children develop internal languages for expressing
emotions. He critiqued views that this should be only about uncontrolled free
expression and the “overestimation and idolizing of the works of children’s creative
efforts” (Vygotsky, 1926/1992, p. 13). He believed that children could benefit from
interaction with the work of artists and the culture. He also believed that there was
value in being exposed to the technical skills of specific artforms and the laws of the
form, that art was not just about mystical inspiration but techniques, labour and
work. Finally he believed that this education should include a focus on
apprehending and experiencing art works and culture.

In his work on creativity Vygotsky uses illustrative examples which emphasise the
notion of purposeful engagement and goal‐oriented activities that have meaning for
children and young people. He identifies how meaningful contexts are important
and how learning is not focused just on imitation or regurgitation for the sake of it
but to engage in meaningful activity and creation: “The best stimulus of creativity in
children is to organise their life and environment so that it leads to the need and
ability to create” (Vygotsky, 1930/2004, p. 66). He identified projects such as
creating school and class newspapers and magazines, class plays, creative evenings
and so forth as activities that “involve children who have the most diverse interests
and talents in a joint group effort” (Vygotsky, 1930/2004, p. 67). Significantly for
this study, these kinds of group projects are the kinds of learning processes that are
common within drama education contexts (both in school and co‐curricula).

Creative and imaginative work for children and adolescents in Vygotsky’s view were
essential for a number of reasons. Importantly he saw that through creative activity
adolescents were able to explore and consider how they wanted to be in the world
and in the future:

The change which occurs in the adolescent’s intellectual activity is very

closely linked with the change in the life of his conceptions.

… the adolescent’s emotional and intellectual aspects of behaviour achieve

their synthesis in his creative imagination, and how longings and thinking
become combined in a complicated new way, in the activity connected with
the creative imagination. (Vygotsky, 1931/1998, Section VII)

Once again the notion of subject‐producing activity arises as important as well as

the more formal or discipline specific learning that may arise from creative
activities. Creative learning in this case is important for providing students with
opportunities to build concepts and tool facility, but also the means to express ideas
and emotions and explore who and what they can be in the future. As Moran and
John‐Steiner (2003) point out, creativity involves the creation of two symbol‐based
forms, personality and culture. The personality is a conceptual tool that enables and
constrains future activity; the cultural meaning is expressed through symbols and
artefacts which embody meaning.

Here the role of formal instruction in various tool, skill and material use and the
work of significant artists emerge as particularly important. Vygotsky (2004)
asserted that as children move beyond play and experimentation and rational
thought and critical judgement develop, unless they develop technical and cultural
factors or tools to support their creativity activity, they often become frustrated
with their efforts and abandon them. Creativity then arises from individuals
engaging with social processes, appropriate tools, artefacts and cultures to be able
to develop and continue.

3.5 Towards an understanding of creative practice and

creative learning
What is important to this study is a consideration of the range of Vygotsky’s writings
and the different processes of learning and creative expression he described. From
the work about concept formation and learning emerges an understanding of how
external concepts and culture become internalised through interactions. What is
interesting about his work regarding art and esthetics is the way he explains how
humans come to understand and externalize what are in essence internal
understandings – emotions and feelings. From across this range of Vygotsky’s
writings it is possible to draw together these ideas to develop a framework for
exploring processes and learning experiences which aim to facilitate creative
learning. This includes mapping how participants learn about and internalise
external concepts, then combine concepts in the imagination and create new
symbols and meanings, which are externalised and communicated through
appropriate tools, signs and practices. Creative learning therefore involves the
learner moving from external experience to internal knowing through to external
creative expression engaging in a process involving the following aspects:
Experience >> feeling >> meaning >> signs and concept >> combination of
concepts through imagination >>motivation>>ideas and emotions>>
activities>>mediated expression>>creative output

This process involves continual movement back and forth and interaction with
others and the broader culture. This process of concept formation and expression
involves interactions with the external environment and culture but is also an
intrapsychological process involving motivation, imagination and emotions. These
are aspects often not made explicit in activity theory. Through the analysis of the
case studies it will also be important to see how the process outlined above might
sit in relation to the activity system – how do they come together, and how do the
various interactions work? This bringing together of macro and micro levels of
activity, action and interaction is something that Vygotskian scholar Harry Daniels
has identified as worthy of researcher’s consideration:
Much has been done to develop the analysis of activity systems, yet this
analysis proceeds without a conceptual language that allows the macro‐
micro relation to be explored within a coherent language of description.
This language would allow researchers to describe macrostructures and
their associated cultural artefacts to be described with reference to a
common analytical framework. (Daniels, 2008, p. 64)

As an initial proposition, a model of activity that begins to incorporate some

additional components (drawing on key concepts from the literature review) is laid
out in Figure 8. This revised schema seeks to include the notion of how subjects are
motivated and engaged and the importance of interactions in the learning process.
It also recognises that emotions are involved in creative work but these are shaped
and expressed through specific forms as works of art or other products.

Figure 8 Proposed activity system for creative learning

The work of the case studies will help to explore the application of this system and
consider other variations to it.
3.6 Conclusion

Vygotsky’s work in regard to cognition highlights the importance of different kinds

of interactions, including those between the learner and more knowledgeable
others (including teachers and peers), tools and media in the development of
concepts and higher order functions. Interactions in the form of internal dialogue
are also important though, especially in the development of internalised concepts
and understandings. The notion of goal‐directed activity and learner motivation is
central to understanding how these processes are activated and enable learners to
develop the capacity to direct and control their attention and behaviour. In
considering the kinds of learning that may occur through drama and cyberdrama
processes Vygotsky’s work on the psychology of art and esthetic learning provides
some useful insights. Creative learning in this sense is not just about learning
specific concepts; it involves the combination of concrete ideas and emotions
through the work of the imagination and then becomes embodied in material form
as signs, symbols and artefacts. In a collaborative drama project there will generally
be some common outcome, whilst it is acknowledged that there will be different
outcomes (and subject‐producing activity) as well.

Drama learning nearly always occurs within a group context, whereby participants
will have varying ZPDs and goals. Activity theory has been identified as being of
relevance to this study to develop an understanding of collective activity. To this
end within the case studies CHAT will be used to try to map the factors of the
activity systems and the kinds of practice and learning that emerged resulting from
the intervention of new technologies and practices. Some of the limitations and
issues regarding CHAT’s application have been noted and will also be explored in
the context of the case study projects. However, the following chapter will
introduce the methodology and framing for the study. The research design is
detailed, drawing on key concepts from previous chapters, with research methods
aligned and justified.
4. Methodology
4.1 Introduction to the research study
The impulse to engage in research over time has to be inspired by a desire to
understand something of the world that we inhabit and that concerns us. This is
influenced by our own experiences, beliefs and assumptions about the world.
Qualitative research acknowledges this but requires us to make our assumptions
and paradigms explicit. This chapter is concerned with exploring and explaining the
nature of the research, the framing of it and the strategies for its conduct. It will
therefore provide an overview of the research methodology and introduce the
research questions. Then it moves on to outlining the research paradigm and the
position of the researcher. The research strategy of case study is introduced and
the rationale for choosing this strategy is elaborated upon with reference to the
nature of the research process as that of an inquiry. The two case studies are
introduced and key features regarding the sites, participants and the use of ICTs in
each project are outlined. Limitations of the research are noted before the specific
research methods utilised are detailed. A research plan provides an overview of the
research journey over the past three years and the ethical considerations of
relevance to this study are explained.

4.1.1 Overview of the research methodology

The research for this project is primarily qualitative and interpretivist in nature.
Data has been collected through case study methodology, utilising mixed‐method
forms of data collection including interviews, on‐line communications, journals,
surveys and observations. My positioning within the research has been that of an
inquiry‐based practitioner, researcher, artist and teacher as I have worked with
various classroom teachers to both create and investigate the cases involved
utilising reflexive practice. The paradigm embraced has been that of a constructivist
or cultural‐historical perspective as I have explored the experiences of participants
as constructed through interactions in specific learning contexts. Through this
research I hope to develop an understanding of various perceptions of phenomena
through analysing accounts of learning and creative processes, the texts and
products that were created.
My original impetus for the research was generated through a desire to explore
how educational drama processes could embrace the use of ICTs through the
creation of new forms of drama or cyberdrama. I was particularly interested in how
this might be possible and how the practices involved might contribute to young
people’s learning. The initial questions were very much focused on “what is
cyberdrama?” and “how can it be realized in school contexts?”. Through the
creation and enactment of two case studies, the focus has shifted in the second
phase of the research and the object of study has become more concerned with the
nature and practices which might support creative learning. The research aims and
questions therefore reflect this and are identified in the following section.

4.1.2 Research aims and questions

The key research question is:
How can ICTs and drama be used to facilitate creative practice and learning?
The research aims are:
 To explore the possibilities, processes and practices that may constitute
cyberdrama in school contexts
 To identify the features of effective processes (utilising digital technologies
and online spaces) which support creative practice and learning.

My starting premise was that the use of digital technologies and online spaces for
creating drama could promote learning for participants. The experience of my
Masters research (Davis, 2005) had provided me with some processes and
frameworks for creating drama utilising digital technologies and online spaces. At
the start of my PhD studies, I hypothesized that the translation of some of these
processes into school contexts could lead to meaningful and engaged learning for a
majority of the students concerned. The key question was then underpinned by a
number of sub‐questions which elaborate on the research focus.

Sub‐Questions

 How can ICTs be used to create drama in school contexts?

 How does the use of ICTs contribute to the creative practice and learning (or
not)?
  What kinds of processes and interactions appear to be most effective for
facilitating learning using ICTs in drama?

A further question will be considered throughout the thesis as well and concerns
the application of the cultural‐historical paradigm and the use of cultural‐historical
activity theory. Therefore another underpinning question is:
 How can activity theory be used to understand creative practice using drama
and ICTs?

4.2 Research paradigm

The research has been predominantly qualitative in nature. Qualitative research has
been described as “ … a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It
consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible”
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 73).

The research includes some aspects of quantitative research, with several surveys
conducted for each case study. The primary focus of this data was to help identify
issues and themes for further interrogation. The specific paradigm utilised was that
of cultural‐historical theory. This is often viewed as a form of constructivism.
Constructivist theory has particular relevance within the fields of education and the
arts as it recognises that knowledge is actively constructed in meaning making
processes that draw on one’s context, prior knowledge, social relations and a range
of interactions: “Implied in all is the idea that we as human beings have no access to
an objective reality since we are constructing our version of it, while at the same
time transforming it and ourselves” (Fosnot, 1996, p. 3).

In recent times there have been some critiques of constructivism, particularly as a

pedagogical frame (Rowe, 2006). It has been argued that constructivist pedagogy in
practice has led to teachers not explicitly teaching students specific skills and
knowledges deemed essential. Furthermore it has been suggested that problem‐
based learning and inquiry methods have failed because students lack basic
foundation knowledge. However, this critique focused on the ways that
constructivism has been interpreted as a pedagogical paradigm and not as a theory
of learning. A review of the writings of key theorists identified as constructivist
such as Vygotsky and Dewey demonstrates their focus on the ways that people
actually learn a new concept – through making links to existing concepts and
through interactions externally and internally to build concepts, signs and language.
Vygotsky clearly identified the role of teacher or other knowledgeable player as
being key to the learning process in the concept of Zone of Proximal Development
(Vygotsky, p. 1978). The concept of constructivism as utilised in this research
therefore aligns with theories of learning rather than theories of pedagogy.

The focus of this research has been on investigating the ways that social processes
and understanding have been constructed by different subjects or participants
within schooling contexts. In particular I have drawn on the work of revolutionary
psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1962, 1978, 1998) who has often been called a
constructivist. This term was not one that was utilised by him, but was coined long
after his death. The framework he operated from was a cultural‐historical
perspective. He argued that higher psychological functions such as sign and
language systems, decision making skills and other psychological tools used to
master behaviour and action were cultural functions that arise from interpersonal
relations and the internalisation of culture. Paying homage to Marx’s theory of
historical materialism, Vygotsky argued that cultural tools emerged and are
continually transformed throughout human history, and so individual development
and change has its roots in social and historical culture: “The internalization of
socially rooted and historically developed activities is the distinguishing feature of
human psychology, the basis of the qualitative leap from animal to human
psychology” (Vygotsky,1978 , p. 57).

Key aspects of Vygotsky’s work involved exploring the relationship of cognition and
development and the role of culture and interactions in developing thought and
consciousness. The work of other cultural‐historical theorists such as Engeström
has been drawn upon as I have sought to find theoretical explanations for issues
arising from the research.
4.3 Position of the researcher
The qualitative researcher is part of the process of constructing knowledge in
negotiation with others who are part of the research process. This kind of research
does not attempt to be value free but acknowledges that values and meaning are
not separate from the knower (Lincoln & Guba, 2005; Neuman, 1997; Schwandt,
2000). The goal is rather to make these explicit and to explore the interplay of
different stakeholders’ contexts and perspectives in “negotiations regarding what
will be accepted as truth” (Lincoln & Guba, 2005, p. 177). This position is therefore
anti‐foundational (does not adopt a position by which truth can be universally
known) and transactional (recognizing active involvement in problem solving and
meaning making).

In the arts and creative fields, research that engages the practitioner in
interrogating their own practice has been recognized as a valid form of inquiry.
Haseman (2006) has identified a number of ways that research can draw on and
inform creative practice. The form of research this thesis has utilised is practice‐
based research. What this means is that creative processes have been used as the
basis for the two case studies. In each case, creative works were generated by and
with young people and their teachers. I have been positioned in different ways
throughout those processes (and will elaborate on those positions shortly), and
while in those processes and after them have reflected on the data and findings.
The research is therefore based on the practice and the works created, with the
focus being on “the improvement of practice, and new epistemologies of practice
distilled from the insider’s understandings of action in context” (Haseman, 2006, p.
3). The product of the research process for this study is a written thesis; the
creative work does not form the basis of the examination material.

My position within these processes has been that of a researcher, teacher and
practitioner. I was not a neutral outsider to the processes, though for the first case,
I was situated more on the edge of the practice than in the focus case study. Some
advice drawn from feminist standpoint epistemology was helpful in regard to
strategies for working from this position. Harding identifies that research which
claims to be objective is often based on a commitment to research matching the
reality of the past and a position of researcher as neutral outsider (Harding, 1992).
She asserts that this position makes the assumptions and values of the researcher
invisible and therefore likely to reinforce those of the dominant groups of the social
order. She argues for a strong objectivity whereby the researcher is self‐critical,
considers the perspectives of those who are marginalised or have conflicting views
and “listens attentively to what bothers” (Harding, 1992, p. 58). Whilst this
research study may not focus on those who are traditionally regarded as socially
marginalised, it does focus on the experiences of those who in Harding’s words are
“outside the centre of power and prestige” (p. 581). Throughout the projects my
intention has been to therefore pay close attention to the voices of students and
teachers involved.

My active role in the development of the school‐based practice in the field of drama
and ICTs or cyberdrama arises out of my research activities, creative practice and
sharing my work within the drama education community. My Master’s research
focused on investigating working models of cyberdrama – drama which may be
shared through online spaces using digital technologies in its creation. The research
centred on the development of a cyberdrama called Cleo Missing (www.cleo‐
missing.com) which was created collaboratively with a small team of university
students. Findings from this project have been shared at several conferences and
through a number of drama education publications (Davis, 2006, 2009). I also sit
on the State Panel for the school subject of Senior Drama in Queensland and have
written chapters about this form of drama for a published student textbook being
used in Queensland schools (Strube et al., 2010). I note this activity because
through my research and practice I have been influential in providing possible
models for staging cyberdrama. I am therefore positioned as an active
participant/researcher. The case studies outlined in this thesis, or aspects of the
way they were enacted, occurred because I was involved in planning and
implementing a key component of the project work. In school contexts,
cyberdrama or drama work using the Internet and online spaces for drama creation
and enactment was not widespread. The initial stages of this research therefore
focussed on exploring possibilities and building models of practice with schools.
This research also fits with Lankshear and Knobel’s view of the teacher researcher.
They define the teacher researcher as a specific type of researcher who is able to
work with other professionals to research classroom practice, reflect, analyse policy
documents and data with a view to enhancing their practice:
… we identify teacher researchers as classroom practitioners at any level,
from preschool to tertiary, who are involved individually or collaboratively in
self‐motivated and self‐generated systematic and informed inquiry
undertaken with a view to enhancing their vocation as professional
educators… It can be undertaken within formal academic programmes, or as
an entirely self‐directed undertaking, or under any number of semi‐formal
arrangements that exist in between these two extremes. (Lankshear &
Knobel, 2004, p. 9)

At times I was working with the classroom teacher and we shared our perceptions
of what were occurring and our interpretations of actions and data. At other times,
however, I was positioned more as an observer of the classroom action and
documented what I saw, using member checking of data with the teachers
concerned. In cases where transcripts of interviews or observations were created
these were emailed to the participants and member checking also occurred.
Interviewees were invited to provide input about any aspects they believed were
incorrect and to make comment.

4.4 Research strategy – case study

The research method of case study has been adopted. The case studies are based
on drama‐based activities occurring within selected secondary schools within South‐
East Queensland. They document the work and responses of the
participant/researcher, teachers and students engaged in curricular and co‐
curricular contexts. The case studies focus on drama projects that incorporated the
use of ICTs.

As Yin (2004), Stake (2005) and Ragin and Becker (1992) point out, many qualitative
research studies can be conceived of as case studies because the study of a case is
an analysis of social phenomena specific to time and place. Case study is pertinent
as this study has sought to understand possibilities for learning in specific contexts
(real and virtual). As Yin states “You would use the case study method because you
deliberately wanted to cover contextual conditions – believing that they might be
highly pertinent to your phenomenon of study” (Yin, 2003, p. 13). Qualitative and
case study data tends to be based on a small number of cases and the data is
thicker, richer and more descriptive (Neuman, 1997; Stake, 2005). The selection of
and defining of the case provides the context for the researcher to develop or refine
new theory or constructs, with theory and practice being brought together in an
interactive way (Wieviorka, 1992). Whilst Stake (2005) suggests that case study
research is about making a choice of what is to be studied, rather than it being an
actual research strategy, Cresswell argues that it is both a strategy and an object of
study:
Case study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator
explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases)
over time, through detailed, in‐depth data collecting involving multiple
sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material,
and documents and reports), and reports a case description and case‐based
themes. For examples, several programs (a multi‐site study) or a single
program (a within‐site study) may be selected for study. (Creswell, 2007, p.
73)

Case study methodology generally involves the researcher working in an

interpretive way, inducing theory as data is gathered and analysed. Theory
development is based on similar processes to grounded theory, in that theory
emerges and is grounded in the data. However, traditional grounded theory
advocates argue for beginning the research without an extensive literature review
and without a theoretical frame (Glaser & Strauss, 1979). This research study did
begin with some components of theoretical framing in place, but with an open‐ness
to adaptation and development. This process is closer to that described by
Vaughan as theory elaboration (Vaughan, 1992).
Yin (2003) describes three specific types of case studies as Exploratory,
Explanatory, and Descriptive. Exploratory cases are often seen as useful in pilot
programs where there is a degree of uncertainty and theory building is a key focus.
Yin notes that they often begin with ‘what’ type questions. As data is collected, the
researcher looks for patterns, making sense of them through drawing on relevant
reading and theoretical frames as they go. Explanatory case studies may be used
for theory testing and also for doing causal investigations. These are often
characterised by ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions. Descriptive cases require a theory to be
developed before starting the project with the data being interpreted against it,
these kinds of cases may includes surveys and histories describing a particular
phenomenon over time. Each type can involve single or multiple cases, and cases
can either be investigated in a longitudinal setting to discover and explain changes
over time, or in a comparative setting to discover and explain differences between
cases.

Stake (2005, 1995) describes three other types of cases and these are Intrinsic ‐
when the researcher has a specific interest in the case, Instrumental ‐ when the
case is used to understand more than what is obvious to the observer and
Collective
‐ when a group of cases is studied. Whereas intrinsic may focus on a particular
participant, instrumental cases generally begin with a research question and the
case study is used to understand something other than the particular participant or
individual (Stake, p.3).

With this research study, the case type was exploratory initially with some
emergent theoretical frames used against which data could be matched. The case
was also more instrumental than intrinsic with the focus on the various impacts of
ICT interventions. The sense‐making process that emerged from the pilot case led
to more further reading and theory elaboration which meant that the focus case
was also explanatory in nature as well as still being somewhat exploratory. This
meant that certain theoretical frames drawn from activity theory in particular had
been elaborated upon and as explanations for what happened were developed,
theory was tested and amended.
Yin (2003) also distinguishes six types of case study report that can be used for
writing up different types of case‐study:
1. Linear Analysis
2. Comparative
3. Chronological
4. Theory‐building
5. Suspense
6. Unsequenced.
For this research study the two cases have been written up separately with each
chapter organised around aspects of the theory being explored and other key issues
that emerged.

4.4.1 Action research, inquiry models and expansive learning

In developing the methodology for this research, inquiry questions drove the
process and a series of cycles were envisaged. As the data emerged and was
analysed, new questions arose and the focus of the research shifted. For example, I
began with a much stronger intent to focus on cyberdrama development and the
desire to explore different dramatic models and narrative frames. However, with
the first project, there was limited opportunity to reach that stage. Incidents of
contradiction and crisis were uncovered which were pertinent for understanding
the possibilities for ICT use for creative practice. My desire to find theoretical
frames to understand the problems that I encountered led to a further exploration
of activity theory. This process reflected processes similar to action research as
depicted in the action research spiral (see Figure 9). Of particular relevance is the
notion of inquiry, informed by phases of planning, action, research and reflection,
leading to research questions being refined or refocussed and new phases of
research and reflection emerging (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis & McTaggart,
1990, 2005).
Figure 9 Action research cycle (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005)

However the action research model often involves a continous group of participants
in the formulation of research questions and action planning. For this research
study, different participants have been involved in different components and
projects – there is no one group that has progressed throughout the whole process
and travelled the journey with me. The consultation with students and teachers
throughout the projects did signify the intent to give voice to participants though,
and as was noted in the introduction, this is not something that is often occurring
within educational ICT agendas at present.

I therefore have preferred to use the term inquiry learning in relation to the work I
have conducted. I have worked with notions of critical self‐reflection and
problematising practise. Table 1 indicates the phases I moved through with the
research, the kinds of questions that drove each phase and some of the key
theorists or literature I engaged with. The pathway or trajectory of the research has
included both reflection‐in‐action and reflection‐on‐action (Schon, 1983). As the
projects unfolded I captured my own reflections through a project journal or diary
for each case study. Other participants’ reflections were captured – mainly through
the use of online spaces, or in the second case through students keeping their own
reflective journals. Whilst close to the action or events, as none of this was actually
in the moment or the drama, it could be argued that this was reflection‐on‐action.
Table 1 Phases of research, questions and key literature

Phase Questions Theorists & key

reading influencing
the work
Phase 1  How can you use digital technologies to Interactive drama &
create cyberdrama in school contexts? Cyberdrama
 How can online spaces be utilised to help Vygotsky –
create a dramatic work and build a educational focus
community of practice for a drama project. Bruner – scaffolding,
 What kind of learning do students engage in narrative
through utilising these spaces and Creativity literature
processes?

Phase 2  How can online spaces and digital CMCs – Wertsch,

technologies be utilised to help create Bakhtin, youth
dramatic work, especially through working Internet use
in‐role and within the drama frame? Goffman
 How can the official institutional spaces and Vygtosky on
processes be utilised to help create drama imagination and
and facilitate drama learning/creative creativity
learning? John‐Steiner, Sawyer
 What kinds of interactions with the teacher on creativity
(live and online) are most productive for
facilitating student learning?
 What is creative practice and learning? How
is it different to other kinds of learning?
Phase 3  What do the problems and experiences of CHAT – activity
contradiction and crisis demonstrate? theory
 How can these issues be theorised and Expansive learning
understood? Improvisation
 What does this have to do with creative conventions
practice and learning? What is creative
learning?
 How do the uses of ICTs contribute (or not)
to creative learning?

As the data has been analysed and I have sought to make meaning of events and
data, I have engaged in considerable and ongoing reflection on action. This has
involved ongoing re‐engagement with the data after the event and has led to other
theoretical frameworks being utilised for understanding my methodology and the
data. In particular Engeström’s theory of expansive learning (Engeström, 1987)
seems to capture components of the research journey – recognising the importance
of contradictions, subsequent new model development and reflection.
Expansive learning (see Figure 10) is driven by a primary need state or questions.
Identified contradictions, cracks or disruptions in activity are then used as sites for
analysis and the proposal of new models. These may emerge from within
constituent components of the activity, between components, between objects for
different subjects and the central activity and between the central activity and
neighbouring activities (Engeström, 1987).

Figure 10 Engeström’s cycle of expansive learning (Engeström, 2009, p. 70)

For expansive learning to emerge, new models are examined and implemented.
Their implementation may then lead to new contradictions and resistances
emerging from different points of the activity triangle (e.g. in the division of labour,
or the rules produced). Reflection upon these may lead to further contradictions,
realignment and then eventual consolidation of a new practice.

The enactment of the first stage of my research was driven by initial questions.
Through the enactment of the pilot case, contradictions were encountered, with my
subjective object meeting with contradiction within the institutional setting. This
led to considerable analysis and some sideways moves in planning regarding tool
use for the next phase of my research and related project. The second project was
enacted using a very different model – so a new solution was enacted and then
examined. Other experiences of contradiction emerged which have led to ongoing
reflection and new practice. Since the second case study I have been involved in
two other projects where adapted versions of the model from the focus case have
been used (though not included in this study). Therefore the cycle of learning
continues to expand and grow.

4.5 Rationale for Case Study Creation and Selection

Throughout the early stages of my research I began to explore possible sites for
case studies. I was interested in finding or devising projects that had drama
processes and learning as their key focus, that involved young people in content
creation and making processes, and where digital technologies and cyberspaces
could be used. This was not necessarily a matter of looking for case studies where
cyberdrama was already in play, as in school contexts cyberdrama was very much a
field of emerging practice. My research could therefore be seen as interventionist:
teacher involvement with the research required them to enact some different
practices to what they may have done in the past. They did this on a voluntary basis
though and for some teachers this provided them with the opportunity to test out
some new strategies and creative practices that they had expressed an interest in
exploring.

The rationale for two case studies has emerged from the decision to follow an
inquiry model, and the experiences and findings from each cycle prompted the
need to test out other possibilities in the following cycle. Two cases have also been
used to allow the exploration of learning in two different kinds of learning context,
one a school‐based curriculum co‐curricula project and one a school‐based
curriculum project.
A summary of the key features of each of the case studies follows. This includes an
overall description of the project and learning context, the participants and the use
of ICTs. An overview of the data collected for each case will also be detailed.

4.5.1 Pilot case introduction

The pilot case study was centred on The Great Big Drama (GBD) project. This was a
co‐curricula performance project, facilitated by the state professional association
for drama in education, and included nine school groups creating a live theatre
performance outcome. The project ran over a period of six months from inception
to final production. The use of digital technologies and online spaces were intended
to enhance live interactions. In particular this ICT use was intended to build
opportunities for participants to communicate and interact, and also provide a
virtual space for the development of creative content. This process was to be
supported by professional artists including directors, choreographers, stage and
lighting designers, and stage managers. For the majority of students this learning
experience was an extension of their classroom curriculum studies and they were
not being assessed on their performance work. Teachers from participating
schools, and subsequently their students, were involved through self‐nomination or
audition processes.

In total over 100 students were involved. The students were secondary school
students from years 10‐11 (aged 15‐17 years). They were from a range of
government and non‐government schools within the wider metropolitan region of
Brisbane. From school profile data and annual report information drawn from the
education department and school websites (such as location of school, fees
charged, target populations represented) various factors can be drawn upon to
make broad statements about the socio‐economic backgrounds of different schools.
My interpretation of that data was that three schools could be recognised as having
significant populations of students from low socio‐economic backgrounds, three
from middle and three from middle to high. The teachers involved were all drama
or arts specialists and they ranged from recently graduated to very experienced.
The age range was from 24‐50 years. The participants from the nine school groups
were grouped in three clusters for the project. The clusters shared some common
rehearsals and devised their three drama pieces to be linked together in response
to one common text.

All groups were invited to participate in the use of the online components of the
project and the associated research. Three surveys were completed, one at the
beginning of the project, one mid‐way through and one at the end. The response
rates varied, with 25% students responding to the first survey, 67% to the mid‐point
one and 83% at the end. Two focus group interviews were conducted with selected
groups of students, one near the beginning of the project and one at the end.
Interviews were conducted with two teachers. Transcripts of these and the debrief
meeting for teachers (which was attended by 10 participants) were created and
shared with participants. Documentation of selected workshops and rehearsals has
been created based on fieldwork observations. Video documenting of some
rehearsals and the final performance (around 6 hours of footage) has also been
utilised, though not transcribed. Throughout the project I maintained a project
diary. This includes details of what happened and my perceptions and responses to
specific events. I also have copies of email communications between myself and
other participants and feedback from several other drama educators who attended
the performance. A significant data source from this project was the
documentation of the online communications generated from the wikispace. Only
three school groups (from one cluster) used the online spaces to any great degree.

4.5.2 Focus case introduction

The focus case is based on The Immortals. This was a curriculum‐based cyberdrama
project situated in a school of excellence for the arts. The work was conducted
within a theatre‐arts subject and students were formally assessed on their
participation and work produced. Project participants met in the classroom face‐to‐
face and planned and created work together that was shared in both face‐to‐face
and virtual contexts. They used various digital recording technologies to record
dramatic work and then uploaded this to several cyberspaces including ones within
the Learning Place as well as social networking sites YouTube and Ning.
The participants were all from one class, consisting of 18 students in year 10
(generally aged 15‐16 years). My discussion with the teacher indicated her analysis
that students were from a mix of socio‐economic backgrounds, but generally from
middle to upper. It was not possible for the school to provide more specific data.
As students have to go through an application process to be accepted to the school
it would be reasonable to argue that they and/or their parents have aspirational
goals regarding their future as creatives. There was one main teacher involved; she
is a trained drama specialist who has considerable experience as a performer and
director within school, community and professional contexts. Some other teachers
were involved in supporting the project (the school IT coordinator for example)
however they were less involved in the research process.

The data collected for this project included survey data from the beginning of the
project, and that arising from a paper based survey conducted at the end (response
rate 72%). A focus group interview was conducted at the end of the process and 12
students (or 66%) participated. This has been transcribed and shared with the
classroom teacher. I maintained a journal throughout this project and this included
observations of classes, reflections on events and my perceptions. A range of online
communications was generated throughout the project, mostly conducted in‐role.
There was little online communication out‐of‐role. Video material was created
throughout the project within the dramatic frame (around 15 clips of 1‐3 minutes
duration). There is also video documentation of several lessons and the final
performance event (around 3 hours of footage). This has not been transcribed but
segments reviewed and analysed when specific incidents emerged as critical.

4.6 Limitations of the research

Life in schools (as in most organisations) is increasingly busy and demanding. Trying
to make time to conduct interviews was extremely difficult in already crowded
timetables. As Guba and Lincoln (2005, p. 202) indicate control of a study can be
controversial with issues arising regarding who decides salient questions, how data
will be collected and what is made public. They recommend that inquirers seek
participant input in helping to design inquiries to generate commitment to the
enquiry. To this end I had to acknowledge the multiple commitments of many of
the project teachers and students, hence my attempt to accommodate suggestions
regarding the pragmatics of working in their contexts and implications for research
methods used.

Many of the project teachers were heavily involved in other school co‐curricula
activities such as school musicals, school concert tours, parent information nights,
directing out of school performance productions, and organising school camps.
Students were also involved in many other activities (in school and out of school
time) and so lunch time and after school access to them was also restricted. The
opportunity to collect some of the qualitative data, especially through focus group
interviews, was less extensive than I had planned. This meant in some cases that I
had to change methods and rely more on pen and paper surveys as a means of
gathering something of participant perceptions when it became apparent
interviews were not possible. There are limitations in regard to the nature of the
data that emerged. In an interview process it is possible to follow up on questions
and tease out understandings, perceptions and reasoning. This was not always
possible with the survey data.

Survey questions were used which sought to examine student perceptions of

project outcomes, such as what they believed they had learnt or taken from the
experience. It is acknowledged however that the resulting data is partial and is
restricted to what students perceived and expressed in short written comments.
Students may not necessarily be able to identify or express in written form all that
they have learnt. The data has some value though, as student perceptions were
sought and valued. As Rudduck and Flutter assert “Unless we look at the
experiences of teaching and learning through the eyes of young learners, we may
be wasting our time with issues that are illusions” (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004, p. 6).
MacBeath, Demetriou, Jean and Myers also assert that consulting students can help
promote student agency and involvement in their own learning (MacBeath,
Demetriou, Jean, & Myers, 2003).
Another consideration is how young people see themselves in relation to the school
or research sponsor and the responses that they may deem to be appropriate
according to the relationships they have with teachers and the institution. This can
impact on the responses they provide within institutionalised learning situations
and to their expression of perception. As Packer and Giocoechea identify:
“Students can always actively align with or against the power and authority of their
teacher. They can accept or reject the costs of participation in the community”
(Packer & Goicoechea, 2000, p. 236). This can therefore be expressed through their
accounts of their experiences within the learning setting and activities. At times
students may say what they think the teacher (or researcher) want to hear because
they are aligned with the authority of the teacher and see value in belonging to the
learning community. On the other hand, they might be contesting the authority of
the teacher or learning setting and so use what they say to express their dis‐
engagement. I was therefore alert to these possibilities as I conducted the research
and analysed the data. The surveys were all distributed by the teachers involved
but included my research project contact details, so in a way they were being jointly
branded. This meant that students would not have seen the survey as being
directly linked just to me or their teacher.

The context for this research has meant certain limitations were encountered,
largely because of the focus on using the Internet and digital technologies within
school contexts. This has meant working within restrictions upon ICT usage within
Queensland schools. While some of this was predicted and had been negotiated as
part of the ethical clearance process, unexpected blocks were also encountered.
This impacted on the projects and research in terms of student access to use of
technology, learning experiences that were planned and data that could be
gathered. This is explored in some detail in relevant case studies.

The relationships with the teachers involved also impacted on the data and the
research processes. In each case I was involved in the creative process, but in no
situation was it my class or group. This has provided me with both opportunities, in
being able to reflect on developments with colleagues at times, but also with
frustrations. As a guest within schools I had to work within the parameters of what
 was allowed or was possible. This therefore had significant impact on the research
methods used.

4.7 Research methods

A range of qualitative research methods have been utilised for this study to provide
rich, descriptive data from different perspectives – this could therefore be called
mixed methods. Research methods used include interviews and focus groups,
surveys, CMCs, journals and documentation (see Appendix A for an overview of
data collected). The data sources used to respond to each research sub‐question
are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2 Research questions and data

Research How can ICTs be used to How does the use of ICTs What kinds of
questions create drama in school contribute to creative processes and
contexts? practice and learning? interactions appear to
be most effective?
Constructs Activity and practice Student background Interactions
drawn Activity and practice
Student perceptions of Motivation and engagement
from
literature learning/outcomes Activity and practice
Interactions Perceptions of ICT use
Perceptions of outcomes

Case 1 Documentation of practice Student surveys no. 2 (N=80 Survey no. 2 and no.3
students) and no.3 (N=100 questions
Project journal students)
CMC analysis
Three interview with Jake1 Focus group interviews with
(teacher) teachers (N=11 people) Three interviews with
Jake (teacher)
Focus group interviews with
students (3 groups)

CMC & email documentation

Focus group interview

Three interviews with Jake

Case 2 Documentation
of practice on cyberspaces
Focus Group interview with
students (N=12)
Project journal –
documentation of planning
and implementation
(teacher)
Student survey (N=13) Survey questions
Focus group interview with Analysis of CMC and
students (N=12) nature of interactions
Interview with teacher Fieldnotes and project
journal
Student journals (N=18)
Student journals

1
Jake is a pseudonym chosen by the researcher. It was used to protect the identity of the teacher as
outlined in the consent form.
Links have also been made to other key concepts and constructs. Key conceptual
constructs for the research questions, interview questions and surveys were drawn
from the literature review and theoretical frame. These drew from readings
regarding creativity, learning, drama, ICTs and cultural historical theory (including
activity theory). From this, areas to investigate were identified as:

 Student background and creative practice (including experience in drama

and with ICTs)

 Student motivation and expectations of the project

 Activity and practice

 Interaction with others and the impact of these

 Participant perceptions of using various ICTs and virtual spaces

 Participant perceptions of learning and outcomes from the learning

programs.

4.7.1 Focus group interviews

My initial research plan included a series of focus group interviews to be conducted
with a core group of students and teachers throughout each case. This was to form
a major data source for the research. The intention had been to begin by unpacking
their backgrounds and understandings of creativity – of what activities they
engaged in that they saw as creative and what they saw as supporting their creative
practice. From this I planned to collect some baseline data which specifically
addressed research sub‐questions. The intent was to conduct follow up interviews
at key stages of the project. During these focus group interviews my plan was then
to track participant perceptions in response to the research questions. Through
these interviews I hoped to explore student perceptions of the experience of the
project, what they had learnt, and how they felt about the use of ICTs and online
spaces in relation to the drama processes and units. I planned to visit weekly and
attend rehearsals to document the process. Fieldnotes and a project journal would
therefore complement the data from these interviews as well as mediated
documentation.
At the beginning of the GBD project I approached two teachers (already known to
me) from different clusters and different school socio‐economic populations. I
invited them to be the focus schools for my research. They agreed and I visited the
first school to negotiate the research process in their context. I shared the first
focus group instrument with the teacher and they reviewed the questions and the
anticipated research design. Their opinion was that it would be virtually impossible
to find the time to withdraw students to conduct focus group interviews during the
rehearsal period. This was because the students were already committed to out of
school rehearsals and teachers would be reluctant to release students from classes
to participate. The teacher suggested survey questionnaires may be a more
efficient means for collecting student perception data.

Some group interview data from students was still gathered at the end of each case
through different means. For the first case I was invited by teachers to attend
debrief sessions with their classes. Teachers asked students about positive and
negative aspects of the project and performance. It was not possible for me to
structure these to match my research intent, however some of the data generated
was of relevance. For the second case the teacher and I invited the students to
attend a debrief group interview session. This was voluntary and 12 out of 18
students attended. This interview was organised around a set of questions which
aimed to explore responses to research sub‐questions. The conduct of the
interview was such that it was more of a discussion which flowed from topic to
topic. I had a list of questions with me and I could see that by the end of the hour
that we had covered most questions.

I also interviewed teachers as part of the research, in particular focusing on one key
teacher for each case. For the first case study it became apparent that “Jake” was
the only teacher regularly using the online spaces and so I had interviews with him
on three occasions. These were more in the form of conversations than interviews.
These semi‐structured interviews reflected the changing nature of interviews as
identified by Fontana and Frey:
 There is a growing realization that interviewers are not the mythical, neutral
tools envisioned by survey research. Interviewers are increasingly seen as
active participants in interactions with respondents, and interviews are seen
as negotiated accomplishments of both interviewers and respondents.
(Fontana & Frey, 2005, p. 646)

For the second case I was in regular conversation with the teacher and much of this
was documented in my project journal. I also had a more formal interview with her
at the end of the project. At this we discussed project outcomes, the impact of the
ICTs and the nature of different interactions. I transcribed each of the interviews
myself, typing them up in word documents in a script style of format (see Appendix
C)

4.7.2 Surveys
The conduct of the research in schools meant that I needed to be responsive to the
environment and the realities of what could be achieved. Through negotiations
with project teachers for the pilot case study it became apparent that surveying
students would be one of the best ways to gather data about their perceptions of
learning and attitudes towards interactions and activities.

Surveys are used because they provide a means of structuring data systematically
and allow for it to be analysed by different variables of characteristics (De Vaus,
2002). Questionnaires are a primary means of conducting surveys, with questions
and items being constructed to collect similar data from multiple subjects. Through
survey analysis it is possible to describe certain characteristics of a group or case in
terms of factors such as behaviour, beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and attributes (De
Vaus, 2002, p. 95). Surveys can be used within case study research to help identify
the occurrence of certain characteristics and phenomenon and other data (such as
interviews, fieldwork and so on) can then provide a fuller understanding of the
circumstances, the context and reasons why. I canvassed the possibility of the
surveys being conducted online through an online tool such as surveymonkey.com.
The teacher believed that there could be blocks to this occurring in schools and
perhaps the most efficient data collection tool would be a short paper‐based survey
which could be completed in rehearsal.

There were several different survey instruments that were developed for the pilot
study. The first survey for GBD was adapted from the focus group questions that I
had drafted (see Appendix B). It asked for some non‐specific identifier information
including school group and gender and an optional username. The questions were
all open‐ended with spaces left for responses of a sentence or two in length. When
I visited one of the schools they suggested I needed to make the survey shorter (the
original had been four pages long) and to include some sections that did not require
written responses. Other versions of the survey tool were developed and used in
two schools (see Appendix D and E).

When designing the surveys, the concept constructs were identified and used as the
basis for generating questions. These constructs related to background,
motivation/expectations, interactions, learning and outcomes. While it is generally
advised that multiple items be generated to test constructs in different ways (De
Vaus, 2002; Neuman, 1997), to make the survey fit the parameters of the context,
in some cases items were limited to one or two questions.

In an attempt to ensure a higher response rate, the mid‐point and final surveys
(Appendix E and F) for the pilot study were designed so that they could be
completed in approximately 10 minutes and students could return them on the day.
These surveys were two pages long and included user identification (username,
role, cluster and gender). The first section included two open‐ended questions
which sought to ascertain students attitudes towards the project (and hence some
idea about motivation towards the learning opportunities of the project). Section B
included Likert scaled statements. With this format, an opinion or statement is
provided and respondents are asked to indicate their level of agreement or
disagreement with the statements. They are provided with a scale of alternatives
to indicate their response. In this case it was a five point scale. The Likert scale
included five questions which focussed on the interactions and working with others
(their school, the cluster, with the teacher and with the artists). It also looked at
their perception of how the creative process was going. Section C included three
open‐ended questions. The one I was most interested in asked students to identify
one thing they had learnt. Participants were invited to add other comments at the
end. The response rate to these two surveys was high (67% and 81%). In most
cases participants had filled in all parts and provided comments that indicated they
had treated the task seriously. There were very few responses which included trivial
or subversive responses.

For The Immortals project the school administration asked that I ensure research
processes did not impinge on student learning time. To help make it part of the
curriculum program the initial pre‐test survey was not conducted as a written
survey, but as an oral survey discussion with students as part of the project
introduction. This enabled me to gather some similar data to the first survey for the
GBD project. One paper‐based survey was conducted later (see Appendix G). This
was at the end of the project and was justifiable as feedback of value to the teacher
as well as for my research. This survey replicated the same sections as the GBD
final survey and many of the same questions. The Immortals project also included a
section which sought to ascertain their perceptions regarding the use of ICTs/online
spaces. This comprised of statements about different online spaces with Likert
scales, as well as some open ended questions that asked which technology
components students most enjoyed working with and how they felt about the use
of technology in the drama unit. Students were asked to complete the survey and
hand it in at the same time as their journals (which were required for assessment).
Not all students completed the survey as some were absent, 13 out of the 18
students responded.

4.7.3 Computermediated communications

A significant body of data for this research has been gathered from computer‐
mediated communications. These have included postings to discussion groups,
wikis, blogs and chat facilities whereby participants have communicated with each
other out‐of‐role and at times in‐role (in the drama). These kinds of
communications present interesting dilemmas for researchers in regard to the
reduced range of typical communication markers available as compared to the
physical world (mainly written text, without the non‐verbal communication
aspects). Researchers also need to consider the different contexts in which
individuals might be communicating in the spaces (for the pilot case mainly at home
and for the focus case mainly at school) and the way that identity is constructed
through interactions (Markham, 2005).

For the first case study over 600 postings were made to a wiki discussion board.
These were printed out and I began to identify what kinds of content participants
were talking about (and hence consider the research questions about what
learning occurs) and the ways they were interacting. From this initial analysis, I then
identified similar threads which had the same features (e.g. mainly new users
introducing themselves, or mainly people trying to talk about the creative work).
From there I selected 13 threads that were typical of those clusters and also those
where the most significant action had occurred. I then transcribed the information
from 217 postings to an excel database (see example in Appendix K). This allowed
me to search the data in different ways and cluster it for analysis (e.g. by user, by
date) and to search for themes arising from the discussion.

Data for the focus case were also generated through CMCs online. For this project
the material was predominantly created by participants while working in‐role. The
amount was not as extensive as the GBD project. It consisted of wiki pages (from
the Learning Place and an outside social network site Ning) generated for each of
five characters, 29 blog entries, and chat logs. There were a small number of out‐
of‐role postings. This material was analysed for the types of interactions that
occurred, the use of ICTs and the nature of content. This was done through
annotations made on printouts of the pages.

Online communications are a significant data set for this research but not read out
of context. Whilst some research studies may focus only on the CMCs between
groups who never meet face‐to‐face (FtF), in each of these case studies, the groups
did work in the FtF mode. Therefore the CMCs are considered in the context of
these live interactions and the activity systems of each project.

4.7.4 Journaling
Throughout the projects, journals have been kept by me to help document and
reflect upon the research process (see extract in Appendix H). These have been
used to note events and my responses, to complement other data or compare
perceptions about events. Student participants were required to keep a journal as
part of their assessment requirement for the focus case drama unit and I had
permission to take copies of these. The student journals were meant to document
what happened, how they felt about the work and what they felt they had learnt.
From their journals I mapped their comments and learnings on a profile table I
constructed. The headings included the student’s name, comments and points of
interest from the initial audit, from their survey response and from their journal
(see extract in Appendix I).

Fieldnotes and observations have been collected throughout the projects and often
included in the project journal. Some of these have been written during lessons
and activities while I was an observer to the experience. Others have been written
after the event, especially in situations when I was involved as a teacher or co‐
participant in an experience.

4.7.5 Documentation and creative work

A range of other documents have been archived throughout the research journey.
These include emails sent and received, rehearsal schedules and programs.
Curriculum materials have been generated as well as different forms of creative
content. Each case study project had a performance or presentational component.
In some cases students created video clips which were part of the drama
assessment for units being studied, in other cases I have video‐taped live
interactions where students have been working in‐role or dramatically. This
material has been saved and viewed, but not transcribed or coded. I have used it
mainly to revisit some incidences in rehearsal and workshop, especially for The
Immortals project, to stimulate my recollections. They have also been used to
reflect on what learning had been demonstrated through the projects.
4.8 Data analysis
Typically case studies utilise extensive data drawing on multiple sources (Stake
2005, Yin 2003). In case study work descriptive accounts of the case, events and
key themes are often created drawing upon the different sources. Stake, for
example, details a process for coding the data and drawing out the key themes or
patterns. A variation on this process has been used for this study.

The two case study projects yielded a significant amount of data from interviews
and focus groups, surveys, journals and on‐line communications. Most of this has
been recorded and transcribed in textual form in word and excel documents. It was
then coded by highlighting text in colour and created summary documents
(especially for each survey).

With the survey data, the Likert scale responses were tallied, results were tabulated
and mean calculations were determined. Most of the analysis was univariant, and
focussed on patterns in the range of responses. Some analysis was bivariant, mainly
focussing on differences between clusters, school groups and gender. The open‐
ended questions were coded manually according to key thematic concepts. Later in
the process I used the qualitative data analysis program Leximancer. With this
program I uploaded each data set separately for a cluster and item, then I uploaded
common sets of data (for example all interview transcripts, or all survey open‐
ended question responses). As this program generates the concepts and themes
itself from the data, it is a useful way of cross‐checking manual coding to ascertain if
any key themes have been missed.

For each case the research questions underpinned the process of data analysis and
case study writing, but at the same time I was open to issues and themes emerging
outside of that which I was looking for. So for example, the concept of crisis and
contradiction emerged because it was a feature of the phenomenon of that project
experience that called for an explanation. As key themes emerged, data for each
has been drawn from the surveys, interviews, observations and other sources to
substantiate the issues. Whilst there is no attempt to generalise from the findings,
specific learnings from these cases may resonate for educators and researchers in
other contexts.

4.9 Research plan

The research was been conducted across a three year period, the plan for which is
included in Table 3.

Table 3 Research plan

Phase & Time frame Activities

2006 Development of research methodology and initial literature
Phase 1 review
Ethical clearance
Development of initial tools
Identification of sites
Pilot interviews
2007 Creation of website
Phase 2 Ethical clearance with principals, participants & care‐givers
Case Study 1 and Case Study 2
Interviews with teachers and students
Data gathering related to creative processes and contexts
through:
 website
 journals
 interviews
 surveys
Analysis of work created
Analysis of data
Identification of emerging coding categories and themes
Ongoing literature review to support theory elaboration
2008 Determine aspects of practice and findings from Phase 1 and
Phase 3 2 to explore further
Planning and enactment of Case Study 3 (this did occur but
has not been used in this study)
Data gathering
Analysis of data and findings
Identification of key issues
Revisiting literature review and methodology
Drafting chapters of thesis
2009 Writing, redrafting thesis
Finalising products and outcomes
4.10 Research ethics/statement
My research involved humans and was considered low‐risk. I conducted interviews
and focus groups, surveys, observations and documentation of on‐line
communications with teachers and students in schools. Research ethics processes
were undertaken and forms were completed (using the National Ethics Application
Form and process). Ethical clearance was granted through the university ethics
committee and authorisation was given (Ref No 0600000711). Securing approval to
conduct research in schools required more extensive negotiation.

I applied for ethical clearance through Education Queensland, and they eventually
approved clearance after some negotiations. This process included my submitting
an application form and then responding to a series of requests for additional
information. As my research involved interaction with and data gathering from
school‐aged participants, the Education Department requested more details about
what material students would be posting online, the importance of anonymity and
general adherence to their protocols for posting information and images about
students on the Internet. For each case study I then had to seek permission from
participating school Principals and teachers before the project could commence.
Once this had been secured, information and consent packages were prepared and
provided to students and care‐givers. Consent was obtained from participants
before the research process began (See Appendix J).

Ethical issues regarding student Internet use were addressed in different ways
across the course of this study. I spoke with participating teachers about safety
procedures before we introduced students to the sites. On the student consent
form, students were advised to not use their actual names, school name or
identifying information in any Internet interactions. Names of schools, students and
teachers have been changed for this thesis, apart from the teacher involved in the
second case study. As a co‐facilitator of this project she was offered the choice to
have her name acknowledged or not and she has expressed a desire to have her
real name used.
In an attempt to ensure research participants felt their involvement in the research
was respected and their views appropriately represented, interview transcripts
were forwarded to participants (mainly teachers) after they were transcribed.
Participants were invited to clarify any areas where they believed errors had been
made or where their perceptions were different from mine. Drafts of the case
studies were also sent to the two main teachers featured: Jake for the first case
study and Hayley2 for the second. They both expressed satisfaction with the
representation of events and suggested minor changes to some details.

4.11 Conclusion
This research project was designed to help build an understanding of the nature of
creative practice and learning that might be possible through the use of ICTs in
drama. The exploratory nature of this work means that case study has been
selected as the research strategy. This requires a range of research methods to be
used to capture observational, attitudinal and perception data. The range of data
gathered allows for triangulation to occur to cross‐check understandings and
findings. The cases were selected to enable collection of data from two different
kinds of learning contexts (curricula and co‐curricula) and emerged partly out of
opportunities that were available for the researcher to be able to help build practice
in an emerging field. In this case the researcher was positioned within the field. The
data draws on online communications and interactions but also other kinds of
interactions as well (in the live and face‐to‐face mode). The focus is therefore on
the activity systems as a whole with the particular role of the online
communications and ICT usage considered in context. The paradigm for the
research is interpretivist and constructivist as it seeks to understand how meaning is
perceived and created for different participants and how various processes might
support learning. The following chapter introduces the pilot case, analyses the
activity system and begins to explore the issues regarding the creation of
cyberdrama in school contexts and learnings, both intentional and unintentional.

2
This is the real name of the teacher concerned. As part of the consent process and later drafting
process of the thesis, she was offered the option of having her real name used or a pseudonym and
she indicated her preference for having her real name and input to the project acknowledged.
5. Pilot study: The Great Big Drama – ICT intervention
and contradiction

5.1 Introduction
The focus of this research study has been on exploring the possibilities available for
using ICTs in school‐based drama education processes and the impact of these on
practice and learning. The central research question was “How can ICTs and drama
be used to facilitate creative practice and learning?” Relevant literature regarding
ICTs and drama, creativity and learning has been explored and key concepts
identified. Theoretical frameworks have been outlined drawing on Vygotsky’s work
on the Psychology of Art and aesthetic education as well as his work on cognitive
development and learning processes. This cultural‐historical framing emphasises
that learning processes involve social interactions and engagement with more
knowledgeable others, various tools, media and the wider culture. Activity theory
was identified as providing a valid framework for analysing the nature of learning in
collective projects utilising an ICT intervention. This framing requires a focus on the
nature of interactions that occur across an activity system and a consideration of
contradictions and outcomes. Key concepts from the literature review and cultural‐
historical theory informed the development of constructs which underpinned the
research methods and tool construction. The methodology chapter outlined the
research paradigm, the research design, strategies and methods used and my
positioning within the case study projects and research.

This chapter describes and analyses the pilot study The Great Big Drama project,
which was produced as a co‐curricula school‐based performance project. The
project included the use of online spaces and communications as part of the project
development over a period of six months. The chapter will outline the nature of the
activity system for the project. It will identify how the introduction of the use of
ICTs can be seen as an intervention within the usual activity system of a drama
process and what impact this had in a number of areas. The ways that various
participants and institutions responded to the ICT intervention led to experiences of
contradiction within the activity system and crisis for some participants.
5.2 The context for the Great Big Drama project
The Great Big Drama (GBD) project was a performance project periodically
produced by the state professional association for drama educators. This project
had been staged twice before (in 2001 and 2003) and supported through
partnerships between secondary schools, the professional association, arts
organisations and hosting performance venues. This version of the project involved
nine secondary school drama groups and their teachers in creating a performance
work which was staged in a professional performance venue for a paying audience.

Drama teachers in secondary high schools could nominate themselves and a

student group to work on the project, with a recommendation that year 10‐11
students be the target group (schooling concludes in year 12 in Australia). In several
cases the teacher worked with a curriculum class group, but most worked with a
group formed for a co‐curricula activity with students self‐nominating or
auditioning. School groups included up to 20 students aged 15‐16 years and in
general, two teachers. Overall approximately 120 students were involved and 11
teachers as well as a project coordinator, professional artists and technical
production team. The schools that nominated represent a range of different size
schools and different socio‐economic backgrounds.

The gender breakdown was fairly typical for drama related activities in schools with
22 males and 96 females. It was not possible for me to collect data on cultural and
socioeconomic background of individual participants, but the spread of school types
noted above is a proxy indicator of socioeconomic background of the sample.
The school groups were organised into clusters of three, mainly on the basis of
geographic regions. The teachers had not worked together previously so
operational and communication parameters had to be negotiated.

There were a number of common types of experiences that each group engaged in
across the project. These included:
 Workshop style activities with teacher and school group (at least weekly
over approx 10 weeks). These were generally led by the teacher who acted
as a more knowledgeable other in directing students and introducing them
 to new dramatic tool and sign use. The creative practice occurred within a
scaffolded process with students generating their own creative response
within teacher provided constraints;
 Workshops with professional artists at school (approximately three at each
school) whereby the artists demonstrated and coached students in new
drama tools and sign use in a specific performance forms or styles such as
shadow theatre or physical theatre;
 Workshop style activities with the three groups in the cluster (approximately
3‐4 of several hours duration) aimed at promoting interactivity between
groups, building commitment towards the common outcome and exploring
and externalising the work of the imagination in order to create one
performance product;
 Rehearsal with all groups together (one day prior to performance week, two
days of rehearsals including technical runs prior to public performances)
where each group shared the outcome of their activity and received
feedback from artists. In the final days the focus was on refining the work
within the performance space and working with theatre technology tools;
 Six performances, two each day for three days – where all groups formed a
community who shared a polished, performance outcome for an audience,
with audiences generally consisting of other school students, teachers,
parents, friends and drama educators.
The final performance piece was approximately 90 minutes long, it was loosely
based on the concept of water with three different storylines. This case study
explores one cluster’s activities, and the interactions that led to the development of
their performance piece. This drama focussed on a farmer whose farm is drought‐
stricken, he recalls times past when a pond on his property was full of water and
alive with wildlife. He also recalls the degradation of the land and impact of human
intervention. He dreams of bringing the land back to life and of rain (see Appendix L
for more detail about the content and form of the drama).

5.3 The activity system and community

To conceptualise the project in terms of an activity system, it could be argued that
the project was made up of many overlapping and interlocking activity systems. To
begin with, an overview of the components of the basic activity systems for the GBD
project will be provided (see Figure 11) before the specific components are
explained in more detail.

Figure 11 Activity system for the Great Big Drama project

For this project the subjects were a range of different project participants
(represented on the left hand side inside the triangle), these included students,
their teachers, artists, coordinators and myself as researcher. The object of the
overall system was to create a polished performance product (see the right side of
the diagram). What is quite interesting about this outcome is that as a creative
work, the specific nature of the product is not known from the outset. The
intended outcome is a work of the collective imagination; it draws on artefacts and
practices of different participants and has to be conceived of in their imaginations
then mediated through language, signs and symbols. What is significant, however,
is that the vision has to be shared and accepted by multiple subjects, then
expressed, embodied and refined. Whilst the overall outcome might be the
expression of this work of the collective imagination, each group’s activity system
(for different meetings and rehearsals) had other more specific objects and
purposes. These might include learning about a particular drama or performance
concept, creating a section of performance, learning about the idea for the work
(which ended up being about water). The object can be argued to be various
performance products and concepts related to drama learning (represented on the
right hand side of the figure inside the triangle). The tools, signs and artefacts which
were utilised by the participants and mediated their achievement of purpose were
many. The participants’ bodies were the key tools and they used other external
tools and artefacts as well such as written text, music, online spaces and so forth.
Signs utilised included verbal and gestural language and sign systems of the
artform.

The notion of community varied for different rehearsals and activities where groups
came together, and these operated on different levels. The rules that mediated the
collective activities involved those at the local school level and others that governed
the entire project and how groups should work together in the creative process.
Finally the roles and division of labour initially reflected those common in schools
with teachers managing and leading activities, with students acting predominantly
as performers but with some stake in the devising process. Artists and designers
provided input and support in their fields of expertise and the project coordinator
managed the operational and communication requirements to enable the
performance to be staged. My role was that of researcher and architect of the
online spaces which teachers and students were to use.

Each meeting of participants within their school group was an activity system (as in
Figure 11). School groups then met as cluster groups involving three schools, then
all nine schools came together to be part of one overall performance group. These
were therefore multi‐level interacting activity systems. There were obviously
variations in the specific activity on each site and within each level of activity. There
was a commitment to a common outcome though and some common principles
applied. A further description of some of the key features of the activity system will
follow and relevant data drawn upon as this leads into an analysis of some of the
issues that emerged.

5.3.1 Subjects
Data collected from the first survey provides some idea of the background
knowledge for the students involved, especially in relation to their drama and ICT
experience. Of the 21 students who responded to this survey 20 identified having
studied drama. So in most cases students had some prior drama experience and
some exposure to and internalisation of cultural tools in this field. More than half
the students indicated that they had also been involved in other creative co‐
curricula activities at school. In response to one of the survey questions regarding
creative school activity they had been involved in, most the students listed at least
one school performance activity, predominantly drama productions and musicals.
Many students listed multiple experiences. A small number of students also
indicated they had more extensive experience again and this arose from their
involvement in drama related activities outside of school.

To gain a sense of student background in terms of their use of ICTs, participants

were asked about their Internet access at home and the kinds of things they did
using the computer (apart from research and assignment writing). The responses to
this question draw on oral survey and written survey responses from three project
groups (N = 48). Student responses indicated the most common uses of the
computer/Internet being using MSN to chat to friends, downloading music, using
MySpace and uploading photos, although generally to MySpace (See Figure 12).

Internet access and creative use by gender N = 48

60

50

40
Total Female Total Male
Total
30

20

10

Figure 12 Internet access and use by GBD participants

Their Internet use indicates fewer students engaging in the use of digital technology
in creative ways (represented with categories to the right hand side on Figure 12).
In fact nine said they did not use technology for creative purposes. Of the students
who answered in the affirmative, they identified a number of specific ways they
were creative digitally. Most commonly listed was the use of MySpace with
students commenting that it allowed them to create their own space and to create
a persona (2 responses). Other listed activities included “playing around with
photos”, creating film clips and animations.

Of note are the respondents who said they did not engage in any digital creativity
because they were not really interested (“too complicated”, “prefer other ways of
expressing creativity”), others indicated they would like to learn through working
with more experienced peers (“it’s like a chain reaction, one person starts and then
others follow along”). From this data it seemed evident that whilst most young
people involved were using the Internet at home for communicating with friends,
they were not necessarily all using it for other creative purposes. The implication of
this for other drama projects might be that while students generally have
confidence in using ICTs for communicative purposes, the use of ICTs for creating
and uploading creative content may require extending the tool use and skills base
for some students. This problematises notions about digital natives (Prensky, 2001)
and the danger of assuming that all students arrive with some common set of digital
competencies. For a small number of students it was also apparent that they were
not motivated toward extending their creative practice using digital technologies,
with some preferring other ways to express themselves creatively.

5.3.2 Concept and envisaged shared outcome

The anticipated outcome for the project was shared with all potential participants
before the project began. Key features of this remained consistent throughout the
life of the project, whilst others changed. The teachers who initiated school
applications did so in the knowledge that they were going to be involved in creating
a group‐devised performance to be staged for a public audience. Teachers used
various ways to initiate their students into the project and introduce the shared
vision or purpose. Workshop and video documentation as well as some survey data
indicates that in the main the concepts for the drama were determined by the
teachers and students accepted these to varying degrees. The ICT component of the
project was not part of the original proposal but was introduced to teachers during
the initial planning stages of the project.

Upon entry to the overall activity system, the specific idea for the work was still
being developed. What is evident from survey responses to questions about why
they were involved, is that students were initially motivated by the idea of being
involved in this performance experience (rather than the content or idea of the
work or anything to do with ICT use) and that these motivations revolved around
several key factors.

Survey responses from the beginning and mid‐way through the project included a
question which asked students “What do you want to get out of the project?”. This
question was intended to help ascertain what the motivations were for students to
engage in the project. This question was open‐ended and students generally
responded with a short response answer. These answers were coded and four
thematic clusters emerged. After the first process of coding and clustering, the data
was checked again to ascertain how well responses sat with these categories. There
were four clusters that were confirmed (see Figure 13), these were:
 learning more about drama, performance and theatre (35 responses)
 experience (24 responses)
 working with people and making friends (16 responses), and
 building confidence and performing in public (9 responses).

A concept that emerged as quite significant was that of experience. Many students
just wrote that they just wanted “the experience” or “for the experience”. Whilst
some added details about performance experience, many did not, they just wanted
the experience.
 What do you want from the project? N = 84

40
35
30
25
20
No of responses

15
10 Cluster D Cluster L
5 Cluster X
0

Figure 13 Student anticipated outcomes from the GBD project

What this highlights is the notion of the different perspectives and sense‐making
that may occur from the same activity system. It is clear that project participants
came with different motives and frames for making sense of the activity, while
having a commitment to the overarching outcome concerning the performance of a
collective work. This idea of different motivations for engagement within activity is
one that has been noted in the literature as impacting on what students might
actually learn (Pressick‐Kilborn & Walker, 2002; Stetsenko & Arievitch, 2004).
While people may experience the same activity, what they are looking for and what
they learn from it may be quite different depending initially on their point of
personal connection upon entry to the system. This is represented in Figure 14 by
the arrows pointing into the system from different entry points. Some students
entered with an interest in subject creating activity and hoped to build personal
confidence and personal experience, others through an interest in social
engagement, whilst others entered with an interest in the domain of drama and a
focussed desire to build their knowledge and skills. Others were in it for the
experience of the performance outcome. Of course, many engaged through a
number of these entry points.
Figure 14 Different entry points to an activity system

5.3.3 Roles and division of labour

The enactment of collective activity requires subjects to take on different roles and
for a division of labour to be determined or emerge. For some participants there
was clarity around the division of labour and what that might mean in terms of
responsibilities and authority. For others, the defining of this only arose throughout
the enactment of activities.

School drama teachers were the directors of each group’s activities. They acted in
roles endowed with the authority to make the key decisions about what the
creative work would be about and how their group would express this. They were
the ones with the responsibility for determining the artistic shape of the dramatic
work. They were also the ones who determined student access to the online spaces
set up for the project. Students were participants in the devising process and the
performers of the final work. They had input into creative decisions made at their
school level to varying degrees. The overall text decisions were made largely by
teachers, but students had different degrees of input into how the work would be
shaped and expressed, and choices about costumes, music and so on.
Artists were employed as skill experts and they led workshop activities whereby
they modelled and demonstrated performance skills and coached students. In
some cases they were endowed with a position from which they were able to give
critical feedback (especially at cluster workshops or at the invitation of the teacher).
My role was as a researcher and webmaster. I set up and monitored the
communications occurring through the online spaces and collected data through
survey and observation.

What is quite significant is the role that the professional organisation’s leaders
played in the project, and the way they came to exercise power and authority.
Whilst they were not involved in the day‐to‐day operations and coordination of the
project, the principles that they developed and circulated to project teachers
significantly impacted on the outcomes of the project. The organisation’s
management committee decision to not appoint one overall artistic director for the
project meant that all the teachers were the primary decision makers for the
realisation and negotiation of the work. This led to issues later on when it came to
working out how the nine different pieces of work could be linked in a cohesive
way.

5.3.4 Rules
To consider what the rules were that governed activity requires a consideration of
the range of rules that operate within school systems as part of their ongoing
operations. These include published policy documents, as well as the tacit rules
that govern the operations of the classroom and school related activities. These
relate to notions of appropriateness of content, of the duty of care teachers have
towards students and discipline systems that are in place within schools. Rules also
related to the use of Internet spaces from within schools and these impacted on
the way the online spaces ended up being used (or not). I developed a set of
netiquette rules to try and promote appropriate online communications between
participants (see Appendix M) and these were uploaded to the project wikis.

Rules for activity across the overall project were not explicitly identified as such,
however, a set of project principles in many ways acted as a set of de‐facto rules.
The principles set some parameters for the roles and division of labour, tools and
kinds of interactions between teachers and students that should occur. These
principles were published on the professional association’s website and were
included in the information package created for the project. The principles
identified include strong statements about power sharing and co‐artistry between
teacher‐artists, students and artists.

While the principles clearly made statements about student involvement in all
phases of the project, in most cases, students were not involved in the process of
the initial decision making about the pre‐texts or focus for their work. When the ICT
components of the project were added, access to those relied on the teacher
interest and confidence with ICT use. Unless teachers were interested in engaging
in this aspect of creative practice, student access was restricted.

What also became apparent as the intervention was introduced was that the rule
structures that govern school access to and use of technology were far more
powerful determinants of creative practice possibilities using ICTs than any specific
project rules. The organisation exercised power and control over the property and
there was limited flexibility evident in rule negotiation at an institutional level
regarding web‐based tool use.

5.3.5 Tools, artefacts and media use

Whereas with other artforms the materials and objects utilised to mediate and
express ideas may lie outside of the artist, with drama the main tool is the body, its
kinaesthetic and locomotive possibilities and the spoken word. Dewey calls these
kinds of arts the automatic arts in contrast to the shaping arts which “depend to a
much greater extent upon materials external to the body” (Dewey, 1934, p. 236).
Ideas from the participant must be mediated and expressed through embodied
actions, speech and movement through space and time. Instructions and advice
may be received from an external source (from the teacher or other participants),
then the participant has to interpret them, and enact concepts in an active and
generally immediate way. This is also a mediated process, in that thought is ordered
and interpreted through the cultural tools, the mind and body of the participant.
Other kinds of external tools and artefacts were used in these live processes. These
included the use of music and stimulus text or scripts. The music influenced the
movement and activity in that choices regarding movement (energy expressed, size
of movement, emotion, intensity of expression and so forth) were determined in
relation to the music. The enacted activity was amended and adjusted to fit the
rhythm and tempo of the music. So in this way, music was used as a tool, responses
to it were mediated through the discussion and embodied action of the
participants.

The written material which was incorporated was an artefact and also a tool that
was used. A range of material was selected by teachers to act as pre‐text for
dramatic developments. It is worth revisiting here the concept of a pre‐text. This
term is generally used to refer to something that can connect participants to other
people, places and times and launch them into the drama. The pre‐text provides
some parameters and suggests possibilities for characters and a call to action from
the participants (O’Neill, 1998). For this project the teachers from each team
selected a pre‐text for their cluster, each of these were quite different (one was an
Indigenous legend, one a famous poem, and the third was a story about a farmer
and a pond impacted by drought), but all had to relate to the central idea of water
stories. The use of the written text helped to mediate participant ideas to begin
with, as they determined movement and spoken text that enacted the concepts
they had drawn from the text. The written text was also mediated as it was
constructed, edited and rewritten across the forming process.

5.4 The intervention

The planned nature of the intervention for this project was that of including the use
of ICTs and cyberspaces to create opportunities for participant interaction and text
creation. This would mean that participants operating within different but related
activity systems would be able to share their learning. In terms of the activity
system, it was intended that participants use the digital tools to help communicate
and develop dramatic concepts and artefacts. Rules were outlined about
appropriate use through the creation of wiki netiquette and guidelines for the
teachers. The online activity was to be complementary to the live process, with
teachers and project coordinators being able to moderate their own spaces, with
assistance and support provided by the researcher.

At the beginning of the project a range of options were canvassed before a decision
was made about online spaces to be used and designed. The aim was to utilise
cyberspaces where various participants could upload material, interact, build and
contribute to the drama. An educational wiki seemed the most appropriate space as
it could be set up to allow any approved member to add or edit material, including
images and other media files.

At the time of initiating the GBD project, there was no wiki option within the
Education Department’s e‐learning platform (The Learning Place) that could be
readily accessed by all project participants (including those from non‐government
schools). Therefore a wiki space was used hosted on www.wikispaces.com. This
provider was offering to host educational projects for free and promoted its use by
a number of school and university groups elsewhere in the world. Four separate
wiki spaces were set up – one for each cluster (also at times called teams) which
comprised three schools groups and one for teachers. An example of the
homepage for a team wiki can be seen in Figure 15.

Figure 15 Sample wiki page

The process of enrolment involved teachers being sent an email inviting them to
enrol in the wiki. The teacher acted as the gatekeeper for student access to these
spaces. Therefore the teacher’s level of confidence regarding the operations and
value of the spaces impacted on student knowledge and access. Students from only
three schools enrolled as wikispace users, predominantly on one cluster’s site.

Throughout the course of the project, only one student ever posted to an actual
wiki page, the students mostly used the discussion boards which could be accessed
at the top of the team pages. They found these boards themselves and used them
at night, sometimes in a way that was quite similar to Instant Messaging (with quick
responses in almost synchronous time). They mainly used them to introduce
themselves and discuss their perceptions of how the work was developing.

5.4.1 Rules regarding specific ICT tool use by participants within

schools
It was not until a week or so after the project initiating workshop that I realised that
Education Queensland had in place institutional filters which block student, and in
this case teacher, access to all social networking spaces and wikis from school
computers. The systemic filters block access to a wide range of sites, including most
where students can share and post content ‐ including MySpace, YouTube and all
wikis and blogs. Figure 16 shows the type of message that appeared when students
and teachers tried to access the wikis that had been set up for the project.

Figure 16 Onscreen response when access to blocked sites is attempted

To begin with teachers believed that having these filters removed was simply a
question of them approaching the computing coordinator within the school and
asking to have the block for their specific wiki removed. It soon became apparent
that this process was far more complicated and the institutional filter could not
easily be lifted.

I was directed by one school to speak to the education department’s Central Office
personnel and after a lengthy telephone conversation with a senior officer from the
e‐learning branch, my attention was drawn to the following information:
Filtering is currently based on a selection of Smart Filter Bess Edition
categories. For students these are: Anonymizers, anonymizing utilities,
criminal skills, dating/social, drugs, extreme, gambling, gambling related,
game/cartoon violence, gruesome content, hacking, hate speech, instant
messaging, malicious sites, messaging, nudity, p2p/file sharing, personal
network storage, personal pages, phishing, pornography, profanity,
provocative attire, remote access, school cheating information, sexual
materials, shareware/freeware, spam email URLs, spyware, violence,
weapons, web ads, and web phone. Exceptions are allowed for Business,
History, Education, Medical and For Kids. (Department of Education &
Training, 2007b)

What is perhaps surprising is the inclusion of social activities, instant messaging and
personal pages in the same filtering system as pornography and criminal skills.
Upon enquiry I was told by the departmental contact that wiki and blog sites were
not to be accessed by schools because through links on various pages, students
might be directed towards sites with inappropriate content. This presented a
security risk the department was not prepared to take.

Information on their website indicates that it may be possible for the school MIS
(Management Information Systems) Administrator to lift a block at a local level:
If staff/students at a school wish an Internet site that displays this message
to be made available to them they should discuss this with their MIS
 Administrator. The MIS Administrator should check their school's filter list to
see if it is blocked at the local level. If so, it can easily be removed by them.
(Department of Education & Training, 2007a)

However this was not the case. The school based MIS administrators could not
themselves remove the blocks, but this was something teachers could not
determine immediately. Some of the teachers started emailing me regarding their
requests and the fact that at first they thought their own school technicians could
solve the problem:
We cannot access the wiki space... our technicians are working on it.. . .I
hope this doesn't pose a problem for tomorrow!! (RF, Email
communications 16 Feb, 2007)

Wiki progress has gone nowhere yet …We apparently have to get clearance
from Central Office. Once email is working, then I'll start to harass them. (SB,
Email communications, 9 March, 2007)

Eventually it became clear that schools would have to apply to Central Office
personnel for clearance, but it should be noted at no time could teachers find any
policies or documents that clearly stated what was blocked in all schools and how
they could negotiate the removal of blocks. The teacher from one school persisted
with the process which involved multiple phone calls and email exchanges.
However, when the teacher took his students to a computer lab and tried to edit
wiki pages, it then emerged that each page students used would require separate
clearance. In the end the teacher decided it was not going to be practical to use the
wikis at school and the process would not be workable. Most other teachers gave
up trying to negotiate this process. Many didn’t pursue the use of the wikis as part
of the project, though several did but through encouraging students to access the
spaces at home at night.

This restricted access to web‐based spaces that allow social networking between
young people is a major issue for educators who wish to engage in utilising digital
technologies for collaborative purposes. Commentators including Hartley (2005;
Hartley, 2007) and Notley (2008) have been critical of the creation of this walled
garden however fear of litigation and child protection issues mean that education
authorities are unlikely to readily change their policies. This is a situation that is
replicated in many countries (Goodson, Knobel, & Lankshear, 2002), with the US
and the UK also having systemic filter systems operating in educational institutions
that block student access to YouTube, MySpace and other social networking spaces.
Media academic Henry Jenkins believes this blocking of Internet access and
activities at schools serves to increase the digital divide (and this further
disadvantages those students who do not have 24/7 broadband access at home).
He believes that schools should be involved in teaching students how to work
responsibly in these spaces and equipping them with strategies to deal with any
unwanted encounters (AoC NILTA, 2006; Jenkins, 2006).

I discovered early in the project that many adults are deeply suspicious and scared
about young people’s on‐line communications. By encouraging students to
collaborate and communicate online it was suggested I was inviting trouble,
opening up spaces for cyber‐bullying and online predator attacks. While computers
in schools are generally seen as being good, I was made to feel that encouraging
communications through computers at schools was a risky business and could lead
to no good. I was encouraged to consider only using the more formalised
educational e‐learning spaces that the Education Department provided for their
schools. However for the pilot project that could not be easily organised because of
the involvement of non‐government schools.

These kinds of experiences identified that there were contradictions emerging

around the rules and tool use – in this case with the online tools which had been
introduced into the activity system. Within departmental sites the rule really was
that only their e‐learning platform should be used, and attempts to use
communicative spaces outside of this walled garden were regarded with deep
suspicion. The context for the activity within the formal educational system meant
activity was impacted upon by an authoritative exercising of power. This allowed
little room for negotiation or flexibility in teacher selection of technological tools
outside of those offered by the system.
5.5 Key issues and events from the project
As the project progressed it became evident that the key aim that I had for the
project – using the ICTs and online spaces for actually creating the drama and
working in‐role – was not going to be realised. Only three groups used the wiki
spaces, and while the intended purpose had been for students and teachers to post
dramatic material to the wiki pages, the actual wiki pages were rarely used.
Students left the official spaces for the teachers to use, they used the discussion
forums for a number of different purposes, including the official purpose (talking
about the drama) but also social purposes, trying to get to know others.

The interactions and utterances within these spaces indicated that this intervention
was situated within a space that was a new territory – not quite school and not
quite non‐school. They were using the spaces at home but for a school‐related
activity. This territory was a site that participants used to explore different
utterances and genres, some not usually encountered with an educational context.
This meant that some participants were able to make utterances and manage
interactions in ways that they might not normally be able to in a face‐to‐face
classroom setting. As the use of the wikispaces was limited because of the firewalls
in schools, their use became less clearly linked to the central goal or outcome for
the activity and became a peripheral or optional activity.

5.5.1 Significance of contradictions and crises points

Within activity theory and Engeström’s theory of expansive learning these kinds of
disruptions and contradictions may be seen as key opportunities for learning.
Activity theory analysis seeks to identify where these occur, where the ruptures are
between different components of the system and how these are dealt with and
used as sites for innovation and change. In relation to the GBD project, what had
emerged was a contradiction arising from the introduction of new tools into the
activity system, and in particular in regard to rules regarding access to and use of
these tools.
Engeström (2009) asserts that contradictions are not the same as problems or
conflicts, but are structural ruptures and in response organisational shifts can occur.
In activity theory and expansive learning the identification of possible shifts that
may occur are significant. For this project some shifts were enacted at a structural
level, however most were responded to at a more individual level as the education
department was not really open to negotiating shifts in their institutional practices.

The contradictions and crises points for the GBD project became evident through a
range of what could be called micro‐level interactions, in particular postings to
discussion boards on the wikispace for one cluster. With the GBD project, the use
of the wikis ended up occurring outside of school time, with only three of the nine
groups using the spaces at night. The nature of the communications at times
moved outside of the tacit rule structure of regular classroom communications and
some of the interactions were deemed inappropriate and problematic. Various
student participants were using the online spaces in a struggle to achieve possible
power and agency in the creative process (in particular to try and find clear links for
the different drama pieces each group created). The online spaces were initially
viewed as problematic by participating teachers because of the way some students
used them.

In a face‐to‐face drama process participants generally meet in the same physical

space, are able to use and read a range of communicative modes and are able to
make immediate adjustments and negotiations to keep the activity progressing.
The demonstration of inappropriate languages and actions can be monitored,
regulated and negotiated in immediate ways. The issue in online environments is
that the message is primarily communicated through text form. This means that
many of the cues that are typically used in FtF communications such as tone of
voice, gesture, eye contact and body language are missing, therefore
communications through these CMCs can present opportunities but also the
potential for difficulties. Any negative interactions posted can acquire a form of
impermanent permanence that the spoken work generally does not have. Emails
sent in haste, IM conversations, disagreements on forums can all be saved and
permanent records created (Boyd, 2006, 2007a). It seemed therefore that issues
arose because students weren’t clear on the contract of what was expected. They
were also engaging in using some social languages and utterances that may have
been appropriate in non‐school contexts, but in the case of this quasi‐institutional
environment made up of participants who were unknown to each other, the
utterances were not always appropriate.

Within this activity system, different shifts and opportunities for learning were
possible for different participants. For one of the students, Madgirl3 the
contradiction was manifest at a personal level. Her attempts to influence the
negotiation of the performance outcome through comments made online were not
well received. Her offers were blocked, ignored and critiqued and some language
use was problematic. Because of the blocks on the wiki use at school, this activity
was occurring at night and the teachers were not monitoring this interchange.
These problematic interchanges led to a personal experience of crisis and her
withdrawal from using the online spaces. Whilst some learning may have occurred
for her, it was not expansive learning in an organisational sense. On the other hand,
experiences of what Engeström (1987) calls expansive learning appeared to emerge
from the way another participant responded to the crisis, manoeuvred shifts and
found new solutions. One of the teachers, Jake, was willing to consider ways to
adapt interaction strategies. This contradiction (in activity theory terms) led to him
developing a shift, and a new live workshop process to ensure students could
express their ideas about the work. This was therefore a new tool which shifted the
rules and division of labour regarding the management of the system outcome (see
Figure 17).

3
Madgirl is a pseudonym selected by the researcher to meet the parameters of the ethical clearance
processes and protect the identity of the student. The name was chosen with the intent of reflecting
some aspects of the username that Madgirl had chosen for himself.
Figure 17 Contradictions, shifts and possibilities for expansive learning

For me, the options for negotiating shifts in that particular activity structure were
limited. Whilst Engeström asserts that contradictions are not the same as problems
or conflicts, but are structural ruptures, these contradictions are experienced by
subjects for who shifts and organisational learning opportunities may be limited. I
would assert that institutions often do not deal positively with contradictions or
disruptions and many individuals may not be in a position to change the structure
and operation of an activity system. In this case the Education Department was not
going to shift their processes and the authoritative exercising of power allowed for
no negotiation on its behalf. Change had to be enacted by the subjects, not the
overarching institution. Therefore the way some subjects experienced the
contradiction may be more appropriately described as a personalised experience of
crisis.

In reviewing the data I could identify examples of contradiction and crises, and the
experience of crisis, for Madgirl in particular, impacted on her opportunity for
creative practice and learning. Through analysing the data and experiences of what
happened in relation to the theoretical frames I was working with, I recognised that
these contradictions and crisis points were identifiable, but at that time were being
ignored or not spoken about. It seemed important therefore to acknowledge and
identify what had occurred and use the theoretical work I was drawing on to
analyse and explain what had happened.

5.5.2 The contribution of online interactions to student learning

In terms of the concepts of activity theory, what this case demonstrated was a
number of contradictions emerging about digital tool access and rules. One
teacher, however, was able to respond to the contradiction and negotiate shifts in
activity and the negotiation of power. They facilitated an activity where the rules
about how subjects could express their concerns were changed. As part of their
following cluster meetings all participants were able to provide both positive and
critical feedback about the object and the experiences. These protocols drew on
aspects of the Tune‐In Protocol, a protocol used by some teachers to discuss and
analyse student work (Australian National Schools Network and Coalition of
Essential Schools 2001; Allen and McDonald 1995). The teacher led a shift involving
the tools and signs used, so that tools were provided in the face‐to‐face, live
environment.

The use of the online spaces, whilst seen as problematic, had allowed subjects to
express some of their concerns about the nature of the object and this was then
acknowledged by the teachers involved. In other clusters that did not use the
online spaces, the opportunities for students to express these views were
restricted. This was evident when several students in one group wrote comments
on their mid‐point surveys saying how they wanted to have more student input. The
online communications had provided a space for the student voice and for them to
express their concerns, particularly about how the three drama works could be
linked to make a coherent whole. It had also provided a space to engage in
internally persuasive discourses to negotiate power and eventually enabled more
student input into the shaping of the collective outcome.
5.5.3 Activity and power
An emerging issue for this case related to the multi‐faceted operations of power
impacting upon the activity and the use of ICT tools. At a macro level, the situating
of the activity within a formal educational institution meant that the hierarchical
decision making process operated in authoritative ways. Negotiation was only
possible in relation to the tools the system provided and responsive feedback
processes about this were restricted.

At another level, subjects within one activity group were able to negotiate the
exercising of power in a number of ways to eventually allow for more democratic
power relations than perhaps those in many live classroom settings. For example,
in the school classroom context it is possible that the teacher can limit and monitor
who speaks, when and how often, to a large degree. They may determine how
much utterance time is provided for each student and manage the number of
utterances. In the online context, unless a teacher moderates each posting, the
amount of airtime that other participants have and how they position themselves
status wise (in relation to the teacher and other participants) may be quite different
than in the face‐to‐face context. Not too many students would say this to a teacher
in the classroom context:
Teachers sometimes fail to accommodate everyone in their talks, I felt your
speech was prolonged a tad too much... (Hercules4, Forum Posting,
29/03/07)

Although this style of utterance may be deemed inappropriate in a classroom

context, it did mean that in this online space students were able to disrupt
normative classroom interactions such as teacher question, student answer and
teacher response. Students were able to lead more of the speech sequences, pose
more questions and make evaluative statements. Therefore issues were articulated
by students that may not have been in the usual classroom setting and these
students had the opportunity to deal with issues that other clusters did not. In
terms of power, some students were using the online spaces to establish a form of

4
Hercules is a pseudonym selected by the researcher to meet the parameters of the ethical
clearance processes and protect the identity of the student. The name was chosen with the intent of
reflecting some aspects of the username that Hercules had chosen for himself.
authority (Hercules authority arose from his demonstrated superior skills with ICT
use and through force of personality) and take power.

What was evident through the online exchanges was the negotiation and
operations of power emerging from the micro‐level interactions. When a subject
made an offer online, they were staking a claim. If this was accepted and
reinforced, that claim was to some degree confirmed. If they were ignored by
others, or their offer blocked or rejected, their power claim was diminished. The
importance of reinforcement was particularly evident for establishing the power
base for Hercules.

Hercules entered the online space and quickly established himself as the opinion
leader of the online world, and a major player for this project. The first step he took
towards achieving this was to go through and post on all fourteen threads
established at that time. Secondly, he established both a knowledgeable and
critical tone, making comments about the work of other schools with confidence
and assurance:
I like your motives and can see some good future development with this
idea. (Hercules, Forum posting 20/3/07)

Hercules also established himself as having some expertise in relation to digital

technologies and online communications. He did this in a number of ways. On one
thread a teacher had asked how to resize photos. Whilst this question had already
been answered, Hercules also responded and showed more sophisticated
knowledge, recommending an online tool the teacher could use.

Responses and reinforcement from other participants from his immediate activity
group indicated that Hercules was well respected by other students from his school.
On numerous occasions they made comments such as: “Hey Hercules summed it all
up pretty much in a few words” (L, Forum posting, 21/03/07) and “Hey Hercules
good point it does get annoying when people write like that” (M, Forum posting
21/03/07). His standing was also supported by his teacher: “Oh yes, Hercules is a
very interesting character and actually a very valuable class member” (Macca,
Forum posting 24/03/ 2007).

Hercules’ status as the lead player in the online environment was unquestionably
confirmed after he posted two images to represent the pond which the drama piece
was focusing on. These images showed evidence of image manipulation using a
program such as Photoshop. This posting was met with compliments from teacher
and student participants from other schools as well as his own:
Hello Hercules. …. Want to say, really like your pond image you have
constructed with that program you are using. Noice! (sic) I definitely think
there is a beautiful link right there in that image for all of us. Awesome.
(Jake, Forum posting, 29/03/2007)

Yeah I agree with Mr Jake, Hercules :) (R, Forum posting, 29/03/2007)

Another posting then goes on to suggest that Hercules’ interest in digital design
could be developed into a future career. His response cemented his place as the
central player in this online community. In terms of digital skills and experience his
status became absolute, with Hercules making statements about his experience
indicating a level of professional experience well beyond the scope of most year 10
students:
… Ah yes, already got to that part of things. I currently fulfil various
positions with companies across the world building websites, corporate
identities, software and graphics etc. I’m thoroughly fond of the fact I can
earn money and really enjoy what I do. (Hercules, Forum posting 1/04/
2007)

Hercules’ status was therefore unquestioned as the highest status player within the
online community. He also established himself as a digital creative and a drama
creative through his critical feedback on the work of all groups involved. He
continually monitored and commented on the work of others, even on threads set
up by other schools groups which were intended for their sole use. His position of
authority was accepted by other participants and he was rarely publicly criticized by
others. Through the establishment of this powerful position he was able to
influence the discussion in significant ways.

What is also evident, though, is that participants were willing to concede power,
when they felt intimidated (such as by Hercules), or when they trusted or respected
another participant. On the forum discussions students at times validated
statements teachers had made in class or decisions they had made:
…didn’t the teachers decide on the idea of the farmer I don't really see a
problem with it... (Nat, Forum Discussion, 21 March 2007)

Students as well as teachers were also keen to concede power to someone to take
on an overall artistic or decision making role. This was clearly evident in the teacher
debrief with the concept of director emerging out of the data analysis. A review of
the transcript highlights the notion of artistic direction a being a key concern. It also
provides an indication of the way teachers wanted to endow and share power in
the negotiation of the artistic work throughout the process:
Karen: I felt that it would have been good to have an artistic director. I felt
at times like we needed more support, that I was a little at sea. (Teacher
debrief 31 March, 2007, lines 22‐24)

Beth: I do think a director visiting all the schools would be good though, and
if they could fire suggestions at you but and then it was back to us that
would be good…. (later) There are plusses to that approach. Someone to
help select style and form. (Teacher debrief 31 March, 2007, lines 46‐48 and
148‐149)

Teachers and students wished to invest power in someone to have artistic

management control of the overall collective work of the imagination. Clearly this
person had to be someone they could trust, who had credibility and experience in
the artform. Teachers still wished to maintain a role in decision making for their
group, however, they did not want to have power shared equally at all times. Some
teachers in fact felt that the learning opportunities for them and their students
were reduced because they were trying to power share between them.
What this discussion indicates is that power needs to be acknowledged within the
construction and operation of an activity system. It can be seen as operating at a
number of different levels, particularly at the institutional and micro levels, and in
both positive and negative ways.

Power was being invested in organisational structures and tools with little room for
negotiation. However in the micro‐level interactions of the drama classroom and
the online environment, it may be negotiated and flexible. Power at this level was
negotiated, manipulated and reinforced. This was not always seen in a negative
way, in fact participants saw the investment of power in someone other than
themselves as having the potential to improve the collective outcome. Endowing
someone with power and authority was dependent on a sense of trust and believing
there was the potential for exchange and change – that there would still be the
option for power sharing and negotiation. Teachers did not want to be dictated to
and students wanted to have a say and a sense of agency in the process.

5.6 Conclusions
The GBD project was a drama performance project which had ICT‐based
components introduced into the activity system with an intention of improving
communications and content creation opportunities. The introduction of the ICT
intervention led to contradictions within the activity system. Institutional rules of
the overarching context of schooling meant the online spaces could not be accessed
in school time. The use of the online spaces outside of school time led to a series of
crisis experiences and contradictions about tool use, role and rules.

The nature of the communications at times moved outside of the tacit rule
structure regarding regular classroom communications and some of the interactions
were deemed inappropriate and problematic. Various participants were using the
online spaces in a struggle to achieve possible power and agency in the creative
process. The online space provided a territory for the struggle to be made public
but also a space where students could have a voice. The contradictions within the
activity system impacted on a number of participants in different ways. A range of
shifts occurred within the activity system in response, some of these were enacted
at the level of the activity community, others were responded to at a more
individual level. Agency opportunities for different participants were contested
with some participants achieving more superior status, whilst one in particular was
disenfranchised.

The institutional enactment of power and control over tool use, meant that for me
the ability to make shifts in tool use for that particular activity structure were
limited. I was not invested with any power to do so for this project. I was able to
identify shifts that could be made in the construction of an activity system for
future projects though. This was particularly so in relation to roles and division of
labour and use of online tools. Significant learning for me also emerged once these
kinds of experiences of contradiction and crisis were recognised as possibly being
common in creative processes. Rather than avoiding these contradiction and crisis
experiences, they were used as the basis for the next stage of planning for future
creative projects.

Another key finding related to identifying that participants had various objects for
their involvement in the activity, and these related to themselves as subjects, to
social engagement with a community and to domain tools, signs and artefacts.
These existed alongside their commitment to the overarching goal for the whole
GBD project. For many students the personal and social learning that emerged
from the creative process was as significant (if not more so) than the drama learning
that occurred. Participants had different motivations and interests for engaging in
the project activities and for some of them there was little interest in engaging with
ICTs for creative practice in a drama process.

What the findings from this case also suggest is that notions of power need to be
considered in relation to activity theory and any analysis of human activity. It was
apparent that the authoritative power invested in the overarching institutions the
activities occurred within presented a primary frame that determined the nature of
activity. In particular the rules governing ICT tool use presented a primary
contradiction for the intended activity for this case.
On an activity system level, the planned outcome was the creation of a new drama
work which was a collective symbolic work of the imagination. It did not just exist
within the mind of one person, but had to be conceived and shared by many. Its
negotiation required many interactions, both live and those that occurred online.
This required subjects to negotiate power, to assume positions of power and
concede power. Power in this context is manifest and exercised through the micro‐
level interactions that occur. This can be realised through interactions involving
making offers, accepting and reinforcing them or rejecting and ignoring them.

What the project demonstrated was that the ICT introduction into the drama
learning environment was very clearly an intervention that disrupted the school and
project activity structures in multiple ways. During this project the original intent,
for how the online spaces could be used, was not able to be realised. Some
expansive and creative learning may have emerged, however, the online spaces had
never been used within the dramatic frame or context. The focus case study
project was therefore planned to have a more deliberate exploration of how ICTs
could be used to create drama and to further explore the research questions.
6. Focus Case: The Immortals Interactions, coartistry
and identity activity

6.1 Introduction
This research study began with aims regarding the creation of cyberdrama in school
contexts and identifying processes which might support creative practice and
learning. To explore and research these possibilities two case studies were planned.
The development of this focus case study project was shaped and influenced by the
learnings which emerged from a pilot case study project. In particular with this
second project the intent was to explore how various ICTs could be used for drama
development within the dramatic frame as this had not been possible through the
previous case. This would entail using spaces that were accessible within the
institutional e‐learning platform and experimenting with the use of dramatic
concepts, roles and situations.

The previous case had made clear that the introduction of the use of ICTs into a
school drama program represented a significant intervention into the usual activity
system for drama curriculum. To avoid some of the experiences of contradiction
evident from the previous case (where access to the Internet was an issue) I also
sought to work in a school which had close to ideal educational ICT facilities and
access. Another key intent was that students should have significant input into the
development of the drama and be able to utilise online spaces and digital
technologies to enact learning tasks, engage in interactions and be able to make
creative decisions.

The research process was also refined as a result of learnings from the pilot study.
In particular the decision was made to focus on one specific class group, rather than
a number of schools. The focus on one cluster of three school groups in the pilot
study had not permitted the opportunity to develop the depth of contextual
knowledge and insight into participant motivations that the study required. The
intent was with the focus case to identify what has been called emic issues, or those
that arise from the participants within the activity, as well as etic issues, that is
those brought to the study by the researcher (Stake, 1995).

This case study is organised in the following way. An introduction to the school and
project context will set the scene. The activity system will then be mapped, with
some components elaborated upon drawing on research data. In particular the
subjects and their creative backgrounds are outlined including Internet access and
usage preferences. The intervention is explained with a focus on the ICTs and
online spaces which were used. Incidents of contradiction and experiences of crisis
are identified: one involving Harrison5 which emerged before the project began,
and the others involving the teacher and another student, Jaida6, are dealt with
later in the case. The kinds of interactions that were utilised throughout the project
are analysed with a focus on different kinds of tools that were used within the
activity. The possibilities for practice and learning that emerged or were blocked
will be examined. Possible shifts will be analysed in relation to the experiences of
different students. This analysis will be particularly relevant for identifying what
kinds of learning students identified as occurring and the impact of ICTs and related
tools.

6.2 Context for The Immortals project

6.2.1 School context
In 2007 the state education department set up a number of differentiated, selective
academies which were part of the department’s response to the then Premier’s
Smart State initiative. Schools of excellence were to be built with one focusing on
Maths, Science and Technology and another on Creative Industries. Since then a
third school has been set up with a focus on Health Sciences. This case study
project occurred within the school focused on Creative Industries. The schools were
aiming to attract the best and brightest of the state’s students, from years 10‐12.

5
Harrison is a pseudonym selected by the researcher to meet the parameters of the ethical
clearance processes and protect the identity of the student.
6
Jaida is also a pseudonum selected by the researcher to meet the parameters of the ethical
clearance processes and protect the identity of the student.
Students from government and non‐government schools were welcome to apply,
with the marketing of the programs clearly aiming at those parents and students
with specific academic aspirations: “Our aim is to be the world‐class learning
environment of choice for the aspirational creative generation” (Project School
website).

To apply for entry to these academies students had to sit an aptitude test and go
through an interview and selection process. With a goal to educate students for a
global market, the academies have adopted the International Baccalaureate
Diploma Program for their curriculum program with links made to key universities.
We want to nurture the next generation of creative entrepreneurs and
cultural citizens to push the boundaries of excellence in the arts and build
social cohesion in our global and multicultural society. (Project School
website)

When this case study project occurred, the school was approximately seven months
in to its first year of operation.

6.2.2 Project context

The Immortals was created in collaboration with drama teacher, Hayley Linthwaite,
working with eighteen 15‐16 year old students enrolled in a Theatre Arts subject in
a school context. Over the course of one school term, students worked in groups to
create roles in response to a digital pre‐text. They created video clips which were
uploaded to YouTube and to a Blackboard site within The Learning Place (the
education department’s e‐learning platform). Participants built characters and the
narrative through contributing to wikis and blogs set up on Blackboard, as well as to
a space within the social networking space Ning. Both the teacher and I worked in‐
role, creating different roles that responded to the pre‐text alongside students.
Whilst other users could view some video material and the Ning space throughout
the drama, external audience input was minimal. Students did share their work at
the end of the project in a live face‐to‐face presentation with an audience of
parents and friends. They could also share the online postings from Ning and
YouTube with other contacts online.
This case study was to be based on a curriculum unit that was new for the school
and the teacher concerned and so there was some flexibility around how it could be
realised. However, it was also to occur within an environment where expectations
of quality outcomes were apparent and the time constraints for the unit were
extremely tight. The nature of student involvement in several key school projects at
the start of term, and allowances for exam preparation and implementation at the
end of term meant that we effectively had only six weeks to teach and assess the
unit of work. We therefore wanted to work out a structured program that could set
up the parameters for students to operate within but also give them maximum
potential for creative input and content creation.

In The Immortals, some decisions were made by the teacher and I before the drama
was launched with the students. We decided that the focus of the drama should
link to some concepts being explored in another subject students were studying
focused on the Future Body. We also wanted to create a dramatic world which
allowed for strong symbolic and metaphoric explorations and the possibility to
move beyond a documentary style. We therefore decided to focus on the question
“What would you do if you were offered immortal life?”

A process drama frame was used, and a pre‐text created as the launch pad for the
drama and the action. A pre‐text suggests possible problems to be solved,
characters, places and situations but leaders leave it open as to how each frame of
the drama progresses. They lay trails to begin with and see what participants
respond to and where they take it before reflecting on developments and
considering the next frame of the drama. A pre‐text was created that invited
participants to accept the gift of immortality and join The Immortals. Whilst some
dramatic conventions were decided upon in advance by the process leaders, the
storyline was not predetermined. As students created roles and responded to the
pre‐text, the dramatic text developed over several weeks through live and online
interactions. At the conclusion of the unit a performance event was held in the
evening and parents and friends were invited to attend. At this event, students
performed and presented in role and invited the audience to participate. The use of
technology in performance included the use of mobile phones and live Instant
Message chat which was projected onto a screen (see Appendix N for details of the
storyline of the drama as it emerged from the process and in performance).

A decision was also made to scaffold student learning through the formation of
groups rather than beginning the drama with each student creating a separate role.
The intention was to spread the students with existing film skills across the groups
and enable them to work as more knowledgeable peers for each other and
distribute their intelligence. Scaffolding tools were also to be provided through the
Blackboard site for the unit (see Appendix O for some examples). Different modules
were to be created for each week of the project, with the tasks, examples and
relevant tips and guides loaded there. This would provide materials that students
could access in a just in time manner when they needed them, rather than having
everyone work through material that they might not need.

6.2.3 Teacher and researcher coartistry

Hayley, the teacher involved in this project had significant experience as a practicing
performing artist as well as being a teacher. She had a strong professional
background, particularly in devising new work, physical theatre and circus
performance. It was the combination of educational and professional background
that secured her the position at the school of excellence where they were actively
recruiting teachers with industry experience. In recent years she had actively
developed school‐based performance work which incorporated a range of multi‐
media components. At the start of this project she had little experience in using e‐
learning platforms or Internet‐based spaces and social networks. She
acknowledged that the school was encouraging teachers to use the department’s
Learning Place sites though and she was keen for me to show her how to use them.
I was familiar with using these different spaces and so the intention was that I
would build the spaces and support her in learning how to use them.

The experience I had from the previous case study indicated to me that if I was to
play a role in constructing and managing interactions in these spaces, I could not
just play a functional administrator role. Hayley and I were both familiar with the
concept of co‐artistry from our drama teaching experience and so she agreed that
we would operate in this way. We therefore planned the overall framework of the
unit together, I attended classes at least once a week and we maintained regular
phone and email communications about developments in other lessons. We
reviewed developments each week and then planned the next step. Whilst she was
still very much their teacher, I supported classroom work where needed and
interacted directly with the students. As process drama leaders and co‐artists we
also worked within the drama with students. This meant that along with the
students we too created fictional roles, had our own wiki page, created video clips
and participated in the drama. This all meant that I was more of a participant
researcher for this project.

6.3 The nature of the activity system

This project can be conceived of as an activity system and some of the key
components identified (see Figure 18). This is particularly helpful to identifying the
impact of the use of ICTs as an intervention and the contradictions that arose. The
key components will be identified to begin with and then some specific components
will be elaborated upon in more detail drawing on data from the project.

Figure 18 Activity system for The Immortals cyberdrama project

For this project the main subjects or participants were the students enrolled in the
theatre arts or drama subject for that semester. The teacher and myself were also
subjects, especially in relation to our decision to scaffold and model the learning
through us creating whatever we asked them to create. Of secondary
consideration, but of relevance in the drama context, was the audience who were
also participants in the final presentation of the work. The overarching object of the
activity was to create dramatic products and evidence that could be counted as
assessable work within the formal education system. This was underpinned by
many other specific purposes and contexts throughout related to learning concepts
required to be able to complete the tasks. The tools and artefacts included the
primary tools of the drama process which were the bodies and experiences of the
participants. They also included cultural tools such as literary texts and scaffold
texts that were created to stimulate the work. In particular literature drawn from
the wider culture was used including poetry and mythology about immortality. The
key intervention tools were technology‐based tools and spaces that were used
within the project.

The students were being brought together to form one class community and this
was broken down into smaller working groups of three‐five students. Groups each
had to form and negotiate their own community rules and dynamics. These
communities were operating within the wider context of the school community and
the rule structures of this particular school and government schools in general.
Rules regarding Internet access and use were of particular relevance. The roles and
division of labour operated on different levels as well. In the overarching context
the teacher and I designed the task parameters and the requirements for the
student activity. The tasks were open‐ended though and students were able to
create their own responses within flexible constraints. Each group was set up to try
and ensure a spread of skill sets but the actual division of labour was negotiated
within each group (they decided who would act, record action, edit it, post material
to the Internet and so on). Other staff members within the school were drawn
upon as needed by the students, in particular the ICT coordinator and media
teachers. Of relevance to this, being a drama project, was that roles and division of
labour can also be considered within the context of the dramatic frame. Students
and teachers took on multiple roles inside and outside the dramatic frame
throughout the course of the project.

6.3.1 The subjects

The students who were part of the project were all enrolled in a theatre arts course
and had studied this subject for six months at the school. The teacher indicated,
however, that the prior experiences of students were quite varied and so before the
project began we decided to conduct an audit of background skills and experiences
(or technological and cultural tool facility). We decided to look at drama and
performance skills but also those of relevance to the cyberdrama project, in
particular experience related to Internet use and digital media.

This audit was conducted verbally with students sitting in a circle and one at a time
identifying their experience. I made notes of what they said and later checked
these with the teacher. From this audit it was evident that there were a number of
students with extensive performance experience, though not necessarily in drama.
There were also about a third of students with some film‐making experience and
were studying a film subject (see Figure 19).

Creative preferences N = 19

10

9
No of responses (multiple allowed)

7
Female
6 Male
4
5
3

Figure 19 Immortals student prior creative experience

At another session we also sought to identify the ICT skills students had and some
details about their Internet access and activities (see Figure 20, note that half the
class was not there on that particular day). This revealed that all students that
attended had Internet and broadband access at home, however not all of them
were allowed access all week, or their access to certain sites was restricted (for
example one student said she was not allowed to access any social networking sites
during the week). Key Internet activities were using MSN messenger to chat to
friends and using and managing MySpace sites. Most students also used the
Internet to download music, upload photos and a majority indicated they had
uploaded video content. However, later in the project it became clear that perhaps
some were overstating their experience here when it was evident that only several
students had ever uploaded to YouTube for example. While many students had
accounts and commented on others’ videos they were not actually uploading their
own. Several students indicated more specific engagement with online roleplay
games and creating animations. This evidence was useful for identifying the
different kinds of skill sets (or cultural tools) that students brought to the project
and was considered in the scaffolding and project design.

Internet access and creative use by gender N = 7

7
6

5
4 Male
Female
3
2

1
0

Figure 20 Immortals project ‐ student internet use

We also wanted to ascertain if students had any experience in creating drama
online and so asked them what they thought cyberdrama was or could be. Most
students were not sure to begin with but several suggested:
… an online forum ‐ something to do with role
… taking on roles on the Internet
… using text to tell the story
… incorporating new technology and media. (Fieldnotes, 6 September, 2007)

Several students said they had tried setting one up and that it was a type of fantasy
roleplay, focusing on supernatural themes. They also identified that another
student at the school (not doing drama) had tried to set one up but it “wasn’t very
good”. Further discussion about what cyberdrama could be included “Neighbours
on the Internet” and “something about humans involving feelings – like characters”.
They identified that it could include text, possibly video clips and “could maybe
involve 3D animation”. This indicated that they had some ideas of what it could be
though most did not have a clear vision of it. I also used that opportunity to show
them examples of webseries such as LonelyGirl 15 and my Master project cleo‐
missing.

6.3.2 Objects, outcomes and goalorientation

The importance of recognising different collective and subjective goals arising from
the same activity system arose as a key issue to be considered from the last case
study. It is pertinent to consider how that might play out in relation to this project
and the nature of learning different participants might take from it. As stated
already, the official overarching goal or object for the project related to the creation
of assessable dramatic work and evidence to be used for formal school assessment.
The kinds of concepts and objects for specific activities required individuals and
groups to demonstrate learning about specific drama concepts and the form
cyberdrama, the ideas of the work (immortality and mortality), concepts about
multi‐media construction and much more.
Student learning goals or motives to begin were varied, with some key themes
arising from student survey responses and their journal entries. One survey
question asked students “What do you hope to get out of the project for yourself?”
Student responses are summarised in Table 4 (note that not all students completed
the survey). This data indicates three clusters of anticipated outcomes for students.
Around half were focussed on developing more knowledge and experience in drama
(cultural tools and concepts), around a third were interested in learning more about
using technology and the Internet (technology‐based tools), and a third in the
generic experience and having fun.

Table 4 Student anticipated outcomes from The Immortals

What you hope to get out of the project? Number of responses

Broader knowledge about drama and theatre 6

More about technology/using the Internet/technology and 3

drama

‘Experience’ and fun 4

Total 13

An analysis of their early journal entries indicates around a third of the students
making positive comments about how they were feeling at the start of the project.
Half had mixed feelings, with many of them commenting on concerns about social
and group related issues. Three students made statements that indicated they had
some reservations about the project, one because of the group/class issues and two
made specific comments about the focus on cyberdrama. It is significant to note
that their reluctance stems from different angles, one being that of creative
preferences, with some students already identifying their preference for live
performance. One student, Jaida, had expressed clear preferences for live
theatrical production, and seemed to believe that cyberdrama would not be real
drama:

I’m a little sceptical about this cyberdrama thing as I still don’t really
understand how it works or how it’s going to be assessed in a final
 performance. I actually don’t think I’ll like it very much. (Jaida, Journal
entry, 9/10/07)

Another student (Harrison) had considerable experience in relevant Internet and

technology formats, but his preference was for satire and comedy. From the start
of the project he seemed to think the project would not allow him to explore his
content/form preference and that the work to be produced in school had to be
more symbolic and meaningful:

I’m aware of the idea of cyberdrama but I’ve seen it as just been a way of
having fun and creating some interesting/entertaining stories, not of
creating meaningful symbolic pieces. That kind of bores me. (Harrison,
Journal Entry 17/10/2007)

What is worth noting is that some of these attitudes and starting positions were not
clearly evident to the teacher and myself at the time. My diary entry for the date of
Harrison’s entry reads quite differently:

When they came in the room, they started this clapping chant “cyberdrama,
cyberdrama” I’m not sure why they’re so excited, perhaps it’s about being
able to use all their different skills, use the technology, doing something
new…. (extract from Project Diary, 17/10/07)

However, this was the lesson when the groups were later formed and the pre‐text
shared, so perhaps the initial enthusiasm of the group was not shared by all at the
end of the lesson, at least not in an overt fashion. What was significant was that
when I reviewed the case for where the contradictions and experiences of crisis
could be identified, Jaida and Harrison were the two key characters central to each
identified situation.

6.3.3 Tools and media use

Digital technologies used for this project included video cameras and Macbook
computers (that each student had). The Macbooks have within them the facility to
record sound, still and moving images. They also have software which allowed the
students to edit video and create media products. Students also used their mobile
phones and wanted to use iPods and other music storage devices. These
technologies had to be used to create mediatised dramatic products. The
requirement to work across a range of online spaces was introduced throughout the
first week and within each group different people had responsibility for maintaining
specific spaces (e.g. Blackboard wiki, Blackboard blog, Ning site). An overview of
the different online spaces, their purpose and who contributed to them is detailed
in Table 5.

Table 5 Online spaces and tools used for The Immortals

Online space or tool
Blackboard wiki space
Blackboard blog
Blackboard discussion
forum
Blackboard Story, Task
and Resource sections
YouTube
Ning
Purpose
Build pages for each
character and allow for
comments from others
(in‐role)
Allow for all participants
to post comments in‐role
within a common space,
to comment and hence
build relationships
Students invited to post
responses to questions
out‐of‐role. They could
also comment on the
process and ask questions
Provide texts and tools to
scaffold student activities
and learning
Upload video clips in
response to each module.
Work able to be shared
with an external audience
Groups to build character
profiles with facility to
add images, videos, music
and stylise the space.
Allowed for interactions
between characters and
an external audience
Contributors
Members from each
group contributed to
profile building. Some
commented in‐role on
each other’s profiles
Teachers in‐role
One or two participants
per character group
Teachers in‐role
Students and teachers
Teacher posted the
content, students could
use as required
Student developed
content, generally
uploaded by teachers
One student per group
posted material in‐role
Teachers also developed
profiles in‐role
The bodies of various participants were also used as tools for expressing their ideas
and mediating action. Various kinds of artefacts were used, these included
participant experiences, various texts (including images and music) and concepts
from the wider culture and mass media. These were used or created to help
express the ideas and concepts the students wanted to convey. The signs used to
mediate action include language, expressed as written text and spoken text, but
also gestural and kinaesthetic movement, as well as visual imagery and music.

6.4 Nature of the intervention

The project was situated within the formal curriculum for a Drama subject and was
to replace one that was to focus on contemporary performance. In the previous
semester another cohort had worked through the contemporary performance unit
and staged a series of performative events which utilised technology and multi‐
media in combination with staged action. The justification for changing the unit to
introduce cyberdrama was that this revised unit would provide students with
experiences in an emerging form of drama utilising technology and multi‐media
extensively in a variety of ways. In particular this project would use cyberspaces, e‐
learning platforms and forms of contemporary performance.

Whilst students may have had some experience in using some video and multi‐
media material in live performance, the shift of focus from the performative space
being predominantly in the live face‐to‐face mode to the Internet and cyberspace
indicated a key shift and intervention into the activity system. The drama learning
for the project was also quite different with dramatic elements such as role and
narrative playing a greater role than they would have in the contemporary
performance unit.

The use of a process or interactive drama frame impacted upon the nature of
activity. A teacher‐constructed framework was created which began with a digital
pre‐text being developed and task parameters being determined for each of four
modules. For The Immortals project students were invited to respond to a digital
pre‐text through working in small groups of 3‐4, creating one role per group. The
developing narrative was shaped through a set of structured activities that required
the groups to collaboratively create digital texts (including video clips) in response
to four module tasks. Scaffolded tasks began with a fairly simple multi‐media task,
creating a video log, with the focus on one character. Various cultural tools such as
documents and weblinks were also provided in the Blackboard site that could
provide students with information and stimulus material that could assist them in
completing each task. The multi‐media and drama requirements become more
complex as the modules progressed, module two was a news/current affairs report
and module three was a metaphoric or symbolic piece.

The teacher and I reviewed the responses from students each week before
determining what our response might be, reflecting on what had happened in the
drama and where it might go next. In doing so we tried to build on the offers
students had made in their work and extended on these. This indicates an attempt
to develop dialogic processes and provide agency and power sharing opportunities
for students and teachers. Table 6 shows the narrative developments, offers we
made and responses from the student groups for each character. The shaded
sections indicate offers which had significant impact on the developing drama.
 Table 6 Narrative offers, developments and scaffolding for The Immortals
Teacher offer TJ Zaiph Alice Marixa Keeley Scaffolding Tools
Digital pre‐text sent. A woman in her 40s A young man is The clip is in black and A young woman of A young woman who is Blank character profile.
Email and video clip who acts like a teenager suspicious about the white and shows a middle eastern origin a mime artist studying in Wiki page set up for
offering the receiver accepts the invitation offer and thinks young woman alone believes it is some kind France. She is not sure each character.
immortal life. thinking it is an someone is harassing throwing notes, of spiritual offer from what the offer means Links provided to
invitation to a new him. The clip is filmed splashing in water. her god. and is suspicious. literary stories about
dance club. to suggest he is being Poetic voice over which immortal characters
watched. recites some numbers. Information text about
Meaning is obscure but creating interesting
it is visually interesting. characters.
Short audio clip of a Audio interview with a News story about News report including Marixa is hounded by A news report showing Information texts about
news report alerting the media celebrity as for a possible cult group interviews with people news reporters who interviews with some of the construction of
population to the radio station. Photo called The Immortals, who received the email chase her and harass Keeley’s friends, audio is news stories
spread of an immortal shoot of character with this is interrupted and a and their response. her. clearly out of synch. Links to different video
virus online, questioning images posted to the shadowy figure explains Alice is shown at the Keeley posts a separate clips showing different
what it could mean. Ning space. that the immortals are end sitting on the floor video where she camera techniques used
taking control. The man watching. explains that someone in news and interview
speaks of the joining of has tampered with the reports.
man and machine and video – she asks that Link to BBC article on
the possibility for all to whoever is responsible scientific research about
enter the digital realm. stops hacking into her immortality and how it
Threatens those who life. She is angry and could be possible.
don’t accept. asks to be left alone.
Face‐to‐face class TJ encounters a Zaiph is seen writing on Alice is shown sitting Highly metaphoric video Keeley has returned Information texts about
roleplay with teachers mysterious character in a note pad. He accepts under a tree throwing showing water being home and is lost and use of metaphor.
entering in role as a bus shelter who offers the inevitable. notes written on paper. poured into a crystal confused, she does not Link to video clips
secret agents her something. She She does not speak – glass and a sink filled know who to trust. Mad showing use of
interrogating students refuses, her daughter she is asking for help. with flowers. Drops of World is the music used metaphoric imagery.
about what they know later drowns in their blood fall into the water and movement is
about The Immortals pool. and then the water stylised.
and those that have drains out. It implies
responded. she will end her mortal
life to experience
immortality.
Video clip inviting the Attends the meeting Attends the meeting Arrives throughout the Appears online through Attends the meeting Information sheet on
immortals and those and is flamboyant and anonymously. meeting and throws i‐chat and reveals that and encourages people creating a back story for
who know them to attention seeking. notes to the audience she is ending her mortal to escape when all a character
come to a meeting to telling them to escape life to become technology is closed Invitation for students
work out how to help while they can. immortal. down. to provide input into the
them. presentation night.

163
The first shaded box for the Alice character is a bit different in that it was not the
content of this one that made it a significant offer but the stylistic presentation of it.
This stimulated discussion about how to make the work visually interesting. Other
shaded offers indicate work that had an impact in terms of the content and
development of the narrative.

To develop the conceptual content for the work, weblinks were also provided to a
range of literature and material about the idea of the work ‐ immortality. This
material was intended to help stimulate and promote student reflections. One of
the science teachers also visited the class in role to discuss current scientific
developments which may enable the human body to live for much longer and
become immortal.

To initiate the dialogic process, a digital pretext in the form of an email (Figure 21)
was created as well as a video clip. This was emailed from the teacher to the
students during the lesson where the drama was launched.

Figure 21 Text of the email pre‐text for The Immortals

164
The participants were then invited to contribute to the developing narrative, firstly
through their creation of roles and next by deciding how each role would respond
to the offer of immortal life. A key factor in building participant commitment and
interaction within a drama is through the development of role. A tool that is very
helpful for doing this is already familiar to drama educators: the role profile,
whereby participants respond to key questions in‐role. The advantage of using
online spaces for this work is that many of the social networking spaces that young
people use (such as MySpace, Facebook or Bebo) also utilise these kinds of formats.
In this case however they were filling them in for fictional characters that they
created.

It is important to note that at the start of the project, when I conducted a

familiarisation session with the students, many of them were quite negative about
having to use the educational e‐learning site and spaces. They explained the ways
Blackboard had been used in the past – mainly for loading material for them to read
and some use of discussion boards. However, when I showed them the range of
spaces we would use it was clear that students had not used wiki and blog spaces
on Blackboard before (that function had only recently become available). Some
students could see the potential of input and collaboration. They were disappointed
to find there were not many options for self‐styling pages and visual creativity
within the e‐learning spaces. They were not very impressed to find they could only
upload small photographs, change font colour and size and add emoticons.

We showed students The Immortals Ning space that we had created and a number
of them were quite excited by the possibilities. However whilst the teacher could
access Ning at school, students could not, and so student volunteers from each
group had responsibility for looking after their Ning page. Here, they created a
profile page, uploaded photos, video and communicated in‐role.

6.5 Contradiction and crisis

One of the strengths of activity theory in relation to this study has been the way
that it acknowledges incidences of contradiction rather than ignoring them,
providing a means for analysing and understanding them. It also encourages the
identification of where fractures or blocks might be occurring within an activity
system. The key strength though in terms of considering this in relation to creative
learning is the way that contradictions may be used for development and learning,
through identifying the way shifts in activity might be possible.

The experience of the pilot study had sensitised me to being open to experiences of
crisis or contradiction and so I was more willing to recognise these for this second
case. There were several times when situations or contradictions arose that
impacted on the possible progression of the project or the outcomes from it.
Several of these will be elaborated upon, one in fact occurred before the project
began and involved a student known here as Harrison.

6.5.1 Harrison the subversive

Subject Vignette

Harrison sees himself as a bit of an outsider and likes it that way. His
preferred creative forms are comedy and creating various kinds of media.
His comedy is often quite satirical and dark. Sometimes he has worked with
another student (male) and their work has been quite physical using
slapstick and mock violence. He enjoys playing around with different
computer programs to make humorous video clips and animations. At his
former school he once made an animation using Powerpoint including 700
frames.
He also made a humorous film for a school assembly for Book Week. It
challenged the boundaries of acceptability for a school presentation as it
included a dog doing a poo on a carpet and then being attacked by
Harrison. He likes looking for the humour in situations and being subversive.
At his new school he has been one of a number of students who have posted
video clips to YouTube and had fun engaging in some online rivalry with
another school. Students from both schools have been posting clips
where they sledge the other school and Harrison is proud of the fact that his
clips are more humorous and show more skill than those from the other
school. (Profile constructed based on project journal notes and consultation
with the classroom teacher)
The Immortals project was almost derailed before it even began and some
strategising was required on behalf of the teacher and myself to ensure we were
able to go ahead. I attended the school for several planning meetings and classes
with Hayley and the students. During one of these lessons, Harrison was called to
the office. Other students revealed that they believed it would be about the latest
clip Harrison had posted to YouTube. They excitedly told us about how there was
an online rivalry going on between the two schools of excellence and that Harrison
had recently posted a very funny clip. Students also spoke about other videos
posted by students from their school which involved trashing chairs and playing
music instruments inappropriately. After the lesson Harrison came back and spoke
to Hayley about what had happened and revealed that he would perhaps be
suspended from the school because of his YouTube postings.

Through using her teacher access Hayley was able to go to YouTube and Harrison
showed us the clip he had uploaded as well as other student posted clips. We could
see that his video was quite amusing and clever in part, but it was also problematic.
He had clearly identified the names of both schools and had used the logo and
colours of his school throughout the film clip. Some of the language was also quite
derogatory and it was clear that it could be viewed as offensive by members of the
other school community.

He also showed us clips that other students from both schools had posted, some of
which had been filmed on school premises, with students in school uniforms. It was
evident that there were a number of students from both schools involved. Harrison
therefore hoped that he would not be the only one to suffer the consequences if
the school wished to punish those involved.

During the discussion with Hayley she encouraged him to work out a strategy of
how he might address this crisis and for him to take the initiative in coming up with
a response to take back to the Principal. This involved him saying he would take the
clip down from YouTube and apologise to the Principal from the other school. He
was also going to promise his school Principal that he would no longer make clips
with any reference to either school and would not use the school logo, name or
uniform in any other clips.

Hayley then suggested that we would have to rework our proposal for the
cyberdrama project and reconsider the use of YouTube and any other social
networking spaces outside of The Learning Place. As the school had received
numerous proposals from people wanting to conduct research and from people
requesting students to be involved in many additional projects, any requests had to
be formalised through the submission of a proforma through their management
committee. She had drafted a version of this which had included explicit mention of
the use of YouTube and other social networking spaces. The idea had been to
promote the use of available web 2.0 applications to engage students in creative
production and real world creative practice.

In light of the incident with Harrison, and another incident she told me about
whereby one of the female students had been bullied through MySpace, Hayley
suggested we modify the proposal. This involved prioritising the use of the official
educational spaces and downplaying reference to YouTube and other outside
spaces. She proposed that we still might be able to use them but that we would
have to upload the material (or supervise it) and that if we used a Ning space that
we would have to moderate content and close the space to involvement by others.

In terms of the activity system, what we can see occurring here, was a contradiction
in relation to the rules regarding the possible tools that could be used (see Figure
22). There was also a contradiction between the tools and the object of the activity.
What was apparent was that the kinds of tools and spaces that students were
familiar with using outside of school hours, were problematic for use within an
educational context. In a way quite similar to the pilot case, contradiction was
emerging largely from the context of the project being situated within the
organisational setting and authoritative power structures inherent therein. The
enactment of the activity would require a division of labour which saw
teachers/leaders playing a gate‐keeping role in moderating and uploading the
material that could be shared with a wider audience.
Figure 22 Contradiction in activity system for The Immortals

This situation highlighted a contradiction in the activity system, but we were able to
negotiate some shifts to enable the activity to occur. The shift involved modifying
the use of some tools, and setting up rules about the division of labour in relation to
tool use.

Figure 23 Contradiction in activity for Harrison

Figure 23 represents shifts for the activity system, but does not represent the
situation for Harrison, which was realised as a crisis for Harrison himself at the time
of the event and possibly impacted on his involvement in the ongoing activity.
Harrison was at risk of being excluded not only from the activity system but his
school community. He had to review rules about his conduct of self, especially in
the school context. His involvement in the entire project, though, seemed to shift.
In my first meeting with him when we had discussed the idea for the project and
the concept of cyberdrama he had been an enthusiastic participant and one of the
students who shared some ideas about what cyberdrama could be. However, the
defining of his personal creativity was through using spaces such as YouTube and
creative humorous content to subvert the system. When we later proposed that we
would mainly be using The Learning Place spaces he was quite scathing in his
comments about them.

Opportunities arose for him to take a leading role in his group and for the whole
class (when we began to upload content to YouTube, when we set up the Ning
space, and when students were invited to create new agent roles mid‐way through
the project) but he didn’t really engage. It is important to note that he was in the
same group as Jaida (whose case will be discussed later in this chapter) and both of
them in their journals revealed that they didn’t really enjoy the unit:
I kind of had the urge to turn the whole thing into a farce, but I guess I had
to keep it serious… for IB’s sake. How do I feel? I’m not really all that sure…
on the one hand, I am excited that I get a chance to use my COMPUTER
SKILLZ (sic) for the sake of drama, and that I have a subject that I know a bit
about. On the other hand, I am wondering if I will find this boring, and if
there will be any challenges. (Harrison’s Journal, 19 October, 2007)

It seemed that his creative identity was defined through his use of popular Internet
tools in subversive ways and this had helped mark him as being different from
everyone else. However, when his media and artform preferences for subversive
humour could not be utilised (and he thought he had to be serious) he withdrew to
some degree from full engagement.

It is pertinent to consider, therefore, the role of schools in preparing students for

possible creative futures in instances such as these. The creation of subversive
user‐generated content shared through YouTube has led to professional work for a
range of players in recent years. However for a student who was interested in
pursuing this style of creative practice, issues arose regarding his form, content and
tool preferences. The teacher, in this case, did engage in personal negotiations with
the student to ask him to consider responsible use of such spaces for professional
purposes. It raises the question, if schools are serious about preparing students for
lives as creative workers, how can they enable and support this if student cannot
engage with and utilise the kinds of tools and spaces being used in the professional
creative world? The main systemic strategy though was to block or prevent use of
these tools, with limited opportunities available for negotiating power and tool use
through internally persuasive discourse. Expansive learning could only occur
through shifts within the parameters set by the institutional setting.

6.5.2 Learning and identity – Jaida’s crisis

Different students emerged with very different learnings from the project, even
those students within the same group. To some degree this seemed to be
influenced by whether they accepted the collective goal and how this related to
their personal motives and tool preferences. To explore this concept the next
section will focus on contradiction and opportunities for expansive learning that
were in the main blocked for one student because of the way she defined her
identity and view of the future self. Her tool preferences were shared by some
other students and signalled a contradiction emerging in regard to the introduction
of the ICT tools into the drama process.

Subject Vignette

Jaida is an interesting girl – there is a sense of shyness there, though it is

masked by a superior air and a prickly nature on occasion. However, she gets
along well with the drama teacher and has even appeared in a non‐school
show that the teacher directed recently. She loved the experience as she was
able to sing in operatic style, which is her forte. It was also a strongly
theatrical piece of work, combining circus, drama, animation and music.
Jaida’s cultural background is mixed, though not immediately obvious, but
she is not conventionally attractive in the way some of the other girls might
be viewed. She has realised that there are many talented girls at their school
and if she wants to succeed she needs to stand out from the crowd. She
 wants to be recognised for being the best at what she does. To be a serious
singer she feels that drama skills will be useful, though she has no time for a
lot of the drama games and improvisation type activities that often count
for drama. She doesn’t feel comfortable engaging in these activities, she
feels self‐conscious and that they are a waste of time. She would much
rather focus on learning a role and rehearsing for a high quality
performance. (Profile constructed based on project journal notes and
consultation with the classroom teacher)

From Jaida’s journal and interactions in class it was apparent that she never
accepted the validity of the overarching object for this project. She believed that
the use of the online components – the tools and the space – represented an
engagement with popular culture and everyday forms of dramatic practice, whereas
she was more interested in elitist and virtuosic forms of performance:
I don’t think I’ll like it very much because it looks a little too much like drama
back in mainstream schools, which I really hated because it was all fun and
games and wasting time etc. So, I really don’t know what this is going to
turn out like, but from the outset, I may not actually like it very much.
(Jaida’s Journal, 19/10/07)

Whilst sometimes students might begin with a negative perception of an activity’s

object, there is the potential for this to change throughout the course of a unit or
project. In particular I had expected that she might change her perceptions as she
became the main character for her group and her character’s actions ended up
dominating the final stages of the entire project’s narrative. Her journal comments
from the beginning and the end of the process did not change, though, with entries
throughout her journal reiterating similar sentiments:
Cyberdrama is becoming a real chore. I hate it. I really, really think that this
is something that should be used in mainstream schools where it would
teach something other than lousy drama games. (Jaida’s Journal, 9/11/07)

She was more interested herself in live performance and did not feel that the unit
would extend her in any way:
 I really wish we could return to normal theatre work, like using viewpoints
etc (physical theatre exercises, my comment). … I actually hate making these
videos and maintaining this character we’ve created as I find it more of a
chore than something I genuinely love… so basically lessons are being
wasted where progress could have been made. (Jaida’s Journal 2/11/07)

Various comments from her journal and from the debrief session indicate that for
Jaida, engagement in the activity system for this project was experienced as a form
of trial or crisis. In terms of the activity system, there was a contradiction between
the tools she would prefer to use (the body and the live performance mode) as
opposed to the technologically mediated. Whilst there were shifts made in the
activity system to provide more opportunities for live experience and performance,
this was not enough for her and it appears that she did not really extend her
creative practice in ways she found fruitful. At the end of the project in the debrief
session with students her only comment reiterated her opinion that cyberdrama
was best suited to mainstream schools and her statements indicate no shift in her
willingness to embrace practice from this unit:
Jaida : I think cyberdrama would be more suited to mainstream schools –
mostly it’s all like drama games and spacejump, it could be
something they could learn from. I don’t know, but because we do
more than mainstream schools, I think it was something that some of
us rebelled against – the whole cyberdrama thing. (Immortals debrief
transcript, lines 776‐779)

It was apparent that for Jaida, her overall object was driven by her personal motive
and interest in live performance and singing. She saw her creative practice as being
realised in this form primarily and technology and the Internet as being a subsidiary
tool used by the “masses”, not those that aspire to be true performing artists. Her
vision of her future self focussed on aspirations related to singing, and a particular
form of singing at that. This differentiation is important, especially in the context of
the class group of which she was part. Through our skills audit at the beginning of
the project, it became apparent that there were four other girls who had
considerable experience as singers who were also interested in related future
careers. Two of these girls had been selected to perform as part of the education
department’s creative showcase and another one had been a member of a teenage
pop group. Jaida was able to achieve a distinctive identity in this high performance
environment by having a specific interest in opera singing. This art form is one
often regarded as high art and representative of the pinnacle of cultural expression.

Through associating herself with this particular artform, Jaida therefore defined her
creativity in opposition to other forms that she consider more common, ordinary or
suited to mainstream schools. Her creative preference and notion of identity was
closed to a certain degree. She was not really open to discovering how engaging
with online media forms might extend her own practice. In terms of the activity
system, this contradiction or experience of personal crisis was realised through her
apparent blocking the realisation of the activity object, at least in a personal sense.
The feedback she provided though was one form of feedback that was considered
by the teacher and myself and informed the shift in activity outlined as follows.

6.5.3 Contradiction over tool use and expansive learning

About half way through the project implementation it became apparent that the
nature of the tool use and activity emerging from the focus on using ICTs was
leading to some shifts in social practices in the drama classroom. Through
telephone communications the teacher indicated to me that she believed that
students were feeling isolated in their groups. The weekly tasks required students
to work in their groups and had led to minimal class contact and co‐present physical
engagement. This presented a contradiction for the activity system and the teacher
and she wanted to discuss ways of changing the activity to address these concerns.
She felt that we needed to re‐engage the whole group, to help them share their
understandings of where the various narrative threads were at and to physically
collaborate and engage. She proposed that we create some live process drama
experiences and work in‐role with the students.

What was decided was that the teacher and I would change the roles we had been
taking, switching from equal status immortal respondents to high status “secret
agents”. Through taking on these roles we also changed the roles and relationships
for students. They were enrolled as “student agents” who were each invited to help
find out more information about the immortal characters. This live interaction in a
face‐to‐face context proved to be a powerful one, with many students commenting
at the end of the process that this had in fact been their favourite part of the whole
process.
Sian7: Yeah, the live interaction. The way we sat down in our room and all
of a sudden our Principal came in and gave this serious speech about
what was going on and how our teacher had been taken away.

…. and then the teachers burst through the door in character and
then we all got thrown into this big improvisation process which
really helped in the end … (Interview transcript, 4 December 2008
lines 228‐240)

What happened therefore was that there was a contradiction in the activity system,
once again over tool use, but also social practices and expectations about the
outcomes that some subjects believed should emerge from creative practice in
drama. The teacher was in a position of authority and was able to respond to
student feedback and negotiate a shift in the tools used and the social practices.
This led to a lesson which focussed on using the corporeal body and the whole
group as a community. The technological tools were still used (the lesson was
videoed and material from this was edited and made into a video clip that was
uploaded online) however the focus shifted and the live drama and the face‐to‐face
interactions determined the next stage of activity.

The expansive learning that emerged from this contradiction highlighted the
importance of the corporeal experience and the body as the tool of expression –
something that emerged as significant in regard to Jaida’s crisis as well. This shift in
activity is represented in Figure 24 as well as possible expansive learning that
emerged from the contradiction that emerged earlier, concerning Harrison and the
use of ICT spaces outside of The Learning Place.

7
Sian is a pseudonym selected by the researcher to meet the parameters of the ethical clearance
processes and protect the identity of the student. The names of all other students included in the
rest of the study are also pseudonums.
Figure 24 Shifts in activity for The Immortals

What is significant to note though is that expansive learning may not have been
experienced for all subjects in the activity group, with the experiences of Harrison
and Jaida highlighting different outcomes and meaning making that arose from the
same activity system.

The use of a table based on Engeström’s (1987) sequential structure of learning by

expanding may also be useful for identifying the trajectory and transformation of
the activity system and learning outcomes (see Table 7) . This sequence maps the
different kinds of contradictions that Engeström identified could emerge from
activity. The first contradiction he identified as existing within the components of
the activity, in particular he drew attention to the contradictions for subjects within
capitalist society, whereby their personal activity is exchanged as a labour
commodity. The double nature of their activity can lead to estrangement and
double binds arising.

While in schooling contexts this kind of exchange and double bind may exist for the
teachers (who are exchanging their labour for capital gain) for students their labour
exchange is more in relation to the achievement of socially recognised success
markers.
Table 7 Sequential structure of learning by expanding

Contradiction Phase Content from the activity

Primary Need state Subjects positioned within educational
contradiction within institutions requiring compliance to systemic
the components of rules determined by employment
the old activity requirements or (for students) education
act.
Contradiction: Subjects desire to engage in
creative practice for personal goals and
fulfilment VS
Subjects required to engage in educational
activity with a focus on systemic success
markers and compliance to rules
Double Bind Contradiction: Rule structures of schooling
restrict teacher/student decision making
about ICT tools they can access and use VS
the systemic limits on use of ICT tools that
student want to use

Existing model: Limited use of ICTs in

drama, and limits on use of certain
technological tools and spaces

Springboard: Inappropriate student use of

social networking sites

Secondary Object/motive New general model: Scaffolded learning

contradictions, construction model for creating different creative
between the products using approved ICT tools/spaces,
components of the teacher moderation of content uploaded to
old activity outside sites

Tertiary Application, Contradiction: Emerging new ICT tool use,

contradiction generalisation; incorporated into drama VS student
between the old component expectations about drama being an artform
and the given new actions of the that typically focuses on use of the human
activity/motive given new body and human interactions.
activity New activity focusing on using live
interactions and performance as well as
mediated
Quaternary Activity 2: Engage in reflection activity with students to
contradiction – Reflection, identify relevant subject‐producing
between the new consolidation outcomes as well as collective arts product
activity and its outcomes
neighbour activities
(other subjects)
They are beholden by legislative frameworks to attend school and adhere to the
rules of the educational institution. This therefore presents opportunities for inner
unrest and alienation as subjects trade their personal motivations for compliance to
institutional ones. Table 7 maps the different kinds of contradictions for this project,
the phase of expansive learning (middle column) drawing on examples and evidence
in the third column. This table seems to reflect more of the transformational nature
of activity and learning than the activity triangles. It must be acknowledged though
that no static diagram can probably do justice to the moment by moment
transformations of activity and the polyvocal nature of the experience and meaning
for different subjects.

6.6 Creative activity through cyberdrama

Within the contextual review and pilot case it became apparent that creative
practice and learning using ICTs and drama involved much more than just the
provision of ICT tools. For a cyberdrama occurring within a learning context it was
identified that collaborative creativity and interactivity should be features of
process, and that interactions to be considered included those with ICT tools and
also other cultural tools and human subjects. The next part of this chapter will
therefore explore the different factors at play in building this cyberdrama
identifying some of the features of the activity and interactions that occurred,
drawing on various data throughout. Informing this analysis are the underlying sub‐
questions about how to use ICTs to create drama and what kinds of tools,
interactions and practices appear to contribute to creative practice and learning.

6.6.1 Use of technologybased tools and online spaces

Throughout the project students engaged in using a range of ICTs and online spaces
details of which have been outlined earlier in the chapter. The online spaces were
also able to be used for content creation and these included the wiki, the blog,
project room chats and the Ning space. All these spaces allowed students to build
and edit content in predominantly textual form. There were other spaces on the
Blackboard site as well that included details about the tasks they had to complete
and links to other websites and resources. Students could interact with these
spaces to access material, but they were not able to edit or contribute.

Activity developed particularly in the spaces where the fictional characters were
built, working within the dramatic frame. This activity was quite clearly related to
the goal orientation for the activity, and the creation of dramatic texts and
artefacts. Certain expectations were also set up by the teacher regarding postings
to these spaces, with each student being made primarily responsible for posting to
a wiki or blog for their group. There was little action in the other forum areas set up
for reflective discussion. There were several postings that were short with little
elaboration or depth of discussion. Whilst the use of this space was at one stage
promoted as allowing students to rehearse what they might post to their assessable
journal, there was little time to check and model this process and student
contributions were limited.

At the end of the project I was interested to ascertain student perceptions about
the use of these different spaces and technologies. The information was obtained
through students’ completion of a survey (see Appendix G). One of the sections of
this survey included questions about the use of technology and cyberspaces. These
questions were presented as Likert Scales with students being asked how they felt
about engaging with different spaces and technologies. A five point scale was
included with 1 indicating “it wasn’t effective” through to 5 indicating “it was very
effective”. The data from these surveys were collated and an average response
calculated for each question (see Table 8). This data indicated that students felt the
most effective technology use involved the video technology and posting material
to YouTube. These uses of technology are those that relate to creating and making,
drawing on cultural tools and practices in the form of multi‐media literacies. The
interest in YouTube was notable considering that students were not able to post the
material to YouTube themselves – the teacher and I did that.
Table 8 Student opinions about technology use for The Immortals project

Summary of Immortals technology use – Likert Scale responses N = 13

Technology/cyberspace used Average Response
(1 lowest, 5 highest)
Incorporating video and technology 4.5
YouTube 4.5
Wiki and blog spaces 4.2
The Learning Place overall 4
Project Room (with chat) 4
Story 3.8
Relevant materials 3.3
Ning space 2.9

Comments from the debrief focus group interview however indicate that through
YouTube students believe they may find a wider audience for sharing their work.
This is a possibility that they find most exciting about the use of the Internet in
relation to performance work:

Lexi: I think it’s making drama more accessible for more regular kinds of
people, not just actors and actresses. So you can be at school and
writing your script, and then make it, like your own movie, and put it
on YouTube and everyone can watch it and respond. (Interview
transcript, 4 December 2008, lines 49‐52)

Dylan: Cyberdrama makes it easier for you to say write a show, and then
rather than have to go and find funding for venue hire and these
things, now you can just take your friends and a camera and go film it
and put it on YouTube who knows, you might get an offer to do it in a
full size venue. (Interview transcript, 4 December 2008, lines 54‐57)

Sian: … I think with this generation, to reach them, we have to do drama in

the right places such as MySpace and Youtube. Since they’re blocked
it’s kind of making it hard… (Immortals debrief transcript, lines 754‐
757)
Some students also noted the restricted audience and access that resulted if they
only used the approved spaces within The Learning Place. The narrowing of the
audience to their class group only indicated a lost opportunity in their eyes:
Eliza: Because the sites we had to use at school, they were like, limited to
just us. The Learning Place was just us, you had to log in to use it and
log in to get the information. Nobody else could just be surfing the
net and find it. Nobody could engage with The Learning Place except
just us. (Immortals debrief transcript, lines 538‐541)

Of the online spaces used on The Learning Place, the most positive response
generated was towards the use of wiki and blog spaces. These were the spaces that
allowed participants to create and collaborate, where they could build their
character profiles and also respond to the developments of the story in‐role. This
allowed a form of dialogic interaction which contributed to the creation of the
external object. What was evident for The Immortals online interactions was that
they were mainly based on building role, with making offers and extending upon
them. Those spaces that held information and links to other sites and materials,
and did not allow students to contribute or change, rated the lowest. This would
indicate that the use of these spaces as repositories of knowledge is not particularly
engaging.

The use of the Ning space rated lower again but this result needs to be considered
in the context that only one person per group was posting to this space and as
students could not access it at school many of them did not know about it until the
end of the project. The ones who did post to it were very positive in their response
to this question. Through conversation it was clear that students who did use the
Ning space were impressed with the capacity of this space and features which were
similar to “proper” social networking spaces like MySpace. The use of MySpace was
not an option for this project but Ning is similar in that each person can create their
own profile and self‐stylise it – they can change the background and font, upload
photos, videos and music, post to their own blog and also interact with and
comment on other profiles within the network. See Figure 25 for an example of a
page from one of the character profiles on Ning.

Figure 25 Character page created on the Ning space for ‘Keeley’

Several open‐ended questions at the end of the survey sought to provide more
qualitative data regarding students’ responses towards the use of technology. One
question in particular also asked about what technology component students liked
using and why. The responses are included below. These supported the data from
the Likert scale responses and show the preference for multi‐media components
such as use of YouTube as well as more communicative types of spaces including
wikis and blogs:

21. Which technology component or space did you like using the most and why?
I liked using YouTube as I have a strong liking for film
The Blog! Simple, easy to use and I was in charge of it so… yeah.
I liked making the films because I haven’t done many things in film and I wanted to learn
more
Wiki and blog because we got to comment on the characters
The communication left room for personal interpretation
I most liked the learning place blog and wiki pages. They were easy to use and a good way
to communicate
Either the Ning space or the chat room.
YouTube because it was simple and interesting
 YouTube – because it felt good that the films and information we were presenting were
available to anyone
The filming of video (Immortals Final Survey, Q. 21 responses)

The data starts to tease out the different preferences students had for different ICTs
and tool use and different experiences they had. A key issue for this project was
that there was limited time to teach all the different multi‐media and computer‐
based skills that would be required. This led to considerable variance in the quality
of the digital performative work and some students were not happy with this. This
indicated that the incorporation of digital recording and editing technologies within
drama uses a different tool set and body of creative practice. The time and attention
required to develop quality video work draws on different skills sets and tool facility
than live drama performance. That investment of time in technological tool use did
not align with some participants preferences for creative practice.

The technological focus of the project had been on the use of the recording
technologies and computer‐based technologies. However another tool that
students showed considerable interest in using was a familiar one: the mobile
phone. Without prompting students began taking photos of themselves in‐role and
were interested to find that you could then email them through to the Ning space
for example. One group recorded sound files of interviews using their phones and
tried to upload these to YouTube and they also recorded some action when we did
the live roleplay. This interest in using mobile technologies was something we then
tried to utilise in the live performance at the end of the project. Audience members
were asked to provide us with their mobile phone numbers before the performance
and told to leave their phones on. Throughout the performance messages were
sent to people from cast members with clues and warnings about the unfolding
drama. The audience members generally ignored the messages but the students
were quite excited about this means for potentially building interactivity into the
performance.

What this section indicates is that there are different technological tools that can be
incorporated into creative practice in drama. Students may have interest and some
prior skill facility in using them, and they may also be interested in bringing their
personal technological tools into the classroom. They have different preferences
though in regard to roles they want to take on in the use of technology (some like
being behind the camera but others do not) or if they want to use technology at all.

6.6.2 Community and social practices

What emerged from the very beginning of the project was that classroom dynamics
and social practices had to be considered and nurtured, especially as the class had
recently been formed from two prior class groups. From the literature review and
pilot case it was also evident that different interactions, with different subjects had
to be analysed to understand aspects of learning that might emerge for different
participants. Several Likert questions in the survey therefore asked students how
they felt about working with their group, the class and the teachers. For each
statement students were asked to circle a number between 1 and 5 to express how
they felt with 1 indicating “strongly disagree” and 5 indicating “strongly agree”.
What the responses indicated was that students apparently felt most positive about
working with teachers in‐role (see Figure 26).
Immortals survey responses – working with others

4. I have enjoyed working as part of our team group

1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
‐ 1 2 7 3 13
Average: 3.7

5. I feel I had satisfactory creative input into the decisions our group has made

1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
‐ 1 3 3 6 13
Average: 4

6. I found the teacher/artist input and working in‐role with us helpful

1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
1 5 7 13
Average: 4.5

7. Working with the other groups in the class has been a positive experience

1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
3 5 5 13
Average: 4.2
Figure 26 Student satisfaction with different human interactions
The responses to their group work showed more variation depending on which
group they were in. Some groups had difficulty in cohering and negotiating group
roles and this was reflected in their responses. The students were more positive
about working with the whole class.

One of the strategies used for building community groups for this drama was
through the requirement that each group was to begin with only one fictional role.
This required different group members to contribute to developing the one
character. The utterances and interactions also helped form connections across the
class community with the development of allegiances between characters. One
which emerged was between the Keeley and Alice characters who were both
struggling artists/writers.
Wow, you are an interesting person Alice. I can't wait to meet you. you seem
like one of the only deep souls in this whole immortals thing. too bad they
couldn't choose anyone else as poetic. but that’s just my opinion. what type
of plays do you read? I am a person of the theatre myself and am quite
interested (mime is my thing). – Keeley. (Immortals Wiki posting 1/11/07
original spelling and grammar remains intact)

What became apparent throughout The Immortals project was that managing
interactions and negotiating power between participants is an issue for any activity
involving multiple subjects, whether these interactions occur online or in the face‐
to‐face mode. Throughout The Immortals project interactions and social relations
between participants were a major consideration. Students were required by the
task to negotiate with each other and decide on the role the group would create
and be able to embody. This was not always easy for all groups, whilst two groups
moved very quickly to a state of working productively, two others spent
considerable time early on working through status and work role issues.
Sharni: Well everyone had to agree, and then to agree to disagree, and then
try to find a solution we could all agree with.
 Lexi: There was a lot of compromise; you have to talk it through with your
fellow group members. Someone likes one thing, someone likes
another, you have to find a happy medium and reach a compromise.
(Interview transcript 4 December 2008 lines 92‐97)

As in any drama process, failure to recognise and deal with the human dimensions
of group interactions can lead to blockages in the creative process. Whilst we had
hoped that the creative engagement of the group tasks would help build coherence
within the small groups, this was not always the case. In the final survey it was
apparent that approximately one third of the class was not so happy with the class
combination and their group formation. In two of the groups these members were
slow to get going with their creative processes and some members felt left out at
times. This highlighted for us as drama educators the importance of group
formation and protocol processes in any drama process – live or virtual.

6.6.3 Cultural tools – dramatic form

In this case study project one explicit goal was for online spaces to be used to create
the actual drama. Most of the communications therefore were to be conducted in‐
role, with students speaking as different characters they had created within the
fictional world. I was therefore interested in exploring the impact of this use of
dramatic frame and resulting interactions. In particular I was interested to see if
the kinds of problematic communications and contestations over status and power
that arose during the first case, would be evident in the in‐role interactions. Or
would the focus on using the fictional or dramatic frame limit this occurring?

One of the strengths of the dramatic frame, as a mediational tool, is that it offers
people the permission to take on roles that may be quite different to their own, to
experiment and to explore possible situations that they never would in real life
(IRL). The dramatic or fictional frame is seen to offer the freedom to work
imaginatively by providing participants with the sense that what happens within the
drama is not real. Within certain parameters this means that behaviour that would
be unacceptable in a real life context may be permissible if it is relevant to the
fictional context. As O’Toole states:
 For our purposes, the fact that it is “not‐meant” allows extensions of the
behaviour unacceptable in real behaviour, and simultaneously provides
participants with protection both within the play and from “real”
consequences’. (O'Toole, 1992, p. 25)

This is not to say that actions or utterances within the drama are a “free for all”.
They are constrained by the contract of the fictional context and the roles that have
been negotiated within that. Understandings and consequences that result from
the actions and utterances within the drama may have impact on participants in
real life as well. However “This genre therefore imposes demands upon the
participants for clarity of signalling and a very clear definition of the roles they are
playing, for the drama to be sustained at all” (O’Toole,1992, p. 18).

What was significant for The Immortals project was that the dramatic context was
the main one students operated within online. The kinds of social interactions that
were evident in the GBD project did not occur at all. This could be for a range of
reasons, but quite possibly because the activity mainly occurred within the official
educational e‐learning spaces and students used them for drama education
purposes. As students were already known to each other they had their own social
networks and online spaces to communicate with each other socially outside of
school time. Student contributions to the online components of the project
occurred predominantly at school, so most students were posting during school
time. While students could access them at night, they rarely did. Finally, awareness
about appropriate online communications protocols had been addressed at the
school, and particularly so in light of issues around Harrison’s use of YouTube.

Another reason why some students utilised the online spaces in‐role was that they
were able to make narrative offers which could develop and impact on the direction
of the drama. For example one student initiated such action when he developed
the character X. This character emerged after the live process drama experience,
after which he began to post on the blog as X and warn other characters of possible
dangers. Through this role he was able to interact and extend the drama and help
build the dramatic tension of the work. The following posting is from that character
in‐role, and provided him with a voice in the drama, whereas previously he had not
had one:
Whatever you do DO NOT TRUST CONTROL. Work with them if you must but
at the end of the day they want whets best for the government not the
people. X
Thursday, 01/01/1970 10:00 AM by rbarl001k. (Immortals Blog posting,
6/11/07 original spelling and grammar remain intact)

The dramatic frame therefore was a mediational tool that allowed for students to
work imaginatively and to engage in power sharing and collaboration in text
creation. This was not always unproblematic though.

6.6.4 Power play and use of dramatic tools and context

There was evidence of some tension and power‐play between several participants.
The tensions that were expressed from within the dramatic frame were justified by
the fiction of the drama, however, context blurring allowed aspects of the real
world context to bleed through. These interactions revolved around the character
of TJ and issues about how this role was embodied and represented. The character
was established as supposedly being in her late 40s but her expression and
presentation of self was more like that of a 17 year old. Other participants were
critical of the character, but expressed this predominantly whilst in role. The
teacher suspected that students were also expressing attitudes that were a
reflection of some real life attitudes:
S: … and how much do you think that the expression of disapproval from
other characters was actually a reflection of how they feel towards her?
H: I think it is definitely linked.
S: There was no‐one in there supporting her as a character in a fictional
sense. I tried to do that once but the others certainly weren’t interested.
They were looking for a chance to sink the boot in. (lines 169‐176, Interview
transcript, Nov 2007)

Others used the safety net of the drama to communicate with the character in ways
that were within the realms of the fiction. The following posting shows one of the
postings from the character TJ (original spelling and text‐type have been kept
intact).
 TJ: Hey hotties How are weeee? =] Omg i'm soo happy right now..well i
always am hehe BUT YA NO =] I'm just really really happy atm like more
thannnnnn usual =] Reason being issss cozzz i got an e‐mail from these
'IMMORTALS' club...i'm thinking word has gotten out about m being a pro
dancer...so like they want me for some job or something =D POPULARR! XD
hehe FNJKEHRBGJKBFSEJHFDS BFJGJDBFHSJGSFGKCGRBRYREGTVRBGRJE I'M
SO EXCITED! HEHE! So i shall let you all knowwwwww what happens with
The Immortals club thingo =] I'm outies for now babeessss Loving you all (TJ,
Immortals blog posting, 26 October, 2007)

Other students working in‐role did not approve or “buy in” to the role creation and
representation:

a club! how could you be so half‐baked!? (Marixa, blog posting, 1 November,

2007)

Other characters also made negative comments on the wiki space, on TJ’s profile
and postings:
Wow, what do I say? I'm lost for sarcasm.
(Immortals wiki comment 26/10/07. AA)

wow you do sound like a HOTT gal! gag me! I mean isn't it a bit strange to act
like 17 year old when you have a 17 year old?? I can't believe I’m sharing
immortality with THAT!!! ‐Keeley
P.S. act your age not your shoe size
(Immortals wiki comment 26/10/07, MT original spelling and grammar
remain intact)

Some characters also commented on other’s pages to warn them about TJ and this
further emphasised some of the disapproval of the character by others. The
postings below were found on Marixa’s page and Zaiph’s:

Hi nice to meet you. Before you let TJ scare you off what’s your take on this
thing? ‐ Keeley (Immortals wiki comment, 29/10/07, RB)
 Danger Zaiph Turner. Cradle snatcher alert. Grow up TJ he’s only a couple of
years older then your daughter ‐ Keeley (Immortals wiki comment, 31/10/07,
MT).

As mentioned previously, some of these comments could well be justified as

reasonable from the context of the characters and the drama. However they could
also have been used as a cover for expressing other underlying tensions in the
group. Whilst this is by no means absolute, it does indicate the ways that contexts
can be deliberately blurred and experimented with through using the dramatic
frame.

I found myself also doing it, in an attempt to build relations with one character but
also the student participant. I sensed that Jaida was not entirely happy with the
focus or progress of the project, mainly through her reluctance to contribute to
some activities and engage in conversation on a number of occasions. Seeking to
try and build a sense of connection with her, I used the protection of my role within
the drama to reinforce her comments or communicate with her. The following is
the end of one of her postings and my response to her in‐role:

Marixa: Mom, I really love you and I just want to talk to you again and if you
can send me a sign down from heaven that you love me too... Love, Marixa

Shygirl: Hey is that you Marixa?.. i don't know if your message was from God ‐
i just thought it was a competition... but i don't think it's a cult we're getting
ourselves into. i think there's some good people involved so you're not alone ‐
we'll look out for you okay! shygirl... (Immortals blog posting 1/11/07)

Whilst she did interact with me in‐role, I am not sure if it did change that nature of
her feelings towards me out‐of‐role. What this discussion signals though is that
there are different affordances for expressing and exploring attitudes and relations
through using the dramatic frame, that are not necessarily possible when working in
the real life frame. There may also be a blurring of context boundaries when it
comes to the intent and impact of interactions. These might be used to help build
bridges IRL but they also might be a reflection of group dynamics as well.
6.6.5 The embodied tool – corporeal experience and live action
The impact of live in‐role interaction described earlier in the chapter raised
significant issues about the value of using different mediation tools, when it
appeared that the face‐to‐face, live form of process drama was perhaps the more
powerful. Whilst Jaida’s response to the use of ICTs and the cyberdrama was the
most negative, other participants also acknowledged that whilst they found the unit
and the use of technologies interesting, in the end they would have preferred to do
a straight live drama unit and performance.

Julie: To be honest I didn’t really enjoy cyberdrama … I didn’t like the

whole making of it, I prefer to just perform. The movie part of it was
good, but we didn’t get to do that much. I just prefer…

Sue: So try to identify what it is that you didn’t really like about it.

Julie: Um, because we didn’t know what was going on to begin with, I let
myself not really interact with it much, so then later on when we had
to interact.
…..
Lexi: I think because we were not expecting that kind of thing – I think I
was expecting performance and more traditional acting and
performance. (Immortals debrief transcript, lines 767‐782)

For many of these students their creative preferences and visions of the future self
relate to themselves as performing artists who want to work in an embodied, live
performance realm. They see themselves as creative people who love the
experience of performing a polished piece of work on a stage for an audience.
Many of them have had considerable prior experience in this creative realm; have
had praise and acknowledgement for their talents, skills and achievements and that
remains their creative preference.
The importance of the live experience was further reinforced at the final debrief
meeting for the project. Whilst all the students acknowledged they had learnt a lot
about the use of technology and making videos, at the end, some said “I would still
have preferred to do a straight drama performance”. Some of them spoke quite
passionately about their enjoyment of the live performance experience, how it
made them feel alive – and for those students in particular, the online experience
did not really match it. It therefore seemed that the use of the cyberdrama
processes could be used to extend young people’s experiences in drama, but in
themselves they can’t replace the live ones. Whilst interacting online in out of
school hours is something most young people engage in, it is important to
remember that this is a substitute activity for the live for most. Most young people
would rather go out with their friends, than just talk to them online. The
preference for these participants in drama was for the live experience,
complemented by the online one.

The importance of embodied experience had me considering what this meant in the
context of this being an increasingly mediatised society. If education decision
makers are seeing the incorporation of more technology as being the key to
engaging students, what does this mean for experience? Why is experience so
important for these young people? In regard to this concern I found some of the
work by American philosopher Richard Shusterman (2000) about live performance
quite insightful. Shusterman claims that a focus on the human body and experience
is our means of making sense of an increasingly technologised, dehumanised
society. He identifies how the increased preoccupation with care and concern for
the body and intense bodily experience (for example tattooing and piercing and
extreme sports) validates people’s sense of existence and being in the world.
Personal experience becomes the only way we can perceive the world:
One striking paradox of our new media age is its heightened concentration
on the body. As telecommunications render bodily presence unnecessary,
while new technologies of mediatic body construction and plastic cyborg‐
surgery challenge the very presence of a real body, our culture seems
increasingly fixated on the soma, serving it with the adoring devotion once
 bestowed on other worshiped mysteries…. Despite mediatic
dematerialization, bodies seem to matter more.

… Much somatic interest… is not at all directed at representational beauty

but instead at the quality of immediate experience: the endorphin‐
enhanced glow of high‐level cardiovascular functioning, the slow savoring
awareness of improved, deeper breathing, the tingling thrill of feeling into
new parts of one’s spine. (Shusterman, 2000, p. 137)

If this is the case, it is not surprising that these young people were savouring the live
performative experiences. The physical nature of the performance, the adrenalin
rush before going on stage, the sense of having hundreds of people watching their
bodies on stage – these experiences were satisfying and enjoyable for participants.
This is also an interesting point to consider in light of educational goals to increase
student interactions with computers, rather than live experiences (recall Gillard’s
example of students not going on a live field trip and linking up to an expert online).

The evidence from this case seemed to indicate that while students may enjoy the
mediated experienced online at night and at home, they would prefer intense live
experiences when they can. It left me wondering whether I should therefore be
trying to shift drama practice at all to embrace the use of more digital technologies.

6.6.6 Variation in toolkits and focus for creative practice

One thing that should be noted however in respect to young people’s interactions
with technology is that teachers and drama leaders should not make assumptions
about the multi‐media or communications literacies that all students may possess.
Yes, some young people have very sophisticated skills in these areas but others may
not. The Immortals participants were very experienced with using specific social
networking spaces and some had created their own video clips. However at the
beginning of the project when I checked some basic skills that would be required for
this project I discovered that their digital literacy skills were quite patchy. Most
students did not know how to resize photographs, only one student knew what a
wiki was and most students did not know how to edit video footage and save it in
different formats. It demonstrated to me the importance of conducting a skills audit
at the beginning of a project and utilising teaching strategies such as direct teaching
and peer tutoring to ensure participants have the necessary skills.

From the start of the project, the teacher and I began with an understanding that
the ZPD was not just about drama. We identified that learning concepts and skills
would need to encompass dramatic knowledge, digital literacy skills and that we
would have to build some knowledge of the idea for the work. We planned to
address this by forming groups with a skills mix to try and support the distribution
of intelligence. The issue of group dynamics was also considered. We knew we
should try and devote some time to group building, however this was extremely
limited. Through having specific tasks for groups to complete and having
differential skills sets within the groups, it was hoped that the role definition could
emerge quite quickly and that groups might be able to move towards finding
complementarity in their operation.

What became evident as the project unfolded however was that there seemed to
be about five or six different kinds of knowledge and skills (or toolkits) that students
needed to be able to master to be able to successfully achieve the goals of the
activity. The limited amount of time meant that some of these were able to be
scaffolded and learning experiences or materials provided. In other cases it was
only after the event that we realised specific learning was needed in relation to
some of these areas, for example in using the different Blackboard e‐learning
spaces and different ways to communicate and interact within each one. The
submission of their journals at the end of the project also revealed that reflective
writing skills were extremely variable.

As the project progressed, the teacher and I began to identify these and map some
of the kinds of learning that occurred or should have occurred in relation to each
task. It was also something that we discussed at the end of the project.
H: ... Yes I’d like to see a formalised structure detailing the different hats and
how they’re worn and when they’re worn and use that to help plan the next
one. And one of them would definitely go back to the group work/team
work stuff and one for the IT upskilling, then all the character in‐role stuff
 and then outside dramatic action… and map those out every week and look
at how these play out and what is required each week.

S: yes and then include the reflective work and provide time for that. That’s
good – I think we should work on that. (Interview transcript, November,
2007, lines 272‐280)

There is evidence to support student learning did occur across many of these areas,
and this is drawn from the student survey responses and the focus group debrief.
When this data was analysed through the Leximancer program, a range of key
themes were identified in the data and clustered. These are included in Figure 27.
Titles and arrows have been added to indicate the relevance of some of the
Leximancer clusters to those identified by the teacher and myself. This clustering
exercise supports the identification of student learning about drama, social aspects,
multi‐media literacies and learning about the idea of the work (immortality).

Drama/artform
learning
Social learning
Multi-media
literacies

Learning
about the idea
for the work

Figure 27 Leximancer clusters drawn from Immortals survey and focus group
Curriculum and planning material from the project has been mapped in more detail,
and clusters emerging include: dramatic forms, tools and signs, learning about the
dramatic idea or concepts for the work, social and relational practices (including
some specific cultural tools), a multi‐media toolkit (including facility with various
tools, signs and practices), e‐learning and communications toolkit and reflective
practice. See the following framework (Figure 28) for details of the different skills
and knowledge that the tasks required and the learning that needed to be
scaffolded.

In terms of cultural‐historical analysis what this suggests is that the use of ICTs in
the classroom involves various repertoires of practice and cultural tools, some of
these practices centre around using different technologies and tools. However,
related to these are sets of social practices and toolkits that are centred on subject
relations and conceptual development as well (i.e. about specific dramatic forms or
the idea of the work).
 Learning Focus Drama (tool and The dramatic idea Social & Multi‐media toolkit e‐learning toolkit Reflective practice
sign use) or concepts relational
practices
Module 1 – Roleplay & Immortality – what Skills audit – Taking photos, resizing, Accessing Blackboard on Modelling journal writing
Enrolling in the improvisation does it mean? group formation manipulating the Learning Place ‘In‐ Contribution to
drama/who are Role development Different accounts ensuring skills in Internet publication issues role’ and ‘out‐of‐role’ Communications spaces on
you? Monologue in literature different areas File compression and spaces BB
Collaboration vs conversion uploading (jpg Protocols for
Skills of Individual and group format for photos, mpeg4, communication
performance – group responses to Group norms QuickTime or wmv etc for Copyright in
acting for film the pre‐text (e.g. ANSN) video) schools/child protection
Posting material to the Using the blog & the wiki,
Internet (e.g. YouTube, Ning, what’s the difference
Learning Place)
Module 2 – The Tension Scientific accounts Negotiating roles Camera shots for interviews Netiquette importance– Guided reflection activities –
news is out Language of media – current research – building roles and news stories (establishing posting to discussion what is a good reflection?
(building the presenters for others shots, two‐shot, voice over) forums Difference between
narrative) Narrative structure Incorporating Reviewing Using chat room – description and analysis
Improvisation skills responses to the participation to changing colour & name,
– building and question through date making and extending on
extending on the characters offers
offers
Module 3 – Symbol & Comparing Evaluating input Scanning and manipulating Reviewing online Warm & cool feedback
There’s metaphor different beliefs – consensus images material – what learnt online to other groups after
something Poetic devices and about what is decision making Creating soundtracks (using about each character and posting
strange about… conventions being offered to (is it possible and creative commons music) how. Commenting on How do we deal with
(metaphor & characters, impact how?) other people’s pages feedback?
analogy) on lives
Module 4 – Skills of live Contemporary Negotiating Files & format conversions, Reflecting and evaluating What did you learn through
presentation performance views of roles, how to technology for performance online the process?
Creating back‐ immortality – build ‘group . about drama
stories personal, scientific, think’ and . about life
Improvisation dramatically synergy in . about using technology
Audience conveyed ensemble work and online spaces?
engagement and
interaction
Figure 28 Different learning components for The Immortals project

197
An issue that emerges from this analysis is the complex nature of tools, signs and
concepts involved in activity of this nature. Learning in this context involves planning
for learning which extends beyond the drama discipline focus of the formal curriculum.
To manage a learning environment and the successful achievement of collective
activity requires planning for engagement with these different toolkits and directing
and guiding participant attention and engagement. Some scaffolding tools helped
achieve that for The Immortals project, including setting task parameters each week
and sharing these on the Blackboard site. However, it was evident at the end of the
project that some areas needed to be the focus of more directed attention and activity.

Reflective learning was probably the area both the teacher and I felt had been most
neglected. The time constraints for the project meant that there was limited face‐to‐
face time in which to scaffold the reflective process and model it with students. There
was an expectation that they complete a reflective journal as part of their assessment.
This was not monitored or scaffolded throughout the process though, and the teacher
and I both felt that many of the journals had been completed in total after the event,
and the work lacked depth:

H:… I think there was still a superficiality to everything.

… That does come back to the upskilling. They were trying to operate with four
or five different hats and we weren’t able to teach reflection or the use of
technology properly… (Interview transcript, lines 59, 68‐69)

What was being recognised here was the key role of reflection and internalised
processing for shifting external interactions to internalised concept development and
learning. The key questions the teacher provided were appropriate for scaffolding that
process and included the following:
 What happened/what did you experience?
 What did you think?

198
  What did you learn?

These questions aimed to promote internalised interactions for processing experience

into meaning‐making, with the notion of the journal then acting to mediate and
externalise those learnings again. However an examination of the student journals
submitted shows that not all of them used this framework, or it was used in a very
cursory or superficial way.

Some reflection on what was happening did occur within the process, particularly when
the teacher sensed growing student frustration mid‐way through the project. During
this lesson the teacher stopped the dramatic action and asked the students to firstly
reflect on what had occurred, and then to contribute to a collective mapping of
developments on a whiteboard. It became apparent that this reflection was important
for ensuring the community could check where they were with the formation of this
work of the collective imagination, and clarify directions for the work. This external
interaction was required to confirm the goal orientation and the kinds of concepts and
learning that individual subjects were internalising. It also became apparent that this
internalised learning was also determined by the subject’s personal object and tool
preferences.

6.7 Expansive learning – self as a leading activity and

the cybernetics of self
A consideration of the responses from a student such as Jaida highlights how personal
motives, related to visions of the future self, impacted on her engagement and
perception of learning. Jaida saw her future self engaged in creative practice of a
particular kind, and so she could be regarded as a soma‐aesthetic. Her desire to
perform, with the body as the primary mediation tool, defined her engagement and
experience of the activity. It meant that she had defined her personal object in such a
way that she was not really open to learning through tools and forms that to her were
inferior. She was not really open to internal dialogue regarding some of the concepts
and tools that she could have internalised, and she blocked some opportunities for
expansive learning. Her notion of self at that time was quite fixed. Some other
students were more open to the possibilities, even though they also had preferences
for embodied, performative creative practice with a view of the future self as a
performer. These students were willing to engage with the activity and collective object
and consider expansive learning which included possible shifts in visions of the self.
This indicates the importance of self as a leading activity and how visions of the future
self or preferred self, impact on subject motives, interactions and outcomes from an
activity. It also points to the importance of the self as somewhat flexible to enable
creative or expansive learning to occur.

Stetsenko and Arievitch suggest that socio‐cultural theory needs to acknowledge that
accounts of activity need to recognise the concept of self as a leading activity:
… the self appears as having to do with the world and what the person aims to
change and transform in it, sometimes by stifling and resisting change. This can
be any aspect of life, including its narrowly personal aspects (e.g. one’s body),
but only in so far as such aspects happen to represent the leading level at which
an individual’s connections to the world, to other people and to oneself are
realized….
Second, the self as a leading activity captures well that the self is not something
that comes on top of an individual’s engagement with the social world, but is
this very engagement…. Therefore, to conceptualise the self as a leading
activity is to emphasize that it is constituted by the ways in which we “do” and
perform, rather than have, a self, and moreover, by what we do about the
world (thus transcending ourselves) as we engage in activities that contribute to
changing something in and about the world. (Stetsenko & Arievitch, 2004, p.
494)

In this account the self is what leads activity, is constituted by activity, but also
determines how activity is perceived and made sense of. The constitution of the self
may be such that various activities may be blocked or ignored if they do not progress
the leading activity.
What is significant in regard to the notion of creative learning is the degree to which
their self project is open, in transition or closed. For someone like Jaida whose self
project was quite fixed at this stage, creative learning opportunities afforded from this
project were limited. Drawing on a term used by Hundeide (1985) it could be said that
Jaida’s perspective was somewhat particularised and concretised to a large degree.
This was not because of the actual experiences she had, when in fact her character
determined the final outcome of the performance project. It could have been possible
for her to identify herself as experiencing the most creative learning experience,
however that is not what she took from the activity and internalised. In a case such as
Jaida’s her leading activity meant that she was not particularly open to feedback and
change. To help understand this process it is useful to consider the term a cybernetics
of self (Bateson, 1972).

In Bateson’s description of a cybernetic system, the organism receives feedback and

processes information to maintain a goal orientation. This may involve self correction
and adaptation in response to information received. A cybernetic version of self
therefore recognises the interplay between inputs, feedback from the environment,
and possible responses from within the system to maintain or find a state of
equilibrium. The system in this sense has a memory. For a human, certain parameters
may be determined by physical capacity, the memory of what they have been able to
do in the past, what they know, or what they believe they can do. Identity therefore
becomes a conceptual tool and a meditational tool for processing and realising activity.
If this tool is cybernetic and flexible, more learning possibilities may be open.

Another student, Georgie, was also very focused on having a career as a live performing
artist. However, she could see the value of learning about how to use digital
technologies and online spaces and was determined to make the most of it. She was
uncertain about the whole project to begin with as well, but in time ascribed to the
shared learning goal and was open to the possibilities.
 Today’s lesson was a bit confusing for me! Ms L talked to us about cyberdrama.
I’ve only ever heard of cyberdrama, never seen it, so I was a bit confused as to
what we’d have to do. Apart from confused, I felt excited, and a tad fascinated
with the whole idea of cyberdrama. Although some of it was unclear to me, the
information I caught onto sounds really fun! (Georgie’s Journal, 17/10/07)

Although she had extensive performance experience, she accepted the decision for
someone else in her group to play the feature role and she was open to taking on other
performance and production roles. She took on roles such as director for filmed scenes
and editor when another group member did not edit a video sequence properly:
It was exciting to go behind the scenes and direct for once. I’ve always loved
acting, but directing was a good change for once. (Georgie’s Journal, 26/10/07)

I was so tired because I stayed up till 3am that day editing my group’s montage!
C ran out of time (other journals report that he did not commit to the task and
disappointed the group ‐ my comment) so I offered to take over at last minute,
and I only received the entire footage Thursday afternoon (the day before the
final presentation). (Georgie’s Journal, 16/1107)

Georgie’s self was operating in a more cybernetic way than Jaida. She was responsive
to the collective goal for the activity, able to read and respond to feedback that
indicated the system had a need for her to act differently and she was prepared to
respond accordingly. It seemed that for some other students the collective goal
orientation of the unit could not be shared because they had defined their self by the
kind of creative person they wished to be. By seeing themselves as creatives whose
preferred tools are primarily the human body, students like Jaida were not necessarily
open to learning through using the digital technologies and online spaces. For some of
them the activity space of drama means live performed drama, polished and
performed for a live audience. For Jaida and some other students, the use of digital
tools and spaces were not seen as being of particular benefit, only in so much as they
might extend the opportunities for having an audience for their work. Jaida in
particular wanted to focus on her personal tool preference – and these were somatic
tools.

Georgie on the other hand was also a soma‐creative by preference but her version of
self as a leading activity was more cybernetic, open and malleable. She was open to the
creative learning opportunities afforded by new technologies and the use of different
tools, somatic and digital. She could perhaps be called an eclectic‐creative or open‐
creative. Several other students identified themselves more readily as digital creatives,
with three students including making films and clips as amongst their creative
preferences. In their final survey responses, they identified how they had enjoyed
working with the Ning space and uploading material to YouTube in particular.
It would seem apparent that what students learnt, and especially the possible creative
learning that students experienced was defined by their personal objects, their version
of self as a leading activity and their cybernetics of self.

The notion of self as a cybernetic system extends beyond the subject and includes
various aspects of the environment and the system. “The network is not bounded by
the skin but includes all external pathways along which information can travel”
(Bateson, 1972, p. 319). Interactions within this system therefore include all the
different forms of feedback, information and actions that may impact on the
emergence of self:
… the “self” as ordinarily understood is only a small part of a much larger trial‐
and‐error system which does the thinking, acting and deciding. This system
includes all the informational pathways which are relevant at any given moment
to any given decision. (Bateson, 1972, p. 331)

This concept is important for recognising that the concept of activity therefore is not
only concerned with the technology, or with the individual. The activity system for
drama using ICTs involves both the individual, but also the collective group in managing
all aspects of the thinking, acting and deciding within that system. The outcomes may
be collective imaginative works realised in symbolic form, but they are also versions of
self or identity.

6.8 Conclusions
This case enabled the exploration of possibilities for creating a cyberdrama within a
school context, to operate within the dramatic frame and to use a range of digital
technologies and online spaces. Through The Immortals project it become clear that
various technologies can provide opportunities for participants to develop multi‐media
skills and online communications. The creation of the cyberdrama offered
opportunities for students to utilise different tools, artefacts and mediums for creating
collective works of the imagination and of identities.

To facilitate creative practice for this activity, a scaffolded framework was developed
that capitalised on a range of ICT possibilities, internal to the education network and
externally. The activity was teacher‐led, but with opportunities for power sharing and
student agency to lead activity and contribute to narrative developments. Students
worked in small groups to create dramatic material and digital content. Action was
mediated through using cultural tools including dramatic forms, signs such as spoken
and written language, visual signs, and corporeal, kinaesthetic action. The work
created could be called work of collective imagination. Its development required
interactions within groups, with the narrative, with technology and within the rule
constraints of a school context.

Contradictions were identified as emerging within the activity system, in particular

around tool use once again and the authoritative exercising of power about which tools
students should use. The technological tool use was shifted to incorporate the use of
both official educational spaces and outside spaces through the negotiation of rules for
use. Contradictions also arose in regard to the focus on the ICT tool use and the
realisation that student preferences about drama learning often relate to the use of the
human body as a tool through face‐to‐face interactions. The teacher was able to
negotiate power and be responsive to feedback to make shifts in activity to utilise ICT
and somatic tools and negotiate activity outcomes.

This activity also indicated that participants needed to build and draw upon a range of
different cultural and technological tools. The enactment of this project suggesed that
students required toolkits in at least three different ICT related areas (multi‐media
production, CMCs and e‐learning) as well as knowledge and skills related to social
interactions, drama and the idea of the work. The introduction of ICTs into a learning
program meant introducing new tools and processes and these had to be addressed
within the learning program. The importance of directing attention towards all these
different mediation tools was identified throughout this project.

It was evident that there are a range of different kinds of interactions that need to be
considered in order to create experiences that are meaningful for young people in
educational or learning contexts. A key component of working with the online tools
and within drama activity systems is the focus on interactions with others, and
different components of the activity system. These kinds of interactions are
collaborative in nature and involve teachers or drama leaders interacting with students
or participants as the group builds a dramatic narrative interacting through and with
technology. As a cyberdrama system there are goals that drive the interactions, but
personal goals and objects may not align with collective goals and these may impact on
student engagement and learning in a number of ways.

Learning for students seemed to relate to what kind of creative they saw themselves,
their version of self as a leading activity and how cybernetic their concept of self was.
For some students their engagement with the activity, their experiences and
interactions confirmed for them what their creative practice was and they were not
very open to new learning. For others their creative practice and sense of identity
expanded as they encountered interventions and contradictions and enacted shifts to
embrace opportunities for expansive or creative learning.
What this case also signalled was that for many students, drama activity involves
engagement with particular tools, with preferences shown for live, corporeal or face‐
to‐face human interaction. The system and processes for creating cyberdrama need to
involve social and cultural practices and tools and not just a singular focus on
technology. These findings support and extend on those from the pilot study. The next
step for this research study, therefore, is to draw together the learnings from across
both projects and to summarise findings. The final chapter will articulate the outcomes
of the study back through the research questions and arrive at some final conclusions
and considerations.
7. Concluding the journey

7.1 Introduction
This research has been concerned with investigating the possibilities for creative
practice and learning using ICTs and drama. Interest in this particular nexus has arisen
from my experience as an educator and drama practitioner, as well as from concerns
about how drama learning sits within current discourses about possible education
revolutions. Australian government discourse champions the provision of technology,
and computer technology in particular, as the lever to improved education outcomes
and economic productivity. A range of empirical research has indicated that the
pursuit of this agenda in such a narrow form is unlikely to lead to revolutionary change.
Separate policy discourses about improved futures also promote the importance of
innovation and creativity, though these are not explicitly linked to the discourse of the
education revolution. This research study has sought to understand how ICTs may be
used in drama, a learning area most often linked to creativity discourse but not
educational technology agendas. It has focussed on the nature of activities and
practice that may emerge from school‐based projects involving young people creating
drama work, in particular aiming to create cyberdrama – a form of participatory drama
working within the dramatic frame using online spaces and digital technologies.

Two case studies have been conducted and researched, one pilot study based on a
multi‐site co‐curricula performance project and the focus case on a single‐site
curriculum‐based project. Young people aged 15‐17 (mostly in year 10) were involved
as well as their drama teachers. Theoretical frames used for analysing the work have
been drawn from cultural‐historical theory, in particular drawing on the work of
Vygotsky and a range of theorists in the realm of activity theory. Case study data drew
on survey responses, field notes, online communications, interviews and creative work.
Data was analysed to identify key themes and concepts, both manually and through
using the qualitative data analysis program Leximancer. Case study accounts were
written which focussed on the activity system for each case and then significant themes
that emerged. These included the nature of contradiction, identity and power.

Through the analysis of two case studies, it was identified that the introduction of
digital technologies and use of online spaces within both curricular and co‐curricular
drama projects represented significant intervention into the usual activity system for
drama learning. The ways that various participants and institutions responded to the
intervention led to sites of contradiction and experiences of crisis for some participants
but also for expansive learning. The cases indicated the importance of different
repertoires of practice, cultural tools and social relations which may be required to
support creative practice using ICTs. Different kinds of interactions needed to be
considered as well as different tools and toolkits beyond the purely technical. The
importance of self as a leading activity which impacts on personal meaning making and
potential learning also emerged. Student versions of the self, and how flexible or
cybernetic these were, impacted on how they perceived the ICT‐based activity. For
some students, therefore, the ICTs were vehicles for realising their creative practice,
but others saw ICT use in a more instrumental or social sense with more corporeal
preferences expressed for realising their creative self.

This chapter will draw out key learnings from the two cases with the discussion
organised around the sub‐questions which were defined at the commencement of the
study:
 How can ICTs be used to create drama in school contexts?
 How does the use of ICTs contribute to creative practice and learning?
 What kinds of processes and interactions appear to be most effective for
facilitating creative learning using ICTs in drama?
 How can activity theory be used to understand creative practice using drama
and ICTs?
This synthesising work will then lead to a response to the research question. “How can
digital technologies and drama be used to facilitate creative learning?”
The chapter will conclude by exploring limitations to the research, implications and
future possibilities.

7.2 How can ICTs be used to create drama in school contexts?

The findings from the case studies suggest that ICTs can be used to create drama in
school contexts and to complement live drama processes. However, the study
indicates that ICTs are not necessarily the meditational tools some students prefer
using for realising their creative practice in drama. Data from both case studies indicate
that some students prefer to focus on the human, somatic tool for creating drama,
rather than the technically mediated. Some students are engaged by the creative
possibilities for recording and sharing their creative work with a field or audience,
especially through publicly accessible spaces such as YouTube. Issues arose with the
ICT content creation options accessible from within the school context which restricted
opportunities to use ICTs for creative practice in drama.

The use of dramatic processes and frames provides a set of cultural tools, artefacts and
social practices which can extend student ICT tool use and opportunities for creative
practice. Some of these include the possibilities for creating role through online tools,
using communications technologies to build relationships between characters and
creating the world of the drama through uploading and linking to imagery, music and
video texts. The use of digital recording technologies and Internet spaces also provides
students with opportunities to create their own imaginative works and symbolic
artefacts and be able to share these with an audience beyond the classroom.

The findings from the two case studies highlight different ways that ICTs can be used to
facilitate the creation of drama. For the pilot study, the Great Big Drama (GBD) project
a number of restricted access wikispaces were set up. Discussion forum options on
these spaces could be used by participants to converse and discuss the developing
work and they used them for identity marking and social relational work in the main.
After that the discussion was mainly used by participants to provide feedback, opinion
and critique. This activity provided students with opportunities to reflect on work
outside of class time, to consolidate learning and consider future directions for the
work. Students also had opportunities to have their utterances heard and the
dynamics of typical teacher/student classroom interactions shifted. This indicates one
of the strengths of ICT communication uses for drama, in providing a space for dialogue
or intermental interactions. They can also provide spaces to externalise reflection,
which may contribute to intramental processes and internalised concept development.
There is the potential for agency and power negotiation, but also status play and
contestation. The pilot case highlighted the important role teachers can play in
managing the negotiation of power relations (and building trust) to manage multiple
subjects’ contributions in the development of collective imaginative works. The pilot
study also signalled that issues may arise when educators begin to extend expectations
about time and territorial engagement into non‐school time and spaces. There may be
a blurring of contexts and clarity around appropriate language and communications
protocols. This indicates the need to consider building student facility in the use of
cultural tools and social practices as well as ICT use to be able to contribute to drama
learning.

The second case, The Immortals, was more fundamentally concerned with creating
collective imaginative works, using the dramatic frame and a range of mediating tools
including ICTs. The focus was on the creation of a cyberdrama and this involved
students responding to a pre‐text, creating roles and contributing to a developing
narrative over a period of several weeks. The form of drama used allowed for students
and teachers to interact, negotiate, respond to feedback and share in the co‐
construction of the drama. The scaffolded but open nature of the process drama form
enabled some power sharing, as this is a cultural tool imbued with expectations about
collaborative forms of practice. Throughout the project students used a range of
technology‐based tools including their computers, video cameras and mobile phones to
capture performance material digitally. This mediated dramatic content was edited
and uploaded to a range of online spaces and shared with a wider audience or field.
What was evident from the survey data and focus group discussion was that different
students preferred using different tools and spaces. The ICT preferences were for
video recording technologies and online spaces where they could interact in‐role.
Students were also attracted to the idea of using sites such as YouTube to allow them
to share their work with a wider audience than their class group. Students were not as
enthusiastic about the use of educational spaces and did not regularly use those spaces
out of school time. Their preference was for those spaces where they could be creative
and which allowed them to show identity markers, control design elements and engage
in creative practice.

From this discussion it is apparent that there are a range of mediational tools, including
the technological but also live dramatic processes, that can be used to create drama in
school contexts. The use of ICTs can promote communications and dialogue, be used
to create content and achieve collective outcomes and then to share the outcomes
with a wider audience. Assumptions should not be made, however, that all students
will have the necessary skills to fully engage in all aspects of technology use. It was
clear that students had variable skills in using different mediating technologies, online
interfaces and online communications tools. Auditing various ICT skills at the beginning
of a unit and identifying strengths and weaknesses can help teachers scaffold the ZPD
for students and ensure technologies, cultural tools and social practices can be used in
meaningful ways. Finally though, a significant outcome of both cases was that some
students did not necessarily want to engage with ICTs as part of drama learning at
school. A number of students were more interested in live somatic interactions,
mediational tools and symbols and this impacted on their online engagement and
learning.

What is important in considering what ICTs may offer to learning in drama is looking at
how they can complement live drama processes, not replace them. The reverse is also
significant to consider. What can be offered by the live drama experience at school
that goes beyond what students can experience through ICTs? What this study
suggests is that the experiences of collectively creating imaginative symbolic work and
sharing corporeal drama work are appreciated by many students. Many students do
not wish to sacrifice these experiences at school if they are to be replaced by the use of
ICTs that they consider inferior. For most of the project students the use of ICTs at
home was faster and access to a wider range of content creation and social networking
sites unrestricted. The communicative and content creation possibilities afforded
through embodied dramatic action at school are more engaging for most students than
those they can experience through school‐based ICTs.

It is worth considering what the promotion of school‐based ICT learning looks like and
feels like and the dynamics of this learning environment compared to the embodied
drama learning context. The positioning of the bodies, in space and in relation to tools
and each other is very different in these two contexts. In the images shown in Figure
29, students were participating in a drama lesson using the computer bank in the
school library. Students were all seated at their individual pod, and while some
collaboration and communication was possible, they remained seated in a relatively
passive, inactive position throughout the lesson. While it is possible that using laptops
and wireless technology may change this dynamic somewhat, having a continued focus
on a screen demands a certain form of engagement that is primarily with a computer
screen.

Figure 29 Drama class working with computers

Compare that to the use of bodies in space and the kinds of interactions that are
required in a more typical drama classroom as shown in Figure 30. Bodies are moving
and student focus is on each other and the collective work they are creating. Students
are much more actively engaged whereas in the computer room their engagement is
more passive and controlled.
Figure 30 Drama class creating physical images

Some of the discourses around ICT use that promote the idea that education through
ICTs is superior to alternatives need to be problematised. Perhaps it is more useful to
consider the ways that technology can be used to in combination with quality live
learning experiences and how the two can be used to leverage each other. It is unlikely
otherwise that drama students and teachers will be willing to trade the dynamic live
processes of the drama classroom with what they perceive to be sedentary online
experiences of a restricted nature. ICTs can be used to facilitate learning; however
their use must be seen in the context of quality, engaging activity and social practices,
not as a positive end just for the sake of it.

7.2.1 What does it mean for drama and education?

For drama teachers, when it comes to school technology and the pressures to
incorporate more ICTs into the classroom, a specific dilemma emerges. Drama is not
deemed a priority area for allocation of school technology, so access to computers and
other school technology is often limited. Access to social networking and content
sharing sites and spaces which may be most relevant to drama practice is also
restricted. Drama educators often do not use ICTs as extensively in the classroom,
subsequently school administrators may believe that ICTs are not important to drama.
ICT resource allocation for drama is subsequently still not a priority and many drama
teachers may be unlikely to advocate extensively when their practice is more solidly
grounded in physical engagement and enactment.
However, some of the most significant Internet developments over the last decade are
of particular interest to drama education and social practices utilised in the learning
area. The rise of social media and creative content sharing opportunities through the
Internet, signals a shift from the Internet as an information retrieval tool to a space for
identity work and communicative exchanges. There are opportunities for drama
educators to explore the implementation of processes that are familiar to them within
these virtual spaces. There is also great potential for combining the use of ICT‐based
mediational tools with other somatic tools and live drama processes. Drama
conventions and processes need to be revisited anew and considered in light of digital
affordances, but the frameworks are already there. Previous research has indicated
the relevance of process drama to digital technology use, this research study has also
identified the application of improvisation conventions to the creation of cyberdrama
and online interactions. Ongoing exploration and research is needed.

Other tools and practices familiar to many drama teachers, including that of teacher as
co‐artist, should also be revisited and considered in the context of working with digital
technologies and online spaces. Teachers have an important role to play in auditing
student skills and scaffolding tool mastery where needed, even if their own facility is
not that of expert (especially in regard to ICT use). The teacher’s role is also important
for directing attention, especially as the conceptual landscape and possible toolkits
required become increasingly complex. Teachers may also model and manage
feedback and reflection processes, helping students to identify and externalise their
thinking and internal learning. This helps move experience from gratuitous activity to
learning and meaning.

7.3 How does the use of ICTs contribute to creative practice and
learning?
To answer this question, this section addresses several different components. To begin
with, the focus is on what ICTs were used and the nature of creative practice that
emerged. The following section focuses more on possible creative learning for
students, in particular relying on their accounts of what they learnt or took from the
projects.

For the pilot study wikispaces were used that were outside the official departmental e‐
learning space. The spaces could be used for dramatic content to be created and
shared, but they were not, largely because of limited opportunities to use the ICTs
within the learning context. Students accessed the discussion boards and used these
sites mainly for identity marking and reflective discussion about the nature of the work.
Some of the interactions were problematic and highlighted the importance of learning
experiences including facility with cultural and relational tools as well as the
technological. In terms of ICT use for creative practice, the forums did allow for
reflective interactions which could support individual and collective creative practice.
Overarching issues about the operations of power in institutions emerged as
significant, for both enabling or limiting opportunities for creative practice using ICT
tools.

For the focus project a number of different ICTs and online spaces were used, including
blogs, wikis, chats and discussion forums within The Learning Place. Throughout the
unit students did use a range of technologies to record and mediate their own creative
content and most of them commented favourably on the use of these tools. Students
used their Macbooks, video cameras and their mobile phones to take photos and video
footage and create a range of media products. By the end of the project they
demonstrated facility in creating video logs, interviews and video montages and had
manipulated still and moving images, text, audio and music to create these products.
Additional spaces outside the walled garden were used including the social networking
space Ning and YouTube. Students indicated they preferred to use spaces which allow
for self‐styling and demonstrations of identity.

In regard to the use of technology, findings from The Immortals project suggested that
technology was just a tool for some students, but for others it was their vehicle for
realising their creative practice. It was clear that other students perceived their
creative practice through different means, through live theatre and embodied
performance. Some of these students were emphatic about this preference and could
perhaps be called soma‐creatives. For some of them technology is just another tool
that is part of their lives, but not central to how they perceive their creative identity or
creative practice.

The enactment of both projects indicated that while teachers are encouraged to use
ICTs across the curriculum, and some drama teachers are enthusiastic about doing so,
the difficulties encountered are still significant. Embedding the use of ICTs in drama as
creative practice presents a significant intervention to the normative practices of
school drama and this became evident early on for both projects. Different contextual
layers frame the classroom activity and situated within these are rules and
authoritative positions that may impact on what is possible for teachers and students.
Therefore, some of the most exciting possibilities for creative practice using ICTs in
drama are currently restricted.

Creative practice using ICTs also requires teachers to question any assumptions they
have that all students are digital natives and will automatically be proficient in content
creation using technology. Some students have developed their creative practice using
ICTs through prior interest and experience, but this is patchy, and at times students
may overstate their actual skills base. It is important to audit student competence
across the different areas of digital literacy and these include multi‐media skills, social
relations, communication skills and e‐learning skills, but as related to realising
imaginative work as well as for informational purposes. Focussed attention may need
to be directed toward building student facility in these areas.

7.3.1 Outcomes for students

As both case studies were conducted within school contexts, a key focus was on what
kinds of learning and outcomes students might identify as emerging from the projects.
The main data sources for this were the responses of students to written surveys, in
particular to open‐ended questions, which asked students what they had “got” from
the project and another that asked what they had learnt from the project.

Key clusters of outcomes identified included drama/theatre learning, social and

collaborative learning, and learning about presentation of self (or confidence). For the
second case there is also significant mention of learning about specific drama and
performance elements with particular mention made of cyberdrama and characters.
Social learning and working with the group also emerged as significant across the cases,
and there was also specific mention of the use of different technology and ICTs for the
focus case.

Across the two projects, the nature of student learning about drama differed, especially
in relation to the specific form and presentation style of the work. For The Immortals
project, the survey data indicated students had learnt more about cyberdrama, a new
dramatic form introduced to them through the project. Responses also indicated their
drama learning was extended through learning more about creating roles and
narratives. The cyberdrama unit required them to focus more on role, language,
narrative and text and hence extend their facility with some dramatic tools, concepts
and signs.

What emerged across the two projects ‐ from student survey data, student and teacher
debriefs and my own fieldwork notes and diary ‐ was the importance of experience to
many students. The significance of the notion of experience in student accounts about
what they learnt or took from the case study projects, indicates that experience
matters and that having an experience is important. Experience, in this sense, may
just be about immediate sensory gratification and pleasure; however, for some
students their experiences involved dealing with conflicts, difficulties and experiences
of crisis and contradiction. This is especially important to activity and practice which
this study acknowledges arises from engagement in concrete physical acts but also
from abstraction and conceptual work. If contradictions, failure and crisis are
experienced but not examined and conceptualised, they are more likely to be
personalised and not recognised as common to creative practice and cultural
development. If creative practice and learning is a dialectical process, then
engagement with these more negative experiences is essential to ongoing
transformative development.

What is clear from the data is that while students can be participating in the same
activities, what they might take from them and what they might learn may be quite
different. Whilst there may be overarching common goals for an activity and
participants may commit to these, there may be other aspects which lead their
engagement. In both case study projects, students identified significant learning which
can be clustered around personal confidence and presentation skills, community and
group collaboration as well as those related to the knowledge domain or drama.

Students entered the activity system in most cases with specific creative preferences
and motivations for their involvement. This determined, to some degree, what
students learnt. This would indicate that engagement in any learning activity requires a
consideration of different possible entry points. Whilst the overarching learning goals
are important, for the participants it is important to connect to the activity through
their experience of self as a leading activity, but with an open‐ness to the learning
possibilities.

7.3.2 Identity and learning

Moving from engaging external experience to learning and meaning making requires
intramental activity that determines what any individual may learn from a collective
activity. What is experienced externally may be internalised in very different ways.
While external conditions and interactions may impact on this, so do the internal ones
and what the individual is open to learning. What an individual learns is shaped by
their version of self and how flexible or cybernetic this is. What was significant from
the second case, was the way that for some students, their open‐ness to learning was
curtailed from the beginning of the project because of the version of self leading their
activity. For Jaida in particular, her version of self was led by her interest in specific
somatic tools and performance form, hence her open‐ness to learning with new media
was restricted. Whilst other students had similar leading interests, some were more
open to learning using ICTs than she was. Others could see some value in engaging
with various technologies, believing they were somehow relevant to possible future
careers and versions of self.

This finding would seem to confirm assertions by Vygotsky (1998) and Moran and John‐
Steiner’s (2003) that adolescence is a time of crisis and dis‐equilibrium and identity is a
major creative project. What personal learning emerges from an activity therefore
depends on how young people see themselves as being in the world, with notions of
identity at this age related to notions of the future self. That is, what students learned
varied depending on how they saw their self in the future. This impacted on their
external engagement and practice, internal dialogue and possible learning. Using ICTs
can help scaffold and facilitate this process of creative learning, while not being the site
of realisation for a student’s creative practice.

7.4 What kinds of processes and interactions appear to be

most effective for facilitating learning using ICTs in drama?
The importance of interactions to learning emerged as a key concept from cultural‐
historical theory, with Vygotsky identifying that learning arises out of various
interactions and exchanges. This framing recognises the importance of various external
interactions as providing the basis for internal interactions and eventual concept
formation and memory. Participatory forms of interaction which allow the user to
impact on the resulting action or experience were identified as being more likely to
engage students and users in creating drama using ICTs and the Internet. The notion of
feedback having impact upon a system and its operation was identified as central to
cybernetic systems operations and to learning. What this research study indicated was
that drama processes and cyberdrama as an artform is able to operate in this way, with
action being directed towards a goal orientation when feedback is listened to and
action modified but ongoing.
The first case in particular highlighted issues about interactions that confirm concerns
expressed by cultural‐historical theorists that micro‐level interactions are significant
and need to be understood to enable fruitful action to emerge from collective activity.
It was identified that interactions such as blocking, ignoring and reinforcement were
significant in online interactions. These interactions were also sites for exercising and
realising power relations. The second case emphasised how multiple forms of
interaction are involved when ICTs are incorporated into a drama unit, and that
interactions with technology in themselves can not be regarded in a singular way.
Interactions with technology involve interacting with recording technologies, with the
interfaces of various programs and interacting with others through the online spaces.
Interactions between participants (or users) in the face‐to‐face context and interactions
with the dramatic content and narrative also were involved.

7.4.1 Activity context, interactions and power

The first case indicated how the use of the online spaces created a space where some
of the usual patterns of classroom communications were disrupted. What is significant
is that students were attempting to negotiate some aspects of the collective work of
the imagination. This was a work that did not pre‐exist and that over 50 people in that
cluster were involved in its making. Realising this goal in action required ongoing
consideration and numerous interactions. The online interactions for the first case
demonstrated how some students were attempting to clarify the goal or object of the
activity system and shape it to some degree.

A finding from this case was that any analysis of activity must recognise the different
contextual fields the activity is situated within. The institutional context for these cases
was that of formal education systems. In both cases the rule structure about ICT use
was determined at a macro level and negotiations could only occur within the
constraints of the system. There was little opportunity to negotiate power in that field,
so unlike the artform or the classroom level activity system, the institutional system is
not very cybernetic in terms of immediate responses to feedback.

There were more opportunities to negotiate power through internally persuasive

discourses at the level of the activity group. Certain conventions of interaction were
noted as allowing or blocking the exercising of power by different participants and
these were identified as being similar to those known in the drama world from
improvisation and playbuilding.

Some basic kinds of interactions such as making offers, accepting and extending, and
reinforcing, emerged as being relevant to dramatic processes, but also to online
communications between different participants and groups. The impact of blocking or
ignoring and how participants deal with such instances was also important. This case
demonstrated how the constitution and manipulation of power can emerge from
micro‐level interactions. Power is exercised through and emerges from these micro‐
level interactions and is quite malleable at this level. At the institutional level it was
not however, and power was exercised in authoritative and inflexible ways which
impacted on creative practice possibilities.

A consideration of power relations and possible dynamics arose as important to any

activity system and in particular to one focussed on outcomes that are in the process of
being formed. Power in this instance can be seen as involved in any encounter, in
every interaction and is dynamic and relational. Concepts of power drawn from
Wertsch (1998) can be helpful in understanding how power is not seen as being simply
invested in authority figures but is constantly shifting and exercised in multiple forms.

Whilst the exercising of power may often be described in negative ways, the
investment of it can be perceived in positive ways by participants as well. In drama
training activities which aim to develop improvisation skills, participants are
encouraged to become open to accepting and yielding to offers made by others, even if
they don’t believe it is the best possible offer. In this situation, participants are being
encouraged to concede personal power to the other. In processes where this is
working, and with drama groups who are experienced and familiar with working
together, they concede this power because they have a degree of trust. This trust
emerges over time when behaviour and action fulfils beliefs and expectations.
Participants might then trust that the other person has the competence to take the
next step; they might trust that the other person will concede power back at a later
date; they might trust that the outcome will be better through their concession of
power.

This concept of power, therefore, is very flexible. What was also significant from the
first case was that both student and teacher participants may choose not to exert and
exercise power, but be happy to allow others to, and invest them with power and
authority. Investing power in others in this sense means reducing the number and
range of interactions that would otherwise be required to negotiate each decision
involved in realising a collective work of the imagination. This is based on the belief
that the other can be trusted to help achieve the collective goal.

Within a schooling context a teacher’s role is generally invested with some power and
authority and they play a key role in the management of power dynamics, particularly
so that power plays between students do not become destructive. This position is not
absolute though, and they are able to share and concede power at times without losing
their authority. This is evident when a teacher works in a co‐artistic role with students,
which is what the teacher and I attempted to do within the second case study.

For the second case the teacher and I decided on the initial framing for the drama and
set up parameters for group activities. How the drama progressed was determined by
reading the work and offers that students made, therefore the system was working
cybernetically. The eventual conclusion of the drama drew on offers and extensions
made by students, as well as teachers, and the work had been co‐constructed. Co‐
artistry, therefore, involves power sharing with students, but it does not mean equal
power relations at all times. It means that at times students may lead the interactions
and exchanges and at others the teacher does. This opens up entry for students into
the process of concept formation and development, it therefore shifts the dynamics
from teacher decision making and students operationalising, to processes which
involve joint construction of new knowledge. There is still a role for teacher as more
knowledgeable other, who may have more knowledge and experience in a domain or
field. There is a role for the virtuosic, however, students may also take on this role and
bring what they know and can do to the creative activity. This flexible process
therefore draws on their experiences of culture and tools they may have facility with.
Interchanges are dialogic and the process and product is therefore co‐constructed.

Co‐artistry signals different ways of working with students than in many traditional
contexts, especially when working with artistic product. Vygotsky (1971) described art
as the embodiment of emotions as well as ideas, as ways of expressing the internal
landscape. Co‐artistry therefore opens up a territory where teachers explore
emotional landscapes with their students and work collaboratively on shaping and
sharing that work through micro‐level interactions.

7.4.2 Interactions and creative learning possibilities

Engagement in creative learning activities involves a complex range of interactions.
Successful negotiation of these require cybernetic systems and processes that can lead
to collaborative creative experiences and the achievement of common goals or
outcomes. To maintain a creative activity or life therefore means listening to feedback
(of varying kinds) and responding through different kinds of interaction and response.
For learning to occur, the subject must be able to respond to these interactions and be
able to adapt, transform and change.

7.5 How can culturalhistorical theory be used to research drama

and ICTs?
Activity theory is useful for analysing challenges and learning possibilities within
organisations. In this case activity theory has been helpful for framing the case
activities and identifying structural issues. It has also been useful for helping
understand the experiences of contradiction and crisis and identifying what
components might need to be considered to move on to more productive learning.
What it highlighted in both cases was that the introduction of new technologies and
mediation tools into drama learning activity systems created significant contradictions.
These related to institutional blockages and student preferences regarding tool use and
creative practice. In some cases shifts could be negotiated and creative learning
occurred, however, in others experiences of crisis occurred and the shifts were more
internalised.

7.5.1 The importance of disequilibrium, crisis and contradiction

In any collective activity, it is likely that some participants are not going to remain
equally committed to the goal orientation, in the same way for the whole time.
Problems and blockages are often encountered and these can seriously impact on
continued activity and goal realisation. These may be seen as problems, but how they
are responded to depends on such things as the background of expectations for that
activity (Hundeide, 1985).

As Hundeide identifies, problematic or negative disruptions, as well as creative

disruptions, are all deviations from a standard of what is taken for granted as typical.
“Our awareness is not engaged by the familiar and the trivial that is in complete
agreement with this standard. Rather it is the deviations from this standard that
attract our attention” (Hundeide, 1985, p. 311). It could be argued that the concept of
creativity, with a key focus in definitions usually on the notion of novelty and newness,
in itself is concerned with disruptions from the normative. The case studies indicated
that the use of ICTs and technology in drama also involved shifts and new practices,
other kinds of disruptions. Disruptions and new experiences in these different realms
can be both positive and successful as well as negative and resulting in failure. In most
cases the positive creative experience is most valued, what may be seen as the
effective experiences of disruption. Creative practice and learning, though, requires
successful negotiation and meaning making around both positive and negative
experiences of disruption, including the experience of crisis. How activity systems,
knowledgeable others and participants deal with crisis and disequilibrium is central to
creative learning. To understand creative learning, then, includes the means for
coming to understand different experiences of disruption and possible responses to
them. This includes understanding perspectives and normative standards and
recognising the nature of crisis and possible responses, including conflict, withdrawal,
silence, assertive action, adaptation and change.

Activity theory identifies the significance of contradiction as being a stimulus for

learning. However, this experience is often manifest at an individual level as an
experience of crisis or failure. The subject’s response to that may be to block or
withdraw.

Responding to the experience or the feedback involves reflection and insight and
intrapsychological processes, working with the voices of the mind. It involves an
internal dialogue which is crucial for processing experiences and determining future
action. Creative learning doesn’t mean blocking off the experience of crisis and critical
feedback, but processing it and using it to inform the next stage of the creative
practice.

7.5.2 Revisioning activity systems for creative learning

This research study has used activity theory as a major lens for describing and analysing
the case studies and has proven to be a useful analysis tool. The structure is useful for
considering how attention needs to be given to all these components. The concept of
contradiction and the theory of expansive learning help provide the tools for
understanding the nature of issues that arise through any intervention activity and the
possibilities for learning and transformation that may emerge. Expansive learning has
also been useful in regards to methodology as well and to the learnings that emerged
from the research journey. Activity theory is not a theory of pedagogy as such; it does
not really give any direction for how to teach or structure activity for learning. The
learning that emerges from expansive learning is almost a by‐product of the process,
not the actual product. The process of activity enactment would be important to a
theory of pedagogy and to understanding how creative practice and learning may
emerge from collective activity.

The findings from this study suggest there are other elements that may be added to
models of activity to reflect the nature of creative practice. In this revised model (see
Figure 31), entry to the activity is represented to the left, and indicates that the subject
must become engaged in goal oriented activity. The objects and outcomes of such
activity can vary and be collective and individual. Subjects may have personal objects as
well as align with the collective ones. The outcomes may subsequently include work of
the imagination, but also artefacts, ideas, versions of the self and the community. As a
collective creative activity, the potentially shared outcomes for this research study
were performance products. The importance of activity resulting in a creative product,
(as well as process and experience) emerged as significant for the participants involved
in this research study. The focus case students had the choice of not having a
performative outcome but they still wanted one. A creative product could, however,
also be a version of the self ‐ so there are different kinds of products that can emerge
from creative activity.

These different outcomes draw from cultural concepts, tools and artefacts. In creative
practice, these are then combined with imagination and mediated through a range of
tools and signs into various expressive forms. What carries the subjects through the
activity is experience and interactions with the various components of the system,
including other subjects, technologies and tools. The activity may lead to a range of
different experiences, including a sense of flow or that of crisis. Experience may
become a form of practice and be transformed into meaning and learning, but this
relies on how feedback is received and responded to by subjects.
Figure 31 Activity system for creative practice and learning

The nature of activity shifts and continues until a state of fulfilment or resolution is
reached. The activity system on paper appears static and is not able to accommodate
the dynamic nature of activity in its moment‐by‐moment enactment and
transformation. Some attempt has been made to indicate the interactive nature of the
activity system (in Figure 31), however, it is acknowledged that a still image does not do
it justice. It was also identified in the focus case that other kinds of models previously
used by Engeström (1987) in describing expansive learning may be helpful for tracking
the shifts and developments across ongoing activity to achieve learning.

Creative practice and learning therefore involve processes of engagement, embodied

interactions, feedback, evaluation and adaptation. Feedback processes are crucial and
these include feedback from external sources as well as internalised feedback and
critique. The feedback impacts on the subject and on the work. For the subject to
receive and respond to the feedback involves the previously described cybernetics of
self. This involves filtering processes which screen what information the subject or
system is open to receiving, and how they respond to it. Therefore feedback needs to
be included in an activity system for creative learning. This all occurs within a
contextual field that is made up of overlapping frames which impact upon all aspects of
the activity – with institutional tool provision, rules about tool use and exercise of
authority having particular impact within a formal educational setting. Power is
manifest at different levels within the system, and is evident in any activity involving
multiple subjects. For creative practice to be realised in a collective activity, a dynamic
notion of power is required, and the system needs to be cybernetic. Consideration
needs to be given to how participants might have opportunities to lead and have a
sense of agency, and how trust might be established so participants might confidently
concede power to achieve the collective goal.

7.5.3 Cybernetics of self in activity

The potential for creative learning within an activity system depends on open‐ness to
feedback from intermental processes and permeability of what could be called an
identity membrane. Through experience, an individual may become resistant to
negative feedback and close down possibilities from permeation of the membrane.
Identity becomes fixed in some cases and there is limited open‐ness to adaptation and
change. The membrane may become more open or closed depending on the
environment, rather like osmosis. At times in a conducive environment, the
permeability of the membrane might increase and the potential for the self to
transform also increases. However, in what the individual perceives as a more hostile
environment, the membrane concretizes ‐ creating a shield towards outside
penetration. Identity in this sense is not viewed as fixed, but patterns do become
regulated and memory plays a part here. In this sense, identity is a cognitive tool and is
the integrating principle for all other mental tools (Wardekker, 2008). Identity is
shaped through interactions within the culture and with others, but also determines
how activity may be read and what is learnt. How the interactions and feedback are
responded to, accepted or rejected may be considered through the concept of a
cybernetics of self. Feedback can be both positive and negative and whilst it might
appear that positive feedback is the most important, negative feedback is also
important. Different kinds of feedback are required to establish a state of equilibrium
for the system, and the self to achieve various objects or goals.

This dynamic notion of the self, in relation to the collective activity is represented by
Figure 32. This recognises how in any activity the subject enters with personal goals
which lead their activity. These will overlap to varying degrees with the collective goal.
Ideally there should be considerable alignment in these goals or objects.

Figure 32 Subject activity within collective activity

The subject identity is a tool that determines the meaning that is made of the activity
through ongoing responses to interactions within the system. At a basic level the two
responses are to accept offers and inputs, or to reject them. Other variations to these
two responses are represented in this diagram as well ‐ and include resistance,
adaptation, reinforcement and extension. It is a version of self that recognises all the
multitude of information and interactions: with others in the community, with various
tools and artefacts and signs. The self is invested with a notion of agency though, and
the governor role for how feedback is responded to.
To encourage creativity and creative learning, ideally the concept of self needs to
remain somewhat flexible and permeable, with the capacity to change in response to
various information and feedback within the activity system and the environment.
External conditions that encourage permeability involve emotional states. One trigger
for the membrane to become permeable is that of trust: trust in the group, trust in the
teacher or more knowledgeable other to lead in productive ways, trust that the
collective goal is worth conceding aspects of personal power to achieve. Trust also
extends to the notion of crisis and disequilibrium and feeling confident that if this state
is experienced, it will be possible to transform productively. This notion of a
cybernetics of self is also of a social and cultural self; in constant dialogue and
interaction with others, the environment, action and expressive forms.

7.6 Response to the research question

The focus for this research was “How can digital technologies and drama be used to
facilitate creative practice and learning?” The journey of this study has indicated that
digital technologies can be used in multiple ways to support creative practice in drama
and to provide spaces for realising creative learning. The creation of roles and
communities, both in‐role and out‐of‐role, can be extended through the use of digital
technologies and various online spaces. Dialogic interactions may be facilitated which
contribute to creative learning. Online spaces open up opportunities to build narrative
and to create the world of the drama. The potential is exciting because drama is an
artform concerned with people, communications and collaboration. These are also
fundamental elements in the virtual world and Web 2.0 technologies.

Introducing the use of these technologies and spaces also opens up opportunities for
crisis and contradiction and these require shifts in practice and the use of various
cultural tools or pedagogical processes to ensure expansive learning may arise.

It is evident that through the Internet and ICTs students may be provided with access
to a vast array of information, models, examples, cultural artefacts and tools. Creative
practice using ICTs involves working with tools, artefacts and signs edited and
combined in novel ways, but also informed by concepts and principles of the domain.
What is key to creative learning is the provision of scaffolded activities that incorporate
the use of ICTs to shape, create and express ideas and emotions in crystallized forms.
ICTs can also contribute to interactions which may model internal dialogue and
contribute to reflection and learning. The creative use of ICT tools then takes on an
order of use beyond mere tool use. ICTs need to be seen as instruments (in ways
similar to that of musical instruments) of creative practice and not just technical tools.

Consideration of this research question within school contexts signals a specific frame,
however, and within this frame certain options for creative practice using ICTs are
available, but many others are restricted. In an era where unparalleled freedoms are
possible through the online world outside of school, educational institutions and
bureaucracies have increased the mechanisms for managing and surveilling student
activities at school. Hence, many ICT‐based creative learning opportunities are
restricted for young people while they are at school. That means that some of the
most creative ICT‐related endeavours open to students and their engagement with
relevant communities will be influenced by the digital divide. Those young people
whose parents can afford the latest computers, unlimited broadband, access to the
professional software and so forth are therefore more likely to access the cultural
capital of the new digital economy

It was also clear that ICT facilities in schools are not yet ubiquitous enough for many
drama educators to be able to seamlessly incorporate them into the drama learning
environment. In the schools involved in this study, accessing the Internet was often
time‐consuming and difficult to organise. Students lost their logins, computer labs had
to be booked (or were unavailable), computers were slow to log on, and use of spaces
for creative development and interchange were restricted. It is not surprising that
many drama teachers are still wary of committing too much time to the use of ICTs,
especially when they perceive they are giving up time when they would otherwise be
engaging in more active learning experiences.
What the research also indicated was that while digital technologies can open up
opportunities for creative learning, not all students are digital natives for all computer
and Internet tools and spaces. Some students are not particularly interested in using
ICTs for creative practice and have other preferences for creative expression. Just
because young people use some interfaces and spaces regularly, does not mean they
are fluent with all. Using digital technologies for creative purposes requires attention
and focussed engagement and teachers need time and support to do this too. At
present, student and teacher input into how this might best occur is generally
restricted at an institutional level. Technological access in schools is managed in
authoritative ways with minimal dialogue possible. Institutions who are committed to
promoting productive ICT use may well consider their feedback processes and what
channels exist for enabling student and teacher input and dialogue.

7.7 Limits of the research

The design of research is important and systematic processes are required. Working as
a researcher in school contexts where the researcher is not an insider presents
significant challenges. For the pilot case study, I had originally planned to gather data
through focus group interviews, classroom observation and online communications.
The institutional blocks encountered regarding technology use rendered some aspects
of the research very problematic. This meant a shift to the introduction of survey tools
so that some data could be collected from each participant. These tools were
constructed with as much of a focus on practical matters as design validity (what
students were likely to fill in and could be completed and returned within a demanding
rehearsal and performance schedule). In terms of some of the research questions, in
particular the one related to creative learning, this seriously reduced my capacity to
track the learning journey of particular students. I was not able to check on their
developing understandings, reactions to the introduction of the ICT components and
identify specific concept development in the way that I had anticipated.
Several points emerge from this dilemma. There is obviously room for ongoing
research into this more detailed qualitative endeavour. The limited direct engagement
I did have with students assured me of their willingness to engage in conversation
about their creative practice, the possible contributions and problems involved in
bringing more technology into their classrooms, and their opinions about ICT use in
schools.

Furthermore, it was not possible within my research to focus on the ICT/Internet access
issues at home for different students and drill down into exploring the impact of that
on their creative learning. Future research is required which probably has a more
ethnographic focus and tracks and compares the digital creative experiences and
opportunities for different populations of students.

7.8 Concluding reflections on current policy and future practice

The outcomes of this study support other educational research which has suggested
that the provision of computers and broadband access will not necessarily lead to a
digital revolution. For this to occur, there would need to be a much stronger focus on
pedagogy, on creative tools, on human interactions, quality of experience and feedback
processes. Participation, dialogue and human interactions count. At present the
control of computers in education is often managed by the “techies” and the “pollies”.
The managers of ICT are often those who understand how computers work technically.
The managers at a systemic level are the politicians who wish to tap into simple
solutions to complex educational issues. If politicians really wished to use technology
in revolutionary ways, strategies and campaigns should focus more deliberately on
communications rather then just provision of technology, and ways to engage the
subjects of educational activity in debate about ideas and alternative practices. How
might that be achieved? Perhaps by involving teachers and students in creative
brainstorming and planning concerning how they could demolish the virtual walls, and
access the spaces and places that facilitate creativity and communication online.
Perhaps by funding programs after school, especially in the most disadvantaged schools
or where the digital divide is most apparent, and employing mentors to support young
people explore their creative capacities – not just through digital tools though, but
through valuing live social practices as well. A true education revolution would surely
see some shifts in the dynamics of power, to provide opportunities for players other
than government ministers, bureaucrats and “techies” to decide how technology can
best be utilised. Current government decrees do not acknowledge the voices of
principals, let alone students and teachers.

In Australia, a majority of young people now have access to communications with their
friends during non‐school hours through multiple channels. They are able to access an
incredible array of information, music, entertainment and experiences that are of
interest to them. They are able to use text language and codes in ways to exclude
other audiences and observers (such as parents) and use appearance, expressions and
experiences to create a sense of identity and culture. These youth cultural experiences
are now highly interactive, immersive, individual, visual, aural and pervasive. Most of
the spaces they prefer using and which allow creative personalisation and expression
are blocked at the school gate.

Contrast that to the experience of schooling that many young people still have, which is
organised around listening, being quiet for much of the time, answering questions and
reading and writing printed texts. This is not to deny that there are many schooling
experiences that are not in this vein, but a walk around most schools on a typical school
day would still reveal a lot of teachers at the front of the room talking, students sitting
at desks listening, reading or writing. The introduction of more computers to these
classrooms has not changed much about this dynamic. In fact, the restrictions and
regulation of school digital experiences seem to be particularly resistant to embracing
the kinds of change required to engage young people in creative learning processes of
value to a range of possible futures.

Alternatively, it is important to recognise the space and opportunities for creative

practice that are provided through drama experiences at school, both in the classroom
and through co‐curricula activities. These experiences are significant for many young
people, as sites where they can play and enact their identity and explore human action,
interactions and experience. Live communal experiences in drama (process and
performance) still remain important to many young people. The use of ICTs may
complement this kind of experience, but do not appear to have replaced them at
present. It therefore appears that the most useful way for drama educators to work
with these technologies is to consider the ways that the live and virtual can be utilised
in synergistic ways. Technology can be incorporated in exciting and meaningful ways
and provide opportunities for communicating and sharing work, but this does not
replace kinaesthetic, embodied experience.

7.8.1 Revisiting ICTs in the classroom – two vignettes

In chapter one, two vignettes were shared, drawn from a speech by the Australian
Federal Minister for Education. The vignettes aimed to present contrasting views of
classrooms. One classroom, Amanda’s, was apparently switched on and innovative
because of the ICT affordances. It was depicted as automatically being the superior
learning site because of the technology tools. The other classroom, Sam’s, was
presented as an uninspiring learning context, mainly because of limited access to
computers and interactive whiteboards.

Another account of Amanda’s technology rich classroom experience might read like
this (my additions in italics):

Amanda attends a school that has embraced ICT in every aspect of its being. In
this school, students, staff and parents are connected via a broadband network
which is truly the lifeblood of the school when it works. Today, her morning
starts with an online field trip with a geologist based in a rural property in the
highlands of East Gippsland. Amanda’s participation is facilitated through the
use of an interactive whiteboard allowing a real‐time connection with
specialised support and a visual link providing a unique, yet cost effective
experience. Students in her class are really disappointed they are not actually
going on the field trip though as previous year groups have. Her teacher has
 already uploaded worksheets and study notes to her workspace and has sent a
message to her parents’ inbox informing them that an assessment task on this
topic is due in a weeks’ time. Amanda’s printer at home wasn’t working though
so she has not been able to print out the worksheet for today. Five minutes into
the live link connection half the class clocks out as the speaker drones on. The
live feed starts to break up and when students are invited to ask questions the
feedback is really bad and so they have to cut the exchange short. The class
starts to get restless as the teacher phones the IT desk to find out what has
happened. The link can’t be reconnected. Another five minutes passes as the
teacher tries to find some other video clips online to illustrate the points that
were to be made through the online field trip. By this stage certain class
members are tearing up pieces of their worksheets and throwing spitbombs.
The teacher screams at them and declares they will all be staying in at
morning tea.

Sam’s classroom is also revisited. In the meantime Sam’s drama teacher has
undergone her own digital revolution think‐tank process. Their school has used
cultural tools to engage students and teachers in collaborative processes to share
experiences and learning to build creative practice using ICTs. Sam’s teacher has
mapped student ICT tool access and facility and worked with the class to find different
ways to use digital technologies to support drama classroom pedagogy. The school still
has limited computer access but as a community they have determined ways to share
resources across the term to support learning. As teachers and students extend their
practice, they participate in reflective workshop sessions to identify what they have
learnt and what they might do next. They have been using communications tools (or
processes) drawn from the drama classroom and these have been applied in online
communications and live interactions. Sam’s teacher has been using a range of new
ICT and interactive strategies this week (my additions in italics):

Two suburbs away at Sam’s school computers are only available in the school
library. He has to book a computer, and his access is rationed to 1 hour a week.
Last week while the class was there students had to find articles and images
that related to their current unit focus, they posted these to the “delicious”
bookmarking account that the teacher set up for the class. Sam’s school
possesses one interactive whiteboard which is rostered between classes and
they have it today. The morning starts with students doing a 20 second check in
to share what they want to learn about and achieve today. For homework the
students have emailed or texted the teacher using their mobile phones with
links to images and music they think could be used within their drama work. The
teacher has saved these onto her laptop which is hooked it up to the interactive
whiteboard. Students take turns to share their selected images and texts with
the class. The class use their phones to vote on an image and piece of music to
work with today. The teacher splits the class into groups and they are provided
with some copies of different written texts they submitted. The teacher asks
each group to create three tableaux using the visual images and their bodies.
They are to use extracts of text and plan how to incorporate it with imagery
and music to make a statement about their issue. Groups are invited to try out
their work with the interactive whiteboard.

After 20 minutes each group shares their tableaux. Students use the school
digital camera to take photos as they share their work. The teacher invites
another group to provide feedback after each one, commenting on what they
found interesting about the work, what dramatic elements have been used and
what ideas it conveyed to them. At the end of the class the teacher uploads the
images to the class wiki. She has invited students to post titles and feedback on
the wiki tonight. For the following lesson the teacher invites students to start
thinking of people and places where this issue has occurred in the past, sharing
an example of her own. Students are invited to share video links, or bring in
photos and role descriptions for their next lesson. Before students leave, they
are asked to think of one thing they learnt or thought about today. The teacher
then points to five students one at a time and they share their reflections. The
 teacher “tweets” their responses on Twitter where they are part of a cluster of
class groups sharing their learning on the same topic.

People act upon the world and can change the world. People use ideas, words, music
and images and tools, including the embodied and the technological, to do so. Giving a
child a set of flash cards does not teach them how to read; giving every child coloured
pencils does not teach them how to be an artist; giving every child a computer will not
teach them how to be creative and human, even in a digital age. Providing the technical
tools is just the beginning. The people, the processes and the sharing of the power are
fundamental to any true revolution in learning.
References

Abbs, P. (1989a). A is for aesthetic. London: Falmer Press.

Abbs, P. (Ed.). (1989b). The symbolic order: A contemporary reader on the arts debate.
London: Falmer Press.

Allen Consulting Group. (2003). Digital content: Creativity plus connectivity. Sydney:
New South Wales Government.

Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on

creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 393‐399.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology

of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Anderson, M. (2005). New stages: Challenges for teaching the aesthetics of drama
online. Journal of Aesthetic Education, Winter 2005, 39(4), 119‐131.

Anderson, M., Carroll, J., & Cameron, D. (Eds.). (2009). Teaching drama with
digital technologies: Applying theatre, drama and technology to learning. London
& New York: Continuum Press.

AoC NILTA. (2006). DOPA, Social networks and keeping young people safe: e‐
safety education, not filtering and blocking, will keep young people safe online.
Retrieved from http://aocnilta.co.uk/2006/08/03/dopa/
1

Aristotle (1999) (translated by Ross, W.,D.) Nicomachean ethics Kitchener: Batoche

Books [electronic version].

Arts Council. (2009). Creative partnerships ‐ About us. Retrieved from

http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/aboutus/project_detail.php?sid=11&id=3
1

Asbury, C., & Rich, B. (Eds.). (2008). Learning, arts, and the brain: The Dana
Consortium report on arts and cognition. New York/Washington DC: Dana Press.

Australia Council for the Arts. (2004). Education and the arts strategy 2004‐2007.
Sydney: Australia Council for the Arts.

Australia Council for the Arts. (2005a). Backing our creativity: Research, policy, practice.
Paper presented at the Backing Our Creativity Symposium, Melbourne.

Australia Council for the Arts. (2005b). Submission to the Prime Minister's Science,
Engineering and Innovation Council Inquiry into the role of creativity in the innovation
economy. Sydney: Australia Council for the Arts.
Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2009a). Click and connect ‐
young Australians' use of online social media. Canberra: Australian Government.

Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2009b). Use of electronic media

and communications: Early childhood to teenage years. Canberra: Australian
Government.

Australian Government. (1994). Creative nation: Commonwealth cultural policy.

Retrieved from h ttp://www.nla.gov.au/creative.nation/creative.html
1

Avis, J. (2009). Transformation of transformism: Engeström's version of activity theory.

Educational Review, 61(2), 151‐165.

Bailin, S. (1996). Philosophical research in drama education: The case of creativity.

Research in Drama Education, Volume 1(1), 79‐86.

Barab, S., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize
online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory.
Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25‐47.

Barthes, R. (1974). S/Z. New York: Hill & Wang.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson
Inc.

Beckett, M., Flinders, M., Goodfried, G., & Goodfried, A. (2006). Lonely Girl 15.
Retrieved from http://www.YouTube.com/profile?user=lonelygirl15
1

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, Oct (1998).

Boal, A. (1979). Theatre of the oppressed. London: Pluto Press.

Boal, A. (1992). Games for actors and non‐actors. London & New York: Routledge.

Boden, M. A. (2001). Creativity and knowledge. In Craft, A., Jeffrey, B. & Leibling, M.
(Eds.), Creativity in education (pp. 95‐102). London & New York: Continuum.

Bolton, G. (1984). Drama as education. London: Longman.

Bolton, G. (1992). New perspectives on classroom drama. Hemel Hempstead: Simon &
Schuster Education.

Bottino, R.‐M., Chiappini, G., Forcheri, P., Lemut, E., & Molfino, M.‐T. (1999). Activity
theory: A framework for design and reporting on research projects based on ICT.
Education and Information Technologies, 4(3), 281‐295.
Boyd, D. (2006). Friends, friendsters, and top 8: Writing community into being on social
network sites. First Monday, 11(12).

Boyd, D. (2007a). Social network sites: Public, private, or what? The knowledge
tree: An e‐journal of learning innovation (13).

Boyd, D. (2007b). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics
in teenage social life. In Buckingham, D. (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation series on digital
learning: Identity volume. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC: Commission on Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education of the National Research Council National Academy
Press.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, J. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social‐practice

perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198‐213.

Bruns, A. (2007). The future is user‐led: The path towards widespread produsage. Paper
presented at the Proceedings Perth DAC: Digital Arts & Culture, Perth, WA.

Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology: Children's learning in the age of

digital culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Bundy, P. (2003a). Aesthetic engagement in the drama process. Research in

Drama Education, 8(2), 171‐181.

Bundy, P. (2003b). Dramatic tension: Towards an understanding of 'tension

of intimacy'. Griffith University, Brisbane.

Burgess, R., & Gaudry, P. (1985). Time for drama: a handbook for secondary teachers.
Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Burlseson, W., (2005). Developing creativity, motivation and self‐actualization with

learning systems. Human‐Computer Studies, 63, 436‐451

Burton, J., Horowitz, R., & Abeles, H. (1999). Learning in and through the arts:
curriculum implications. In Fiske, E. B. (Ed.), Champions of change: The impact of
the arts on learning. Washington DC: The Arts Education Partnership &The
President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action.
Lewes: Falmer.

Carroll, J. (2005). YTKLIN2ME? Drama in the age of digital reproduction. NJ

(Drama Australia Journal), 29(1), 15‐23.
Carroll, J., Anderson, M., & Cameron, D. (2006). Real players? Drama, technology
and education. Stoke on Trent, UK and Sterling USA: Trentham Books.

Carroll, J., & Cameron, D. (2003a). To the Spice Islands: Interactive process drama.
Fine Art Forum, 17(8).

Carroll, J., & Cameron, D. (2005). Playing the game: Role distance and digital
performance. Applied Theatre Researcher, 6(2005), Article 11.

Castells, M., Fernandez‐Ardevol, M., Oiu, J. L., & Sey, A. (2007). Mobile
communication and society ‐ A global perspective. Cambridge, Mass & London: MIT
Press.

CCE (Community, Culture & Education). (2008). Take a closer look:

Creative Partnerships brochure. London: Creativity, Culture and Education.

Chwastiak, M. (1998a). Webisodics: A brief history. Retrieved from

http://www.sideroad.com/gethooked/column10.html
1

Chwastiak, M. (1998b). Webisodics ‐ part two: An overview of the current field.

Retrieved from http://www.sideroad.com/gethooked/column11.html
1

CIRAC, Q., & Cutler & Co. (2003). Research and innovation systems in the production
of digital content: Report for the National Office for the Information Economy.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition
create each other. In Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition:
Vygotskian Perspectives. (pp. 146‐161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. MA: Cambridge
University Press.

Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural historical approach to distributed

cognition. In G. Salomon, (Ed.) Distributed cognitions. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and thought. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In Sternberg, R. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297‐312). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, T., & Rhodes, V. (2003). ICT
and pedagogy: A review of the research literature: Department for Education and Skills
and British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British
Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 113‐127.

Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools. London & New York: Routledge.

Craft, A. (2006). Fostering creativity with wisdom. Cambridge Journal of Education,

36(3), 337‐350.

Craft, A., Jeffrey, B., & Leibling, M. (Eds.). (2001). Creativity in education. London & New
York: Continuum.

Crawford, C. (2005). Chris Crawford on interactive storytelling. Berkeley: New Riders.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1994). The domain of creativity. In Feldman, D. H.,

Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Gardner, H. (Eds.), Changing the world: A framework for the
study of creativity. Westport, CA: Praeger.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery

and invention. New York: HarperPerennial.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of

creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313‐335). Cambridge UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000/1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in

work and play: 25th Anniversary edition. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in
the teenage years. New York: Basic Books Inc.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots
of success and failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in
high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational
Research Journal, Winter 2001(38, 4), 813‐834.

Cunningham, S. (2006). What price a creative economy? Strawberry Hills, NSW:

Currency House Inc.
Daniels, H. (2008). Reflections on points of departure in the development of
sociocultural and activity theory. In Van Oers, B., Wardekker, W., Elbers, E. & Van der
Veer, R. (Eds.), The transformation of learning: Advances in cultural‐historical activity
theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, D., & Lawrence, C. (Eds.). (1986). Gavin Bolton: Selected writings. London & New
York: Longman.

Davis, S. (2005). Cyberdrama and forms of youth engagement. Unpublished Master of

Arts (Research), QUT, Brisbane.

Davis, S. (2006). Cyberdrama and potential for youth engagement. The Applied
Theatre Researcher/IDEA Journal, 7.

Davis, S. (2009). Interactive drama using cyberspaces. In Anderson, M., Carroll, J. &
Cameron, D. (Eds.), Teaching drama with digital technologies: Applying Theatre, Drama
and Technology to Learning. London & New York: Continuum Press.

De Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in social research (Fifth ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen &
Unwin.

Deasy, R. J. (Ed.). (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic
and social development. Washington DC: Arts Education Partnership.

DEEWR. (2008a). Retrieved from

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/Pages/default.aspx
1

DEEWR. (2008b). Digital Education Revolution. Retrieved from

http://www.digitaleducationrevolution.gov.au/resources/guide/about/default.htm
1

DEEWR. (2008c). National Secondary School Computer Fund overview. Retrieved from
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/ComputerFund/Page
1

s/NationalSecondarySchoolComputerFundOverview.aspx

De Moraes, L. (2008) Score one for old media: Dems' debate is the night's hit, while
webby 'Quarterlife' shows none. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp‐
1

dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703374.html

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research.
In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd edition
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Department of Culture, M. S. (2008). Creative Britain: New talents for the

new economy. London: Department of Culture, Media & Sport.
Department of Education & Training. (2007a). Access denied message. Retrieved from
http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/mis/filtering/messages.html
1

Department of Education & Training. (2007b). Managed internet systems ‐ Filtering.

Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/mis/filtering/
1

Department of Education & Training. (2009). The Year of Creativity 2009. Retrieved
from http://yearofcreativity.deta.qld.gov.au/
1

Department of Education Queensland. (1986). Drama makes meaning: Years 1‐

10, (Drama curriculum guide and video). Brisbane: Queensland Government.

Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet. (2008). Australia 2020 Summit ‐ The
final report. Barton ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

Dixon, S. (2007). Digital performance: A history of new media in theatre,

dance, performance art, and installation. Cambridge, Mass & London: MIT
Press.

Drama Victoria. (2006). The Vine Project. Retrieved from

http://www.dramaaustralia.org.au/thevine_main.html and http://vineblogs.net/
1 1

Dunbar, K. N. (2008). Arts education, the brain, and language. In Asbury, C. & Rich, B.
(Eds.), Learning, arts, and the brain (pp. 81‐91). New York/Washington DC: Dana Press.

Eco, U. (1979). The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity‐theoretical approach to

developmental research. Retrieved from
http://communication.ucsd.edu/LCHC/MCA/Paper/Engeström/expanding/toc.htm
1

Engeström, Y. (1996) Development as breaking away and opening up: A challenge to

Vygotsky and Piaget. Swiss Journal of Psychology. 55, 126‐132.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical

reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133‐156.

Engeström, Y. (2003). Cultural‐historical activity theory, the activity system. Retrieved

from h ttp://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/
1

Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory

in practice. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.
Engeström, Y. (2009). Expansive learning: Toward an activity‐theoretical
reconceptualization. In Illeris, K. (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning. Abingdon &
New York: Routledge.

Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.‐L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Esslin, M. (1987). The field of drama. London & New York: Methuen.

European Commission. (2009). The European Year of Creativity and

Innovation launched in Prague. Retrieved from
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/3&format=HTML&ag
1

ed=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en or http://www.create2009.europa.eu/
1

Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the world:
A framework for the study of creativity. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Flew, T. (2002). Beyond ad hocery: Defining creative industries. Paper presented at the
Cultural Sites, Cultural Theory, Cultural Policy, The Second International Conference on
Cultural Policy Research, Te Papa, Wellington, New Zealand.

Flintoff, K. (2002). Drama and technology: The pursuit of uncertain benefits. Drama
Queensland Says, 2002.

Flintoff, K. (2003). Stepping into the virtual – Is virtuality a contemporary alternative to

drama. In Heikennen, H. (Ed.), Special interest fields of Drama, Theatre and Education:
the IDEA Dialogues. Jyvaskyla, Finland: Jyvaskyla University Press.

Flintoff, K. (2005). Drama and technology: Teacher attitudes and perceptions.

Unpublished Master of Education, Edith Cowan University, Mt Lawley Campus.

Flintoff, K. (2006). Dramatech space: Exploring the nexus between drama and
technology (blog). Retrieved from h ttp://dramanite.com/
1

Flintoff, K. (2009). Second life/simulation: Online sites for generative play. In Anderson,
M., Carroll, J. & Cameron, D. (Eds.), Teaching drama with digital technologies: Applying
theatre, drama and technology to learning (pp. 202‐221). London & New York:
Continuum Press.

Flintoff, K., & Sant, T. (2006). The Internet as a dramatic medium. Retrieved from
http://www.interactiveimprov.com/onlinedr.html
1

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. Christchurch, NZ: Hazard Press.

Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge.
Flutter, J., & Rudduck, J. (2004). Consulting pupils: What's in it for schools? London:
Routledge Falmer.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From structured questions to
negotiated text. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (3rd edition ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In Fosnot, C. T.

(Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Franks, A. (2006). Drama, school and social change: Theoretical approaches to learning
in history and culture. Applied Theatre Researcher, 7.

Franks, A., & Jewitt, C. (2001). The meaning of action in learning and teaching. British
Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 201‐218.

Fullarton, S. (2002). Student engagement with school: Individual and school‐

level influences (LSAY Research Report No. 27). Melbourne: ACER.

Gajdamaschko, N. (2005). Vygotsky on imagination: Why an understanding of the

imagination is an important issue for schoolteachers. Teaching Education, 16(1), 13‐22.

Gallagher, K. (2007). Conceptions of creativity in drama education. International

Handbook of Research in Arts Education, 16, 1229‐1240.

Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity. New York: Basic Books.

Garfield, B. (2006). Lonely Girl. Retrieved from

http://adage.com/garfieldtheblog/post?article_id=111610
1

Garrett, P. (2009). Arts in Australia's National School Curriculum ‐ Media release.

Retrieved from
http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/garrett/2009/mr20090417b.html
1

Gillard, J. (2008). Address to the Australian Computers in Education Conference.

Retrieved from
http://www.digitaleducationrevolution.gov.au/features_a/articles/acec_08.htm
1

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. London: Allen Lane.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1979). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
Goddard, M. (2002). What do we do with these computers? Reflections on technology
in the classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Fall 2002(35, 1), 19‐
26.

Goodson, I., Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2002). Cyber spaces/social spaces. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research:
What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246‐259.

Grierson, E. (2005). “Where the creative arts lie with our humanity? and What the
creative arts can do for our society? For Speculation and Innovation: applying practice‐
led research in the creative industries. Retrieved from
http://www.speculation2005.qut.edu.au.
1

Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. B. (1999). The case study method and evolving systems
approach for understanding unique creative people at work. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 93‐115). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw‐Hill Education.

Guilford, J. P. (1955). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444‐454.

Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., Merrifield, P. R., & Wilson, R. C. (1978). Alternate
uses: Manual of instructions and interpretations. Orange CA: Sheridan Psychological
Services.

Gulpa, A. (2007). Vygotskian perspectives on using dramatic play to enhance children's

development and balance creativity with structure in the early childhood classroom.
Early Child Development and Care (1‐13).

Hale, M. (2008, 2 September, 2008). Television keeps a hand in the online game with
serialized shows. The New York Times.

Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/Decoding. In Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A. & Willis, P. (Eds.),
Culture media language. London: Hutchinson.

Hartley, J. (2005). Bring me your huddled Murdochs. Retrieved from

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3384
1

Hartley, J. (2007). Navigating through a universe of information. Retrieved from

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5815
1

Hasebrink, U., Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2008). Comparing children's online
opportunities and risks across Europe: Cross‐national comparisons for EU Kids Online.
London: EU Kids Online (Deliverable D3.2).
Haseman, B. (1991). Improvisation, process drama and dramatic art. London Drama,
1991(July), 19‐21.

Haseman, B. (2001a). The 'leaderly' process drama and the artistry of 'rip, mix and
burn'. In Playing betwixt and between: The IDEA Dialogues. Bergen: Norway.

Haseman, B. (2001b). Old and new arguments for placing drama at the centre of a new
curriculum. QADIE SAYS, 24(1), 4‐13.

Haseman, B. (2006). A manifesto for performative research. Media International

Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, theme issue "Practice‐led research" No 118
(Feb 2006), 98‐106.

Haseman, B., & O'Toole, J. (1987). Dramawise. Melbourne: Heinemann.

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence?

Unpublished manuscript, Melbourne.

Heath, S. B., & Roach, A. (1999). Imaginative actuality: Learning in the arts during the
nonschool hours. In Fiske, E. B. (Ed.), Champions of change: The impact of the arts on
learning (pp. 19‐34). Washington DC: The Arts Education Partnership &The President's
Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.

Heathcote, D. (1975). Drama as education. In McCaslin, N. (Ed.), Children and drama.

New York: David McKay & Co.

Heffernan, V. (2008, 24 August, 2008). Serial killers. The New York Times.

Herskovitz, M., & Zwick, E. (2007). Quarterlife. Retrieved from

http://www.myspace.com/quarterlife
1

Hogan, K. (2002). Pitfalls of community‐based learning: How power dynamics limit

adolescents' trajectories of growth and participation. Teacher College Record, 104(3),
586‐624.

Hundeide, K. (1985). The tacit background of children's judgments. In Wertsch, J. V.

(Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Ito, M., Horst, H., Herr‐Stephenson, B., Lange, P. G., Pascoe, C. J., & Robinson, L. (2008).
Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jamieson, H. V. (2008). Adventures in cyberformance: Experiments at the interface

of theatre and the Internet. Unpublished Master of Arts (Research), Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Four ways to kill MySpace. Retrieved from
http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006/08/four_ways_to_kill_myspace.html
1

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006).
Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st
century: An occasional paper on digital media and learning. Chicago: Macarthur
Foundation.

John‐Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

John‐Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (2002). The gift of confidence: A Vygotskian view of
emotions. . In Wells, G. & Claxton, G. (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century:
sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. Oxford UK & Malden MA:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Johnstone, K. (1979). Impro: Improvisation and the theatre. London: Methuen

Publishing.

Kazanjian, R. K., Drazin, R., & Glynn, M. A. (2000). Creativity and technological learning:
the roles of organization architecture and crisis in large‐scale projects. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, 17, 273‐298.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1990). The action research planner. Geelong, Vic: Deakin
University Press.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative

action and the public sphere. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (Third ed., pp. 559‐604). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications Inc.

Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson & Co.

Kraminick, I. (1972). Reflections on revolution: Definition and explanation in recent

scholarship. History and Theory, 11(1), 26‐63.

Kritt, D. W., & Winegar, L. T. (Eds.). (2007). Education and technology: Critical
perspectives, possible futures. Lanham MD: Lexington Books.

Langemeyer, I., & Roth, W.‐R. (2006) Is cultural‐historical activity theory threatened to
fall short of its own principles and possibilities as a dialectical social science? Outlines,
2, 20‐42

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research: From design
to implementation. Maidenhead UK: Open University Press.
Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as theatre. Boston: Addison Wesley.
Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (1993) Understanding
practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E., (1996). Practice, person, social world. In Daniels, H. (1996) An
introduction to Vygotsky London: Routledge.

Lehmann, H.‐T. (2006). Postdramatic theatre (Jurs‐Munby, K., Trans.). London & New
York: Routledge.

Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2005). Teen content creators and consumers. Washington
DC: PEW Internet & American Life Project.

Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An overview.
Washington DC: PEW Internet and American Life Project.

LeNoir, N. (1999). Acting in cyberspace: The player in the world of digital technology. In
Schrum, S. A. (Ed.), Theatre in cyberspace: Issues of teaching, acting and directing. New
York: Peter Lang.

LeNoir, N. (2003). The Audience in cyberspace. In Kattwinkel, S. (Ed.), Audience

participation: Essays on inclusion in performance. Westport & London: Praeger.

Leontiev, A. N. (1977). Activity and consciousness. In Philosophy in the USSR,

problems of dialectical materialism: Progress Publishers.

Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice‐Hall.

Leontiev, A. N. (1979/1997). On Vygotsky’s creative development. In Reiber, R. & J, W.

(Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky ‐ Volume 3 problems on the theory and
history of psychology. New York & London: Plenum.

Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress

Publishers.

Lima, M. G. (1995). From aesthetics to psychology: Note on Vygotsky's "Psychology of

Art". Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(4), 410‐424.

Lin, A. M. Y. (2007). What's the use of "Triadic Dialogue"?: Activity theory, conversation
analysis, and analysis of pedagogical practices. Pedagogies: An International Journal,
2(2), 77‐94.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and

emerging confluences. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (3rd edition ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Livingstone, S. (2004). What is media literacy?, Retrieved from
http://www.mediaculture‐
1

online.de/fileadmin/bibliothek/livingstone_medialiteracy/livingstone_medialiteracy.pd
f

Livingstone, S. (2005). Media literacy ‐ challenges ahead. Paper presented at the

Westminster Media Forum, Implementing Media Literacy: Empowerment, Participation
and Responsibility, Millbank, London.

Livingstone, S. (2008). Internet literacy: Young people's negotiation of new online

opportunities. In McPherson, T. (Ed.), Digital youth, innovation and the unexpected.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2004). Taking up online opportunities? Children's uses of
the Internet for education, communication and participation. E‐Learning, 1(3), 395‐419.

LoBianco, G., Brass, D., (2004) Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and
negative asymmetry in social networks in organisations Academy of Management
Review

Loveless, A. M. (2002). Report 4: Literature review in creativity, new technologies and

learning. Bristol: Futurelab.

Loveless, A. M. (2008). Creative learning and new technology? A provocation paper. In

Sefton‐Green, J. (Ed.), Creative learning. London: Arts Council, England.

MacBeath, J., Demetriou, H., Jean, R., & Myers, K. (2003). Consulting pupils: A
toolkit for teachers. Cambridge: Pearson.

Markham, A. N. (2005). The methods, politics, and ethics of representation in online

ethnography. In Handbook of qualitative research (3rd edition ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications Inc.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1845). The German ideology. Retrieved from
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german‐ideology/
1

Marzano, R. J., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C. (2000). What works in classroom instruction.
Aurora: McREL.

Mateas, M. (2001). A preliminary poetics for interactive drama and games. Digital
Creativity, 12(3), 140 ‐152.

MCEETYA Performance Measurement Reporting Taskforce. (2008). An

assessment domain for ICT literacy. Retrieved from
http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/NAP_ICTL_2008_Assessment_Domain.
1

pdf

McLean, J. (1996). An aesthetic framework in drama: Issues and implications. Brisbane:

Drama Australia.

McQueen, M. The 'new' rules of engagement: A guide to understanding and

connecting with generation Y. Sydney: Nexgen Impact.

McWilliam, E. (2005). Unlearning pedagogy. Journal of Learning Design, 1(1), 1‐11.

McWilliam, E. (2007). Is creativity teachable? Conceptualising the creativity/pedagogy

relationship in higher education. Retrieved from
http://eduspaces.net/ericam/weblog/155777.html

McWilliam, E. (2008). The creative workforce: How to launch young people into high‐
flying futures. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Meadows, M. S. (2003). Pause and effect: The art of interactive narrative. Indianapolis:
New Riders.

Merriam‐Webster. (2009). Merriam‐Webster online dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.merriam‐webster.com/dictionary/practice
1

Miettinen, R. (2006). The sources of novelty: A cultural and systemic view of distributed
creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(2), 173‐181.

Milgram, R. M., & Livne, N. L. (2006). Research on creativity in Israel: A chronicle of

theoretical and empirical development. In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.),
The international handbook of creativity. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne:
Cambridge University Press.

Ministry of Information Communication & the Arts. (2004). Why develop the creative
industries?, from http://www.mica.gov.sg/mica_business/b_creative.html
1

Moran, S., & John‐Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making: Vygotsky's contemporary
contribution to the dialectic of creativity and development. In Sawyer, R. K., John‐
Steiner, V., Moran, S., Sternberg, R. J., Feldman, D. H., Nakamura, J. & Csikszentmihalyi,
M. (Eds.), Creativity and development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Moran, S., & John‐Steiner, V. (2004). How collaboration in creative work impacts
identity and motivation. In Miell, D. & Littleton, K. (Eds.), Collaborative
creativity: Contemporary perspectives (pp. 11‐25). London: Free Association
Books.

Morgan, N., & Saxton, J. (1987). Teaching drama: A world of many wonders.
Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace
(2001 ed.). Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. (1999). All our
futures: Creativity, culture, education. London: Department of Education and Skills.

National Curriculum Board. (2009). The shape of the Australian curriculum. Barton, ACT:
Commonwealth of Australia.

Necka, E., Grohman, M., & Slabosz, A. (2006). Creativity studies in Poland. In Kaufman,
J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The international handbook of creativity. Cambridge, New
York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Neelands, J. (1993). Drama and IT: Discovering the human dimension. Sheffield:
NATE/NCET.

Net Ratings, A. P. L. (2005). kidsonline@home: Internet use in Australia. Sydney:

Australian Broadcasting Authority and NetAlert Ltd.

Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

Approaches (Third Edition ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Notley, T. (2008). Online network use in schools: Social and educational opportunities.
Youth Studies Australia, 27(3), 20‐29.

Ofcom. (2008). Social networking: A quantitative and qualitative research report into
attitudes, behaviours and use. London: Office of Communications, UK.

O'Farrell, L., Saebo, A. B., McCammon, L. A., & Heap, B. (2009). Demystifying creativity:
Progress in an international study of dreativity in drama/theatre education. In J. Shu &
P. Chan (Eds.), Planting trees of drama with global vision in local knowledge IDEA
2007 Dialogues (pp. 422‐439). Hong Kong: IDEA Publications.

O'Neill, C. (1995). Drama worlds: A framework for process drama. Portsmouth:

Heinemann.

Ordidge, I. (1999). The NEMA experience. In Sefton‐Green, J. (Ed.), Young people,

creativity and new technologies: The challenge of digital arts (pp. 57‐69). London &
New York: Routledge.

O'Rourke, M. (2007). Creativity and imagination. In New, R. S. & Cochran, M. (Eds.),

Early Childhood Education: An International Encyclopaedia (pp. 887‐894).

O'Toole, J. (1992). The process of drama: Negotiating art and meaning. London & New
York: Routledge.
O'Toole, J. (1998). Playing on the beach: Consensus among drama teachers ‐ some
patterns in the sand. NJ (Drama Australia Journal), 22(Number 2, 1998), 5‐20.

Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of

learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227‐241.

Penenberg, A. L. (1997, 09 December, 1997). Why cybersoaps don't clean up. Forbes..

Philip, R., & Nicholls, J. (2007). Theatre online: The design and drama of e‐learning.
Distance Education, 28(3), 261 ‐ 279.

Pierse, L. (2007). Improvisation: The guide (3rd Edition ed.). Studio City, CA: Empire
Publishing Services.

Prensky, M. (1998). Twitch speed: Reaching younger workers who think differently.
Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20‐
1

%20Twitch%20Speed.html

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, Digital immigrants. Retrieved from

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20‐
1

%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20‐%20Part1.pdf

Pressick‐Kilborn, & Walker, R. (2002). The social construction of interest in a learning

community. In McInerney, D. M. & Van Etten, S. (Eds.), Research on sociocultural
influences on motivation and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 153‐182). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing Inc.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2005). Creativity: Find it, promote it.
Retrieved from h ttp://ncation.org.uk/creativity
1

Queensland Government. (2006). State budget 2006‐7: Budget highlights education.

Brisbane: Queensland Government.

Queensland Studies Authority. (2006). Subject enrolments and levels of achievement

in Authority Subjects by subject class and sex. Brisbane: State of Queensland.

Queensland Studies Authority. (2007). Drama ‐ Senior syllabus. Brisbane: State of

Queensland.

Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of
8‐ 18 year‐olds: The Kaiser Foundation.

Roberts, P. (2006). Nurturing creativity in young people. London: Department of Culture

Media and Sport (UK).
Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Chichester: Capstone
Books.

Roper, B., & Davis, D. (2000). Howard Gardner: Knowledge, learning and development
in drama and arts education. Research in Drama Education, 5(2), 217‐233.

Rowe, K. (2006). Effective teaching practices for students with and without learning
difficulties: Constructivism as a legitimate theory of learning AND of teaching? Paper
presented at the Background paper to keynote address presented at the NSW DET
Office of Schools Portfolio Forum, Wilkins Gallery, Sydney, 14 July 2006.

Rushkoff, D. (1997). Children of chaos: Surviving the end of the world as we know it.
London: Flamingo.

Ryan, M.‐L. (1999). Immersion vs interactivity: Virtual reality and literary theory.
SubStance, 28(2), 110‐137.

Ryan, M.‐L. (2001). Narrative as virtual reality: Immersion and interactivity in literature
and electronic media. Baltimore & London: The John Hopkins University Press.

Saugstad, T. (2002) Educational theory and practice in an Aristotelian perspective.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46:4, 373‐390

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford &
New York: Oxford University Press.

Scanlon, E., & Issroff, K. (2005). Activity theory and higher education: Evaluating
learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 430‐439.

Schank, R., Neaman, A., (2001). In Forbus, K., Feltovich, P. (Eds.) Motivation and
failure in educational systems design, smart machines in education. Cambridge MA:
AAAI Press/The MIT Press.

Schechner, R. (2002). Performance studies: An introduction. London & New York:

Routledge.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books.

Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry:

Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y.
S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Seiter, E. (2005). The Internet playground: Children's access, entertainment and mis‐
education. New York: Peter Land Publishing.
Shusterman, R. (2000). Performing live: Aesthetic alternatives for the ends of art. Ithaca
& London: Cornell University Press.

Slade, P. (1954). Child drama. London: University of London Press.

Smolucha, F. (1989). The relevance of Vygotsky's theory of creative imagination

for contemporary research on play. Unpublished manuscript, Kansas City, Mo.

Smolucha, L., & Smolucha, F. (1986). L.S. Vygotsky's theory of creative imagination.
Unpublished manuscript.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Case studies. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook

of qualitative research (3rd edition ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A three‐facet model of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.),

Handbook of creativity (pp. 125‐147). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. M. (2004). The self in cultural‐historical activity theory:
Reclaiming the unit of social and individual dimensions of human development.
Theory & Psychology, 14(4), 475‐503.

Strube, H., Beh, M., Davis, S., Jones, A., Ryan, S., & Yaxley, R. (2010).
Dramatexts: Creative practice for senior Drama students. Milton, Qld: John Wiley
& Sons.

Tan, J., & Gopinathan, S. (2000). Education reform in Singapore: Towards greater
creativity and innovation? NIRA Review (Summer 2000), 5‐10.

Tapscott, C. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York:
McGraw‐Hill.

Thurlow, C., & Bell, C. (2009). Against technologization: Young people's new media
discourse as creative cultural practice. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication,
14, 1038‐1049.

Tolman, C. W. (1988). The basic vocabulary of activity theory. Activity Theory, 1, 14‐20.

Torrance, E. P. (1988). Creativity as manifest in testing. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The

nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me. New York: Free Press.

Van Oers, B. (2008). Inscripting predicates: Dealing with meaning in play. In Van Oers,
B., Wardekker, W. & Elbers, E. (Eds.), The transformation of learning: Advances in
cultural‐historical activity theory (pp. 370‐379). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Vaughan, D. (1992). Theory elaboration: The heuristics of case analysis. In Ragin, C. C. &
Becker, H. S. (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1926/1992). Chapter 13. Esthetic education (Silverman, R., Trans.). In

Educational Psychology. Florida: St Lucie Press. Retrieved from
http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1926/educational‐
psychology/ch13.htm

Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of

Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7‐97.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1931/1998). Imagination and creativity of the adolescent (Hall, M. J.,

Trans.). In Reiber, R. (Ed.), The collected works of LS Vygotsky: Volume 5, child
psychology. New York: Plenum Press. Retrieved from
http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/adolescent/ch12.htm

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1971). The psychology of art. Cambridge, MASS: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher

psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky ‐ Volume 5 child psychology
(Hall, M. J., Trans.). New York & London: Plenum Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (2003). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian

and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7‐97.

Wagner, B. J. (1976). Dorothy Heathcote: Drama as a learning medium. Washington DC:

National Education Association of the United States.

Wallace, R. (2009). Problem child of education revolution. The Australian. July 18, 2009

Wardekker, W. (2008). Identity, diversity and inclusion. In Van Oers, B., Wardekker, W.,
Elbers, E. & Van der Veer, R. (Eds.), The transformation of learning: Advances in
cultural‐historical activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wardrip‐Fruin, N., & Harrigan, P. (Eds.). (2004). First person: New media as
story, performance, and game. Cambridge, Mass & London: The MIT Press.
Way, B. (1967). Development through drama. London: Longman.

Weiner, N. (1948/1965). Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and

the machine. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: Sociocultural approach to mediated action.

Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky's

account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.), Culture,
communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 162‐179). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Wieviorka, M. (1992). Case studies: History or sociology. In Ragin, C. C. & Becker, H. S.

(Eds.), What is a Case: Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Williams, R. (1968). Drama from Ibsen to Brecht. London: Hogarth.

Wright, S. (2003). The arts, young children, and learning. Boston: Pearson Education
Inc.

XPT, & NESTA. (2003). Planet Jemma. Retrieved from http://www.planetjemma.com/

1

Yahoo, & OMD. (2005). Truly, madly deeply engaged: Global youth, media
and technology: Yahoo & OMD.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (Third ed.). Thousand Oaks
CA: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2004). The case study anthology. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

Zemke, R., Raines, C, & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work. New York: Amacom.
Appendices
Appendix A – Date collected for the research study

Case Study 1
Item Details Date/s Notes
GBD Journal Postings from January to Jan 2007 – Details of my activities and key interactions.
June June 2007 Reflections on events as they unfolded
Surveys
Class survey – N = 21 2 Some student completed first survey but response
beginning of N = 22 1 level not high.. Shorter survey used at one other
project 2 school. Student have access to computers at home
2 and most use them for communication and social
networking. Not as many engaging in digital creative
activities as I had expected
Mid‐point 2 page survey completed
surveys at a full day cluster
rehearsal in 21 April 66
Mid‐point survey Summary of responses to 2007 The open ended responses seem to fall into three
summary Likert scales and main categories in regard to what students learning
averages, Summary of 21 April – about self/confidence, working with
open ended responses 2007 others/tolerance, and drama. Also of significance is
by cluster group the number of students who wrote in response to
one thing got out of project so far ‘experience’.
Final survey 2 page survey completed 14 111
at the final dress May
rehearsal 2007
Final survey Summary of the Likert May 2007 2 One document focuses just on Likert scale
analysis scale responses. responses. Another clusters and codes the open‐
Clustering of responses ended responses. Some interesting differences in
to open‐ended questions focus of different clusters, especially ‘group/social’
learnings from cluster L
Comparative Responded to similar May 2007 Positive responses overall from students – important
summary of mid‐ questions grouped and experience for them. Key shift in feeling about
point and final survey
261
cluster group, input. Strongest response to working with school
creative group.
Leximancer Maps and lists of key throughout Student responses by cluster, teacher debrief,
theme and themes and concepts teacher interviews, all data – different maps. These
concept maps using GBD data show difference between Cluster L with focus on
social learning as compared to others. Cluster X
includes focus on resumes and futures. Teacher one
identifies need for a director.
Documents
Email Emails from coordinator 16/11/06‐ 34 Most include organizational details and information
communications to researcher and project 4/06/07 School queries about access to wikispace
participants. Later ones regarding checking of debrief transcript.
Emails from me to President query on accuracy (as it appears to have a
coordinator more negative tone than she recalled) others
Emails from school verified accuracy of the record
contacts regarding use of It became clear from about mid‐way through the
wikispace project that many emails were being sent to schools
Email from president that I was not privy too, and so was unable to track
rehearsal details and plans
Protocols Draft protocols for March 2007 2 Clear shift of positioning of research role from
document research process – draft insider to outsider. Clear statements about DQ
proposed by me and expectations of researcher being ‘silent’ and having
response from DQ no impact on creative development
Meeting Meeting notes from Feb 2007 2 Details about decisions made by teachers about
agendas and February ‘pre‐texts’ and organisation of the performance. I
minutes was not invited to the first meeting, was present at
the second
Cluster rehearsal Rehearsal schedule for 21/4.07 1 Includes focus for each group. Group visiting
schedule each cluster including rehearsals include dramaturg, lighting designer,
times for critical friends project coordinator, association present and myself
to visit each cluster
Workshop Documentation of group March 2007 2 Activities were very teacher directed. Students
documentation after school workshop engaged and able to shape material within narrow
parameters. Some evidence of creative play when
262
 teacher otherwise engaged.
K**** students acknowledge tensions with other
schools
Production week Timetables for program 13 May – 19 1 Details of tech run, rehearsals and performances
schedule each day across the May 2007
week
Performance Details of project overall May 2007 1
program and each section of the
performance
Wiki netiquette Shared and posted on all Feb 2007 1
guidelines wikispaces
Team L Pretext – A blog posting about a 20 Feb 2007 1 Pre‐text proposed for team L to use by kmcn. This
Water Story man who loved a was adopted by the three school groups. Students
particular pond. Over were not part of this process.
time the pond was dying,
polluted and with
wildlife under threat.
Through focusing on his
love and appreciation for
the water he began to
heal it
Newsletter No 1, Association newsletter Feb 2007 1 Information about the pre‐texts, the process and the
2007 with a focus on the GBD use of the online spaces
project
CMCs
Forum postings Postings by team L Feb 2007 May 2007
(print outs from participants to the –
site) discussion forums on May 2007
their wikispace

Forum postings Postings transferred into

with analysis an excel document, with Feb 2007‐
263
600+ ants. They boards, therefore they treated it more as ‘their space’ than
were not upload and educational space at times. Clear issues about
Posting given any profile identity and status play. Hercules key player, madgirl
s from instruction in pics and most regular poster until crisis point.
mainly how to find create 300+ Instead of transcribing all of them, key threads were
student the user chosen to work with, these included ‘typical’ threads
particip discussion names…
features identified and from the introductory stage, and from the
coded discussions about ‘linking’.

Wiki postings to Postings by teachers to a Feb – 10 This was mainly used early on by J– he encouraged
teacher space closed spaces only they March 2007 other teachers to use it and there was some initial
can access activity that was not maintained
Discussion Details of each thread, Covers from 45 Enables identification of most popular threads and
forum posting the author, the number Feb – May threads opportunity to look at the content and interactions
summary of replies and views and 2007 of busy/quiet threads
last message
User posting Summary of number of Covers 37 Enables identification of postings by each user and
summary postings by each user postings users each cluster group. Clear domination by the third
from Feb‐ school to join. This group also had all the users that
May 2007 posted most regularly
Team L wiki Introduction to L3 by Feb 2007 1 The only posting onto an actual wiki page by a
posting Hercules student. This included a short video clip and two
images.
Email response Response to questions 2 June 2009 1 Email response to questions send to Hercules. He
from Hercules years after the project shows awareness of the issues evident at the time
and his role in it. Demonstrates maturity in his
responses.

Interview & transcript performance group

discussions
Focus group KSHS –
interview
264
 different kind of work than they would usually
ind do or would choose to do – exposure to new
29 Mary 3 pages ica style of drama. Acknowledge tensions with
2007 te other group at cluster (esp private girls’ school )
it’s and their focus on ‘dance’
Interview Interview with SL 4 April 2007 4 pages Interview when issues arising within their cluster
transcript wiki
Focus group Team L feedback session, 21 3 pages Warm and cool feedback from all members. Most
interview mid‐point rehearsal April significantly Hercules apologises for his behaviour.
2007

265
transcript
Discussion notes Discussion with SL
Discussion notes Discussion with SL
Cluster D debrief Artist feedback to run‐
with artists through at midpoint
rehearsal
KSHS debrief Class debrief – includes
students who were in
the performance and
others who were
audience for the
performance
CSHS debrief Class debrief of
students
involved in the project,
how they felt about the
pre‐text, positive and
negative aspects of the
project
Transcript Students and teachers
DVD debrief respond to questions at
the end of the DVD
Creative Documentation
Student reviews performance Selected reviews provided by teacher from KSHS, some
of the
Students acknowledge they didn’t feel they ‘owned’
pretext to begin with but now feel they’ve been able
to adapt it. Interest in conveying ‘message’ about
importance of water and consciousness of the
impact of drought.
May 2007
21 June
2007
21 April 2 pages Positive response of artists, use of arts/drama
2007 terminology. Held in high regard by organisers and
ascribed authority by participants
6 June 2007 4 pages Students quite positive towards their own school’s
piece and the cluster in general. Some students felt
it was confusing, that it dragged and was boring. At
end they talk about what they would do a show on…
and their opinion about internet censorship
31 May Summary of comments from students. River
2007 journeys of their reflections, positive and negatives.
May 2007 On the last performance day students and teachers
were invited to respond to questions about the
project, the process, working with artists and co‐
artistry. Interesting that people seemed to have
most difficulty responding to question about co‐
artistry
June 2007 performance the experience, especially social aspects and
very positive drama learning. audience responses mixed,
were in the about
students were evidence of teacher scaffolding and ‘copying’ of
participants and some notes provided in parts.
audience
Video footage of April 2007
rehearsals
Performance Video of the final May 2007
DVD performance
Data collected for the research process – Case Study 2

Item Details Date/s Notes

Documents
Project diary Journal kept by the Oct – Nov Entries document the process of development of
researcher 2007 the project, actions and interactions I engaged in
and my perception of responses to activities and
events
Student journals Student journals Submitted 18 Standard variable, not a lot of depth to
submitted as part of end of Nov reflections. Some appear to have been created in
course assessment one sitting.
Documents scaffolding
Showcase, public Showcase/public event proposal that teacher had to submit for project
event proposal Publication available to the general public
Email response to questions I asked about departmental policy regarding
School school access to YouTube and the internet
prospectus
Email
communications
from PO

Project
 d r in consultation with me before project could
Show b proceed
case y Folder with inserts and a booklet. Booklet with
prop t aims and goals for the school
osal e Nov 2007 2 pages The finer detail of the policies regarding internet
had a use in schools was hard to distinguish from public
to be c policy documents. Some queries to a contact who
com h works in the e‐learning branch provided some
plete e more detail on policy context.
Profile template Template created for Oct 2007 1 page Template created to act as a kind of scaffolding
each group to fill in for character development. One filled in per
for
 their character group
Story summary Overview of each 2 Nov 2007 1 page A key point where the groups took stock of what
character’s story to had happened so far – this was important as
date many were expressing ‘confusion’ with the
separate storylines

Pre‐text Scaffolding tool to Sept 2007 1 page Scaffolding frame created by the teacher and
framework for prompt the character myself to help structure and focus group
each group development in groups negotiations regarding character development
ZPD mapping Map of ZPD for each Oct 2007 5 One created for each group using excel and
group, identifying graphing function. The features the teacher and I
strengths of each mapped them on included: drama experience, live
participant and likely performance, music, film & media, attitude
gaps towards group, art & graphics, online
communications and digital content.
Pretext email and Pre‐text created to Sept‐Oct 1 min clip Pre‐text created in consultation with teacher.
video clip prompt student action 2007 and email Video clip uploaded to YouTube. Students sent
and entry into the drama the email pre‐text with link to the video clip.
Shygirl back‐story Template created and A scaffolding tool provided for students to show
filled in to provide possible character development to aid in
example for students improvisation possibilities for performance
Internet use – Series of cards regarding Used in briefing lesson at the start of the drama
discussion different issues relating
starters to internet use
Performance Template provided to Template provided to individuals, these were
ideas template students to generate completed and submitted. Ideas considered in
ideas for the shaping performance event.
performance
Survey responses Student responses to Nov 2007 N=13 Students invited to complete survey by the
survey at the end of the teacher – not all students did so. Responses
project summarized and identify mixed responses to the
project – some indicate they enjoyed use of
Youtube and web 2.0 spaces. Mixed responses to
using Blackboard. M in particular quite negative
 about the project – attitude did not really change
throughout project – prefers live performance
Student profiles Summary of information Dec 2007 8 pages This identified what areas of interest students
about each student began with and shows their perceptions of
drawing on initial developments and the project in general. In
introductions conducted particular while some people were open to the
by them, journey key new experience, others were less so, particularly
points, survey key points M
and comments from the
teacher and myself
Computer
Mediated
Communications
Print out of wiki Wikipages on Entries, with some responses
page entries and Blackboard
comments – one created for each
Print out of blog character Oct – Nov 29 entries Print out from the Blackboard wiki site. The print
posts and Print out of blog entries 2007 out includes 15 posts and 14 comments. These
comments and responses on are all conducted in role and maintain and build
Blackboard from across the drama.
the project – all
Chat log print conducted in role 4 pages
out
– test run session
Performance Print out of live chat that for the project
chat log print out was conducted
throughout the
performance

Ning page print Print out of character

outs pages and materials
from the Ning site set up
Nov 2007 10 h ere invited to participate in an online chat
pages a throughout the performance. It shows
d strong level of engagement and response to
Throughout the la the events.
performance those p Audience members said they found it interesting,
student t though hard to read.
parti o The students only really started using these late in
cipan p the project but quickly stylized them to express
ts s the roles very well. Visually far more appealing
who w than the Learning Place pages. Issues with photos
TJ wanted to post of herself in suggestive poses.
Print out of Print out of the tasks for The tasks for each week were loaded onto the
module tasks each week as loaded blackboard site which students could access
onto the Blackboard site
Transcript of Focus group interviewed 4 14 Most students attended, boys quite vocal
focus group with volunteers December students (although least involvement in project) quite
interview 2007 + Hayley critical of audience involvement at performance,
+ me little critical reflection on own roles. Interested in
potential of internet audience. At end, some
express preference for live performance projects,
with encouragement, it seemed several
participants felt the same.
Debrief interview Conversation with Nov 2007 Feeling that things still a bit superficial, different
with teacher Hayley kinds of learning need to be scaffolded, use of
mobile phones
Performance Evaluation criteria sheet Nov 2007 3 Several experienced educators who attended the
evaluation created by researcher responses final performance were invited to provide
(similar to ones used in feedback on the performance using a criteria
senior secondary) sheet which was similar to that used in schools
inviting responses to the
performance piece
Creative work
Video clips Clips created by each tasks each week
group in response to the
Clear development of skills and complexity Final clips overall very interesting
in storyline throughout the three stages.
Photographs and Workshop Images from workshop where students drew
drawings documentation pictures to represent aspects of their roles
Video Workshop – viewpoints Nov 2007 Physically engaging work, students are interested
documentation Performance event and work quickly – quite a contrast to times when
just sit in front of computers
Appendix B – Focus Group Interview – pilot questions

Creative Learning Using Digital Technologies

Investigative and Focus Group Interviews

PhD Candidate Susan Davis

PHASE 1 - INTERVIEWS WITH TEACHERS 2006-7

These interviews will be exploratory in nature and will initially take about 1 hour (or
perhaps two shorter interviews). The following questions will form a basis for
discussion but the direction they take will be influenced by those being interviewed.
Questions are being given to the interviewees before the interview if they wish so that
they can think about them before hand and possibly decide on areas they may wish to
focus on. Currently the questions have been broken up into two sections so that
interviews are not too arduous for participants.

Interviews with teachers will be mostly one-on-one or in small focus groups. The
interviews will be taped.

Interview transcripts will be typed up after the interviews. These will be forwarded by
email to interview participants to check for errors and participants will be given the
opportunity to add their own thoughts and reflections.

Depending on the outcomes of the interviews, there may be follow up interviews,

observations in class, viewing of student work and introduction to students who may
become interview subjects.

Interview questions – Session 1

Initial set up questions:

What do you teach? How long have you been teaching?

What you do enjoy about what you do?

Creative Teaching/learning:

What are the kinds of things young people learn about in your subject?

What is it about your field that is creative?

How has creative practice in your field changed in the last 10 years or so with changes
in technology?

How do you incorporate technology?

270
Creativity and young people:

If I asked you to think of some student work that was creative or particular students who
were creative, could you think of any examples?

Could you outline a couple of examples to me?

What is it about their work that makes it creative?

Interview Questions – Session 2

What kinds of teaching strategies and school related activities/experiences do you think
support young people’s creative learning?

What kinds of factors outside of the classroom do you think impact on the creative
learning of young people (in particular those who you’ve identified as being ‘creative’)?

Are there any ‘groups’ of students you see as being quite creative? If so in what ways
do you think they build or support each other’s creative practice?

Creativity in a digital age

Have you noticed any changes in young people’s creative practice with digital
technology becoming cheaper and more accessible? If so, how has it changed?

What kinds of pedagogy and strategies do you think help support young people’s
creative work using ICTs?

What about students – are they any different as a result of growing up in a digital age
and has this made any difference to the ways you work with them?

PHASE I – FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS WITH STUDENTS 2006-7

Initially students to be interviewed will be suggested by teachers or other students.

After initial contact is made, consent packages will be given to the young people and
their parents. Consent forms will need to be signed before the interviews take place.

These interviews will be exploratory in nature and will initially take about 1 hour and be
conducted during a lunchtime or after school The following questions will form a basis
for discussion but the direction they take will be influenced by those being interviewed.
Questions may be given to the interviewees before the interview if they or their
teacher want them to have them.

Interviews with students will be mostly in pairs or small focus groups. The interviews
will be taped and transcribed after the interviews. If requested, these will be forwarded
by email to interview participants to check for errors and participants will be given the
opportunity to add their own thoughts and reflections.

Depending on the outcomes of the interviews, there may be follow up interviews,

observations in class, viewing of student work.
Interview questions - Session 1

Initial set up questions:

What subjects do you do at school? Which ones do you enjoy?

What you do enjoy about them?

What other school events and activities have you been involved in?

Creative Learning:

In what subjects do you think you are able to be creative?

In what ways is the work you make ‘creative’?

What helps you to be ‘creative’?

What kinds of things that have happened at school do you believe have supported your
creative learning?

Other influences

If I asked you to think of people who were creative, could you think of any examples?
Could you outline a couple of examples to me. What is it about their work that makes it
creative?

What kinds of factors outside of the classroom do you think have supported your
creative learning (other people, places, groups who’ve given you advice, taught you
things etc)?

Do you engage in any creative activities using digital technology? Creating animations,
videos, games etc? If so what?

Interview Questions – (Possibly Session 2 If time Is limited)

Creative learning and processes

How do you come up with your ‘creative’ ideas or work? Where, when, how?

What kinds of things at school help this or hinder this happening?

Could you explain an example of how you’ve developed a creative idea or work.

What is your ‘creative’ environment like?

Creative agents for creative futures

How do you see your future as a ‘creative’ person? What do you hope to do in the
future in terms of study, work or leisure options?
Appendix C – Sample interview transcript

Interview with Jake

4 April, 2007

S: Hi Jake, I was just wanting to talk to you about how things are going with GBD
and with the use of the wiki in particular. How are you feeling about it?

J: Well actually I’ve pulled right back on using the wiki and my students aren’t
really going there. A couple go on there, but I think they’re just scared. I mean
when you look at it now and there’s 562 messages, I think it just scares them.

S: Why do you think they’re scared?

J: Well I think my kids are probably the least experienced, the kids from the other
schools are more experienced.

S: Are they older too?

J: Some are, the ones from SJFC are in grade 11 and they’re private school girls,
the kids from RSHS are in year 10, same as mine but they’re in an extension
class and you have to audition to get in that program. So my kids are very
inexperienced in comparison. A lot of them haven’t done that much drama
really.

S: I notice you’ve started a bit of discussion on your team page, is that deliberate?

J: Yes, I decided to pull back and withdraw from the discussion. I didn’t want to
get out of the personality discourse and try and bring it back to discourse about
drama and learning. That’s probably easier to manage on our own page.

S: Yes I can understand that. Some of the comments being made were getting
pretty critical and going over the same things again and again.

J: Yes, well I’m okay with it but I do think some of the things being said were not
appropriate but I didn’t get the feeling the other teachers were following up on
things like I was trying to. I think it’s defeating the purpose of the wiki if people
are attacking each other. It was supposed to be about collaborating, but I think
if it’s to be an extension of the learning space we have to monitor the behaviour
like we would in the classroom. It’s part of our responsibility then to follow up
on things. It’s interesting, if anything it’s made the live interactions more
important. We had a great cluster meeting with the teachers last week. We
worked out some common links and processes, I think it was easier to work it
out live than on line.
S: Yes I notice some of the students have attempted to discuss these kinds of
issues but it’s ended up getting a bit about some people living out some
personal dramas and establishing their status. Like the drama with M… on the
weekend, she said she was quitting the process and that she was crying and H…
has quickly established himself as the IT guru.

J: Yes S… is a very smart boy, there’s a lot of egos in that class. It’s an excellence
program, so it’s like a streamed drama class. I’m not sure if it’s a good idea. He
says some really good things, but sometimes I think he gets away with a lot and
nobody pulls
Appendix D – GBD Revised first survey tool

GBD SURVEY No 1

Username (optional): School: Gender:

Indicate your home for the following technology and programs

Internet technologies usage Yes No N/A
Access to computer with Internet access at home
Broadband at home
Use msn regularly
MySpace
Facebook
Have uploaded videos to Youtube
Have created animations
Have uploaded artwork to Internet space
Have uploaded photos to Internet space
Have played online roleplay games (e.g. World of
Warcraft)
Have downloaded music from the Internet

In what ways are you ‘creative’?

What subjects at school do you feel you are able to be creative in?

What other events and activities have you been involved in that allow you to be
creative?

Do you engage in any creative activities using digital technology (creating

animations, MySpace, videos, games etc), if so, what?

How do you see your future as a ‘creative’ person? What do you hope to do in
the future in terms of study, work or leisure options?

Please add any other comments you’d like to add about this drama process
Appendix E – GBD Midpoint survey

GBD SURVEY – mid point

This survey is being conducted by Drama Queensland in collaboration with PhD Candidate
Susan Davis. Your responses will help inform the development of this and future projects. We
value your input and feedback.

Team (please circle which cluster you belong to):

Cluster X Cluster L Cluster D

Name or username: (optional)

Teacher / Student (please circle what you are) Male/Female

A. Expectations about GBD 3:

1. What do you hope to get out the project?

2. What will make this a successful project for you?

B. To date… how do you feel about?

For each statement circle a number between 1-5 that expresses how you feel about the project
so far (with 1 being Strongly Disagree, 3 for Agree and 5 being Strongly Agree)

3. I have enjoyed working as part of our school group

1 2 3 4 5

4. I feel I’ve had satisfactory creative input into the decisions our group has made

1 2 3 4 5

5. I have found the artist workshops useful

1 2 3 4 5

6. The cluster rehearsals have been a positive experience for seeing what other groups are
doing and getting to know people
 1 2 3 4 5

7. I feel confident about where we are at for this stage in the process

1 2 3 4 5

C. Please complete the following sentences

One thing I have learnt so far is

One thing I’d like to work on more is

One thing that could be done differently is

D. Creative agents for creative futures

How do you see your future as a ‘creative’ person? What do you hope to do in the future in
terms of study, work or leisure options?

What might this project contribute towards your future development?

Any other comments…

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!

Appendix F – GBD Final Survey

GBD SURVEY – Final

This survey is being conducted by Drama Queensland in collaboration with PhD Candidate Susan
Davis. Your responses will help inform the development of this and future projects. We value your
input and feedback.

Team (please circle which cluster you belong to):

Cluster X Cluster L Cluster D

Name or username: (optional)

Teacher / Student (please circle what you are) Male/Female

A. Expectations about GBD 3:

1. What do you feel you ended up getting out the project?

2. To what extend were your expectations fulfilled?

(With 1 being Not at all, 3 Moderately, 5 Entirely)

1 2 3 4 5

B. In conclusion

For each statement circle a number between 1-5 that expresses how you feel about the project in total
(with 1 being Strongly Disagree, 3 for Agree and 5 being Strongly Agree)

3. I have enjoyed working as part of our school group

1 2 3 4 5

4. I feel I had satisfactory creative input into the decisions our group has

made 1 2 3 4 5

5. I found the artist workshops useful (The artists that came to our

school) 1 2 3 4 5

6. I found the artistic input into the production useful (that is the input from Mark - dramaturgy, Josh-
design and Jason – lighting & production)

1 2 3 4 5
7. Working with the other groups in the cluster was a positive experience
1 2 3 4 5

8. Being involved in a performance including the nine schools was a positive experience

1 2 3 4 5

9. I was really pleased with our group’s final performance outcome

1 2 3 4 5

10. I was really pleased with the total GBD 3 performance outcome

1 2 3 4 5

Please expand on why you were particularly pleased or disappointed with the performance outcome

C. Please complete the following sentences

One thing that I have learnt is …

From across the whole project, one thing that stands out for me is …

One thing that could have been done differently was …

This project has contributed towards my future development by…

Any other comments…

Thank you for your time and effort!!!

 Appendix G – Immortals survey

This survey is being conducted by PhD Candidate Sue Davis. Your responses will help inform the
development of this and future projects. We value your input and feedback.

Team (please circle which team you belong to):

Alice Keeley
Marixa TJ
Zaiph

Name or username: (optional)

A. Expectations about cyberdrama project:

1. What did you think this project was going to be about?

2. What did you hope to get out the project for yourself?

3. To what extend have your expectations been fulfilled?

1 2 3 4 5

(Key: 1 Not at all, 3 Moderately, 5 Entirely)

B. Reflection – the process and the product

For each statement circle a number between 1-5 that expresses how you feel about the project in total
(with 1 being Strongly Disagree, 3 for Agree and 5 being Strongly Agree)

4. I have enjoyed working as part of our team group

1 2 3 4 5

5. I feel I had satisfactory creative input into the decisions our group has

made 1 2 3 4 5

6. I found the teacher/artist input and working in role with us helpful

1 2 3 4 5
7. Working with the other groups in the class has been a positive experience
1 2 3 4 5

8. Using the web-based spaces has been a helpful component of the project

1 2 3 4 5

9. I was pleased with our group’s final video and performance outcomes
1 2 3 4 5

10. I was pleased with the total performance outcome

1 2 3 4 5

11. Please expand on why you were particularly pleased or disappointed with the performance
outcome

C. Reflection on drama and learning from the unit.

Please complete the following sentences

12. The main things that I have learnt are …

13. From across the whole project, one thing that stands out for me is …

14. One thing that could have been done differently was …

15. A specific time or activity when I felt particularly engaged in the creative process was …
D. Use of Technology and cyberspaces

16. Please rate how you felt about incorporating video and technology components into the drama unit

1 2 3 4 5

(Key – for this section use

1 - it wasn’t effective
3 – it was okay
5 - it was very effective

Please rate how you felt about engaging with the following spaces:

17. Learning Place Blackboard space for The Immortals (in total)
1 2 3 4 5

 Story
1 2 3 4 5

 Relevant materials
1 2 3 4 5

 Tasks
1 2 3 4 5

 Communications space
1 2 3 4 5

 Wiki and blog spaces

1 2 3 4 5

 Chat room
1 2 3 4 5

18. Ning space

1 2 3 4 5

19. Youtube
1 2 3 4 5

20. Other (specify)

1 2 3 4 5

21. Which technology component or space did you like using the most and why?

22. How do you feel about the use of various technologies within this drama unit?
23. How does this drama unit compare to others you have experienced?

E. Reflecting on the contribution to your creative development

24. In what ways do you feel this project supported or didn’t support your creative development?

25. How might you use some of the skills and knowledge you’ve developed in this unit in the future?

Please add any other comments or reflections…

Thank you for your time and effort!!!

Appendix H – Journal Extract

Immortals Journal

Wed Oct 31
After our conversation about her concerns about group engagement, Hayley
texted said she’s feeling like it might be good to do a process drama experience
on Friday. I think this could be a good idea. A way to help build student
commitment, open up possibilities for where the drama might go… also for
those people who are not main characters to find a valid role and space. The
lessons where people are just working with their computers don’t seem to be
very engaging for students and there is a growing feeling of dissatisfaction with
that kind of experience.

She’s suggested working with students in role as themselves, and asking the
Principal to go in and say she isn’t there and for us to enter in some kind of role.
I think it could be worthwhile. We’re also going to have a student from another
class help film it. We’ll have some digital material then, though the experience
will be live, not online.

Fri 2 Nov – Process drama experience – ‘women in black’

Today felt like ‘break‐through’ day. The principal did a great job introducing the
situation – very serious, said the students must cooperate with the people
coming in, that the school’s reputation was on the line. When we entered
though the students were laughing and giggling – they didn’t really seem to take
it seriously for quite a while. We went in as secret agents and said we needed
them to help us find the Immortals. We explained how we were working with
the government and that the immortal virus was a top secret project we had
been working on that had now fallen into the hands of some enemies. We
asked the students what they knew and how we could contact the immortals.
At first the students didn’t really answer the questions well or venture very far.
One boy was very committed though and responded very seriously to our
questions – this seemed to help with getting some of the others to commit to
the context.

It really felt like things started to gel when I revealed that we were with the
‘government’ and what our theory was… some people started questioning who
we were and why they should trust us… this felt good, like they were starting to
think, feel and own the situation. They were also concerned about the
characters, their ‘friends’ and wanted to protect them. They seemed hooked!

… When we left they were buzzing, talking about what they could do. When we
went back in out of role, they were excited to tell us what had happened, they
asked if we could create a new team wiki page and some people instantly began
typing up material…. It was exciting.

What was really interesting for me later on was watching the footage of the
students after we left the room. They continued the drama in a very committed
way. They talked about whether they would cooperate with the agents and if
they should contact the immortals. They also then started blocking the camera
operator (because he came in with us as the agents) and sent a message around
using ‘Chinese whispers’. Lovely stuff. … they certainly continued the drama for
10 or so minutes after we left the room, up until we went back in as ourselves.

So a key realization for me today was the power of working in role, building the
drama in whatever space – certainly in this case in the face‐to‐face mode. The
students are using CMCs to help build the roles, and using comments on the
wiki pages and blog entries to build relationships. The FtF work today helped
build the commitment to the drama, the fictional universe and helped direct it
into the next phase. I think the degree of ownership by the students also
increased significantly – some of their ideas from the lesson on Wed were
incorporated and there’s potential for everybody – immortal character or not –
now to have significant involvement. To what degree has the online work
helped us to get to this point and would the drama have been just as effective
without this, just operating in the FtF mode – I’m not really sure at this stage.
Appendix I – Immortals student profiling extract
Audit details
Marixa Group
Maddie – Art, Montage
Harrison – Comedy,
sometimes with Calum,
physical comedy. Once
made an animation with
ppt, with 700 frames,
humorous films, make
situations funny. E.g. this
thing for bookweek for
assembly (Made a video
about a dog – did a poo on
carpet, then I attack it,
switched real one for a
toy, the eye flew off, it
looked pretty believable
though).
Jaida – opera singing,
performing
Journal key points
Excited about the idea and working
with Harrison & Jaida –they haven’t
worked together before. Has done
preparation for the final night,
involvement in montage scene &
filming.
Journal quite mixed – negative at
times.
Lost drive for drama
Aware of idea of cyberdrama “just
been a way of having fun and
creating some
interesting/entertaining stories, not
of creating meaningful symbolic
pieces’ Kind of bores me. 17/10
Thought idea was strange, wanted
to turn into a farce (WHY DIDN’T
HE??) Thinking it won’t be
challenging enough?? Open to take
it where he wanted – constrained
by group?? Concerned about time
management. More positive after
the class roleplay and montage
scene
Not very open to the idea from the
start
19/10/07
“I’m a little sceptical about this
cyberdrama thing as I still don’t
286
Survey key points
Moderate response to input to
group and team work
Not impressed with final outcome
Disappointed with audience
participation and time frames.
Liked the montage creation and
filming/editing process
Liked better than other units (but
still not that positive)
Journal 9/11/07
“There is mention of a theatre
performance about cyberdrama –
I really can’t imagine how;.
really
My Comments
Little reflective or critical
comment on process, quite a bit
of documentation and focus on
presentation (visual material
included). Hard to tell what was
going on with their group.
Kind of negative response, but
then says he likes it better than
other drama units???
Didn’t really take the initiative to
develop own ideas. E.g. he took
photos of agents coming to room
but didn’t do anything with them.
Not sure about the group
dynamics with Shakira and he –
seems quite negative.
Not very open to the idea from
the start. Quite superior about
what they should be doing
compared to ‘mainstream’
under
stand how it works or how it’s
going to be assessed in a final
performance. I actually don’t think
I’ll like it very much because it looks
little too much like drama back in
mainstream schools, which I really
hated because it was all fun and
games and wasting time. … I may
not actually like it very much”
Group slow to get going first video
late “my group had detention, we
went to quickly film something… I
think the video is really bad, but it
will have to do. I believe I have
learnt my lesson”
2/11/07
“I still remain sceptical of this
cyberdrama and have no idea what
I’m doing. Maybe its because I’ve
never done anything like
cyberdrama before, but I’m
beginning to not like it very much. I
really wish we could return to
normal theatre work, like using
viewpoints. I actually hate making
these videos and maintaining this
character… I don’t actually think
we’re being taught anything….
Basically lessons are being wasted”
287
Cyberdrama is becoming a real
chore. I hate it. I really, really
think that this is something that
should be used in mainstream
schools where it would teach
something other than lousy
drama games”
Put effort into montage –
research on butterflies etc
16/11
“I still don’t understand it… the
performance was good though,
but my chat program failed and
there was a slight delay. It ended
up pretty cool, but I really don’t’
want to do cyberdrama again. ….
Like the idea of the cybertheatre
(Upstage) it still remained very
true to purist theatre and I would
actually like to take part in that if I
had the chance. I believe that will
be the way of the future, seeing
theatre live over the Internet”
schools.
Privileging of live ‘traditional’
forms of performance.
Interesting that she had these
negative feelings from the start.. I
wasn’t sure of this, but did note
how her first video was the least
convincing of all characters… little
real commitment to the role.
Uncomfortable in class when
pressed to improvise character
when they hadn’t completed first
video.
However her characters actions at
the end became the focus of
events – the tragedy (apparent
suicide of character). She doesn’t
really seem that impressed by
this.
 Appendix J – Sample participant consent package

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for QUT RESEARCH

PROJECT (Students & Parents/care-givers)

“Creative learning using digital technologies – case studies about the creating cyberdrama with young people in schoo
(Ref No 0600000711)

Research Contact Person

Sue Davis, PhD Candidate
041 876 3428
s.davis@cqu.edu.au
1

Description

This consent package relates to research being undertaken by Sue Davis, an experienced Drama educator
who is a Registered Teacher with the Queensland College of Teachers.

The project will explore young people’s creativity and how this might be influenced by growing up in a
digital age. In particular it will look at how schools can support young people’s creative work. As part of
the project a model of good practice will be developed and then trialled as several groups engage in
creating drama using technology.

The researcher requests your assistance in participating in this project as a research subject and/or as a
participant in the creative process.

Your participation in the data collection process may involve participating in interviews (on a voluntary
basis) or focus group discussions, and having these discussions being recorded and documented. It may
also consist of completing several surveys throughout the course of the project. Students who are
involved in creative projects related to this study will also be invited to participate in blogging and other
on‐line activities within specially created spaces.

Participation
Your participation in this project is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from
participation at any time during the project without comment or penalty. Your decision to participate will in
no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT or your school. If you withdraw part way
through the project any data you have contributed to date may still be used unless you have requested its
withdrawal.
In the initial stage of the project your participation will involve participating in on‐line activities,
interviews and focus group discussions. If your school group is also involved in a creative project this will
be related to a school project with teachers coordinating your involvement. Details of this involvement
will be negotiated through teachers at each school site.

288
Expected benefits
It is expected that this project will benefit you in that you will be reflecting on your own work and possibly
extending your own skills. This work will help inform teachers as well about the best ways to support
students’ creative work in schools.
Risks
There are minimal risks associated with your participation in this project and these would relate to the kind
of personal information you may choose to reveal through the interview process. All such disclosures would
be treated confidentially and if cited in research, no identifying information would be provided. In any on‐line
communications/communities students will be advised not to reveal their full name or contact details to
reduce any risks associated with unwanted contact through this medium.
Confidentiality
All comments and responses provided through interview and survey processes will be treated confidentially.
In regards to interviews and focus group material, the names of individual persons will be changed in the
research thesis and related papers, reports or publications.

It is anticipated that interviews and focus group discussions will be recorded (in most cases through
audio recordings) and transcribed. Drafts of these will be sent to participants for verification by email if
details have been provided. Recordings will be kept for the duration of the project and for up to one
year after thesis submission.

Recording of creative work may also be required for the project. This may be uploaded onto a project
website. This will remain there for the life of the project and one year following. Creative
documentation may be provided to participating schools and used in workshops and presentations
related to the research. If parents or care‐givers do not wish their child’s image to be displayed on the
website, they need to indicate this on the consent form and make this clear to their child’s teacher
however it is recommended that the sharing of student work on the Internet be able to occur wherever
possible.

For the web‐based component of the research participants are advised to use a username, not their full
name or surname. Usernames may be used in the thesis and other related publications.

With your permission, full acknowledgement of your creative input will be acknowledged in publicity
regarding any performance/presentation of creative work. A list of participating schools may be included
on the website.

Consent to Participate
I am asking you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement to participate. If you are
under 18 years of age, you need to have a parent/legal guardian also sign the form.
Questions / further information about the project
Please contact the researcher named above to have any questions answered or if you require further
information about the project.
Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project
QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do
have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research
Ethics Officer on 3864 2340 or e thicscontact@qut.edu.au. The Researcher Ethics Officer is not
1

connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
 CONSENT FORM for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT
(Students & Parents/care-givers)
“Creative learning using digital technologies – case studies about the creating cyberdrama with young people in schoo
(Ref No 0600000711)

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

 have read and understood the information document regarding this project;
 have had any questions answered to your satisfaction;
 understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the researcher;
 understand that you/your child is free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty;
 understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Officer on 3864 2340 or
ethicscontact@qut.edu.au if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project;
1

 understand that the project may include audio and/or video recording with performance work
(from related creative projects) being published on the Internet;
 agree to participate in the project.

Name of
parent/guardian

Signature

Date / /

Email contact:

Statement of Child consent

If you are under 18 years of age your parent or guardian needs to give their permission for you to be
involved in this research project. This form is to seek your agreement to be involved.
By signing below, you are indicating that the project has been discussed with you and you agree to
participate in the project.
Student Name

Signature

Date / /

Email contact:
Copyright Permission Authorisation
By signing below, you are indicating that:
I grant permission for ’s (name of student) words, voice, image and work to be used
by Susan Davis for purposes as follows:
 inclusion in her PhD thesis – including drafts, publication in print form and in digital form which may
be accessed through the Internet
 inclusion in any publications or presentations that arise from her research work
 inclusion in any performance or creative presentation of work that arises from her research,
including sharing of performance work on the Internet
if due acknowledgement is made of ’s (name of student) participation in any creative
work. I acknowledge that no payment will be made or expected for participation in this research or creative
project.
Name of
parent/guardian

Signature

Date / /

Student Name

Signature

Date / /

Email contact:

Please indicate below if you do not wish your child’s image to be used on any web-based materials.
(student’s name) is not to appear on any web-
based materials.
Appendix K – Sample wikispace data (formatted and first level of analysis)
Posting
Thread Date Time order From School Content Features Comment
omg whos excited about the
whole GBD 3 meeting :P itll Posted on
be really good when we put holidays,
the whole thing together... as anticipating
in our cluster performance!! Initiates thread, next group
much love positive rehearsal in a
Whole group thing 10-Apr-07 3.35 pm 1 Sharna91 sharna encouragement positive way
yeah i cant wait to see what
the other schools have come
up with!!! this meeting will Posted on
help all of the schools a lot .. holidays,
knowing what each school support for
has it will be easier to see other groups,
where our performances will looking
all have to start and finish. i forward to
cant wait to see you all again working
.. take care Responds, together,
Meagan positive seeing what's
Whole group thing 11-Apr-07 8.51am 2 '-x-meagan-x-' RSHS xx support happened
Only member
from this
school who
regularly posts
yeah--we have changed ours - the ones who
a bit heheehhe were critiqued
Whole group thing 11-Apr-07 7.02 pm 3 elliejelli92 ASHS ASHS Responds a lot elsewhere
Seriously we gotta

292
think about props
and costumes.. We need to know what else Trying to
can mix and match.. like with establish a
the farmers their hats can be focus on a
used as a link.. our positions performance
can be used.. our costumes Initiates thread, aspect, sense
make our story unique to the raising topic of of competition
other schools.. we neeed to props and with other
29-Mar-07 9.48 1 sick_lil_lady RSHS get down to details soon.. costumes schools/groups
Do you post for the sake of
having your name a
thousand times over on this
forum... Chill out, lol.
Ms. M has already clarified
the props are us. The Establishes
farmers hat isnt even definite Response to himself as in
in our segment yet. Next last post in a possession of
time listen up when Ms. M negative way, the knowledge,
Seriously we gotta shared obviously vital news explanation squashes input
think about props on the changes. about what has from last
and costumes.. 29-Mar-07 10.38 pm 2 Insanity RSHS Samson. been decided person
Hello Samson. Mr L here
from ASHS. Want to say,
really like your pond image
you have constructed with Doesn't deal
that program you are using. with negative
Noice! I definitely think there material in last
is a beautiful link right there Acknowledges post,
in that image for all of us. last postee, acknowledges
Seriously we gotta Awesome changes topic, Insanity's skills
think about props Teacher Mr L positive in graphic
and costumes.. 29-Mar-07 10.45 pm 3 slubb1 ASHS encouragement design area.
Appendix L – GBD Water Story performance summary

(At the time of this drama being developed, Queensland was going through the worst
drought in 100 years. Dams were at dangerously low levels and water rationing was
instituted. The focus of the GBD performance and drama process was therefore on
water stories. Each cluster of three schools selected a pre‐text that was concerned
with water. One cluster worked with the ‘Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner’, another
worked with an Indigenous legend from North Queensland regarding creation of the
Babinda Boulders and stories about young men being tempted into the water by a
spirit, the third cluster used a story about a farmer whose pond had ‘died’ and who
willed it back to health. The three segments were loosely linked by student voice‐overs
detailing experiences and feelings about water. The focus of the research and data
collection was cluster three.)

The segment begins with a number of young people’s voice‐overs making statements
about accounts of interactions with water. These end with one about how drought
makes you appreciate the blessing of water.

A blue light is on a large semi‐circular screen and the light changes and reveals the
shadow of a male farmer on the screen. He goes through a series of stereotypical
farming actions (riding, milking a cow and so forth) with live sound effects by other
performers on stage who are in darkness. The lights come up on the female cast
members on stage either side of the screen. They are dressed in black clothes wearing
straw hats. They recite a poem about drought and ask “when will it rain”? They then
go into a set of repeated actions and introduce themselves as different characters and
how they interact with water (e.g. I’m Cheryl from Cherbourg and I’m having a shower)
some of these stimulate laughter from the audience and break the serious mood.
Lighting then redirects the focus then back to the farmer who lies down and goes to
sleep. The music and lighting change to suggest a dream‐like state. The other
performers then enter the stage using movements to suggest different birds,
butterflies and insects. The performers have added wings and costume components to
suggest their creatures. The farmer comes out and interacts with them, he ends up
surrounded by the creatures reaching for the sky. The cast repeats some of the lines of
the poem asking when will it rain.

A different character takes up the farmers role behind the screen. This signals a change
in performance groups. The shadows on the screen now include some trees and plants
as the farmer walks within the landscape and mimes scooping up water. The music
changes and there is an ominous bell toll. The shadowy rocks change into outstretched
hands reaching towards the farmer. The cast then starts to move out from behind the
screen. They move in slow motion, dressed like gothic zombies, faces painted white
with blackened eyes. The music goes into a rhythmic, militaristic piece and the
zombies move forward, at times working in unison. They freeze and the previous
performance group crosses the stage holding paper boats while eerie music plays.

294
The zombies stand and several characters present monologue pieces. They speak of
endurance, loss of hope and hope dying. The creatures go through a series of
movements falling, crawling to the front of the stage and then back. They end up
behind the screen again and the image goes back to the farmer in the landscape.

Another performer enters and the hat representing the farmer is passed to her,
representing the shift in performance to the third group. The music changes to a
relaxing mood music. Two at a time performers enter, with fluid movements, most in
black with fabric draperies, some wings. They freeze in different positions. A
performer with butterfly style wings enters and briefly wakens others as they pass. The
butterfly then goes behind the screen and interacts with the farmer, they both then go
out and touch the other creatures who gradually wake up and join in the movement.
Interpretive style dance continues, ending with the farmer at the front of the stage
surrounded by all other performers and they all lie down.

There is the sound of rain (made by the hands of the performers slapping the stage).
Gradually the sound of rain gets louder as all cast members enter the stage and join in
making the sound. The farmer wakes, looks up and leans forward to capture some of
the rain in their hands. Blackout.
Appendix M – Wiki netiquette rules

1. Make sure the material you contribute is appropriate and relevant to the
wiki focus.
2. Delete and edit other entries with care. Only edit other people's entries if
you have something constructive to say or you have something
worthwhile to add.
3. Treat other people, their work and comments with respect. If you
disagree with someone, use reasons, explanations and examples to back
up your view.
4. Refrain from using profanity, obscenity, racism, sexism, or other
inappropriate language (or images) that may be offensive to other
users.
5. If you use other people’s material and ideas, make sure you acknowledge
sources (however don’t place commercial music on this site).
6. Ensure you check spelling and grammar before publishing material.
Appendix N – The Immortals drama outline

The drama as played out online and in class

A number of people, unknown to each other and unconnected have received
unsolicited emails. The email suggests they have been selected to become immortal
and they are invited to respond and to join through an online site.

Six different people respond but interpret the invitation in very different ways:
TJ is a middle aged woman who dresses and behaves like a teenager – she believes The
Immortals is an exclusive dance club and so joins immediately. Marixa is a devout
Muslim and believes that the invitation is a message from God and so joins. Alice is a
poet with a mysterious background; she doesn’t talk but only writes notes. She is not
sure what it means but joins out of curiosity. Keeley is an Australian mime student
currently studying in Paris. She is suspicious and not in a rush to join. Zaiph is a
student as well based in Brisbane, he thinks the invitation is some kind of practical joke
or prank and is also suspicious. The geek girls are two sisters who look after their bed‐
ridden mother. One of them receives the invitation which is meant for the other and
accepts as she obsessed with entering competitions.

(In class, students interrogated differing accounts of immortality in various religions,

throughout literature and scientific discourse. They also investigated at ways to
develop interesting characters and share these through video logs.)

Some of the Immortals start to talk to their friends about the invitation and various
media outlets begin to investigate the story. There are some mysterious events, with
one of the geek girls possibly testing the immortality status when she is in an accident
involving a truck. In another case, Keeley’s friends are interviewed on the news but the
speech is strangely out of synch and appears to have been tampered with. One news
broadcast is then interrupted and a darkened face appears and announces that
machines are now in control and are taking over.

After this announcement a number of students, who are friends with some of the
Immortals, are visited at their school by two women dressed in black who claim they
are from a government sponsored organisation titled ‘Control’. The agents say that the
Immortal virus was a top secret government project that has now been sabotaged.
They ask the student agents to work with them to help find the Immortals. The
students reluctantly agree to help. They are invited to attend a meeting one evening
and bring along their knowledge and The Immortals if they can.

The Immortals are also invited to attend the meeting, they respond in different ways.
TJ sees a mysterious character leaving her home and arrives home to find her daughter
has drowned. Marixa believes that perhaps the request is asking her to give up her
moral life. Keeley is confused and angry but decides to attend the meeting, as does
Alice. Zaiph, feeling scared and powerless, decides to give up resisting and to finally
join The Immortals.
The performance night
The audience is greeted at the door and thanked for agreeing to help with
investigations. They are asked to sign in, to provide their mobile phone numbers and
to leave their phones switched on in case important messages come through. As the
audience enter the briefing room they are invited to join various student agents and
view specific case materials (on laptop computers and in printed form in folders).

The two student hosts invite participants to share what they know of the events so far.
Various video clips are shown and student agents speak out about what they know of
each of the Immortals. An online chat documents the discussion and agent responses.

Mobile phones beep throughout, but few audience members respond to the messages.
Apparently some of The Immortals who said they weren’t attending are in the room.
Marixa connects through an online link and says that she is ending her mortal life.

Mysterious messages and images start to appear on the online chat from beings that
are not in the room. One unknown user claims to be “The One” and that the ‘energy’ is
now in control. They are using the Internet as their energy source.

Alice starts to throw messages out to the audience (though people don’t tend to read
them) she is trying to warn them about the machines and urging them to escape. Other
Immortals start to realise that while the computers are on, the machines are
potentially in control. Zaiph and other Immortals call out to people to get out and
there is a black out. When the lights come on the computers screens are in darkness
and The Immortals have all left the room.
Appendix O – The Immortals sample site documentation

Blackboard site documentation

Screen shot of Blackboard home page

Screen shot of Resources page

Screen shot of discussion board
 TASK PAGE

Module 1 Tasks - Who are you?

Your tasks for this week!

 Create a profile for your key role.

 Create and contribute to your team wiki page.
 Respond to the email invitation.
 Create a short video log (1-2 mins) introducing the key role for
your team, their situation and response to the invitation.

R 1

information and activities that help you find out about, explore and create interesting roles.

Profile
Profile blank 1.doc (21 Kb)
1

Create a profile for your role.

ries are starting to emerge about strange events and occurrences. Would you want the media to know you were an immortal or not? What w

ocumentary, human interest

up.

Time for the news!

Time for the news.doc (34.5 Kb)
1

Some information about creating news stories to help you plan yours.

u might use for planning your media story. It has been saved as a template - if you use it resave as a word document (it may be easier to jus
 Dramatic Structure and Narrative
Story Structure.doc (172.5 Kb)
1

Some material to help you think about the kind of story you are going to be
telling.

ople's bodies, to their minds, to the way they see things. What might happen to someone's body if it were immortal? How might the cells cha

oetic, symbol, metaphor or analogy.

y is physical, emotional, spiritual

colour
nd as well
ut using humour! Have fun with this task finding ways to incorporate your strengths and interests.

The poetic, symbol, metaphor, analogy

The poetic.doc (30.5 Kb)
1

Some information and ideas to get you started.

Module 4 - Sharing what we know!!
1 b)

We have been asked to share what we know about the immortals with the powers that be. You need to come up with a proposal about:

how your character comes to be there or not

how your character has dealt with their immortal gift
how you will interact with the people who join us
who are all the characters who will be there and what will they do? (In particular consider possibilities for each person in your group)
what other elements could be incorporated and how?

Use the group planning form attached to brainstorm ideas to share.

 Relevant materials Page

Module 1 Materials

o logs being posted on 'Youtube'. The girl - viewers did not find out it was a fictional story for several weeks and by then it had gathered a h
ed document. You will need to watch these from home though. Interestingly a lot of people were outraged when they found out it was really

. Click this link to a page with all clips so far.

1

Background briefing

Immortality - how could it scientifically be possible?

For some time researchers have been exploring how it might be possible
scientifically for the body to not age and die as it generally does. The
following is a BBC program transcript of a program which explored the
possibility of how it might be possible for the body to live forever.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/living_forever_script.shtml
1

Have a look for other articles about 'immortal cells' and some writings by
people who call themselves 'Immortalists' - people who believe it is possible
to 'conquer the blight of involuntary death'. How might all this be possible?
Stories about eternal life

Have a look at some of the following:

" The Picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde

1

"T ithonus" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson - for background on the myth of Tithonus have a look at " Aurora & Tithonus" myth.
1 1
 Quarterlife - new online drama

quarterlife
1

This is created by two well-known film and TV producers. It's about young
people and the "coming of age in a digital generation". Apparently it's going
to be a combination of a web series and a social network. Being launched
on November 12. Probably a good one to follow.

Module 2 Materials

Interview links
Interview links.doc (28 Kb)
1

In this document are links to different 'YouTube' clips of and about different
kinds of media interviews.

Module 3 Materials

Poetic and metaphoric videos

Poetic clips.doc (26 Kb)
1

Many video clips use poetic language and imagery - selecting and layering
words, images, colours, symbols, music and other elements to convey ideas
and emotions beyond the literal.

A few examples with links are provided in the attached document, one link is
embedded below!

The story page

1Part 1 - The beginning

Part 2 - The word is out!

1

1Part 3 - There's something funny about...

Blackboard wiki (conducted in role)

Blackboard wiki (conducted in role)

Sample Blackboard blog entries
The Immortals - Cyberdrama project (permalink)
1

This is surreal! (p ermalink) - edit history delete

1 1 1 1

Created on Wednesday, 11/14/2007 9:30 PM by mthom031k

Hey Everyone its me Keeley again,

I am feeling a little different than before i received the immortals email. i guess you could say i
feel a stronger sense of power and belonging. I'm not really used to belonging anywhere i stand
out from the crowd.

However i had this weird dream or 'vision' where i blended so well into the crowd i wasn't even
there. it was a really surreal experience.

have any of you other Immortals received some sort of invitation to the conference thing in
Brisbane?? It was signed by the B+B. i wonder who they are?? Zaiph you seemed to have
some contact with them. Are their intentions good or bad?? i think its worth a shot to go. i mean
what have i got to lose. i'm immortal. hopefully i'll be able to come up with the money to fly
there.

-Keeley

Comments (1)
1

you dream, i dream we all dream of immortality.

I have never dreamt of somehing more consuming, impossible. My sanity beseeches: Make me
immortal!
Thursday, 01/01/1970 10:00 AM by acram002k
| Delete
1

Add Comment

Post on November 10 2007 ( permalink) - edit history delete

1 1 1 1

Created on Saturday, 11/10/2007 11:17 AM by cstew011k

All you need to know will be revealed,

oh and TJ is safe with Us,

goodbye,

1 Comments (1)
perhaps but who is us?
Thursday, 01/01/1970 10:00 AM by rbarl001k
| 1 Delete

Post on November 7 2007 (p ermalink) - edit history delete

2 2 2 2

Created on Wednesday, 11/07/2007 1:26 PM by acram002k

Dreams really are portals to another world - be it old or new. Last night, lying in my self-pity (cool
and paralysing) i dreamed.

I dreamed of exquisite childhood joy.

of the times when mother would read pastel books of unriddling rhymes.

simple beauty in found in nature, trees that cradled me when she would not.

clocks & clocks & clocks - they stole my childhood from me.

2 Comments

It's real! ( permalink) - edit history delete

2 2 2 2

Created on Wednesday, 11/07/2007 10:25 AM by bmayc001k

If you don't believe that it is possible to become immoral you are all wrong! IT IS REAL!
You must have faith in God! If you don't you have no chance of receiving this holy gift!

Immortality may only be gained through the ultimate sacrifice to the lord. THE SACRIFICE OF
YOUR LIFE! Give all you have to the lord and you shall be granted with this gift.

If you don't believe me, that is your own fault. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Marixa

Watch your back ( permalink) - e2 2

dit history delete Created on Monday, 11/05/2007 8:40

2 2

PM by eharr012k Updated on Wednesday, 11/07/2007 10:23

AM by eharr012k

Hey its TJ, well i think thats my name,

Well I think i know whats happening but i can't really tell you much but all i know is that I've
noticed this guy following me but it could just be coincidence

I will let you know more soon but for now dont trust anyone but the b+b= people they could be
our only chance of getting out of this sticky situation

bye will keep in touch

2 Comments (1)

Geez TJ what's up? This blog is totally different from your others. You sound completely
different. What's going on? You said you can't tell us much. Why? Keep us updated on this guy
following you.
Thursday, 01/01/1970 10:00 AM by cande021k
| 2 Delete
Learning Place Project Room documentation

Project Room home page

Project Room chat