Appendix 

A  B  C  D

Appendix A

 Interview Candidates For Pilot And Research Study

** indicates pilot study

Bold indicates selected participants

Madeline Ballard-Kennard - Psychotherapist , Peel Family Services

Mississauga.

Rosemary Courtney, Ph.D.- (deceased) Former Teacher/author, language

specialist, Salt Spring Island, B.C.

Ken Dryden – Author/researcher – In School. Our kids, our teachers,

our classrooms, Peel District Board of Education.

Stephen La Frenie – Graphic Mime Theatre, Physical Theatre Artist –

Educator, Toronto.

Fiona Griffiths – Professional actor/instructor of clown, movement, The

Space, Toronto.

Julie Hard – Graduate student, T.L. Kennedy Secondary School, Peel District Board of Education.

District School Board.

**Rosalind Kindler - Child Dramatherapist, member-CREATE,Toronto.

Jenny Le Riche - Secondary/Middle School Drama teacher, Peel District

School Board, Mississauga.

John MacDonald – Elementary teacher, Peel District School Board.

Wallace Metcalf – Former Drama/English teacher, secondary panel,

Hamilton Board of Education.

Ginny Robinson – former supply teacher, secondary/ junior Geography,

Physical Education, Art; current Department Head, Geography/History

Department, Peel District School Board.

**Bonnie Robson M.D.- Child and Family Psychiatrist, Toronto District

Board of Education.

Steve Russell - Secondary school Drama teacher, Head,Dramatic

Arts Dept., Brampton.

Ann Scofield – Therapist, Transformative Theatre, Montreal.

Terrence Slater – Secondary school/ESL Drama teacher/actor, Peel

District School Board.

Joy Squire – Counselor/Vice Principal, secondary school, Peel District

School Board.

Larry Swartz - Elementary teacher/author, Ed.D. Candidate,

Principal/AQ courses, OISE/UT, Toronto.

Allison Stein - Coordinator - School for the Arts – Toronto District School

Board.

Naomi Tyrrell – Artist/Educator - Mask, Mime, Movement - Toronto

Ian Waldron - Vice-Principal, North Toronto Collegiate, Toronto District

Board of Education.

Bernie Warren - University Professor, Ph. D., Drama Specialist,

Dramatic Art, Windsor.

Russ White, Coordinator - Regional Arts Program (Retired), Peel District

Board of Education.

Top of Page 

Appendix B

Questionnaire

INTERVIEWER: Sandra Katz, Doctoral Candidate, OISE/UT

INTERVIEWEE: ________________________

DATE OF INTERVIEW: _________________________________

ARCHETYPE (e.g. artist/educator, student, etc.): ________________________

1. a) Personal Information: at interviewee’s discretion.

b) Describe your background as an educator/artist? What is your professional

status now?

2. How, where and from whom did you learn how to use Drama-in-Education?

3. How, where and from whom did you learn, gain knowledge about and/or

become aware of Drama as a Therapeutic Medium?

4. Who were your early influences? i.e. Instructors, friends, colleagues?

5. Did you have a turning point in your career? If yes, please describe the

catalyst and the effect.

6. Describe your relationship with the Interviewer? (How long have you known

her and in what capacity?)

7. Do you have a personal philosophy/attitude regarding Drama in the

Educational process? If so, try to define it in terms of its personal and social

values.

8. Has your personal philosophy/attitude/approach regarding Drama-in-Education

changed during your career?

9. Have you had any active experiences with Drama as Therapy, either as a

participant, observer, learner instructor? If so, describe. If not, have you become

acquainted with Drama as Therapy in any other way?

10. Have you an awareness of authors, practitioners, educators in the field of

Dramatherapy? If so, who are they and in which ways have they influenced your

practice?

11. Do you use the language of therapy in your work? i.e. terms from

psychology, psychotherapy?

12. Have you used any therapeutic methods in your teaching, instructing,

facilitating? Describe these. Why did you employ these methods? Why not?

13. Describe your own personal emotional responses to participants’ emotional,

and psychological occurrences in your work with students.

14. Do students need to experience the processes of Drama in their educational

lives? Why or why not?

15. In your opinion, how are your various methods of Drama perceived by

outsiders (those who are not familiar with, and totally unacquainted with the

methodology).

16.Have current Educational Outcomes, Ministry or Board Initiatives, Educational

documents, literature included therapeutic objectives from your perspective?

Why or why not?

17. Would you consider participating in a group conference to examine Drama

as a therapeutic medium in education? What would you gain from the

experience? If not, explain your concerns.

18. Would you try to provide your own definition of “Dramatherapy”?

19. What form of Drama has been the best vehicle for therapeutic results (i.e.

storytelling, mask work). Explain your opinion from your experiences.

20. Is there anything that you have said that you would not like included in this

thesis?

21. Audiotape reflection : please take some time to consider this Interview. Take

a few days to reflect on certain cases from your work (one or two cases, which,

in your opinion, demonstrated the positive or negative effects of therapeutic

approaches, will be sufficient) which would benefit this study.

The audio reflection will be transcribed. Names of case studies will not be used

in the transcription, if requested. Please return the tape to me in the envelope

provided after ONE week has elapsed.

Thank you for your time, support and contributions to this thesis.

Top of Page 

Appendix C

Letter of Consent

Date: _______________

Dear: _______________

As you know, I am a doctoral student in Curriculum Studies at the Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education, which is linked to the Graduate Department of

Education of the University of Toronto. I would like to request your participation

as a case study in my research. The purpose of this investigation is to examine,

through video and/or audiotape interviews, a selected number of teachers and/or

practitioners who currently use or recognize Dramatherapy in the educational

context. The general intention of this study is for readers to recognize the

existence of Dramatherapy in their teaching methods by observing the case

studies.

Confidentiality will be maintained at all stages of the research process and with

the publishing of the final results. To ensure this, all names may be deleted and

replaced by pseudonyms known only to me, if requested. Video and audio tapes

will be locked and stored and may be erased, if requested, after the data has

been collected and analysed. You will have the option to withdraw from the study

at any time. At the end of the study, a copy of the written results will be available

to you.

I am sure that you will find this project worthwhile and enjoyable.

Sincerely,

___________________

Sandra Katz

Signature of Interviewee: ____________________ Date: ________________

Top of Page 

Appendix D

Provincial Curricular Trends Of Drama-in-Education

The Goals of Education in Ontario

The Ontario curriculum will provide opportunities for each child (to the limit

of his or her potential):

-To acquire the basic skills fundamental to his continuing education

-To develop and maintain confidence and a sense of self-worth

-To gain the knowledge and acquire the attitudes that he or she needs for active

participation in Canadian society

-To develop an aesthetic sensitivity necessary for a complete and responsible

life'

Within these goals of Education in Ontario, the following can be achieved

for either subject-specific Drama or as a methodology across the curriculum in

secondary schools:

The development of personal resources

The acquisition of an understanding of self in relation to others

The practice of communication skills

The stimulation of inquiry and commitment to learning

The creation of and appreciation of Dramatic Arts forms. (Ministry of

Education,1984)

These objectives identified Drama both as a subject and as a method that

aids in the personal growth and development of the student and preparation for

life rather than the development of actors or technicians for the theatre or media

industries.

The Ontario Curriculum (OS: IS 1984 to The New Curriculum,1999)

By 1984, the OS: IS document reasserted the value of Drama as a

methodology across the curriculum and as a subject for grades 7 through OAC.

3 OS:IS says of the Arts-in-education:

3.1 "...schools should plan programs that enable students to experience the

enriching environment that the arts provide.

For OSSD purposes every student would be required to gain at least one

credit in the Arts. In addition to planned and scheduled courses in subjects

traditionally identified as the Arts, the school's program should include an

aesthetic dimension as an integral part both of its courses and its co-instructional

program. This enrichment can be accomplished in a variety of ways including the

use of Dramatic techniques in expressing and interpreting ideas and concepts in

all subjects of the curriculum.

3.2 'Learning in all subjects can be more effective when individual learners take

an active part in the learning experience. The learning process may be further

enhanced through the use of teaching strategies that allow students to

participate actively in planning, carrying out, and evaluating reaming

experiences.’

Visual, oral and Dramatic expression extend well beyond the arts subjects

into all areas of the curriculum and contribute important learning perspectives

along with language.

3.3 "[There are]... number of important dimensions that need to be reflected in

the broad program of studies, but that are not always accommodated by

individual subject areas. Some of these can be facilitated within integrated units

of study, but others should be pervading factors in all or several aspects of the

curriculum.

3.4 ...cross-curricular dimensions to be reflected in a variety of learning

experiences include appreciation of the role of the Arts in the learning process.

(OS:IS, Ministry of Education, 1984)

In the curriculum document, The Common Curriculum - Grades 1-9,

(Ministry of Education and Training, 1993), Drama was included as a part of the

interrelationship of dance, visual art, and music. This document attempted to

alter the way students are taught and evaluated by dividing the curriculum into

four core program areas, one of which is, The Arts. The document also defined

the enabling skills, values and attitudes and knowledge which students should

achieve by the end of grade 9 as the essential learning outcomes which apply to

all four areas. The ten categories of skills outcomes were: self-management,

interdependence, acquiring information, processing information organizing

information, using conventions, communication, inquiry, problem-solving,

technological competence. Using language and reflection are included among

the above. (Peel Board of Ed., 1994) It was apparent that the Arts could

contribute to the achievement of such by developing students' skills in oral

language, social group situations and employability

Also, in The Common Curriculum, (1993), the grade 9 program was de-credited;

therefore, the Arts component of the grade 9 program is not equal to

the mandatory Arts credit under OS:IS. Unless at least one credit in the Arts is

deemed compulsory for The Specialization Years, (Grade 10-Graduation),

significant consequences for Drama would result. And Drama would be relegated

to the use of teaching/ learning methodology across the curriculum.

The collection of statistics on Drama-in-Education in Ontario school

systems indicated that the field was gaining more recognition. By 1988, 55,000

Drama students were officially registered in the junior/senior divisions of the

Ontario system. (Ministry of Education, 1988). By 1993, board surveys showed

the total number of students registered in secondary school Dramatic Arts

programs. Additionally, Drama's program percentage of gross credits earned

(approximately 2.5% out of the 16 compulsory credits for OSSD for the Peel

Board) clearly indicated a demand and justification for maintaining the subject in

the curriculum with implications for staffing reorganization in the schools. This

growth rate over a period five years (1989 -1993) showed a solid-increase (from

2 to almost 3 credits). (Peel Board of Education, 1994). In contrast, in 1968,

there had been no official record of the numbers of Drama students, courses

taught at the secondary level or hours of instruction in Drama. (Ministry of

Education,1988).

While the field was gaining more recognition, Drama teachers had to

adapt to new developments in methods of evaluation and integration of the Arts.

This trend towards integration of the arts in the system affected the

existence of any subject-specificity for Drama. The benefits of integration

include: Allowing students to become aware of the interrelationship of "Art,

Music, Dance and Drama", and the relevance of the Arts in a cross-curricular

program of study developing a cross-curricular network from working on

integrated projects using resources and personnel in a more efficient way with

less isolation or competition for audience.

The negative aspects of this integration, however, included the erosion of

courses, decline in demand for teaching specialization in any particular Art, and

a de-emphasis on skill development in a curricular continuum fashion.

Consequently, curriculum links, developing new material for integration, become

high priority items for curriculum development.

In September, 1998, The New Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1 8: The Arts

was introduced to the Province. Following this, the implementation of the new

Grade 9 curriculum (The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10: The Arts,1999)

was initiated in September 1999. The new Ministry Document states that the

Grades 9 and 10 Curriculum, “ has been designed in such a way that it

complements and follows on from The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: The

Arts,1998). The shift from personal skill development to a “broader perspective”

is evident in the secondary curriculum. Also, the clustering of Dance and Drama

in the elementary curriculum that focuses on “voice and gesture” and “personal

material” and makes a gentle departure from personally experienced resources

to “a wide range of materials” adds complexity both to the structure and

expectations for teaching and learning. The new curriculum seeks to provide all

things to satisfy a bureaucratic agenda for “higher standards and consistency”

without recognizing the interpretive ambiguities that exist in context.

Does this “new” Drama curriculum impact the significance of the subject in

the secondary school curriculum? It reinforces its significant role in the

curriculum, but clearly lessens the impact of this role in implementation with

attempts to justify its relevance. It is presented as a “link” to other subject

disciplines; as “similar” to Dance, as a reflection of “culture” and “historical

values”, as interdisciplinary and integrative. Drama, now, is represented as a

partner with the other Arts (including Media Arts). In this respect, it loses its

former status as it joins ranks with Dance and Art to ”help students develop their

ability to listen, observe, and enables them to become more self-confident and

self-aware, to take risks, and to solve problems, and to be resourceful.” The

development of these skills is valued primarily for the transferability to “other

endeavours”. The new curriculum demands more reflection “about the self, the

world, and working with others” and encourages increased communication in the

“exchange of ideas”. Dramatic Arts in the curriculum has not lost its place as a

helping medium; rather, it has become devalued as a separate subject entity.

Therefore, application of the new Arts curriculum document cannot be realized in

practice; justice cannot be done to the Arts when the credit requirement has

been reduced so thoughtlessly reduced to “one”. The pendulum’s motion has

been interrupted by the weight of another “trend” that de-emphasizes the

subject-specificity which brings with it, opportunities for deeper and sustainable

learning opportunities.

The most current document, The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10:

the Arts, 1999, which has replaced the above documents follows and

complements The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1–8: the Arts, 1998. The newest

document was designed for use with The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10:

Program Planning and Assessment. With regard to Dramatic Arts, it explains:

“…and Dramatic arts are combined in elementary school and taught separately

in secondary school, where the emphasis shifts from personal skills and

expression to a broader perspective. While the focus is on gesture and voice in

elementary school, it broadens in secondary school to encompass theatrical

conventions and techniques. Grade 8 students generate much of their own

material based on personal experience, whereas Grade 9 students work with

material from a wide range of authors, categories, and cultures….there is more

reflection about the self, the world, and working with others and the exchange of

ideas is encouraged…roles become more complex and are sustained over a

longer period.”

The Middle Ground View of Drama in the Curriculum

The general expectations of the Dramatic Arts courses in the new Ontario

Curriculum “are organized into three distinct, but related strands: theory,

creation, and analysis. Each of these strands lists extensively achievement

expectations for students.

In my opinion, the general outcome statements (of The Common

Curriculum), and the achievement expectations of The New Ontario Curriculum

(1999) contribute to the "praxis" concept that supports the accommodation of the

"Dramatic dichotomy". For example, students are expected to "grow emotionally

and intellectually, and socially", on the one hand, and be able to analyse, and

discuss the use of techniques, theories and ideas in each of the Arts using

appropriate terms. The former expectation is process-oriented; the latter is

clearly product-oriented.

In the Specialization Years Curriculum document for grades 10 through

OAC (Ontario Academic Credit), students were evaluated in a similar fashion, on

the basis of skills and outcomes in knowledge, values and attitudes. Outcome -based

or competence- based education incorporates both aspects of the

dichotomy. Ministry documents since 1975, demonstrate quite strongly that there

is a trend towards the cognitive approach with an emphasis on demonstrable

behaviours.

The Ontario Guidelines (1981) dictated that the characteristics of the

process of evaluation should be 'continuous, varied, sensitive, open, inclusive,

appropriate, developmental, and capable of being communicated. This summary

does not support either side of the instructional dichotomy; rather it emphasizes

the accommodation of all aspects: knowledge skills with attitude and value

development.

The New Ontario Curriculum, (1999) has identified four categories of

knowledge and skills in all of the Arts–Theory, Knowledge and Understanding,

Thinking and Inquiry, Communication and Creation (Application). It states:

“These categories encompass all the curriculum expectations in course in the

discipline. The new curriculum also provides “achievement charts” of standard

province-wide methods of assessment and evaluation for each of the categories

and levels of achievement.” It is concerned with “consistency and

standardization” and the reporting of those levels to public. This emphasis on

accountability therefore, has diverted from the “middle-ground” view to return to

the position of the dichotomy that promotes demonstrable, assessable

behaviours

As a Drama teacher, I have accommodated both ends of the instructional

method continuum. Certain factors have influenced the focus of instruction and

the weighting of activity-based learning (developmental) aims with product-orientation.

Mainly in the junior, and intermediate divisions, the Dramatic process

is emphasized and the developmental methodologies for personal and social

growth are highlighted on the continuum. Whereas, in the senior divisions, the

curriculum becomes more skill- based, focusing on the performance aspects and

aesthetic appreciation of the Dramatic forms. Even at the secondary school level,

students are not expected to perform in front of an adult audience in the first two

years (grades 9 and 10). Movement towards play production is seen mostly in

grades 11, 12 and OAC.

In my own teaching practice, the consideration has always been made in

the weighting of marks for both process and product. Process-evaluated

approaches include: reflective-writing, observation, anecdotal reports, interviews;

product-evaluation methods include: tests, seminars, production books, critiques,

portfolios.

Schools of the Arts, operating in most large school systems in Ontario (i.e.

Peel District and Toronto) definitely accommodate the dichotomies in their

specialized curricula. From grade 9 to graduation (grade 12 or OAC), students

are expected to perform their rehearsed work for a variety of audiences, events

and for a variety of purposes. The dichotomous quality of the specialized

curriculum is evident since the students are instructed with an integration of

informal and formal methods.

For example, in a Drama class, students initially are given a problem or

relationship to explore through role-playing or a situation to spontaneously

improvise; the rehearsing and polishing of the improvised work follow this

process to produce a more structured form that can be scripted for repeated

performances. Thus, the process of discovery- based learning can be viewed as

a means to an end. That end is the performance of that work; hence, the

paradox of rehearsed improvisation. Further examples of the integrated process

and product are present in the texts by Booth and Lundy (1983,1985) and Swartz

(1988).

In both mainstream and specialized Drama programs, views about Drama

are not diametrically opposite; they mostly share similarities. All views regard

Theatre as important in varying degrees; all are based on the "as if" bond

between creative imagination (process) and Dramatic acts (product). Courtney

(1982) sees the field characterized by a plurality of views, a series of

perspectives which collectively, make up its theory and practice.

Top of Page