2
School drama
The role of quality arts experiences in nurturing who we are as people alongside their ability to enhance creative learning across the curriculum is well documented and has enjoyed a renaissance over the last decade (eg, President’s Committee on the Humanities and Social Sciences 2011; Caldwell & Vaughan 2012; Gibson & Ewing 2011; Ewing 2010; Catterall 2009; Bamford 2006: Bryce et al. 2004; Deasy 2002; Fiske 1999). An arts-rich curriculum can be a powerful agent in developing an inclusive classroom learning community where teachers and students think critically and express their understanding while creatively respecting a multiplicity of perspectives (Burnaford, et al. 2001).
In particular, the importance of seeing educational or process drama as critical, quality pedagogy (Ewing 2012, 2010, 2006; McCarthy et al. 2006; O’Toole & Dunn 2002; O’Neill 1995) as well as understanding drama as a specific art form has also been well researched. As O’Connor (2008, 29) asserts:
we must recognise the absolute centrality of drama in giving a sense of what it is to be other than ourselves in a world where otherness and difference is often something to be feared and punished.
There is also a wealth of evidence that demonstrates the powerful role that drama strategies can play in improving students’ English language and literacy outcomes (eg Dunn & Stinson 2011; Ewing 2010, 2006; Ewing & Simons 2004; Miller & Saxton 2004; Baldwin & Fleming 2003). Recent neuroscientific evidence further provides an underpinning for many of the understandings about learning that drama and other arts educators have known from many years of professional practice (eg Baldwin 2012; Ewing 2010).
Despite this, a significant number of generalist primary teachers report that they lack the expertise and/or the confidence to use drama for any substantive activity within their classrooms. In numerous instances, drama, when implemented at all, is employed as a fun ‘fill-in’ activity or as a warm-up game before the ‘real’ work begins. As a result, it is often undervalued and underused, both as a discipline in its own right and as pedagogy across the curriculum (Ewing et al. 2011, 33). While the incoming Australian arts curriculum mandates two hours of arts each week in all F–101 Australian classrooms, the increasing regulatory, high-stakes national testing regime has already resulted in a narrowing of the curriculum for primary students. Such technical approaches to assessment place pressure on teachers to teach to tests and to feel they must concentrate on transmissive and traditional approaches to the teaching of literacy and numeracy. As a result, drama remains at risk of remaining on the fringe of the primary curriculum.
Similarly, children’s literature has not been as prominent a feature of every primary classroom in recent years. Research suggests (eg Cremin, et al. 2008) that many primary teachers lack the confidence to choose quality literary texts for close study in their classroom. For example, Cremin et al. reveal that the 1200 primary professionals in their 2008 study leaned on a narrow repertoire of authors, poets and picture book artists. In defining quality texts Libby Gleeson (2012, 6) writes that:
A quality text must have integrity. It must have characters that are fully realised. It must have language that fully expresses what the writer wants to say. The story must satisfy the reader but also make demands of the reader. The very best stories have something to say that goes beyond a surface meaning to something deeper, a symbolic meaning that speaks of the human condition.
The declining number of school librarians in many Australian states due to funding cuts has exacerbated this trend. Often unrecognised as an art form and omitted from the incoming Australian curriculum: the arts, literature is the art form that most Australians recognise and engage with (Australia Council, 2010).
Enabling teachers to bring two art forms, drama and quality children’s literature together, to equip children with sophisticated literacy skills is the core of the School Drama2 program, described in more detail in the next section.
Developed largely as a response to this context and building on Ewing’s classroom work in drama, literature and literacy with primary teachers over more than 25 years, this chapter reports on the findings of five years of SD, a program developed in 2009 through a partnership between the Sydney Theatre Company (STC)3 and the Faculty of Education and Social Work (ESW), University of Sydney.4 SD focuses specifically on developing primary teachers’ professional knowledge of and expertise in the use of process drama with children’s literature to enhance their students’ English and literacy outcomes. The program is based on an authentic understanding of partnership and a co-mentoring approach to teacher professional learning (Aubusson et al. 2009; Le Cornu 2005) and has been largely funded by STC’s philanthropic foundation and, in 2013–14, Origin Energy. The section below briefly addresses these principles before describing the SD process and discussing its outcomes to date. The final section considers the implications of the program and future directions.
The SD program is dependent on a partnership not just between STC and the ESW but between each educator and teaching artist working towards student academic achievement in a particular classroom: in this instance, improvement in identified English and literacy outcomes. Both levels of partnership need to be authentic (Auerbach 2012, 5) and therefore must ensure a respectful alliance between educators and artists, value the building of a relationship, engage in healthy dialogue across differences, and ensure power is shared. Teachers and artists working in collaborative ventures need to develop a respect and appreciation of each others’ ‘skills set’ (Upitis 2005) if such a partnership is to succeed. This partnership is thus a significant departure from many artists-in-residence programs.
The partnership between STC and the ESW:
SD seeks to develop primary teachers’ professional knowledge of and expertise in the use of process drama. Actors, or teaching artists, work in a co-mentoring relationship alongside classroom teachers once a week for up to seven weeks in either term two, three or four of the school year. There is a strong emphasis on teacher ownership and professional responsibility in the co-mentoring model and this professional learning model is a defining feature of SD. Teaching artists model the use of drama strategies with quality literary texts to address a specific literacy or English outcome that has been identified by the class teacher. The intention of the program is that the teachers will then continue to use their new-found expertise in drama with quality texts with their own students and hopefully with other classes at their school. While anecdotal evidence teachers affirm that it is their intention to continue to use the drama strategies in this way, the long-term sustainability of the program is critical and the 2013–14 meta-analysis and ongoing case studies seek to confirm that this is the case. Teachers often work with a teaching artist for two successive years to consolidate and further develop their understandings and expertise. The following quotes are representative of teacher interview feedback at the conclusion of their work with the teaching artist:
I thought it was exciting to work with someone with extensive theatrical background, who is working in the industry, they have more insight than a classroom teacher . . . yes I did develop some skills . . .
For me it was like mentoring in drama teaching . . . [the teaching artist] broke it down in a way that made me realise I could do it. It was empowering. It was fantastic. I have been using some of those activities . . . I would love to have more.
As mentioned earlier, the professional learning model is conceptualised as a co-mentoring approach. Instead of using the traditional conception of the mentor as the expert, reconceptualising the mentoring process as one of co‐learning positions the participants in a non-hierarchical or reciprocal relationship (Le Cornu 2005; Bona et al. 1995, 119). The teachers learn about the use of drama in enhancing literacy and English while the teaching artists learn about adapting their professional theatre skills to a particular literacy focus in classroom contexts. One of the teaching artists articulates this clearly comparing his experience working with two teachers:
It’s really that building of the relationship between the teacher and the teaching artist that’s so crucial. I realise now how important that is because I’ve had the experience where it didn’t happen and now I know it’s crucial for the program and that it works very well. (Roger)
The program’s effectiveness is demonstrated by its popularity in Sydney classrooms. Table 2.1 summarises the growth of SD since 2009.
All teachers undertake an initial full day workshop in which they engage in drama strategies with contemporary picture books. In many instances the principals of the participating schools attend the first session of this workshop and subsequently have invited Ewing and Saunders to present a workshop for their whole school staff. The teacher workshop ensures that the teachers have experienced the strategies for themselves and removes the fear that drama can only be taught by skilled, specialist professionals. Many come to this initial workshop with ‘baggage’ and insecurities from their own past experiences at school. Teachers and teaching artists then meet to plan their program and the teachers identify the English or literacy focus. Table 2.2 provides an overview of the 2011 outcomes and literary texts by class in each classroom.
Quality literary texts are usually selected at this initial planning session. Often the teaching artist will suggest an appropriate text based on their experience in earlier years. The teaching artist then plans seven 90–120 minute sessions usually implemented over seven weeks. Ewing provides support and advice to the actors in terms of potential resources and strategies. Over time STC has built a resource file of units of work developed and it is anticipated that these will be available online and in published book form in 2015. Ongoing access to this resource has been identified by the teachers in each year of the evaluations as an important way they will be able to source other unit plans after the teaching artist has moved to other classrooms.
This planning is shared with the teacher prior to the commencement of the sessions and the classroom teacher designs an appropriate benchmarking task that case study students undertake prior to and after the program. The teaching artist then models the use of various drama strategies with the texts each week and often follow-up tasks are completed before their next visit. Gradually the classroom teacher develops confidence to use drama strategies either between visits from the teaching artist or with other classes. In addition many teachers begin to see the potential for using drama in other curriculum areas.
The teachers involved in SD either express an interest in being part of SD or are selected by their principal. In their pre-program questionnaire the majority of the teachers state that they need to develop their skills to teach drama in the classroom. Most also express some excitement about developing an understanding of the links between drama and literacy learning. While some have had experience teaching drama, either in their classroom or in their pre-service teacher education program, they often feel they need to develop more skills to teach it effectively. Typical comments in their pre-program interviews include:
I would like to be more familiar and more confident – to step in every day and teach drama from the top of my head. Because the things that might hold you back as a teacher is preparedness, so I would like to be familiar and more comfortable . . . to have the skills at my finger tips.
I touch on it, we have done some Readers’ Theatre, but I confess, I only do the odd drama game on the occasional afternoon, it is not consistent.
I would like to have the skills to link literacy and drama and explore picture books without having to follow the lessons of others to be able to create my own lesson.
I have been teaching for long time and I am a bit stale on some ideas, I believe in the creative arts, but drama is not one of my strong points.
The development of new drama skills is also encouraged by some of the principals who clearly understand the important link between drama and literacy learning. One principal who understands the power of drama to engage students, commented:
I would like to think of it as an opportunity to inspire the staff. As a result I hope that there is an increased opportunity for us all to discuss what it is that really engages kids. For the kids I hope there is an opportunity for them to reflect on this experience and continue to develop ownership of this process, so that it is something we can continue to build on within the school community . . .
The participant teachers respond to a series of interview questions before and after the SD program either by telephone or email. In addition, in 2011 nine teachers were selected for face-to-face in-depth interviews conducted by a research assistant. Several in-depth school case studies have been undertaken. The actors have also been interviewed. In some classes, students have also provided responses in focus groups.
As previously stated, SD focuses on two interrelated outcomes:
In the vast majority of instances, the in-class professional learning that occurred during the SD developed the teachers’ confidence to embed drama strategies in English and literacy programming using authentic literacy texts. Overwhelmingly, and consistently to date (Campbell et al. 2010) the participant teachers have reported a range of positive outcomes both in terms of their students’ English and literacy development and their own professional learning. The teaching artists and students have also expressed their belief that SD has been beneficial. Benchmarking student achievement before and after the class program has improved, although some teachers did not engage optimally in this analysis phase and this process has been revised.
The following teacher comments are indicative of the teacher responses to SD:
The program was invaluable. I think that I grew so much as a person, as a teacher, the children grew along with me, and I think I’ve inspired the other teachers in the school. I just think that it’s a fantastic program and I’d love for it to be continued . . . Even my supervisor said, ‘I’ll do whatever I can, I’ll take your class for you’ . . . They are just so passionate about the program that we like to share and give up our time because you guys are doing some great things.
Personally, it was a very valuable experience that I have shared with my students. In our very busy school lives, there isn’t always a lot of time to have fun, laugh and really let go with the children. SD provided this for us, thus strengthening the teacher/student bond and rapport.
It has been a wonderful enriching experience. It was the highlight of my week . . . Predominantly, I learned about the opportunities created by allowing students permission to imagine outside the topic of conversation . . . the drama program has allowed me to see the students and their personalities more clearly and share my ideas and personality with them. In this way, I now know know them better and connect with them more meaningfully.
The most successful outcomes were observed when teachers were able to demonstrate the drama strategies to other classes at the school or trial the activities in between the actor’s visits (Ewing et al. 2011).
[The actor] would come on a Tuesday and she would teach my class and I would watch her and I would take notes. I pretty much scripted everything she did. Then on Thursday, the teacher next door . . . would teach my class for science and I would take her class. It was really interesting because I got totally different results. Great results. In other words, I was doing side-by-side lessons but I was doing it with another class.
As a teacher, the importance of using drama in the classroom has given my literacy program greater depth whilst still allowing drama to retain its integrity. Sharing with the staff through a professional development session, I have inspired my colleagues to use drama with literacy to raise student outcomes.
SD has provided excellent professional development for me. It was very beneficial to see various techniques demonstrated by [the actor] first, and then for me to implement them with my class later in the day/week with the programmed follow-up activities. It gave me the chance to reinforce the concepts and skills and learn with the children.
Many of the SD teachers were able to articulate specific drama skills that they were now confident to use in their classrooms. Initially hesitant to attempt drama activities, one teacher reported:
working with [the actor] over seven weeks has made me aware of a wide range of techniques and strategies that can enable me to enhance my teaching of all modes of literacy through the use of drama-based experiences. Additionally, I learnt an exciting and stimulating range of warm-up activities, improvisational games and focusing activites which I have continued to use in my class on a regular basis. This was a highly valuable and immediately useful professional development experience.
Another commented that:
The sense of having a set of skills that are genuinely useful outside a rehearsal room is wonderful and it gives me great pleasure to be doing something that is so worthwhile. The creative stimulus of this job is deeply rewarding and the sense of positive purpose is great for me… Personally and professionally, this is a very positive experience.
Most teachers were also enthusiastic about improvements in their students’ literacy development.
One Year 2 teacher who was focusing on the development of verbal language skills wrote:
The drama program has allowed the students to experience literacy outcomes more deeply than was planned for in my English program. The students clearly achieved the proposed indicators for the talking and listening, reading and writing outcomes. They were able to share points of view, respond to texts with unique opinions and alter their voice, intonation, facial expression and gesture, often independently.
Likewise one of the teachers reported on the improvements she observed in her Year 6 class as a result of the program:
Their responses both oral and written are generally more considered, thoughtful, insightful. They take time to think yet are able to more readily ‘think on their feet’. They are able to analyse character’s feelings and consequently in their work, more attention is paid to character motivation and voice.
Additional benefits for the students, in addition to improvements in literacy learning through drama, were also noted by the teachers. Many comments referred to improved confidence and/or social skills especially related to those students who were perceived as shy, disengaged or marginalised by ability with language and/or other disabilities. For example:
My students have had an opportunity to develop skills outside their previous experience and comfort zones . . . With the shy students, or students with special needs, an opportunity for success in front of peers, when there are not many such opportunities academically, raise self-esteem and assist their attitude to other new endeavours.
My students really enjoyed the experience. Every Thursday they would ask ‘Is [the actor] coming today?’ It was rewarding to see the creativity of some of the children who previously were very shy and didn’t join in group activities, become involved and have lots of fun. Confidence was also noted in my students: many students were eager to have a go and join in the activities.
Several teachers noted that Indigenous students had particularly engaged with the drama and storytelling that are at the heart of the SD program.
Although it has not always been appropriate or possible to conduct focus groups with students, many students have expressed their thoughts about SD either in conversations with their teachers, with the teaching artists or in learning journals or through correspondence. Robertson’s (2010) case study of one class did enable in-depth focus groups with the participant students. In their discussion they underlined how motivating the drama had been (‘deadly’) and suggested it should be part of their education each year.
Below are a number of comments from boys in Year 6 class in the 2011 program:
I thought the drama lessons were awesome. They have improved my descriptive writing skills and made my story writing easier to read and more exciting. I really recommend having [the actor] go to other schools and teach other kids what she has taught me.
Drama has helped me with my self-confidence to express my emotions and write them down in words. I learned that there are more layers to our feelings . . . I enjoy school now because drama has helped me understand things and why people act in certain ways.
A study by Barkl (2005, 2) investigating the role of the artist in the Musica Viva program recognised that artists in educational partnerships need to develop other skills beyond their professional artistic skills, if meaningful collaboration between the ‘arts sector, the education sector, government and community’ are to be reached. The artist, in many instances, needs to develop a pedagogical practice; they need to be able to teach, along with the ability to perform in their chosen field of expertise. It is interesting to note that three of the teaching artists have also sought to undertake teacher education since being involved in the program. One actor in SD discussed this after the first year of the program:
I have really enjoyed having the world of teaching opened up for me. This style of education I think really works – using drama to teach in something like English has a lot of merit . . . However there was a big assumption that this is what actors do, and I had never done any of these things before – it is a fallacy to say we are translating rehearsal techniques into the drama room, it is very different to how you work in rehearsal . . . Developing my confidence [with these new skills], I feel useful and that I am doing something worthwhile . . . On the whole I have found it stimulating, engaging and satisfying. It’s something I would like to continue doing.
These comments led to the introduction of a more intensive workshop program for the teaching artists from 2010 before the teacher workshop. A second meeting is now usually planned for the artists following their first meetings with participant teachers. In 2011 one of the actors commented:
The sense of having a set of skills that are genuinely useful outside a rehearsal room is wonderful and it gives me great pleasure to be doing something that is so worthwhile. The creative stimulus of this job is deeply rewarding and the sense of positive purpose is great for me . . . Personally and professionally, this is a very positive experience.
The artists are also now involved in debriefing sessions at the conclusion of each term and again at the end of each year. It is evident that the teachers and artists develop mutual respect for each other and it highlights the importance of the co-mentoring feature of the program. This is a crucial indicator for success in arts education partnerships more generally as well as for the SD process.
A number of teachers have commented that a longer timeframe would be desirable, especially when attempting to evaluate student literacy learning. Another noted the conflation of SD with other classroom teaching and learning experiences. For example:
We had a writing focus and I don’t feel the program was intensive enough to say that it has contributed to meeting objectives.
It is difficult to separate other classroom instruction and the drama program in terms of contributions to meeting these objectives.
A majority of the participant teachers believed that deep and lasting learning needs to happen over a sustained period of time. Comments below are reflective of this concern.
It did improve the students’ writing to some extent, but I think it needs to be a longer intervention . . .
The time frame is not long enough: the students are really ripe and it’s over.
One teacher wanted her kindergarten students to develop better use of descriptive words in their writing. However while she did see moderate development in this area, she also saw evidence of greater improvement in her students’ oral speaking skills with increased ability to tell stories with more confidence, greater expression and better choice of descriptive words. She felt that a 10-week program would have achieved greater results. It is for this reason that the program is now seven-weeks long rather than six although it may have to be condensed for rural and remote contexts for logistic and financial reasons. Funding is the only barrier to a longer program.
Effective analysis of benchmarking remains an issue, and is raised in each evaluation (Campbell et al. 2010; Gibson 2011, 2012, 2013). Over the pilot years many more teachers have collected detailed and more focused evidence around the identified literacy outcome before and after the intervention, and provided some analysis often as a rubric of the results. Those who did invest time and effort in this important feature of the program have been able to provide clear examples of literacy improvement via student work samples. For example, one year 2 teacher demonstrated that SD has ‘contributed greatly to the students’ engagement with the text and in developing verbal expression, confidence performing in front of a familiar audience and empathising with the characters in the story’. Her benchmarking consisted of a pre- and post-writing tasks where students were required to describe an imaginary creature, a setting and their interaction with it. It is clear, however, that some teachers need more support in analysis of the data they collect. In 2014 John Saunders and Robyn Ewing developed suggested benchmarking frameworks for oracy, inferential comprehension, descriptive and narrative writing to help teachers with this analysis.
One of the most important aspects of the SD program is the professional learning model that underpins the relationship between the teacher and the teaching artist. SD aims to be more than an artist-in-residence program. There is no doubt that the relationship between the artist and the teacher is critical in ensuring that joint planning and careful sequencing is appropriate for the particular group of children involved.
The co-mentoring model acknowledges the artist’s expertise and skill in drama but at the same time values the teacher’s understanding of his or her students as well as the literacy focus most needed. Teacher and teaching artist work together to select the most appropriate literary texts and to implement the program. Over time the teacher assumes more responsibility for implementation. Similar programs have been developed in other states (see for example the KITE Yonder program developed by Queensland Performing Arts Centre and Education Queensland) and in other art forms (see for example the Australian Ballet’s ‘Out there: the Australian Ballet in schools’). This kind of teacher professional learning model could and should be more widely used.
In summary, over the last five years, the SD professional learning model has been most successful when:
The most important next step is to investigate how sustainable SD is once the teaching artists have completed their time in a particular school. Ongoing funding will be needed to research whether this approach to professional learning is valuable long term and whether teachers begin to use drama strategies in other Key Learning Areas as they gain in confidence and expertise.
During 2014 and 2015 the sustainability of School Drama has been investigated with schools that have been participating in the program for more than three years. In addition the Sydney Theatre Company website has included resources and unit plans so that teachers can access units after the conclusion of their work with a teaching artist.
In 2012 and 2013 SD was successfully trialled in three schools in a regional and remote context (Gibson 2012). The program was in essence the same. Teachers in each school were able to participate in a professional program although these were held over two sessions after school. Those participating teachers each worked with a teaching artist over seven sessions but these were concentrated over a month rather than seven weeks. More refinement of the program will be needed for remote and regional contexts.
In addition, funding from Origin enabled the program to be piloted successfully in South Australia in 2013–14 and it is hoped that the program will go national in subsequent years. The model will utilise the same partnership model: a state theatre and a state university working together. It is hoped that in time the efficacy of this professional learning model will attract funding from the education systems in each state.
To conclude, the SD program is an innovative example of offering teachers professional learning through co-mentoring with an experienced actor. The findings thus far have been extremely positive with teachers and teaching artists articulating the benefits for their learning as well as evidence of improved student learning in the designated area despite the seven-week timeframe.
The long-term sustainability of the program is currently being investigated. It is clear that the co-mentoring professional learning model has implications beyond the arts and education.
It is of concern, however, that the ongoing potential of such an effective professional learning model is dependent on continued funding by philanthropists and foundations rather than education systems.
The words of one participating teacher from the 2011 SD program provides a valuable final comment:
It is interesting for me to report back this second time as I have had a completely different experience to that of last year. At the end of last year’s seven weeks, I went away raving about how good it was and how much the students enjoyed it . . . This year, however, I feel that my maturity as an implementer of drama has really improved. I now clearly understand that drama is not just about acting and playing games but about accessing characters’ feelings and emotions through exploration . . . I now view drama as an irreplaceable part of not only my literacy teaching but as my whole curriculum approach to teaching.
Aubusson P, Ewing R & Hoban G (2009). Action learning: reframing teacher professional development and learning. London: Routledge.
Auerbach S (2012). School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships. New York: Routledge.
Australia Council for the Arts (2010). More than bums on seats: Australian participation in the arts. Sydney: Australia Council for the Arts.
Baldwin P (2012). With drama in mind. London: Continuum.
Baldwin P & Fleming K (2003). Teaching literacy through drama: creative approaches. London: Routledge Falmer.
Bamford A (2006). The WOW factor: global compendium on the impact of the arts in education. New York: Waxman.
Barkl L (2005). Professional musicians and interactive education programs: skills, knowledge and expertise required and implications for training. Paper presented at ‘Backing our creativity: the national education and the arts symposium’, Victorian College of the Arts, Melbourne, 12–14 September.
Bryce J, Mendelovits J, Beavis A, McQueen J, & Adams I (2004). Evaluation of school-based arts education programmes in Australian schools. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Bona M, Rinehart J & Volbrecht R (1995). ‘Show me how to do like you’: co‐mentoring as feminist pedagogy. Feminist Teacher, 9(3): 116–24.
Burnaford G, Aprill A, & Weiss C (Eds) (2001). Renaissance in the classroom: arts integration and meaningful learning. New York: Routledge.
Caldwell B & Vaughan T (2012). Transforming education through the arts. London: Routledge.
Campbell V, Ewing R & Gibson R (2010). Evaluation of school drama pilot study. Unpublished report. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Catterall J (2009). Doing well and doing good by doing art: the long term effects of sustained involvement in the visual and performing arts during high school. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Imagination Group.
Cremin T, Mottram, E, Bearne M & Goodwin P (2008). Exploring teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(4): 449–464.
Deasy R (Ed) (2002). Critical links: learning in the arts and student academic and social development. Washington: Arts Education Partnership.
Dunn J & Stinson M (2011). Dramatic play and drama in the early years: Reimagining the approach. In S Wright (Ed.). Children, meaning-making and the arts (pp115–34). 2nd edn; Sydney: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
Ewing R (Ed) (2012). The creative arts in the lives of young children: play, imagination, learning. Melbourne: Australian Council of Educational Research.
Ewing R (2010). The arts and Australian education: realising potential. Camberwell Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Ewing R (2006). Reading to allow spaces to play. In R Ewing (Ed.). Beyond the reading wars: towards a balanced approach to helping children learn to read (pp171–82). Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association.
Ewing R, Hristofski H, Gibson R, Campbell V & Robinson, A (2011). Using drama to enhance literacy: the School Drama initiative. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 19(3): 33–39.
Ewing R & Simons J (2004). Beyond the script. Take two: drama in the classroom. Sydney: PETA.
Fiske E (Ed) (1999). Champions of change: the impact of the arts on learning. Washington: Arts Education Partnership & President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.
Gibson R (2011). Evaluation of School Drama, 2010. Unpublished report. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Gibson R (2012). Evaluation of School Drama, 2011. Unpublished report. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Gibson R (2013). Evaluation of School Drama, 2012. Unpublished report. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Gibson R & Ewing R (2011). Transforming the curriculum through the arts. Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gleeson L (2012). Why literature matters. In J Manuel & S Brindley (Eds.) Teenagers and reading: literary heritages, cultural contexts and contemporary reading practices. Kent Town, SA: Wakefield Press.
Le Cornu R (2005). Peer mentoring: engaging pre‐service teachers in mentoring one another. Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(3): 355–66.
McCarthy K, Ondaatje E, Zakaras L & Brooks A (2004). Gifts of the muse: reframing the debate about the benefits of the arts. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
Miller C & Saxton J (2004). Into the story: language in action through drama. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
O’Connor P (2008). Drama for inclusion: a pedagogy of hope. In M Anderson, J Hughes & J Manuel (Eds.) Drama and English teaching: imagination, action and engagement. Melbourne: Oxford University Press
O’Neill C (1995). Drama worlds: a framework for process drama. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
O’Toole J & Dunn J (2002). Pretending to learn. Sydney: Pearson.
President’s committee on the arts and humanities (2011). Reinvesting in arts education: Winning America’s future through creative schools. Washington: President’s committee on the arts and humanities.
Robertson A (2010). The School Drama experience: a case study of learning English. Honours thesis: University of Sydney.
Upitis R (2005). Experiences of artists and artist-teachers involved in teacher professional development programs. International Journal of Education & The Arts, 6(8):1–11.
1 The incoming Australian curriculum uses the term ‘Foundation’ to denote the first year of school.
2 http://www.sydneytheatre.com.au/community/education/teacher-professional-learning/school-drama.aspx
3 Sydney Theatre Company has been a major force in Australian theatre since it was founded in the 1970s. The current Artistic Director is Andrew Upton.
4 An earlier discussion of SDS can be found in Ewing et al. (2011).