Ok, well so damn behind on this stuff lousy smarch weather. So here I go:

In answer to the first question the main difference between the lesson’s run by Chris and Derek was the way the teacher’s went about trying to achieve their learning goals. On one hand Chris very successfully achieved her goal of getting the students engaged in the morale dilemma they faced between possibly poisoning people, possibly loosing their bonus maybe even their jobs and the fact they may be putting someone out of business. Derek on the other hand didn’t achieve this at all because the students arrived at a magic solution to the problem which meant they were never engaged in the meta-cognitive learning as desired. The reason for this I would argue is because of the roles each teacher played with their involvement in the dramatic play. Chris unlike Derek was involved in the dramatic play and therefore had the opportunity to direct the students as she desired towards her anticipated learning goals, where as Derek was merely an outsider who could not effect the action meaning when the students came up with the magic solution he could really do nothing to curb it and direct it the way he wanted. AS far as the knowledge and skills based learning i think Derek’s lesson was significantly deficient compared to Chris’s as well because the children at the town meeting would not have to use the same skills of participation, compromise and engagement to solve the morale problem they faced; their magic solution would not have required much of this to take place. Chris’ lesson made the children think, act and deal with the situation in a way that reflects the way things are done in life and was therefore a more valuable learning experience for those students.

So to answer question two the areas of development that the class touched on were cognitive, knowledge and skill based. It seems that the cognitive development was the learning focus of the lesson and was seen through the morale problem solving the students had to undertake to come to a feasible non-magical solution. The skills-based development came in many forms because the students had to engage in group work, listen, comprehend and ask appropriate questions, engage in discussion, recall information and finally use their imagination. Out of these areas the lesson was mainly focused on the students working together as small groups and one whole group and within those engaging in discussion; the others seem more incidental. The knowledge based development that would have taken place when the students were playing as scientists, imagining how scientists work and in what ways. The other knowledge based development would have to do with pollution aspect of the task because to make fertilizers their must be chemicals and chemicals can and do pollute the plant. I think both of these were areas of focus because the unit of work had to do with environmental science.

The reading talks about four types of play, functional, constructive, games with rules, dramatic and socio-dramatic play.

Functional play lets children explore their sensory-motor capabilities, repeating actions so they can repeat them at a later date, this type of play helps children learn about their physical capabilities and their effect on the environment.

Constructive play again using their sensory motor skills but the child adds a plan to their play, organising materials and what ever they need to undertake this plan; usually the child creates something that can often be left behind.

Games with rules consist of both physical games and table games in which children must agree on the proscribed set of rules which control the outcome of the game.

Dramatic and Socio-dramatic play is when children begin to consciously act out social interaction and by doing so experience human relationships by means of symbolic representation.

I touched briefly on this discussion in my last post about the class but reading these has made me think of more things to say. Firstly within our group our discussion seemed to centre on dramatic and socio-dramatic play when we would play things like war, fishermen or bus drivers. I realise now about the whole range of play that i undertook as a child assumingly starting with functional play as a baby and moving into the others with age. I talked about in my last post about thinking that as i got older i thought my play became more sophisticated with rules and limitations which really was just games consisting of rules and functional, constructive and/or dramatic play. An example of this was when my brother, cousins and I used to play games using Lego, dice and money, which involved constructive, socio-dramatic play and was a game with rules. The constructive play was involved with building vehicles out of Lego for a purpose where as the socio-dramatic play had to deal with spending money suitable to be successful within the rules of the game. My brother and I also used to sword fight using sticks or whatever a lot which I guess is functional and socio-dramatic play but as we got older we established rules and protocol to the play making it more like some sort of fencing match. So I guess I’m trying to say is that growing up my play may have involved on specific type of play but more likely it involved at least a number of them and as I aged all play moved into the sphere of games with rules. I think now about how much we do as children and that still takes place and i can see that often it correlates to some sort of play and learning through play. All though we would probably like to think that we do not play as adults, you can be sure that we certainly do.

One thing i have been pondering is the difference between male and female play and as we discussed in the whole group boys have a tendency towards more violent play. This is often discouraged as not political correct and is due to the socialisation of children. It just makes me wonder how much is built into us like a kitten learning to stalk prey through play and how much is socialisation. I really brought back from this discussion though that play allows children to explore their world in a consequence free way and is how children have learnt life skills since the human race became hunter/gathers and maybe before.

Ok I’ll get this post out of the way I don’t know what it is but I start bogging and my post turn into thesis. Anyway the elements for successful group work in drama I would contend are participation because if no one is involved how can anything get done. Collaboration because the best works comes when all are involved and working together as a team. Engagement because if the students are not engaged with the task they will struggle to get anything activities done. Respect for others opinions which are similar to collaboration but a bit deeper because the students need listen to each and compromise when it comes to decisions if this can’t be done there won’t even be a group to complete any task. Finally I would say willingness to have a go because talk is great but action is far better. I have referred to students here but really this list contains elements for successful work in any drama group or any group for that matter.

Ok so that’s week one out of the way, I better get started on week 2. But before I do I should just say that the information taken from said reading is Kitson, N., & Spiby, I. (1997). Drama 7-11: Developing Primary Teaching Skills. London: Routledge.