Introduction

Everything we can think, feel and do stems from our corporeal entanglements with our world that provide the basis for all our meaning-making and reflective activity. This – our visceral engagement with meaning – is the proper purview of aesthetics. As a consequence of our embodied nature, meaning comes to us via patterns, images, concepts, qualities, emotions, and feelings that constitute our perception of, and action in, the world. (Johnson, 2015, p. 23)

According to Johnson’s (2015) theory, the pedagogy transmitted by a teacher’s body can be identified as a powerful epistemological factor for both teaching and learning. Within this context, a teaching ecology is intrinsically influenced by the aesthetics of a teacher’s embodied pedagogy, which can act as ‘life and learning in classrooms’ (Mathewson-Mitchell & Reid, 2017, p. 43). A central question, therefore, is how the pedagogy of a teacher’s body can function as instructional scaffolding to enhance learning. Eisner (2002) argues that teachers, as ‘collaborators in knowledge construction’, need to develop their bodies as a source of embodied understanding and response through their ‘ability to feel’ (p. 381). Similarly, Dewey (1934) asserts that teachers who possess aesthetic emotions wield a strong force and can create a ‘qualitative unity’ within the aesthetic experiences of teaching and learning (p. 42).

Over the past two decades, research interest in the pedagogy of a teacher’s body has grown considerably (e.g. Andersson et al., 2018; Dixon & Senior, 2011; Estola & Elbaz-Luwisch, 2003; Klein et al., 2019). Nevertheless, this field remains relatively underexplored in educational theory and teacher education programmes (e.g. Forgasz & McDonough, 2017; Kersting et al., 2024; Mathewson-Mitchell & Reid, 2017). As a possible consequence of this oversight, an internal contradiction may arise in the epistemology of teaching itself. Therefore, teaching tends to be predominantly conceptualised as a cognitivist practice, with pedagogy often articulated through a neoliberal, oversimplified discourse that prioritises the instruction of knowledge through effective techniques (Senior & Dixon, 2009). Such a framework, however, distances teaching from its pragmatic nature as an aesthetic practice, which inherently involves a harmonious coordination of a teacher’s bodily and cognitive energies. Regarding teacher education, Senior and Dixon (2009) observe that, in most programmes, ‘[t]here is a silence’ regarding embodied pedagogy, leading to a ‘virtual abandonment of our bodies in pedagogy’ (p. 24). This separation of embodiment from pedagogy ultimately leads to ‘disembodied curricula, impoverishing learners, teachers, and teaching contexts’, as noted by Macintyre Latta and Buck (2008, p. 316).

If we are to further explore this view, it is essential to (re)conceptualise pedagogy ‘not in relation to knowledge as a thing made but to knowledge in the making’ (Ellsworth, 2005, p. 1). The building of ‘relationships between self, others, and subject matter; living in-between these entities’ (Macintyre Latta & Buck, 2008, p. 317) is facilitated through embodied experiences. In this context, the concept of embodiment is central to pedagogy, as the body serves as a medium that shapes the mind (Gallagher, 2005). This perspective is rooted in the phenomenological tradition (Merleau-Ponty, 1962) and underpins the theory of embodied cognition. Thelen and her colleagues (2001) explain that cognition is embodied because ‘it arises from bodily interactions with the world’ (p. 21). This suggests that cognition depends on diverse experiences ‘that come from having a body with particular perceptual and motor capacities that are inseparably linked and that together form the matrix within which memory, emotion, language, and all other aspects of life are meshed’ (ibid.).

In this light, embodiment is liberated from the dichotomies that separate mind from body, reason from emotion, and thought from feeling, thereby defying the Cartesian notion of a disembodied mind (Johnson, 2007). The Cartesian philosophy of mind-body dualism posits that the mind and body are ontologically distinct and separate entities: the mind is a non-material substance, possesssing certain mental properties that exist independetly of the body, whereas the body is a material substance, incapable of thought. By transcending this discontinuity between body and mind, embodiment theory reveals that the lived body constructs knowledge and understanding of the world, shaped by the mental, physical, social, emotional and environmental conditions in which it is situated. The human body is considered a holistic entity through which people gain an embodied knowing of the world and its significance (Merleau-Ponty, 1962).

The rationality of this phenomenological perspective is further supported by recent research in neuroscience, which demonstrates that the brain automatically activates mirror neurons in order to be identified with the feelings and behaviours of others (Keysers, 2011). When the human brain understands how others feel, this understanding is reflected in its own emotional responses, thereby fostering empathy.

Grounded in this theoretical background, a teacher’s pedagogy is enacted as embodied practice. According to Green (2015), ‘[w]orking with young children is always an embodied activity, crossing the professional practice fields of health, education and care’ (p. 134). This view is particularly significant, as it emphasises the intrinsic connection between a teacher’s embodied pedagogy and their ethical commitment to caring for students (Cooks, 2007; Estola & Elbaz-Luwisch, 2003; Fenske, 2004). In fact, a teacher’s embodied pedagogy is inherently interrelated with students’ well-being – a broad concept encompassing physical, mental, social, material and civic health (Cahill & Gowing, 2024). Since well-being is empirical, with ‘embodied, sensed, and felt’ qualities (Coffey, 2022, p. 68), the teacher’s pedagogic body can communicate with and respond to students’ bodies, enabling energies that support their well-being (Miglani, 2024). As Zembylas (2007) argues, a teacher’s pedagogic body can generate energies and affects that evoke ‘new affective and embodied connections’ (p. 20) with their students, thereby enriching teaching and learning through an embodied dialogue of emotional and intellectual relationality.

Furthermore, embodied pedagogy plays a pivotal role in learners’ cognitive development. As Dewey (1934) asserts, authentic learning is that which practically connects mind, body, emotion and experience, because the body possesses the capacity ‘to feel knowledge, internalize it, and commit it to memory’ (Nguyen & Larson, 2015, p. 332). In alignment with this, constructivist theorists argue that learning is body-driven and built upon the personal experiences that arise from interaction with the educational environment during knowledge construction (Ashworth et al., 2004). Therefore, we can speak of embodied constructivism and of learners who discover knowledge and make connections to the world through the dynamic engagement of their bodies (Nguyen & Larson, 2015).

Recognising the need to educate student teachers in developing embodiment as an integral aspect of pedagogy (e.g. Klein et al., 2019; Mathewson-Mitchell & Reid, 2017), this study explores the concept within the context of a drama education course in a teacher education programme. Its primary aim is to examine the potential impact of drama pedagogy on student teachers’ understanding of embodiment and the development of their pedagogic body. More specifically, the study is guided by the following three research questions:

  • What are the embodied learning experiences of student teachers within the framework of drama pedagogy that might help them become aware of the value of embodiment in learning?

  • In what ways does drama pedagogy support student teachers in shaping the pedagogy of their body?

  • What is the influence of drama pedagogy on the development of student teachers’ embodied presence in their teaching practices during their school practicum?

The following sections begin with a literature review on the pedagogy of a teacher’s embodied presence in teaching, followed by a discussion of drama education as a form of embodied pedagogy. The research design is then presented, with emphasis on the qualitative paradigm adopted. The subsequent discussion of findings addresses key issues arising from the research questions. Finally, the conclusions reveal the influence of drama pedagogy on student teachers’ pedagogical preparation, particularly in relation to the practice of embodied pedagogy.

Literature review

The pedagogy of a teacher’s embodied presence

From the perspective of practice theory (Green, 2009), a teacher’s pedagogical presence needs to be harmonised with their embodied work and interactions, merging their body with the process of constructing learners’ knowledge and experiences. Notably, this embodied presence pertains to the ways in which a teacher’s body interacts with ‘the physical space in which it moves, the nature of its movement and the haptic, sensory elements of touch, time, emotion and atmosphere it produces and endures’ (Mathewson-Mitchell & Reid, 2017, p. 46). According to Green (2009), this aesthetic intertwining of the teacher’s body with the learning ecology constitutes a dialectical congruence between the bodies of the teacher and the learners, resulting in the co-production of learning. Within this theoretical framework, a teacher’s embodied presence in teaching can be defined ‘as a way to construct knowledge through direct engagement in bodily experiences and inhabiting body through a felt sense of being-in-the-world’ (Freiler, 2008, p. 40). This definition makes it clear that embodiment entails an externalised empirical awareness, which guides a teacher’s ‘connectedness and interdependence through the essence of lived experiencing within [their] complete humanness’ (ibid.).

According to Andersson et al. (2018), the profound dynamics of a teacher’s embodied presence can be understood through a three-fold operation in teaching: as a location, a source and a means. As a location, a teacher’s embodied presence refers to the structural qualities of social life that shape their personal embodied energies and can influence learners’ bodily behaviours and habits (ibid.). For instance, the teacher’s tone of voice and comments, the rhythm of speech and bodily movements, as well as the dialogical stance adopted during interactions with students are embodied qualities that can influence students’ attention and their sense of emotional safety. As a source, it indicates how the teacher’s body can be connected with the emergence of learners’ social structures (Andersson et al., 2018). In this case, the teacher may serve as a source of encouragement for students’ diligent labour. This can be achieved through a nexus of interactive embodied energies, including clear and supportive guidance, affirming verbal feedback, expressive and welcoming body language and a communicated sense of trust in students’ abilities. Finally, as a means, it shows how the teacher’s body can interact with these social structures to either reproduce or transform them (Shilling, 2005). One possible scenario in this context involves managing instances of students’ antisocial behaviour, as they arise in the classroom. The teacher is required to enact an embodied logic – guided by sympathy, other-regarding dispositions and intentional strategies – aimed at (re)establishing a sociable culture of communication.

In line with the above examples, a teacher’s embodied presence may be understood as being both a personal and professional quality, with its aesthetics varying from teacher to teacher. It is intertwined with their teaching style (Reid & Mathewson-Mitchell, 2015) and cultural background (Cooks, 2007; Estola & Elbaz-Luwisch, 2003): as Cooks (2007) characteristically notes, ‘My pedagogy is my body is my culture’ (p. 300). Τhe distinct aesthetics of a teacher’s embodied presence is likely multifaceted and multimodal (Rodemeyer, 2018), expressed through polysemiotic communication with learners. Hegna and Ørbæk (2024), drawing upon Rodemeyer’s (2018) notion of the five layers of embodiment, redefine them as the following aspects: (1) sensory experience, (2) bodily experience, (3) cognitive experience, (4) intersubjective experience and (5) discursive experience.

The sensory experience aspect of embodiment relates to ‘the flow of primary sense data that underlines our active perception’ (Hegna & Ørbæk, 2024, p. 421). The bodily experience aspect concerns the embodied habits and patterns of movement, where consciousness is indirectly involved, and we typically do not concentrate on the inner processes activated in consciousness at the moment of their manifestation (Hegna & Ørbæk, 2024). In the cognitive experience aspect of embodiment, the central focus is on the individual meaning-making process and cognitive comprehension through personal bodily experience (ibid.). The intersubjective experience aspect involves person-to-person relations, such as those in small groups and the experience of living in a shared world with others (ibid.). The discursive experience refers to the aspect of embodiment related to the meanings developed within a culture and their transmission across generations (ibid.). At its core are traditional and institutional behaviours, including how gender, race and disability are manifested through embodied energies. Another key element of this aspect is how the body is perceived by others within a community, how it communicates and how these beliefs and expressions are embedded in one’s body (Rodemeyer, 2018).

Most importantly, all these aspects of embodiment, as Rodemeyer (2018) highlights, intersect and overlap, meaning that our embodied energy is a compound of them. Each aspect of embodiment separately influences the others, and together they function to enable the body to operate as a unified whole. Consequently, the pedagogy of a teacher’s embodied presence can be simultaneously nourished by all these aspects of embodiment, transmitting to learners a complex mix of images, conceptions, feelings, motivations, expectations and actions that collectively exert a powerful influence on their learning.

Therefore, Hadjipanteli (2020) emphasises that a teacher’s embodiment of pedagogical virtues, such as trust, togetherness, enthusiasm and playfulness, can serve as a scaffold for activating learners’ virtuous dispositions within the learning process. In this light, Cooks (2007) argues that the pedagogy of a teacher’s body is a “politics of becoming in place”, aimed at ‘an ethical intervention into meaning-making with regard to recognition, authenticity, and assumptions regarding choice, control and competence’ (p. 309). When considering the ethics conveyed by the aesthetics of the pedagogy of a teacher’s embodied presence, what makes it ethical is not merely its embodied nature. As Fenske (2004) contends, it is ethical ‘when the body and its sense are united in action dialogically’ (p. 12), demonstrating an aesthetically observable harmony between somatic acts and pedagogical dispositions.

Drama education as embodied pedagogy

By its nature, drama education encompasses all five aspects of embodiment discussed above (Hegna & Ørbæk, 2024), as it is grounded in the experiential exploration of human stories through the bodily aesthetic (re)presentations of alternative realities. Explaining the importance of drama education and its essential role in learners’ holistic education, van de Water (2021) stresses that it encourages them ‘to visualize possibilities in their minds’, but also ‘to embody these ideas, try on imagined transformations, and give life to perspectives and ideas abstractly conceived in the brain’ (pp. 3–4). Drama education can be considered the quintessential embodied art and pedagogy which regards ‘the presence of the body and co-presence of other bodies in the space’ as an original source fundamental to the meaning-making process (Grile, 2023, p. 5).

In drama education, the aesthetics of embodiment is achieved through the use of drama conventions and theatre semiotics, which enable learners to bring the aesthetics of everyday life to life, contextualised by people’s situations and characters. Within this dramatic and artistic framework, learners are invited to multimodally embody beliefs, personalities and emotions, and perform them aesthetically, with the aim of gaining an experiential understanding of the various body-transmitted concepts and issues. As Saxton and Miller (2023) underscore, ‘[d]rama pedagogy is the medium through which we “try on life”’ (p. 24). This dramatic rehearsal occurs within a learning, community-driven ecology of liberty, autonomy and collaboration, where learners have the opportunity to engage with a quadripartite approach that addresses four interrelated theatrical roles: playwright, director, actor and spectator (Bowell & Heap, 2005).

As playwrights and directors, learners in groups collaboratively improvise and determine how to emotionally and ideologically confront the challenges posed by fictional events and characters. They construct kinesthetic and spatial approaches through which their somatic participation is embodied. Acting and spectatorship are both equally intense embodied processes. Learners, as actors, use their body – as location, source and means (Andersson et al., 2018) – to express their thoughts and feelings and share them with others. As spectators, they respond to their co-learners’ embodied perceptions and actions through reflective and conscious thinking. Together, these four roles contribute to the formation of a dual aesthetics of embodied participation and spectatorship within drama pedagogy (Hadjipanteli, 2023). This makes embodiment itself dynamic, moving between two worlds: ‘the “as is” world meets the “as if” world’ (Dawson & Lee, 2018, p. 19). In this sense, dramatic embodiment allows learners to be ‘reader[s] and writer[s] of the world through the embodiment of self as other’ (Saxton & Miller, 2023, p. 12).

Empirical studies on drama education within teacher education highlight the significant contribution of the field in motivating student teachers to explore the phenomenon of embodiment in teaching and how this exploration can enhance their own embodied pedagogy (e.g. Branscombe & Schneider, 2018; Hadjipanteli, 2020; Köksal, 2020). According to the findings of Köksal’s (2020) study, drama education helps student teachers recognise the integration of body and mind in the learning process, fostering a deep understanding of the pedagogical philosophy of being ‘active both mentally and physically’ (p. 83) as future teachers. Another key insight from the literature is that drama education enables student teachers to appreciate the impact of a teacher’s body in creating a learning ecology of enjoyment, gaiety and surprise (Hadjipanteli, 2020, 2023; Köksal, 2020). Sööt and Anttila (2018) explicate that arts education, by placing the body at the heart of learning as a reflection of self and life, can advance student teachers’ professional development, by helping them realise the crucial role of ‘the social body and the sensing body’ (p. 225) in the teaching and learning process.

Research methodology

Qualitative case study

This study employed a qualitative case study approach, addressing the research questions outlined in the introduction. These questions primarily call for a detailed and comprehensive exploration of embodied pedagogy, as experienced by student teachers within the context of a drama education course and their practicum. A key methodological feature of qualitative case study research is the focus on analysing a phenomenon within ‘its real-world context’, seeking to identify the various ways in which research participants perceive and understand it (Yin, 2018, p. 15). Furthermore, this approach relies on multiple sources of evidence, ‘with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion’ (ibid.). By adhering to these principles, the researcher does not aim to generalise the findings, but rather to present rich, narrative descriptions that emerge from the participants’ personal experiences (Suter, 2012). These descriptions provide valuable insights into the phenomenon investigated – the multimodal experience of embodiment in this study.

Research context

This qualitative case study is framed by two primary educational environments. The first is a drama education course within a teacher education programme at a university in the Republic of Cyprus. Students enrolled in the primary education programme are required to take this course as a compulsory part of their curriculum during their third or fourth year of study. Each session of the course follows a structured framework that integrates both theoretical and practical components.

In the theoretical section of the course, students examine essential concepts related to both the artistic and pedagogical aspects of drama education. Topics include: the influence of theatre semiotics and the role of theatre conventions in shaping the epistemological characteristics of drama education. Another key theme explored is the contribution of drama pedagogy to various learning domains, such as language development and personal and social growth.

The practical component consists of experiential workshops that aim to address a variety of cognitive subjects. According to the national curriculum, drama education is not a separate subject but is instead proposed as a methodological approach across different subjects. These workshops provide students with an empirical acquaintance with the methodology, practice and pedagogical value of drama education. In some workshops, students take on the role of the teacher, designing and applying their own drama-based lesson plans. They receive feedback from both their fellow students and the course teacher, allowing them to develop a deeper understanding of how to design and implement drama education, as well as enhance their pedagogical competence.

The second context of this study focuses on the participants’ practicum in primary schools. Their practicum took place during the final semester (8th semester) of their studies and lasted for ten consecutive weeks. By this time, participants had already completed the drama education course in the previous semester. During the practicum, participants were placed in fifth grade classes (pupils aged 10–11 years) in two different urban primary schools. As part of their practicum plan, they were required to design and implement ninety lessons across various curriculum subjects. The participants were expected to apply the diverse instructional methods and pedagogical knowledge they had gained throughout their teacher education programme.

Research participants and data sources

Christina and Ioannis (pseudonyms) are the participants in this qualitative case study. Both were enthusiastic and diligent student teachers in primary education, approximately twenty-three years old, with a GPA of 3.5/4. They had no prior experience in drama education but developed a strong passion for the subject and excelled in the course, earning a final grade of A. Based on these academic characteristics, they were considered information-rich cases from which, as Patton (2002) notes, valuable insights into the study’s goals could be gained. Purposeful case selection is a common strategy in qualitative research, providing an ‘in-depth understanding rather than empirical generalizations’ (Patton, 2002, p. 230). When informed about the research’s purpose and nature in a personal meeting, both participants expressed eagerness to participate, fully aware that they could withdraw from the study at any time.

The research data were collected using different methods: interviews, photographs, observations and reflective diaries. Two person-to-person interviews were conducted with each participant: one at the beginning and one at the end of spring semester (early February and early June), after the completion of their practicum at primary schools. Both interviews were semi-structured and lasted about an hour.

The first interview focused on the participants’ experiences and new knowledge they gained from the drama education course in relation to their pedagogical readiness as future teachers. Four main topics were discussed:

  • Their embodied learning experiences within drama education workshops.

  • Their views on the significant role of learners’ embodiment in the learning process.

  • Their understanding of the influence of a teacher’s bodily presence on teaching and learning.

  • Their perspectives on how drama pedagogy can enhance a teacher’s body pedagogy.

During this interview, participants had the opportunity to elaborate on their views by commenting on photographs from the course’s workshops. These images captured both their own involvement in dramatic work and their fellow students’ artistic work.

The second interview concentrated on the participants’ teaching practices during their practicum. The discussion covered their embodied presence in teaching including specific examples; their pedagogical dispositions while using embodiment; and the potential influence of drama pedagogy on the development of their body pedagogy. Moreover, the participants reflected on key moments from their teaching, which the researcher had observed and documented. The researcher observed each participant in three lessons across different subject areas (Greek Language, Life Education and History). This approach allowed the participants to highlight important aspects of their teaching related to the practice of embodiment.

An additional data collection method involved the participants’ reflective diaries, written during two different periods: while attending the drama education course and during their practicum. In the first period, the participants wrote four diaries as part of the course activities. They were encouraged to write openly and critically about their personal and others’ artistic engagement in dramatic work, their new learning experiences and how these experiences influenced their pedagogical views on learning and teaching. They also reflected on how the whole body becomes energised in the dramatic process, emphasising the practice of embodiment. During their practicum, the participants wrote three additional reflective diaries, focusing on their pedagogy, embodied presence and their pupils’ responses during the teaching process. These diaries enabled them to describe specific episodes from their teaching practice and the participatory energies of their pupils.

Data analysis

In the framework of this process, great attention was given to concrete evidence such as views, ideas, emotions, artistic experiences and modes of embodiment manifested by the participants. These reflected a clear and intimate connection to their embodied presence, both as learners and teachers within the drama education course and in their teaching during their practicum. This exploration evolved into a thematic analysis, a method for identifying, analysing and exhibiting themes based on research data (Braun & Clarke, 2021). This method relies on the techniques of coding and categorising codes according to their recurring application within data. Another essential technique in this method is the continuous comparison of codes derived from each participant’s information. In the final stage of data analysis, three thematic categories were formed, providing insights and responses to each research question separately.

Ethical considerations

The main strategy used to ensure the reliability of this case study was triangulation, which Creswell and Miller (2000) define as ‘a validity procedure where researchers search for convergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or categories in a study’ (p. 126). To achieve this, a duplex triangulation approach, based on Patton’s (2002) typology, was employed during the data analysis process: data triangulation and investigator triangulation. The first method was applied by the use of multiple data sources, including text-based data (e.g. interviews and reflective diaries) and visual data (e.g. observations and photographs). These different types of data were then compared to identify converging themes or categories. For the second method of triangulation, an external researcher was involved in the data analysis. Initially the external researcher independently interpreted data from various sources. Afterwards, we engaged in discussion and exchanged views about the emerging themes of data alaysis. Through this collaborative process, we ultimately agreed on three broad thematic categories.

Limitations of the study

Given the methodological approach and research context, three key limitations – commonly associated with qualitative case studies – can be identified. The first limitation concerns the small number of participants. A larger sample of student teachers might have yielded a broader range of perspectives and experiences regarding the phenomenon of embodied pedagogy. However, this limitation was addressed by prioritising the collection of rich, in-depth data from both participants through a combination of multiple methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). The second limitation relates to the limited generalisability of the findings (Creswell & Poth, 2016). Each case study in drama education is suitatued within a specific social and educational context that cannot be replicated (O’Toole, 2006). As such, generalisation is inherently constrained. Nonetheless, the findings may be considered transferable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), as they can offer insights into intrinsic characteristics of drama pedagogy that may prompt student teachers to recognise the pedagogical significance of embodiment in both teaching and learning. The third limitation stems from the author’s three-fold role in the research process – as the teacher of the drama education course, the sole researcher and the primary observer of participants’ teaching practices during their school practicum. To reduce potential bias and subjectivity, and to strengthen the study’s credibility, particular attention was given to the strategy of triangulation, as previously outlined.

Findings

Embodiment as fundamental to learning: ‘A living process of living life’

The data analysis related to the first research question of the study suggests that the participants’ embodied learning experiences within the context of drama pedagogy empowered them to recognise embodiment as vital for their learning. Both participants perceived their embodied dramatic activation as an immediate practice through which learning is converted into ‘a living process of living life’, as Christina writes in one of her diaries. ‘The body is the key in drama’, she states, ‘by which we act, capture our thoughts and express our feelings. The whole dramatic work is a picture of life’. Ioannis extends Christina’s words, by adding that in drama, ‘we learn to feel our body, trust our body and speak more through our body than with our words’. These perspectives from the participants affirm that drama pedagogy provided them with the space to explore the real-life aesthetics of the body, inseparable from everyday communication.

Explicating the significance of embodiment in their learning within the course, Christina and Ioannis emphasised how it fostered both their cognitive skills – notably memory, critical understanding and imaginative thinking – as well as their emotional expressiveness. Ioannis, correlating his embodied artistic experiences with memory, stresses that the course workshops helped him understand and retain the theoretical background of drama pedagogy. In particular, he states:

The major difference between this course and others in our studies is that we apply theory in every session. Theory is transformed into practice, and this helps us remember the theoretical topics we examine. For example, through my involvement in the theatrical conventions I could comprehend when we act as playwrights, directors, actors and spectators.

Likewise, Christina highlights that ‘theatrical conventions are a reflection of drama pedagogy’ and when preparing for the course’s test, she was able to connect practice with theory. It is evident that both participants recognise the impact of embodied artistic experiences on supporting their cognitive activities. This interdependence is corroborated by studies in psychology and philosophy (e.g. Gallagher, 2005; Thelen et al., 2001), which demonstrate that embodiment is inseparably linked with the growth of mental capacities, such as memory. According to Bower’s (2014) theory, human memory, as a cognitive tool, is significantly reinforced by emotions, which act as “commentators” on our experiences (p. 28). As Bower (2014) explains, emotion is activated to ‘encode and index the unusual event in memory, and promotes persisting rehearsal of the new, more adaptive action’ (ibid.).

In addition, for the participants, the embodiment of dramatic work acted as location, source and means, drawing on Andersson et al.’s (2018) terminology. According to their opinions, embodiment served as a location to disclose personal beliefs and feelings, a source for deep understanding the characters and their actions, and a means to reflect on their embodied decisions and reconsider their correctness. As Christina indicates, ‘The play of imaginative roles and the investigation of their adventures offered plenty of opportunities for us to reinforce our critical reflection and imagine alternative ideas and solutions’. The strengthening of such cognitive abilities further aligns with the synergy between embodiment, aesthetics and cognition mentioned earlier. The participants’ embodied artistic experiences are shown to have a significant aesthetic impact, provoking an internal mental dialogue in their consciousness. This effect corroborates Greene’s (1995) argument that ‘[t]he aesthetic experiences require conscious participation’, which stimulates a thoughtful space about “what we are doing” (p. 125). Similarly, Merleau-Ponty (1962) interprets the phenomenon of the awakening of embodied consciousness as the result of sensual perception experienced through the body, forming a necessary aesthetics for its emergence.

Emotional arousal and expressiveness, as another powerful component of the participants’ embodied learning experiences, substantially influenced their awareness of the value of embodiment in learning. They describe a range of emotions – joyful, negative and interpersonal – that they experienced during various dramatic conventions and while enacting different roles. Ioannis recalls that in the early sessions of the course, he found it difficult to imagine and enact a character. ‘I admired my fellow students who were captivating because of their emotional expressiveness in their roles, and I wanted to resemble them’, he shares. In contrast, Christina expresses that she was always enthusiastic about performing a wayward character, ‘to show something unpredictable’. Both participants agree that preparation for role-playing helped them creatively use their bodies through ‘movements’, ‘gestures’, ‘grimaces’ and other ‘physical reactions’.

Building on the above discussion, and drawing on Greene’s (1995) and Merleau-Ponty’s (1962) interpretations of embodied consciousness, the participants’ cognitive and emotional embodied experiences – shaped through their engagement with diverse stories and roles – resonate with Zaki’s (2019) preconditions for the embodiment of empathy. Zaki suggests that engaging with stories and interacting with the beliefs and experiences of others, while intertwining imagination with curiosity, constitutes a powerful means of bridging understanding with empathetic response. The participants’ embodied learning within the dramatic space clearly reflects this process of embodied empathy. Drama pedagogy, therefore, emerges as an enabling environment for meaningful, embodied apperception of self, others and life, while simultaneously energising conscious, intentional action.

Embodiment as a source for developing the teaching body ‘beyond boundaries’

The second research question of the study investigates how drama pedagogy may influence participants in shaping the pedagogy of their body as teachers, bringing to light three key aspects of the teacher’s embodied presence that they identify as fundamental to their own embodiment. The first aspect, reflected by both participants, emerges from the distinct nature of drama pedagogy, where the teacher’s body is in constant and continuous nearness with the learners’ bodies, fostering a different social dynamics than traditional classroom settings (Hadjipanteli, 2020). Christina explains that in dramatic work, ‘there are no barriers, no desks and the teacher sits among learners’. ‘This physical proximity’, she adds, ‘allows for a kind of interconnectedness and learners feel companionship and solidarity’.

Similarly, Ioannis emphasises that ‘when the teacher moves among the learners or engages in discussions with them during rehearsals, it signals the teacher’s care and attention to their energetic and creative participation’. He also notes that ‘it is vital for the teacher to remain active in the dramatic process, as they bear the responsibility of guiding the unfolding of the dramatic story’. Christina and Ioannis both believe that this interactive and dialogic approach is integral to drama pedagogy and serves as the foundation for a communal learning space.

The second aspect of the teacher’s embodied presence extends to their mental activation, which plays a major role in forming ‘a learning ecology of togetherness, eagerness and enjoyment’ (Hadjipanteli, 2020, p. 215). Christina and Ioannis identify a set of the teacher’s embodied dispositions that are crucial for reinforcing this positive learning ecology. These dispositions include: ‘flexibility’, ‘vigilance’, ‘respectfulness’, ‘trust’ and ‘empathy’. For instance, Christina considers that when a teacher is flexible and trusts learners, they experience a sense of ‘creative freedom’, which amplifies their ‘commitment and enthusiasm’. From this perspective, a teacher’s flexibility and trust empower learners to explore and express themselves artistically, thereby amplifying their poetic energy within the dramatic process.

In describing some of the teacher’s bodily signs that convey these embodied pedagogical dispositions, the participants refer to facial expressions and kinaesthetic reactions, which are concurrently supported by a mode of verbal communication and attuned to the spirit of these dispositions (Fenske, 2004). Specifically, they underline the role of the teacher’s ‘smile’, ‘tone and pitch of voice’, ‘hand movements’ and ‘body posture’ when negotiating with learners’ concepts and exploring the meanings of their artistic performances. According to the participants, they value the teacher’s embodied respect for learners’ artistic work being conveyed through ‘an empathetic sense and positive remarks’ that affirm, ‘our work is important both for us and others. For this reason, a loud applause gives us a feeling of satisfaction’.

The third aspect related to the teacher’s embodied presence, which is inseparable from drama pedagogy, concerns the theatrical convention of teacher-in-role. Christina and Ioannis concentrate on two facets of the pedagogy itself suggested by the practice of this convention. Ioannis expresses his admiration for this convention, noting that it enables the teacher to transcend their typical roles as ‘instructor, model and resource’ (Kao & O’Neill, 1998, p. 2), thereby building an aesthetic space for collaborative play with learners. As he observes, ‘it makes learners feel an intense connection with story and characters, and see the teacher beyond boundaries. Most importantly, it impels you to play’. Christina acknowledges the same effect, but, in parallel, she focuses more on the agency of this convention in regenerating human relationships in the class. Her comment that ‘when the teacher plays a role, this subsequently augments the climate of comfort and intimacy’ is critical in this perspective. Both sides of the effective use of this convention demonstrate a shift in the model of authority within the classroom, reducing the teacher’s authoritative power in drama pedagogy (O’Toole & Stinson, 2013) through their playfulness, which engages and energises learners’ playful and eager interaction (Hadjipanteli, 2020, 2023). A noteworthy remark from Christina is that the use of this convention helps the teacher develop a ‘teaching body that attracts learners’ minds’.

Embodiment in teaching: The big challenge of touching learners’ engagement

Based on the data analysis concerning the third research question of the study, which examines the possible influence of drama pedagogy on the development of student teachers’ embodied presence in their teaching practices during their practicum, there is sufficient evidence demonstrating such an effect. This influence is observable in participants’ embodied presence in relation to three key pedagogical factors: teaching methodology, oral communication and the ethics of care.

Considering their embodied learning within drama pedagogy, both participants declare that it helped them adopt methodological approaches to teaching different subject areas which primarily engage pupils’ cognitive and intersubjective aspects of embodiment (Hegna & Ørbæk, 2024). Christina, discussing the conceptual framework of her applied teaching methodology, clarifies that her lessons were designed to integrate empirical learning with the pedagogies of dialogue and drama education. As she explains, ‘My foremost purpose was to activate learners’ understanding by involving them in the meaning-making process of activities’. Elaborating further on this idea, she notes, ‘In teaching, the big challenge of touching learners’ engagement demands experiential learning’. Likewise, Ioannis mentions, ‘Teaching needs to make pupils’ learning both meaningful and enjoyable at the same time’.

When illustrating the practical implementation of this pedagogical philosophy of embodied learning, participants mainly refer to embodied activities, which invite pupils to: a) explore notions and meanings using dialogic and drama pedagogy, b) work in a group and collaborate, c) harness real and audio-visual materials and d) explain ideas and solutions through kinaesthetic actions. During such embodied activities, the participants’ embodied teaching focused on: a) the conventions of storytelling and teacher-in-role, b) sitting with pupils’ groups in small circles, exchanging views on their work, c) walking around the classroom and giving feedback to each pupil or group and d) providing examples using gestures, movements as well as real or mental images. Ioannis outlines one example of his embodied teaching in the context of Life Education as follows:

The lesson was about the concept of home. The pupils sat in a circle on the floor with me, and I first narrated where a beaver lives. The pupils, in groups, discussed the homes of other animals, such as snails, spiders, ants and eagles. In teamwork, they drew these animals, their homes and other related information on large pieces of cardboard. In the same groups, the pupils imagined and performed a scene from these animals’ life, showing the importance of their homes. […] While they worked, I approached each group and discussed their ideas. In some cases, I physically experimented with the pupils to portray the animals.

Regarding their embodied oral cοmmunication in teaching, both participants concur that a teacher needs to stay continuously alert and have a clear mind in order to be expressive and dialogic. They reflect that, although the drama education course helped them unfold their oral vividness in interactions with pupils, they did not consistently and professionally perform the bodily experience aspect of embodiment where consciousness was not directly activated (Hegna & Ørbæk, 2024). Christina points out, ‘The movements of my teaching body, in several cases, should be much better at engaging pupils with a more thoughtful response’, whereas Ioannis mentions his ‘weakness in always being so lively and refreshing with pupils’. Christina also estimates that her embodied communication was effective in storytelling and reading of texts because she could prepare and rehearse them the day before teaching. In these oral performances, she explains, ‘I liked to play with my voice in different roles and situations and use rich paralinguistic elements. Moreover, I liked to make moves and gestures that could impress and captivates learners’ involvement’.

The ethics of care, as the third aspect of the participants’ embodied presence in their teaching, is manifested through concrete pedagogical dispositions, such as trust, sensitivity, receptivity and empathy. According to Noddings’ (2010) theory, teaching as a social practice is entirely relational, and therefore, the teacher’s caring relationship is always ethical. Christina and Ioannis connect the role of drama pedagogy with the embodiment of the ethics of care in their teaching, understanding drama education as a thoroughly learner-centred field that directly addresses learners’ personal, interpersonal and ethical development. Ioannis expounds, ‘Drama pedagogy helped me perceive the deep level of sociality that learners can experience within it; a condition which is regulated to a great extent by the teacher’. On the other hand, for Christina, who had no prior experience with drama pedagogy, its biggest influence on her embodiment of the ethics of care in teaching stems from ‘the trust in learners that they can do it, which was a unique experience’.

For these reasons, both participants aimed to teach by embodying pedagogical dispositions that are socially driven, permitting pupils to experience embodied learning and feel that their voices are recognised. As is also evident from the other two aspects of their embodied presence in teaching, the participants sought to create a learning environment that cared for pupils’ cognitive, emotional and social engagement by expressing sensitivity and empathy towards their learning needs and expectations. Ioannis speaks more about his embodied sensitivity and empathy in pupils’ group works, where he ‘used to animate weak pupils to share their ideas and appraise them for their effort, by talking to them with a soft voice and encouraging words’. In Christina’s case, receptivity was a pivotal embodied pedagogical disposition that she primarily embedded in dialogic, explanatory and exploratory activities, ‘inducing pupils to imagine topics from different perspectives and broaden their thinking’.

Conclusions

This qualitative case study highlights the positive influence of drama pedagogy on two fourth-year student primary teachers’ understanding of the value of embodied pedagogy and the development of their pedagogic body. Overall, the findings suggest that drama pedagogy, as a dynamic artistic ecology grounded in real-life aesthetics, encouraged both participants to engage in vibrant embodied learning, which in turn significantly deepened their understanding of teaching as an embodied practice and of the capabilities of a teacher’s body.

According to the data analysis, the study reveals that the most salient epistemological condition enabling participants to recognise the value of embodiment in their learning within drama pedagogy was the awakening of their conscious engagement through embodied artistic work. The diverse embodied opportunities provided allowed them to challenge both their cognitive abilities and emotional responses while exploring different stories and characters. This resulted in a deeply personal interplay with their consciousness, aesthetically expressed. Within this context of embodied conscious activation, their memory, understanding and imagination were stimulated alongside a range of emotional actions oriented towards empathy (Zaki, 2019).

Regarding the impact of drama pedagogy on the development of participants’ pedagogic body as teachers, the study illuminates epistemological qualities considered fundamental to a teacher’s embodied presence in the field. Drama pedagogy supported the formation of their ‘social body’ and ‘sensing body’ (Sööt & Anttila, 2018, p. 225), fostering their willingness to integrate togetherness and playfulness within the learning environment (Hadjipanteli, 2020; Köksal, 2020). In cultivating such embodied presence, participants emphasised the aesthetics of a harmonious dialogue between pedagogical dispositions – such as flexibility, vigilance, respectfulness, trust and empathy – and bodily interaction, guided by a non-authoritative stance.

In addition, the study provides evidence that drama pedagogy made a substantial contribution to the enactment of participants’ embodied pedagogy, which they applied during their school practicum. This finding is multidimensional: their embodied pedagogy was evident in the teaching methodologies they employed, their oral communication with pupils and their enactment of the ethics of care (Noddings, 2010). It further demonstrates the critical role of drama pedagogy in supporting participants’ development of a relational pedagogy (Prentki & Stinson, 2016) – one that can be embedded across the curriculum and integrated into the teaching of all subjects. Given that participants were taught drama education not as a discrete subject, but as a pedagogical method, the study shows how drama pedagogy inspired them to implement an embodied relational pedagogy that serves a socially and ethically driven curriculum, in the context of different cognitive subjects. One important implication of this finding is that it corroborates the humanistic essence of participants’ teaching, which is grounded in a culture of caring relationships and openness to addressing pupils’ interests, needs and desires.

In alignment with the above findings, this study contributes to pedagogical theory and teacher education from three key perspectives. First, it testifies to embodiment, aesthetics and ethics as coalescent components of pedagogy in practice and, as such, they are inseparably woven into its (re)conceptualisation. Second, it reinforces the view that, in seeking to articulate their pedagogical philosophy and practice, student teachers require empirical insights into embodied pedagogies – such as drama pedagogy – in order to construct their socio-ethical, embodied presence in teaching. Third, it strengthens the argument that a drama education course within a teacher education programme can inherently and systematically support student teachers in developing embodied pedagogy and cultivating a vivid sense of the good life in teaching. In consequence, if we aspire for early career teachers to engage meaningfully with the complex of interrelationalities (Ellsworth, 2005) – cognitive, social, emotional and ethical – that are simultaneously shaped by a teacher’s embodied presence, then embodied learning needs to be placed at the heart of the teacher education curriculum as a credible and effective vehicle for achieving this purpose.

Disclosure statement

There is no conflict of interest.