Introduction

The drama project discussed in this paper took place in a primary school in Taiwan with a high proportion of socio-economically disadvantaged students. Of the student participants, a quarter were receiving government or local charity subsidies at the time the study was conducted. Included in these numbers was a significant number of new immigrant students, with the enrolment rate of immigrant children in Taiwan schools increasing from 3.94% in 2006 to 10.25% in 2017 (Department of Statistics, 2017). In 2020, immigrant children accounted for more than 10% of the student population at the compulsory education level, with 43% of their mothers coming from China, with the remainder being mostly from Southeast Asia countries (Chen, 2020). In spite of this growth however, little attention has been paid to elementary school students with emotional problems connected to their immigration experiences, while a further challenge is that many teachers and students are challenged to understand the differences between Southeast Asia’s diverse cultures.

The term “new immigrant student” is used in Taiwan to refer to children whose mothers are from different countries, especially those with an immigration status dependent on marriage to a Taiwanese man. These women, sometimes disrespectfully labelled as “Mail-Order Brides” (Narayan, 1995), face many challenges, including in relation to the ability of their children to engage fully in their communities. As a result, many of the immigrant children become less confident as they grow up, particularly when entering elementary school. Accompanying this are complex issues in relation to their families, the expectations of society, or students’ personalities. In comparison to the children whose parents are local people, these immigrant children often miss out on social interactions between themselves and their peers (especially after school) - a situation caused in part by the fact that their mothers may struggle with a lack of resources or the capacity to help with their children’s schoolwork.

Although efforts to enhance the function of counselling departments in primary and middle schools to better support these students are emphasised, emotion-management related courses are generally not well suited to the needs of these children. As a teacher working in the counselling department at the study school, my role included assisting students with learning difficulties or problems related to domestic abuse, family violence, socioeconomic disadvantage, cultural adjustment, behavioural problems and emotional difficulties. Unfortunately, I found the needs of new immigrant children impossible to manage solely by the usual counselling approaches adopted by the school at that time. I therefore volunteered to be a consultant teacher for students who were from high-risk families and proceeded to develop a participatory drama-based program that might assist them. I wanted to offer opportunities for primary aged children to explore some specific and complex topics within a flexible and spontaneous structure and process. My premise was that participatory drama (with a well-designed context and a skilled facilitator) could offer students an opportunity to explore inner feelings, thoughts and difficulties.

This paper reports on that work which was driven by two research questions. While the broader study was directed by both of these, this paper is focused mainly on the second. These questions are as follows:

  1. How might engagement in a process drama enhance new immigrant children’s self-awareness and encourage positive emotional change?

  2. How does the use of the teacher-in-role strategy influence engagement and students’ self-reflection?

Teacher-in-role, tension and dramatic engagement

While the teacher-in-role strategy (TIR) is familiar to drama educators working in Western contexts, it is relatively unknown in Taiwanese primary schools, with this being especially the case in counselling contexts. It was therefore quite a unique experience for the students when, within the drama unit, I undertook the role of Tommy, a fictional immigrant student. Across the drama, the participating children were invited to explore the world of Tommy who revealed his difficulties and struggles settling into a new country. My goal in adopting this role was to help students identify the ways he responded to his new context, and in the process help them to recognise their own feelings and thoughts in similar situations.

Bolton (1998) states that the strategy of TIR “clearly invests the teacher with considerable power” (p. 183). I hoped that such power might assist me, as the facilitator, to engage the children in interacting and developing the dramatic story to gain a depth of understanding. Prendiville (2000) suggests when applying the strategy of TIR, the teacher should first have “negotiated the rules and conventions of the drama and identified some key areas she (sic) wishes the children to think about” (p. 12), and then motivate students to focus on the key concepts explored. They also have to manage contexts by presenting different feelings, emotions, stances or integrating challenges in the drama to encourage participants to respond, engage, and express inner thoughts in those circumstances.

Numerous authors (Ackroyd, 2004; Bolton, 1984; Bowell & Heap, 2013; Bundy, 1999; Haseman & O’Toole, 1988; Heathcote, 1980; Piazzoli, 2017; Rani, 2025) have noted that dramatic tension, introduced through the use of teacher-in-role, engages the children and fosters their emotional connections to the fictional stories explored in the drama work. Focusing on learning more about teacher-in-role in this context, I was therefore interested in how the management of dramatic tension might impact the participants’ experiences of the dramatic situation, and how it might encourage identification in ways relevant to their life circumstances or memories.

Many drama educators are familiar with the work of Haseman and O’Toole (1988) who identified strategies to enhance tension in drama and thus deepen the engagement of participants. O’Toole (1992) defines tension as “the gap between the characters and the fulfilment of their purposes, a gap created by deliberately imposing constraints in order to create an emotional disturbance (the tension itself) in the participants” (p. 132). In process drama, tensions introduced by the facilitator might include: making the task difficult or important; producing misunderstanding, dilemmas or conflict between characters; or introducing an unexpected shock. These tensions may serve to challenge the participants’ existing belief systems, or disturb the balance in a relationship between characters. Facilitators may therefore set up the scenes, with life-like tensions or challenges, inviting different responses to occur. Bowell and Heap (2013) illuminate this idea further by suggesting that the way dramatic tension is created in process drama is via framing and situating the participants within the unfolding action. Then constraints applied within the drama can increase the difficulty of achieving the tasks and this raises an emotional disturbance in the students.

Student engagement can also be significantly influenced by the use of the teacher-in-role strategy, and within participatory drama, participants’ verbal and non-verbal responses such as eye contact, listening, physical stretching and laughing reveal this. However, to fully understand engagement, Dunn, Bundy and Stinson (2015) suggest that two key components, “commitment and connection” (p. 5), need to be considered. They argue that these are significant contributors to the generation and intensity of emotion when participating in drama. For them, commitment is about “a willingness to engage in the exploration of a specific human focus, within a group context, using the medium of drama” (p. 8) and that commitment occurs when individuals actively and willingly participate in the construction of a shared dramatic world. They stress that emotion is a complex and important aspect of participatory drama experience because it provokes internal responses that are neither fixed nor singular. The responsibility of the facilitator then, according to Bolton (1979) “is not to protect participants from emotions but rather, into them” (cited in Dunn et al., 2015, p. 5), with the goal being to encourage children to emotionally connect and then have the courage to challenge their own perceptions

Another way to understand engagement has been proposed by Warner (1997) who has offered classifications of engagement. She suggests that teachers need to understand and be able to recognise that there are different types of engagement in every dramatic experience. Her four categories of engagement are:

Talkers: who engage primarily by talking and they are the first to volunteer for a role;

Processors: who deeply connect to the drama by applying their imagination;

Participant-Observers: who rarely verbally or physically engage in the drama but listen very intently to the action of it; and,

Listeners/Outsiders, who never really engage in the drama but simply watch the action.

In discussing these types of engagement, Warner confirmed the importance of the talkers, arguing that within drama work, the majority of students are dependent on talkers’ responses in order to build upon their input. Importantly, she also concluded that a successful drama allows for the presence of all four categories to occur and that each type is important in order for students to begin their engagement. Her classifications have been used here to help identify participants’ responses during TIR sessions.

Methodology and data collection

Based on my counselling experiences, I thought that narrative counselling might complement drama education in achieving the purpose of addressing a specific topic related to self-awareness and emotion-management. I also believed that the techniques narrative therapists use in externalizing clients’ problem, such as mapping and evaluating the impacts of a problem, could provide drama educators with practical strategies in exploring participants’ feelings and difficulties. By analysing the dramatic scenes created by the children, I hoped that a depth of understanding of participants’ engagement in exploring new aspects of characters’ life stories might be generated, including how individuals developed their approaches when interacting with other people.

To achieve these goals and to understand how the strategy of TIR might engage participants, case study methodology was adopted. The author in both cases was both the facilitator and researcher, with case study methodology being used to identify and describe the dramatic phenomena in two distinct classroom contexts, to interpret the natural settings of the workshops and to draw connections and contradictions across the two cases.

Multiple methods were employed for data collection, with a variety of sources of evidence used to gain deep understanding about both cases. These data sources included lesson plans, video recordings, face-to-face individual interviews, feedback sheets and worksheets, and the teacher-practitioner’s reflective journal. In addition, unexpected situations or events that occurred during workshops were recorded and reflected upon.

Stake (2006) emphasises both the common relationships and the uniqueness of each case study. As such, the two cases represented distinctive results and dramatic processes, while cross-case analysis was also useful, enabling me to look into the similarities and distinctions between the two dramatic settings.

Ethical clearance for the study was granted by Griffith University, while pseudonyms are used across this paper to ensure the participants’ anonymity.

The participant groups

Two different groups of children were chosen and identified by the school as potentially benefiting from involvement. None of the children had prior experience of drama in the curriculum. Case One was conducted with 21 students from five classes (Year 5 & Year 6), who were referred by their homeroom teachers. The case lasted for seven weeks, with participation being made up of a one-hour lesson, twice a week. The children attended the drama lessons voluntarily, with 19 out of 21 students reported as demonstrating various concerns, including aggressive acts, bullying, stealing, lying, and lower confidence. One-third were new immigrant students struggling with personal or family problems.

Case Two included 21 Year 6 students. The participants had been together for more than one year and were familiar with peers’ inappropriate behaviours and emotional reactions. The workshops were arranged to fit into the school timetable on Friday afternoons, lasting for 8 weeks, one and half hours per week. With this group, the school had identified areas of concern, such as challenging behaviours, bullying issues, and violent interactions between peers. They were regarded as a tough class, frequently having physical arguments.

The drama context

In both cases, a fictional immigrant student, Tommy, was introduced using the strategy of teacher-in-role, while the students were told that upon meeting Tommy, their mission was to assist him. Information given to the participating students about the fictional boy Tommy was as follows:

Tommy was born in Singapore. His father is Taiwanese and his mother is from Singapore. He is now living here as a Year 6 student. Tommy’s father is a business man and he is assigned to be in charge of a branch company in Taiwan. Tommy learnt English in Singapore but is not good at speaking or writing Chinese. He has a younger sister aged 5. Since Tommy’s parents are very busy working on setting up a new branch company, he lives with his grandparents and is dependent on them.

In the workshops, different dramatic strategies such as thought tracking, two sides voice, role-on-the-wall, role circle and group hot-seating were employed to help students explore the feelings, struggles, and difficulties that a new immigrant student might encounter in a new place. Importantly, Tommy’s various feelings were made visible through teacher-in-role sessions, followed by opportunities for participants to reflect on their personal experiences in response to the drama work.

Once the data were collected, analysis of the observations and students’ responses during the use of teacher-in-role allowed me to reach a broad understanding of how this strategy helped the participants to generate new insights about immigrant students and how they connected/reflected on those dramatic experiences. In the following sections, I draw upon Warner’s engagement framework to support discussion of the responses of the participants to the two individual cases, before offering some cross-case analysis.

Case One

Non-verbal signals from the teacher and individuals.

Before adopting the role of Tommy, I explained the strategy of teacher-in-role to the children. As soon as this occurred, many participants immediately lifted their heads and paid particular attention to the explanation. A red cap was used to indicate the role of the immigrant student. When the cap was taken off, I explained, I would return to real life as the teacher.

In response to this approach, two students, Colin and Justin, immediately emerged as the Talkers who fostered other students’ interaction with the teacher-in-role. They spoke to the whole group, recognizing and naming the teacher as Tommy. When Tommy dragged his school bag towards him and sat down with his right leg stretched out, another student, Bella, was also immediately engaged and within one second asked in English, “How old are you?” She recognised Tommy’s non-verbal signals were different to those of the teacher and her response impacted on others, encouraging them to connect and engage in the drama.

Warner (1997) has asserted that the students who engage by speaking at once, pick up the teacher’s non-verbal signals and “make conjectures about the direction of the drama” (p. 27). The other students, according to Warner, are then able to engage because of the immediate contributions of the Talkers.

However, in spite of the immediate responses of these students, the commitment of all students at this early stage remained superficial and hence as the facilitator, I had to encourage them to interact with Tommy further. For example, Boris, a Year 6 student, initially participated by sitting silently in the corner, behaving like a Listener/Outsider. This situation soon shifted however for, by the end of lesson two, Boris had started to move quietly from the edges to the middle. When he moved, he was listening and smiling as a Processor, indicated by his non-verbal signals. His facial expressions indicated that he was attentive and this echoes Warner’s (1997) claim that students may not engage in the same way, and that successful participation in drama comes in many forms.

Analysis of the videotapes indicate that when Boris paused and nodded his head, his engagement involved a reflective form of “inner speech”, in which “people often talk silently to themselves, engaging in what is called inner voice, internal conversation, inner dialogue, self-talk and so on” (Wiley, 2006, p. 139). As the drama progressed, Boris seemed to be comfortable in the role of Participant-Observer, participating and connecting, but at a safe way/distance from the dramatic scene, until towards the end of the sequence of workshops, Boris became more engaged in the improvisations and presented a reflective attitude in the interviews.

Physical, verbal, and emotional engagement.

When the participants witnessed Tommy’s sadness at being forced to move to Taiwan, it seemed they were affected by his feelings including fear, worry, and nervousness. For example, when Tommy sighed to show his discomfort, Colin sighed. When Tommy shrugged his shoulders, Colin shrugged his shoulders as well. Those physical imitations revealed Colin’s emotional connection to the character’s feelings. Others also seemed to feel the sadness of Tommy or recall previous experiences, resulting in them shifting their engagement from being Talkers to Processors, as they speculated about what was going on or how they might make Tommy feel at home as the mission required them to do. Morgan and Saxton (1987) believe that participants must progress through these types of engagement if they are to have a meaningful experience in a dramatic activity.

Later, when Tommy suddenly changed his mood to anger because some students were laughing at his Chinese accent, the Talkers quickly recognised his emotions by saying “Tommy is angry” (Colin) or “Oh, no. He is angry” (Justin). As Talkers, they described Tommy’s anger to the others. Then, shifting to a Processor role, Colin recognised the tension in this moment by using a low voice to warn other pupils about the emotional change. He was reflective about Tommy’s feelings and helped other students to process the change in Tommy. Justin shifted to the role of Processor as well by suggesting better interactions with Tommy. The two boys were affected by Tommy’s emotional reactions and the tension of the task forced them to figure out solutions. Justin bent his head and covered his mouth by telling the others, “We need to make him happy.” In response, the rest of the students were then encouraged to seek ways to comfort Tommy. For example, Colin said sorry twice, and Fannie made a grimace towards Tommy. Awareness promoted in the drama fostered them to take stance and action accordingly.

Tommy then explained that he felt so angry because his parents forced him to leave his best friends in Singapore. When Justin and Wily tried to suggest that Tommy should make friends here in Taiwan, most of the students were laughing loudly except Colin. Instead of saying something, Colin kept silent and appeared to be thinking about what Tommy was saying. Eight seconds later, he patted his chest and said, “My too” (me too in English) with a very low voice. This time, Colin engaged as a Participant-Observer and he seemed to have empathy for what was happening to Tommy. Such empathy generated through drama is essential for students to mutually understand other people’s difficulties and feelings. It motivated Colin’s emotional connection to Tommy. He told Tommy “I have a similar experience like you.” In the post-workshop interview, Colin linked the dramatic experience to his own experience and said that he left his best friend in China when he was in Year 2. Since then, he has had difficulties making new friends. His experiences and feelings of losing his best friend seemed to be understood in the created scene, with the drama appearing to create in Colin a deep emotional connection to and empathy with Tommy.

Topic directed by the participants.

After providing many alternative ways for Tommy to contact his friends, Linda (another student), changed the topic by shyly asking in English “You like Aping?”. Aping is the location of the primary school. Tommy could barely hear her question as Linda was a new Talker. However, her offering revealed her curiosity about Tommy’s feelings toward her hometown. Responding to Linda’s inquiry, Tommy replied he had no idea about Aping - a response that induced a loud sound from the participants, indicating that they could not believe it. Colin and Willy fell over exaggeratedly. In response, Tommy became a bit upset and confused - a situation that motivated the children to provide more support, including by sharing information about the location’s famous heritage and local foods. It seemed that the more the participants held a higher status, in comparison to Tommy’s lower status, the more they were engaged in contributing opinions or thoughts to the scene.

As the drama progressed, the participants started to co-create the story of Tommy. Released from the dominant power of the teacher, they developed new subtopics that they cared about. In these actions they could be regarded as Processors or Participant-Observers because their contributions to the drama created “subjective meaning” (Bolton, 1979, p. 45), which Bolton believes could represent individuals’ attitudes or feelings to the world. This development was then shifted from what the teacher wanted to deliver/teach to what the participants wished to know/learn. Their efforts indicated that they were encouraged by the drama to understand Tommy’s feelings and they, in turn, provided support to Tommy rather than alienating or neglecting him.

Finally, the use of teacher-in-role reached a peak of interaction when the students began to suggest activities for Tommy to engage in. Co-creating a meaningful storyline of Tommy’s new life became an interactive and interesting experience for them. As the drama continued, many participants engaged in talking (as Talkers), processing (as Processors), observing and responding (as Participant-Observers). Some students, especially the Talkers, successfully shifted Tommy’s sadness to excitement. Their feelings were influenced by Tommy, switching from fear and worry to empathy, sympathy, curiosity, and excitement. Bolton (1986) observes that “children are their own agents in setting up the experience” (p. 88). In this case, they made learning meaningful to themselves when they were able to recognise the fictional character’s feelings and then shifted Tommy’s negative emotions to a positive emotional state.

Case Two

Taking obvious stances

In Case Two, a key influencing factor was the decision I made to adopt a different approach to the way I played the character of Tommy in comparison to Case One. This decision was made based on the background information I collected from the homeroom teacher who was exhausted after dealing with students’ impulsive behaviours and emotional problems for one and half years. Accordingly, prior to the commencement of the drama work, I decided to enact Tommy with a feeling of hatred toward his parents. I hoped that this decision would help the participants to see the impact of personal attitudes.

Whilst this seemed like a reasonable decision at the time, the impact it had on the drama was almost immediate. After just a couple of minutes, many of the children appeared shocked by Tommy’s emotional behaviours that included casting his school bag on the floor and shouting out angrily about being forced to move back to Taiwan. For example, while Jake had originally been friendly, upon witnessing how Tommy behaved, he soon changed his mind about welcoming Tommy and instead, asked him to leave. The tension between Tommy and the students quickly escalated and many of the students followed Jake’s lead and also chose challenging stances in response.

Prendiville (2007) suggests that while applying the strategy of TIR, teachers need to use their own store of moods and behaviours to assist the participants to understand the role. Unfortunately, in this case, the way I played the role of Tommy seemed to trigger some students’ negative feelings. For example, Jake, Piper, and Davis were firm in taking a defiant stance towards Tommy, with the drama giving them permission to have authority and to confront the teacher-in-role.

Nonetheless, the dramatic tension created in this context seemed to quickly get the students’ attention and engage them in expressing feelings or thoughts in the scenes, with Jake’s and Piper’s responses possibly being a projection of their unhappy feelings toward the bad attitude and negative reactions of Tommy. The tension also drove students to relate their feelings to the drama. Bolton (1984) claimed that dramatic action needs the cementation of “tension” and O’Toole (1992) claimed that in a dramatic context, the role and situation are driven by the tension. As the facilitator I observed an assortment of participants’ responses in the fictional context. For example, Edwin witnessed the interactions between Jake and Tommy, and shouted “awesome” to Tommy. He seemed to enjoy the performance of rage. Suddenly, Davis suggested that the class should alienate Tommy. However, his idea was not accepted by all. Instead, Mary welcomed Tommy by saying “Hello, Tommy, nice to meet you. My name is Class 602”, substituting her real name with a fictional one. In doing this, it seemed that Mary was trying to make her debut in this section and her stance was supportive. The observations and reflections of the participants’ reactions to Tommy, in this case, indicated that Talkers could be categorized into two different groups, one for challenging the character/facilitator and the other for supporting the character/facilitator.

As the drama progressed, the Challenging Talkers tried to unite their fellow audience-students against the character; while the Supporting Talkers tried to shift the drama to a friendly state. Both Challenging Talkers and Supporting Talkers were important because they fostered and encouraged the other participants to think deeply and take actions in response to the drama, including reactions or arguments.

This divergence of opinions or stances was an opportunity to observe students’ different emotional reactions or behavioural intentions during the drama. As a Supportive Talker, Mary tried to be positive in welcoming the new student, shifting the focus to the mission of helping Tommy. On the contrary, behaving as a Challenging Talker, Davis tried to stir up dissension between Tommy and the students by suggesting alienation. At that moment, they had the opportunity to communicate, dispute or exchange different opinions. The tension of the task was built due to their opposite stances and responses toward the fictional character or context, and both Talkers fostered a broader or deeper exploration when those diverging perspectives were utilized and encouraged.

A platform for expressing feelings and thoughts

In Davis’ case, I was curious as to why he had decided to adopt a challenging stance and what his emotional state was while he reacted unkindly. Davis appeared to be clear about his action in the drama, with his challenging position engaging him in the action. According to Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007), within the domain of emotional thought, personal emotion is a basic form of decision making, that of knowing how to respond appropriately in any given situation. Before Davis reacted to Tommy’s impulsive behaviour, he observed him and the situation carefully. It seemed that he was thinking about the action he was trying to evoke actively rather than merely passively listening to Tommy’s responses. When he was responding aggressively, I sometimes felt it was difficult to continue as Tommy. Interestingly, when I was in the role of Tommy’s tutor in another workshop, Davis’ challenging behaviour shifted to be supportive. Hearing that the tutor was worried about Tommy’s new life in Taiwan, he replied “because he (Tommy) is too emotional, right?” He was aware of the reason that drove Tommy to react emotionally. This time he became a Supportive Talker and continued to inform the teacher about Tommy’s problems, such as strongly casting his bag on the floor and expressing his anger emotionally. His words and feelings towards Tommy revealed more information about why he decided to challenge Tommy and that helped him generate a reflective thought about himself later.

Sometimes, the Supportive Talkers behaved differently in drama than the way they presented in real life. For example, Mary had difficulties in peer interaction and was dealing with conflict between herself and her homeroom teacher. But, in the drama class, she was very supportive. She displayed interest in performance and managed herself very well. Similarly, within his work, Taylor (1998) mentioned a story about holding such opposite stances in drama and real life. He wrote about a young girl called Meryl stating:

As I became more elusive, she became more decisive, at one point even uniting all her fellow patriots-students against me, persuading them that I was presenting a British spy. (1998, p. x)

Taylor claimed that the way Meryl behaved in-role in the drama was very different to how she presented in real life. Taylor wondered why Meryl’s role work and writing carried such conviction in drama, while her other teachers observed that she was passive and docile in class. Both Mary (in my case) and Meryl’s efforts to commit to the drama were impressive. It may be because the natural settings in drama allowed them to express real thoughts and feelings that helped them react positively. Or, it could be possible that Mary and Meryl felt accepted in drama and motivated to freely present their interests or talents in performing.

Awareness for personal regulation

On some occasions, tension was created purposefully in proximity to participants’ life experiences. However, stirred by the unexpected challenge, some boys were distanced by Tommy’s emotional actions. Their emotional responses were triggered by Tommy’s behaviour but they contributed so as to invite different reactions and responses from other students. Warner (1997) noted in her own study that “even when the Talkers exhibited inappropriate responses, their comments sometimes evoked reactions and responses from other classmates” (p. 29). This aligns with Morgan and Saxton’s (1987) assertion that when participants reach a high degree of anticipation, they are more likely to commit to accepting personal engagement and responsibility for the work. In this case, participants’ commitment to the dramatic work not only helped them to emotionally connect to the dramatic exploration, but also fostered personal awareness. They needed time to reflect on their inner world to make decisions or react differently for a real change.

In the following sessions when Tommy was upset, the situation shifted to a supportive stance. His less threatening behaviours seemed to arouse sufficient sympathy from some, particularly the Processors. While some Talkers became challenging, Tommy was comforted by the Processors, who became a supportive group to help him move on. The Processors were motivated to collaboratively support the immigrant student. They may have felt sympathy towards Tommy while he was attending a new class. They processed the differences/feelings of Tommy, not remaining at the superficial stage but became more sensitive, recognising Tommy’s deeper thoughts and difficulties.

In the post-workshop interviews, some students, including Davis and Aran, criticised Tommy’s emotional reactions and labelled him as a bad boy. Davis and Aran emotionally connected themselves to the scenes and said that they were just like Tommy, who was impulsive and behaved badly at school.

Cross-case observations and analysis

Different types and levels of engagement with TIR

In considering the two cases, it seems that the children in Case One were more interested in the character’s life story and engaged as though they were a team supporting the character and collectively having the mission to help him. This was evident from the outset, for in the beginning workshops, instead of seeking to understand the feelings of the immigrant student, the children seemed to make meaningless inquiries. As facilitator I sought ways to foster their curiosity and interest towards Tommy by manipulating my voice, facial expressions, eye contacts, or physical gestures. When some students started to engage as Processors and Participant-Observers, such as Colin and Bonnie who felt connected and concerned about the feelings of Tommy, they helped other peers to explore.

The tension of the task of “Helping Tommy feel comfortable and adapt to new school life” was built up and once they were deeply affected by Tommy’s feelings, they committed more to the drama and shifted their levels of engagement. After the workshops, six students in Case One (Bonnie, Fannie, Hunter, Colin, Alfred, and Grace) reflected on their experiences and stated (in the feedback after TIR) that they had learned how to comfort the immigrant student. Their engagement moved between Talkers, Processors and Participant-Observers, eventually connecting the dramatic experiences to their personal lives, and helping other students to generate new understandings of the focus issue. More individuals then became aware of Tommy’s emotions and sympathised with the immigrant student’s difficulties and challenges. The scenarios resonated with them. They also shared “considerable power” (Bolton, 1998, p. 183) in the TIR process where they created and developed dramatic scenes relevant to their life situations. Through exploring similarities shared in the drama, many Case One children appeared to mutually understand the loneliness and anger that Tommy was conveying and intuitively assisted him to alleviate such negative feelings.

In the early sessions in both cases, I had categorised the students who were easily distracted as Outsiders (Warner, 1995); however, it was hard to identify the outsiders in Case One. By observing participants’ responses and facial expressions during role-playing, I found that TIR not only held their attention but also raised their curiosity. Engagement levels among the children were so distinctive that this sometimes reversed my first impressions of them. For instance, some individuals, such as Boris, Grace, and Henry, listened throughout with limited verbal contributions to the drama but they gradually developed personal ways of processing and experiencing the drama. Boris engaged as a listener, did not say anything, but his facial expressions showed that he was deeply connected to the drama. He was not an Outsider as I had initially thought but a Processor who processed the drama via specific emotional connection.

Unexpected processes and tense moments

Reflecting upon the two cases, it is now apparent that when I was conducting TIR in Case Two, some students felt challenged by Tommy’s negative responses and reacted as challenging Talkers. The children did not focus on the task of “Helping the immigrant get used to a new environment” but felt influenced and driven by the dramatic interactions. As noted above, there was tension between the students and Tommy and these created negative interactions which were in contrast to the positive ones that happened in Case One.

As a relatively new drama practitioner, it seems that my lack of experience in doing TIR led to the difficulties and struggles in the facilitation of Case Two. For example, some participants, such as Jake, Piper, and Davis, took offensive stances against Tommy because they thought he was so aggressive. This created a tension of relationships which led to the participants challenging the character. These stances in response to TIR were very different to the empathy experienced and shared in Case One. The students seemed to be aware that, within a dramatic context, they were allowed and encouraged to express personal feelings in accordance with the contextual scenes. They were affected by the scene and the drama gave them opportunities to express different feelings, opinions or thoughts.

The students were sensitive about the conflict and shared diverse perspectives/engagements in the “ongoing experience of being together in drama” (Neelands, 2009, p. 181). Nonetheless, these challenges and different reactions were valuable as they required me to extend the analysis to further study the meanings and reasons behind some individuals’ responses. It appeared that, in the role of Tommy, my belligerent and aggressive attitude in Case Two aroused some students’ negative feelings so that they responded with challenging words by instinct. The dramatic scenes and interactions motivated the children to commit, relate, and reflect on personal impulsive/aggressive reactions while experiencing the tense moments. They were invited to reconsider how to respond or interact differently in the improvisations created by themselves.

In spite of some positive outcomes, I nevertheless feel that my decision to play Tommy as aggressive and angry was a mistake because my acting made some students feel hostile which made it harder to continue the process. The efforts I devoted to the scene did not produce the positive feedback which I had expected from the Talkers. Therefore, I concluded that this was a failed experience of using teacher-in-role, but it was also an important episode in my teaching when I analysed it later.

A new depth of understanding and self-regulation

Overall then, it appeared to be the case that when the scene was developed and resonated with students’ experiences, they were more affected by the stories created. As a result, there were more physical, verbal or facial expressions to be seen during the interactive process such as in the sessions of TIR, role circle, hot-seating and improvisations. It partly revealed students’ inner thoughts, real-life experiences, tendencies or difficulties. In Case One, some individuals developed deeper levels of engagement and processed the dramatic scenes with a depth of understanding. Colin and Boris both reported having experienced similar feelings to those of Tommy, of for example, being pushed away when they were transferred to a new school. They reacted as Processors in response to Tommy’s situation. Colin’s emotional connection to Tommy’s upset feelings demonstrated that he was deeply influenced by the drama and willing to share his sorrow or regret with group peers. Participants then shifted their levels of engagement from a superficial involvement to a deeper participation when their life experiences were paralleled in the drama.

Case Two students, for example Aran and Jake, participated as Challenging Talkers but engaged at superficial levels with little relevant experience or contribution to the depth of new meanings developing. However, Davis’ decision to participate as a Challenging Talker revealed a different level of engagement, particularly in the aspect of encouraging other students to verbally and physically interact with the character. The Processors, such as Emma, Billy, Sophia and Lily, were sympathetic about Tommy’s deep worries and they automatically formed a supportive group offering positive support. Emma and Lily took time to respond, providing useful suggestions based on their life experiences, and brought “a new depth or a different perspective on the drama” (Warner, 1995, p. 172), a deeper level of engagement where new insights were generated. It appeared that when students’ life stories or experiences were projected in TIR, they responded with more thoughtful actions and engaged with a deeper level of emotional connection. They were emotionally related to the scenes and applied those dramatic learning experiences to their own real-life circumstances.

Findings: The shifts of commitment and engagement

Within the dramatic context, the students gradually knew that they were allowed and encouraged to express personal feelings in accordance with the contextual scenes. They were sensitive about the conflict and shared diverse perspectives/engagements in the “ongoing experience of being together in drama” (Neelands, 2009, p. 181). When the children experienced the tension, they sensed that these dramatic moments were relevant to those normal circumstances. Many of them were engaged in a depth of feeling and thinking and some students might have felt similarities shared in the dramatic moments.

Overall, it appears that their engaged levels shifted when:

  1. Drama was made relevant to their life experiences.

    Participants’ life difficulties were echoed in the exploration of characters’ negative feelings or problematic stories. Dramatic experiences seemed to be impactful on their developing personal strategies towards challenges confronted in real life. Some of the participants felt that their life stories seemed to be echoed by the dramatic scenarios. Warner (1995) stated that this was most evident when a Participant-Observer, like a Processor, built fictitious characters relevant to their lived experiences. Likewise, the children in these studies appeared to be motivated to collaboratively develop the fictional stories or challenge the characters when they felt deeply connected to the drama.

  2. Their interests were satisfied during the exploration.

    Many students were motivated by the drama, becoming interested in the characters’ stories. They experienced the playfulness in the workshops, actively providing imaginary perspectives regarding personal backgrounds and concerns. When they felt satisfied with the dramatic pretending, they gradually shifted their engaged levels to processors or participant-observers, providing more creative thoughts and suggestions for role-playing. In addition, they created and directed the substories in the following workshops.

  3. The participants voiced their thoughts and felt supported by group members.

    Students with difficulties making friends in class were encouraged to express their feelings or thoughts in group discussions. However, this took time. Once individuals felt accepted by others, they apparently had more courage striving for opportunities to enact different characters. Their performances were very different from their usual actions in class. Being seen and supported by other students motivated them to role-play and to lose feelings of shyness and fear. In particular, individuals with low-confidence became more willing to voice their thoughts in comparison to their shy or quiet tendency in the classroom.

Landy (1994) asserts that “the meaning of a dramatic experience does not necessarily manifest itself immediately” and that “many of the qualitative changes that occur through drama are internal and non-observable” (p. 11). This view is also echoed by Dunn et al. (2015), who claim that dramatic activities can evoke stronger responses in the participants when they recognise something that is important to them. In this drama, time was required for the individuals to relate the drama to their personal life experiences or similar feelings and to approach an emotional involvement inside the drama.

Frustrations and new realisations

At the outset of the study, I expected the children in Case Two to respond similarly to the way the children in Case One had. However, by choosing to take on the role of Tommy in an aggressive manner, my actions incited violent verbal retorts. As a result, the second case was far removed from the collaborative and negotiated state that I had experienced in Case One. My aggressive stance, together with my decision to express anger about transferring to a new place, made some students, including Jake and Piper, dislike Tommy. This was not my plan and was problematic.

As a relatively new drama practitioner, I made efforts to embrace those challenging positions, but the unexpected nature of the students’ responses made me doubt not only the effect of this drama on them but also my capacity to use teacher-in-role with the group and context. As a result, I tried to stay in-role and sought ways to reverse the situation, but had to stop the drama on occasions. I became frustrated, particularly when some students (Davis, Aran, and Jake in Case Two) engaged in physical conflicts or inappropriate interactions with each other making the dramatic action difficult to continue.

The lack of commitment by some students at some moments also disturbed the drama work and forced me to pause to manage unexpected classroom situations. My confusion as the facilitator was in part informed by Haseman and O’Toole’s (1988) warning that group trust can quickly break down. They go on to explain that when trust is lost, the group’s energy is diverted from the drama work to handle this lack of commitment. In this circumstance, I was not sure what positive learning experience the students would gain in the following workshops if there were so many verbal arguments and physical conflicts distracting students during the lessons. In order to interact with the students, I kept reflecting on my teaching and shifted my attitude away from frustration and focused instead on how to improve my facilitation skills.

In my reflective journal, I wrote “I should focus on the relationship between the classmates” rather than overstressing the difficulties of an immigrant. I wanted to facilitate in a way that might assist the students to effectively manage their emotion and behaviour in class. Ackroyd (2004) states that in teacher-in-role, moments are made significant; tensions and contrasts are constructed for a particular effect in a way they are not in life. After more interactions and improvisations, I realised that the students who most challenged me, also taught me to adjust how I worked as a facilitator to enhance the students’ learning rather than controlling their behaviours. I found that those students who behaved challengingly in the drama reflected on their real situations or problems the most. I also realised that trust relationships built during the process may also lead to their regulation and self-improvement.

These reflections also caused me to feel very differently about the traditional role I take in the classroom. It reversed my traditional educational training, particularly in an Asian educational system where it is more likely to be teacher directed. It seemed that when in the role, as a teacher I cared more about the reactions that the students would present rather than teaching them what I believed. When the teacher’s status was different, not so dominant or lower than usual, it invited more children to express their inner voice and real thoughts. They were “actively engaged with one another’s ideas” (Littleton et al., 2005, p. 169), listening carefully to other individuals’ responses and adding their opinions. The students and facilitators “collaborated to fill the plan with embodied interaction” (Stinson, 2015, p. 309), paralleling the scenes and generating new insights from the drama processes. Some of them were aware that anyone may encounter similar predicaments in real life and that developing a broader understanding towards such situations may be useful.

After becoming familiar with the way TIR operated, many of the children shifted their engagements from passive learners to active Processors. O’Toole (1992) said he liked to play low-status roles, and even if he was playing a high-status role he always tried to find a way for the children to have some power over him. In these cases, a lower status also motivated students’ sympathy to show their compassion for Tommy who was an immigrant student struggling with his new life. I also noted that the participants represented some key aspects of the involvement of “commitment” and “connection” as Dunn et al. (2015) identified. They were emotionally connected and quickly recognised the similarities between Tommy and themselves. With more commitment, the power of “teacher-in-role” was shifted to the participants who started to lead the developing action. Students started to regain their strength in managing critical situations that, to some degree, projected their own challenging conditions in real circumstances. Their engagement levels altered, shifting between Talkers, , Processors and Participant-Observers, with these roles helping them to gain “considerable power” (Bolton, 1998, p. 183) in the TIR process where they created and developed dramatic scenes relevant to their life situations.

Conclusion

The research question which drove this directed this paper study was focused on the use of teacher-in-role and the impact this strategy might have on participant engagement in a drama designed to enhance self-awareness and to develop positive interactions between peers. The discussion and findings outlined above reveal that TIR not only helped the facilitator to observe participants’ varied levels of engagement, but also inspired the students to make emotional connections to the dramatic story, taking stances to express their real thoughts and feelings. Across both case studies, the children connected to the scenes with deep engagement and positive interactions between the participants were augmented when the children began to reflect on their own emotions, behaviours and personal ways of interacting with the others.

More broadly speaking, the paper shows that an understanding of students’ types of engagement using Warner’s categories of engagement is helpful for the recognition of participants’ connection and commitment in drama, especially for a relatively new drama practitioner. Meanwhile, from my own perspective, the two cases helped me to achieve a shift in mindset, with my use of TIR across the dramas becoming less controlling and more responsive to the interactions between the students and between the students and the characters. Overall, across these drama workshops, the students and I together experienced the struggle and sparkle moments that can occur when facilitating or participating in process drama.