LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Franks, Anton (2014)
Publisher: Routledge Taylor & Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
The way in which school students represent affective aspects of human relationships in drama and what this reveals about learning in drama is the focus of this paper. Such an enquiry traverses the borders between affect, intellect and physicality. Affect and its representation in drama have been themes in the history of drama and theatre and is a current concern in the field of applied theatre and drama. Writers on drama in schools have hitherto been mostly concerned with affect in terms of feelings experienced and emotions represented by students participating in drama. There has, however, been little theorisation of what students’ representation of affective human relations might reveal about the complexity of learning processes involved. Cultural theories of representation and learning are related to an example, drawn from field notes, of school student drama in which students present a stylised representation of a relationship. Because affect is intimately connected with both the bodilyness and modes of representation in drama, multimodal social semiotic analysis will be used as one component of a framework to draw attention to the body as a principal material and tool for making meaning in drama. Theoretically, explanations of learning will be taken from the work of Vygotsky, who maintained a lifelong interest in both drama and learning and the relationship between the two. Concepts taken from the cultural theories of Raymond Williams are also referred to – specifically to the ways in which cultural activity and artefacts represent ‘structures of feeling’.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • BANTOCK, G. H. 1986. Educating the emotions: An historical perspective. British Journal of Educational Studies, 34, 122-141.
    • BRUNER, J. S. 1986. Actual minds, possible worlds, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard UP.
    • CARPAY, J. & VAN OERS, B. 1999. Didactic models and the problem of intertextuality and polyphony In: ENGESTRÖM, Y., MIETTINEN, R. & PUNAMÄKI-GITAI, R.-L. (eds.) Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP.
    • DANIELS, H., COLE, M. & WERTSCH, J. V. 2007. The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    • EKMAN, P. 2003. Emotions Revealed. London. Weidenfeld & Nicolson
    • FRANKS, A. 1997. 'Drama, Desire and Schooling. Drives to learning in creative and expressive school subjects' In: Changing English 4/1, pp. 131-148.
    • GEERTZ, C. 1993. Art as a cultural system. In: GEERTZ, C. (ed.) Local knowledge : further essays in interpretive anthropology. London: Fontana, 1993.
    • GOLEMAN, D. 1996. Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ, London, Bloomsbury.
    • GREENFIELD, S. 2009. Parliamentary Business, Lords Hansard Homepage [Online]. London: HM Government, Hansard. Available: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90212 -0010.htm - 09021268000058 [Accessed 7 June 2012].
    • HENLEY, D. 2012. Cultural Education in England. In: DFE, D. (ed.). London: Crown Publications.
    • KRESS, G. 2010. Multimodality : a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication, Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge.
    • KRESS, G. R. & LEEUWEN, T. V. 2001. Multimodal discourse : the modes and media of contemporary communication, London, Arnold.
    • NICHOLSON, H. 2005. Applied drama : the gift of theatre, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
    • OFSTED 2005. Inspection Report : X High School. London.
    • THOMPSON, J. 2009. Performance affects : applied theatre and the end of effect, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
    • VYGOTSKY, L. S. 1967/2004. Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Pschology, 42, 7-97.
    • VYGOTSKY, L. S. 1978. The role of play in development. In: COLE, M., JOHN-STEINER, V., SCRIBNER, S. & SOUBERMAN, E. (eds.) Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass. ; London: Harvard University Press.
    • VYGOTSKY, L. S. 1987. Thinking and Speech. In: RIEBER, R. W. & CARTON, A. S. (eds.) The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. New York: Plenum Press.
    • VYGOTSKY, L. S. 1994.The development of thinking and concept formation in adolescence. In: van der VEER, R. & VALSINER, J. (eds.) The Vygotsky Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
    • VYGOTSKY, L. S. 1997. On the problem of the psychology of the actor's creative work. In: RIEBER, R. W. & WOLLOCK, J. L. (eds.) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. New York & London: Plenum Press.
    • VYGOTSKY, L. S. & IVANOV, V. V. 1971. The psychology of art, Cambridge (Mass.) ; London, M.I.T. Press.
    • WILLIAMS, R. 1965. The long revolution, Harmondsworth, Penguin in association with Chatto & Windus.
    • WILLIAMS, R. 1983. Drama in a dramatized society. Writing in society. London: Verso.
    • WINSTON, J. 2010. Beauty and education, New York ; London, Routledge.
    • YANDELL, J. 2012. Reading literature in urban English classrooms. PhD, Institute of Education.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article