ISEC 2005

INCLUSION: CELEBRATING DIVERSITY?

1st-4th August 2005
University of Strathclyde
Glasgow, Scotland

DRAMA: AESTHETIC PEDAGOGY FOR SOCIALLY

CHALLENGED CHILDREN

Dr Melanie Peter
Senior Lecturer in Early Childhood and Special Needs
Anglia Polytechnic University, Chelmsford, UK
m.peter@apu.ac.uk

Introduction
After twenty years in special education, convinced of the effectiveness of drama as a
learning medium for children with wide-ranging needs, my most recent work has
brought me to understand why this should be so. Researching drama with some of the
most creatively and socially challenged children, has provided a rationale and
highlighted effective strategies for the approach I have been developing ever since I
first entered the field, in my quest for drama to be taken seriously as pedagogy.
Formative working experiences in the early 1980s in long-stay institutions for adults
with learning disabilities infused in me a determination to enable them to achieve a
sense of creative fulfilment (Maslow 1998), sadly lacking in their spiritual and social
isolation at the time. Ever since, I have never been able to understand why it is that
those that find creativity and playfulness the most challenging, are deemed to need
less of it not more! Current favoured specialist approaches still tend to be highly
structured, such as TEACCH (Teaching and Educating Autistic and Communication
impaired Children – Schopler and Mesibov 1995) and PECS (Picture Exchange
Communication System – Bondy and Frost 1994). But times are a-changing…

With recent legislation such as the 2001 Special Educational Needs (SEN) and
Disability Act making exclusionary practice potentially a discrimination issue,
practitioners now face the ultimate challenge in respect of those most socially
challenged children. There is a growth of interest in psychological research
highlighting the importance of early interactive play foundations for subsequent
development that is influencing pedagogy (Hewett and Nind 1998); neuroscience is
also indicating the significance of affective brain functioning in learning (Damasio
2003). Following National Curriculum revisions (DfEE 1999a), drama now finds
itself compulsory within the core subject of English - strengthened too by guidance to
support children with SEN (DfES 2005, Peter and Grove 2005)! Can drama really be
a viable pedagogy even for those with autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs)? Following
the ‘All our Futures’ NACCCE Report (DfEE 1999b), whilst creativity is now
recognised as making a significant different to children’s educational experience and
achievement, can that really be the case for those with ASDs, when one of their
diagnostic criteria is lack of flexible thinking?

1
This paper demonstrates how drama (paradoxically) is capable of motivating even
hard-to-reach children, and developing their essential creativity at the core of their
difficulties. It explores drama as an aesthetic pedagogy (Elliott 2003) - ‘aesthetic’
from the Greek aesthetikos meaning a state of human consciousness and knowing,
more than animal sensory awareness (Witkin 1974). Drama-in-education exemplifies
this, as an interactive, dynamic learning context, open to a diversity of outcomes with
conversation at its core. It hinges on understanding of social narrative, as children
gain insight into why people think and behave as they do, and the consequences of
social behaviour. Popular psychology has indicated the importance of children’s
emotional understanding (Gardner 1983, Goleman 1995); drama may enable even
those that are most socially challenged to begin to make sense of their feeling
responses - to develop a narrative sense of identity, towards more effective
participation within a social world.

Drama: an aesthetic learning medium

Historically the art form of drama has provided a frame for societies across time to
explore issues of human behaviour and social narratives in analogous life situations.
Classroom drama can enable children to explore such issues and offers a child-centred
approach to curriculum planning. Drama as aesthetic pedagogy involves children in
inquiring into problematic situations and abstracting from them principles to guide
problem-solving activities (Elliott 2003). Because they are wittingly caught up in the
pretence, children may gain an analytic reflective window on their own and others’
play behaviour as they evaluate implications of their affective play responses. The
proviso for children with learning difficulties is that explicit opportunities are set up
for them to reflect and make connections between their experiences in the drama and
the real world (Peter 2003), as to greater or lesser degree, they have difficulty in
generalising between contexts.

The power and scope of drama lies in a state of ‘metaxis’ (Boal 1979), as children
hold in mind more than one world; this in itself demands a flexibility that may
strengthen brain architecture involved. This may then support more creative and
flexible thinking and consequent alignment with the development of communication
and social interaction skills, even in children with profound autism (Sherratt and Peter
2002), so addressing their diagnostic triad of impairments (Wing 1996). Unlike
Heathcote’s view (Wagner 1976) that children with learning difficulties should drift
imperceptibly into make-believe by chancing upon some archetypal character (a
tramp, princess) in need of help, my experience is that they need to be involved in
consciously constructing the drama context if they are to benefit from drama’s ‘double
edge’. This is crucially important too, to protect them emotionally from failure
(Bolton 1984), as any ‘mistakes’ are made by the notional characters they are playing,
not themselves directly.

This may be achieved by building up the drama painstakingly in small increments,

gradually building volume, cross-checking that everyone is ‘with it’, and involving
them in physically blocking out the drama space, working from the concrete to the
abstract. Importantly too, children need to be involved in de-roling afterwards,
returning the set to its original state. Similarly, it has proved helpful to use a simple
prop or item of costume to signify when talking to them in role, clarifying when the
make-believe is starting and stopping.

2
I have challenged children with a range of learning difficulties to utilise their thinking
and resourcefulness in a range of analogous life situations, not just providing help.
Working in role in particular, on the inside of the drama, has proved uniquely
powerful in shaping the drama covertly from within (O’Neill and Lambert 1982), and
to challenge children directly. This circumvents complex language constructions and
sustains tension, without breaking the fragile fiction being created and risking
possible loss of concentration – children literally ‘losing the plot’. Drama has
facilitated exploration of power and inequality issues as the usual perception of
teacher as authority figure shifts – particularly poignant in children so often in
position of dependency, even if hampered at times by a gap between their ideas and
their capability of communicating them (Detheridge 2002). Their idiosyncratic
responses symptomatic of wide-ranging disabling conditions have further
compounded issues of interpretation of the workings of their mind – and my
consequent evaluation of their possible learning.

Developing a hierarchy of questioning, moving between closed and open questions

has elicited responses from those with limited verbal ability, and using a multi-modal
approach, combining speech with signing (gesture and/or graphics) has supported
them in accessing meaning. Using other visual hooks (pictures, puppets, masks,
attractive props) has not only helped rivet their attention, but also provided a context
for early declarative communication, crucial for establishing early foundations of
shared meaning: objects for showing, giving, establishing gaze alternation, joint
attention and pointing gestures (Park 2002). These have further significance in drama
as ‘objects of reference’ (Park 2001) – representations to support communication of
meaning, as opposed to their utilitarian function; this may be acquired in process, for
example making explicit the symbolising of a cardboard box to be a television set.
Incorporating items and themes of personal interest and salience will further support
their engagement and hold affective resonance in perceiving shared relevance (Jordan
1999, Sherratt 2002).

An ebb and flow of energy levels, breaking up activity with a range of active and
static tasks, helps prevent concentration wandering. Children’s spontaneous
responses may necessitate responding contingently, investing significance and
intention to an idiosyncratic comment or reaction to fit the evolving fictitious context
and to create a social meaning; inaccurate responses may be better ignored and
followed up later, rather than break the evolving narrative. At other times, the
narrative may need to be slowed down to prevent children from rushing headlong, to
think through implications, establish consensus and consolidate developments.
Information may need to be filled in sensitively, sufficient to ensure all are enabled to
contribute, which helps their emotional investment in the activity and a sense of
ownership.

These strategies have enabled explication with children with wide-ranging learning
difficulties of ‘lived through experience’ (Heathcote 1984: 97). Drama has also
enabled them to explore cultures or worlds otherwise difficult or impossible for them
to access; for example, experiences at the Home Front during the Second World War
(Peter 1995). Even children with severe learning difficulties have surprised with the
extent to which they have engaged in imagined worlds, and gained insight into the
drama form, commenting on its relative effectiveness and negotiating their future

3
learning (Peter 1995), using drama as a metaphorical device for exploring a range of
perspectives on a topic – a way of thinking about life (O’Neill 1996).

Drama: narrative pedagogy

Harnessing drama conventions from mainstream practice has enabled children with
learning difficulties to explore issues embedded in texts, to go beyond using drama
simply to act out a story line. Zipes (1983), recognised the liberating potential of
fairy tales, and challenged Bettleheim’s (1976) Freudian view of them as concerned
with psychological processes and socialisation of the child not to be tampered with.
Gilligan (1982) considered narrative story telling as the most effective means of
transmitting moral knowledge; similarly, Bruner (1990) points out that telling a story
necessarily involves taking a moral stance. Young children may make their earliest
moral judgements in terms of the powerful opposites found in stories - weak/strong,
good/bad, happy/sad (Whitehead 1997). Developing drama from story therefore may
enable exploration of cultural traditions and values (Godwin and Perkins 1998, Hendy
and Toon 2001), with moral life at its core. Children may re-examine a story’s idea,
experiment with the drama form and ‘play’ with the narrative, and then in reflection,
come to an understanding of both the story’s possibilities and the art form used to
create it (Booth 2000).

Grove and Park (2001) illustrate how theatrical devices may be used for children with
learning difficulties to explore key moments in Shakespeare’s Macbeth – ‘the territory
of social relationships, of moral and emotional development’ (Grove and Park 2001:
18). I have extended them further to explore consequences and implications arising
from key moments (Peter 1996, Peter 2003, Sherratt and Peter 2002). Deviating from
a storyline as known is crucial for understanding that things can be different, and that
they can be instrumental in causing that to be so. In the video age, even those with
autism and severe learning difficulties may grasp that a narrative does not have to
unfold at life pace, but can be ‘fast forwarded’ or ‘rewound’ to revisit a key moment
as the starting point for drama. Also the idea that ‘conflict’ – feelings of unease in
grappling with decisions, problems, dilemmas – are part of what constitutes being in
the world, and that compromises can be worked at and agreed, and resolutions found
as they create a new narrative and work through sorting out an analogous life
situation.

For example, Michael is five years old and has global learning difficulties
compounded by a severe expressive language disorder and associated behavioural
learning needs; he is included in a mainstream Reception class, where his favourite
activity is to indulge his passion for playing with his model dinosaurs in the sand pit.
Michael tended to be ostracised by his peers; some children also felt intimidated by
older children with additional needs in the school. Content for the drama was selected
to exemplify the issue: a children’s picture storybook Bear Snores On (Karma Wilson,
2001, Simon and Schuster) as a vehicle for exploring their feeling responses to moral
dilemmas and possible problems arising. A stream of creatures seek shelter from
wintry conditions by tiptoeing into the cave of a hibernating bear; a party gradually
develops, Mouse seasons the stew, and a small pepper fleck makes the bear…
[achooo!!!].

At this point of high tension, the story is stopped: the children help adapt the
classroom to create the set (masking tape pathway leading to the Bear’s lair,

4
cardboard cut-outs taped onto chairs for trees), and the teacher goes into role as the
sleeping Bear, donning fake fur wrap in full view of the children. This scary monster
immediately holds salience for Michael and his attention is captivated! The moment is
revisited when the Bear (teacher-in-role) awakes, and the class (notionally in role as
creatures) flee shrieking back to the safety of their story corner! The atmosphere is
electric as the Bear follows them snarling, responding to Michael’s interjections and
soaking up potential management chaos through the role. The Bear start to sob, upset
at their jeering, and having no friends and missing the party…

Michael is the first to show compassion (‘Don’t cry, Bear’), and proceeds to take
leadership responsibility for the group: they will continue the party at the lair and
invite him too! Michael’s status is elevated in the eyes of his peers, and also his self-
esteem: he beams delightedly at appreciation of his sustained initiatives and
sensitivity. Sitting around the fire (improvised from twigs and red tissue paper) in the
lair, and eating real popcorn - a symbol of shared connectedness – teacher-in-role
slows the pace and asks if they ever feel left out; discussion is sustained in role as
they explore the perspective of the ‘outsider’. Out of role, and the classroom returned
to its original state, on resuming reading of the picture story, the children connect with
deeper meanings in the text. In response to probing questioning, they comment that
the Bear was angry not just because he had been woken up, but because he had
missed the party and felt left out.

The level of empathy these 4-5 year olds display is in advance of that suggested by
Harris et al (1986) in research with 6 year olds: knowledge that the emotion displayed
was not always the same as what was felt. The drama seemed to enhance a shift in
their social perspective taking, through explicit presentation of the position of the
‘outsider’ via the teacher-in-role strategy: from initial guffawing, they were able to
offer the kind of help they would find comforting. Questioning towards the end of the
drama elicited a strategy from them for including an isolated individual in the play,
with clear appreciation that the person would then feel happy. Several weeks later, a
boy mentioned to me that he had seen [John] on his own in the playground, so he
went up to him and asked him if he’d like to play hide and seek. This suggests the
power of the drama medium for providing a memorable learning experience: the story
had informed his capacity to make such generalisations, with the drama enabling him
to capture the feel of the moral impulse (Winston 1998).

Bolton and Heathcote (1999) identify three significant dynamics in drama that may
either bring about a change of perspective directly (as in the lesson above), or through
constructing a platform for developing a necessary further stage of constructive
reflection beyond role-play. Firstly, an energising shared learning context (Michael
was drawn irresistibly with sustained engagement hitherto unseen). Secondly, the
children were stimulated by a vested interest derived from a point of view (enjoyment
at participating in a party), highlighted by a contraposition (Bear left out of the fun).
Thirdly, the self-spectatorship brought about had appeared to be about something else,
however, one-step removed Michael’s peers could explore their possible reactions to
his behaviour and begin to empathise with his and others’ positions on the margins.

Drama: narrative social identity

Through collaboration on a real and fictional level, drama moves children closer to
enhanced social understanding as they explore a range of social roles, how responses

5
are apt to be construed and consequences of social behaviour (MacIntyre 1981,
Winston 1998). Research has shown a correlation between the amount and
complexity of role-play in typically developing children, and their developing social
competence (Fein 1984, Connolly and Doyle 1984, Howes 1983). Dunn’s (1988,
1991) studies indicate the significance of warm family relationships and highly
emotional interaction between siblings, with children as young as 18 months engaged
in role-play instructed by their older brothers and sisters. This suggests the value of
inclusive make-believe experience with more knowledgeable players for those at early
stages of learning, and the significance of highly affective interaction.

However, this rather assumes an innate predisposition towards relatedness. What of

those children seemingly profoundly challenged in this regard, exemplified by those
on the autistic spectrum? Mundy et al (1993) comment on the marked lack of
emotional expression in children with autism and their apparent lack of engagement in
pretend play activities. This view contrasts with my own experiences over the years,
where even children with profound autism seemed responsive in my drama sessions.
Why should drama be so potent? Frith (1989) explains autism as the inability to draw
together information so as to derive coherent and meaningful ideas; there is a fault in
the predisposition of the mind to make sense of the world. Grandin (1995), an adult
with autism, describes how she uses her intellect to learn social skills, with logic
guiding her decisions rather than her emotions. However, whilst it may be possible to
‘train’ people with autism to recognise and respond to certain social cues, social
understanding has to occur at a deeper level.

Life as it is experienced between individuals is bound up in complex social

relationships and characterised by affective elements (Gilligan 1982, Hobson 2002).
Recent neuropsychological research into brain functioning has highlighted the
significance of these affective aspects for effective learning (Iveson 1996, Damasio
2003). It is plausible that drama stimulates neurochemical reactions that facilitate
rational and irrational connections, so that more flexible patterns of thought emerge.
It may energise those areas of the brain responsible for affective activity thought to be
under functioning in autism (Damasio and Maurer 1978; Ramachandran 2003). This
may provide a coherent rather than fragmented learning experience (Sherratt and
Peter 2002), reaching to the very core of their difficulties by addressing their primary
disconnectedness. As Neelands (1992) further posits, a sense of coherence is also
afforded through the effect of using drama to recreate ‘real life’ demands and
situations for the learner, which provides relevance to the curriculum.

A crucial catalyst would seem to be the strong affective input infused by the teacher
working in role – melodrama and blatant signalling of meaning, use of humour,
excitement, suspense and injecting emotional warmth. Working inside the make-
believe facilitates a ‘meeting of minds’, a sense of relatedness and embryonic theory
of mind (Trevarthen 1979, Oates 1994), similar to that experienced by a young infant
with its caregiver. Nind (2000) acknowledges the natural flow of interaction may be
difficult to sustain with some children, due to their irascibility, preoccupation, hyper-
sensitivity to sensory stimuli, lack of feedback, or absence of mutual gaze. All the
more reason for persisting! Mirroring and reinforcing emotional responses, and
mutual imitation are key factors for sharing emotional meanings and for building a
concept of self and other (Rogers and Pennington 1991, Meltzoff 1990, Hobson
2002). This requires senstitive attunement (Stern 1985) to express a shared feeling,

6
which for some children may necessitate a more oblique, less invasive approach
(Williams 1996).

From shared foundations and being drawn into the feelings and actions of others, this
may led to mental perspective taking and creative symbolising (Hobson 2002) – social
imagination will require a developing ability to incorporate a representation of others’
mental states without necessarily sharing them (Harris 1989). Hobson (2002) disputes
whether children with autism are affected on a feeling level, commenting on the
difference in the pull towards sharing experiences. However, their latent sociality has
been apparent in my drama sessions, displaying uncharacteristic sustained affective
engagement (Volkmar 1987). Enhanced emotional encounters engineered especially
by teacher-in-role may have been the trigger for their more intuitive responses, also
prompting an explicit sense of agency. This may accommodate views of autism as
resulting from disturbance to primary instincts towards relatedness in infancy
(Trevarthen 1979). It also challenges cognitive explanations of difficulties in autism
associated with theory of mind (Baron-Cohen 1993) founded on their alleged inability
to engage in pretence due to a possible fault in hard-wiring; this is claimed to
undermine an innate predisposition to perceive and form representations of the
intentions of others (Ozonoff et al 1991, Leslie 1987).

Drama may address other cognitive explanations of autism that have highlighted
difficulties with executive functioning, and failure of systems that guide behaviour
using representations of affective and social information (Damasio and Maurer 1978).
It may be that objects of reference used in the drama support engagement in pretence
without having to generate the retrieval of a mental representation (Jarrold et al 1996).
It is plausible that items of costume to indicate teacher-in-role may have similar
affective resonance, and trigger recall of representations of affective and social
information. Having been explicitly involved in creating the drama context, even
non-verbal children with autism in my sessions do not appear to have difficulty in
disengaging from the immediate environment and entering the make-believe and
using representations (Russell and Jarrold 1995).

It may be that drama can expedite the development of pretend play in children with
autism: through an apprenticeship approach, they may be taught explicitly how to
make their play more complex and how representation works, and so benefit from
natural learning processes seen in typical development. In role-play children explore
different perspectives with others and learn to manage themselves in situations
(Vygotsky 1978, Bruner 1986, Harris 2000). Play activities based on real-life
scenarios enable them to learn about cultural conventions and make them their own:
children tend to stretch themselves and push boundaries as they explore and
experiment with their social understanding, which in itself is a big developmental leap
(Vygotsky 1978). They become ‘world weavers’ (Cohen and MacKeith 1991),
suspending reality and creating novel forms of thinking and meaning, integrating
cognitive logic and affective engagement in developing social cognition (Wood and
Attfield 1996).

Drama: a narrative intervention for autism

However, social understanding is more than just a function of cognitive and affective
processes: it has a distinct narrative dimension to it as well. As Kierkegaarde (cited
in Lawler 2002) said, ‘life is lived forward but understood backwards’: the

7
significance of earlier events in conferred by what comes later, and provides a
narrative sense of identity (Ricoeur 1991). Children create a sense of ‘self’ as they
put their thoughts and experiences into a narrative and relate this to others, sharing in
personal stories and also those contained in cultural texts; understanding of narrative
form will be a crucial turning point (Jones 1996). Harris and Levers (2000) suggest
that play in children with autism is necessarily restricted because of impairment in the
generation or execution of internal plans or narratives. Whether this is a cause or a
consequence of their difficulty with understanding other people’s intentions and
possible consequences is a moot point.

Bruner and Feldman (1993) actually propose autism as a failure in narrative ability –
to recognise patterns and sequences in life: even though they can be taught predictable
routines, they find anticipation and changes problematic; they also tend not to offer
comment on their experiences nor involve themselves in chat for the sake of it (Tager-
Flusberg 1993). They claim this stems from early difficulty in ‘cultural framing’
gained through early interactive play formats with caregivers, such a peep-bo games.
Jordan (2001) muses whether it is difficulty with seeing the narrative form that
undermines early interaction, or whether difficulty in interaction makes it problematic
to acquire appreciation of narrative form. Whichever, she acknowledges how this
would interfere not only with early forms of play, but all subsequent make-believe
(and therefore learning) in which joint narratives were developed, such that many of
the characteristics of children with autism could stem from this difficulty.

Over the years, I have developed a drama game strategy originally formulated by John
Taylor (1986) for working with children with learning disabilities that was a prototype
for my own pivotal framework subsequently termed a Prescribed Drama Structure
(PDS – Peter 1994). This enables players to consolidate a ritualised play format as a
template for subsequent understanding of social narrative and shared meaning, and to
integrate cognitive and affective aspects involved in early development. It would
seem that the predictable shape of the PDS offers the chance to consolidate the
foundations of social patterning and the ability to use narrative form, ‘a way of giving
meaning and significance to the endless stream of sensations and events’ (Whitehead
1997: 90). At early stages of learning, this enables children to revisit pretence as
experienced in early interaction, founded in the psychological rationale of adults and
older peers play tutoring as seen in typical development (Vygotsky 1978, Wood et al
1976, Dunn 1988, 1991). Once playing fluently, the PDS can then be opened up
through an unexpected outcome rather than that predicted, as a way of easing children
into more open-ended drama (Peter 2001).

For example, a PDS was devised around the forgotten character of teacher-in-role as
Mrs Pig (mother of the Three Little Pigs), fed up with housework; she is delighted as
each child in turn helps with a chore by selecting an item from a number of
photographs before finding the corresponding prop and improvising the activity. The
pivotal key moment is Mrs Pig’s anticipated reaction when she realises she still has
chores remaining; this is framed by a chant with strong rhythmic appeal (Park 2004).
This activity was carried out with three profoundly socially challenged boys with
autism and severe learning difficulties over several sessions (Peter and Sherratt 2003),
at the end of which Joe showed ‘combinational’ creativity (Boden 2001) - he made
new associations with familiar ideas, as he played functionally with a feather duster,
utilising it appropriately on a table top and then the windows.

8
Norman showed ‘exploratory’ creativity (Boden 2001), spontaneously extending the
boundaries of a familiar play narrative (drying up using a tea towel) by then picking
up a cup and pretending to drink. Remarkably, he delighted in calling others’
attention, indicating his desire to share the format. Significantly too, Norman
demonstrated ‘transformational creativity’ (Boden 2001), spontaneously assuming the
teacher-in-role’s items of costume and using props in short socio-dramatic scripts
(Smilansky 1968), suggestive that he was intrigued to explore a new perspective.
From having been prompted to participate in role-play in previous weeks, the security
of the predictable narrative of the PDS paradoxically liberated Norman into
embryonic role taking (Fein 1984, Harris 2000). This took him beyond organising
himself in the role of another, to a level where he was beginning to organise himself
in the light of the attitudes and perspective of the role responses of another.

Carl was most intrigued at moments when the familiar narrative was ‘tweaked’, for
example, by a different member of staff playing teacher-in-role as Mrs Pig. This
uncharacteristic receptiveness to embrace change suggests that exposure to make-
believe may have unlocked mechanisms otherwise unavailable. Increased fluency in
play responses was also observed in a similar group of children – generalised too
significantly, to purposeful play with props between sessions. Boden (2001) notes
that familiar story structures afford conceptual spaces to be explored, so that gradually
the child learns what lies within them and what does not. This may be expedited
through drama when the generative conditions are right: an underlying framework
that integrates children ‘s cognitive interest and affective engagement within an
appropriately challenging play narrative.

In devising a theoretical model for generative conditions for meaningful learning

contexts in drama (see Figure 1), paradoxically I was struck by the inclusive relevance
of Mönks (1992, in Eyre 1997) multi-factional model of giftedness if references to
exceptional ability were removed. This indicates that whilst certain children (firstly)
may have latent ability, this will only flourish if (secondly) they are suitably
motivated, and (thirdly) if they have opportunity within an activity to ‘make it their
own’. Mapping this multi-factional model onto a triad of competencies achieved by
inverting the autistic triad of impairments in communication, social interaction and
inflexible thinking (Wing 1996), highlights pedagogical implications for facilitating
improvements in children’s communication, sensitivity and creativity. All three
dimensions (cognitive, affective and narrative) need to be addressed as prerequisites
to ensure an experience is meaningful and coherent, towards a more integrated and
intuitive social understanding.

9
 INTEREST AFFECT
Object of reference: prop, Personally appealing or
scenery, costume salient item
– familiar or novel?
Sensitive attunement by
Developmentally adult
appropriate level of – high or low level?
challenge

COMMUNICATION SENSITIVITY

Perceptual recognition Emotional response

Engagement
‘That’s my teacher wearing ‘I like that – it has lots
‘I want to play
an apron’ with her again’ of blue on it and
that’s my
favourite colour’

Perceptual memory Affective memory

‘I need something
Coherence ‘I played with her in that
to use for a cooker’ a apron before & it felt good’

Play sequence
(narrative framework)

‘I can pretend to cook the

dinner and she can pretend to
taste it’

CREATIVITY

STRUCTURE
Complexity of the drama

- Element of change?
- Choices and decisions?

Social grouping
- play partner(s)?
- adult or child(ren)?

Fig 1: Drama as aesthetic pedagogy: generative conditions for meaningful learning

(developed from Sherratt and Peter 2002, Peter and Sherratt 2003)

10
Conclusion
Drama-in-education may facilitate flexible ‘possibility thinking’ (Craft 2001) -
crucially important if socially challenged children are to embrace change, especially
in these fast-moving times. Drama may also support children in learning to be
‘mindful’ (Safran 2001) – not only an open attitude to life, but also an implicit
awareness of more than one perspective in situations. Drama exemplifies aesthetic
pedagogy: a humanistic narrative learning medium that offers children a unique
reflective window onto their own and others’ play responses, to enable them to
understand the consequences of social behaviour. This may afford even the most
socially challenged children the opportunity to develop an understanding of their
place in the world and how to participate within an increasingly inclusive society.

Implications arising from early interaction difficulties exemplified by those on the

autistic spectrum may account for their subsequent failure in socialisation. Early
experiences of pretence would seem severely compromised, which cognitive,
affective and some narrative explanations of the condition claim to be a significant
factor. An apprenticeship narrative approach through drama enables even profoundly
socially challenged children to recapture early experiences of pretence, as the
foundation for social understanding and creative fulfilment. Without this, it is hard to
see how life for some children will remain anything but fragmented and meaningless,
and pedagogy as potentially mind-numbingly anaesthetic.

REFERENCES
Baron-Cohen, S (ed.) (1993) Understanding Other Minds: perspectives from autism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bettleheim, B (1976) The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of
Fairy Tales. London: Penguin.
Boal, A (1979) Theatre of the Oppressed. London: Pluto Press.
Boden, M (2001) ‘Creativity and Knowledge’, in Craft, A; Jeffrey, B & Leibling, M
(eds) Creativity in Education. London: Continuum.
Bolton, G (1984) Drama as Education. London: Longman.
Bolton, G & Heathcote, D (1999) So you want to use role-play? A new approach in
how to plan. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
Bondy, A & Frost, L (1994) ‘The Delaware Autistic Program’, in Harris, S L &
Handleman, J S (eds) Preschool education programs for children with autism. Austin:
Pro-ed.
Booth, D (2000) ‘Reading the Stories we Construct Together’, in Ackroyd, J (ed.)
Literacy Alive! London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Bruner, J (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.
Bruner, J (1990) Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J & Feldman, C (1993) ‘Theories of mind and the problem of autism’, in
Baron-Cohen, S (ed) Understanding Other Minds: perspectives from autism. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cohen, D & MacKeith, S A (1991) The Development of Imagination: The Private
Worlds of Childhood. London: Routledge.

11
Connolly, J A & Doyle, A-B (1984) ‘Relation of social fantasy play to social
comptetence in pre-schoolers’, Developmental Psychology, 20, 797-806.
Craft, A (2001) ‘Little c Creativity’, in Craft, A; Jeffrey, B & Leibling, M (eds)
Creativity in Education. London: Continuum.
Damasio, A R (2003) Looking For Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain. New
York: Harcourt.
Damasio, A R & Maurer, R G (1978) ‘A neurological model for autism’, Archives of
Neurology, 35, 777-86.
DfEE (1999a) The National Curriculum: handbook for primary teachers in England.
London: The Stationery Office.
DfEE (1999b) All Our Futures: Creativity, culture and education. Report by the
National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education to the Secretary of
Strate for Education and Employment, and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media
and Sport. Sudbury: DfEE.
DfES (2005) Speaking, Listening , Learning: working with children who have special
educational needs. Norwich: HMSO.
Detheridge, T (2000) ‘Research involving children with severe learning difficulties’,
in Lewis, A & Lindsay, G (eds) Researching Children’s Perspectives. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Dunn, J (1988) The Beginnings of Social Understanding. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Dunn, J (1991) ‘Young children’s understanding of other people: evidence from
observations within the family’ in Frye, D & Moore, C (eds) Children’s Theories of
Mind. Hillsdale (N J): Lawrence Erlbaum.
Elliott, J (2003) ‘Re-Thinking Pedagogy as the Aesthetic Ordering of Learning
Experiences’. University of East Anglia, Norwich. Unpublished paper.
Eyre, D (1997) Able Children in Ordinary Schools. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Fein, G G (1984) ‘The self-building potential of pretend play or “I got a fish, all by
myself”’, in Yawkey, T D & Pellegrini, A D (eds) Child’s Play: developmental and
applied. Hillsdale (N J): Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frith, U (1989) Autism: Explaining the Enigma. Oxford: Blackwells.
Gardner, H (1983) Frames of Mind. London: Fontana Press.
Gilligan, C (1982) In a Different Voice. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Godwin, D & Perkins, M (1998/2002) Teaching Language and Literacy in the Early
Years. London: David Fulton. 2nd edition, 2002.
Goleman, D (1995) Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Grandin, T (1995) ‘How people with autism think’, in Schopler, E & Mesibov, G B
(eds) Learning and Cognition in Autism. New York: Plenum Press.
Grove, N & Park, K (2001) Social Cognition through Drama and Literature for
People with Learning Disabilities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Harris, P L (1989) Children and Emotion. Oxford: Blackwells.
Harris, P (2000) The Work of the Imagination. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Harris, P L & Levers, H J (2000) ‘Pretending, imagery and self-awareness in autism’,
in Understanding Other Minds, volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harris, P L; Donnelly, K, Guz, G R & Pitt-Watson, R (1986) ‘Children’s
understanding of distinction between real and apparent emotion’, Child Development,
57, 895-909.
Heathcote, D (1984) – ref O’Neill, C & Johnson, L (eds) – op cit
Hendy, L & Toon, L (2001) Supporting Drama and Imaginative Play in the Early
Years. Buckingham: Open University Press.

12
Hewett, D & Nind, M (eds) (1998) Interaction in Action. London: David Fulton
Publishers.
Hobson, P L (2002) The Cradle of Thought. London: Macmillan.
Howes, C (1983) ‘Peer interaction of young children’, Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, no 217, 53(1), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Iveson, S D (1996) ‘Communication in the mind’, Paper to the International Congress
of Psychology XXVI Montreal. International Journal of Psychology, 31, 254.
Jarrold, C et al (1996) ‘Generative deficits in pretend play in autism’, British Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 14, 275-300.
Jones, R (1996) Emerging Patterns of Literacy: a multi-disciplinary perspective.
London: Routledge.
Jordan, R (1999) Autistic Spectrum Disorders. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Jordan, R (2001) Autism with Severe Learning Difficulties. London: Souvenir Press.
Lawler, S (2002) ‘Narrative in Social Research’, in May, T (ed.) Qualitiative
Research in Action. London: Sage.
Leslie, A M (1987) ‘Pretence and Representation: the origins of theory of mind’,
Psychological Review, 94, 412-26.
MacIntyre, A (1981) After Virtue. London: Duckworth.
Maslow, A (1998) Towards a Psychology of Being. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Meltzoff, A N (1990) ‘Towards a developmental cognitive science: the implications of
cross-modal matching and imitation for the development of representation and
memory in infancy’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 608, 1-37.
Mönks, F J (1992) ‘Development of gifted children: the issue of identification and
programming’, in Mönks, F J & Peters, W (eds) Talent for the Future.
Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
Mundy, P et al (1993) ‘The theory of mind and joint attention deficits in autism’, in
Baron-Cohen, S et al (eds) Understanding Other Minds: perspectives from autism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neelands, J (1992) Learning through Imagined Experience. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
Nind, M (2000) ‘Intensive Interaction and Autism’, in Powell, S (ed.) Helping
Children with Autism to Learn. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Oates, J (1994) ‘First Relationships’, in Oates, J (ed) The Foundations of Child
Development. Oxford: Blackwell/The Open University.
O’Neill, C (1996) ‘Into the Labyrinth: Theory and Research in Drama’, in Taylor, P
(ed) Researching Drama and Arts Education. London: Falmer Press.
O’Neill, C & Lambert, A (1982) Drama Structures. London: Hutchinson.
O’Neill, C & Johnson, L (eds) (1984) Dorothy Heathcote: Collected Writings on
Drama and Education. London: London Drama with Heinemann.
Ozonoff, S et al (1991) ‘Executive function deficits in high-functioning autistic
children: relationship to theory of mind’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
32, 1081-106.
Park, K (2001) ‘Oliver Twist: an exploration of interactive storytelling and object use
in communication’, British Journal of Special Education, 28 (1), 18-23.
Park, K (2002) ‘Macbeth: a poetry workshop on stage at Shakespeare’s Globe
Theatre’, British Journal of Special Education, 29 (1), 14-19.
Park, K (2004) ‘Interactive storytelling: from the Book of Genesis’, British Journal of
Special Education, 31 (1), 16-23.
Peter, M (1994) Drama for All. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Peter, M (1995) Making Drama Special. London: David Fulton Publishers.

13
Peter, M (1996) ‘Developing Drama from Story’, in Kempe, A (ed.) Drama
Education and Special Needs. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.
Peter, M (2001) ‘All About…DRAMA’ (8-page pull-out feature), Nursery World, 6
December.
Peter, M (2003) ‘Drama, Narrative and Early Learning’, British Journal of Special
Education, 30 (1), 21-27.
Peter, M & Grove, N (2005) ‘Getting in on the Act’, TES Extra for Special Needs,
May 2005, p 3.
Peter, M & Sherratt, D (2003) ‘Play-Drama Intervention: A narrative approach to
developing social understanding in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders’, in
conference handbook: Autism: alternative strategies. New Delhi: Tamana
Association. (Sept 3-5), 52-67.
Ramachandran, V (2003) ‘The Emerging Mind: Lecture 5 – Neuroscience, the New
Philosophy’, Reith Lecture 2003, BBC Radio 4, 30th April.
Ricoeur, P (1991) – ref Wood, D. (ed.) – op cit
Rogers, S J & Pennington, B F (1991) ‘A theoretical approach to the deficits in
infantile autism’, Development and Psychopathology, 3, 137-62.
Russell, J & Jarrold, C (1995) ‘Executive deficits in autism’, paper to the Society for
Research in Child Development: Indianapolis 1995.
Safran, L (2001) ‘Creativity as “Mindful” Learning: A Case from Learner-Led Home-
Based Education’ in Craft, A; Jeffrey, B & Leibling, M (eds) Creativity in Education.
London: Continuum.
Schopler, E & Mesibov, G (1995) ‘Structured teaching in the TEACCH approach’, in
Schopler, E & Mesibov, G (eds) Learning and Cognition in Autism. New York:
Plenum Press.
Sherratt, D (2002) ‘Developing pretend play in children with autism: an intervention
study’, Autism: the International Journal of Research and Practice, 6 (2), 169-181.
Sherratt, D & Peter, M (2002) Developing Play and Drama in Children with Autistic
Spectrum Disorders. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Smilansky, S (1968) The Effects of Sociodramatic Play on Disadvantaged Pre-school
Children. Newy York: Wiley.
Stern, D (1985) The Interpersonal World of the Infant. New York: Basic Books.
Tager-Flusberg, H (1993) ‘What language reveals about the understanding of mind in
children with autism’, in Baron-Cohen, S (ed) Understanding Other Minds:
perspectives from autism. Oxford: Blackwells.
Taylor, J (1986) ‘Frankenstein’s Monster’, London Drama Magazine, 7 (3), Autumn,
17-19.
Trevarthen, C (1979) ‘Communication and co-operation in early infancy: a
description of primary intersubjectivity’, in Bullowa, M (ed) Before Speech.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Volkmar, F R (1987) ‘Social Development’, in Cohen, D J and Donnellan, A (eds)
Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders. New York: Wiley.
Vygotsky, L (1978) Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, B J (1976) Dorothy Heathcote: Drama as a Learning Medium. London:
Hutchinson.
Whitehead, M (1997) Language and Literacy in the Early Years. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Williams, D (1996) Autism: an Inside-Out Approach. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.

14
Wing, L (1996) The Autistic Spectrum: a guide for parents and professionals.
London: Constable.
Winston, J (1998) Drama, Narrative and Moral Education. London: The Falmer
Press.
Witkin, R (1974) The Intelligence of Feeling. London: Heinemann.
Wood, D (ed.) (1991) On Paul Ricoeur: Narrative and Interpretation. London:
Routledge.
Wood, D J; Bruner, J S & Ross, G (1976) ‘The role of tutoring in problem-solving’,
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Wood, E & Attfield, J (1996) Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curriculum.
London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Zipes, J (1983) Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion. London: Heinemann.

15