Rachel King response to Barry Sheils’ CILM questions
- what kind of exercises did you do to prepare the groups for their presentations -what was
you objective?
For 2010-11 I shared the first week of teaching with Jonothan Heron. This was a change
from last year when Jonny had led the entire afternoon whilst I observed. Jonny's focus was
on performance 'skills' and making them aware of issues of status and reading images made
through the body. This year, I suggested that some time ought to be given to making sense
of the terminology used by the course leaders i.e. 'creativity' and 'criticality'. Therefore I
designed a couple of activities for the students that aimed to unpick the terminology
through group exercises and dialogue. See the work plan attached for more details of this. I
think the main objective for this was that in the previous year, I’d felt that the word
‘creativity’ had been used without us (by us I mean the course leaders, facilitators, students)
having a real common understanding of what this actually meant. This had sometimes
meant that the students weren’t always sure about what they needed to be creating for
their presentations. I felt that we needed to ‘take stock’ of what we were doing (or trying to
do) in order to move forward.
-how were the presentations assessed by you and by the CILM staff -was there any conflict
or ambiguity here?
My job wasn’t to formally assess their work. After each presentation, I was invited to
provide my own critical reflection on their work but not to mark it in any way. In a way,
because I saw the students both during the process and at the end, this assessment was
both formative and summative in that I was able to question and challenge their ideas
during the preparation phase and then of course, I’d offer further verbal feedback once
they’d presented for the group.
In terms of ‘conflict/ambiguity’...yes, to be honest, there were two instances and I guess it’s
up to your discretion as to how you use this information! Two occasions spring to mind...in
my first year (2009-10), the students had to present on a ‘sexual harassment in the
workplace’ case study. One (a rather ‘macho’ boy in the group) from a group decided to
dress up in a ‘reptile/dinosaur’ costume and then show how he was a ‘sexual predator’
towards women. The girl being harassed in the drama was then seen trying to ward off this
dinosaur man...As you might imagine, the rest of the audience were laughing, finding the
whole thing completely hilarious. Quite honestly, I was shocked by it. It wasn’t actually very
funny – and bordered on the inappropriate. I was surprised that they thought this was a
‘creative’ or ‘critical’ way to approach such a delicate issue. When I was invited to give
feedback I remember asking them if they thought sexual harassment was an issue that
needed satirising because they’d certainly presented it in that way. They tried to make out
that they were trying to parody the male boss - but this didn’t translate in practice. The
whole thing had been undermined by this misapplication of humour. I pretty much told
them this and their defence was very interesting...they said that they knew that they were
being assessed on ‘creativity’ and therefore they wanted to know ‘how far they could go’.
This particular presentation was not being assessed, so it’s clear they were testing the
boundaries before their future presentations. I found this really interesting because,
actually, Grier and Rob weren’t as critical of the piece as I had been. You’d obviously have to
check that with them, but I don’t think they thought it was as problematic as I did. For me,
this signalled how our understanding of ‘creativity’ was quite different. Grier and I have
spoken about this before and I think he knows what I mean but I think he was impressed
with how they’d interpreted the whole thing. Worth checking with him!
The other instance was during a coaching session with one of the groups. One group wanted
to do their presentation in the style of a musical. When I pressed them as to why they
thought this style might be appropriate they couldn’t really answer and just said ‘so that it’s
different from everyone else’s’. When I suggested that ‘different’ doesn’t always mean high
quality, they said suggested that they weren’t clear as to what Grier and Rob meant by
‘creativity’. They said that because I was a drama specialist, they felt OK when I offered
them critical feedback.
Again, this was particularly interesting for me because, as much as I can appreciate that they
might be a bit confused, I do think Rob and Grier have been clear with the students that
they are being assessed on presenting their case ‘creatively’. Nevertheless, perhaps more
needs to be done as to the ways in which they might actually do this. I feel that having just
30 minutes with each group for preparation time is not enough to really challenge their
choices and develop their ideas.
One thing that really has improved this year in terms of assessment is that Rob has been
really clear about the necessity for including law content within the presentations. He has
reinforced this each time the groups have met. As a non-law expert, I feel much happier that
he monitors this aspect of the work because I’d rather focus my attention on the way in
which they present the information etc. I feel that this ‘collaboration’ is much better this
year.
-how did you feel the presentation/drama aspects related to the critical skills and writing
aspects of the course?
I think because we are pushing the students to create a presentation for an audience the
work is given a ‘higher status’. This is because it demands that the students ‘perform’ (in
every sense of the word) for their peers as well as for their tutors. During the preparation
meetings, I have picked up a competitive vibe amongst these students that they really want
to out-perform the other groups. So, in this respect, I would say it drives students to take
risks and step outside of proverbial comfort zones etc.
I think the task they are given demands critical skills. As far as I can see, there are several
layers involved in constructing their final presentations. They have to research each case
study and then select and condense this vast array of material, devise ways of presenting
this material and then construct a 12 minute presentation out of it. This is actually quite a
difficult task – particularly given the large size of some of the groups. I am usually very
impressed with the way in which they manage to weave together information of the law
into their presentations. However, more could be done to really engage with the material I
think. It still sometimes feels like they’re just ‘getting the job done’.
For me, the strongest aspect relating the ‘drama’ to the ‘critical skills’ is the process of
working in groups. The success of the task (i.e. an effective presentation) usually depends
on how the group have managed working together. For me, this is the application of
‘criticality’. Those students who are smart enough will realise that listening to others’
perspectives, sharing out responsibilities, managing disagreements, sustaining enthusiasm
etc, these are all key to making the presentation a success. In a way, it’s about self-reflection
and asking questions like: ‘how can I be critical of myself?’, ‘how can my actions within this
space be more positive?’ etc. Reflection should always be fundamental to working with
drama. I would suggest that this is what makes it such a refreshing change from an exam
paper or test. It requires the student to question themselves and not just the subject matter
being studied.
-what did you learn from doing the module - how was it different from your usual work;
how did it challenge you?
I have found CILM such an interesting and challenging course to work on. Primarily, this is
because I get to work with undergraduate Law and Business students – who are usually
unfamiliar and noticeably uncomfortable with doing drama. I relish the fact that this course
gives them the opportunity to ‘play’. I’m pretty sure they don’t have access to this kind of
learning in other areas of their studies at Warwick. The main challenge for me has been to
unpick their preconceptions about ‘drama/theatre/performance’. I suppose my role is to
remind these students that they can learn through their body and with each other, and not
just with their mind and on their own. I have had to work on my strategy for doing this and I
have adapted this strategy depending on the dynamics within each group. For instance, the
‘macho rugby boys’ need a very different way of coaching than some of the more
introverted international students! This is very different to my work with Masters Students
of Drama and Theatre Education who are studying the subject because they are already
comfortable with it. Whereas on CILM, it’s about managing their doubts and expectations if
you feel they’re not with you and encouraging them to go a bit further, think laterally etc
when you feel they’re happy to be pushed out of their comfort zone. The best moments are
when you see an individual or even a whole group suddenly ‘get it’ and produce something
that is really engaging. I enjoy being part of a team who are attempting to ‘open doors’ for
those students who maybe always felt nervous about public speaking etc.
A further challenge has been the structure of the programme. I wish there was more time
available to take them through a deeper learning process. However, as it stands, it is task
orientated. I do understand the pressure to organise the course in this way because these
students have ‘2:1 and above’ syndrome! So, actually, I’m not sure how they’d cope with a
more process orientated programme....but I’d be interested to find out!