Drama as a Method of Learning

The method position originates in the Taisho Liberal Arts Education Movement. The habitus of this position characterises the application of drama to other areas of the curriculum, rather than theatre studies. This means that the position values the personal and social benefits that students gain from ‘doing’ drama, rather than the mastery of skills and knowledge of theatre. The difference in the method position between the Japanese and English fields of drama in schools is that the method position in the Japanese field tends to adopt forms of drama that advocate self-expression rather than understanding.43

Bourdieu explains that every position-taking is defined in relation to the ‘space of possibles’: a position cannot be fully explained without making reference to other positions. Despite the fact that there has been no subject position in the Japanese field, the method position seeks to distinguish itself from the subject position with the adjective ‘(en)geki-teki’ (theatrical/dramatic), distinct from the noun ‘(en)geki’ (theatre/drama): ‘geki-teki katsudo’ (dramatic activity), ‘geki-teki shuhou’ (dramatic method), ‘engeki-teki chi’ (dramatic knowledge) (Kobayashi, et al., 2010; Noro,

43 _{There has been a tension between expression (Peter Slade and Brian Way) and understanding or reflection} (Dorothy Heathcote and Gavin Bolton) within the Drama-in-Education tradition in England. Slade and Way did not so much refer to understanding or reflection in their work, although Heathcote (1984) argues that ‘[d]rama is about shattering the human experience into new understanding’ (p.122) or ‘without [reflection] there is no learning from the experience’ (p.209). In Japan, there has been long lack of attention to understanding and reflection until recently. Traditional Japanese drama teachers have claimed that expression is most important in drama (A. Okada, 1994; Tadashi, 2008; Takeuchi, 1989; Tomita, 1958). Perhaps, it is Yuriko Kobayashi and her colleagues’ book, An Introduction to Drama in Education (2010) that first speaks of reflection in the Japanese field of drama in schools (But, they do not stress it).

Hirata, Kawaguchi, & Hashimoto, 2012; Takao, 2000; Tomita, 1958; J. Watanabe, 2001). The position assumes that the ambiguity of the adjective blurs the identity of drama as a subject. To make a further distinction from the subject position, the method position proposes to create not a specialist of theatre, but a ‘human’ through drama (Aoe, 1953; Tomita, 1958), and also imports such special terminologies as ‘drama’, ‘method’ and ‘process’ from Western drama educations (Dazai & Yamada, 1998; A. Okada, 1985).

The method position appeared as an ‘emergent’ position during the Taisho Liberal Arts Education Movement in the 1920s and 1930s.44 This includes Souzou Kurahashi (1911), Minoru Wada (1913), Goro Tsuchikawa (1918, 1925), Yukichi Kodera (1928). Central to this is Shoyo Tsubouchi’s ‘jido-geki’ (child drama) (1922) and Kuniyoshi Obara’s ‘gakko-geki’ (school drama) (1923). Both distinguished educational drama from artistic, popular and commercial theatres. However, while Tsubouchi (1923) criticised drama as art because it is primarily for the adult, Obara (1923) considered that drama as art has an educational value. Thus, the method position was not necessarily distanced from the subject position at this stage.

After the Second World War, the government, as noted, advocated an integrated code, and this caused the second progressive education movement. Consequently, the method position of drama became ‘dominant’. The period saw more obvious distance between the subject and the method positions. Central to this

44 _{An increasing number of playwrights started to write plays for children and young people since the 1890s.} Leading playwrights in the early twentieth century include Sazanami Iwaya (1891), Mantaro Kubota (1900) and Kaoru Osanai (1925). In general, it is stated that Japan’s first dramatic performance for children young people is Otojiro Kawakami and Sadayakko Kawakami’s ‘otogi sibai’ (fairy-tail drama) in 1903. Drama here means theatre for young audiences (TYA): they wrote drama written for young audiences and dramatized them. Although my study does not deal with TYA, it is worth noting that drama education emerged from these: they established an basic foundation for drama education (Minami, 2007).

is Nippon Engeki Kyoiku Renmei (Japan Drama Education Association) – Hiroyuki Tomita and Toshiharu Takeuchi in particular. They criticised ‘school drama’ for its tendency towards (1) the performance of play and (2) drama as a discrete arts subject (Tomita, 1949). Instead, they suggested viewing drama as an activity of ‘karada to kotoba’ (the body and words) and connect it to wider areas of education. Later, Naoya Ishihara (1989), one of members of the association, writes:

We, young teachers, considered that with the image of ‘school drama’ we would not be able to explain fully drama-education activity as ‘the expression of the body and words’ associated with wider areas of education. (p.45)

Instead of school drama, they referred directly to theatre. Tomita (1993[1958]) argued that their work was concerned with drama, not theatre:

There are two meanings in the term ‘drama education’. One is theatre education, which mainly aims at training to be specialists of theatre, or aims at the creation and appreciation of a dramatic performance itself... The other aims at the development of the person through the process of making or appreciating a dramatic performance… (pp.44-45)

There have also been influences from Creative Drama in the U.S.A. and Drama-in-Education (Salde and Way) in England. Educators, such as Sozaburo Ochiai (Ochiai, Nakayama, & Hishinuma, 1963; Ochiai & Sugou, 1955), Akira Okada (1985, 1994), Masayuki Sano (1981), imported their theories and methods and, referring to their definitions of drama, argued that drama differed from theatre. Akira Okada (1985), for example, often said that ‘the aim of theatre is

communication; that of drama is self-expression’ (p.160), which originates in Brian Way’s definition of drama. Importantly, in terms of the present study, this is where hyogen education originates.

The 1961 Curriculum Guidelines began to promote a collection code: the method position moved towards to the dominated pole of the field of drama in schools and became ‘residual’. This continued for a while. However, integrated codes have become more valued, and subsequently, the method position has become more ‘recognised’ (not dominant) as a result of the emergence of the Ikiru Chikara (Zest for Living) of 1996 45 and especially the Period for Integrated Studies of 2002. The Curriculum Guidelines describes the aims of the Period for Integrated Studies (which include the aims of Zest for Living) as follows:

In the Period of Integrated Studies, taking into account the circumstances of the local community, school and pupils, each school should conduct educational activities that abound in ingenuity such as cross-synthetic studies, inquiry studies and studies based on pupils’ interests and concerns.

In the Period of Integrated Studies, an instruction is given with the following aims: (1) To enable pupils to foster the qualities and abilities to find their own tasks, to learn and think on their own, to make proactive decisions, and to solve problems better; and (2) To enable pupils to acquire the habits of studying and thinking and to cultivate their commitment to problem solving and inquiry activities in a proactive, creative and cooperative manner, eventually making them think in their

45 _{The Central Council for Education defines zest for living as ‘qualities and abilities to be able to find the issues} on their own, learn by themselves, think for themselves, make decisions independently, take action, and find better solutions to problems no matter how society changes; to have an abundance of human qualities, maintaining self discipline, harmony with others, and care and compassion for others; and to have strength and health to live a hearty life’ (CCE, 1996, p.20).

own way about life. (MOE, 1998a, Chapter 1-4; 1998b, Chapter 1-3)46

Teachers have found space for drama from these aims, and have redefined drama in terms of them. As Yuriko Kobayashi et al. (2010) writes:

Keywords are ‘activity and experience’, ‘problem-solving’ and the ‘zest for living’. It may be appropriate to say that the ‘techniques’ of drama have being introduced [to the classroom], as…there is no such subject called drama in Japan. An increasing interest in drama today shows that there is a greater expectation for drama not only as a mere means of improving the quality of the lesson but also as a means of solving serious issues in the classroom and also making learning active again for the future. (p.127)

Their emphasis on the ‘techniques’ of drama draws a further distinction between the two positions. An important observation here is that they are not interested in the subject position, and this has become a tacit agreement among them. However, in the English field of drama in schools, post-Heathcote teachers, as Neelands (2000) and O’Toole (2009a) show, have modified theories and methods of Drama-in-Education in order to adjust them to the subject position: e.g. ‘process drama’ (O’Neill, 1995; O’Toole, 1992) and ‘conventions approach’ (Neelands & Goode, 1990).