As discussed in the previous chapter, although there are certain aspects of im- provement in the latest moral education reform led by Professor Lu Jie, there are still issues that could be criticized. For example, in the new curriculum, children are encouraged to focus on common and real-life events, such as whether to share textbooks with their classmates who forgot to bring them. Moreover, according to the reformers, children can learn moral ideas such as sharing or kindness from this, as they are provided a chance to make decisions whether or not to share with their classmates. However, it is obvious that children are merely encouraged to discover or imitate pre-given answers or ethical commands that people should share with each other and help those who are in need. Thus, though the intention of the re- form is trying to generate dialogue and promote children's autonomous moral think- ing, the fact is that to a large extent it is still very didactic.
Rasmussen (2010) offers a thorough analysis of different philosophies that have underpinned the traditional approach of education and improvised drama practices. Although this article is mainly about teaching aesthetics instead of morality, the points he makes are still applicable to Chinese moral education in my eyes. The contrast he points out between the conventional and drama approach in terms of aesthetic knowledge has similarities with moral education, and what I am interested in is how the constructivist model can be applied to the Chinese moral curriculum using drama. On the one hand, according to Rasmussen (2010), the Chinese ap- proach being based upon instructions could be traced back to the traditional em- piricist epistemology and classicist aesthetics, which believe 'it is possible to gain
objective, generalised knowledge that corresponds with the predictable laws of the physical world' (ibid., p. 531). Thus, 'representational truth' and 'hierarchical com- munication' is present in the associated education, indicating that some kind of knowledge or truth is represented and transferred by an enlightened teacher to other people who are less enlightened (ibid., p. 532). On the other hand, Ras- mussen (2010) also argues that drama researchers such as Brian Edmiston, John O’Toole and Joe Winston, tend to see process drama as part of a 'constructivist' epistemology, which is closely related to the constructivist philosophy of John Dewey.
The term ‘process drama’ used here was first raised by either John O’Toole or Cecily O’Neill in the 1990s. It builds upon the traditional participatory practices es- tablished by drama in education in the 1970s and 1980s, principally by practitioners like Dorothy Heathcote and Gavin Bolton. Process drama has its own theories and practices. In the article Drama on the Run: A Prelude to Mapping the Practice of Process Drama (2005) by Pamela Bowell and Brian Heap, they describe process drama as ‘a form of theatre applied within an educational context in which learners, in collaboration with the teacher, create drama for exploration, expression, and learning.’ (ibid., p. 60)
According to Dewey (1934), 'Aesthetic experience is to be defined as a mode of knowledge' (ibid., p. 119, cited in Rasmussen, 2010, p. 533). He rejects the notion of knowledge as a conceptual depiction of given truth, but believes knowing in- volves meaning construction through aesthetic experiencing and social participa- tion. In more detail, Rasmussen (2010) offers a description of the key ideas of con- structivist education, which drama teaching and research are mainly based upon:
The constructivist artist or teacher believes that the self, meaning and knowledge is developed under the influence of all present and 'interacting' language, materials, environment, bodily acts, cognitive and affective rep- resentations. This means that the situated experience and generated
cognition does not emerge primarily from 'literature' or 'curriculum' alone, but possibly from all locally invested stimuli and experience. (ibid., p. 533) Drama education thus conceived challenges the current moral curriculum in China in at least three ways. Firstly, based on constructivist thinking, drama focuses more on inquiries rather than providing pre-given answers, representing Dewey's aes- thetic theories that drama experiences may contain plentiful possible meanings as well as various viewpoints which may lead to new and unexpected interpretations; thus, pre-set goals and problems to be solved in education will reduce the richness of the unpredicted outcomes embedded in complex aesthetic experiences (Ras- mussen, 2010, p. 536).
Secondly, drama tends to create a playful and imagined world where children may concentrate more on the meaning of objects and events than those in everyday life. As argued by Lev Vygotsky (1967), the Russian social psychologist, in dramatic play children may create an imaginary situation in an illusory world where they im- provise the deeds of possible selves and realize their unrealizable desires. And in drama's imagined world, a stick may become a sword as 'in play, thought is sepa- rated from objects and action arises from ideas rather than from things' (ibid., 1967, cited in Edmiston, 2010, p. 202). Moreover, his phrase 'imagination in action' indi- cates that only through imagination can people construct and accept a reality of cultural and social relationships which is more complex than they can experience in their real lives (ibid., 1967, p. 539, cited in Edmiston, 2010, p. 202). Thus, as an- other philosopher often linked with the concept of 'social constructivism', Lev Vy- gotsky's theories suggest that drama may offer a better space for children to con- struct meaning together using their imagination. Oppositely, the reformers of the new moral curriculum in China tend to suggest children should learn from real-life events, which could lead to a possible lack of imaginary space for young children to wish to reflect within.
Thirdly, as one of the early books on improvisatory approaches in classroom written by O'Neill and Lambert (1982), Drama Structures indicates that both cognitive and affective knowing are involved in drama education, where thought and feeling are not separated in the learning process of drama. In addition, Misson (1996) also points out that drama operates 'at the nexus of intelligence and emotion. Thought is charged with feeling, while feeling is refined and strengthened by thought' (ibid., p. 11). Thus, unlike the moral teaching in China which will usually rely on simple in- structions, process drama engages both cognitive and affective experiences, which makes it possible for learning to occur inwardly in children's minds and produce more interwoven and complex knowledge in the light of constructivism.
To sum up, according to the discussion of the three aspects that drama education may challenge the existing moral teaching in China, it is acceptable that there is a new value agenda and pedagogy in process drama that can offer an alternative and complementary approach to the Chinese educational system. As suggested by Henry (2000) in his paper Drama's ways of learning, drama has the potential to be a useful tool for social sciences such as education, for it offers 'a dynamic, integrat- ed and dialogical model to replace more static and predictable paradigms' (ibid., p. 59). Thus, it is the contention of this thesis that drama can provide an approach that is suited to move the rigid and didactic teaching that is evident in moral educa- tion in China into a more imaginative, playful and experiential way of learning advo- cated by the critics of the didactic form I have discussed earlier. Now I will turn to three specific educators and practitioners who offer both theories and models in terms of teaching morality using drama, that have influenced my thinking and prac- tice in one way or another in the present study.