The Pedagogy of Drama Supervision in higher education

Authors

Abstract

The present study deals with the pedagogy of drama supervision in higher education with an emphasis on Applied Drama Research. The paper uses pilot evidence on the students’ reliance upon their tutors, the perception of tutors as authority by the students and, the tutors’ ability to use their own research experience. Evidence aims to generate discussion about ethics in Applied Drama Research contexts and the development of pedagogy of drama supervision. It presents a pilot study conducted by questionnaire with drama students and staff. It proposes a strategy of ‘dialectic’, supervision and the use of a research ethics checklist that addresses Applied Drama Research issues.

Biography

Dr Persephone Sextou is Senior Lecturer in Drama/Creative Arts, Newman University College Birmingham. She holds a BA (Hons) in Education Studies (University of Ioannina, Greece), a Master of Arts in Contemporary Theatre Practice (Lancaster University) and a PhD in Drama and Theatre Education (Goldsmiths College, University of London). She is the author of three Greek monographs and she is published in NTQ, YTJ, RIDE, ND, JET, IDEA etc. Her main research interests are Applied Drama: Theatre in Health & Wellbeing, Community Drama and Theatre in Education.

Contact: Newman University College, Genners lane, Bartley Green, Birmingham B32 3NT, UK, ph: +44 0121 476 1181 x2537,

Introduction

Pedagogy is the art of supporting learning and the process of how knowledge is negotiated, discovered and produced. In an academic context and in the light of dialogue and personalising learning theories, research supervision could be defined as a constructive exchange of ‘cognitive gifts’ (ideas, thoughts and debates) that takes place between the student and the tutor within a democratic environment where the student is an individual and not a number.

Research into supervision has largely focused on postgraduate levels of academic work in different subject areas as different ways of supporting student learning. The present pilot study focuses on undergraduate drama research supervision but it also uses concepts from research on postgraduate studies as these raise important issues to undergraduate contexts. Much attention has been given to supervisory strategies and remedies, the relationship/authority between the student and the supervisor, the roles adopted, the value of encouragement and confidence building towards informing the student efficiency to learn and the factors that may cause difficulties for student/tutor supervision relationships (Bell, 1987; Hockey, 1996; Peelo, 1994; Phillips & Pugh, 1994; Wisker et al., 2003).

Hockey (1996) points out that the process of supervision is not always unproblematic and that strategies such as signing a ‘contract’ of supervision between the tutor and the student may ease the troubles that supervisors experience and motivate students to take responsibility of their work. Wisker et al. (2003) take this consideration further to argue that students are encouraged to take control and responsibility of their own research through supervisory dialogues. They propose:

Supervisory dialogues encourage supervisors and students to share, develop the research enabling focus and development of appropriate research and learning approaches. […] It is a dynamic, long-term relationship between students, supervisors and a body of work. […] Through the learning conversations of supervisory dialogues, students recognise where to pull together ideas and information into a synthesis, to engage what they have read in a dialogue with their own work (Wisker et al, 2003, p. 395-96).

This argument explains the importance of allowing students to negotiate their own learning paths and interact with the tutor. It relates the research project to the need for space for asking questions, entering into dialogue or debate with other theories and findings and making creative decisions. However, it does not relate to studies on student-centred learning theories.  Supervisory dialogues need to be set in a broader context of learning theories that are still active today such as Piaget’s developmental psychology (Piaget, 1951), small group learning (Rudduck, 1978), ‘scaffolding’ and observational learning, including motivation and external support (Bandura, 1977; Fawcett, 1996) and interactive learning between the learner and the social and cultural environment (Vygotsky, 1978; Lave, 1988). In more recent studies, Pollard acknowledges Gilbert’s recommendation on personalising learning as a method that focuses on the needs, interests, capacities, participation and progress of each student as an individual (Pollard, 2010, p. 21). Elsewhere in the document, Mercer and Littleton’s idea about ‘dialogic teaching’ is referenced as a process that engages both the student and the tutor into the process of learning (Pollard, 2010, p. 25). I understand the use of ‘dialogic’ as dialectic, which is the art of arguing according to certain rules of question and answer.

What the theories of personalised learning and dialectic supervision contribute to the present study is mainly post hoc explanations, for example, that it does the individual student good to participate actively in the teaching/supervision process, or that the written piece of work of a student who uses dialectic supervision efficiently is enhanced. It is obvious that learning exists within the context of the student dialectic relationship with both the research and the tutor and within the boundaries of the problem of what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for the research. Thus, it is impossible to consider the student learning process outside the context of being in a dialogue with the ‘truth’. Dialectic supervision relates to the discovery of ‘truth’. Our own readiness to discover the truth lies in relation to making connections between knowledge and discovering new meanings. What is being judged as ‘truth’ can be an evidence of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ decisions, thus the art of asking questions prepare the ground for learning.

For Socrates, the method of dialectic syllogism is the product of truth through a series of questions (Porter, 2000). The method empowers the student to be central in learning and make informed decisions in a social context through personal exploration, reading and reflection. Socrates practised the one-to-one ‘personalising’ teaching where the tutor’s diagnostic ability of the student’s individual learning barriers is challenged and the learner’s positive attitude to the task is built on a close relationship of trust and respect between the tutor and the student. David appropriates Socrates’ notion of dialecticism and suggests that ‘meaningful questioning, explaining and ‘telling’ are consistent and essential techniques to be adopted in the process of learning’ (David, 1999, p. 6). [SR1]  The desire for the truth changes the dynamic, long-term relationship between a student and a tutor into a journey of discovery through negotiations between the student, the tutor and the body of knowledge, that is, act to transform both the lives of the student and the tutor individuals for the better.

What I mean by this is that dialectic supervision should not only be perceived as a matter of pulling together ideas and information into a synthesis. It is also a matter of practical ability to think, make the right judgments and act appropriately in particular situations and specific contexts. That is defined by Aristotle as phronesis (Rackhman, 1934). Aristotle recognises that interaction with others is essential to knowledge with a basis in phronesis. Lahanas attributes to Aristotle the serving of the virtue phronesis translated as ‘prudence’: knowing how to apply knowledge in practice by making successful connections between ‘how’ and ‘why’ things should happen towards making a change for the better (Lahanas, 2002). Lahana’s translation of Aristotle emphasizes the fact that we as supervisors are ourselves mentors who are responsible for encouraging students to relate and answer ‘how’ and ‘why’ research questions towards successful learning.  

Applied Drama research

Applied Drama learning is both a cognitive approach to knowledge and a social and emotional process closely related to social interaction with individuals and groups whose voices are not properly heard. Applied Drama Research (ADR) is a kind of practice-based, determined theatre research that uses the dramatic medium in community contexts, usually together with interactive participatory theatre techniques and narratives. It aims to achieve agreed social and educational ends. In ADR, researchers and theatre professionals deal with representations of the lives (autobiographic stories) and cultures of oppressed, vulnerable or marginalised individuals or groups of people in specific socio-political and ideological contexts. Children, people with disabilities, patients, victims of war, abuse and trafficking, people with addictions, medical staff, prisoners and social workers are some of the research participants. Drama researchers face many ethical issues and dilemmas of interpretation and representation. For instance, when they are using performance as a form of research, they take the responsibility to give voice to communities in the public through the performance in a way that will not harm the images of those communities and will not limit people’s ability to learn to speak for their own problems. The issue of ethical representation of people with disabilities is another problem that relates to the stereotyped images art and literature often use (Iyer, 2009) and drama is not excluded. Another ethical problem is that the stories collected from groups or individuals can leave the participants exposed to traumatic experience. To use Thompson’s words describing the tragedy of war, I quote:

Stories revealed can create formal or thematic links with tales that sustain or celebrate particular conceptions of the conflict. A theatre programme can demand an ontic involvement in the process, leaving people vulnerable to experiencing a sense of personal attack (Thompson, 2005, p. 39).

The ethos of ADR avoids the problem of biased or false representation through practice and research because it considers ethical issues with sensitivity, objectivity, critical distance and respect (Prentki & Preston, 2009[SR2]; Ackroyd, 2006). I believe that prudence has a place here as important to students who conduct this kind of research. This is because they extensively deal with ethical issues and they relate ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions with critical awareness of the politics in community contexts. However, we cannot offer definite answers as to where knowledge and learning is situated in Applied Drama. (Nicholson, 2005, p. 39) The complex and sensitive nature of ADR often makes the process of answering research questions challenging, especially if the research topic is close to the researcher’s heart and challenges the professional distance from the topic.

With students, drama supervisors on occasions encounter students whose momentum is problematic. I remember a student who wanted to interview abused women in her family in order to research theatre monologues on domestic violence. Personal experience empowered the student to take over the responsibility of the process and the outcome of the research but it also jeopardised the student’s emotional health, and led her to biased representations of victims and abusers in the research. Obviously the student was not familiar with dealing with moral and emotional tensions at the heart of the stories that she examined but she was also reluctant to follow her tutor’s advice.

This needs further addressing by focusing on the power relationships that exist between learners and teachers (Aitken, Freebody and Wang, 2009). Challenging the dominant style of student supervision which generally places the student in a context of ignorance and inexperience, the re-negotiation of the relationship between tutor (oppressor) and student (oppressed) is important. By ‘re-negotiation’, I mean to challenge the hierarchy between the learner, the tutor and the ‘oppression’, to use Friere’s phrase (Friere, 1972). It is often witnessed in academic supervision that the tutor is the ‘authority’ and the student is the ‘ignorant’. However, to follow my example, the relationship between the tutor and the student can be described as an attempt to develop an understanding of the ADR intervention rather than to share the ownership and authorship of the research.

To summarise, with the range of learning theories, the attributes to dialectic supervision and ADR ethics, the present pilot study will consider ways to critically discuss undergraduate drama supervision pedagogy, the boarders and roles adopted in the tutor and student relationship and, develop some recommendations towards the improvement of drama supervision practices.

The methodology

The paper presents a pilot study conducted by questionnaire with drama students and staff. to generate discussion about ethics in ADR contexts and the development of pedagogy of drama supervision. The research questions for this study are:

How much do drama students rely upon their tutors and how this might affect their learning?

  • Is the tutor an authority who owns knowledge and how can knowledge be revealed by the student in supervision sessions?
  • What are the benefits of being research active as a tutor towards developing pedagogy of drama supervision?

These questions will be discussed from a prudence angle into how students and tutors see it and why they act in certain ways. The study is conducted towards the development of a ‘contract of supervision’ (Hockey, 1996) and a research ethics checklist that applies to the needs and characteristics of drama students and tutors in an academic environment.

Two questionnaires were designed, one for students and one for tutors (Appendices A & B). In the questionnaire for tutors, they are aggregating their impressions of supervisions they had with various drama students during the time of the study. The majority of questions were open because I was looking at their personal comments and views for different supervisory relationships. The questionnaires generated qualitative data (open responses), which was coded and analysed using the qualitative matrix method. The quotes presented are representative of the data and are selected upon the criteria of equal opportunities for different student/tutor voices to be heard.

Questionnaires were distributed by email with a letter explaining the purposes of the research and a consent form to year three Drama students and tutors. Data were collected by both email and post. Confidentiality was assured for all the replies.  The total sample was comprised by 22 questionnaires in total, 16 from students and six by tutors. The student-participants were single honours in drama, ten of them studied part-time of which two students had young families and eight had jobs to support their studies. Four students had special needs. The tutor-participants were drama supervisors working full time and part time in higher education institutions.

Records of student dissertation proposals were also used to inform my understanding of the topics of supervision. These showed nine out of 16 dissertations were on ADR dealing with Theatre-in-Education, Drama-in-Education, Community Drama and Drama Therapy. Seven were literature based dealing with a variety of topics such as critical analysis of plays, drama and performance theories. The data collected is neither assessing the students’ progress nor the quality of the thesis. It describes the student and tutor’s evaluation of the supervision process and comments on their understanding of how pedagogy develops in the context of their drama studies.

Findings

Expectations of the supervisory relationship

This pilot small-scale research provides evidence about students’ and supervisors’ expectations from the supervision relationship; the role of student and the role of supervisor. Students suggest three main types of supervisor:

  • ‘caring’,
  • ‘approachable / accessible’ and,
  • ‘supportive’.

Students write:

‘All tutors should be supportive of students as this is a very stressful time. A dissertation is a hard thing to do and without the support of my tutor I would have struggled.’

‘I fully appreciate my tutor’s accessibility. She was quick with emails and available when I needed her.’

Half of our students rely too much upon the supervisors. They expect them to act upon their problems as ‘God mechanic’ and help them with a range of tasks and challenges such as the selection of conceptual frameworks, theories and plays, problem-solving and decision making. More specifically, students report:

‘A supervisor should be able to give fixed, quick and definite answers.’

‘I thought that time would be enough for me to do my dissertation but it flew away […] I would not have met the deadlines if my tutor didn’t show me exactly what to do with my questionnaires.’

‘I was facing the deadline and had done most of the work but I was not ready to submit it. I emailed my tutor asking for help asap (the student means as soon as possible) because I didn’t want to fail another year.’

‘I trust my tutor’s opinion and I didn’t fight with him. I wouldn’t risk getting into any troubles.’

Students who do not rely on their tutors write:

‘No, I didn’t use all the meetings. I am confident to make my own decisions.’

‘I didn’t ask for advice (the student means advice on gaining access to sensitive information). I used my notes from the research conference (the student means the conference organised on drama dissertations in the Department).’

Student experiences of ADR

Although many of the students admit that they experience stress during the writing period and lack of confidence about the usefulness of their work to colleagues and society, students who do ADR appear to be more confident with their ideas and their contribution to the community compared to those who do English type dissertations. Students write:

‘They (the student means ‘X’ theatre company) are not familiar with research but I can help them.’

‘[…] keeping all the records for the (X) theatre company’s finances, I realised that they were very poor in administration. It’s good to know they can make use of it (the student means the dissertation)’.

Most tutors agree with the students that tutors should be easily accessible by students in order to offer adequate support when needed. They also believe that that supervision is a two-fold relationship and students need to be:

  • ‘well organised’
  • ‘committed to the dissertation task’
  • ‘ready to use supervision time efficiently’
  • ‘open minded’ and,
  • ‘willing to take advice into consideration to make progress.’

Both students and tutors mention the importance of commitment to their duties and reliability. They report that mutual dedication to the supervision process is more important to them than the result of the assessment.

Factors that affect supervision

Both students and tutors were asked how the supervisors’ academic background, qualifications and research activity might affect the supervision. Students appreciate the tutor’s specialised background and research experience on the supervised topic. Tutors believe that research strengthens the tutor’s ability to supervise on ethics but some of them argued that it is not always a precondition for competent supervision. The tutors write:

‘As an early supervisor, it wouldn’t have been possible for me to guide my students if I didn’t use examples from my PhD.’

‘Yes, research may underpin effective supervision but supervision experience is more useful in directing students in progress.’

Students’ perceptions of ethics in drama

The present research shows that the majority of tutors have considerations about the students’ perception of ethics in drama. Considerations include:

  • correct referencing, including acceptable referencing styles,
  • interpretations of data,
  • responses to judgements different from the students’, and,
  • storage of data with confidentiality.

The students’ replies confirm some of the above considerations. Students are unaware of who has the right to know the research results and they appreciate the need for tutors’ advice on the storage and dissemination of the results. One tutor is particularly concerned with ethics in ADR contexts:

‘I am not sure that the students know what methods to use to access the information required for the purposes of research with vulnerable community groups.’

Reasons why students and tutors disagree

This study also reveals that disagreements between students and tutors are possible for a range of reasons. Students (S) and tutors (T) name some of them:

  • ‘a lack of the tutors’ accessibility’, (S)
  • ‘a lack of the students’ commitment and reliability’, (T)
  • ‘a contradiction of ideas about the methodology’, (S,T)
  • ‘inefficient coping with ethical issues’ and, (T)
  • ‘wasteful use of the supervision time’. (T)

Discussion

There are three main findings that address the main research questions of this study regarding the students’ reliance upon their tutors, the perception of tutors as authority by the students and, the tutors’ ability to use their own research experience towards dealing with ethics in ADR contexts and developing pedagogy of drama supervision.

Reliance upon the supervisor in undergraduate drama contexts is an expected finding. Drama students usually enter the final year of their studies with high confidence about their presentation and communication skills but with some lack of belief in their academic writing skills. Some drama students are theatre practitioners and community artists who are competent performers and directors, and prefer vocational training. These students usually find it challenging to engage with research work such as reviewing and reflecting upon published work in the field. Because they are aware that it is not expected from them to become autonomous researchers during their undergraduate studies, they see it as normal to depend on their supervisors for their research. They demand additional supervision time and expect the tutor to become involved in their personal problems. However, the tutor’s effort to help a student to understand the limitations of the dissertation is not always appreciated as it is revealed in this study.

Perceiving tutor as an ‘authority figure/’God’ (Wisker et al., 2003, p. 388) may limit the student learning and critical ability to make informed judgements about their own work. We, as supervisors, are often seen as authority figures by our students. We establish working relationships with them in order to provide them with support and encouragement for their learning. Hattie referenced in Pollard, argues that ‘learners benefit when significant others in their lives believe in them’, meaning both parent and teachers and how their expectations and judgements might influence the learner’s progress (Pollard, 2010, p. 19). On my reading of this view, I was immediately keen to accept that a tutor can be a ‘significant other’ in a student’s life, someone that can make a difference in the student’s perception of the world. However, I was reluctant to accept that the tutor’s ‘authority’ can authorise her to predict the student progression. Tutors’ prophecies about the student progress and development may be biased, imprecise and inaccurate. Students often take us by surprise with their achievements and failures to prove that our early learning conversations with them aiming at development of the research proposal into a coherent piece of written work can be either triumphant or disastrous.

From a personalising learning and prudence angle, the tutor’s conversations with the student cannot guarantee learning achievement no matter how creative and effective this might be, unless other qualities of good supervision are in place such as mentoring. By ‘effective’ I mean to help the student to apply knowledge in practice by making successful connections between ‘how’ and ‘why’ things should happen. Some drama students suggest the role of an ‘accessible’ tutor, but I challenge the idea that this can change the excellence of learning, unless mentoring is efficient. I understand mentoring as a competence of encouraging confidence, ownership and responsibility of the development and the outcome of the research, inspiring and developing educational dialogue/debate and, empowering the student to make informed decisions for his/her work. A fine tutor might be easily accessible but incapable of mentoring.

A drama tutor with an active research profile could mentor a student achieving deep reasoning and making positive choices in their dissertations. Not all tutors in this study accept that as the case, with some not valuing the tutor’s research record in supervising students. Phillips & Pugh list the academic tutor’s established research record and continuous contribution to the development of their discipline as a key factor when a student makes decisions if the tutor is an appropriate person to supervise them (Phillips & Pugh, 1994, p.9). Research also offers considerable experience with research ethics that a tutor can use as examples in the supervision process. Because organisations like schools, hospitals, rehabilitation centres and prisons see students as ‘outsiders’ (they do not understand the culture and the policies of the place) or because drama students’ lack of knowledge of ethics, organisations reject students’ proposals to work with them. It is normal to see organisations neglecting the opportunity to participate in research projects, although that could actually help the organisation benefit from an objective view from an ‘outsider’ (Salaman et al, 2005). The tutor here could enable the student to approach the organisation by following the moral code of the researcher. The emphasis on ethics is important in ADR supervision and part of the tutor’s responsibility is to develop the student’s awareness of ethical culture.

To McCammon, ethical issues in drama research supervision appear when tutors face dilemmas about the words and advice we offer to our students. Although we intend to do no harm, we might find ourselves wondering if we said or did the right thing. Facing a student’s dilemma in the same field as the tutor’s can create a series of other questions that link to the tutor’s own ethical considerations in research projects (McCammon, 2002). Different people in different cultures and societies may have a very different ethos about what is ‘right’ and ‘what’ is wrong based on a completely different set of social and moral values and beliefs (Reynolds, 1993). In an academic teaching context, this difference needs to be acknowledged especially with international students and tutors. Research ethics have been confirmed something agreed of which both tutors and students are becoming increasingly aware: that it is a responsibility over the learning process that often involves human participants and sensitive data and it is confronted with external risks which need to be considered by both the tutor and the student. The tutors’ considerations about the ethical issues of drama dissertations that have been expressed in this study need to be dealt in the light of this responsibility.

Recommendations

A ‘dialectic’, interactive and communicating supervision approach is recommended to drama tutors as a way of encouraging students to engage with research and provide opportunities for thinking about ‘how’ and ‘why’ research questions and ethics. It is proposed as efficient to engage the student to writing tasks through direct communication with the tutor. Drama students are usually confident with communicating with others. Putting them at the centre of the teaching/learning process on one-to-one basis can make them feel important to the learning process and willing to face the challenge of academic writing.

This needs exploration: What conditions need to be in place for dialectic drama supervision and how can prudence be achieved in specific dramatic research contexts? How do we evaluate new strategies of supervision and the quality of the depth of learning that is achieved? As academic tutors we face the challenge to mentor our students, encourage their curiosity, engage them in learning and help them take or share responsibility of their own project. Seminars, tutorials and conferences build upon the qualities of interactive learning are highly recommended to help drama students and tutors understand the challenges of drama research supervision.

This method might cause tutors extra work of designing the contract, having longer meetings with students and keeping notes from early discussions. To cope with drama research students and tasks efficiently, drama tutors may use an informal contract of agreed meetings to discuss topics, ethics and responsibilities. A set of research questions is prepared for each meeting to encourage the student to think critically and notes are kept by the tutor about the progress of the student. As questions might bring more questions, the meeting may become a constructive dialectic supervisory session. The purpose of the meetings is to create the conditions for students to discover the ‘truth’ and ‘learn by trial and error’ (Phillips & Pugh, 1994, p. 9). In the end of the academic year, the tutor may revisit the contract to evaluate whether or not has been able to progress the student’s ability and autonomy to become confident and independent learner as a performer, director or community artist.

The use of a drama contract of supervision would need to be seen as part of a wider reformation of the REC[SR3] procedures in the performing arts in higher education institutions. This would include the amendment of ethical checklists that address generic research ethical issues such as anonymity, confidentiality, dissemination etc. but it will also address ethical questions that are important to Applied Drama researchers. Some of these may be the following:

  • Does the researcher collect or use people’s narratives or confessions on traumatic experiences to make theatre?
  • Does the researcher invite community people in the ‘re-telling’/performing of stories?
  • Does the researcher use questionnaire or and interview with any of the following community groups of people such as children, disabled, patients, victims of war/abuse/trafficking, addicts, prisoners, offenders or other?
  • Is the research likely to cause the participant any stress, anxiety, aggressiveness or sense of personal attack prior, during or after the research, including drama practice (performance/workshop) as a form of research?
  • Does the researcher use ‘radical theatre’ or participatory techniques in performance which might seek disturbance, provoke discomfort and dis-ease?
  • Does the researcher deal with people’s narratives with respect, sensitivity and objectivity? (issues of representation and interpretation)
  • Does the research represent disabilities and social stigma?
  • Does the researcher use stereotyped images of individuals with disability in the performance/workshops?
  • Does the researcher visit prisons, hospitals, special schools, homes, rehabilitation centres, war zones, etc for the needs of the study?
  • Are the researcher’s rights, health and wellbeing protected during the research?
  • How does the researcher cope with ethical issues/dilemmas?

Asking questions about the research ethics does not aim to restrict the creativity of the researcher. It rather aims to help students to reflect on the moral implications of their research practice: enable awareness of the possible ethical dilemmas that drama research can create and the principles that underpin the investigation.

Conclusion

Drama tutors and students who participated in this study agree on the importance of establishing a reliable relationship towards achieving effective learning. However, they fail to recognise the significant role of mentoring and educational dialogue and how these two can empower the student to take responsibility of the research and develop awareness of ethical culture in particular contexts. I acknowledge that there is a danger that the recommendation of dialectic drama supervision is approached as a must by someone to whom it matters what students learn when they are confronted with philosophical, ideological and ethical dilemmas while dealing with sensitive issues and vulnerable communities in ADR. Nevertheless, if drama tutors and students broaden their perception of pedagogy of supervision and see value in using participatory dialogue in a wider scale of drama topics, they would also better understand the inner experience of the research participants (characters and audiences). It is here that a contract of supervision and a research ethic checklist suitable to ADR may be of value, if it is offered in the spirit of making drama tutors and students more caring and responsible people, rather than as a required strategy. It will then be left to the individual drama tutor to decide whether her supervision allows dialogue with the truth and if it engenders altruism and consideration of others. A drama culture that takes a positive approach to the pedagogy of supervision will encourage such investigations.

References

  • Ackroyd, J. (ed.) (2006). Research methodologies for drama education. London: Trentham Books.
  • Aitken, V., Freebody, K. & Wang, W. (2009). ‘Emerging research voices: the next generation’ Proceedings of the 6th International Drama in Education Research Institute (iDiERi), ‘Drama Research Futures’. Australia: The University of Sydney.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
  • Bell, J. (1987). Doing your research project.  Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  • David, T. (ed.) (1999). Young children learning. London: Chapman.
  • Fawcett, M. (1996). Learning through child observation. London: Jessica Kingsley.
  • Friere, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • Hockey, J. (1996).  A contractual solution to problems in the supervision of PhD degrees in the UK. Studies in Higher Education, 21 (3): 359-371.
  • Iyer, A. (2009) ‘Portrayal of intellectual disability in fiction’. In Oyebode, F. (ed.) Mindreadings, literature and psychiatry. London: RCPsych Publications, 115-126.
  • Lahanas, M. (2002) ‘Phronesis’ (version 1.2)
  • Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • McCammon, L. A. (2002). Ethical issues in drama/theatre education research and practice, Applied Theatre Researcher 3 (6/5)
  • Nicholson, H. (2005). AD, the gift of theatre. London: Palgrave.
  • Peelo, M. (1994). Helping students with study problems. SRHE/Open University[SR4] (JEW).
  • Phillips, E.M. & Pugh, D.S. (1994). How to get a Ph.D.  (2nd ed).  Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Piaget, J. (1951). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge and Kogan Paul.
  • Pollard, A. (ed.) (2010). Professionalism and pedagogy: a contemporary opportunity. A Commentary by TLRP and GTCE. London: TLRP.
  • Porter, D. (2000). Rhetoric in Athens. Retrieved on 10 June 2010 from the WWW.
  • Preston, S. (2009) Introduction to ethics of representation. In Prentki T. & Preston, S. (eds) The Applied Theatre Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 65-69.
  • Rackham, H. (1934) (translation) Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, dual text. The United States: Harvard University Press.
  • Reynolds, N. (1993). Ethos as location: new sites for discursive authority. Rhetoric Review, 11 (2): 325-338.
  • Rudduck, J. (1978). Learning through small group discussion. Society for Research into Higher Education: University of Surrey
  • Salaman, G., Storey, J. & Billsberry, J. (2005). Strategic human resource management; theory and Practice. London: The Open University & SAGE publication.
  • Thompson, J. (2005) Digging up stories, applied theatre, performance and war. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge MA : Harvard.
  • Wisker, G., Gillian, R., Trafford, V. Warnes, M & Creighton, E. (2003) ‘From supervisory dialogues to successful PhDs: strategies supporting and enabling the learning conversations of staff and students at postgraduate level’. Teaching in Higher Education, 8 (3): 383-397.

Appendix A: Questionnaire for the tutor

  1. Did you supervise literature based or applied research dissertations? Please, specify, how many you supervised and of which type? 
  2. How did your students address ethics in their dissertation proposals? (Are they aware of ethics; do they deal with ethical issues)? 
  3. Did your students have to gain access to sensitive information for their dissertations? (Ask vulnerable community groups to share their authentic stories, interview children or people at risk etc.) How did they do it? 
  4. Did you give advice regarding the storage and protection of their data? 
  5. Did you give advice regarding your students’ physical and psychological wellbeing during the research period? 
  6. Did you give advice about the use and dissemination of their results?  
  7. How would you describe your relationship with your students? 
  8. Who is the ‘ideal’ student for supervision? 
  9. Have your students been open and responsive to judgments different from their own during supervision?  
  10.  Have you been open and responsive to judgements different from your own during supervision?
  11. How did your students deal with the completion of ethical checklist? Would you recommend a possible change of content?
  12. Would you like to commend on anything about the relationship between you and the student in the supervision?

  Appendix B: Questionnaire for the student

  1. Was your drama dissertation literature based or applied? Please, specify if applied.
  2. How did you address ethics in your dissertation proposal?
  3. Did you have to gain access to sensitive information for your dissertation? (Ask vulnerable community groups to share their authentic stories, interview children or people at risk etc.) How did you do it?
  4. Did you get advice regarding the storage and protection of your data from your tutor?
  5. Did you get advice regarding your physical and psychological wellbeing during the research period from your tutor?
  6. Did you get advice about the use and dissemination of their results from your tutor?
  7. Who is the ideal supervisor?
  8. Has your tutor been open and responsive to ideas different from his own during supervision?
  9. Have you been open and responsive to judgements different from your own during supervision?
  10. What kind of support do you expect from your tutor when you face difficulties with your research?
  11. How did you deal with the completion of ethical checklist? Would you recommend a possible change of content?
  12. Would you like to commend on anything about the relationship between you and the tutor in the supervision?
  •  [SR1] Give the chapter reference for this edited book
  •  [SR2] Not in references
  •  [SR3] Expand this acronym
  •  [SR4] Town of publications
Creative Commons License
This paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Double Blind Review
This paper has been subject to a double blind peer review by at least two reviewers. For more information about our double blind review process please visit: http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/about/double-blind-review/

How to cite this paper.
Posted in Research Paper

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Subscribe to BeJLT

Get email alerts when there is a new issue.
* = required field

Send this page to Kindle

your kindle user name:
(you@kindle.com, without @kindle.com)
Approved E-mail:
(Approved E-mail that kindle will accept)
Kindle base email kindle.com | free.kindle.com
(Use kindle.com to download on wispernet or wifi, use free.kindle.com for wifi only.)
using kindle.com may incur charges)