See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260410840

Drama and learning science: An empty space?

Article  in  British Educational Research Journal · December 2013

DOI: 10.1002/berj.3130

CITATIONS READS

21 918

1 author:

Martin Braund
The University of York
95 PUBLICATIONS   831 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Arts and sciences. Understanding the benefits of arts for sciences and implications for STEM education. View project

Preparing science educators in non-school contexts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Braund on 22 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

British Educational Research Journal
Vol. 41, No. 1, February 2015, pp. 102–121
DOI: 10.1002/berj.3130

Drama and learning science: an empty

space?
Martin Braund*
Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa

Constructivist teaching methods such as using drama have been promoted as productive ways of
learning, especially in science. Specifically, role plays, using given roles or simulated and improvised
enactments, are claimed to improve learning of concepts, understanding the nature of science and
appreciation of science’s relationship with society (Ødegaard 2001, Unpublished Dr. scient., Dis-
sertation, University of Oslo). So far, theorisation of drama in learning, at least in science, has been
lacking and no attempt has been made to integrate drama theory in science education with that of
theatre. This article draws on Peter Brook’s notion of the theatre as the ‘empty space’ (Brook 1968,
The empty space, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books) to provide a new theoretical model acting as a
lens through which drama activities used to teach science can be better understood and researched.
An example of a physical role play is used to ground the theory. The paper concludes by suggesting
areas for further research.

Introduction
It has been claimed that engaging in arts subjects such as music, dance and drama
contributes to general cognition and can enhance learning in other subjects (Deasey,
2002; Dana Foundation, 2008). There is emerging evidence from neuroscience that
these claims have some backing. Studies using functional magnetic resonance imag-
ing (fMRI) to establish differential cognitive activity in the brain, for individuals car-
rying out tasks on creative thinking and problem-solving, show advantages for those
who have been involved in arts training such as, in music (Moreno, 2009), in dance
(Cross & Ticini, 2012) and in drama/theatre (Hough & Hough, 2012). One specific
area of arts activity, drama, has a long tradition of being used to help people with dys-
function or suffering from trauma. For example drama has been used therapeutically
to help recovery from addictive behaviours (Brooke, 2009), with victims of abuse
(Silverman, 2009) and school pupils with learning disabilities (Crimmens, 2006). In
schools, drama has been advocated as a way of advancing learning in other areas of
the curriculum, most notably for learning languages (Heathcote & Bolton, 1994) and
in humanities subjects to stimulate debate and to empathise with individuals in
another place or time (Jackson, 2002; McNaughton, 2006). In science subjects
drama has been said to help pupils learn concepts, appreciate the nature of science
and learn more about science’s interactions with society (Ødegaard, 2001). In spite of
a great deal of curricular activity and these claims for drama as an effective learning
strategy, there has been little research into drama education in the area of science to

*Centre for Innovation and Research in Science Education, Alcuin College ‘D’, University of York,
Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. Email: martin.braund@york.ac.uk

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

 Drama and learning science 103

uncover what specific aspects of teaching lead to learning successes for pupils (Henry,
2000; Ødegaard, 2003). Coupled with this there has been little attempt to theorise
drama to stimulate research that might illuminate the planning and execution of
drama tasks that assist learning in science and other subjects (Ross, 1996; Henry,
2000; Ødegaard, 2003; Boujaoude et al., 2005; Peleg & Baram-Tsabari, 2011). It has
been claimed that the relatively low level of research effort in drama may be partly
due to the lower status attributed to the arts in both the curriculum and research com-
pared with other subjects such as language, mathematics and science (Anderson,
2004).
In science education there have been efforts to promote classroom activities relying
on high degrees of pupil interaction. However, the actual frequency of methods in
which the teacher promotes or uses methods through which pupils’ share meanings
through group work, including uses of drama, compared with more traditional direct
methods of instruction, using board and book work, has been questioned (Tytler,
2007; Braund, 2010). As drama may be a powerful method available to teachers in the
constructivist paradigm, it is alarming to note how little attention it often receives. For
example, at one of the world’s largest international science education research confer-
ences in 2011 (of the European Science Education Research Association [ESERA] in
Lyon, France), of 700 papers presented only two were in the field of ‘drama’, whereas
there were over 100 papers in the field of ‘discussion and argumentation’.
In the face of this lack of theorisation in education, it is helpful and appropriate to
draw on richer fields from drama and theatre, mainly the ideas of Peter Brook.
Brook’s series of essays, collected in his work The empty space (1968), part of the title
of this article, drew on ideas of the most significant theorists of the late nineteenth
and twentieth centuries including, Grotowski, Artaud, Brecht, Beckett and Ibsen. As
a coherent set of ideas on how drama connects with and engages theatre audiences
they have potential to shed light on how drama might function to engage and improve
learning for a different audience, pupils in schools. As Fels and Meyer put it, ‘drama
in theatre and science share some common ground… both seek explanations of the
world through real, imagined or vicarious experience’ (Fels & Meyer, 1997, p.75).
The new theorisation for drama education presented here is not an empty intellectual
exercise nor to proselytise or promote a personal view of how drama should be used
in science. In the tradition of Skemp (1979), who maintained there was ‘nothing so
practical as theory’, theory formation is a prelude to action; in this case a call for more
and specific research. Skemp saw three advantages for developing and using theories.
They tell us what is going on beyond those things that are immediately observable,
they reduce ‘noise’, allowing us to concentrate on what is relevant, and they enable us
to make new paths outwards from our thinking (Skemp, 1979, p. 182).
Bearing in mind Skemp’s uses for theory, I propose a theoretical model drawing on
Brook’s notions in The empty space to clarify what is needed to better understand how
drama benefits learning science. The theoretical model is then used to set an agenda
for research. Insights are at an epistemological level dealing with efficacy of drama for
knowledge acquisition, seeing science as a broad enterprise based on contention and
debate, and, at a pedagogical level, providing for better task design and teaching tech-
nique. Before explaining and exemplifying the theoretical model, two areas of litera-
ture, in drama and science education and about Brook’s ideas and how they link with

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

104 M. Braund

possible practices in science classrooms are reviewed. To ground theory in practice, I

show how it can be interpreted for one example of a drama-in-science activity. The
paper concludes by suggesting an agenda for research activity. Although discussion is
seated in science education, ideas about drama use, particularly for simulated role
plays, are relevant in other subjects.

Perspectives from drama in science education

In science education, a dominant view of teaching and learning is that the science
world of knowing conflicts with the learner’s world of knowing. Some ‘construction’
or re-construction of what is in the learner’s head, rather than mere transmission of
knowledge, is required to deal with these conflicts. Aikenhead and Jegede (1999)
argue that, for many school pupils, learning science is like navigating between two
sub-cultures. In contrast to everyday experiences and language, the sub-culture of sci-
ence is characterised by abstract ideas relying on conceptualising invisible compo-
nents (energy, molecules, electrons, biological cells and so on) and is communicated
through a symbolic and semiotic language using, for example, equations, chemical
symbols and graphs (Braund & Leigh, 2013). This makes learning for pupils, already
having a number of alternative views of how the world works, even more problematic.
Rationalising between these two worlds, the science and the everyday, requires differ-
entiation between and integration of two ways of explaining and seeing (Scott et al.,
2011). Differentiation requires recognition of the differences in meaning and expla-
nation, for example between the everyday idea that energy is a consumable entity and
a scientific concept of energy as transformation and degradation (to heat) in various
systems. Integration of ideas, on the other hand, requires accommodation of new
ideas with those already held that provide more workable, rational and generalisable
explanations of the world. To achieve integration means making abstract ideas and
theories of science more plausible often by the use of analogy and metaphor (Lawson,
1993; Duit & Treagust, 2003; Aubusson et al., 2006). For example analogues, sup-
posedly from real world experience such as the hot water system of a house or a ski
lift, have been used to explain concepts of current, voltage and resistance in electrical
circuits. The problem here is that the analogues themselves may not be fully under-
stood by pupils, confer even more alterative ideas on them or are not fully negotiated
or explained as being merely part-models of reality (Harrison & Treagust, 2006). It is
here that drama, especially in the form of acted out simulations, for example where
pupils play the parts of particles or components of food webs, may offer more plausi-
ble and accessible alternatives for understanding abstract ideas.
Drama is most often included in lists of what educators refer to as ‘active
approaches’ to learning (O’Loughlin, 1992). By ‘active’ what is often meant is that
the learner plays an integral part in the construction or re-construction of knowledge,
often by interaction with other learners and the teacher. In this way drama contrib-
utes to what prominent science educators in the constructivist tradition had in mind
as ‘discourse communities’ in classrooms aimed at establishing shared meanings
rather than assimilation through independent learning or by merely being told science
content (Duveen & Solomon, 1994; Watts et al., 1997; Driver et al., 1994). From a
Vygotskyan perspective, activity is part of a sociocultural account of learning whereby

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

 Drama and learning science 105

internalisation of knowledge by individuals follows co-construction in an external

social phase. According to Wertsch (1991), socio-cultural approaches are fundamen-
tal to the development of language and culture and even the way we think. Rasmussen
(2010) sees the particular sociolinguistic functions of drama as crucial in meaning
making. Additionally, Aikenhead takes the view that sociocultural learning, including
enactment of ‘science storylines’, helps border crossings from indigenous knowledge
systems of thinking to more scientific thought (Aikenhead, 2001, 2006).
The importance of drama as a narrative alternative to the more usual expository
text found in science classrooms has been stressed by several scholars (Egan, 1999;
Millar & Osborne, 1998; Solomon, 2002; Vacca et al., 2004; Begoray & Stinner,
2005). In a paper analysing a play about debates on evidence for the ages of the sun
and Earth that took place in the nineteenth century, Begoray and Stinner argue that
the science classroom is dominated by expository text representing the dominance in
science lessons of comparison, description, sequencing, listing, cause and effect and
problem solution. They claim that, as narrative text is more common in the life expe-
rience of learners (from films, novels and oral story telling) and is less abstract than
expository text in organising knowledge, its use in drama can lead to better empathy
with science and more effective cognitive learning.
In a comprehensive review of the literature on science-specific uses of drama,
Ødegaard (2003) sees drama contributing to three areas of learning in science educa-
tion: about concepts, about the nature of science and about science’s interactions with soci-
ety. There is some evidence that conceptual understanding is advanced through use of
drama. Simulations to understand circuit electricity have been used with teacher edu-
cation students and pupils in primary schools and improved understanding of cur-
rent, voltage and resistance claimed (Tveita, 1998; Braund, 1999). These are
example of alternatives to the analogies referred to earlier. In biology, concepts in
photosynthesis (Carlsson, 2002) and about cell division (Ødegaard, 2001) have been
advanced using drama activities. Improvement of learners’ ecological concepts, such
as feeding interrelationships, has been noted from using role plays where learners act
components of food chains and webs (Bailey, 1994). It has been suggested that school
science presents an overly positivistic and simplistic view of science, particularly
where complex systems as in ecology or in debates of social–political interactions with
science are concerned (Colucci-Gray et al., 2006). Role plays and simulations such as
those used by Carlsson and Bailey and suggested by Grieg et al. (1987) provide inter-
action with these ideas at the level of complexity and interaction favoured by Colucci-
Gray et al. For example, ‘players’ in a food web simulation interconnected by string
experience a feeling of force transmitted by others in the web when changes are made
to any one member of the web.
As far as educating about the nature of science is concerned, Ødegaard claims ‘stories
of science’ such as those used by Aikenhead, mentioned earlier (Aikenhead, 2001,
2006), offer learners new insights into the reality of the processes of scientific practice
(Ødegaard, 2003, p. 85). Solomon et al. (1992) see activities, such as plays about the
history of science, challenging positivistic–empiricist views of science as they show
how science theories have been developed and are open to challenge and re-construc-
tion. This was the intention and outcome of a play described by Bentley that success-
fully challenged student teachers’ views on teaching evolution, and addressed pupils’

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

106 M. Braund

creationist views (Bentley, 2000). In lessons described by Braund et al. (2006), a ser-
ies of radio interviews of astronomers through the ages was used to teach about the
development of ideas towards a solar-centric model of the solar system. Having to
devise and teach this lesson seemed to have had a profound impact on student teach-
ers’ views on the nature of science.
In teaching the ‘Nature of Science’, textbooks and teachers often present science as
a final product, ignoring its development. Drama can help present a more authentic
narrative and hence better engage students. By examining the lives of scientists and
playing their roles, pupils come to appreciate that scientists fail as much as they suc-
ceed, that an algorithmic or prescribed way of doing science is often not appropriate
or available, that science is not always totally objective or divorced from human error
and that creativity and leaps of faith are important (McComas, 1996). The use of
drama to teach about science’s interactions with society has been said to improve pupils’
empathy and identification in socio-political situations of science and even to have
the capacity to challenge or change learners’ world views (Aikenhead, 1996; Cobern,
1996; Ødegaard, 2001). In England, the Wellcome Trust has been active in facilitat-
ing uses of drama in the public understanding of science. For example, the ‘Y Tour-
ing Company’ has been a leader in using short plays to focus debate for learners
about uses of biotechnology and in bioethics. Gains included specific and marked
shifts in learners’ attitudes to science (Evaluation Associates, 1998; Reiss, 2010).
Wellcome’s ‘Pulse’ initiative provided funding for theatre and education professionals
to engage pupils in debates about a variety of topics in biosciences such as genetics,
medicinal properties of plants, nanotechnology, treatment of disease, and GM
(genetically modified foods) in a variety of informal and formal settings. Key markers
for success were careful planning, drawing effectively on the use of scientists, and
balancing scientific learning and artistic outcomes (Wellcome Trust, 2006).
The ability to use argument in science lessons (argumentation) has received
increasing attention over the last decade and here drama has a key part to play. Argu-
mentation is important to learning science as it equips students with the skills, to criti-
cally interrogate public claims and the strength of supporting and refuting evidence,
to rationalise between competing explanations of phenomena or concepts, to practise
subject specific modes of scientific discourse and see science as the product of a mul-
tiplicity of views rather than as a set of unchallenged truths (Lemke, 1997; Duschl &
Osbourne, 2002; Zohar & Nemet, 2002; Zohar & Schwartzer, 2005; Von Aufschnait-
er et al., 2008). The intention is often to increase responsible engagement with socio-
economic and ethical issues. Drama, where pupils take on specific roles of
protagonists in discussion and resolution of issues, has been suggested as a productive
way to engage pupils in science argument. Colucci-Gray et al., used role plays in top-
ics focussed on biological sustainability, for example prawn farming in Pacific-Asian
coastal environments (Colucci-Gray et al., 2006). They found that promoting discus-
sion as agreement based on consensus, rather than as a win or lose competitive out-
come, improved participants’ abilities to listen to each other’s claims and empathise
with a multiplicity of views. In South Africa lessons have been observed where role
plays helped raise the content and level of argumentation about the ethics of trade in
organs for xenotransplantation (Braund et al., 2007). In a similar vein, analysis of stu-
dents’ discourse following short role plays on who should have rights of access to

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

 Drama and learning science 107

genetic information have been seen to help in development of group argumentation

skills (Dawson et al., 2009). Thus, drama can help in the deployment and develop-
ment of argumentation in science by anchoring scientific debate and ideas in pupils’
real worlds (Duveen & Solomon, 1994; Duschl & Osborne, 2002).

Perspectives from drama in theatre: Brook’s ‘empty space’

Peter Brook was one of the major theorists in theatre of the twentieth century. Draw-
ing on ideas of dramatists and writers such as Artaud, Brecht, Ibsen and Beckett and
theorist Jerzy Grotowski, he showed how western theatre could use more dynamic,
visual, metaphorical and allegorical approaches from traditions of Asian, African and
Far Eastern theatre. Brook never explicitly defined what he meant by the ‘empty
space’. He used the phrase metaphorically to address two issues: the ‘emptiness’ of
post-war theatre and the stage–space in which theatre is made real by actors, direc-
tors, writers and designers. His ideas revolutionised theatre in the UK and beyond. It
is my contention that Brook’s ideas have great resonance for drama in science educa-
tion helping develop a perspective on theory illuminating best ways in which drama
can be used to teach science and in other subjects.
In The empty space, Brook proposed four ‘theatres’: the deadly, the holy, the rough
and the immediate. Brook termed the traditional–realist theatre of the mid 1960s the
deadly theatre because he saw negative effects of the dead hand of commercialism in
Europe and America, concerned more with audience returns and making money than
with artistic adventure and modernism. He saw even the more liberating theatre of
Brecht and Beckett, let alone more ‘traditional’ works of Shakespeare, as having been
turned into staid and lacklustre events, no longer capable of transmitting the visions,
stories and beliefs of the playwrights. For Brook, the director can never be passive, let-
ting the play ‘speak for itself’; rather, he must ‘conjure its sound from it’ (Brook,
1968, p. 43). His concerns can be seen as echoing those of science educators today in
many countries who bemoan lack of enthusiasm of pupils (their ‘audiences’) for sci-
ence and the reducing likelihood that they choose further study or science-related
careers (Millar & Osborne, 1998; Sjøberg & Schreiner, 2010). In Brook’s terms, then,
the trick for science educators is to turn increasingly away from the ‘dead hand’ of tra-
ditional, non-interactive methods such as book and board work (and even some prac-
tical work) to see what value and gains can be made from employing strategies
involving more collaborative learning effort from pupils.
In the deadly theatre, repetition of the old mistakes abound as much in theatre pro-
ductions as they do in opera, musicals and ballet. Old formulae and methods, old
jokes, stock beginnings and endings will no longer do (1968, p. 44). Here Brook’s
ideas resonate with a key current issue in science education, that constructivism, for
all its virtues and even when philosophically accepted by teachers, is still hampered
and suffocated by overreliance on exposition and teacher directed discourse that
results in transmission learning and behaviourist approaches. Hence, just as visioning
The empty space helped Brook critique the practices of theatre in the second half of the
twentieth century, applying his ideas to drama in science would help critically
appraise and move forward improved methods of reaching a realistic agenda for
‘constructivist’ learning (in science and more broadly) in the twenty-first century.

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

108 M. Braund

Brook’s second alternative vision, the holy theatre, holds particular promise for clo-
ser study. This is theatre making the abstract and the invisible visible. Here, Brook
draws on Artaud’s notion of the play as an event transcending the text from which it
is born. The language is of actions, sounds, images and movements but it is also about
words as parody, lies, contradictions and shocks. In Brook’s holy theatre the ‘empty
space’ (of the stage and, metaphorically, for the audience) is filled by a much richer
and enhanced experience, stimulating its audience by use of metaphor. For example,
in ‘Brook’s dream’ (Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream) performed by the
Royal Shakespeare Company in 1972, the stage was a white box opened to the audi-
ence, the forest a set of swings suspended from the ceiling. The play’s natural magic
was added to by ethereal sounds created by plastic tubes, whirled overhead by the
actors. None of this detracted from the text which took on new life and meaning. In
the holy theatre, Brook clearly draws on Artaud’s Theatre of the absurd (Artaud, 1958)
but not in a literal or surrealist way. For Brook, the real value of Artaud is that he
(Artaud) was using the unreal to expose a reality in the obscured truths of our every-
day lives. Thus, for Artaud the theatre becomes a place in which a greater reality
could be found. For science educators the promise of Brook’s holy theatre is that it
allows pupils better access to abstract concepts (for pupils these may represent
Artaud’s ‘obscured’ truths) such as about molecular interactions, complex genetic
processes or interactions in ecosystems, through learners’ physical involvement. But,
this is achieved without the need for elaborate theatrical devices, scripts, or by having
to deploy acting skills. One of the reasons teachers do not make more use of drama in
other subjects is that they may equate drama use in lessons with theatrical production
requiring finesse and accuracy with respect to script, movement and staging (Fels &
Meyer, 1997; Rasmussen, 2010). Drama offers a way of using metaphor to draw
pupils into a world more plausible for tackling obscure and abstract ideas. Applying
techniques of the holy theatre offer new opportunities that avoid problems of the tradi-
tional alternative models and analogies that many find hard to understand and which
are often unhelpful. Molecules can be represented by our bodies and chromosomes,
DNA base pairs, or electrical charges by carrying simple letters or symbols. Thus the
sterile representations of science in textbooks, which overly rely on the semiotic and
symbolic language of science, become more comprehensible and accessible in the
hands of pupils as actors.
In Brook’s third vision of theatre, the rough theatre, performance is informal and
ephemeral, often without a conventional stage or theatre (Brook, 1968, pp. 73–109).
Here, content and acting take charge but informality does not imply mental sloppi-
ness. Events engage audiences in real thought; the audience must make an intellectual
effort. Here, Brook leans heavily on the theories of Berthold Brecht, who used dra-
matic scenes in his plays to challenge what we might first perceive about a characters’
intentions and the social and political situations in which they find themselves
(Brecht, 1964). Thus in Brecht’s play Galileo, perhaps the greatest benefit for an audi-
ence is to help them get away from a simplified understanding of the relationship
between science and religion in which the two are always in conflict. The standard,
some have argued ‘mythical’, version of the Galileo–
Church interaction is that as an old man Galileo was imprisoned and tortured by
the Church for refusing to abandon his scientific conclusion that the Earth goes round

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

 Drama and learning science 109

the sun rather than vice-versa (see, Numbers, 2009). We shouldn’t, of course, see
Brecht as presenting a neutral view of the issue but even if one ignores the circum-
stances in which the play was written (shortly before the outbreak of the Second
World War while Brecht was in exile in Denmark), even a cursory attendance to the
play serves to undermine the simplistic conflict model and helps an audience appreci-
ate the historical contingencies. For an audience of school science students, Brecht’s
approach leads to new understandings about the nature of science and its relations to
society both in Galileo’s time and in our own. Brook’s rough theatre therefore has
capacity to open up dialogue about different interpretations of science and from dif-
ferent perspectives in the history of science contributing to the last two of Ødegaard’s
purposes for drama: learning about the nature of science and about science’s interactions
with society.
Of course, classroom drama in education is not so like theatre. In the classroom
there is no distinction between actor and audience; the learner is both participant and
observer, playing a role while interacting with others in role (Anderson, 2004, p.
282). In staged dramatisations there is more of a focus on product. Drama in the
classroom is facilitated by the teacher who builds on the actions and reactions of
pupils-in-role to change or reframe the imagined context. This is done to create an
episodic sequence of dramatic action and link it to the objects of learning, which are
the ideas under consideration for a given lesson. The high levels of learner involve-
ment in lessons using drama, that includes chances for pupils to take greater responsi-
bility, does not mean teachers can abdicate guiding learning. In the theatre the nature
of the plot, the script and setting are structuring devices engaging audiences and mak-
ing dramatic representations plausible. Coleridge’s idea of the ‘willing suspension of
disbelief’ (see Ferri, 2007) is said to help theatre audiences accept human interest
and a semblance of truth in tales which, at surface level, seem implausible, fantastical
and unbelievable. Brook’s rough theatre, based on Brechtian notions of portraying
reality, relies on engaging audiences to accept radically different ideas portrayed on
stage. In the classroom, without automatic availability and implicit acceptance of
these theatrical structures, it is necessary for the teacher to create conditions under
which the purposes of the drama and expectations for participants are made clear.
Brook’s final vision for theatre, the immediate theatre, proposes a powerful role affect-
ing our very consciousness as human beings. Brook closes his final lecture by remind-
ing us that in theatre truth is always on the move. In theatre, rather than any other art
form, it is possible to wipe the slate clean. At every performance, new interpretations,
emotions and, hence, outcomes for audiences are possible. The parallels with the
written word or painting and sculpture are stark – these are interpretations of a
moment forever frozen in time (Brook, 1968, pp. 156–157). Thus, for Brook, theatre
is an experiment in interpretations of reality where questions of ‘what if?’ are explored
rather than being evaded or fictionalised as half-truths and lies as, often, they are in
real life. As a paradigm for teaching about the nature of science, where science is seen
as contested, validated by assessing the reliability of evidence in the current world,
the immediate theatre makes taught science just that – immediate. Rather than stuck in
the past tense, based only on old discoveries and delivery of hard facts, the histories
through which these ‘facts’ became established can be included. An example in the
classroom is the short ‘radio interviews’ with scientists in which each scientist is

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

110 M. Braund

interviewed on their view of the organisation of the solar system and must relate how
their ideas drew on and further developed from preceding ones (Braund et al., 2006).

A theoretical model for drama in science education

The construction of a theoretical model for drama in science has two purposes. First,
to help draw together two fields of theory, in science education and theatre (from
Brook and others) and, second, to provide a means through which the use of drama
activities in science teaching can be better understood and researched. Outcomes are
at two levels; an epistemological one providing information on learner and teacher
efficacy and on the function of drama to provide improved appreciation of the nature
of science and its interactions with society and, at the pedagogical level, information
about better design and deployment of drama tasks to impact learners’ knowledge
and understanding.
For the purposes of the model, learning science is seen as a process of rationalising
between two worlds of knowing: the learner’s world and the scientist’s. The learner’s
world draws on everyday experience, commonly used terms and language and what
has been gleaned from science as presented knowledge from media, family, friends
and school (Braund & Reiss, 2006). The scientist’s world of knowing, which is the
eventual target for learning change, has specific rational explanations for the world
based on applications of concepts and theories mediated through empiricism. This
view can be represented as a general model for learning science shown as Figure 1. In this
general model, ‘cognitive dissonance’ is the ‘distance’ between the two worlds of
knowing and the ‘experiential space’ is the nature of activity and effort, used by the
teacher, to reduce the amount of cognitive dissonance and so close the gap between
the two worlds.
In drawing on Brook’s notion of the ‘empty’ space for this model we have to
remember that, cognitively, in both theatre and school learning contexts, the ‘space’
is not entirely void, being already partially occupied. So, the theatregoer may have his
or her own ideas drawn from life about the topic of the play, past experiences of the

Figure 1. A general model for learning science

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

 Drama and learning science 111

theatre or from films and, perhaps even, some pre-knowledge about the play that
inform notions about how it might be performed. As pointed out from Brook’s cri-
tique of deadly theatre, the ‘space’ is also characterised and part occupied by the meth-
ods of theatrical interpretation and production. In the case of drama in theatre this
includes how effectively drama and its direction, staging and symbolism make plots
and storylines plausible. Similarly, for the school pupil learning science, the (empty)
space before a science lesson is occupied by his or her preconceptions about the topic
to be taught and attitudes and beliefs about science and school learning of science.
This is important because, at an epistemological level, attitude (stemming from
beliefs about science and science teaching) and motivation are often used to account
for and infer patterns of science-related thinking, emotion and action in educational
settings (see Koballa & Glynn, 2007, p. 75). Pupils’ negative views of science learning
and of science as an enterprise often stem from perceptions that science is only about
factual learning and rarely or never encompasses creativity (Osborne & Collins 2001;
Bennett, 2003; Shanahan & Nieswandt, 2009). In a study of three pairs of primary
school pupils being taught science using drama (acted plays), Shanahan and Niesw-
andt (2009) showed that two of these pairs had significantly shifted from their nega-
tive expectations of science learning and had come to see science as an enterprise
embracing creativity. Thus an important part of the (empty) space at the pedagogical
level is what the teacher does to address cognitive dissonance and how effective meth-
ods are at rationalising between the learners’ and scientists’ worlds.
In the second stage of model construction, the general model is made specific to
drama as one way of closing cognitive dissonance (see Figure 2). It could be argued
that the model could be used more widely than for drama – perhaps for many
approaches in the sociocultural landscape of learning. The word ‘drama’ in the sec-
ond stage of the model could be substituted with ‘practical work’, ‘group task’ and so
on. As already stated, the ‘space’ is not empty in terms of learners’ existing ideas (as it
is not for theatre audiences). The methods used by the teacher, their confidence and
skill at using them and pupils’ self-efficacy (beliefs about learning value) and attitudes
to drama as a learning method populate the space and must be taken into account to
ensure the success of teaching approaches. It is here that content design and teaching

Figure 2. A model for learning science through drama

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

112 M. Braund

methods have much to learn from the ways in which Brook sees theatre filling ‘his’
empty space. In Brook’s rough theatre it is methods to make drama plausible that help
fill the empty space and in teaching it is similar in that abstract and difficult ideas
must also be made plausible to be accessible. A tradition in science teaching is to use
practical work to help pupils access ideas and teach concepts, but this has been criti-
cised for being too focussed on practising and performing rehearsed routines and pro-
cedures rather than on understanding emerging from individual or group negotiated
tasks controlled by pupils (Hodson, 1991; Abrahams & Reiss, 2012). It is possible
that drama has a place to play as an addition to practical work, to improve its impact.
For example, Warner and Anderson (2004) studied different classes investigating the
biology of snails, through observation and experiment, with and without a prelude of
role plays involving pupils as expert zoologists. They noticed better accuracy in writ-
ing and increased levels of anatomical knowledge for pupils who had taken part in
practical inquiry and role plays.
What makes drama special to consider using this model, and sometimes more
demanding for teachers to use than other forms of learning in the ‘active’ tradition,
are the particular pedagogical features and decisions that must be taken to get the
most from any particular task and that are unique to different forms of drama. As
Dorion points out, from classroom studies of physical role plays, these events require
complex analogies and continuous combinations of implicit and explicit anthropo-
morphism (Dorion, 2009, p. 2266). Other types of drama, using dance and move-
ment or performed scripts, might also be improved by drawing on Brook’s notions of
the holy, rough or immediate theatres. Whatever the type of drama used by teachers,
there is inevitably going to be a question of the extent of ‘pedagogical border crossing’
required, that is from the pedagogy of drama to the pedagogy of science, to make the
drama useful as a tool for learning (Fels & Meyer, 1997). Part of the problem for sci-
ence teachers is that they may misconceive the main purposes of drama as a learning
tool for science. A drama task in science is not so much associated with aesthetics of
performance, interpretation of text and character or of a playwright’s philosophical or
political intentions. It is more about the potential for explaining concepts or under-
standing the scientific basis of different positions and views. Rasmussen (2010)
coined the phrase ‘good enough drama’ to account for these epistemological func-
tions of drama in constructivist learning:
Good enough drama accounts for the concept and context in hand, previous experiences
of the participants and the facilitator in drama use, the pretext and type of chosen drama,
space in which it is carried out and materials used. Quality is in terms of ability of the
drama to transform participants’ experiences to recognise new shapes and forms. (Ras-
mussen, 2010, p. 534)

For some science teachers the pedagogical border crossings from drama to science
are not so great, they feel comfortable with drama and methods used by drama educa-
tors. For others (the majority I suspect) the crossing is difficult or never made. There
is thus a need for drama and science educators to come together to share ideas and
practices and create the epistemological landscape and pedagogical insights through
which drama for learning science becomes a reality. Access to this landscape and
these insights requires research.

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

 Drama and learning science 113

Operationalising the theoretical model

Theoretical models are all very well on their own as an exercise to expand horizons or
to conceptualise a field as Skemp had in mind and as discussed in the introduction.
But to make Skemp’s idea, that theory makes practice come alive, a reality the model
needs grounding in an example. The example discussed here is an activity designed to
be part of a lesson for 11- to 14-year-old pupils on human fertilisation (Abrahams &
Braund, 2012). It should be noted that this example does not represent the full range
of drama methods used to teach science (including theatre in science, scripted drama,
pre-determined role play, mime, dance and movement) nor does it represent drama
used to improve understanding of the nature of science or science’s interactions with
society (Aikenhead, 1996; McComas, 1996; Ødegaard, 2003). The example is cho-
sen on the basis that it is just one case of how the model might be operationalised in
practice.
In this example it is assumed pupils would have already studied explanations of fer-
tilisation and chromosomal determination of sex from textbooks or other learning
media. They are therefore using drama to embed and deepen learning of ideas and
concepts communicated by more conventional means. Pupils are told they must act
out the process of fertilisation showing how the sex of ‘the baby’ is determined, the
only props being cards bearing the letter X or letter Y to represent the sex chromo-
somes in ovum and sperm nuclei. A class of 30 pupils is divided into two separate cir-
cles of 15 and each group/circle is told to plan their acted out simulation and that no
words, script or talk during enactment is necessary, just their movements and
positions. After the planning stage (about 10 minutes) each group is asked to perform

Figure 3. A group of pupils portraying human fertilisation. The pupils standing in the centre of
the photograph are showing that the ovum nucleus has been fertilised and that the resultant zygote
will be male. The pupils seated on the floor show the ovum wall through which no more sperm can
penetrate. The remaining pupils show sperm that have advanced towards the ovum but cannot
enter once the ovum has been fertilised. Source: Abrahams and Braund (2012, p. 13). Copyright:
Continuum Books.

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

114 M. Braund

their ‘play’ while the other group of pupils watches. The photograph shown as
Figure 3 shows a moment in the performance of one group of pupils.
As can be seen in Figure 3, the simple props, movements and positions of the
pupil-players has helped make a sometimes hard to visualise process ‘come alive’. In
terms of the theoretical model for drama, the experiential space has been filled. Of
course video or computer simulations could have been used as the ‘filler’, but how
much more does pupils’ personal and physical involvement in devising drama and
acting out biological components and processes add to their understanding? For holy
theatre and in Artaud’s terms (Artaud, 1958; Brook, 1968), the act of drama has
potential to help these pupils reach a possibly truer and more easily comprehended
(more plausible) understanding of an obscured or complex set of truths, in this case
about a number of biological processes in the apparently simple idea of human fertili-
sation and sex determination. In movements and tableaux, that take only minutes to
perform, a complex set of interacting concepts are portrayed through the perfor-
mance: the entry of a sperm nucleus across the ovum membrane, the mix of genetic
material that defines the moment of fertilisation, the genetic determination of gender
by combinations of X and Y or X and X chromosomes and the ovum membrane as a
barrier to further entry of sperm once fertilisation has taken place. The drama task
helps pupils appreciate the complexity of interacting processes that are often over-
looked when using other learning media (Colucci-Gray et al., 2006). Could the same
principles be as effectively taught and understood in the same amount of time from a
book or by using a video or computer simulation? Of course the question cannot be
answered without research.
This is where two elements of the central arrow of the model in Figure 2 are of par-
amount importance. Of course, one could argue that teacher confidence and skill are
a requirement of effective deployment of any teaching task but, as discussed, this may
well be a function of the science teacher’s epistemological and pedagogical stand-
points on drama to promote learning science (Fels & Meyer, 1997; Dorion, 2009;
Abrahams & Braund, 2012).
According to the model, at an epistemological level pupil efficacy and attitude have
a bearing on the likely successes and outcomes of science drama. Pajares claims that
pupils’ self-efficacy beliefs determine the amount of effort expended on an activity,
how long learners will persevere when confronting obstacles and how resilient they
might be when encountering problems (Pajares, 2003). Since, in this case, we are
dealing with particular learning tasks (drama tasks) the ‘value’ that pupils place on
these tasks may depend, according to ‘expectancy value theory’ (Pintrich & De
Groot, 1990), on: a capability component, that includes students’ beliefs about their
ability to carry out a task; a value component, that includes students’ goals and beliefs
about the importance and interest of the task and an affective component, that
includes students’ emotional reactions to the task (Pintrich & De Groot 1990, p. 34).
Thus there is a link that might be worth exploring between (task) efficacy, pupils’
beliefs and values and their emotional responses to using drama. Some studies have
explored drama use in terms of the last two components of expectancy value theory
(for example, Solomon et al., 1992; Braund, 1999; Bentley, 2000; Begoray & Stinner,
2005; Dorion, 2009) but not for the first (efficacy) component and very little if any-
thing has been done to consider the interaction of all three components and how this

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

 Drama and learning science 115

plays out for effective learning in the classroom, as in a fuller application of general
expectancy value theory.
As far as pupils’ attitudes to the use of drama tasks are concerned, research has
shown these may not be so much of a problem. In a study by Christofi and Davies
(1991), 70% of pupils were enthusiastic about learning science using drama. In the
same study, however, only 50% of teachers said they used drama to teach science and
most of this was accounted for by responses from primary teachers. In contrast
science teachers in secondary schools rarely appeared to use drama.

Conclusions: an agenda for research

As Ødegaard and others working in drama education point out, there is a dearth of
research in science education to help persuade science teachers, particularly in sec-
ondary schools, to start using or to improve the quality of drama tasks (O’Hara,
1996; Fels & Meyer, 1997; Henry, 2000; Ødegaard, 2003). To help science teachers
make the sorts of ‘pedagogical border crossings’ envisaged by Fels and Meyer (1997),
four aspects occupying the ‘drama space’ in the model in Figure 2 require research.
• A teacher efficacy aspect. To uncover perceptions and dispositions of science teach-
ers to ways of using drama to teach science.
• A learner efficacy aspect. To explore the perceptions and dispositions of learners to
uses of drama to help them learn science.
• A pedagogical aspect. To identify critical moments in teachers’ practices in using
drama (of planning, task selection and design, teaching and evaluation) contribut-
ing to successful learning in science.
• An attainment aspect. To assess the impact of using drama to teach science on learn-
ers’ knowledge and understanding of taught concepts.
A starting point for research might be to find out how the type of drama (role play,
dance, mime, scripted drama/plays), task design and teachers’ confidence and skill at
using tasks impact outcomes of learning for pupils. Such research would have capac-
ity to show to what extent drama is effective in closing cognitive dissonance between
the idea or issue in the science world and pupils’ understanding. In the example
shown in Figure 3, what aspects of the task, the ways the teacher instructed
pupils and the ways that pupils engaged with and acted their roles, helped (or hin-
dered) the formation of individual concepts and holistic understanding of biological
processes?
A key aspect of teachers’ skill in using drama tasks in science, commented on by a
number of researchers (Henry, 2000; Fels, 2004; Dawson et al., 2009; Rasmussen,
2010), is the ability of the teacher to allow space for pupil reflection on the extent to
which their acted roles, movements or talk are realistic representations of the science
represented. Video recordings and analysis of drama tasks used in science lessons
could reveal the critical episodes of teacher and pupil actions and elements of their
discourse that lead to successful representation and understanding of science content
or issues. This level of analysis might also reveal to what extent pupils may have over-
anthropomorphised their roles or adopted new misconceptions unintentionally
promoted by engaging in a drama event.

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

116 M. Braund

There is some evidence that drama in science classrooms might be more effective
when structured as a two-tier event. Other activity such as practical work, group dis-
cussion or book research could be preceded or followed by drama activities (Jones
1988; Braund, 1999). Some exploration of whether lessons designed like this work
better than with other structures would be worthwhile. As mentioned earlier, there
has been an increasing research effort on argumentation in science classrooms and
the benefits this can bring linguistically and for helping understand ideas and issues.
Drama, particularly role plays used prior to debate about science in relation to socie-
tal issues, seems to provide an opportunity for pupils to sort out the meaning of terms
and identify the different roles and perspectives of individuals and organisations. In
the cases of role plays about zoos and organ transplantation it has been argued that
this two-tier structure allows for better constructed arguments and more valid use of
terminology (Simon et al., 2006; Braund et al., 2007). In all these endeavours, to
research and evaluate the efficacy, impact and outcomes of drama to learn science,
the age, gender and previous learning experiences of pupils must be taken into
account. It may also be the case that certain pupils may have pre-dispositions to
engaging in drama, even fears that stem from their shyness or reticence to take part in
such events. Finding out how such proclivities affect engagement and pupils’ atti-
tudes and cognitive outcomes merits consideration.
The example used to ground the theoretical model is an unscripted, physical role
play in which pupils simulate actions of biological components and processes. In
these types of drama the teacher takes a relatively ‘stand-off’ position allowing pupils
creative space to improvise actions to interpret and portray science. As Dorion (2009)
recognises, this type of drama requires a great deal of teacher empathy with pupils
and implicit trust between the teacher and the class. This opens up the question as to
whether it is these types of tasks that frighten many teachers away from using drama
in science lessons. They might see drama teachers using these methods successfully
but in the tighter control required in a science classroom or laboratory (as science
teachers might perceive it) these tasks represent physical and pedagogical risks.
Uncovering teachers’ perceptions of how and why they think drama activities provide
effective learning in science is important here. The messages and lessons from
Brook’s holy and rough theatres are helpful in setting out different purposes for drama
to help learning in other subjects such as science. McSharry and Jones (2000) offer
some reasons why role plays are a ‘valuable educational tool’. In their view they
provide pupils with:
(1) A narrative method to communicate science content, discoveries and controver-
sies.
(2) A sense of ownership of their learning especially when they are engaged in creation
and performance of science drama.
(3) Frameworks for and ways in to debates and discussion about moral and ethical
issues that might otherwise be too sensitive for pupils to discuss (McSharry and
Jones provide examples in sex education).
(4) A physical experience (often using analogies) through which abstract content is
made more comprehensible than through conventional learning methods (see also
Lawson, 1993). (Based on McSharry & Jones, 2000, p. 74.)

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

 Drama and learning science 117

These attributes for successful drama could be used as a set of a priori items against
which responses from teachers about their opinions on the pedagogical functionality
of science drama could be compared.
A way to persuade teachers into using drama activities, particularly of the physical
role play type, might be to follow McSharry and Jones’ suggestion to progress pupils
from structured games and scripted plays through role plays defined by the teacher to
the more improvised role plays where pupils are left to devise and perform their own
simulations of scientific phenomena, events or processes. Researching how such a
progression maps out in terms of teachers’ professional learning to use drama is a fur-
ther important area for research.
Using drama is a powerful tool for the science teacher mainly as it provides the sorts
of mental spaces and physical interactions and opportunities for pupils to engage with
narratives that are lacking in some other methods that constitute the rather impover-
ished diet for science learning provided by many schools. Ultimately drama works
because it helps provide relief from the tedium of much science teaching with the
bonus of improved engagement and interest for pupils who experience it. The new
theorisation and the research called for in this article should help drama in science
make a better contribution to the core intentions of a so-called ‘constructivist
approach’ to learning.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge the support of Michael Reiss at the Institute of
Education, University of London and Marianne Ødegaard, at the University of Oslo
who kindly commented on early drafts of this paper.

References
Abrahams, I. & Braund, M. (Eds) (2012) Performing science: Teaching chemistry, physics and biology
through drama (London: Continuum).
Abrahams, I. & Reiss, M. J. (2012) Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary
schools in England, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035–1055.
Aikenhead, G. (1996) Border crossings into the subculture of science, Studies in Science Education,
27(1), 1–52.
Aikenhead, G. (2001) Integrating Western and Aboriginal sciences: Cross-cultural science teach-
ing, Research in Science Education, 31(3), 337–355.
Aikenhead, G. (2006) Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice (New York and
London, Teachers’ College Press).
Aikenhead, G. H. & Jegede, O. J. (1999) Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation
of a cultural phenomenon, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174–193.
Anderson, C. (2004) Learning in ‘As-If’ worlds: Cognition in drama in education, Theory into Prac-
tice, 43(4), 281–286.
Artaud, A. (1958) The theater and its double (New York: Grove Press).
Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G. & Ritchie, S. M. (Eds) (2006) Metaphor and analogy in science
education (Springer, Netherlands).
Bailey, S. (1994) The Ecogame (Risley, Warrington and Cheshire, BNFL Education Unit).
Begoray, D. & Stinner, A. (2005) Representing science through historical drama: Lord Kelvin and
the age of the Earth debate, Science and Education, 14(3–5), 457–471.

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

118 M. Braund

Bennett, J. (2003) Teaching and learning science: A guide to recent research and its applications (London,
Continuum).
Bentley, A. L. (2000) Improvisational drama and the nature of science: Using the teaching of
origins as a curriculum issue to foster epistemological development, Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 11(1), 63–75.
Boujaoude, S., Sowwan, S. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005) The effect of using drama in science
teaching on students’ conceptions of the nature of science, in: K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O.
De Jong, H. Eijkelhof (Eds) Research and the quality of science education (Dordrecht, Springer),
259–269.
Braund, M. (1999) Electric drama to improve understanding in science, School Science Review, 81
(294), 35–42.
Braund, M. (2010) Talk in science: Forgotten corner of the constructivist classroom?, in: D. Mogari,
A. Mji, F. Mundalamo, U. Ogbonnaya (Eds) Proceedings of the ISTE international conference on
mathematics, science and technology education: towards effective teaching and meaningful learning in
mathematics, science and technology education. Mopani Camp, Kruger National Park, South
Africa, 18–21 October 2010 (Pretoria, University of South Africa (UNISA) Press), 287–301.
Braund, M., Campbell, B., Cook, H., Ladds, J. & Walkington, A. (2006) A community of practice
to learn to teach about ideas and evidence in science, School Science Review, 87(321), 83–90.
Braund, M. & Leigh, J. (2013) Frequency and efficacy of talk-related tasks in primary science,
Research in Science Education, 43(2), 457–478.
Braund, M., Lubben, F., Scholtz, Z., Sadeck, M. & Hodges, M. (2007) Comparing the effect of
scientific and socio-scientific argumentation tasks: Lessons from South African, School Science
Review, 88(324), 67–76.
Braund, M. & Reiss, M. (2006) Validity and worth in the science curriculum: Learning school
science outside the laboratory, The Curriculum Journal, 17(3), 313–228.
Brecht, B. (1964) Brecht on theatre: The development of an aesthetic. Ed. and trans. John Willett,
British edition (London, Methuen).
Brooke, S. L. (Ed.) (2009) The use of the creative therapies with chemical dependency issues (Spring-
field, IL, Charles C. Thomas Publisher).
Brook, P. (1968) The empty space (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books).
Carlsson, B. (2002) Jag vill vara kol!-ett fotosyntetiskt dramaspel, Milj€odidaktiska txter, L€ ararutbildn-
ingen, Malm€o, H€ogskola, 4(1), 10–27.
Christofi, C. & Davies, M. (1991) Science through drama, Education in Science, 28–29. 141
Cobern, W. (1996) Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education, Science Educa-
tion, 80(5), 579–610.
Colucci-Gray, L., Camino, D., Barbiero, G. & Gray, D. (2006) From scientific literacy to sustain-
ability literacy: An ecological framework for education, Science Education, 90(2), 227–252.
Crimmens, P. (2006) Drama therapy and storytelling in special education (London, Jessica Kinsley
Publishers).
Cross, E. S. & Ticini, L. F. (2012) Neuroaesthetics and beyond: New horizons in applying the science of
the brain to the art of dance, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 5–16.
Dana Foundation (2008) Learning, arts and the brain. The Dana consortium report on arts and cognition
(New York and Washington, DC, The Dana Foundation).
Dawson, E., Hill, A., Barlow, J. & Weitkamp, E. (2009) Genetic testing in a drama and discussion
workshop: Exploring knowledge construction, Research in Drama Education, 14(3), 361–390.
Deasey, R. (2002) Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development
(Washington, Arts Education Partnership).
Dorion, K. R. (2009) Science through drama: A multiple case exploration of the characteristics of
drama activities used in secondary science lessons, International Journal of Science Education, 31
(16), 2247–2270.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994) Constructing scientific knowledge
in the classroom, Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Duit, R. & Treagust, D. F. (2003) Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science
teaching and learning, International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

 Drama and learning science 119

Duschl, R. & Osborne, J. (2002) Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse, Studies in
Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.
Duveen, J. & Solomon, J. (1994) The great evolution trial: Use of role-play in the classroom, Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 575–582.
Egan, K. (1999) Children’s minds, talking rabbits and clockwork oranges: Essays on education (New
York, Teachers’ College Press).
Evaluation Associates (1998) Cracked evaluation (Buckingham, Evaluation Associates).
Fels, L. (2004) Complexity, teacher education and the restless jury: Pedagogical moments of
performance, Complicity, an International Journal of Complexity and Education, 1(1), 73–98.
Fels, L. & Meyer, K. (1997) On the edge of chaos: Co-evolving worlds of drama and science, Teach-
ing Education, 9(1), 75–81.
Ferri, A. J. (2007) Willing suspension of disbelief: Poetic faith in film. (Lanham, MD, Lexington Books).
Greig, S., Pike, G. & Selby, D. (1987) Earthrights: Education as if the planet really mattered
(Godalming, World Wildlife Fund).
Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D. F. (2006) Teaching and learning with analogies, in: P. J. Aubusson,
A. G. Harrison, S. M. Ritchie (Eds.) Metaphor and analogy in science education (Springer, Neth-
erlands), 11–24.
Heathcote, D. & Bolton, G. (1994) Drama for learning: Dorothy Heathcote’s Mantle of the Expert
approach to education. Dimensions of Drama Series (Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Heinemann).
Henry, M. (2000) Drama’s ways of learning, Research in Drama Education, 5(1), 46–62.
Hodson, D. (1991) Practical work in science: Time for a reappraisal, Studies in Science Education,
19(1), 175–184.
Hough, B. H. & Hough, S. (2012) The play was always the thing: Drama’s effect on brain function,
Psychology, 3(6), 454–456.
Jackson, T. (Ed.) (2002) Learning through theatre: New perspectives on theatre in education (London,
Routledge).
Jones, K. (1988) Interactive learning events (London, Kogan Page).
Koballa, T. R. & Glynn, S. M. (2007) Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning,
in: S. Abell, N. Lederman (Eds) Handbook of research on science education (Mahwah, New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum), 75–102.
Lawson, A. E. (1993) The importance of analogy: A prelude to the special issue, Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1213–1214.
Lemke, J. (1997) Cognition, context and learning: A socialsemiotic perspective, in: D. Kirschner,
P. Whitson (Eds) Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives (Mahweh, NJ,
Erlbaum), 37–46.
McComas, W. F. (1996) Ten myths of science: Re-examining what we think we know about the
nature of science, School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 10–16.
McNaughton, M. J. (2006) Learning from participants’ responses in educational drama in the teaching of
education for sustainable development, Research in Drama Education, 11(1), 19–41.
McSharry, G. & Jones, S. (2000) Role-play in science teaching and learning, School Science Review,
82(298), 73–82.
Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (Eds) (1998) Beyond 2000. Science education for the future (London, King’s
College School of Education, University of London).
Moreno, S. (2009) Can music influence language and cognition?, Contemporary Music Review, 28
(3), 329–345.
Numbers, R. L. (Ed.) (2009) Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion (Harvard,
The President and Fellows of Harvard College).
Ødegaard, M. (2001) The drama of science education. How public understanding of biotechnology and
drama as a learning activity may enhance a critical and inclusive science education. Unpublished
Dr. scient. dissertation, University of Oslo.
Ødegaard, M. (2003) Dramatic science. A critical review of drama in science education, Studies in
Science Education, 39(1), 75–101.
O’Hara, M. (1996) Research in drama education: The rhetoric and the reality, Research in Drama
Education, 1(2), 273–277.

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

120 M. Braund

O’Loughlin, M. (1992) Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a

sociocultural model of teaching and learning, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8),
791–820.
Osborne, J. & Collins, S. (2001) Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A
focus-group study, International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467.
Pajares, F. (2003) Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the
literature, Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139–158.
Peleg, R. & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2011) Atom surprise: Using theatre in primary science education,
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 508–524.
Pintrich, P. & De Groot, E. (1990) Motivational and self-regulated learning components of class-
room academic performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Rasmussen, B. (2010) The ‘good enough’ drama: Reinterpreting constructivist aesthetics and epis-
temology in drama education, Research in Drama Education, 15(4), 529–546.
Reiss, M. (2010) Science education, theatre and ‘Y Touring’. Available online at: www.theatreofde-
bate.com/ytouring21/Blog (accessed 10 February 2012).
Ross, M. (1996) Rites of enactment: Drama in education today, National Association for Drama in
Education (N.A.D.I.E.) Journal, 20(1), 41–56.
Scott, P., Mortimer, E. & Ametller, J. (2011) Pedagogical link-making: A fundamental aspect of
teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge, Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3–
36.
Shanahan, M.-C. & Nieswandt, M. (2009) Creative activities and their influence on identification
in science: Three case studies, Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 63–79.
Silverman, Y. (2009) Drama therapy with adolescent survivors of sexual abuse: The use of myth,
metaphor, and fairy tale, in: S. L. Brooke (Ed.) The use of the creative therapies with sexual abuse
survivors (Springfield, IL, Charles C. Thomas Publisher), 250–260.
Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006) Learning to teach argumentation: Research and devel-
opment in the science classroom, International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.
Sjøberg, S. & Schreiner, C. (2010) The ROSE project: An overview and key findings (Oslo, University
of Oslo).
Skemp, J. J. (1979) Intelligence, learning, and action: A foundation for theory and practice in education
(New York, Wiley).
Solomon, J. (2002) Science stories and science texts: What can they do for our students?, Studies in
Science Education, 37(1), 85–105.
Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scott, L. & McCarthy, S. (1992) Teaching about the nature of science
through history: Action research in the classroom, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29
(4), 409–421.
Tveita, J. (1998) Can untraditional learning methods used in physics help girls to be more inter-
ested and achieve more in this subject?, in: E. Torracca (Ed.) Research in science education in
Europe (Dordrecht, Kluwer), 1–7.
Tytler, R. (2007) Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future
(Camberwell, Victoria, Australian Council for Educational Research).
Vacca, R., Vacca, J. & Begoray, D. (2004) Content area reading: Literacy learning across the curriculum
(Toronto, Pearson Education).
Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. & Simon, S. (2008) Arguing to learn and learning to
argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge, Jour-
nal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.
Warner, C. D. & Anderson, C. (2004) ‘Snails are science’: Creating context for science enquiry and
writing through process drama, Youth Theatre Journal, 18(1), 68–86.
Watts, M., Alsop, S., Zylbersztajn, A. & De Silva, S. M. (1997) ‘Event-centred learning’: An
approach to teaching science technology and societal issues in two countries, International
Journal of Science Education, 19(3), 341–351.
Wellcome Trust. (2006) Making it Live. An evaluation of Pulse (phase 1) (London, Wellcome
Trust).

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

 Drama and learning science 121

Wertsch, J. V. (1991) Voices of the mind: A socio-cultural approach to mediated action (Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press).
Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002) Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through
dilemmas in human genetics, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.
Zohar, A. & Schwartzer, N. (2005) Assessing teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in the context of
teaching higher-order thinking, International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1595–1620.

© 2014 British Educational Research Association

View publication stats