Rehearsal 3

The Rehearsal was guided and directed by our lead Lecturer Liselle.  We continued to develop our participatory project of the Hare and the Tortoise. We start by recapping up with what we had done in the previous rehearsal. The aim was to identify  the characteristics of the animals. Liselle had asked the team to do a bit of research on the animals and this is what we came up with:

  •  Elephant  peacemaker and tries to support and encourage tortoise, courageous, supportive, empathetic, big friendly giant, clumsy, wrinkly, heavy, slow, confident, wise, humble
  • Tortoise : good at numbers, slow, shy, willing to learn, reserved, naïve, confused, insecure,
  • Hare : careless, comes across as over-confident, trickster, big-headed, arrogant, attention-seeking, insecure, jealous, competitive, feels isolated, neglected, belittling, low-self-esteem, teasing, big baby.
  • Fox:  Teasing, sly, Sliding, Elegant, Sneaky, Hard to get, fast, stops and hides and sneakily looks around; nasty, enjoys causing trouble, stirring things

After identifying the characteristics of the animals it become easy to embody them hence transforming ourselves into character, we were then divided in groups of three and each group represented  an animal, we then came up with 3 movements that portrayed the animal’s characteristics. I was in the Tortoise category and we came up with 3 fantastic movements. and those were: playing, eating and sleeping.

I found it really hard to be in and out of character, but liselle  guided us through and gradually I felt flexible and confident enough. from the outline we had made in previous rehearsal we had a run through. Adding music, name game, movements and actions. we also tried out the costumes and the props this made it more colourful and lively

what I found challenging was devising participatory performance with imaginary audience but liselle manages with her skills she managed to make it so lively with continuously guiding and encouraging us






In his article  Brian Edminson reflects how teachers and students position themselves  while using drama. The teacher and student are not immersed in an imagined world that separates them from the everyday world. However, they interpret their imagined experiences for meaning that connects with their daily life, therefore, developing more understanding of a facet of life. This article focuses on paying attention to role frame and position in both everyday worlds of the classroom as well as in any imagined world that is created.


When participants in drama activities take on ‘roles’ they imagine that they are other people. However, Goffman (1974) suggests that people have their social roles in their everyday lives. This exists in parallel with imagined role

Even though drama practitioners often talk about being ‘in role’ or ‘out of role’, from sociological sense we are always ‘in role’. We often change roles as we interact with different people in different situations that can include activities in imagined worlds of theatre, play and drama.

The imagined and everyday worlds of drama

Drama takes place in two worlds simultaneously. Audience at the theatre sit in everyday worlds watching an imagined world that the actors, director and technical managers create for them. O’Neill (1995) explains that in process drama there is no external audience to the work. Therefore, the teacher and students are the equivalent not only of theatre actors, directors and technicians but also of theatre audience. In process drama, participants use their social and cultural imagination to create a shared imagined world. The imagined world does not replace the everyday classroom world but rather begins to be created alongside the everyday world

Heathcote (1975) explains that the teacher and students interact in both worlds simultaneously and move back and forth between them at will


Goffman (197) explains that we make sense of the world by interpreting situations through various perspectives or social cultural frames. The imagined worlds that we create when we use drama are also space-times where students and teachers can use and explore frames normally unavailable to them every day.

Frames develop in communities of practice. Wenger (1998) explained that people share frameworks with other people who regard themselves as members of various ‘communities practice’. The social activities that occur in every classroom space over time create the discourses of a classroom community over time create certain shared expectations and assumptions that frame how they interpret events. Social activities in an imagined world creates community and a shared frame just as everyday activities do. activities that are collaborative practices to achieve shared goals, build a feeling of commonality and a history of shared accomplishments whether or not participants identify them as IF or IS + IF activities

It can therefore be concluded that participants do more than take on roles and adopt frames in process drama. As teacher and students interact in both everyday world and imagined worlds they embody one another



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s