Employing Forum Theater to Assist in Reconceptualizating Self and Society in Education and Health Care Settings

• In Event: Acting Up: Dramatic Approaches for Socially Engaged Language and Literacy Education Online and in Person

Abstract

Forum Theatre (Boal, 1979) has been employed to address a myriad of social and educational issues including teacher education (Hewson, 2007), bullying (Gourd & Gourd, 2011 and Author4, 2001), gender violence (Mitchell & Freitag, 2011), inclusive education, (Author et al, 2017), health care education (Middlewick, Kettle, & Wilson, 2012), ESL instruction (Louis, 2002), among others. According to Dwyer, (2004) Forum Theatre “encourages as many `spect-actors' as possible to intervene directly on stage as part of the investigation…” (p. 199). Its purpose is to break the fourth wall, inviting audience members to enter into dialogue with cast members/facilitators and rewrite the scenarios that Rohd (1998) calls “activating scenes” (p. 97), which explore various ways one might possibly act. The scenes could be prepared in advance and/or co-created during the event.

This participatory demonstration will begin by showing publicly accessible video vignettes created by the playbuilding process (Author4, 2009; Weigler, 2002) to initiate conversations. The first, “Do You Mind if I Sit Here,” was devised at the request of ESL instructors to addresses academic integrity issues and was demonstrated to provide students opportunities to practice speaking skills. It depicts a student who asks to sit behind another in order to read the other student’s multiple-choice answers. Using the Voices For/Voices Against technique that research has shown to be successful in online settings, audience members will explore reasons why or why not one should allow the person to sit behind.

The joker/facilitator, taking an amoral stance (Author4, 2009), invites the participants to explore how they might act. Rather than trying to lead the students into a prescribed university policy, the participants will explore thesis/antithesis. Employing Campbell’s Law (1976) that states, “The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.” (p. 49), the joker/facilitator will not only look at policies but also the social determinants behind cheating including parental pressures and the desire to fit in.

The second demonstration, “How Do Your Read/Judge People,” studied in health care settings, utilizes an adaptation of Image Theatre (Perry, 2012) through which participants re-examine their preferences of whom to work with in group activities, based upon body images that depict various degrees of power. This moves to a form of critical literacy that Rozansky and Aagesen (2010) distinguish from critical thinking:

McLaren (2007) made the point that educators have usurped the term critical by using it to represent high-level thinking skills. Critical literacy goes beyond high-level thinking by examining how characters are positioned in terms of the power they have or are lacking (p.459)

This can be utilized by all instructors who employ group work.

The session will conclude on how to use these and other techniques with web-based videos in person and/or online teaching so that all can accept their educational responsibilities. Qualitative and quantitative data on their efficacy will be made available.

Authors

• Joe Norris, Brock University

• Kevin Hobbs, Brock University

• Michael M. Metz, Brock University