Phase Two Implementation
I conducted Phase 2 over a series of weeks, during which time students were heavily invested in play rehearsals. My role became one of facilitator, as I worked with all four play groups throughout the day providing feedback. The onus was on the directors to lead their group, but they could turn to their teachers for advice when necessary and we would step-in and guide them. I worked closely with directors and group managers, providing the ability to revise or encouraging their motivation to do so, without undermining their position as leader and the collaborative process. Teachers’ prerogative allowed us to intervene if required and was used to ensure the plays remained appropriate and producible or if characters and plot required further development. The teacher’s complex role allowed me to address my Phase 2 question of how teacher-student interactions would be impacted by students being placed in leadership roles.
Each group consisted of director, assistant-director, props manager, costume manager, playbill manager, and actors, with some students fulfilling dual-duties. For the most part, students willingly volunteered for each position, including the writers of all four selected plays eager to become directors. Each group liaised with the two-man lighting team, discussing the most effective and feasible lighting options, revising the script where necessary. Our lighting team and stage manager had theater experience, allowing directors to learn from them and increase their ability to revise.
Perhaps the most important role was that of producer and her assistants. She designed her own feedback form which the directors completed daily, and used the responses to shape the agenda for the group meeting she led every morning. The producer became a real driving force to increasing student motivation to revise as well as promoting collaboration. My findings from Phase 1 highlighted how students turned to peers in leadership roles, even if they didn’t possess any additional expertise; therefore the producer’s role addressed many of my Phase 2 questions such as impact on how students revise, collaborate, and perceive their peers.
Teachers held frequent meetings with all directors to discuss progress and overarching problems, providing additional entries in my teacher journal as to how the teacher-student relationship was being impacted. The producer also coordinated efforts between the props and costume managers to allow certain props and costumes to be shared between groups. The playbill group met regularly to design the play poster, flyers, and playbill.
Weekly benchmarks were set for all groups to ensure students remained on course, such as line memorization for actors and playbill drafts. This allowed me to measure students’ ability to revise, depending on how well they met each benchmark.
As stated, the teachers’ primary role was to check-in constantly with all groups, ensuring all students had sufficient work, answering questions, guiding students, and contributing our expertise where necessary. Being able to observe students from a distance as well as be heavily involved in all groups allowed me to collect valuable data without disrupting the project’s flow. My role was really no different than if I had not been conducting research.
Week 1
I was immediately struck at how eager students were to revise. Many reported working through the weekend, staying up late, communicating with their group, liaising with fellow director, and rewriting drafts. It was encouraging to see this transformation as students took ownership of their production, and heeded our advice. Directors also benefitted from discussing the play with their group, being introduced to more writing styles, as students took what worked best in their own script and tried to apply it to their newly adopted play.
Four of the five daily periods were reserved for rehearsals, with the fifth being Math. I posted a weekly schedule on the board, which specified where each group should be each period; either in a classroom or on stage. This ensured each group got to rehearse on stage at least once a day. The directors had control over what their group should do during classroom time, but it varied from script revision, rehearsal, voice projection, acting exercise, scene changes, costume changes, prop design, getting into character, or reflection. Each group was assigned a teacher for each period, allowing us to rotate and observe each group at least once a day.
I spent significant time with each group, working closely with the directors, encouraging them to begin with acting warm-ups and vocal exercises, having them check that all group members had a copy of the latest script and writing utensil with which to take notes. At this stage, groups were fairly disorganized, as scripts continued to be edited, and all members contributed their opinion throughout rehearsals in an informal manner. Students encountered problems such as:
The script wasn’t done so it was nearly impossible to memorize my lines.
Actors leaving, causing us to stop to look for them.
Staying focused.
Groups were not using their time effectively as they discussed changes, attempted to source costumes and props, and decided which scene to run through. It was difficult to stand back and let the directors solve these problems, but when requested I would model leadership by managing behavior and time, being authoritative or facilitative depending on the situation. This allowed directors to adopt these practices in my absence and maintain momentum.
One group in particular was keen to have me heavily involved. I had worked closely with the writers during the playwriting process and knew their play very well. The group consisted of seven boys and a single female playing the lead role, so they were understandably boisterous. The directors struggled to control their group, but seemed less concerned about behavior as they were still able to progress at an acceptable rate. They were motivated by their camaraderie, but I had to constantly remind the director of his responsibilities.
An interesting theme was developing as students became increasingly unhappy at my master-teacher’s influence. They felt that he was dictating changes to the script rather than prompting a democratic discussion. He has led this project in previous years, but students seemed reluctant to recognize his expertise. It appeared students would rather turn to their director for advice than their knowledgeable teacher, which is not inherently a bad thing. However, it led to some resentment, and reaffirmed my approach for dealing with difficult situations by being a voice in the ear of the directors, providing gentle persuasion, encouraging them to recognize problems and find solutions themselves.
Week 2
I was becoming more of a leadership coach as student leaders turned to me for advice, including the executive producer of all four plays who had assumed a lot of responsibility. She was coordinating efforts between lighting, stage manager, and directors, while observing the group that the teachers were not assigned to each period. I witnessed her giving constructive feedback, but not all directors responded well. She reported struggling to work with one group as they would not listen to her or respect her authority, highlighting one challenge as:
Dealing with all the different conflicts between people and keeping everyone positive and happy
The teachers had made it quite clear that the producer was a crucial role, and should be treated with the respect she deserved. As our producer was not the sort to ruffle feathers, my advice was to be more authoritative and that the teachers would support her. One director also approached me with concerns that she was a bad leader. She didn’t know when to step in and when to be less involved during rehearsals. I made it clear that there is no set way of leading, and that she needs to be aware of her team’s concerns, understand and appreciate their opinions, but not afraid to make hard decisions.
As three groups made headway, tackling issues, revising scripts, improving acting; one group got left behind. There was a lack of chemistry, and the writers were not making the expected revisions as requested by the teachers. Unfortunately, this led to two actors from the group taking over the responsibility of scriptwriting. These two actors are strong characters, and their own play had been a contender for production. They were tasked with creating an effective resolution while developing certain characters. They welcomed the challenge and put in a lot of effort, while constantly liaising with the director. However, the director became rather disillusioned. He was very proud of the play, as it was closely connected to his own experience, and during the read-throughs the teachers immediately, and unanimously agreed it should be produced. The director has openly admitted in the past to doing the minimal requirement to get through school, but it was disappointing to see his lack of motivation to revise a script, and lead his group.
I sought to change his attitude and had the opportunity during a group warm-up exercise. At the beginning of each day, we held a group meeting for teachers and producer to make announcements, review the previous day and discuss issues to be tackled. In order to increase the sense of community I asked all students to write on a notecard who and why they appreciate someone in their group. I collected their responses and read them anonymously.
Each group consisted of director, assistant-director, props manager, costume manager, playbill manager, and actors, with some students fulfilling dual-duties. For the most part, students willingly volunteered for each position, including the writers of all four selected plays eager to become directors. Each group liaised with the two-man lighting team, discussing the most effective and feasible lighting options, revising the script where necessary. Our lighting team and stage manager had theater experience, allowing directors to learn from them and increase their ability to revise.
Perhaps the most important role was that of producer and her assistants. She designed her own feedback form which the directors completed daily, and used the responses to shape the agenda for the group meeting she led every morning. The producer became a real driving force to increasing student motivation to revise as well as promoting collaboration. My findings from Phase 1 highlighted how students turned to peers in leadership roles, even if they didn’t possess any additional expertise; therefore the producer’s role addressed many of my Phase 2 questions such as impact on how students revise, collaborate, and perceive their peers.
Teachers held frequent meetings with all directors to discuss progress and overarching problems, providing additional entries in my teacher journal as to how the teacher-student relationship was being impacted. The producer also coordinated efforts between the props and costume managers to allow certain props and costumes to be shared between groups. The playbill group met regularly to design the play poster, flyers, and playbill.
Weekly benchmarks were set for all groups to ensure students remained on course, such as line memorization for actors and playbill drafts. This allowed me to measure students’ ability to revise, depending on how well they met each benchmark.
As stated, the teachers’ primary role was to check-in constantly with all groups, ensuring all students had sufficient work, answering questions, guiding students, and contributing our expertise where necessary. Being able to observe students from a distance as well as be heavily involved in all groups allowed me to collect valuable data without disrupting the project’s flow. My role was really no different than if I had not been conducting research.
Week 1
I was immediately struck at how eager students were to revise. Many reported working through the weekend, staying up late, communicating with their group, liaising with fellow director, and rewriting drafts. It was encouraging to see this transformation as students took ownership of their production, and heeded our advice. Directors also benefitted from discussing the play with their group, being introduced to more writing styles, as students took what worked best in their own script and tried to apply it to their newly adopted play.
Four of the five daily periods were reserved for rehearsals, with the fifth being Math. I posted a weekly schedule on the board, which specified where each group should be each period; either in a classroom or on stage. This ensured each group got to rehearse on stage at least once a day. The directors had control over what their group should do during classroom time, but it varied from script revision, rehearsal, voice projection, acting exercise, scene changes, costume changes, prop design, getting into character, or reflection. Each group was assigned a teacher for each period, allowing us to rotate and observe each group at least once a day.
I spent significant time with each group, working closely with the directors, encouraging them to begin with acting warm-ups and vocal exercises, having them check that all group members had a copy of the latest script and writing utensil with which to take notes. At this stage, groups were fairly disorganized, as scripts continued to be edited, and all members contributed their opinion throughout rehearsals in an informal manner. Students encountered problems such as:
The script wasn’t done so it was nearly impossible to memorize my lines.
Actors leaving, causing us to stop to look for them.
Staying focused.
Groups were not using their time effectively as they discussed changes, attempted to source costumes and props, and decided which scene to run through. It was difficult to stand back and let the directors solve these problems, but when requested I would model leadership by managing behavior and time, being authoritative or facilitative depending on the situation. This allowed directors to adopt these practices in my absence and maintain momentum.
One group in particular was keen to have me heavily involved. I had worked closely with the writers during the playwriting process and knew their play very well. The group consisted of seven boys and a single female playing the lead role, so they were understandably boisterous. The directors struggled to control their group, but seemed less concerned about behavior as they were still able to progress at an acceptable rate. They were motivated by their camaraderie, but I had to constantly remind the director of his responsibilities.
An interesting theme was developing as students became increasingly unhappy at my master-teacher’s influence. They felt that he was dictating changes to the script rather than prompting a democratic discussion. He has led this project in previous years, but students seemed reluctant to recognize his expertise. It appeared students would rather turn to their director for advice than their knowledgeable teacher, which is not inherently a bad thing. However, it led to some resentment, and reaffirmed my approach for dealing with difficult situations by being a voice in the ear of the directors, providing gentle persuasion, encouraging them to recognize problems and find solutions themselves.
Week 2
I was becoming more of a leadership coach as student leaders turned to me for advice, including the executive producer of all four plays who had assumed a lot of responsibility. She was coordinating efforts between lighting, stage manager, and directors, while observing the group that the teachers were not assigned to each period. I witnessed her giving constructive feedback, but not all directors responded well. She reported struggling to work with one group as they would not listen to her or respect her authority, highlighting one challenge as:
Dealing with all the different conflicts between people and keeping everyone positive and happy
The teachers had made it quite clear that the producer was a crucial role, and should be treated with the respect she deserved. As our producer was not the sort to ruffle feathers, my advice was to be more authoritative and that the teachers would support her. One director also approached me with concerns that she was a bad leader. She didn’t know when to step in and when to be less involved during rehearsals. I made it clear that there is no set way of leading, and that she needs to be aware of her team’s concerns, understand and appreciate their opinions, but not afraid to make hard decisions.
As three groups made headway, tackling issues, revising scripts, improving acting; one group got left behind. There was a lack of chemistry, and the writers were not making the expected revisions as requested by the teachers. Unfortunately, this led to two actors from the group taking over the responsibility of scriptwriting. These two actors are strong characters, and their own play had been a contender for production. They were tasked with creating an effective resolution while developing certain characters. They welcomed the challenge and put in a lot of effort, while constantly liaising with the director. However, the director became rather disillusioned. He was very proud of the play, as it was closely connected to his own experience, and during the read-throughs the teachers immediately, and unanimously agreed it should be produced. The director has openly admitted in the past to doing the minimal requirement to get through school, but it was disappointing to see his lack of motivation to revise a script, and lead his group.
I sought to change his attitude and had the opportunity during a group warm-up exercise. At the beginning of each day, we held a group meeting for teachers and producer to make announcements, review the previous day and discuss issues to be tackled. In order to increase the sense of community I asked all students to write on a notecard who and why they appreciate someone in their group. I collected their responses and read them anonymously.
|
|
I will discuss the results in more detail in the data collection and analysis section, but the unmotivated director received two messages of support (including one from me). This had an incredibly positive effect and when I observed his group later in the day he was fulfilling the role of a strong leader; assigning roles, organizing actors, determining which scenes to rehearse, taking notes, and most importantly providing constructive feedback and recognizing where changes needed to be made. As a keen sportsman he used phrases such as “practice what you play” to simplify the process and motivate his actors. He drew on his experience outside the classroom, where he naturally revises and improves upon his performance by recognizing weaknesses. Being placed in a leadership role gave him the motivation to revise, as he already possessed the ability to do so. This student needed a reminder that he was a leader, and a capable one, in order to focus on revising his play.
The final group, yet to be mentioned, was making incredible progress. Their director was assuming a lot of responsibility, but coping well with the extra pressure, leading her group forcefully, beginning each day with a clear picture of what needed to be revised. However, it was not plain-sailing for all groups. In particular the playbill group was struggling, being led by an assistant producer who admitted to “having the leadership skills of a fish”. Her lack of confidence, despite being an academically strong student, was having an adverse effect on the group as they lacked leadership and direction. They could not decide upon an artistic style, and were not communicating effectively. This may have been due to the playbill not being of highest priority as most of the group members were also actors. I encouraged the playbill manager to use her strengths, including her intelligence and strong organizational skills to lead the group, constantly check-in with each member, and hold more team meetings. I led a meeting in which we looked at professional, and the previous year’s playbill in order to generate ideas and set an additional benchmark to ensure revisions were made in a timely fashion.
By the end of the week it was clear that each director had their own leadership style, but not all possessed both the ability and desire to revise. The vast majority of students were heavily invested in the project.
Week 3
The week began with the previously unmotivated director expressing concerns about a weak actor. They had tried a variety of approaches in order to increase the emotion in her acting, but all to no avail. After a discussion with myself and the two lead actors, the director decided to introduce a new character. The new character would support the struggling actor in her scenes, adding a new dynamics and reducing the pressure. It was fascinating to witness an original approach to solving an ongoing issue. It was not a hasty decision, and a lot of thought had gone into an acceptable solution that would not upset any members. The new character would clearly involve adding dialogue, stage directions, and costume, but the group were not afraid of making these revisions at such a late stage.
The stage crew were also showing a strong desire and ability to revise. Their energies were focused on fixing the stage, building stage steps, and constantly re-stitching and raising the stage curtain. The stage crew consisted of two students who had shown very little desire to revise their written work. Being given autonomy and leadership had a positive impact on their motivation to revise, as they had the opportunity to display their skills and passion. A similar story was unfolding with the lighting crew who faced a series of challenges, such as fixing broken lights, repositioning spotlights, and liaising with directors. They equally rose to the challenge, thriving with their newly acquired responsibility. Week 3 saw the visit of a professional actor to share his expertise. Actors had highlighted concerns such as:
Voice projection and acting as I speak
The actor’s workshop provided tools on how to improve voice projection and body language as well as spending 15 minutes with each group revising a problematic scene. This was useful for groups who possessed the motivation to revise but not necessarily the ability.
At this point my master-teacher introduced new graded reflections to encourage groups to debrief at the end of each day, and better prepare directors for the next day, focusing on areas of improvement. It involved students completing a written reflection with a series of questions including what they had achieved that day, an area of weakness and plans for the next day. Students were already completing weekly reflections for my research and the Spanish teacher (a fellow USD graduate), and directors submitted daily reflections for the producer. Our reflections were ungraded as our goal was to receive meaningful rather than forced responses. The majority of the students did not react well to the latest reflections. They felt that it was actually restricting their critiquing process and not an effective use of their time. The directors called for a meeting with all teachers to express their concerns which led to the written reflection becoming optional as long as productive debriefs occurred, and were witnessed by a teacher or producer.
Groups that had been debriefing organically continued to do so. It was a meaningful exercise which encouraged the revision process and was willingly conducted. The play group consisting mainly of boys decided to adopt the new written reflections. Their existing debriefs were informal circle talks during which nothing was recorded nor concrete goals set. The director realized it would be more beneficial to conduct a more structured reflection to encourage his actors to focus on improving areas of weakness.
It wasn’t only directors who displayed a strong desire and ability to revise. Each play included a language consultant, to integrate Spanish into the dialogue. Two consultants, in particular, were often unmotivated and regularly absent from class. However, they responded well to having a peer as a leader and became more involved in the revision process, actively adding more Spanish, improving dialogue and helping actors with their pronunciation.
Actors too were more likely to revise without being prompted by their director. Several actors were constantly questioning the motives of their character, reevaluating their role, revising their body language and speech patterns. They sought help primarily from their director and peers, viewing them as knowledgeable leaders.
The playbill group finally made progress, as despite being willing to revise, they were failing to improve. The artwork was turned over to one creative student, who had not been suited to leading her peers and seemed distant at times. However, just as with the stage crew and language consultants she responded well to the responsibility and leadership role. She created a stunning series of posters for each play, working late, and constantly editing.
The final group, yet to be mentioned, was making incredible progress. Their director was assuming a lot of responsibility, but coping well with the extra pressure, leading her group forcefully, beginning each day with a clear picture of what needed to be revised. However, it was not plain-sailing for all groups. In particular the playbill group was struggling, being led by an assistant producer who admitted to “having the leadership skills of a fish”. Her lack of confidence, despite being an academically strong student, was having an adverse effect on the group as they lacked leadership and direction. They could not decide upon an artistic style, and were not communicating effectively. This may have been due to the playbill not being of highest priority as most of the group members were also actors. I encouraged the playbill manager to use her strengths, including her intelligence and strong organizational skills to lead the group, constantly check-in with each member, and hold more team meetings. I led a meeting in which we looked at professional, and the previous year’s playbill in order to generate ideas and set an additional benchmark to ensure revisions were made in a timely fashion.
By the end of the week it was clear that each director had their own leadership style, but not all possessed both the ability and desire to revise. The vast majority of students were heavily invested in the project.
Week 3
The week began with the previously unmotivated director expressing concerns about a weak actor. They had tried a variety of approaches in order to increase the emotion in her acting, but all to no avail. After a discussion with myself and the two lead actors, the director decided to introduce a new character. The new character would support the struggling actor in her scenes, adding a new dynamics and reducing the pressure. It was fascinating to witness an original approach to solving an ongoing issue. It was not a hasty decision, and a lot of thought had gone into an acceptable solution that would not upset any members. The new character would clearly involve adding dialogue, stage directions, and costume, but the group were not afraid of making these revisions at such a late stage.
The stage crew were also showing a strong desire and ability to revise. Their energies were focused on fixing the stage, building stage steps, and constantly re-stitching and raising the stage curtain. The stage crew consisted of two students who had shown very little desire to revise their written work. Being given autonomy and leadership had a positive impact on their motivation to revise, as they had the opportunity to display their skills and passion. A similar story was unfolding with the lighting crew who faced a series of challenges, such as fixing broken lights, repositioning spotlights, and liaising with directors. They equally rose to the challenge, thriving with their newly acquired responsibility. Week 3 saw the visit of a professional actor to share his expertise. Actors had highlighted concerns such as:
Voice projection and acting as I speak
The actor’s workshop provided tools on how to improve voice projection and body language as well as spending 15 minutes with each group revising a problematic scene. This was useful for groups who possessed the motivation to revise but not necessarily the ability.
At this point my master-teacher introduced new graded reflections to encourage groups to debrief at the end of each day, and better prepare directors for the next day, focusing on areas of improvement. It involved students completing a written reflection with a series of questions including what they had achieved that day, an area of weakness and plans for the next day. Students were already completing weekly reflections for my research and the Spanish teacher (a fellow USD graduate), and directors submitted daily reflections for the producer. Our reflections were ungraded as our goal was to receive meaningful rather than forced responses. The majority of the students did not react well to the latest reflections. They felt that it was actually restricting their critiquing process and not an effective use of their time. The directors called for a meeting with all teachers to express their concerns which led to the written reflection becoming optional as long as productive debriefs occurred, and were witnessed by a teacher or producer.
Groups that had been debriefing organically continued to do so. It was a meaningful exercise which encouraged the revision process and was willingly conducted. The play group consisting mainly of boys decided to adopt the new written reflections. Their existing debriefs were informal circle talks during which nothing was recorded nor concrete goals set. The director realized it would be more beneficial to conduct a more structured reflection to encourage his actors to focus on improving areas of weakness.
It wasn’t only directors who displayed a strong desire and ability to revise. Each play included a language consultant, to integrate Spanish into the dialogue. Two consultants, in particular, were often unmotivated and regularly absent from class. However, they responded well to having a peer as a leader and became more involved in the revision process, actively adding more Spanish, improving dialogue and helping actors with their pronunciation.
Actors too were more likely to revise without being prompted by their director. Several actors were constantly questioning the motives of their character, reevaluating their role, revising their body language and speech patterns. They sought help primarily from their director and peers, viewing them as knowledgeable leaders.
The playbill group finally made progress, as despite being willing to revise, they were failing to improve. The artwork was turned over to one creative student, who had not been suited to leading her peers and seemed distant at times. However, just as with the stage crew and language consultants she responded well to the responsibility and leadership role. She created a stunning series of posters for each play, working late, and constantly editing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rehearsals continued to gather pace, with
directors and actors increasing their willingness to observe their peers’
rehearsals. This became a valuable learning experience as groups exchanged
ideas and adopted each other’s methods, revising and improving their own play.
By now everyone had become an expert in immediately spotting a flaw, and were
not only eager to correct it but knew how to.
In the days before production night, discussions became even more organic and students continued to be unopposed to revisions. Occasionally, directors would be less willing to change but many actors had found their voice, having observed their peers as leaders, highlighting weaknesses and proposing revisions in a constructive manner. Despite the seeming monotony of rehearsals at this stage, as each group was fully prepared, they remained dedicated and thoughtful.
Read on to discover more about my data collection and analysis.
In the days before production night, discussions became even more organic and students continued to be unopposed to revisions. Occasionally, directors would be less willing to change but many actors had found their voice, having observed their peers as leaders, highlighting weaknesses and proposing revisions in a constructive manner. Despite the seeming monotony of rehearsals at this stage, as each group was fully prepared, they remained dedicated and thoughtful.
Read on to discover more about my data collection and analysis.