Higher Education - Border or Boundary? Can Theatre in Education Help Promote a University Education?

With the expansion and increased availability of Higher Education the progression to study for an undergraduate degree has been viewed as a simple stepping stone with examination success a straight - forward border pass. Changes in the funding of degree courses has established a series of more challenging boundaries to entry which demand a rigorous assessment of the benefits of Higher Education. The Widening Participation Unit at The University of Worcester has sought to ease this border crossing for pupils whose parents have not been to university. Their experience from previous projects was that school pupils more easily relate to undergraduate students whose experience of Higher Education is recent and relevant. With this in mind they commissioned the Drama and Performance Department to create a Theatre in Education programme that introduced an awareness of post sixteen options and future choices to challenge Higher Education stereotypes. As a result of this collaboration Why Bother? was created, directed by myself and devised and researched with four students who were studying drama. Their own experiences were used to inform the character development and dealt with worrying as a mature student about integration into full – time education, loss of income after working, the pressures of emotional commitments to partners and being away from home. The programme toured to two thousand year 9 – 11 pupils in Worcestershire and Herefordshire schools in January and May 2011. Devising and touring Why Bother provided students with an opportunity to work as a professional paid TIE team that it is not possible for them to do as part of their undergraduate degree course. My initial research looks at the effectiveness and limitations of this project based on pupil questionnaires and the experiences of the team which are explored within the broader context of TIE and its potential for affecting attitudinal change. This has given rise to a number of questions that need consideration in the development of a new TIE programme aimed at raising the awareness of sixth form students who are about to make the decision whether to apply to university or not. Collaboration with university students in exploring the value of an education that they have subscribed to raises issues of bias and whether their powers of persuasion actually prevent pupils from making their own individual decision. The ethics of promoting a “free” university education seem much less complex than the decision required now which involves balancing the real value against the high financial cost suggested in the working title of Is it Worth it? This paper will present my first attempts to develop research methods and methodologies that will enable me to evaluate the success of this and future TIE.

Heroism and Adventurism: Can Applied Theatre Practices Give Participants the Experience of Being the Heroes and Heroines of Their Own Stories?

Move on Up! is part of a series of widening participation interactive Theatre in Education programmes at The University of Worcester, designed to raise educational aspirations. It was conceived for year 6 pupils about to go up to secondary school, to reflect on this transition and the challenges and pitfalls it presented to them. I searched for stimulus material to create the dynamic of an adventure story that reflected and generated the excitement and fear of change. The Mysterious Island by Jules Verne provided the structure of this classic genre with characters stranded on a desert island. Directing a team of four student actors and a stage manager I sought to promote the heroic ideal of using the skills needed to survive against adversity and to transpose it to a school context. The four characters discover talents and interests on the year 6 school trip and they endeavour to become the best version of themselves at their secondary school where these attributes have to be tested in a new environment. Using interactive voting software helped to determine whether pupils could achieve the sense of control and ownership outlined in Boal’s theatre practice. The programme provides a number of points of intervention where participants could vote and influence the shape of the character’s stories and perhaps create heroes or anti – heroes depending on the decisions they make. Boal wants participants to become the outspoken protagonists of their own stories or specactors. This paper will investigate whether applied theatre practice can give participants a heroic experience by exploring the process of creating Move on Up! and the response to the programme from year 6 pupils in West Midlands schools.

The Silent Majority: an Exploration of the Integration of Voting Software within Theatre in Education programmes

I wanted to explore whether traditional Forum Theatre approaches can be enhanced by the use of integrated voting software to empower young people. My research is based on two of a series of widening participation interactive TiE programmes focused on the decisions young people make on educational progression. I worked as a director alongside students studying Drama and Performance at The University of Worcester and the programmes have toured widely to schools across Worcestershire and Herefordshire. ‘It’s Up to You!’ (2013 – 2014) was aimed at years 8 and 9 choosing their GCSE options and ‘Move on Up!’ (2014 - 2015) looked at the hopes and fears of year 6 pupils about to go up to secondary school. Finding a voice in Boal’s framework as a ‘specactor’ does not always appeal to a pupil who does not want to stand out from the crowd or is not familiar with a classroom where drama conventions are practised or understood. The anonymity of the voting software with results of decisions made appearing instantly on screen is certainly appealing to some pupils: ‘I also loved the keypads they gave us so that we could answer the questions without having to put our hand up and wait..’ This paper aims to interrogate the idea that empowering needs to not simply be about giving voice to a few confident group members but allowing the silent majority to be able to experiment with decision making in an educational and social context.

Widening Access to Higher Education through Partnership Working

This chapter considers the policy and practice of partnership working amongst educational organisations and related service providers as a means of promoting social inclusion in higher education (HE). It draws on an empirical study of partnership working in an area of England which has low levels of participation in HE, consistently performs poorly in national measures of educational achievement, and contains pockets of severe economic and social deprivation. The empirical research focuses on the work of senior managers from seventeen organisations who formed a sub-regional partnership as a strategy to raise aspirations, widen participation in HE and promote social inclusion.

Disability and Participation in the Professions: Examples from Higher and Medical Education

Learners with disabilities remain under-represented in higher education and courses, such as medicine, that grant access to ‘the professions’. National and professional legislation, policy and guidance have changed over the last few decades in response to reforms in the way disability is viewed and valued by society. Principles of equal rights and equality of opportunity inform the negotiation of widened participation in the professions. However, drawing on the example of medical education, it is possible to see that widening articipation agendas may be insensitive to the needs of learners with disabilities. Analysing the development of practice and policy from a participation perspective suggests that tokenism may have played a role in deprioritising the voices of individuals with disabilities, rendering policy disconnected from the needs of marginalised groups. The concept of participatory parity may provide an opportunity to readdress this misrepresentation.

Rhetoric and Realities of London 2012 Olympic Education and Participation ‘Legacies’: Voices from the Core and Periphery

A legacy emphasis was one of the fundamental pillars of the London 2012 Olympic Games. The notion of an Olympic legacy was predicated on assumptions that the event’s value would not purely derive from the sporting spectacle, but rather, from the ‘success’ of enduring effects met out in London and across the country. For physical education students and practitioners, Olympic legacy agendas translated into persistent pressure to increase inspiration, engagement, participation and performance in the subject, sport and physical activity. Responding to this context, and cogniscent of significant disciplinary scholarship, this paper reports initial data from the first phase of a longitudinal study involving Key Stage Three (students aged 11-13) cohorts in two comparable United Kingdom schools: the first an inner-city (core) London school adjacent to the Olympic Park in Stratford, East London (n=150); the second, a (peripheral) school in the Midlands (n=198). The research involved the use of themed questionnaires focusing on self-reported attitudes toward the Olympic Games, and, experiences of physical education, sport and physical activity. Students from both schools demonstrated a wide variety of attitudes toward physical education and sport; yet, minor variances emerged regarding extreme enthusiasm levels. Both cohorts also expressed considerably mixed feelings toward the impending Olympic Games. Strong and variable responses were also reported regarding inspiration levels, ticketing acquisition and engagement levels. Consequently, this investigation can be read within the broader context of legacy debates, and, aligns well with physical educationalists’ on-going discomfort regarding legacy imperatives being enforced upon the discipline and its practitioners. Our work reiterates a shared disciplinary scepticism that while an Olympic Games may temporarily affect young peoples’ affectations for sport (and maybe physical education and physical activity), it may not provide the best, or most appropriate, mechanism for sustained attitudinal and/or social changes en masse.