Practitioners’ reflections on dramatic co-creation with children

Practitioners’ reflections on dramatic co-creation with children

Bob Selderslaghs

https://doi.org/10.64741/891366uvyftj

Abstract

This study explores practitioners’ reflections on dramatic co-creation with children, focusing on manifestations of agency and empowerment, the role of facilitators, and barriers to co-creation. Conducted during the Dorothy Heathcote Now International Drama Conference (2024), the research employed the Nominal Group Technique with an international group of thirteen drama educators. Findings suggest several emotional indicators that mark agency in co-creation, and ‘fear’ as a key hindrance, with associated concerns spanning students, teachers, institutions, culture, and performance expectations. The study also highlights that empowerment is relational: it is not granted by teachers but co-constructed through dialogue and ‘presence’. These insights reaffirm Paulo Freire’s and Dorothy Heathcote’s perspectives on participatory learning. While acknowledging limitations due to sample size and context, the study suggests that fostering agency requires institutional support for psychological safety, teacher autonomy, and relational pedagogy.

Key words

Dramatic co-creation, drama in education, agency, empowerment, teacher presence, participatory learning, Dorothy Heathcote.

Introduction

Anyone familiar with the work of Dorothy Heathcote would likely highlight terms such as ‘collaborative’, ‘collective’, ‘co-creation’, and ‘co-constructing’ as key to her approach. This emphasis is strongly reflected in the literature, just like the concepts of ’empowerment’ and ‘agency’ (Bolton 1998; Aitken 2013; Davis 2013; Boland 2015; Kipling 2015, 2017; Taylor 2016; Hinton 2021). Most recently, Dr. Christine Hatton from the University of Newcastle in Australia described Heathcote’s drama as a ‘collaborative experience’, as ‘dramatic co-creation’, and

an act of imaginative worlding, devised from the collective creations of the group (2024).

But how does one arrive at such a form of ‘collective creation’? In what observable behaviours do agency and empowerment manifest in children during co-creation? What do practitioners do to enable children to co-create? And what, according to them, sometimes hinders this co-creation? These seem relevant questions for educators to consider on a regular basis. Imagine the valuable insights they could offer if they could do so in an intergenerational and internationally diverse group.

During the Dorothy Heathcote Now International Drama Conference in November 2024 at Goldsmiths, University of London, I worked with an exploratory working group of ‘teacher artists’ with diverse experiences and backgrounds. We functioned as a community of practice using different imaginary contexts to explore how to work with participants in a horizontal way. Over the course of two practical sessions of two hours each, we also engaged in reflection on the questions above through the Nominal Group Technique (Delbeq et al. 1975). This technique combines quantitative and qualitative data collection in a group setting. Idea generation and problem-solving are integrated into a structured group process, which encourages and enhances the participation of all group members (Gallagher et al. 1993).

Methodology

For this study, I worked with a group of thirteen participants, including myself as the researcher and facilitator of the exploratory working group. The participants varied in age, with 25 being the youngest and 65 the oldest participant. Most of them (half of the participants) were in their thirties at the time of the study. There were seven women, five men, and one participant who chose not to disclose their gender. All participants had a background in the arts and/or education, with diverse levels of experience: some were in (drama) teacher training, most were actively teaching, and a few combined their educational work with an academic and/or artistic career. The group was international, comprising two participants from Italy, one from Brazil, two from India, one from the United States, five from the United Kingdom, and two from Belgium. Before the study commenced, all participants signed a declaration of consent for the use of coded data in this research.

The intervention took place at Goldsmiths, University of London, on 9 and 10 November 2024, during the Dorothy Heathcote Now International Drama Conference. As mentioned, I facilitated two sessions of two hours each. The first session introduced the participants to a fictional context using a video clip from a 1973 news broadcast about escaped baboons in an animal park (Nederlands Instituut voor Beeld & Geluid 2012). This session incorporated several dramatic conventions as outlined by Heathcote, including the role present as in ‘effigy’, the effigy ‘brought into life-like response’, and

the voice of a person overheard talking to another in informal language, that is using naturalistic tone,

listed as conventions 3, 4 and 25 in Heathcote’s essay Signs and Portents (Heathcote 1984:166-167). Participants also worked with what Betty J. Wagner refers to as the three spectra of theater craft (1976:153-154), also known as the six dimensions of dramatic imagination (Taylor 2016:175), creating tableaux that explored darkness/light, movement/stillness, and sound/silence. The second session focused on building belief from the energy of feelings in a fictional context, following Heathcote’s concept of a ‘pudding of feelings’: a blend of emotions we experience as positive, negative, or neither, but leading to action (Wagner 1976:74). After this exploration, there was time for participant reflection.

Participation in the working group was voluntary, and participants had enrolled in response to a call that emphasised co-creation and participatory approaches. The sessions explored how to facilitate true co-creation and participation with children, questioning how to foster horizontal ways of working while acknowledging that someone takes on the role of facilitator and initiator. The sessions were designed as hands-on and reflective, encouraging participants to contribute their own experiences and practices.

For data collection, I applied the Nominal Group Technique during the reflective phase of the second session, a structured method lasting precisely one hour and divided into four timed phases. First, participants wrote individual responses to prompts regarding co-creation with children:

In what observable behaviours do agency and empowerment manifest in children?

What do you do to enable co-creation with children (personal actions)?

What hinders co-creation with children?

What questions and/or uncertainties do you have regarding co-creation with children?

This was a silent phase to ensure a focus on individual reflection rather than group influence. In the second phase, participants transferred their responses to large floor posters, grouping their contributions into categories: ‘observable behaviours’, ‘personal actions’, ‘hindrances to co-creation’, and ‘questions and uncertainties’. The third phase involved clarification and consolidation, allowing participants to review the collected contributions and clarify ambiguities. The aim was not to engage in debates or disagreements but to ensure understanding. In the fourth and final phase, participants ranked the responses by placing a mark next to the statements they found most resonant or valuable (except for the questions and uncertainties section, which remained open-ended). To document this process, I took photographs of the floor posters, and an audio recording was made of the final reflective discussion in which participants commented on the ranked responses.

The analysis process was embedded within phase four of the Nominal Group Technique, as the ranking activity itself revealed points of consensus and divergence among participants. Additionally, I conducted a thematic analysis of the transcription of the audio recording to complement the quantitative ranking data with qualitative insights. This allowed for a deeper understanding of the participants’ perspectives, adding nuance to the numerical ranking results and capturing the complexities of their reflections on co-creation.

Findings

The data collected from the exploratory working group revealed several key insights into observable behaviours of agency and empowerment in children during co-creation, the role of the practitioner in fostering these conditions, and the barriers that hinder co-creation.

Observable behaviours of agency and empowerment

When asked to identify observable indicators of agency and empowerment in children, the most highly ranked contributions (circled in figure 1) included unashamedness (3 votes), accepting others’ ideas and opinions (2 votes), taking the work in unexpected directions (2 votes), and when children can’t help but to participate (2 votes). The voting pattern suggests a strong emphasis on emotional and affective indicators over more traditional behavioural markers like leadership (1 vote) or task ownership (1 vote).

Figure 1: observable behaviours

During the reflective discussion, participants noted that all contributions were inherently positive but pointed out a tension between student-centred and teacher-centred perspectives. ‘Unashamedness’ and ‘happiness’ were considered subjective emotions beyond the direct control of the teacher, whereas creating conditions where ‘children can’t help but to participate’ was identified as something educators are expected to facilitate. A novice teacher expressed frustration over the pressure to design engaging experiences with limited time, resources, and systemic support, drawing a comparison to telling a baker to produce the best cake every time. This highlights an implicit expectation placed on educators to engineer engagement, despite structural constraints.

Interestingly, no participants challenged the selection of behaviours, suggesting that there was little surprise in the findings. This consensus may reflect a shared understanding among practitioners about what agency and empowerment look like in practice.

Practitioner actions toward co-creation

The responses regarding personal actions toward co-creation were more evenly distributed across categories, with genuinely listening (3 votes), authenticity (2 votes), and stepping out to give space and hand over power (2 votes) receiving the highest recognition (circled in figure 2).

figure 2: personal actions towards co-creation

The discussion suggested a strong interconnection between these concepts. Participants argued that being on the same hierarchical level is demonstrated through listening, validating student contributions, and engaging authentically. One participant linked these ideas to presence, proposing that

only from a state of being present can one genuinely listen and respond authentically.

A second thread in the discussion concerned the tension between teaching as a technical versus an artistic practice. Referencing Dorothy Heathcote’s distinction between the teacher technician and the teacher artist (Heathcote 1988), one participant suggested that authenticity in teaching involves bringing one’s whole self into the classroom, rather than performing a professional role. This aligns with Eric Booth’s claim that ‘80% of what we teach is who we are’ (2023:46).

The discussion underscored the idea that empowerment and agency are not merely outcomes of instructional strategies but are deeply connected to the relational dynamics between teachers and students.

Barriers to co-creation

By far, the most dominant theme in barriers to co-creation was fear (7 votes), with associated concerns spanning students, teachers, institutions, culture, and performance expectations (circled in figure 3).

Figure 3: what hinders co-creation?

The discussion around fear was rich, highlighting its complexity and omnipresence within educational structures. Some participants connected fear to uncertainty, proposing that fear originates from a lack of presence, a theme that had already emerged in discussions on agency. Others noted that fear is not only paralysing but also shapes behaviour within education systems, where students may become conditioned to fear failure, seeking perfection instead.

An interesting distinction was made between fear as a blocker (stopping everything) and fear as a motivator (pushing through challenges). Some practitioners shared personal experiences of choosing to act despite fear, while others noted that fear in students often leads to disengagement. The concept of the hidden curriculum emerged, with some participants reflecting on how educators may unconsciously transmit their own fears about systemic constraints into the classroom.

Uncertainties and open questions

The final reflective exercise revealed additional layers of concern, particularly around systemic constraints, the balance between classroom management and agency, and how to instil confidence in teachers navigating co-creation. Some participants raised philosophical questions about whether there is such a thing as children having too much agency, while others focused on the challenge of advocating for co-creative practices among colleagues and within rigid institutional structures. The influence of technological developments, such as AI, was also noted as a potential disruptor to current modes of schooling.

Conclusion

The findings highlight a strong practitioner consensus on the observable signs of agency in children, particularly in relation to emotional freedom, unpredictability in creative work, and spontaneous participation. However, the discussions also exposed tensions between ideal conditions for empowerment and the systemic barriers that make them difficult to sustain.

Fear emerged as a dominant hindrance to co-creation, affecting students, teachers, and institutions alike. While some practitioners saw fear as an obstacle, others viewed it as an inevitable part of the learning process: something to be acknowledged and worked with rather than eliminated. The emphasis on presence as a prerequisite for both teacher authenticity and student agency suggests that effective co-creation is less about following prescribed techniques and more about a relational state of engagement.

Ultimately, the study reaffirms that agency and empowerment in children are inseparable from the conditions set by practitioners. While structural constraints remain a challenge, the data suggest that fostering agency requires educators to navigate their own uncertainties, embrace presence, and engage in teaching as a deeply human and relational act.

Discussion

This small conference study set out to explore how agency and empowerment manifest in children during co-creation, what actions practitioners take to foster these conditions, and what barriers may hinder the process. The findings suggest that observable markers of agency extend beyond leadership or task ownership to include emotional indicators such as unashamedness, spontaneous participation, and the ability to take work in unexpected directions. The strongest emphasis, however, was placed on fear as a major obstacle to co-creation, with participants identifying it as a systemic issue that affects students, teachers, and institutions alike.

One possible interpretation of these findings is that agency in creative settings is not simply a function of skill development or structured participation but is deeply tied to affective states. When children feel safe enough to take creative risks, their agency flourishes. Conversely, when fear is present, whether due to institutional constraints, external pressures, or internalised expectations, co-creation becomes difficult. This aligns with existing research on psychological safety in learning environments (Edmondson 1999), which suggests that students must feel secure in order to engage in exploratory, agentic behaviours. The connection drawn by participants between presence and agency also reflects broader discussions in educational philosophy, particularly in relation to constructivist and experiential learning theories (Dewey 1938).

Interestingly, the discussion around practitioner actions toward co-creation revealed a strong consensus that empowerment is relational. The highest-ranked actions – genuinely listening, authenticity, and stepping back to hand over power – indicate that fostering agency is less about direct instruction and more about the educator’s ability to create a horizontal, trust-based dynamic with students. This supports the argument that empowerment is not simply something granted to students, but rather something co-constructed through interaction. Or as Paolo Freire already advocated half a century ago:

The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. (1970:80)

It also reinforces Heathcote’s distinction between the teacher artist and the teacher technician, where the former engages authentically as a co-participant in learning rather than delivering pre-structured experiences.

Despite these insights, the study has of course limitations that must be acknowledged. The data was collected through an exploratory working group composed of a relatively small number of practitioners, all of whom were already engaged in drama-based education. This means that the perspectives gathered may not be fully representative of teachers working in more traditional or rigid educational contexts. Additionally, the study relied on qualitative methods, including group discussions and reflections, which (while valuable for capturing nuanced perspectives) are inherently influenced by the dynamics of the group itself. Future research could benefit from more extensive longitudinal studies that observe co-creation in practice over time or explore student perspectives directly.

Nevertheless, the implications of these findings are significant for educators and policymakers alike. If fear is indeed a dominant barrier to agency, then reducing high-stakes assessment pressures, increasing institutional flexibility, and fostering teacher autonomy should be prioritised. Likewise, teacher training programmes might benefit from a greater emphasis on presence, relational pedagogy, and the development of authentic teaching identities rather than purely technical skills. To quote one of the participants when reflecting on the personal actions toward co-creation:

these are the things that they don’t teach you when you learn to be a teacher.

Future research could further investigate the balance between structure and freedom in co-creation: how much guidance is necessary before stepping back, and how do different age groups respond to varying levels of autonomy? Additionally, given that technological developments, such as AI, were raised as potential disruptors, further exploration into how digital tools might either support or hinder co-creative processes would be valuable.

Ultimately, this study reinforces the idea that agency is not a fixed trait but an emergent property of the learning environment. While systemic barriers remain, the findings suggest that practitioners play a crucial role in shaping conditions where children feel both safe and empowered to take (creative) risks. Creating such environments requires not only pedagogical strategies but also a fundamental shift in how education values presence, relationality, and the emotional dimensions of learning: aspects that seem to be interwoven with the transformative approach to learning and teaching that Dorothy Heathcote envisioned.

References

Aitken, V., Fraser, D. and Whyte, B. (2013) Dorothy Heathcote’s Mantle of the Expert Approach to Teaching and Learning: A brief introduction. In: Connecting Curriculum, Linking Learning. NZCER. 34-56.
Boland, G. (2015) The drama of co-intentional dialogue: reflections on the confluent praxis of Dorothy Heathcote and Paulo Freire. In M. Anderson and C. Roche (eds) The state of the art: Teaching drama in the 21st century. Sydney University Press. 129-148.
Bolton, G. (1998) Acting in Classroom Drama – critical analysis. Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom: Trentham.
Booth, E. (2023) Making Change. Teaching Artists and Their Role in Shaping a Better World. Betteryet Press. 46.
Davis, S. (2013) Dramatic Shape-shifter and Innovative Teacher: The creative life and legacy of Dorothy Heathcote. NJ. 37(1). 25-40. doi: 10.1080/14452294.2013.11649561.
Delbecq, A. (1975) Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview Ill.: Scott Foresman.
Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly. 44(2). 350-383.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (80). New York: Continuum.
Gallagher, M. et al. (1993) The nominal group technique: a research tool for general practice? Family Practice. 10(1). 76–81. Doi: 10.1093/fampra/10.1.76.
Hatton, C. (2024) Playing within the trouble: using drama to cultivate tentacular thinking and response-ability in schools in times of crisis. Research in Drama Education the Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance. 29(2). 335-353. doi:10.1080/13569783.2024.2346265.
Heathcote, D. (1984) The authentic teacher: Signs and portents. In: L. Johnson and C. O’Neill (eds) Dorothy Heathcote: collected writings on education and drama. (166-167). Hutchinson & Co.
Heathcote, D. (1988) Sequencing. In: K. Harvey and K. Williams (eds) Aspects of drama for learning: Dorothy Heathcote talks about sequencing, planning, styles of teaching and other topics. (7-17). Kohia Teachers Centre.
Hinton, L. (2021) The Commissioners. The Journal for Drama in Education. 35(2). 81-88.
Kipling, A. and Hickey-Moodey, A.C. (2015) The Practice of Dorothy Heathcote as a Pedagogy of Resistance. In: A.C. Hickey-Moodey and T. Page (eds) Arts, Pedagogy and Cultural Resistance: New Materialisms. London: Rowman and Littlefield.
Kipling, A. (2017) The praxis of Dorothy Heathcote: A paradigm in its own right? Andragoske Studije. (2). (79-88). doi: 10.5937/andstud1702079k.
Nederlands Instituut voor Beeld & Geluid (2012) Bavianen ontsnapt Beekse Bergen (1973). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln63wjnqF0E (Accessed: April 2, 2025).
Taylor, T. (2016) A Beginner’s Guide to Mantle of the Expert: A Transformative Approach to Education. Singular Publishing Limited.
Wagner, B.J. (1976) Dorothy Heathcote: Drama as a Learning Medium. Washington D.C., United States of America: National Education Association. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED130362.pdf.

---

Notes on Author

Download full article

Open as pdf

Open as flipbook