The Impact of Mantle of the Expert on Pre-service Teachers’ Pedagogical Drama Confidence in Primary Education

The Impact of Mantle of the Expert on Pre-service Teachers’ Pedagogical Drama Confidence in Primary Education

Nikki Doig

https://doi.org/10.64741/382548kuefcd

Abstract

Pre-service primary teachers often lack confidence in teaching drama. This can be compounded by school placement experiences with in-service teachers who similarly lack confidence. Further, where there is a narrow understanding of drama as performance, the result is missed opportunity to capitalise on the powerful potential of pedagogical drama.

This mixed methods action research investigated the impact of learning about Mantle of the Expert on pre-service teacher confidence to teach using drama pedagogy. 22 students undertaking a drama elective as part of a full-time postgraduate pre-service Primary Education programme participated. Data were collected through questionnaires, a focus group and lesson plans.

Findings suggest that Mantle of the Expert is an effective way to exemplify drama pedagogy and to provide a clear framework for planning, with respondents able to visualise success in their future classrooms. Findings may help inform pre-service and in-service teacher professional development. Recommendations for future research are also identified.

Keywords

drama, ITE, Mantle of the Expert, teacher confidence

Introduction

Drama in education is a contrary beast. Bowell and Heap (2013) observe that, while at times it is clear drama is valued in education, there are also times when this is most definitely not the case. By its supporters, drama is lauded for its transformative potential as an aspirational pedagogy (Neelands 2010; Edmiston 2014; Anderson & Dunn 2013; Abbott 2017), with international research confirming ‘the benefits of drama as an effective, enriching and motivating approach to teaching and learning’ (O’Neill 2014: 313).

Yet research also evidences the teaching of drama is often marginalised in the primary school, with both in-service and pre-service primary teachers lacking the confidence and subject knowledge to teach it effectively, if indeed they teach it at all (McLaughlin 2007; Russell-Bowie 2012, Abbott 2014; Killen & Cooney 2017).

Guided by Nolan and Molla’s (2017: 11) definition that confidence, akin to self-efficacy, is ‘knowing one can successfully complete a task’, this study sought to investigate the impact of learning about Mantle of the Expert on pre-service teacher (PST) confidence in drama pedagogy. Taylor (2016: 34) observes that ‘Mantle of the Expert is not a prescribed system, fixed and immutable, but rather an evolving pedagogy that is changing and developing over time.’ Nevertheless, a central concept explored in the study was whether the framework that Mantle operates within has potential to help PST visualise, and thus understand, what is meant by drama pedagogy. Findings have implications for both initial teacher education (ITE) and for in-service teacher professional development.

Drama in education

What drama is, or could be, in education has long been a topic of debate.  Until the mid-20^th century, educational drama was predominantly focused on the study and performance of theatre however a paradigm shift from teacher-centred to pupil-centred education saw drama increasingly recognised for its broader educational potential (Ho & Ho 2011). Beyond simply a tool for promoting active learning and teaching across the curriculum, supporters of drama pedagogy view drama as a way for young people to explore human nature and experience through a collaborative process of shared meaning-making (Heathcote 1984a; Heathcote & Bolton 1995; Neelands 2010; Edmiston & Towler-Evans 2022). By taking on roles and adopting different viewpoints, learners can deepen their understanding of themselves and others (Neelands 2010). Pedagogical drama enables young people to ‘practise life’ in order to ‘function more successfully in it’ (Bowell & Heap 2013: 2).

The concept of drama pedagogy has its roots predominantly in the early work of Dorothy Heathcote, who

was impelled by social issues and a desire to help children and teachers envision and work towards a better world, through methods which were artistically driven and achievable in an ordinary classroom (Anderson 2015: 120).

This drive to make pedagogical drama accessible later led to the development of Mantle (Heathcote & Bolton 1995), an approach to learning through drama which originally reached a peak in popularity in UK schools in the mid-1980s, helped by the work Bolton did in drawing out the pedagogical principles of Heathcote’s work (Heathcote & Bolton 1995; Anderson 2014).

However, by the end of the decade, a furious binary debate had reignited between theatre arts (drama should be taught as an art form in its own right) and drama education (drama as tool for personal development) (Sayers 2012; Anderson 2014) and Mantle was falling out of favour. While Heathcote is often viewed as being firmly in the drama in education camp, Sayers (2014: 2) claims Heathcote’s work developed, not as a result of abandoning her theatre roots, but from a ‘profound understanding of them’. Unfortunately, it may have been this same deep and unique understanding that also contributed to Mantle’s fall from favour because, ironically, while accessibility to Heathcote’s methods was one of the drivers behind Mantle’s development, the accolades Heathcote received were such that her work was often viewed as beyond the reach of ordinary teachers (Anderson 2014; Sayers 2012). Nevertheless, Heathcote and Bolton are referred to as ‘pioneers of the drama-in-education movement’ (O’Toole et al. 2019: 21) and their work continued to influence the way drama was approached in schools. Most notably in Cecily O’Neill’s development of process drama (O’Neill & Lambert 1982) and Neelands’ work on drama conventions (Neelands & Goode 1999).  

Bowell and Heap (2013: 1) suggest that the divisions among practitioners about the nature of what drama in education should be is giving way

to a climate of greater consensus in which practitioners recognise an inclusive model that seeks to accommodate a range of ways of making drama, all grounded in performance.

The wide-arching nature of ‘performance’ is recognised and in primary school this might include opportunities for students to engage in dramatic play, perform a classic text or share in improvised work in the classroom (ibid.).

This broad ranging notion of ‘performance’ might also increasingly include the drama pupils engage in as a medium for learning through Mantle because Heathcote’s approach has been the focus of renewed interest since the mid-2000s (Sayers 2014; Katafiasz 2021).

Woolland (2010: 1) contests the persisting view of some drama practitioners that considering drama as a learning medium reduces it to ‘little more than a service tool’, observing that drama cannot be taught in a vacuum. Heathcote (1984a: 57) is not denigrating pedagogical drama when she states that drama is ‘at the service of other areas of the curriculum’. She is observing, like Woolland, that the content demanded by drama naturally connects it with other curriculum areas. In other words, drama in school can be both a subject in its own right and a powerful learning medium – that is, it is possible to learn about drama while learning through it.

The drama implementation gap

In Scotland, primary teachers are expected to plan, deliver and assess learning across all eight curriculum areas within the broad general education phase of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) (Scottish Government 2008). As with its Northern Irish and Welsh counterparts, the Scottish curriculum acknowledges drama as a discrete subject, situating it within the broader curriculum area of the Expressive Arts, which is in stark contrast to England’s National Curriculum where drama sits ‘like a cuckoo in the nest of English’ (Baldwin 2013: np). However, despite drama’s more defined status in Scottish education policy, the quality of the delivery of drama within Scottish primary education can be varied, with many teaching students observing no drama at all on school placements (Killen and Cooney 2015; McNaughton 2015).

Killen and Cooney (2017: 5) describe drama in primary schools as ‘somewhat of an enigma’, suggesting that practitioner opinion varies about what drama entails. An implementation gap is suggested here because despite many education writers placing high value in pedagogical drama, in practice there is often a narrow focus on drama as performance and for too many primary pupils their experience of drama in school is reduced to the annual school production (Anderson 2014; McNaughton 2015; Killen & Cooney 2017).

Analysis of the literature suggests a number of possible reasons for this drama implementation gap.

Curriculum pressures

In many Western countries, basic skills testing tends to marginalise the arts, risking a devaluing of drama in relation to ‘important subjects’ (Russell-Bowie 2013: 70). This issue is reflected in Killen and Cooney’s (2015: 5) observation that the Scottish Government’s Attainment Challenge (Scottish Government 2021) has increased pressures placed on teachers to teach core subjects, notably language and mathematics, while the impact of school closures during Covid-19 further influenced focus on closing the literacy and numeracy attainment gap (Scottish Government 2022).

Teacher attitude and confidence

Teachers’ attitudes towards subjects influence the quality of their teaching (Sharp & Le Métais 2000; Lee & Cawthon 2015), with teachers who lack confidence in a subject less likely to teach it effectively (Russell-Bowie 2013).

Negative or insufficient experiences with the arts, particularly drama, are often cited as reasons for teachers’ lack of confidence (Sharp and Le Métais 2000, Russell-Bowie 2013; Davis 2017). Research suggests that, while the majority of teachers acknowledge the importance of the arts and recognise the potential benefits for their pupils, teachers lacking prior experience and with low confidence are more likely to have a negative attitude towards the arts in the classroom (Oreck 2004). Beyond the negative impact this can have on pupil experiences, there are implications here for ITE because PST perceptions of their arts experience effects how they engage in pre-service training, and this inevitably influences the quality of their future teaching (Alter, Hays and O’Hara 2009). Further, PST can adopt the attitudes of the teachers they work with during school placements, resulting in some PST losing confidence if working with a teacher lacking in enthusiasm or expertise (Hennessy, Rolfe and Chedzoy 2001: 67). This can be further compounded by the lack of opportunity to teach drama during school placements, a factor often cited as a reason for low levels of PST confidence (Doig 2025).

However, the connection between background and confidence appears to be an area of ongoing debate as research continues to produce contradictory findings. For example, Russell-Bowie (2013), in her study into PST background and confidence to teach drama, found students felt positive about teaching, despite lacking a background in the subject. This supports other studies which found that an arts background does not significantly predict the likelihood of arts use in teaching (Hennessy, Rolfe & Chedzoy 2001; Oreck 2004;). However, Russell-Bowie (2013) goes on to hypothesise that the low background/high confidence relationship may be explained by student misperceptions of what drama actually involves.

Subject knowledge and subject pedagogy

Subject knowledge is another contributor to teacher confidence (Prior 2005; Dierking & Fox 2012). Nolan and Molla (2017: 17), in their study of the interconnection between teacher confidence and professional capital, observe that teachers become more confident when they have a strong knowledge base. However, in research into the impact of teacher understanding of science concepts, Harlen (1997: 335) cautions against assuming that increasing subject understanding alone will increase the confidence and competence of teachers, stating that an understanding of subject pedagogy is also required. Yet, confidence is required for teachers to be open to taking risks and trying new pedagogical approaches (Nolan and Molla 2017). McCullouch (2016: np) observes that knowledge and pedagogy are inextricably linked as

a teacher who has knowledge of the subject is assured of understanding the progress of the children’s learning, conferring self-determination to the teacher to use what they believe are the best teaching strategies.

It would seem a logical assumption then that teachers with greater drama subject knowledge will have a clearer concept of what drama in education is, beyond the limited performative view that often dominates, and be more open to trying different approaches to drama pedagogy.

Mantle of the Expert

Mantle of the Expert is an approach to dramatic inquiry where pupils adopt the responsibilities of a fictitious expert team, commissioned by a client to address a number of challenges which sees them work together, both in and out of role, on tasks that connect the curriculum. Through the co-constructed narrative of Mantle, the curriculum is given purpose and relevance as pupils develop skills and acquire knowledge ‘about things within the contextual needs’ (Heathcote 2002: 5).

There are many benefits of Mantle highlighted across the literature, notably in terms of pupil engagement, cognitive advancement and as a system for connecting the curriculum. Heathcote envisioned classroom drama as a way to “motivate study of the real world and of humanity” (Heathcote 1980: 103, cited in Edmiston and Towler-Evans 2022). In the positioning of learners as imagined experts, the aim of Mantle is to nurture a community of learners who care about their responsibilities within the real and imagined worlds, who have purpose and who have the agency to act (Heathcote 2002; Edmiston and Towler-Evans 2022). There is a reframing of the traditional teacher-pupil relationship as the teacher is no longer the ‘expert instructor’ (Heathcote 2002: 3), instead commitment is required on the part of the teacher for collaboration that is ‘honest and real’ (Taylor 2016: 29). Edmiston and Towler-Evans (2022: 121) identify in this repositioning the opportunity to ‘create a community with more humanizing classroom cultural norms.’ During a time of record school exclusion rates in England (McGough 2025) and an exponential increase in pupil violence in Scotland (Brooks 2025), the ‘transcendent possibilities’ of dramatic inquiry pedagogies like Mantle become more pertinent than ever.

However, there is a tendency for writers to give weight to their claims about the benefits of Mantle by drawing connections with wider educational theory, rather than by discussing research into Mantle itself. Sayers (2012: 251), in her extensive analysis of Mantle, identifies a lack of robust research underpinning claims of its benefit, concluding that

there is no convincing evidence for the success of Mantle and it might be the way in which the message is delivered that persuades teachers to ‘have a go’ rather than evidence of the success of the system.

The capacity to envisage success in the classroom increases the likelihood of students including arts processes in their own practice because

teaching efficacy links the self-perception of competence with the situation specific expectation that the teacher can successfully influence student learning (Oreck 2004: 65).

This has implications for the way in which PST are introduced to Mantle, which should be done in a way that supports them in visualising success in the classroom. In other words, in a way that helps develop their teacher efficacy. For example, Johnston, Liu and Goble (2015) analysed the introduction of Mantle to PST as part of a social studies methods course. While initially some students evidenced misconceptions about Mantle in their planning, these challenges were subsequently overcome, and PST feedback was positive about the potential of Mantle to integrate drama and encourage inquiry (ibid.).

McLauchlan (2007: 122) identifies the need to provide PST with ‘relatively failsafe strategies to attempt in their initial teaching experiences’, while providing inexperienced students with a clear framework can boost confidence (Hennessy, Rolfe & Chedzoy 2001; Abbott 2013). Prior (2005) reports that, when PST did observe drama on school placement, many witnessed confused models of drama, further justifying the provision of a clear framework for students to follow in school. Such provision will not fully eliminate struggle for PST, nor should it, because failure is an essential component of learning (Rawl, Laliberté and Guadagnolo 2025). Indeed, Heathcote (1984b: 27) discusses the ‘necessary effort’ required to learn to teach drama, that PST should have to ‘work to win’, and that part of this learning process is observing their own tutors failing and then recovering.

Often described as a ‘system’ of learning (Heathcote & Herbert 1985; Taylor 2002; Aitken 2013; Sayers 2014; Abbott 2017), there is a level of complexity acknowledged with Mantle that can make adopting the approach challenging for non-specialist teachers (Taylor 2006; Sayers 2014; Smith 2017). Despite the complexities, Bolton (1979, cited in Sayers 2012) views Mantle as the easiest of Heathcote’s dramatic forms for an inexperienced teacher to work with. Further, Aitken (2013: 54) observes that, while complex, Mantle’s system provides structures and practices, and she encourages teachers not to be put off from trying the approach, suggesting they do so in the spirit of ongoing learning, something encouraged by the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Standard for Provisional Registration, which all PST in Scotland must achieve (GTCS 2021). Sayers (2012: 279) observes that, despite the complexities of using Mantle, it ‘has broad appeal to the generalist primary teacher’ and ‘is fundamentally an accessible situated learning system, rooted in enterprise education.’

As a clearly structured approach to dramatic inquiry, Mantle presents an opportunity to develop PST understanding of and confidence in pedagogical drama. While literature acknowledges that introducing Mantle to inexperienced teachers is not without its challenges, there is overall encouragement that it is worth the effort. Furthermore, with limited underpinning research, there is opportunity to add to the body of knowledge through this study which investigated the research question:

What is the impact of Mantle of the Expert on pre-service teachers’ pedagogical drama confidence in primary education?

The study was guided by the following sub questions:

• How confident are student teachers to apply drama pedagogy?
  Do students feel Mantle is an effective way to exemplify drama pedagogy?
  • Do students view Mantle as a supportive framework for the planning of drama pedagogy?

Research Context

I was a primary teacher prior to working in Higher Education. With an undergraduate degree in Dramatic Studies, drama had always permeated my practice and learning in role was something my learners and I engaged in regularly. However, it was not until becoming an ITE lecturer that I came to Mantle through two days of professional development under the skilled and generous tutorage of Tim Taylor. What resonated with me most during that initial introduction was that, rather than the imposition upon pupils of a teacher-constructed narrative, the foundation of dramatic inquiry in Heathcote’s models, including Mantle, is an agreement ‘to work through invented and agreed fiction’ (Heathcote 2002: 1). I reflected that this ‘duality of places’ (Taylor 2018: 25) – the dual worlds that learners operated within, as teacher and learners work together in both the fictional space and the classroom space to create and reshape the imaginary world – was something that had been missing from my own classroom practice. Through invitational dramatic inquiry there is shift in classroom power dynamics and a repositioning of pupils from objects talked at to subjects talked with, subjects with relational agency (Edmiston and Towler-Evans 2022). I was excited to explore this child-centred drama pedagogy with my teaching students. Further, I saw in the structure of Mantle a framework that might provide a tangible scaffold to PST drama planning and practice.

Responsible for delivering all drama education on a nine month full-time postgraduate pre-service Primary Education programme in a Scottish university, I developed a Mantle elective. This consisted of three 2-hour workshops which took place over a three-week period in the second semester, directly after the second of three 6-week school placements. Over the first two workshops, PST were introduced to two exemplar mantles, exploring these both from within as active participants and stepping back and analysing the experience as beginner educators. PST then worked collaboratively to plan their own Mantles, team teaching part of these during workshop 3.

This research was conducted during the first year of the elective and was part of a wider study which also investigated effectiveness of design of a Mantle elective in ITE and the impact of Mantle on PST understanding of interdisciplinary learning.

All 25 students enrolled on the primary drama elective were invited to volunteer as research participants. Ethical approval was gained for the study with all considerations followed, guided by the British Educational Research Association’s ethical guidelines for conducting research (BERA 2018).

Methodology

Pring (2010: 46) warns against oversimplifying the world by adopting either a quantitative or qualitative worldview, something he refers to as ‘false dualism’. Often, this distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is based on epistemological and ontological views rather than on what is most appropriate to the task (ibid.). Rather than taking a dichotomous view, this study adopted a pragmatic worldview as it sought to develop an understanding of the participants through their experiences and actions. From a pragmatist’s perspective, knowledge is not viewed as reality, instead truth is relative to the current situation and based on human experience – an ever-changing, active construct resulting from individuals acting in the world (Given 2008; Weaver 2018). Knowledge is socially constructed, with meaning both inseparable from human experience and context-dependent, and single or multiple realities can exist (Kaushik and Walsh 2019: 255). These realities are to be revealed and experienced, and truths practical only as long as they provide a tool for such a reveal (Given 2008: 673).

Having identified some core issues and tensions in the literature, an inductive action research approach was adopted with the aim of exploring these issues with the participants in order to establish pattern and meaning through analysis of the data gathered (Gray 2022: 22). Pragmatic inquiry is concerned with solving practical problems in the real world (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2018; Gray 2022), specifically psychological, social and educational phenomena (Weaver 2018).

Data Collection

Data were collected through two anonymous online questionnaires. 22 respondents completed the first questionnaire and 16 completed the second questionnaire. Six PST volunteered to take part in a focus group.

A mixed methods approach to data collection was deemed most effective for this study due to its popularity in educational research as a way of achieving more complete answers by capitalising on the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches to data collection (Lauer 2006; Brown 2019; Gray 2022).

A benefit of using a questionnaire is that it can generate more honest responses, particularly when completed anonymously (Norton 2019). In action research when respondents are students of the researcher, there are power relations at play such as authority and the teacher role, and anonymity can help minimise some of the effects of this (ibid.: 95). Participants were asked to provide a pseudonym when completing the questionnaires. This approach was preferable to complete anonymity as it enabled direct comparison across pre and post elective responses of individuals.

Table 1: Data collection timeline

Data Analysis

For closed question responses, data were analysed using descriptive statistics to create a ‘summary picture’ (Gray 2020: 682). Where appropriate, to support comparisons, mean scores were calculated by dividing the total Likert scores by the number of respondents.

Reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) was applied to qualitative data, an approach which ‘highlights the researcher’s active role in knowledge production’, with ‘no expectation that codes or themes interpreted by one researcher may be reproduced by another’ (Byrne 2021: 2). The centrality of reflexivity and researcher subjectivity within this theoretically flexible interpretative approach sits well with action research. RTA followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-stage process, with consideration to the authors’ subsequently evolved thinking (Braun, Clarke & Hayfield 2019; Braun and Clarke 2020):

1) Data Familiarisation
2) Systematic data coding
3) Generating initial themes from coded and collated data
4) Developing and reviewing themes
5) Refining, defining and naming themes
6) Writing up

Document analysis was applied to student collaborative plans to analyse understanding of Mantle through a process of skimming, reading, and interpretation (Bowen 2009).

Findings

How confident are student teachers to apply drama pedagogy?

Responses to the pre-elective questionnaire (Q1) were similar across levels of confidence to teach drama lessons (drama as subject) and applying drama as a teaching tool across the curriculum (drama pedagogy) (Table 2). However, less respondents acknowledged a feeling of overall confidence. Respondents expressed a slightly more positive perception of their understanding of drama than their confidence to teach it.

Table 2 – Student perceptions of their knowledge and confidence of drama

In the post-elective questionnaire (Q2) no students at all expressed feeling a lack of understanding or confidence, with some respondents reflecting further on how engagement with the elective had increased their confidence:

I can’t believe how much my confidence has grown in only 3 weeks and I’m so grateful to have had the chance to have a go teaching Mantle. (Lindsay Q2)

It has really increased my confidence about teaching drama and using a Mantle of the Expert approach in my future practice. (Lilly Q2)

The difference between mean drama understanding and drama confidence pre- and post-elective is illustrated in Figure 1. There is an increase in mean score for every question, with the greatest increase being confidence to apply drama pedagogy.

Figure 1 – Mean drama understanding and confidence pre and post elective

To further illustrate differences, each respondent was allocated a mean confidence score and grouped by degree of confidence based on their responses to all three confidence questions. This shows a clear increase in perceptions of confidence post-elective (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Combined student confidence grouped by degree of confidence

Reasons for drama confidence

To explore possible reasons for pre-elective student confidence, mean totals were also calculated for Q1 responses about drama background and drama experiences during ITE studies. The higher the level of confidence, the greater the mean score for both background and ITE experience (Table 3).

Table 3 – Mean score for drama background and ITE drama experience by degree of student confidence

In terms of drama background, prior education provided the main source of experience, with the majority of respondents experiencing drama in primary school (17). Only 3 respondents indicated involvement in drama in their leisure time.

Only 4 respondents indicated they had observed drama being taught in schools during their two previous placements. However, response to whether students had gained first-hand experience of teaching drama on placement was much more positive, with 16 respondents claiming to have undertaken some form of drama teaching. However, while 15 respondents stated that they had taught drama lessons, only 7 respondents said they had applied drama as a teaching tool across the curriculum. A further 7 respondents neither agree nor disagree that they had had applied drama pedagogy.

When Q1 respondents were invited to give reasons for their feelings of overall confidence, the majority focused on reasons for a lack of confidence, with three clear themes emerging:

• not having taught drama yet
  not having observed drama being taught
  a desire for more guidance/further learning

Haven’t seen it or had opportunity to do it so feel don’t feel very confident. (Daisy Q1)

Unfortunately, I did not observe any drama being taught during my two placements, which made me lack confidence when I tried to teach my own drama lessons. (Lilly Q1)

Despite many Q1 respondents feeling a lack of confidence to teach drama, self-efficacy was a recurring theme, with a number of respondents demonstrating belief that their confidence will improve with the acquisition of knowledge, skills and experience:

I am confident in giving it a go. However, I feel like I don’t quite know enough about drama conventions yet and if I had a structure to follow maybe I’d feel more confident. (Lindsay Q1)

I feel that I would become more confident if given the opportunity to develop my experience and skills. (Amelie Q1)

This theme was revisited in Q2, with 4 of 13[1] respondents identifying knowledge gained through the elective as one reason for their increased confidence:

This Mantle elective has provided the opportunity to learn more about drama in the primary school through reference to theory, discussions, and practice. (Ivy Q2)

This elective has been a major high point of my learning at university. I really feel as though it’s prepared me to teach drama in primary school but more than that really see the value in drama as a main curricular area. (Lindsay Q2)

The resources and advice on conventions have given me the tools to go forth and teach drama! (Joe Q2)

During the focus group (FG), participants expressed their enthusiasm for Mantle, with Student 1 stating: ‘I just can’t wait to use it and hopefully do it justice’. However, throughout the discussion, participants often referred to feeling ‘daunted’ due to their lack of experience, although they also reasoned that this was natural to being a beginner teacher:

It’s still a bit daunting going in as a new teacher as I think everything is going to be. (Student 3 FG)

For the only Q2 respondent who did not identify as confident (although their confidence level did improve from Q1), teacher attitude remained a barrier to putting learning into practice on placement, something they felt would only happen when they had their ‘own class’:

I believe that I will only be truly confident to teach drama when I have my own class and I get to explore this as I have found that teachers on placement are very reluctant to allow even one drama class, never mind long-term drama to take place! (Charlie Q1)

Do students feel Mantle is an effective way to exemplify drama pedagogy?

All 16 Q2 respondents felt that Mantle was an effective way to exemplify drama pedagogy, with 13 of the 16 strongly agreeing.

Some Q2 responses specifically discussed how their learning about Mantle informed their developed understanding of drama pedagogy:

The inputs and discussions around drama and Mantle confirmed for me the importance of drama in primary schools as a pedagogical approach. (Joe Q2)

The emphasis on giving us practical experience of Drama as both learners and teachers has really helped me ‘get’ why using Drama as a pedagogy can enrich learning by making learners more emotionally connected to their learning. It has really increased my confidence about teaching Drama and using a Mantle of the Expert approach in my future practice. (Lilly Q2)

Focus group discussion provided further insight into the impact learning about Mantle had on evolving respondents’ understanding of pedagogical drama:

I think the drama that I’ve seen in schools has always been standalone lessons (…) It’s never been really through all the subjects as a pedagogy. When I was in primary school, my primary seven teacher, I think looking back, use Mantle of the Expert. It’s only now that I’m in my thirties and we’ve just done this that I think that that’s actually what she used when I was in primary seven. But yeah, looking back, I think that’s exactly what she did. (Student 2 FG)
I’ve actually used drama quite a bit in my previous job in ESL, but it was more about creating something to show, like focusing on how to use the language in role plays or to make something. So, I didn’t have much of an understanding of how to use it as a process for learning, as a pedagogical way to teach different things. (Student 3 FG)

Do students view Mantle as a supportive framework for the planning of drama pedagogy?

All 16 Q2 respondents viewed Mantle as a supportive framework for the planning of drama pedagogy, with 12 of the 16 strongly agreeing. Focus group discussion was also positive.

The electives have really helped me with how to plan a lesson(s) and to visualise how this could work in a classroom. (Judith Q2)

I think for me it’s quite that Mantle kind of provides quite a good framework for the planning. I can kind of see how it’s quite daunting at first, but I think once you get sort of have more experience of it, I think it will sort of inform your planning more. I can see how it gives like a really clear purpose to the learning. (Student 6 FG)

Analysis of the six Mantle plans students collaboratively created between the second and third workshops evidenced a good developing understanding of Mantle. All plans included the three defining features of Mantle (expert team, client and commission) and evidenced an understanding of how teaching and learning in role might be applied. Students drew on a range of Heathcote’s 33 conventions (Heathcote, 2015), with a particular focus on what Taylor (2021: 1) categorised as ‘enactive representations’ (conventions 1-7).  All plans drew on the mantles experienced during the elective, with one plan in particular following the workshop structure closely.

Discussion

Literature evidences an implementation gap in the teaching of drama in primary schools. Findings from this study reflect this, with the majority of respondents reporting that they had not observed drama during their first two school placements.  Low confidence to teach drama is a key reason identified across a number of studies for this implementation gap. However, previous discussion also made connections that suggest a potential for Mantle to play a part in addressing the issue of low teacher confidence. Consequently, this study investigated the impact of Mantle in developing PST confidence in drama pedagogy, with results proving positive.

Factors affecting drama confidence

In line with previous research which indicates a correlation between arts background and teaching confidence (Sharp & Le Métais 2000, Russell-Bowie 2013; Davis 2017), pre-elective findings in this study indicate that it was PST reporting a greater background in drama who had higher levels of drama confidence. Russell-Bowie (2013) suggested a lack of understanding of drama in education as a possible reason for her findings that PST who felt they did not have strong background in drama still felt confident to teach it. This reasoning might also be applied inversely to the current study where it could be argued that just because a PST considered themselves to have a strong background in drama, and therefore felt confident to teach it, does not necessarily mean they possessed sufficient understanding of what drama in school entails. This is supported by findings about pre-elective ITE drama experiences where a number of respondents who considered themselves confident to teach drama neither agreed nor disagreed that they had applied drama pedagogy, suggesting respondents were unclear as to what this actually is. Of further note is that PST expressed stronger agreement about their understanding of drama than their confidence to teach it, suggesting that positive feelings about understanding drama do not necessarily translate to positive feelings of confidence about teaching drama. However, as previously acknowledged in the literature (Hennessy, Rolfe & Chedzoy 2001; Oreck 2004; Russell-Bowie 2013), the impact of background on confidence continues to be debated. Further research is required to analyse PST understanding of drama against the context of background and confidence in greater depth. Such research should also seek to evaluate PST school placement teaching experiences because, while in this study respondents were asked if they had observed and taught drama on placement, no measure was taken to ascertain the extent and quality of these experiences. So overall, while results suggest a positive correlation between confidence to teach, drama background and ITE drama experiences, the suggestion is made tentatively and accompanied by recommendations for further research.

The impact of Mantle on drama confidence

In terms of the effectiveness of Mantle in developing PST confidence to apply drama pedagogy, all respondents reported increased confidence levels post-elective. This bodes well in terms of students applying their learning to future practice, given literature suggests that the more confident a teacher is in a subject, the more likely they are to teach it (Sharp & Le Métais 2000; Russell-Bowie 2013; Lee & Cawthon 2015). Further, it has been discussed that teacher attitude influences the quality of their teaching, and teachers with a positive and confident attitude towards drama are more likely, not just to teach it, but to teach it effectively.

PST in this study cited a better understanding of drama’s potential through Mantle as reason for an increase in their confidence to teach drama. For the participants, the Mantle elective provided additional drama experience that complemented that taught on the core programme and so it could be argued that any additional input in drama might positively impact student confidence. However, the strength of some of the responses reflects how positive many found the Mantle learning experience.

Further, it was the potential of Mantle to exemplify drama pedagogy and as a clear framework to planning that were key motivators for an elective focusing on this particular approach, and respondents unanimously agreed Mantle provided both.

In using Mantle to exemplify drama pedagogy, some responses indicated increased understanding of the rationale for drama in the primary school, such as Student 3 (FG) who observed that they had moved from a place where they ‘didn’t have much of an understanding of how to use it as a process for learning‘ to an understanding of drama ‘as a pedagogical way to teach different things’. Reflecting Heathcote’s (2002) aims of building a community of learners who care about the work they undertake, respondents recognised that Mantle gave learning purpose (Lilly Q2) and that it enabled learners to be ‘more emotionally connected to their learning’(Student 6 FG).

In terms of a framework, rather than simply starting from a blank page, the structure provided by the Mantle format – core elements (expert team, client and commission) situated within a co-constructed narrative – was something PST in this study found focused their planning. Through Q2 and the focus group, respondents talked of being able to ‘visualise’ how Mantle would work in the classroom and there was a clear sense that PST understanding of pedagogical drama had evolved. This capacity to see how Mantle might successfully influence pupil learning connects with Oreck’s (2004) views about teacher efficacy. Further, while respondents expressed feeling ‘daunted’ at the prospect of applying their learning, there was recognition that this was in large part down to their inexperience and, reassuringly, students expressed a clear sense of self-efficacy, with belief in their capacity for self-improvement.

Mantle is a sophisticated pedagogy. Time and experience are required for teachers to develop confidence in working with the uncertainties inherent in taking a dramatic inquiry approach, in using the range of Heathcote’s conventions and in moving in and out of role according to the needs of the class. Heathcote (1987: 18) discusses the importance of teachers becoming comfortable with the unexpected and unpredictable, of not being afraid of moving away from what is familiar in order to ‘meet the children where they are’. Self-efficacy will be essential to the necessary work required of PST, and later as qualified teachers, on the complexities of the approach. As Charlie (Q1) expressed,

I believe that I will only be truly confident to teach drama when I have my own class and I get to explore this.

Limitations

Given the small number of participants in this study, findings are specific to this particular research context. There was a lower response rate post-elective (22 v 16). While this may have been due to pressures students were experiencing with their studies, the potential for bias is acknowledged as those who felt more strongly about the impact of the elective may have been more likely to respond.  The suggestion of any relationships is done so tentatively and in the understanding that further research is required in order to draw more generalisable conclusions. However, action research, rather than claiming generalisability or applicability, ‘through providing deep insights into a particular instance, produces findings which can have relatability and resonance for other practitioners’ (McAteer 2013: 54).

As the participants’ teacher, the researcher was conscious throughout that they were ‘directly involved in the research process as a change agent’ (Gray 2022: 344). Questionnaire anonymity mitigated against the potential for power relations. The focus group however, although transcribed to preserve anonymity, was conducted online face to face. The importance of confidentiality was stressed at the outset, and complete honesty was encouraged in responses. The researcher was not involved in assessing these students and this was the final time they would work directly with them on the programme.

Conclusion

The aim of this research was to evaluate the impact of the Mantle approach in developing PST confidence in drama pedagogy in the primary classroom. Analysis of the data suggests that, within the parameters of this small-scale study, Mantle is an effective approach to building PST drama confidence.

According to the literature, student teacher drama confidence can be improved through the provision of a clear framework to guide classroom practice and relatively failsafe strategies they can try on placement (McLauchlan 2007; Hennessy, Rolfe & Chedzoy 2001; Abbott 2014). While it could be argued that nothing could be said to be ‘failsafe’ in the unpredictable environment of the primary classroom, students in this study valued the structure that Mantle provides in terms of planning for drama pedagogy.

While the literature acknowledges the complexities of Mantle, it is still recognised as an accessible system of learning (Sayers 2012; Aitken 2013) and, importantly, students were able to visualise how Mantle might work in their future classrooms. This then presents a next step in exploring Mantle as an effective framework for pedagogical drama as follow up research could investigate the extent to which students actually apply their Mantle learning in the classroom, how successfully they apply it and the impact this has on their drama confidence. The impact on pupils also requires analysis as it has been highlighted in the literature that there is a lack of robust evidence supporting claims of the benefits of Mantle (Sayers 2012). Anecdotally, the researcher knows of one in-service teacher who, on observing the Mantle work of their PST, adopted the approach into their own practice. While guarding against overstating the positive results, this presents another potential for future research – the impact of drama confident PSTs on in-service teachers’ drama confidence.

The issue of the non-teaching of drama identified in the literature reflects the researcher’s own observations of practice and is confirmed by findings from this study. Through this action research, it was found that Mantle provides a positive scaffold to support PST as agents of change who will enter the profession with a greater likelihood to teach drama than many of the teachers they are observing. It is acknowledged that the elective is just an introduction to Mantle however, it is hoped that the positivity PSTs expressed towards Mantle, as outlined in this research, motivates them to engage in continued professional development as they move forward in their teaching careers and that they will always be, in the words of Heathcote (1987: 27), a ‘student of teaching’.

References

Abbot, P. (2014) Primary School Drama: Enhancing Trainee Teachers’ Confidence and Subject Knowledge. M.Phil. University of Worcester. Available at: http://eprints.worc.ac.uk/3675/1/Whole%20Study.pdf (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Abbott, L. (2017) ‘Mantle of the Expert’ as a Route to Irresistible Learning and Transformative Teaching. Forum. 59(3). 423-432. Available at: https://journals.lwbooks.co.uk/forum/vol-59-issue-3/abstract-6375/ (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Aitken, V. (2013) Dorothy Heathcote’s Mantle of the Expert Approach to Teaching and Learning. In: Fraser, C., Aitken, V. and Whyte, B. (eds.) Connecting Curriculum, Linking Learning. Wellington: NZCER Press.
Alter, F., Hays, T. and O’Hara, R. (2009) Creative Arts Teaching and Practice: Critical Reflections of Primary School Teachers in Australia. International Journal of Education. 10(9). 1-21. Available at: http://www.ijea.org/v10n9/v10n9.pdf . (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Anderson, E. (2014) Drama’s powerful pedagogy: Building a picture of effective drama practice for the primary classroom. EdD thesis. The University of Auckland. Available at: https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/2292/23691/whole.pdf;jsessionid=44B29C27369F6CB2AA9E18C140D8407D?sequence=2 (Accessed: 08/04/22).
Anderson, E. (2015) Teacher Education and Drama: Possibilities, Promise, Potential. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies. 13(1). 113-137. DOI: 10.25071/1916-4467.40243
Anderson, M. and Dunn, J. (2013) Drama and Learning: Landscapes of an Aspirational Pedagogy. In: Anderson, M. and Dunn, J. (eds.) How Drama Activates Learning: Contemporary Research and Practice. London: Bloombury Academic.
Baldwin, P. (2013) Drama is a subject, despite what the government thinks. The Guardian. 7^th Jan. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/jan/07/drama-subject-government-education (Accessed: 11/08/25).
British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2018) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. London: BERA.
Bowell, P. and Heap, B. (2013) Planning Process Drama: Enriching teaching and learning. 2^nd edition. Oxon: Routledge.
Bowen, G. (2009) Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal. 9(2). 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2). 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., Clarke, V. and Hayfield, N. (2019) A starting point for your journey, not a map: Nikki Hayfield in conversation with Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke about thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 19(2).  424-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1670765
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2020) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis’. Qualitative Research in Psychology.18(3). 328-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Brooks, L. (2025) Schools in Scotland witness ‘exponential increase’ in pupil violence. The Guardian. 6^th February. News section. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/feb/06/scotland-schools-pupil-violence-increase (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Byrne, D. (2021) A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality and Quantity. 18(3). 328-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2018) Research Methods in Education. 8^th edition. Oxon: Routledge.
Davis, S. (2017) Drama and arts-based professional learning: exploring face-to-face, online and transmedia models. Teaching Education. 28(4). 333-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2017.1296830
Dierking, R. and Fox, R. (2012) ‘Changing the Way I Teach’: Building Teacher Knowledge, Confidence, and Autonomy. Journal of Teacher Education. 64(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112462893
Doig, N. (2025) Breaking the Drama Deficit Cycle: Improving Student Teacher Confidence to Teach Primary Drama Through In-placement Scaffolding. Teacher Education Advancement Network Journal (TEAN). Online First.12-29. Available: https://ojs.cumbria.ac.uk/index.php/TEAN/article/view/714 (Accessed: 10/09/25).
Edmiston, B. (2014) Transforming Teaching and learning with Active and Dramatic Approaches: Engaging Students Across the Curriculum. Oxon: Routledge.
Edmiston, B. and Towler-Evans, I. (2022) Humanizing Education with Dramatic Inquiry: In Dialogue with Dorothy Heathcote’s Transformative Pedagogy. Oxon: Routledge.
Given, L. (2008) (ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. London: SAGE.
Gray, D. (2022) Doing Research in the Real World. London: SAGE.
GTCS (2021) The Standard for Provisional Registration. Edinburgh: GTC Scotland.
Harlen, W. (1997) Primary Teachers’ Understanding in Science and its Impact in the Classroom. Research in Science Education. 27(3). 323-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461757
Heathcote, D. (1984a) Dramatic Activity. In: Johnson, L. and O’Neill, C. (eds.) Collected Writings on Education and Drama. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Heathcote, D. (1984b) Training Teachers to used drama as education. In: Johnson, L. and O’Neill, C. (eds.) Collected Writings on Education and Drama. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Heathcote, D. (2015) Signs and Portents. In: O’Neill, C (ed.) Dorothy Heathcote on Education and Drama: Essential writings. London: Routledge.
Heathcote, D. (2002) Contexts for Active learning – Four models to forge links between schooling and society. NATD Conference. University of Edinburgh (Scotland), April. Available at: https://www.mantleoftheexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/contexts-for-active-learning.pdf (Accessed: 09/08/25).
Heathcote, D. and Bolton, G. (1995) Drama for Learning: Dorothy Heathcote’s Mantle of the Expert Approach to Education. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Heathcote, D. and Herbert, P. (1985) A Drama of Learning: Mantle of the Expert. Theory into Practice. 24(3). 173-180. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1477037 (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Hennessy, S., Rolfe, L. and Chedzoy, S. (2001) The Factors which Influence Student Teachers’ Confidence to Teach the Arts in the Primary Classroom. Research in Dance Education. 2(1). 53-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647890123720
Ho, S. and Ho, S-Y. (2011) Using Dramatic Monologue for Teaching Social Sciences. Pédagogie Collégiale. 24(2).1-5. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/37958869.pdf (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Katafiasz, K. (2021) Politics and Pedagogy: A Critical Analysis of Dorothy Heathcote’s Mantle of the Expert. Masters thesis. Newman University. Available at: https://www.mantleoftheexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Final-Draft-2-converted.pdf (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Kaushik, V. and Walsh, C. (2019) Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research. Social Sciences. 8(9). 255-272. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8090255
Killen, A. and Cooney, P. (2017) Discovering the value of ‘not knowing’… Using drama for a deeper understanding of pedagogy and learning. Drama Research. 8(1). 2-23. Available at: https://www.nationaldrama.org.uk/discovering-the-value-of-not-knowing-using-drama-for-a-deeper-understanding-of-pedagogy-and-learning-2/  (Accessed: 08/04/25).
Lauer, P. (2006) An Education Research Primer: How to understand, evaluate and use it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, B, and Cawthon, S. (2015) What Predicts Pre-Service Teacher Use of Arts-Based Pedagogies in the Classroom? An Analysis of the Beliefs, Values, and Attitudes of Pre-Service Teachers. Journal for Learning through the Arts. 11(1). 1-15. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1086994.pdf (Accessed: 27/04/25).
McAteer, M. (2013) Action Research in Education. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
McCullouch, J. (2016) The Contribution of Teacher Confidence to ‘Excellent’ Mathematics Teaching. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal. 30. Available at: https://winchester.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/the-contribution-of-teacher-confidence-to-excellent-mathematics-t-3 (Accessed: 11/08/25).
McGough, K. (2025) School suspensions rise to nearly a million in England. BBC News. 10^th July. Family & Education section. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c784ezdmnp4o#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20school%20suspensions,also%20rose%2016%25%20to%2010%2C885 (Accessed: 11/08/25).
McLaughlin, D. (2007) Transmitting transactive pedagogy: A dilemma of pre-service teacher education in drama’. Theatre Research in Canada – Recherches Theatrales au Canada. 28(2). 120-129. Available at: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/tric/article/view/11121/11819 (Accessed: 11/08/25).
McNaughton, M. J. (2015) Learning through drama in the Scottish curriculum: teachers and learners in collaboration. In: Sharma, C. (ed.) Drama and Theatre with Children: International perspectives. London: Routledge.
McNiff, J. (2017) Action Research: All You Need to Know. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Mills, G. (2017) Action Research: A guide for the teacher researcher. 6^th edition. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Muir, K. (2022) Putting Learners at the Centre: Towards a Future Vision for Scottish Education. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/putting-learners-centre-towards-future-vision-scottish-education/ (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Neelands, J. (2010) 11/09 – the space in our hearts. In: O’Connor, P. (ed.) Creating democratic citizenship through drama education: the writings of Jonothan Neelands. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
Neelands, J. and Goode, T. (1999) Structuring Drama Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nolan, A. and Molla, T. (2017) Teacher confidence and professional capital. Teaching and Teacher Education. 62. 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.11.004
Norton, L. (2019) Action Research in Teaching and Learning: A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. 2^nd edition. London: Routledge.
O’Neill, C. and Lambert, A. (1982) Drama Structures. Leckhampton: Stanley Thornes Publishers Ltd.
O’Neill, C. (2014) Afterword@. In: Edmiston, B. Transforming Teaching and learning with Active and Dramatic Approaches: Engaging Students Across the Curriculum. Oxon: Routledge.
Opie, C. (2019) Research Approaches. In: Opie, C. and Brown, D. (eds.) Design, Data Production and Analysis: Getting started in your educational research. London: SAGE.
Oreck, B. (2004) The Artistic and Professional Development of Teachers: A Study of Teachers’ Attitudes toward and Use of the Arts in Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. 55 (1). 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103260072
O’Toole, P., Bagshaw, D., Burton, B., Grünbaum, A., Lepp, M., Morrison, M. and Pillai, J. (2019) Researching Conflict, Drama and Learning: The International DRACON Project. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
Peirson-Hagger, E. (2024) The scale of the teacher retention crisis revealed. TES Magazine. 21^st June. Analysis section. Available at: https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/teacher-retention-scale-crisis-revealed-dfe-data (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Pring, R. (2010) Philosophy of Educational Research. 2^nd edition. London: Continuum.
Rawle, F., Laliberté, N., and Guadagnolo, D. (2025) An interdisciplinary review of learning through failure in higher education. Educational Review. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2025.2475829
Russell-Bowie, D. E. (2012) Developing Preservice Primary Teachers’ Confidence and Competence in Arts Education using Principles of Authentic Learning.  Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 37(1). 60-74. DOI:10.14221/ajte.2012v37n1.2
Russell-Bowie, D. E. (2013) A Tale of Five Countries: Background and Confidence in Preservice Primary Teachers in Drama Education across Five Countries. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 38(7). 59-74. DOI: 10.14221/ajte.2013v38n7.7
Sayers, R. (2012) Mantle of the Expert: The Legacy of Dorothy Heathcote. PhD Thesis. University of Leicester. Available at: https://leicester.figshare.com/articles/thesis/Mantle_of_the_Expert_the_Legacy_of_Dorothy_Heathcote/10172126/1 (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Sayers, R. (2014). A critical appraisal of the defining features of Heathcote’s methodology and their impact on the delivery of Mantle of the Expert in classrooms. Drama Research. 5(1). 1-17. Available at: https://bgro.repository.guildhe.ac.uk/id/eprint/164/ (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Scottish Government (2008) Building the Curriculum 3: A framework for learning and teaching. Available at: https://education.gov.scot/media/0cvddrgh/btc3.pdf (Accessed: 27/04/25).
Scottish Government (2021) Closing the poverty-related attainment gap: A report on progress 2016-2021. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/closing-poverty-related-attainment-gap-report-progress-2016-2021/ (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Scottish Government (2022) The Scottish Attainment Challenge: Framework for Recovery and Accelerating Progress. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-attainment-challenge-framework-recovery-accelerating-progress/ (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Seith, E. (2025) More new teachers quitting in Scotland. TES Magazine. 3^rd August. News section. Available at: https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/rise-in-new-teachers-leaving-in-scotland (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Sharp, C. and Le Métais, J. (2000) The Arts, Creativity and Cultural Education: An International Perspective. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Smith, L. (2017) Teachers’ perspectives on the effectiveness of ‘Mantle of the Expert’ as a teaching strategy in the Early Years Foundation Stage. The STeP Journal. 4(4). 118-135. Available at: http://ojs.cumbria.ac.uk/index.php/step/article/view/430 (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Taylor, A. (2006) A critical evaluation of ‘Mantle of the Expert’ as a teaching and learning approach, based on pupil and practitioner opinion. Available at: https://www.mantleoftheexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Critical-evaluation-of-Mantle.pdf (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Taylor, T. (2002) Using Mantle of the Expert for the first time. Available at: https://www.mantleoftheexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/using-Mantle-for-the-first-time.pdf (Accessed: 11/08/25).
Taylor, T. (2016) A Beginner’s Guide to Mantle of the Expert: A Transformative Approach to Education. Norwich: Singular Publishing.
Taylor, T. (2021) The Conventions of Dramatic Action: A Guide. Available at: https://www.mantleoftheexpert.com/blog-post/the-conventions-of-dramatic-action-a-guide/ (Accessed: 03/08/25).
Weaver, K. (2018) Pragmatic Paradigm. In: Frey, B. (ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. London: SAGE.
Woolland, B. (2010) Teaching Drama. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

[1] Only 13 of the 16 Q2 respondents answered question 15a.

Note on Author

Nikki Doig is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Dundee where she teaches on the MA and PGDE Primary Education programmes. Nikki has an MEd in Learning and Teaching in the Performing Arts from the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland. Her research centres on teacher confidence, drama in education and learning beyond subject boundaries

Email: n.z.doig@dundee.ac.uk

Download full article

Open as pdf