Sociodrama and Structured Improvisation:
Methodology for Education, Training, Healing, and Change

Grace A. Telesco, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
East Stroudsburg University, East Stroudsburg, PA

Abstract

For almost 20 years as an educator and trainer it has become increasingly evident to me that students need to be actively immersed in the learning experience. Whether it is raising consciousness about an issue or training on a particular topic, educators find themselves facing the challenge of finding an effective method in reaching and teaching students. This paper will focus on the use of sociodrama and structured improvisation as effective methods in training and education, and discuss their usage in psychological healing and behavioral change. The paper will address the components of both techniques and offer examples of effective uses.

Introduction

There is a wealth of literature addressing experiential learning and the efficacy of experiencebased education and training (Kolb, 1984; Jones, 1988 Jones does not appear in reference list, please add; Lewis, 1986; Eble, 1988 or 1980, as listed in references?; Bertrand, 1995). Social workers and group facilitators agree that experiential exercises are invaluable in getting participants to relax and engage in the process of selfdevelopment (Dayton, 1990).

As a trainer of police officer candidates at the largest police academy in the country and an educator at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, it continues to be my experience that students remember very little by reading or listening to lectures. Students tend not only to understand complex techniques and principles, but demonstrate the ability to apply them practically when the learning activity becomes alive, reality based, and interactive.

Sociodrama, structured improvisation, and other theater techniques are invaluable tools in raising social and political awareness, addressing a critical issue with an audience, understanding theoretical foundations, practicing a skill, or engaging in a process of psychological or behavioral change (Cossa, Ember, Grover, & Hazelwood, 1996; Spolin, 1986; Boal, 1985; Ments, 1994). The use of these techniques in a small classroom setting as well as larger venues is limitless. When participants are engaged in realitybased scenarios, where the characters remain in character and interact with audience members, there is an ability to move out of the cognitive realm into the emotional where attitudes and feelings can be tapped into and education and change can be stimulated (Cossa et al., 1996).

Boal (1985) speculates that theater techniques such as "Forum Theater" and "Invisible Theater"can be used as tools for liberation from oppression and as ways to induce social and political change. My experience with college students, police officers, social workers, and other care providers where sociodrama and structured improvisation were used as an educational methodology has been extremely effective and engaging. Police officer candidates, in particular, benefit from structured improvisation, which provides an opportunity to bridge the gap between theoretical principles and practical application. Police topics relating to proper procedures, including how to handle child abuse cases, crisis intervention with sexual assault victims, effective police response to people with mental illness, and the proper handling of domestic violence incidents, are all better understood when the theories, concepts, and procedures come alive and are applied in real life settings.

Sociodrama

The term sociodrama has been used to describe several theater techniques used in educational and training settings and vary from individual therapy, at times called psychodrama, to political action, often described as either guerilla theater or invisible theater (Boal, 1985). By its very name, sociodrama implies the utilization of some form of theater or dramatic technique dealing with a social issue or topic that impacts society on some level. Sociodrama, a form of educational theater or audience interactive theater, is issuebased (Cossa, et. al, 1996). Topics can include domestic violence, dating relationship violence, alcohol use and abuse, partner violence, racism, sexism, homophobia, sexual assault, date rape, and bullying.

Sociodrama has four major components: Reality and IssueBased Improvisational Dialogue Between Character and Audience Educational, Behavioral, and Psychological Objectives.

Reality / issue Based

Reallife situational scenes are developed by the students based on actual incidents, setting the stage for audience participants to identify and interact with the characters. An example of reality and issuebased work can be seen in the practical application of social work foundations in a training environment. Theoretical principles at times can be difficult to explain and tend to be monotonous, particularly when traditional educational methodologies are employed. Characters are developed based on case studies where social workers can practice their skills with characters resembling real clients. Using this theater technique, social workers can practice and evaluate their performance in a safe environment on a myriad of issues such as domestic violence, sexual assault, and grief and loss. The specific techniques that are employed with audience members will be examined later.

Sociodrama can also be used as a tool to raise awareness among social workers, police officers, health professionals, and other providers about sensitive issues such as racism, homophobia, and other obstacles of prejudice that can get in the way of effective practice. This educational medium works with many diverse audiences and populations and can be used by educators, trainers, and social workers to meet educational, behavioral, and psychological objectives.

A specific example of how reality and issuebased sociodrama and structured improvisation can be used as an effective methodology in raising awareness can be found with the topic of sexual assault. This issue continues to be of critical concern in society for both women and men, and for survivors as well as their perpetrators. The problem of sexual assault on college campuses is a growing problem for university administrators, faculty, campus counselors, and the survivors of these assaults who are directly and most critically impacted. Consciousness raising and education on this issue with student audiences remains difficult and challenging. Defensive posturing on the part of male students can cause an audience to shutdown when traditional academic methodologies are employed.

Not unlike common societal attitudes toward sexual assault, audiences often demonstrate judgmental attitudes toward the victim while minimizing the responsibility of the perpetrator. Sociodrama can be used to air and address these belief systems headon in a safe environment by interacting directly with the characters. The technique then becomes an invaluable tool to raise awareness and perhaps induce behavioral change.

The method encourages a safe dialogue between the audience and the characters, who remain in character, and is achieved by a facilitator's guided discussion. Often, emotional healing is a byproduct of the educational and consciousness raising process. Because of the intensity of this work and the critical issues being examined, the challenge lies in soothing and addressing painful outcomes that may result during the actual dialogue. Later on in this paper, the importance of the facilitators responsibility to continuously monitor the "emotional temperature" of the audience members as well as the actors who remain behind the character will be discussed.

Actors Improvising and Remaining in Character

Operationally, sociodrama requires the involvement of three critical roles; actors, facilitator, and the audience, referred to in this paper as the reflective team. Actors portray characters in realitybased scenarios and remain in character for the duration of the sociodrama. This realitybased character interacts with the audience by participating in an ongoing dialogue.

The situational scenes are developed by the actors and director of the group based on reallife scenarios and experiences. Often, these scenes are developed from the actors' own lived experiences. Since the scenes involve reallife characters, developed and perfected by the actors, it is necessary for the director to be sensitive to emotions that may arise during development, rehearsal, and performance.

Audience Interaction and Reflective Team Response

Friere (1970) discusses the importance of dialogue between teacher and student and how it is in this communication that true education is achieved. When the communication between students and teacher, or students and each other, is limited, the teaching becomes a monologue rather than a dialogue. This sort of "banking education," as Friere describes, keeps the critical thinking process dormant and treats students as inferior.

The technique of sociodrama relies on dialogue with the audience. It is the fertile ground for criticalthinking, problem identification, and solutionfocused discussion. Interaction with audience members becomes critical to the success of the methodology and it is the role of the facilitator to insure that this objective process of dialogue occurs in a neutral and safe manner.

Reflective Team / Audience

In traditional theater settings the audience is usually passive. This may be the case even when the objective is to educate rather than entertain. The opportunity for audience members to interact with the characters onstage is rare. In educational theater, particularly in the technique of sociodrama, the dialogue between audience and characters is critical to the method. The objective is to educate, raise awareness, train, invoke change, or indirectly heal a painful area.

The audience has a critical role to reflect back to the characters how they can change or question why they are behaving in a certain way.

The audience, as the reflective team, identifies problems and offers solutions for change. Through the reflective team's suggestions, thoughts, and "truths this unique process of dialogue becomes the fertile ground for education and consciousnessraising. The facilitator does not teach but rather steers the train of dialogue, where learning and change are the destinations.
Facilitator /Director

In Boal's (1985) work with forum theater, the facilitator is called "the joker." The notion of facilitator as joker is interesting in that this role requires a neutral, problemposing, and sometimes provocative posture. The facilitator may also be the director of the theater group. This is not always the case and members of the group can rotate the role of facilitator. Often the facilitator and the director may be the same individual. The use of sociodrama technique, however, does not require a formal theater group and the method can be utilized in any setting, with any group.

It is the responsibility of the facilitator to stop the scene from time to time in order to guide the discussion between the audience and the characters. The objective of this frozen time is to allow the audience to reflect on the scene, identify positive behavior as well as problems that have been presented, and offer solutions for change. This is accomplished through interaction with characters that always remain in character. The facilitator poses specific questions which are intended to elicit responses. The facilitator may sometimes offer provocative remarks to the audience, hoping to spark emotion and participation. It is critical for the facilitator to be able to guide the dialogue between and with the audience members and the characters.

One technique is to ask the audience members to take on the role of the character and join the scene, revealing an answer to the question, 'What they would do?" Facilitators can also place an invisible shield around the character so that only the facilitator and audience can hear what they are saying while their fellow characters cannot. This tool is effective in revealing the true feelings of the characters and seeing the character behind the mask. Boal (1985) developed a technique called "cop in the head," where audience members come up onstage and get inside the head of the character by voicing their true thoughts.

Some examples of the questions posed to characters and audience are listed here and categorized accordingly. They will vary depending on issue, characters, scene, and objectives.

TO CHARACTER: How are you feeling right now? Why are you behaving this way? Why are you in this situation? What do you think would make your situation different? What would you like to see happen now?

TO AUDIENCE/ REFLECTIVE TEAM: What are the issues being presented here? Can you identify any problems here? What would you have done differently if you were the characters? What can you offer as solutions? What would you say to the character? Say it now. Why don't you come up and join the scene? Can you come up and tell us the character's true feelings?

An additional responsibility of the facilitator is to brief the actors beforehand about their characters and scene. It is not until the sociodrama has ended and the facilitator asks the actors to come out of character, that the actors will reveal their true feelings to the audience. Actors cannot come in and out of character at will. Once the actors step out of character, they cannot go back in. At the end of the sociodrama, it is the integral role of the facilitator to debrief the actors in front of the audience about their true feelings regarding the roles they have played. This gives the audience unique insight into the characters and the difficulty in portraying these particular roles. This debriefing also gives the actors the opportunity to talk about how it felt to play the character and to remind the actors that they are no longer in their roles.

Role Playing and Structured Improvisation

Role playing, also described as structured improvisation, can be as simple as rehearsing how you will ask your boss for a raise, or as complex as police officer candidates being evaluated about their response to a person with schizophrenia. The role and responsibilities of the actors, facilitator, and audience can remain the same as the technique of sociodrama. There is one significant difference between roleplay and sociodrama, and this lies in the objective of roleplay itself. Roleplay or structured improvisation is used for training and evaluating, while sociodrama's objective is to educate, raise awareness, and possibly invoke behavioral change.

In sociodrama all of the actors are briefed and completely aware of their roles, character background, motivation, and expected behaviors in the scene. Roleplaying and structured improvisation involve the use of a volunteer chosen from the pool of participants being trained who is given a role to perform. Usually this role is one in which the participant is being trained or evaluated in. The facilitator will freeze the scene and go to the reflective team for critique in the same way that is done for sociodrama.

An example of this is in training and evaluating medical students in the notification procedure to parents of a child's terminal illness. The two actors playing the mother and father have been briefed by the facilitator/director on their specific roles and character background. They have already been briefed on their specific behaviors and reactions. They know that they are going to be told about their child's
diagnosis and prognosis. The medical student who has volunteered to practice the notification procedure is thrown into the role of doctor. The student will be evaluated for ability and skill in notifying these parents. This technique allows the medical student to practice learned skills in a safe environment and to be evaluated by peers and trainers.

The facilitator can freeze the scene at critical points and reach out to the reflective team for suggestions and critique. The facilitator can have one of the reflective team members come up and try on the role of doctor, demonstrating what they would do differently.

Educational, Behavioral, and Psychological Objectives

Sociodrama and role playing or structured improvisation can be used to achieve educational, behavioral, and psychological objectives. Although the technique of sociodrama and structured improvisation is effective in achieving educational objectives with audience members, the developmental process of the sociodrama is a potent one for the actors involved in the project. Since the characters and scenes in the sociodrama or structured improvisation are based on reallife scenarios and lived experiences, the actors become immersed in their characters and in these issues, making their individual learning process heightened. In sum, this methodology can be effective with countless populations and can focus on a multitude of issues. It is an invaluable tool to elevate consciousness, evoke change, and facilitate psychological healing.

References

Bertrand, Y. (1995). Contemporary theories and practice in education. Madison, WI: Magna Publications.

Boa[, A. (1985). Theatre of the oppressed. New York: Theatre Communications Group

Cossa, M., Ember, S., Grover, L. & Hazelwood, J. (1996). Acting out.

The workbook. A guide to the development and presentation of issueoriented, audienceinteractive, improvisational theatre. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Dayton, T. (1990). Drama games. Techniques for self development.

New York: Health Communications, Inc.
Eble, K. (1988). The craft of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the sense of learning, and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Lewis, L. (1986). Experiential and simulation techniques for training adults. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Ments, M. (11994). The effective use of roleplay. A handbook for teachers and trainers. East Brunswick, NJ: Nichols Publishing.