by Susan A. Ticker

December 2006

In his classic article on curriculum design, “The Practical: Translation into Curriculum” (popularly called The Practical III), Joseph Schwab cautions against focusing primarily on the subject matter, or content, of a curriculum. In curricular deliberations, he advises granting an equal voice to each of the four commonplaces of education: content, student, teacher, and context. “None of these can be omitted without omitting a vital factor in educational thought and practice. No one of them may be allowed to dominate the deliberation unless that domination is conscious and capable of defense in terms of the circumstances.” (1978, p.371) Schwab’s quartet of commonplaces is a useful lens through which curricular materials can be analyzed and evaluated.

 

In this paper, I will look through this lens and analyze a new Bible curriculum designed for community Jewish high schools by the Brandeis Center for Informal Jewish Education. To date, the curriculum called “The Drama of Tanach” comprises 15 one-hour lessons on texts selected from the first 20 chapters of Genesis. The first two-session unit is available online and the entire curriculum is being distributed to members of the North American Alliance of Community Hebrew High Schools. I am grateful to Dr. Ofra Backenroth for a copy of the full curriculum for this paper.

 

The introduction to the course description for “The Drama of Tanach” begins with a clear statement of the aims of the course:

The primary goal of this course is to help high school age students connect with the text on a personal level. By using drama as the means to achieve this, students must bring their own experiences to their understanding of the text. This personalizes the text for them, making text study rich with meaning and relevancy. (Langholt, p. 1)

 

This articulation of its goal appears to place relevance to the student over authenticity to the biblical text. However, as we look more closely at the lessons and at the rules of Bibliodrama, we will see that authenticity has not been sacrificed on the altar of relevance, but rather that they coexist along side one another, even if relevance takes center stage.

 

This goal statement also points to the “orientation” (Holtz, 2003; Grossman, 1991) from which the materials are written. Since the course aims to help students “personalize” the text, it is clear that it is written from what Holtz has called the “personalization orientation” (pp. 71-2, 87-88). This approach to the text emphasizes the connections that learners make between their own life experiences and the biblical text. Among the possible personalization approaches Holtz delineated, the one exemplified in this curriculum is what he calls “personalization with a psychological perspective.” (ibid., p. 88) This will become more evident after we look at Bibliodrama and the dramatic improvisational techniques employed in the curriculum.

 

The curriculum writer, Alice Green Langholt, is an educator at the Akiva High School in Beachwood, Ohio. In Appendix B to the curriculum, she included excerpts from her Master’s Thesis: “Developing skills in Bibliodrama, a teaching technique for religious education”. She also suggests that teachers of this curriculum become conversant with Bibliodrama. For this purpose, she recommends Peter Pitzele’s book Scripture Windows as an excellent resource. As an introduction to the dramatic techniques which are the basis of each curricular unit, Pitzele’s book and website are important for us to consider. Both are vehicles in which Pitzele reveals his passion for the art.

 

On the home page of his website (http://www.bibliodrama.com), Peter Pitzele explains his view of the art of Bibliodrama: “Situated somewhere between school and theater, between the pulpit and the stage, Bibliodrama is a form of role-playing that invites participants to find their voices in the text and the text’s voice in themselves”. (Bibliodrama: Playing with white fire) At the website and in his book, Peter Pitzele’s view of Bibliodrama is the “warrant” for this curriculum.

 

In “The Drama of Tanach”, Langholt provides easy access to the rationale behind her approach. She has apparently considered many of the questions teachers will want to have answered before using this curriculum in their classrooms. Each lesson begins with a section called “Teacher’s Preparation” which presents the unit question, the text citation, and suggestions for preparing the texts. It always starts with a stipulation that the teacher read the biblical text. It not only starts with a recommendation that the teacher read the text, but also begins each unit by engaging students in text study. Only then does it proceed to the dramatic exercises which are its raison-d’être. And finally, it also contains suggestions for how teachers should assess their students’ understanding of the texts. In these ways, the curriculum remains close to the text and values its place as content for the course.

 

It uses several types of dramatic tasks as pedagogic strategies. The first is Bibliodrama which the curriculum author describes as “an approach to teaching Bible that combines psychodrama and creative Midrash” (Langholt, ibid.). The other dramatic exercises are “monologues from the perspective of a character; combining characters with similar or dissimilar issues into a scene; speaking the “thoughts” of an inanimate but important object in a scene (i.e. Moses’ staff, the basket that held the baby Moses, fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Cain’s weapon, etc.); [and] presenting conflicting perspectives of the same character in a situation and debating the possible truth of each.” (ibid.)

This is an innovative way to teach about the oral tradition, particularly parshanut and midrashic interpretation. After reviewing the curriculum and reading parts of Pitzele’s book,Scripture windows: Towards a practice of bibliodrama (l998), I find myself intrigued by the use of Bibliodrama and other dramatic exercises to teach Tanach. I’m particularly interested in the way the dramatic tasks seem to mimic the process of creatingmidrash. Classic midrashic interpretation grows out of a close reading of the text. It gives voice to characters who are silent, but whose words are implied (such as Sarah in Akedat Yitzchak). It fills in the gaps found between the written words.

 

Bibliodrama works in much the same way. It empowers readers of the text to become actors in the drama. Actors find their own voice as they speak in the present tense on behalf of those who are in the text as well as those missing from the text.

Most forms of commentary are ways of talking about the biblical text. Those ways maybe literary, historical, theological, etc., but what characterizes all of them is that the  first person singular – the speaker whose words we hear on the page or in the classroomor in the sanctuary – remains outside of the literary object. …The relationship is I to It.

…In Bibliodrama, on the other hand, I confront the work as an I to a Thou. Our fundamental hypothesis is that the biblical narrative has more life in it, more voice in it than is captured by the words on the page. I, the reader, meet the biblical narrative as if  I were meeting a living being. …In Bibliodrama, passive readers becomes [sic] active    players; we assume roles. (emphasis his; Pitzele, p. 28)

This quotation comes from the book which serves as the “warrant” for adopting this particular orientation to the text. It is recommended to teachers as background reading in the introduction to the course. “It will be a help to get some training or do a significant amount of reading about Bibliodrama. Peter Pitzele’s book Scripture Windows is the best resource for an introduction to the process.” (Langholt, p. 1)  A closer look at Pitzele’s book reveals many insights which will help the teacher who facilitates this curriculum. (Pitzele, l998, esp. p. 28 ff.)

I would expect that, on the whole, high school students would benefit from this type of approach. I imagine that the change could be a welcome one not only for those new to the subject, but also to many who have grown up on the more traditional methods of text study. At the very least, some students will benefit from moving to this less traditional approach to “reading” and understanding a biblical text.

Different students are likely to become the “experts” or standouts when improvisational dramatic interpretive skills come to the fore. Furthermore, it is likely that the less cognitive, more kinesthetic activity appeals to students differently.

Each dramatic task will also appeal in different ways to different students. Langholt observes: “Writing monologues can be a powerful way for the students to express themselves creatively, and the advantage over improvisation is the time for reflection as the students choose their words thoughtfully.” (Langholt, p. 11) This observation reminds us that certain students benefit from having wait-time and writing time before they answer or perform. In much the same way, for certain students, writing the monologue will be more appealing than performing it, and vice versa. Although a look at teachers and students who have used these dramatic strategies is beyond the scope of this paper, I can commend an article by Alex Sinclair (2005) to those interested in one Bible teacher’s view of its role in his classroom. (See p. 63 for evidence of its positive impact on students and the way they connect with the text.)

There is much preparation that teachers who use these materials will want to do prior to entering the classroom. They should become comfortable with Bibliodrama and the other dramatic exercises. They should be able to read and translate the text in Hebrew, and be familiar with the major differences in translation and interpretation of certain key words. They should be conversant with several English translations. They also need to know their students well enough that they can anticipate many of the questions they will raise – both during the text study and dramatic exercises. They should believe that students’ interpretations are a valid contribution to the oral tradition, and that students will benefit now and in the future from personal links to the text.

The curriculum has clear, brief instructions for teachers preparing to teach these materials:

Always pre-read the text you will be covering for that unit of lessons. Discern the questions and gaps for yourself, and identify issues of the characters. Imagine that you are the students, and attempt to predict their responses to the text from their particular experiences. Of course, there will always be surprises. (Langholt, p. 1)

These notes to the teacher are short and to the point. They remind teachers of the importance of their preparation, and that great technique is no substitute for basic skills and adequate preparation.

This brief quotation also reveals Langholt’s sensitivity to how teachers can gain the type of pedagogic content knowledge that will serve them in the classroom. This shows that student responses are important and that teachers need to anticipate them in advance for their own students. The caution that “there will always be surprises” is both casual and obvious. Its inclusion serves to highlight that teachers must be flexible and listen carefully. This point is made often, including the following: “…under content also fits the teacher’s ability to remember interesting interpretations of the text introduced by the students, in order to reflect on them during Closure.” (ibid., p. 97)

In addition to a one-page introduction to the course, it has a succinct “Teacher’s Guide” for each lesson placed on the same page as the lesson plans. When we read the Teacher’s Guide, we notice that it includes lists of some of the omissions (or gaps) that teachers and students are expected to notice in the text. These lists can further assist teachers as they prepare, provided that teachers do not rely on the lists as a substitute for doing their own preparation. (See p. 4 for an example of the list of questions that should arise when reading the text.)

How much each teacher will need to prepare will depend on their background knowledge and textual skills. The curriculum gives them guidance in how to prepare for each lesson as well as for the course as a whole. However, their success will likely depend on whether they are willing to put in the time it may require for them to become fully conversant with the text and Bibliodrama. It may be helpful for them to attend a workshop or gain practice in dramatic improvisational techniques. As an example of how much the curriculum assumes about their comfort with Bibliodrama, consider the following: “The leader also needs to remember which student spoke which response during Voice and Echo, in order to refer back to that student during Interviewing, or even to invite the students’ participation in a Sculpture.” (Langholt, p. 97) Voice, Echo, and Sculpture are technical terms defined in Pitzele’s book Scripture Windowsand mentioned only briefly in the curriculum and in the Appendix.

The introduction to the curriculum also reminds teachers of the importance of understanding the needs of their particular students, their students’ background, and their prior experience with text study and drama, among other things.

Think about the students in your particular class. What is their background? Day schoolor secular education? What is their Hebrew background? What are their grade levels? How much text study is in their experience? How much drama have they done? Why  did they choose this class? Tailor your text study and discussions… Feel free to substitute other drama games … or add more Hebrew into your text study as appropriate to your and your students’ particular comfort level. (ibid., p. 1)

In this passage, Langholt reveals her concern for students and each of the commonplaces. While she has sought to design a curriculum that works in a variety of milieus with different learners and teachers, the work of tailoring units to particular circumstances will need to be done in each locale.

In order to get a better idea of how each commonplace is treated, we need to look more closely at the curriculum. I have chosen to consider the first four lessons (two Units) which address selections from Gen. 1-3. We immediately notice that this curriculum does not begin “at the beginning,” but rather places Gen. 1 in Lesson 3. This simple pedagogic decision – to start with the second chapter and return later to the first – reminds us of the role of the curriculum designer. While we don’t know all of her reasons, we can be fairly certain that she is more interested in pedagogy than chronology, in “understanding” than in “coverage”. This notion is reinforced by the fact that the curriculum addresses small pieces of text at a time. Beyond these considerations, Langholt probably places Gen. 2 before Gen. 1 for another important reason. The big question – or what she calls “The Unit Question of Meaning” is “how do emotions affect the actions and relationships between people? (ibid.)  This focus will privilege all students as it privileges none; we all have emotions and we are all in relationships. This increases the lesson’s accessibility and equity.

As we read the curriculum, we see several other specific ways in which Langholt is explicitly helping teachers remember their role in achieving student equity in their classrooms. In the Appendix, for example, there are some specific recommendations about using Bibliodrama and monitoring the flow of the lesson. There we read:

Finally, the leader should monitor class involvement. The teacher wants as many students as possible to participate, as in any class discussion setting. Often, the most      dramatically inclined students will try to dominate the Bibliodrama. The seasoned teacher will allow their participation, while encouraging that of the other, perhaps shyer students. (emphasis hers; ibid., p. 97)

 

This point is revisited a few pages later:

Finally, any good classroom teacher is constantly monitoring class involvement during a lesson. It is important to encourage responses from many different students during a    discussion. So, too, during a Bibliodrama. It is a basic teaching technique to keep a mental list of which students participated and to encourage participation from those who have not yet responded. (ibid., p. 99)

Lessons typically begin with a warm-up activity or ice-breaker. These are often active and interactive, and are designed to start from the students’ own experiences. An example is the warm-up for Lesson Four. It is called “Vote with Your Feet” and is a familiar exercise in which students stand along a continuum from “The Best” to “The Absolute Worst.” It is described quite succinctly and designed to take only 3-5 minutes, including comments from select students about their views.  The brief time allotted means it should move quickly and begin the lesson in an engaging way. Another example of a clever and subtle pedagogic maneuver is found in Session Four. In this lesson, we return to take another look at the two accounts of creation: the first in Gen. 1 and the second in Gen. 2:4-24. The major activity is creating dramatic representations of each account of creation as well as several modern parallels. When the parts are assigned, they are given out in this order: Creation 1, Creation 2, Modern 1, Modern 2. However, when they are performed, it is in the following order: Creation 1, Modern 1, Creation 2, and Modern 2. Langholt explains in the Teacher’s Guide: “I chose this order for the groups to make it easier to show the parallel between the Adam and Eve characters and their modern counterparts.” (ibid., p. 25) Again we see the designer’s thought process as she makes decisions about what will help students to “get” the big ideas of the lesson. Her transparency aids us in seeing her decision-making process and helps ensure that teachers will make the connections explicit for their students.

 

Langholt also retains teacher flexibility at the same time as she reminds the teacher of what may be needed to ensure success:

 

 “You might also want to use the same relationships depicted in each modern group. This way, the contrast would be obvious, for example… For consistency, you may want to assign the same task for each scene, such as working in a garden.” (ibid., p. 25) The language is suggestive and helpful, not rigid or limiting. In this way, she avoids the pitfalls of some packaged curricula which constrain teachers, making them less creative and more robotic. This same desire to pay attention to detail while retaining teacher flexibility is evident in the instructions for teachers at the beginning of this lesson: “Please add to or change the items of the list as you feel best fit your particular class in terms of dynamic or experiences.” (italics hers; ibid., p. 22)

 

Another curriculum decision that works well is that the teacher presentation is often more scripted in those portions of the lesson which are the tightest on time. For example, at the end of Lesson Three, there is a two-minute closure. Here the instructions to teachers of what to tell the students are quite explicit and detailed. (ibid., p. 19) This is yet another subtle way in which Langholt has thought through what will help teachers be successful in achieving the goals of the curriculum within the constraints of time and space.

 

So what of the intersection between teacher, learner and content? How will teachers know what students are learning? Langholt provides some guidance to teachers and reminds them of the central role of assessment. Prior to each lesson, there is a statement of “Objectives/Intended Outcomes” and a to-do list for teachers called “Assessment/Measurement of Intended Outcomes.” Each comes with an explanatory comment so that teachers know what they are seeking, and how to observe and evaluate it. For example, following Lesson 3, we find: “Assess through the discussion whether they can articulate the concepts of translations and interpretations, and also whether they can see the broader picture of separation and creation in the terms of their own lives.” (ibid., p. 19) And following Lesson 2, we read: “Observe their interactions with each other, their responses to the text, and the way they refer to the text when explaining their answers to assess their understanding of the main ideas in the lesson. (ibid., p. 12) When taken together with the intended outcomes before the lesson, the teacher should know what to observe and how to do it. Langholt comments:

 

Bibliodramatists use the same thinking of the teacher to listen to the student responses for content. Though a key difference between monitoring content in teaching, and during a Bibliodrama is that the teacher leading a Bibliodrama is not looking for a “correct” answer, (in the conventional way teaching often implies), but an interesting one to explore. However, both the basic classroom teacher and the Bibliodramatist are constantly monitoring content. (ibid., p. 98)

 

While she acknowledges that the assessment task is more challenging for a Bibliodramatist than for a traditional classroom teacher, she does not concede that it is any less important.

Following each Unit, there are reminders to teachers to reflect on the unit and assess the specifics of what worked and what might have made it better. The questions prompt teachers to consider student engagement, collaboration, and connections. While they may seem obvious to some, such instructions serve to guide teachers in their reflective practice and in adapting the curriculum for their students and their communities.

 

This brings us to the question of context: what of the different communities to be served, or stated differently, how will this curriculum play in Peoria? What is happening in the wider environment that will impact this lesson or this curriculum? Members of the MTV generation held in the sway of their fascination with American Idol are primed to appreciate a chance to write a script and act it out. These trends should help the curriculum appeal to its target audience.  However, as Peter Pitzele admits in an essay posted on his website: “We live in a time when the Bible is no longer taken for granted by most educated people as a book of central importance for ethical and spiritual education.” (Bibliodrama: A call to the future) The implication is clear: it is up to us to engage our students in new ways to overcome this obstacle. And according to Pitzele, the payoff can be enormous. In an age when many are seeking ways to empower youth and train them to be leaders, Pitzele and Langholt claim a role for Bibliodrama in our work:

High School students can even be taught to lead Bibliodramas for each other, which teaches them the skills of active listening, conducting, and searching for new and different interpretations from each other. It encourages them to have an open mind to each other’s viewpoints. …By training High school students to be Bibliodramatists,Bibliodrama can also be used to develop their leadership skills, an important part of teenage maturity. (Langholt, p. 99)

 

“The Drama of Tanach” provides a compelling approach to an important content, one that can engage students, and it offers helpful advice to teachers ready to assume the challenge. Even if it works for only some students, Bibliodrama should find a place in our communities and our schools.

 

References

 

Grossman, P. L. (1991) “What are we talking about anyway?  Subject-matter knowledge of secondary English teachers.” In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching.  Greenwich, CT:  JAI Press.

Holtz, B. (2003). Textual knowledge:  Teaching the Bible in theory and in practice. New York:  The Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

Langholt, A. G. (2006). The Drama of Tanach. Brandeis University Institute for Informal Jewish Education <http://www.brandeis.edu/ije>.

Pitzele, P. A. (l998). Scripture windows: Towards a practice of bibliodrama. Los Angeles: Torah Aura Productions.

Pitzele, P. A. Bibliodrama: A call to the future. Retrieved December 16, 2006, from http://www.bibliodrama.com.

Pitzele, P. A. Bibliodrama: Playing with white fire. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://www.bibliodrama.com.

Schwab, J. (1978). The Practical: Translation into curriculum. In I. Westbury & N.J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum and liberal education (pp. 365-383). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Sinclair, A. (2005). “An Exercise in the theory of practice: The hermeneutics of Bibliodrama in the Sinclair classroom.”Journal of Jewish education, #, 61-73.

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design(2nd ed.).  Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 

Susan A. Ticker, an educational consultant to schools, camps and other not-for-profit organizations, has an extensive background in Jewish education and business management. Her teaching experience spans the spectrum of Judaic Studies, Prayer and Hebrew in multiple educational settings, including day schools, congregational schools and camps. Her education credentials include an M.B.A. from Rutgers Graduate School of Management and an A.B. in Religious Studies from Brown University. Susan is currently working towards a doctoral degree in education at the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. Her primary research interests are school leadership, program evaluation and professional development.