| . |
. |
. |
|
A Gujarati
Juliet And Romeo
|
|
|
TEFL,
Theatre, and Consciousness-Raising in India
|
|
|
|
Large classes, shy students,
and classrooms in which the students' desks fill the space are a few of the obstacles to
teaching English in India using the communicative approach. While a great deal can be done
to overcome these problems when the focus is on listening, reading, and writing, it is
usually much more difficult to plan activities that focus on discourse fluency and the
creative use of English.
|
|
|
|
|
This article describes an
experiment in interactive language learning conducted at the H. M. Patel Institute of
English Training and Research in Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat, India. The institute,
located in a rural area of northwest India, provides training in English teaching
methodology to the states of Gujarat, Maharajastra, and Goa. The one hundred students who
participated in the project had an undergraduate degree and were taking a one-year course
in order to qualify to teach English in high schools.
|
|
|
|
As a way of improving the students' creative use
of English, the director of the institute (see Footnote 1 ) asked me to stage and direct a play in English. Initially, we
thought of producing Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. The theme had particular
appeal because it dealt with (among other things) how Juliet's arranged marriage to a man
she didn't love led to tragedy, a scenario that is still played out in Gujarat (and
throughout India). Later, we decided that a more relevant and interesting approach would
be to use the issues of caste hatred and the mistreatment of Gujarati/Indian women as the
basis for a collectively written and student-produced play about "star-crossed
lovers" in present-day Vallabh Vidyanagar.
|
|
|
Organizing the production
|
|
|
We wanted to involve all the students in the
experiment, so we compiled a list of twenty-one jobs that we felt would be necessary for
the writing and producing of the play and the various tasks that each job required. Then
twenty-one teams of students were formed, and each team was responsible for carrying out
the necessary tasks. The jobs ranged from publicity to stage lighting; writing news
releases to calling the university drama department to borrow lighting instruments.
|
|
|
Following the principle that people work harder
and learn more effectively if they are interested in what they are doing, the students
were encouraged to choose the jobs that they wanted to undertake. Naturally, some of the
students wanted to join the teams their friends were on, and we tried to accommodate them.
Nevertheless, some of the jobs (e.g., set design and costume design) required members who
possessed certain talents, and students having those talents were encouraged to join teams
requiring their services. Moreover, certain jobs were more complex than others, involving
more tasks and a larger number of team members. Finally, however, all the teams had enough
members to carry out the tasks.
|
|
|
Since one of the main goals of the project was
to encourage the use of English creatively, and since the students could accomplish
virtually all of the tasks using Gujarati, one way to ensure that English was used as much
as possible was for the fourteen faculty members to serve as team consultants. In this
capacity, the teachers could be certain that, at least during the team meetings, which
were scheduled to be held once a week, only English would be used. It was also felt that
through these meetings, the progress of each team in fulfilling its tasks could be
monitored.
|
|
|
To encourage maximum use of spoken English by
the actors, the stage management team, and the playwriting team (those groups who were
required to be at the rehearsals and had the best opportunity to use their English
creatively), it was decided that only English would be spoken during rehearsals, except in
rare instances when it was deemed absolutely necessary to use Gujarati.
|
|
|
In addition to encouraging the learners to use
English creatively in a theme/task-based approach, the project was to have a
consciousness-raising effect on the participants as well as on the audience. (We planned
to present the play to our university students and to the public.) One aspect of this
consciousness- raising was implicit in the content of the play; the other aspect involved
assigning the women students the team leadership roles. It was felt that if the men had
the experience of working with women in leadership positions, the men might learn to
appreciate a different leadership style.
|
|
|
From a pedagogical perspective, the most
experimental aspect of the project involved not correcting the students' use of spoken
English. The idea for this experiment was based on the "natural learning" model.
|
|
|
Although we couldn't conduct
a controlled experiment to evaluate the students' improvement
in discourse fluency, we did plan to gauge the relative improvement
of those students who were most intimately involved in the project
by videotaping a group of stage managers before and after their
participation and asking their teachers to compare the students'
discourse fluency.
|
|
|
After we had developed a general plan and had
discussed it with the faculty, we met with the students and explained the nature of the
project. The anticipated benefits to the students included the opportunity to do the
following:
|
|
|
- practice the four English language skills in a "real-life" theme-and
task-based context;
- work closely with a native English speaker;
- practice spoken English with a faculty member in a more intimate situation than is
generally the case;
- learn how to produce a play (which we felt would be a valuable skill for
secondary-school English teachers).
|
|
|
Since all the students
would be involved in the initial stages of the playwriting process
(i.e., the development of the plot), we thought that it would
be a good idea to provide the students with a review of the basics
of writing a play. After the review, as their first task, the
students were asked to skim Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet
as quickly as possible, (without any attempt to deal with the
intricacies of Elizabethan English), list the main events in the
plot, and then write a "parallel plot" showing ways
in which Juliet's plight was similar to that of Gujarati/Indian
women.
|
|
|
After the students returned from their
month-long Diwali vacation, we began work on writing the script. The first step was
dividing the students into teams of writers who, through discussion, developed
collectively-created "team plots," based on their individual "parallel
plots." The most interesting aspects of each team-plot were identified and fashioned
into a rough draft of a master plot. We then used the plot situations as the basis for
scenes, which were discussed in terms of interpersonal dynamics, after which the actors
(various members of the class) improvised tentative dialogue. This was the phase of the
project during which spoken English was used the most by most of the students.
|
|
|
After the roles had been cast, a final script
was written which had a Brechtian thrust and incorporated Gujarati dancing, singing, and
comic sketches. The following is a synopsis of the final version of the script.
|
|
|
The play opens with Ravi (Romeo) and Seema
(Juliet) meeting during a Navarathri festival garba (dance) and falling in love.
Their relationship is opposed by Seema's father, Arvind, because Ravi is from a lower
caste. In response to Arvind's decision to arrange Seema's marriage to a man she does not
love, Ravi and Seema elope and get married. Arvind and his son Dilip follow the pair and
forcibly attempt to take Seema back home. Ravi intervenes, a fight ensues, and Dilip stabs
Ravi to death. A trial is held. Arvind is sentenced to twenty-five years in prison, and
Dilip is sentenced to death by hanging. At the point when Dilip is about to be hanged, the
stage lights go out, the set is removed, and Daglo (our spokesman) comes out and asks the
audience if anyone knows how this sort of tragedy could have been avoided. A member of the
cast seated in the audience comes up on stage and says that she thought if Seema's mother,
Nalini, had supported Seema when she said that she was in love with Ravi, the ending would
have been much different. Daglo then says, "why don't we see what would happen if
your suggestion were followed;" and the scene in which Arvind tells Seema that he's
arranged her marriage is replayed. But this time Nalini supports Seema and threatens to
divorce Arvind if he doesn't go along with Seema's desire to marry Ravi. Arvind
capitulates and the last scene is a wedding reception for the newlyweds where everyone is
reconciled, and all join in a lively dance.
|
|
|
One of the first noticeable difficulties in our
consciousness-raising goal was encountered in the writing team interaction. In spite of
the fact that most of the teams were headed by women, it was the men who did most of the
talking/controlling. Nevertheless, according to the teachers, this role reversal did
generate more involvement on the part of the women.
|
|
|
In terms of the process, the
biggest problem was trying to fulfill the unrealistic scope and
expectations of the project. For example, although initially all
the students had some sort of job which was supposed to enable
them to use English creatively, some jobs had to be eliminated
because there was no need for them. The box office management
team was no longer required when it was decided to offer the performances
for free. Unfortunately, in most cases when jobs were eliminated,
the students could not be reassigned to other teams. As a result,
those students lost out on the anticipated benefits. In addition,
many of the students who were members of functioning teams simply
did not show up for conferences with their faculty advisors, and
they too lost out. This lack of commitment resulted from attempting
to initiate the project after the curriculum had been set. This
meant that the students and faculty had to undertake additional
work which, even though the students received a grade for their
work, didn't motivate some of them.
|
|
|
The work with the actors, stage managers, and
playwrights (those teams who were required to be at the rehearsals) went well enough when
the students showed up on time, but too often they either came late to the rehearsals or
didn't come at all. In spite of efforts to integrate the rehearsal periods into the
regular curriculum, it was difficult for the students to change their routine; it was
particularly difficult for them to eat their breakfast and get to the morning rehearsals
on time. While the director and the other faculty members were vigorous in their support
of the importance of punctuality and attendance at rehearsals, the lack of theatre
experience and the importance of other commitments (e.g., weddings) made the rehearsal
process unusually difficult.
|
|
|
The no-correction experiment and the plan of
using only English during rehearsals was abandoned almost immediately because of the mixed
ability level of the actors, stage managers, and playwrights. When one member of the
rehearsal contingent had difficulty understanding the instructions that were given in
English, those participants who could understand tended to translate instructions into
Gujarati. It soon became apparent that in spite of the "English only, please"
admonition, if the play was going to be ready for presentation on opening night, we would
have to forego the English only aspect of the rehearsal plan.
|
|
|
Aside from a few technical glitches (missed
lighting cues and a noose that didn't drop from the ceiling as planned), the two
performances went quite smoothly. And except for one incident of stage fright, which
didn't appreciably affect the performance, the actors did a good job. The reaction of the
audience was generally positive, although a few members of the audience found the play
"strange."
|
|
|
Looking back on the project, it is clear that
better planning would have prevented a lot of the problems. A better appreciation of the
faculty and students' interest, motivation, level of English proficiency, and willingness
to devote time and energy to the project would have made life a lot easier for everyone.
This underscores the need for greater cross-cultural sensitivity and greater awareness of
the parameters within which one must work. If the project had been discussed with the
entire faculty from the beginning instead of after the general plan had been worked out,
the project's goals would no doubt have been more realistic.
|
|
|
Nevertheless, there is evidence that the project
was of value. As planned, the before and after discussions by the stage managers were
videotaped and shown to two of the students' classroom teachers. The teachers stated that
there was "marked improvement in terms of ease of expression (fluency),
pronunciation, and clarity of expression." The teachers also indicated that there was
a noticeable improvement in listening comprehension and the students' willingness to
express themselves in English.
|
|
|
If this type of experiment is carried out in the
future, the following are changes that would help to make a production of this type
proceed more smoothly:
|
|
|
- include the project as part of the curriculum;
- ask for input from the faculty regarding what they anticipate as problem areas;
- involve only those students and faculty who want to participate in the production;
- instead of double-casting the leads and rotating the stage managers and playwrights in
order to involve more students, select only one cast and one set of stage managers and
playwrights (whose responsibility it was to write down the improvised dialogue and
whatever changes in action occurred during the rehearsals);
- jettison the no-correction/English only approach rehearsal plan;
- figure out--in advance--some rehearsal schedule that would ensure that the actors, stage
managers, and playwrights would be able to attend all or most of the rehearsals on time;
- only designate teams that would actually be carrying out some specific tasks.
|
|
|
Perhaps the most important idea that emerges
from this experiment is that from a pedagogical point-of-view, it might make more sense
not to produce a play of this type for public consumption. Instead, the same process could
be followed using smaller groups of students, who could then perform their plays for each
other. In the case of the institute's one-hundred students, for example, twenty casts of
five performers each could be formed, each of which could be assigned a faculty advisor.
Without the need to spend time on the technical and business aspects of production, the
faculty advisors could devote more time to working with the students on the creation of
scripts based on student improvisations. Furthermore, if there was no need to
"provide an evening's worth of entertainment," the collectively- written
"playlets" could be much shorter and more functionally oriented. If, for
example, each play were limited to five, double-spaced pages of dialogue (which would last
approximately five minutes), this would give the students a greater opportunity to
improvise different "real life" scenarios, and each student would have more
opportunity to verbally communicate creatively. Special projects dealing with
production-related tasks that everyone could do (e.g., writing press releases and
advertising copy) could also be part of the project. Even if only one hour per day was
devoted to this project, it would fill a void in the area of creative discourse that
currently exists in many English-teaching programs.
|
|
|
The H. M. Patel Institute of English Training
and Research carried out a high-risk research project and achieved a high degree of
success. As an English language learning activity, the text of A Gujarati Juliet and
Romeo and the videotape of a performance of the play are testimony to the amount of
time and energy that was spent on this project; and the reactions of the audience,
administration faculty, and students were overwhelmingly positive. But, perhaps most
importantly, the experiment generated some ideas that may prove to be extremely valuable
in the future.
|
|
|
Elliott
Swift is currently an EFL Fellow in Bucharest, Romania.
He teaches how to use theater to increase teaching effectiveness.
|
|
|
Return
|
|
Footnote 1
I am indebted to Dr. Subhash Jain, Director of the H.M. Patel Institute of English
Training and Research for his support in this project.
Back to Article
|
. |
. |