| Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2008, 24(3), 294-310. |
AJET 24 |
Role play in blended learning: A case study exploring the impact of story and other elements
Mary Dracup
Deakin University
Role play is an increasingly popular technique in tertiary education, being student centred, constructivist and suitable for a range of subject areas. The choice of formats is wide open, with options ranging from the traditional face to face performance through to multi-user online computer games. Some teachers prefer to take advantage of features of both online and face to face formats and offer a blended form. This case study describes an innovative blended role play in which the online component plays a small but important part. The findings show that decisions on not only how to make the best use of technology but also how to design and facilitate a role play can have a profound effect on the creation of an engaging first-person story from which powerful learning can be drawn-in this case, learning outcomes including deep insights into strengths and weaknesses of participants' personal change management styles.
Role plays are increasingly popular in tertiary as well as vocational education in Australia and elsewhere (Bolton & Heathcote, 1999; O'Toole, 2002; van Ments, 1999). They have been found to produce deep level learning outcomes that resonate for a long time (Bolton & Heathcote, 1999; Raphael & O'Mara, 2002; O'Toole, 2002; van Ments, 1999). What is more, students tend to enjoy the technique (Raphael & O'Mara, 2002; Simons, 2002; Sinclair, 2002; van Ments, 1999); and teachers tend to find it exciting and rewarding (Bolton & Heathcote, 1999). To take part in a role play, whether in face to face or some kind of online form, is to enter into an imaginary world and explore possibilities there with other players. In doing so, players take a character part in developing a dramatic story, with a sense of freedom and play, to create an experience from which meaning can be drawn.
The story is a natural form of communication that not only allows people to pass on information but also engage their audience's emotions. Egan (1997, 33-36) outlines evidence from across cultures that the story form arose as a 'cognitive tool' soon after humans developed the ability for language. Stories are ubiquitous in our popular media and daily lives: story elements can be recognised in not only fairy stories, myth, television dramas and news, but also gossip, advertisements, anecdotes, songs and jokes (Nell, 2002). They are also evident in more serious matters such as history (White, 1980), scientific theory (Harre, 1990), economics (McClusky, 1990) and jury decision-making (Graesser, Olde & Klettke, 2002). In my experience in the tertiary education sector over the past 10 years I have seen abundant use of stories in the form of anecdotes, examples and case studies to support, illustrate and enliven abstract concepts, but, as McEwan and Egan (1995, xii) argue, their educative function has tended to be marginalised to mere 'entertainment value' in 'an age that values non-narrative discourse as a measure of sophistication in rationality'.
In research into online teaching and learning in recent years, however, there has been increasing interest in learning and teaching techniques in which the development of a story provides a central element and driving force for the learning experience, such as online role play and computer games. The interest has been prompted by several factors, including the pedagogical shift towards constructivist learning and teaching techniques; the desire to take advantage of the affordances of online technologies; and teachers' efforts to find ways to engage 'Generation Y' students with their apparent preference for playful, collaborative, active and technology based learning and teaching techniques (Prensky, 2001, 2006; Carroll, Anderson & Cameron, 2006).
... in everyday sense, any narrative or tale recounting a series of events ... in modern narratology ... the sequence of imagined events that we reconstruct from the actual arrangement of a narrative (or dramatic) plot (Baldick, 1990, 211).The narratological definition acknowledges that each audience member will construct his or her own interpretation of a tale, and this is ultimately the 'story' for him or her regardless of what the author might have intended. It also takes into account that the sequence of events in a story form is arranged as a narrated or dramatic plot. This therefore excludes from the definition of 'story' those forms of expression that merely list, describe or lecture. The idea of 'plot' dates from Aristotle's Poetics in 350 BC, its requirements being a central subject; a beginning, middle and end; characters endowed with qualities that dictate their actions and the progression of events; and a necessary connection between one event and another such that a sense of coherence and meaning is formed (Halliwell, 1995). Ryan (2001), drawing on more recent developments in literary theory as she explores the phenomenon of the reader's imaginative 'immersion' in virtual worlds, also acknowledges the basic importance to the construction of a story of setting. Thus, I have aligned my definition of story with Ryan's (2001, 15) argument that it is the three elements of plot, character and setting that make up the basic story components.
Just how the process of engaging in and making meaning from stories works, and how it can be used most effectively to entertain, educate, and more insidiously persuade has been the subject of considerable conjecture and research since ancient times. Aristotle's principles for the creation of engaging drama still resonate among writers in literary theory, including those concerned with how the dramatic story form works in interactive media (e.g. Laurel, 1991; Ryan, 2001). The classic psychological explanation for how readers and audiences become engaged with stories is Samuel Taylor Coleridge's (1817/2004) notion of 'willing suspension of disbelief', in which readers/audiences willingly pretend the action they are witnessing in a story is real so they can have the thrill of experiencing the characters' emotional responses as their own, while knowing the action is not real saves them from a true level of pain and fear.
Egan (1997, 44-65) argues that humans have a natural tendency to make images of and attach emotional responses to contexts and characters that we hear or read about. He argues that having made this personal association, the story about what these imaginary characters do or what happens to them in the imagined space becomes in an important sense our own. Misson and Morgan (2006) argue that a reader's or audience's knowledge of culturally-based story genres (eg the quest, detective story, or romance) are very important to their ability to suspend disbelief, and also enjoy the experience, as they provide a predictable, satisfying format for what will happen. Misson and Morgan (2006) demonstrate that manipulating elements in a story so that generic expectations are toyed with thus can have a particularly strong emotional and educational effect. Exploring these features of the story form reveals why stories lend themselves to use in education. Stories can offer the opportunity not only to expand an audience's experience of the world and entertain them, but to extend and question their attitudes and values.
The role play structure in face to face as well as online modes contains considerable space for students to develop both character and actions according to their experience and imagination. Thus, it can enable students to explore values and issues that are highly relevant to their own needs and culture, in their own language, and with stimulation and instant feedback from their peers (Cahill, 2002). Another advantage of role play is that, unlike most computer games, they do not rely on rich graphics and complicated programming to create context and interactivity-the players collaborate in constructing the learning environment through their speech, actions or text communications.
Thus, they can be simple and inexpensive to set up, even in online format (Wills, Ip & Bunnett, 2000). However, effective role plays do not just happen. It is argued (Ryan, 2001, 287; Murray, 1997, 151) that not everyone has a strong sense of how to create a good story, and participants' level of immersion in, and enjoyment of, the activity will be limited if some kind of dramatic framework is not established and maintained. It follows that the design of this framework and the skill with which it is maintained by facilitators are central to the role play's success as a learning and teaching technique.
Based on this review of the literature, I was keen to explore for myself what effects the underlying story form might have had on students' learning in a real role play that was performed at least partly online, in the contemporary tertiary education context; and whether it was possible therefore to propose generalisable theoretical principles relating to how best to manage story based learning and teaching techniques in tertiary education.
The dramatic crisis came with the presentation of the organisations' options papers around the middle of the second day. In previous performances of the role play, John had taken the role of Fire Services Minister and at this point had announced a decision along the lines that the CFA and MFB were to merge, and that the two organisations were now required to work together to plan the shape and roles for the merged operation. However, this time John decided that, as many of the participants had been prepared for this intervention by previous students, he would do something different. He stayed out of role and simply made the judgement that while the CFA paper was acceptable, the MFB paper was less so, using vague criteria that had not been provided beforehand. From this point until a full debrief three days later, John intentionally violated the students' expectations not only of what might happen in the story plot that had been developing, but also of how the role play form itself should work.
After delivering his verdict on the CFA-MFB papers, many participants were clearly hurt and confused. A competitive environment had developed between the two groups and the fallout from John's judgement produced considerable discomfort for many participants (field notes 4/12, 1:20 pm). However, John did not make it clear whether the role play had ended or was just in recess, and set participants an unrelated poster-painting activity. The organisational groups called their own meetings to talk through their responses and make tentative plans for a possible next stage, but there was a hiatus of several hours in which many participants tried to resolve their feelings amongst themselves, unsure of whether it was time to shed their roles and 'move on'. John finally called the participants together to discuss the role play later in the afternoon, but he did not structure the discussion to debrief and help participants de-role in the traditional way (e.g. as described by van Ments (1999, 133-52)), and it was evident some participants were still trying to work out how they felt the following morning. John did finally confirm that the role play was finished that morning, but still delayed debriefing the participants in a traditional way. John later explained the rationale for his actions: he said leaving the participants to deal with what he knew would be an emotional, ambiguous group situation in their own way over an extended period allowed them to experience at first hand the kinds of personal emotional and managerial challenges that were often presented in the climate of confusion and poor communication that was typical of change situations. He argued that 'closing' the experience too early would have limited the personal reflective activity many of the participants undertook to sort out their feelings and learn about the nature of their own and other people's responses in these situations (interview 23/2/07).
While participants were involved in other change management activities over the next few days, many reported continuing to explore their emotional responses to the role play and re-examining both groups' strategies and behaviours. However, John did conclude the residential with a conventional debriefing session that covered the role play and the other activities in which students had participated that week.
Participants were assessed for the unit on a pass/fail basis: if they completed the various tasks set before and during the residential they passed, but if they did not complete or take part in one or more tasks then they were obliged to write essays on change management as an alternative assessment. The participants' final task was to write individually a 2000-word 'reaction report' describing what they had learned from the unit and critiquing the techniques used, for submission five weeks after the residential.
I used a grounded theory approach in my research design, data gathering and analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Rather than setting out to test a preconceived theory, I started with broad research questions addressing the learning outcomes and overall effectiveness of the role play technique; the degree and nature of participants' engagement and enjoyment; the effects of each of the story elements of plot, character and setting underlying the technique; the effects of the online and face to face performance modes; and the effects of other non-story elements.
As far as was possible in the limited data collection time period, I sought to gather and analyse my data in cycles, using questions and comparisons to elucidate the findings and gather more data to answer further questions that arose and checking my interpretations with participants as I went. To enable closer scrutiny of the data, I coded data from the various sources according to its relevance to each of the research questions, and then copied and pasted the data into separate documents set up for each question. I used processes of both induction and deduction to look for patterns in the data in each document, and from these I proposed the conclusions outlined below.
A mixture of quantitative and qualitative data collection methods enabled me to capture the breadth of the participants' experience of the role play and also explore particular issues at depth. The methods included participant observation notes, a questionnaire, semi-structured interviews with John before, during and after the role play, a focus group interview, and analysis of both printouts of online discussions and student reaction papers. Ethical approval for the research project and methods was obtained from Deakin University's Human Research Ethics Committee.
Despite requesting all participants' consent to take part in the study by personal email twice before the start of the online component, only 27 (out of 51) returned signed forms, and unfortunately many of these did not arrive in time for me to take part in a discussion group for the online component. Members of two groups later provided their consent to my analysing the printouts of their discussions, but these contained little indication of the type and level of activity in the online component as both groups used mostly alternative means of communication (email lists and telephone conferences).
As both a participant and observer during the face to face component, I recorded discussions with those who had returned consents. This both supplied data and gave me a chance to make comparisons and check my interpretations. I was enrolled as a student in the subject and took an active but low key part in the role play, joining a group but also spending time in other groups. I took this role both to experience the effects of the role play at first hand and to better gain the confidence of the participants than would have been likely had I remained on the periphery. I was guided in my approach on models provided by Knobel and Lankshear (1999) and Gillham (2000). I took care to avoid influencing the action unduly or forming close relationships with participants that could either influence their responses or bias my own interpretations. However, as I recognised that some influence and bias was inevitable, I sought to be aware of my own assumptions and activities in the collection and interpretation of my observation data. I tried to balance my own experience of the role play with that of others by discussing the events with as large a number of participants as possible. I took field notes during the role play to record these discussions, the timing of events, my observations and my personal impressions.
The anonymous questionnaire was distributed on the evening of the second day, after the role play had finished. It was completed by 47 participants out of 51. The aim of the questionnaire was to gather confidentially a wide range of data from a large sample of participants to identify trends across the whole group. The questions addressed each of the key research questions in broad terms, using both closed Likert scale questions and open questions.
The focus group interview was held in Melbourne in the middle of the week after the residential, to provide participants time to reflect on their experience but also capture their memory of the detail before it was forgotten. While all participants were invited and several dates and times were provided only two participants attended, due at least partly to geographical distances and work pressure in the weeks leading up to Christmas (particularly after a week away from work at the residential). Nevertheless, the interview, which was semi-structured, provided the opportunity to explore significant issues that had arisen from the questionnaire data at depth, and to check my participant observation interpretations.
Another major source of data was the consenting participants' 2000-word reaction papers, submitted a few weeks after the residential. In these, participants were asked to express their 'reactions to and learning from the unit', and invited to criticise or praise the techniques that had been used. They provided a breadth of opinion as well as some deep insights into what and how the participants learned. However, in my analysis of this data I took into account that as these papers were submitted to John as a hurdle requirement to pass the unit, the opinions expressed might not have been entirely frank and genuine.
When asked about his reaction to the negative comments, he said it was common for participants who initially reacted negatively to the role play to tell him that after weeks, months or years they eventually realised it had helped them to learn something important. (It should be noted that the questionnaire was delivered at the end of day two, before the week's final debriefing.) The learning outcomes many participants identified in their reaction papers and the focus group included a range of insights into how they personally might better manage a range of personality types through an unpredictable and frequently irrational process. Many participants commented that the experience had highlighted their personal strengths and weaknesses in the 'soft skills' involved. For example (student participants' names have been replaced with pseudonyms):
I now understand that providing the vision alone is unlikely to be effective. At the core of any method of managing change that I choose, needs to be a deep consideration of the people affected, why they might resist change, and how this resistance can be lowered. This needs to be combined with a very well developed and maintained communication policy (Sol's reaction paper).Other participants identified strategies they intended to pursue (and in some cases had already started to implement), such as to show leadership even when they don't feel strong (Jane, focus group), to keep communicating even when there is no new information to give (Felix, focus group), to keep asking questions and provide timely communication and feedback (Corinne's reaction paper) and to allow people more time and scope to adjust in their own way (Kerry's reaction paper).... it is important to establish common aims and objectives to help people stay focused, particularly in terms of increased uncertainty ... the Fire case showed that without an agreed direction for an organisation, things can seem quite chaotic and as if little progress is being made, as no-one really knows where they are supposed to be heading (Lionel's reaction paper).
You became involved, you had a more emotional attachment to outcomes. You were able to observe 'real' reactions.But also:As part of a group, I had an increased sense of responsibility to perform.
More motivated - created a sense of purpose - accelerated group dynamics
I was frustrated and bored. I really struggled to understand any new learning. Some was achieved through a personal debrief.These results were borne out in my observation that most participants worked on their role play tasks late into the night (field notes 3/12, 9:40 pm). When I explored the source of participants' motivation and engagement in the focus group, both participants claimed that their peers were typically high achievers who were likely to engage readily in any learning activity, but that the element of competition between the CFA and MFB groups was a key motivator (this is discussed further below). However, as indicated in the fourth comment above, not all participants were engaged deeply at all times: Felix admitted in the focus group that he was 'bored, absolutely bored' at one point when his group had finished its work and, being in low responsibility roles, had nothing to do for some time.
Considerable efforts were made to ensure participants were familiar with the structure, culture, tasks and issues in the CFA and MFB. They were obliged to research current issues facing these organisations in the online activity run over several weeks before the residential started, and were given CD and web based material to help them understand these organisational settings. Some participants contacted the actual organisations and their union for more detailed and personalised information. When the residential opened, large CFA posters with fire fighting action pictures were set up, two CFA members were on hand and two fire trucks were on display. Participants were given an activity to familiarise themselves with the trucks and equipment, and the CFA representatives stayed on to answer questions. Such was the participants' understanding and acceptance of their authentic setting and roles that the two real CFA representatives commented that the conclusions, recommendations and personal styles the role playing CFA and MFB executives expressed in their presentations were extremely similar to those expressed by the real executives with whom they worked (field notes 3/12, 4:50pm).
Bolton and Heathcote (1999, 45) argue that the setting for a role play should create a 'thin screen'. This allows participants to feel safe in the knowledge they are acting in a make believe world, in which it doesn't really matter if they make mistakes; and at the same time enables them to make connections between what they are experiencing and what life is really like. Several reaction paper and focus group comments indicate the setting for this role play was successful in this respect, e.g.:
Soon all the students would become entrenched in a cultural experience that would become [so] reflective of a real life situation it was frightening (Ernest's reaction paper).As a member of the MFB you felt totally immersed in the culture and dynamics of the organisation. I believe that this was an extremely powerful way to show the group indirectly the impacts of change and in particular the different human reactions to change. You could look around the room at any given time and read a host of different expressions on people's faces and what that might mean for how they were coping with the change process (Corinne's reaction paper).
This sparked a huge amount in internal questioning. There were people who were emotionally hurt, there were small groups endlessly discussing where we missed the point, and they were blaming the slightly ineffective organisational structure. It was very interesting to see how different people could let it go and move on and others who continuously look back and analyse it. After a few hours most of the group had resolved the issues in their own minds and come up with the following conclusions ... (Harry's reaction paper).The let down and confusion that participants experienced was not accidental, but fundamental to this role play's design. John described the role play (in the 4/5/06 interview) as:The discomfort of the desert continued the next morning when we sat in the room trying to decide whether the exercise was over. Some people were ready to move on and others weren't. This highlighted to me that people respond differently to change. Some people wanted to hang on to the exercise because it had structure. Also, I imagine it made some people uncomfortable to not have received any marks on the work done so far; to abandon it would have seemed to them to have wasted a lot of time. I thought that the exercise had served its purpose, the output to me wasn't actually important. I think that any half decent group of MBA students should be able to research, analyse and present information, which we did. But that wasn't the point of the exercise it was just a method to get us to interact, to form our tribes and to see how quickly divisions, alliances and stories can form (Jane's reaction paper).
creating a world where their expectations are going to be disconfirmed ... we need to soften people up so they don't cling to a simple format of change ... in the first few tasks we help them develop a sense of identity with their group, then we put them under stress to create the dynamics of resistance to change ... they live the experience of finding themselves in a situation where the ground is shifting, where there is a real level of anxiety ... over the next few days they have to make sense of the dynamics that develop.The effect of the way the plot to this role play developed, inviting participants' engagement but then depriving them of the emotional satisfaction they expect in order to force them to review their expectations, behaviour and values, bears out Misson and Morgan's (2006) argument that genre is deeply involved in building people's expectations and hence their emotional and intellectual engagement in a story; and that manipulating generic elements can produce powerful insights into accepted behaviours, values and stereotypes.
No instructions were given on the types of characteristics participants should portray. This meant that while it was evident that participants quickly identified as members of separate groups, and the executives clearly took on a mantle of responsibility for outcomes, the main characteristics that came into play were the individuals' own, rather than those of a character role 'overlay'. Both focus group participants commented that this strategy was effective. Jane argued that having participants act themselves in the situation created a more powerful and memorable learning experience than they would have had, had they been able to 'hide behind' a more fully developed character role. She added that it was not necessary to simulate personalities as 'with 52 people in that room I think you get the full range'. Felix argued that to have set up artificial roles would have tended to make the activity task- and issues-based, rather than an exercise in experiencing and dealing with people's genuine reactions, and 'change management is not task-oriented'. These comments support Bolton and Heathcote's (1999, 45) argument that the advantage of participants having only a thin fiction of a character role is that it contributes to the 'thin screen' effect.
Another important aspect of the character role that numerous reaction paper and questionnaire comments noted is that participants quickly identified as members of either the CFA or MFB group, and become caught up in the fairly fierce level of competition that developed between the two simulated organisations. John said competition arose between the groups every time he ran the role play: 'Competition happens naturally, you can't prevent it' (interview 6/12). Competition has long been recognised as a means of inreasing engagement in both playful and learning activities, an effect it clearly produced in this role play.
However, John reported (interview 23/2/07) that only six of the 10 groups completed the assigned task for this activity; and both of the focus group participants admitted doing only just enough work to comply with the hurdle task requirements. According to questionnaire and focus group comments, participants' engagement in the activity was limited by access difficulties due to the Blackboard system upgrade occurring during the activity, slowness of the system, lack of familiarity with the software, lack of time due to other commitments, and poor communication from John about what was expected. According to the literature (e.g. Wills & Ip 2002, Moderator's checklist), online role plays require significant teacher support to help establish roles, clarify tasks and responsibilities, support acquisition of technical skills, set up a trusting environment, etc. While the online component was evidently successful in achieving its purpose, these responses indicate it may have been even more effective without the technical problems and with more teacher support and communication.
The face-to-face component
The residential format allowed the role play to run continuously over two days with very few external distractions. Questionnaire respondents provided a mean score of 4.33/5 for the importance of the residential format as a factor in their learning. Participants' comments (e.g. field notes 4/12, 1:20pm, Jane's focus group interview) indicated that the intensive focus on the activity the residential format afforded enabled them to become deeply involved in the tasks and observe the physical group dynamics that resulted from this process, take the necessary time to reflect on what they were learning, share their insights with their peers, and support one other.
I felt that the remainder of Monday afternoon [ie the post-role play discussion session] and Tuesday were almost completely wasted, and I truly feel that this is the point at which people became frustrated. Personally I remained indifferent, defensive barriers holding up well. I still don't understand what the Monday afternoon ... session was all about ... The final debrief session was great and I felt that we would have benefited from more of these (Sol's reaction paper).John said (interview 4/5/06) that he purposely avoided managing the participants' experience too closely:You can change people by confusing them, or by letting them think. They say that structure liberates, but so too can chaos (Ivan's reaction paper).
The best experiences are minimally structured so the dynamics are created by the group reacting to the situation ... The sort of experience you need to have to be good at dealing with ambiguity is the experience of dealing with ambiguity.However, he added that the activity did contain both safeguards and closure. Safeguards included that either he or Ruby were constantly monitoring participants' responses and frequently provided support to groups and individuals as it was called for. Also, he said he was prepared to introduce changes of direction in the activity if he sensed it was necessary to reduce pressure. He said (interview 23/2/07) that he aimed to ensure participants did not leave the residential with unresolved emotions, and to this end set aside the final morning for a thorough debrief in a traditional style.
Although the pre-residential online activity was hampered by technical and communication difficulties, it still made a useful contribution in helping participants understand the complex nature of the setting and start to commit to their group and character role before the residential started. This enabled the face to face component of the role play to start with a strong level of energy and interest. The subsequent residential component was able to support intense engagement in the activity, which helped participants to not only involve themselves deeply in the make believe world, roles and events, but also have the time and space to reflect on the personal significance of what happened there.
Key aspects of the way the story elements were managed in the design and facilitation of the role play were as follows:
While the case study has provided insights into the effects of managing the story elements in a learning and teaching technique in a particular way, it is not possible to establish clear principles for how participative story formats should be designed and managed to enhance learning from the findings of this case study alone. The nature of people's engagement in stories and its link to learning is complex and requires ongoing research.
Baldick, C. (1990). The concise Oxford dictionary of literary terms. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bolton, G. & Heathcote, D. (1999). So you want to use role play? Trentham, London.
Carroll, J. (2002). Digital drama: a snapshot of evolving forms. Melbourne Studies in Education, 43(2), 130-141.
Carroll, J., Anderson, M. & Cameron, D. (2006). Real players? Drama, technology and education. Trentham, London.
Coleridge, S. T. (2004) (originally published 1817). Biographia Literaria. Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6081 [viewed 27 June 2007]
Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. Continuum, London.
Graesser, A. C., Olde, B. & Klettke, B. (2002). How does the mind construct and represent stories? In M. Green, J. Strange & T. Brock (Eds), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ.
Halliwell, S. (Ed & trans) (1995). Extracts from Poetics 6-11. In M. Bal (2004), Narrative theory. Routledge, New York, pp. 59-64.
Harre, R. (1990). Some narrative conventions of scientific discourse. In C. Nash (Ed), Narrative in culture: The uses of storytelling in the sciences, philosophy, and literature. Routledge, London, pp. 81-101.
Knobel, M. & Lankshear, C. (1999). Ways of knowing: Researching literacy. Primary English Teaching Association, Newtown NSW.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs NJ.
Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA, Addison Wesley.
Malone, T. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 333-69.
McClusky, D. (1990). Storytelling in economics. In C. Nash (Ed), Narrative in culture: The uses of storytelling in the sciences, philosophy, and literature. Routledge, London, pp. 5-22.
McEwan, H. & Egan, K. (Eds) (1995). Narrative in teaching, learning and research. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York.
Misson, R. & Morgan, W. (2006). Critical literacy and the aesthetic: Transforming the English classroom. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, Illinois.
Murray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. The Free Press, New York.
Nell, V. (2002). Mythic structures in narrative. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange & T. C. Brock (Eds), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations. Laurence Erlbaum, NJ, pp. 17-37.
O'Toole, J. (2002). Drama: The productive pedagogy. Melbourne Studies in Education, 43(2), 39-52.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). [verified 14 May 2008] http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Prensky, M. (2006). Don't bother me Mom-I'm learning. Paragon House, St Paul, Minnesota.
Raphael, J. & O'Mara, J. (2002). A challenge, a threat and a promise: Drama as PD for teacher educators. Melbourne Studies in Education, 43(2), 77-87.
Ryan, M. L. (2001). Narrative as virtual reality: Immersion and interactivity in literature and electronic media. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Simons, J. (2002). Drama and the learner. Melbourne Studies in Education, 43(2), 1-11.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
van Ments, M. (1999). The effective use of role-play: Practical techniques for improving learning, 2nd ed. Kogan Page, London.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
White, H. (1980). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. Critical Inquiry, 7(1), 5-27.
Wills, S. & Ip, A. (2002). enRole, research, read, resolve, reflect: Developing and using online role play learning designs. Learning Designs, University of Wollongong [viewed 3 Mar 2008] http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/guides/info/G1/index.htm
Wills, S., Ip, A. & Bunnett, A. (2000). Complementary pedagogical strategies for online design. In Learning to choose-choosing to learn. Proceedings ASCILITE 2000, pp. 405-414. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/coffs00/papers/sandra_wills.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods, 3rd ed, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
| Author: Mary Dracup, Teaching Support Consultant Institute of Teaching and Learning Waterfront Campus, Deakin University Geelong Vic 3217, Australia. Email: mary.dracup@deakin.edu.au Please cite as: Dracup, M. (2008). Role play in blended learning: A case study exploring the impact of story and other elements. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(3), 294-310. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/dracup.html |