Science with Improvisation
Tom Currie B.Sc. (2000) B.Ed. (2007)
Given the nature of science as a creative and imaginative exploration of the world around us through the use of perception and active engagement it is no longer acceptable for a modern science teacher to ignore the arts, specifically improvisational theater as a method of engaging the curriculum. There are some foundational truths and skills developed through improvisational training that are essential for harboring creative thought, which in turn leads to better connection building and risk taking. The latter two skills are foundational elements of the work of science, and indeed built into the science curriculum. Improvisational theater becomes an skill set that a science teacher can rely on to build a creative, supportive atmosphere for his or her students.
What is Improvisational Theatre?
Reductionism vs. Being Present
Consilience and Law-Abiding Artists
Outcomes for Science, Technology and Society (STS) and Knowledge
Centennial High School
Personal Reflection
March 2006
“Mr. Currie?”
I spin on my thick soled work-sneakers to meet “Shaggy” a student whose moniker was aptly applied as a combination of his richly ethnic first-name, and an even richer crop of shaggy hair sprouting from his head. “Mr. Currie, I don’t get it. How can you teach me Chemistry and then just turn around and teach me Drama?”
Shaggy was making reference to the fact that he had spent the morning taking a Chemistry 20 advanced placement test on structural chemistry from me, and then made his way down to the theatre where we played warm-up games and spoke about the importance of breath and vocal centering in performance.
“Well I don’t know Shaggy,” I returned “but it seems to me that you’re in both classes too.”
“Yeah, but you’re a teacher; and those two subjects are SO different!”
Though I responded to him with the gesture, “Are they?” I had to admit; he had me thinking.
I cite the above reflection from my first-year practicum in the University of Calgary Master of Teaching Program in order to do two things:
I realize now that the experience that Shaggy had with school up to that point in his life was pointing him towards the assumption that those who are artists, are not of those who are scientists. Somehow during his education a genetic streamlining had occurred between the two disciplines that made them no longer viable mates. Though he was involved in each of them he had not to this point figured out a connection between the two which would allow him to explain why he was competent (or incompetent) in either. In his simple question he had indicated to me that I had not examined my own dual-affinity either and so I found myself suddenly awake to the possibility that science and theatre might not be separate at all, in fact they might be inherently similar.
I was drawn to a quote by Jacob Brownowski from his book, Identity of Man:
“Man is unique not because he does science, and he is unique not because he does art, but because science and art equally are expressions of his marvelous plasticity of mind”
What I find most precious about his words is the image that is evoked by “plasticity”. This statement seems to indicate that no matter how polar two circumstances may be, man has the potential to succeed in either context through a cognitive flexibility. It is the awakening and ultimately the utilization of this plasticity that I seek to instill in my own teaching practice, and a method of learning that I have intrinsically incorporated into my own studies. Perhaps it is the plasticity that allows scientists and artists to coexist in a single body, and perhaps it is their alignment that can excite and enliven one’s capacity to learn.
My experience with Science and Theatre is varied. In order to unpack or understand the differences between Science and Theatre we have to explore what Science and Theatre are.
Edward O. Wilson from his book Consilience writes:
Science… is the organized, systematic enterprise that gathers knowledge about the world and condenses the knowledge into testable laws and principles. The diagnostic features of science that distinguish it from pseudo-science are first, repeatability: The same phenomenon is sought again, preferably by independent investigations, and the interpretation given to it is confirmed or discarded by means of novel analysis and experimentation. Second, economy: Scientists attempt to abstract the information into the form that is both simplest and most pleasing - the combination called elegance - while yielding the largest amount of information with the least amount of effort. Third, measuration: If something can be properly measured using universally accepted scales, generalizations about it are rendered unambiguous. Fourth, heuristics: The best science stimulates further discovery, often in unpredictable new directions; and the new knowledge provides an additional test of the original principles that led to the discovery. Fifth and finally, consilience: The explanations of different phenomena most likely to survive are those that can be connected and proved consistent with one another.
In response to this, Brian K. Ridley sums it up nicely in On Science:
Science can be broken into five factions; repeatability, economy, quantification, stimulation, and internal coherence.
Edward Wilson goes on to point out a fact corroborated by Brian Ridley; "The cutting edge of science is reductionism, the breaking apart of nature into its natural constituents..."
I look to the work of Viola Spolin and Keith Johnstone as a place to start when trying to capture what Improvisational Theatre (Improv) is. Both are 20th Century teachers, with students with varying age ranges who independently launched programs consisting of mostly learning-- specifically skills for performance and what it is to be an artist (Spolin 1986); through games or activities played in class. Spolin writes that;
Through play, [students] will develop imagination and intuition; they will find it easier to project themselves into unfamiliar situations. And, by being exposed to their own creative and artistic possibilities, they will, of necessity, learn to concentrate their energies, to share what they know.
She goes on to define why these theatre games should be brought into the classroom: “they are energy sources, helping students develop skills in concentration, problem solving, and group interaction.” And this seems to fall inline with what Johnstone has to say about it in Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre:
One day I took my typewriter and my art books into the class, and said I’d type out anything they wanted to write about the pictures. As an afterthought, I said I’d also type out their dreams—and suddenly they were actually wanting to write. I typed out everything exactly as they wrote it, including the spelling mistakes, until they caught me. Typing out spelling mistakes was a weird idea in the early fifties (and probably now)—but it worked. The pressure to get things right was coming from the children, not the teacher. I was amazed at the intensity of feeling an outrage the children expressed, and their determination to be correct, because no one would have dreamt that they cared. Even the illiterates were getting their friends to spell out every word for them. I scrapped the time-table, and for a month they wrote for hours every day. I had to force them out of the classroom to take breaks. When I hear that children only have an attention span of ten minutes, or whatever, I’m amazed. Ten minutes is the attention span of bored children, which is what they usually are in school—hence the misbehavior.
The only way I can think of defining “improv” is saying that it is a system of structured games that are used in order to enhance performance skills, create a space to invite creative thought and risk taking, and increase concentration, problem solving and group interaction. The big question now is “Can it be any game?”
Through a workshop entitled “Improvisation as Content and Method” I was able to experience directly what it was to build improv, and perform improv. It was in this space that we created the foundation for the heart of an improv game. As in any “game” there must be rules, and so long as you follow the rules you’re playing the game. The beautiful part of improv is that the game can be anything so long as it adheres to the rules of improv.
Imagine two people standing in a room. One person imagines and creates an image of an object “out of thin air” and brings it to the second person. This is a type of an offer. Imagine two people standing in a room. The first person says to the second person, “my isn’t this a nice tight-rope we’re walking.” This is also an offer. Offers can be anything that sets the scene, creates trouble.
In western culture we have been trained to work in a “yes but” environment. For instance two people working on a project may be discussing the solution to a business problem, one person will inevitably present an idea to the second person who will typically respond with a “yes but…” I think already you can see how this tends to stifle the creative process of problem solving. What if the second person had said “Yes and…”?
When engaged in any activity it seems counter-intuitive (especially in performance) to not be preoccupied with what your role in the moment is. We have an inner commentary that is constantly self-assessing our reactions and responses to the moment. In improv students are trained to follow the rule that you should be concerned with creating a space where the other person in the scene might have all the opportunity in the world to succeed. Not only is this an inclusive practice but something that we as teachers should hope exists within our own lessons.
These rules serve to eliminate what has been promoted in movies and video games (the idea of escapism and multitasking) and allow students to become more engaged in the real world. It has been said that students have a tough time doing one thing at a time not multitasking like we tend to assume. By following the rules outlined above students are forced to deal with the first thing that occurs in the moment, and often this is something that can not be anticipated. Instead of creating what has already been seen, or done, students have to respond to something new, and react to only what is presented. If too many things are going on then this becomes an virtual impossibility.
For safety reasons three other rules have been added. These rules are pretty self explanatory as to their impact and importance in a classroom.:
With the rules above as a guideline a teacher can introduce a game or activity and have the students perform it. This usually involves presenting a challenge that students have to get around. This is actually a very primal form of education, often culturally relevant, and the type of education that has been practiced the longest. Let me paint you that picture trying to adhere to the principles of improv:
“Zorg, there is a giant rock in the middle of this path.”
“Yes Gurg, and it is too big for us to push ourselves.”
“How can we get this rock out of the way Zorg?”
“Well there is a big stick nearby”
“Let’s hit the rock with the stick”
“Yes and let’s yell while we do it”
“Gurg, this doesn’t seem to be working”
“Maybe if we try to push the rock with the stick?”
“Yes and let’s push near the bottom.”
“Zorg, the stick seems to be stuck under the rock!”
“Yes and I can’t seem to pull it out. Try pushing it upwards”
“Zorg, the rock is moving!”
“It’s working, Hooray the rock has been moved. Let’s go ferment barley!”
The two cavemen have just invented the first lever as a solution to a problem. In theory they can now go off and use the lever to move a plethora of different large immoveable objects. They have learned something. It is because they worked together collaboratively and were accepting of the offers and took some creative risks this could happen.
Having gone through these two “definitions” I find myself inextricably drawn to the similarities rather than the differences because (as I pointed out before) I seem to exist in a space where both make sense to me. However I realize that many who would read this paper are probably looking at the two disciplines as being very different so let me establish what I feel the most profound differences are.
Though it might simply be myth and hearsay I think we often think of science with the idea that there is some “correct” answer we should be looking for. In the situation with the two cave-men uncovering a lever, we assess that they took the correct course of action. If they had chosen to fashion the stick into a make-shift shovel and proceeded to dig a hole in front of the rock until it teetered and fell in on them as they were digging we would probably assess them as being incorrect, and dead. It seems to me however that since the objective was to move the rock this would be a suitable solution. So for me this defines the difference between science and improv. Improv assumes that with any idea or problem there is a path to explore and an infinite number of possibilities to get there, where as a scientist wants to know what the right path to take is.
Dr. Roger Sparry is a brain researcher whose work included understanding where in the brain certain activities took place. Discovering that some activities were associated with the left cortex, lead to the theory of the Left/Right brain (of which the majority of us are familiar, and probably have ascribed a certain personal bias towards one side or the other). Sparry’s research also supports an idea that we all have a ‘creative capacity’ (i.e.; the ability to use both sides of our brain effectively) through the realization that every brain involved in the research was shown to have all the “cortical skills” in working order. In the words of Tony Buzan in The Power of Creative Intelligence, “we all have the basic physical, physiological, and potential of using both sides of our brains.”
This understanding seems to indicate that the type of critical (right-answer) thinking that’s taking place in science is natural and important, and that someone who typically exists in that metacognitive state predominantly still has the propensity to also be a creative thinker. In actual fact the scientist and the artist can be the same person so long as they can learn to move between the two cortices.
Tony Buzan has applied knowledge of what creative intelligence is with an applicable exercise routine that will serve to strengthen creative intelligence. He begins at a point where we all understand that the intelligence is inside each of us, but our individual capacity to perform creative tasks is different. By learning about these exercises, and learning how to relate them in a classroom environment, I should be able to go back to the student in my field class and let her know just how creative she is, and show her ways that she can build on it. Increasing confidence is an important aspect of increasing the potential to learn in a student. “People are more likely to engage in certain behaviors when they believe they are capable of executing those behaviors successfully.” (Keith Rutledge's notes on Ormond's Psychology of Learning) In effect, strengthening this student’s image of her creative ability will help her strengthen her creative ability in itself.
So now we have research that shows that we all have the capacity to think like a scientist and think like an artist, and we have some research that shows there are some strategies to bring these two mindsets together. At this point I would like to point out that much of what Tony Buzan shows in his research is inherent in the world of Improv.
Here is what Tony Buzan breaks out as being the essential factors in determining a creative intelligence:
Assuming that the above are inherent in the action of Improv, let’s go back to the definition of Science that was outlined above:
Science can be broken into five factions; repeatability, economy, quantification, stimulation, and internal coherence.
Furthermore; science includes the reductionist philosophy of breaking things down into their constituent elements.
Obviously there will be a difference between the theatre world and the art world, otherwise we would call them both the same thing. Given that we have the capacity to work in either realm then we must be able to find where they overlap. By illustrating that overlap I hope to convince you that it is necessary to incorporate the skills and practice of improv into the skills and practice of science.
If reductionism is breaking things down into their constituent parts, or looking at things in the world separate from each other then I would argue that the best way to train people to be “reductionist” is to explore the world through improv. As I’ve already pointed out; inherent in the rules of improv is the necessity to stop multitasking and start being “present”. Improv is set up in a way that during the entire process the “big picture” can’t be created first, it has to be arrived at through a series of negotiated pathways.
For a gifted learner, or a learner that is cognitively deficient, this is a space that is inclusive of all. It allows for a certain concept or fact to be explored on its own whether it is a problem in a story, or the process of particle motion.
The beauty of the combination is that as the story unfolds in improv so unfolds the story of the separate fact. The improv skill can start to make the links between the individual ideas, and so too must the scientist to link back the reduced information to the context it was reduced from. What’s the point of breaking a tree down to its smallest elements if you can’t put the tree back together? What’s the point of introducing an element to a story if the element within the story isn’t linked to the big idea.
I would argue that Improv and Science are both inherently reductionist.
Keith Johnstone writes:
My classes were hysterically funny, but I remembered Stirling’s contempt for artists who form ‘self-admiration groups’ and wondered if we were deluding ourselves. Could the work really be so funny? Wasn’t it just that we all knew each other? Even considering the fact that I had some very talented and experienced actors, weren’t we just entertaining each other? Was it right that every class should be like a party?
I decided we’d have to perform in front of real audiences, and see if we were funny. I took about sixteen actors along to my contemporary theatre class at Morley College, and said we’d like to demonstrate some of the exercises we were developing. I thought that I’d be the nervous one, but the actors huddled in the corner and looked terrified. Once I started giving the exercises, they relaxed; and to our amazement we found that when the work was good, the audience laughed far more than we would have done! It wasn’t so easy to do work of a high standard in public, but we were delighted at the enthusiasm of the spectators.
Albert Einstein, a clock-maker turned mathematician as the story goes once thought of an idea so out-there and so inherently simple and basic that he decided to test it out by introducing it to the world of physics. This revolutionized a world that had claimed to be reaching the end of all that the science could possibly reveal about the natural universe. What do the two have in common? Economy.
Breaking down the skills into their simplest and most pleasing elements is the key to both good theatre and good science. Einstein would not have been nearly as successful in the realm of physics if his special law of relativity couldn’t be explained in a way that requires a Ph.D. in astrophysics. In fact his theory is so profoundly simple that we often try to over complicate it to explain it.
Keith’s improv group wouldn’t have been nearly as successful if the root of the performance hadn’t have been grounded firmly in the grass roots of the exercises. In fact, as it is often said in Improv classes, “quit trying to be clever” or “don’t introduce too many things to a story, because the audience is going to expect that they are tied-in in some way.”
Improv and Science both seem to exist in a realm where simplicity and elegance rules the day.
A foundational element in education for the 21st Century is the idea of Inquiry. In order to be learned something must be activated in the student that causes them to explore the context within which the element to be learned reside. This paper for instance was part of an active and prolonged exploration of the territory and context of both science and improvisation. At the root of science is inquiry; the students are asking the “big questions” and should be made to feel that the natural world is both exciting and something to be engaged.
Improvisation is a space where this naturally occurs as well. Viola Spolin writes:
Experience comes from direct contact with the environment, total organic involvement with it. This means involvement on all levels: intellectual, physical, and intuitive. The intuition, most vital to learning, is most often neglected. Intuition is often thought to be an endowment or a mystical force enjoyed by the gifted alone, yet all of us have known moments when the right answer “just came” or we did “exactly the right thing without thinking.” Sometimes at such moments, usually precipitated by crisis, danger, or shock, “average” people have been known to transcend the limitations of the familiar, to enter courageously the area of the unknown, and to experience the release of momentary genius within themselves. The intuitive can only be felt in the moment of spontaneity, the moment when we are freed to relate and act, involving ourselves in the moving, changing world around us.
What she is intimating is that unless a student is totally invested in the activity at hand, the result of their learning is not necessarily as rich as it could be. Improv at its heart points toward an engagement and a natural instinct to explore that is also present and nurtured in the scientist. Going back to the two cave-men; if they hadn’t cared about getting past their trouble, they may never have experimented with the stick, and may never have discovered the lever. A student who might enact a scene in a similar context may arrive at the same conclusion through the spontaneity of being engaged in the moment. The inquiry of the improv artist and the natural heuristics of a scientist are complimentary.
For those who coach improv there is a militaristic enforcement of the rules. A student who cheats during the game kills the purpose of the game which is to help practice specific skills. Most of the time the students are not aware of when they are cheating the rules, that is why they require an improv coach. Both Keith and Viola are strong supporters of the idea that in order to promote risk taking, students must feel safe and in actuality it is the rules of improv that create that safety net.
In science we think of our “giants”, Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Hawking, and forget that what makes them revolutionary wasn’t necessarily their intelligence, but their ability to take cognitive risks, to break the imaginary constraints of their respective contemporary schools of thought and simply explore new things.
For students and teachers who explore new games in the realm of theatre, or scientists who “experiment” and uncover new ideas in science it is inevitably as Edward Wilson writes, “The explanations of different phenomena most likely to survive are those that can be connected and proved consistent with one another.”
To operate in a realm of risk taking requires a confidence in the skills you have as a creative thinker. In Tony Buzan’s world of creative intelligence, can you be flexible, original, expand on ideas, and make strong associations. If you as a teacher can foster an environment where students can become familiar with their own skills in these areas then the students will gain confidence and take more risks knowing that they are capable of succeeding. Remember what Keith Rutledge’s research said; “[Students] are more likely to engage in certain behaviors when they believe they are capable of executing those behaviors successfully.”
At this point it should be abundantly clear that a science teacher who has a clear understanding of the nature of improv is extremely prepared to approach the fundamental definition of science in his or her classroom.
None of the above is even necessary to consider if there is no evidence for it in the Program of Studies for Science. I won’t belabor this but to point out that it is important to turn to your own individual program of studies and determine if they actually support the definition of science that I have adopted. If those connections are there then it is possible to assume that the connections for teaching through improv should be there as well.
For myself, I am teaching middle school science. I had the opportunity through a practicum to work with a relatively normal 32 student class of grade 8 scientists. For argument sake I will choose a random unit form the grade 8 science program of studies and try to determine if there are any connections there. Where I see connections I will highlight (in italics) my own comments about how the structure of improv can inform good instruction.
Here is the Mix and Flow of Matter Unit from the Alberta Program of Studies released in 2006:
The materials that we use—including natural and manufactured ones—often take the form of fluids. Students learn that such diverse substances as air, natural gas, water and oil are fluids. Students learn that the properties of individual fluids are important to their use, including such properties as density, buoyancy, viscosity and the fluid’s response to changes in temperature and pressure.
The following key concepts are developed in this unit and may also be addressed in other units at other grade levels. The intended level and scope is defined by the outcomes below.
Any class should at some point make connections between all the above concepts if only to provide a road-map for the students to understand where it is they are headed and why each of these concepts are important. Making connections between abstract ideas, and let’s be clear viscosity and mixtures are two of the more abstract concepts in middle school science, is fundamental to learning. At several points during the course of this unit a teacher who is strong in understanding the purpose of improv should be able to introduce a game that will allow for the students to start imagining what these connections are and as John Dewey would point out, doing something with it in order to learn it.
Students will:
One of the strongest skill building devices in improv is the fabrication of the invisible world. A student that is investigating something can and should build a clear picture in their minds of what that investigation might reveal before, during, or after any actual investigation. If a student is meant to recall or later describe experiences they have had, it is (And this is unsupported conjecture at this point) often powerful for them to have a mental image of that space readily available to them, and to be able to construct that mental image will be of great value. I imagine that given an exam if a student has the ability to construct a mental picture of a space complete with vivid detail it will be useful for them as they answer descriptive questions. Improv provides the practice necessary to become skilled at this.
Students will:
Apply science-related initiating and planning skills to resolve problems, investigate issues and/or complete experiments, using appropriate technology at home, in the workplace and in the community
Even the language of Initiating and Planning seems to reflect the nature of improv. Improv artists are typically asked to “resolve a problem” if only for the purpose of entertaining an audience. A skilled improv artist becomes skilled at finding ways to negotiate a problem, as a scientist becomes skilled at resolving a problem in the natural world. The two disciplines are synergistic.
Students will:
Apply science-related performing and recording skills to investigate problems, questions and issues; perform experiments; and record information using appropriate technology at home, in the workplace and in the community.
Students will:
Apply science-related analyzing and interpreting skills to investigations/experiments and assess personal and group performance, using appropriate technology, at home, in the workplace and in the community
Students will:
Apply science-related communication and teamwork skills to work collaboratively on problems and use appropriate language and formats to communicate ideas, procedures and results at home, in the workplace and in the community
It is here where I see the evidence of the bias that exists saying that science has its own way of communicating and is exclusive of other ways of knowing; “Apply science-related communication and teamwork skills…” What I argue with this paper goes against this assumption, that in fact it could simply read “Apply communication and teamwork skills…” which is inclusive of all discipline areas and moreover inclusive of students.
Students will be encouraged to develop and display an interest in science and scientific inquiry and mutual respect, collaboration, stewardship and safety at home, in the workplace and in community situations.
Students will be encouraged to:
Show interest in science-related questions and issues and pursue personal interests and career possibilities within science-related fields (e.g., repeat, at home, a science investigation conducted at school)
Appreciate that scientific understanding evolves from the interaction of ideas involving people with different views and backgrounds (e.g., show awareness that knowledge of fluid characteristics has developed in many societies and cultures, including Aboriginal cultures)
Use scientific methods to carefully gather evidence when investigating problems and issues (e.g., regularly repeat measurements or observations to increase the precision of evidence)
Work collaboratively when conducting investigations and when generating and evaluating ideas (e.g., assume responsibility for their share of work when preparing for investigations and when gathering and recording evidence; consider alternative ideas and approaches suggested by members of the group)
Demonstrate sensitivity when pursuing a balance between the needs of humans and the requirements for a sustainable environment; recognize that the traditional Aboriginal lifestyle supports a unique relationship with the environment
Demonstrate concern for safety when planning, conducting and reviewing activities (e.g., wear proper safety attire without being reminded).
It is in the Attitudes of Science that I find the most compelling language supporting the idea that Improv can and should be used (with discretion) to teach science. Stewardship, collaboration, safety, respect and inquiry, are all deeply seeded values in the games that support improvisation work. Spolin and Johnstone alike have worked to create learning environments that offer students the opportunity to experience and witness these values in practice. The golden rules of improv immediately create an atmosphere of collaboration, stewardship and safety, and the use of games to teach the skills fosters a feeling of excitement toward learning, or in other words; inquiry.
To reiterate the importance of what I am uncovering in this paper, the real power of improv is that it provides a space for students to discover creative ways to solve a problem through the linking of apparently “unrelated ideas.” Science on the other hand is largely concerned with problems that need creative solutions. These statements don’t necessarily point toward improv as the way to teach science but certainly indicate that the two disciplines are very similar and in theory the overlap should inform good teaching.
I truly believe that this entire paper is functionless if it the principles within it are not combined with professional, and intentional “good” teaching. I do believe that we as teachers have a responsibility to seek out and understand different ways of learning or engaging subject matter, but we also have a responsibility to wield that power with respect and care. I would dissuade you, especially if you are inexperienced with improvisational skills, to race out and revamp your science lesson to adhere to the principles I have outlined without first exploring what improv is, and where it resides within the larger context.
I am reassured by a recent workshop that was presented as part of the University of Calgary Education Department Conference “Celebration Inquiry” where we opened up the language of improv to a number of teachers from a wide array of disciplines. Having simply experienced one hour of a guided tour of improv, the feedback largely consisted of evidence showing that attendees found something immediately relevant and important to their classrooms. Rather than writing down the games that were played and how it was done, teachers were looking for where to purchase the textbook on the theory behind the games, and ways to involve themselves in a deeper experience. I hope that this paper illuminates the same dark corners within the practice of science that existed for those teachers in the workshop.