thoughts on documentation and interpretation of an experience/class/session


Are teacher/performer & student/audience synonymous?

(How) are all of these data + interpretations to be used to shape the current experience and future ones?

(How) can these be generalized to other contexts?

So what? Why is this useful? – Not just scholarly navel-gazing?!

How do these support meaningful + productive reflection by instructors and students?

“meta” layer – pedagogical discussion before/during/after sessions?

An audience member’s experience of a performance is a product of the performance itself AND a visceral invocation of cultural and remembered experiences – the current performance is only part of the lived experience, which is why scenographic writing/drawing can be important – to elucidate that internal and personal context. See Kershaw, pg. 128.

Before interpretting, one needs to have a vocabulary to understand the ways in which an object or experience exists in space.

Di Benedetto (2000, p. 62).

Performance (or class) as a “live art event” – active, dynamic, lived – not passive/static.

Scenography – visualization/projection/improvisation


Phenomenological perspectives –> embodied understanding

–> and the importance of audience/participant experiences. Blur distinctions between performance (teacher) and audience (student).


Scenographic documentation to draw out reactions to and context of performance for each participant.

Personal reflection to make sense of the experience and integrate it to meaningfully shape future experiences.

This would require much introspection by participants, to raise to a meta level of discourse + reflection about context and experiences (solo + shared).

Can this awareness be used to promote self-reflection + self-regulation of students?

“what are you doing right now?”

“what is the most important thing you could be doing?”

but – taking it past simple task-management…

See Also

comments powered by Disqus