Teaching and improvisation – the attitudes of teachers in the Israeli education system towards the concept of improvisation in teaching: an existential necessity or a liberating element.

Introduction

My relationship with the world of improvisation is directly connected to my life story, throughout my studies at the “Nisan Nativ Acting Studio”, and later on in Ruth Zapora “Action Theater” improvisation method group.

 In its simplest sense  ,improvisation is the ability to react spontaneously, from moment to moment. This is the axis that brings together all of the different definitions for improvisation. The ability to respond, consciously and willingly, to the ever changing present.

The many definitions to the term “improvisation” reveal the salient differences in the valued perception towards it. On one hand, many attribute improvisation negative connotations – light-headedness and lack of planning. On the other hand, the ability to improvise is certainly esteemed, as it is related to resourcefulness. The attitudes towards improvisation are knowledge, culture and environment dependent, and differ from person to person, in place and time.

It is not easy to convey to others the experience of improvisation, even though I believe that improvisation is also an acquired skill. Educating others to improvise makes up an important axis in my life. I believe in the ability of improvisation in education to radically transform the entire educational process. For those teachers that would be able to overcome their inhibitions, a new door is bound to open to the hearts of their students. I believe that improvisation is the fandamental core of creativity, which is the centerpiece of a worthy educational process.

Since I believe that a good teacher must improvise, I was intrigued by the perception of teachers towards the concept. My underlying assumption was that teachers improvise as an integral part of their work, and so I started my quest after the various attitudes of teachers in the Israeli education system towards the concept of improvisation in teaching.

The findings of this research show that the conceptualization of the term is far from normative, and that there is a gap between the over-used term – “creativity” and the teachers’ awareness towards their actual improvisation abilities. Moreover, I found that often under uncertainty, confusion and oppressive conditions in the Israeli education system, teachers are bound to improvise; not as an act of creative, amansipatory choice ( potential), but rather as means to mere survival.

This qualitative research is based on interviews with eight teachers from different backgrounds. The research will present different approaches to the term improvisation in education and its various representations and applications.

I will make an attempt to isolate the term “improvisation” from being dependent on any certain form of artistic expression, and present improvisation as a much wider concept. The pedagogical-ideological potential of improvisation can make it an extremely relevant value and means. To this end I shall present literature dealing with improvisation and its fundamental position in critical pedagogy, in order to discuss the prospects and the difficulties related to the possible reception of improvisation in the education system.

This paper consists of six chapters: introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, discussion and conclusions.

 

The Literature review consists of four chapters.

The first chapter deals with the question “what is improvisation”. It reviews the different definitions and approaches towards the term, and presents the dilemmas created by the differences. the term “improvisation” can be traced to the Latin word “improviso”, which means “not seen before”. In the 16th and 17th centuries, this craft was associated to the most part with the commedia dell' arte. the word “arte”, meaning “craftsman”, indicates that the actors were professionals, with the ability to improvise, thus shifting the focus on the actor (Brocket, 1987). Only during the 19th century the crafts of performance and composition were separated, and so improvisation, the essential element in every creative process, was separated from the act of performance (Nachmanovitch, 1980).this trend was but a partial manifestation of the instrumentalisation of knowledge and human existance in western culture (horkheimer 1974).

Improvisation is usually identified with the performing arts: theater, dance, music, etc. But is’nt every conversation between two people an improvisation?

“Everyday Speech is a case of improvisation” (Nachmanovitch,1990 p.95)

“improvisation is to use everything, to start over again and again and to maintain a state of a continuous present” (Zapora, 1996 p.25).

“an immediate, spontaneous art of the present, requiring full attention and awareness in the moment” (Janet Mittman, www).

Frost and Yarrow (1989) refer to improvisation as an ideology that enables developing the entire self, and requires concentration and focus in order to deliberately act from moment to moment. They also mentioned that it is the seed for expression and communication.

Improvisation, according to Nachmanovitch (1990), is the ability to refer to the context each and every time, without being consumed by habit, comfort or fear. improvisation, then, includes the element of spontaneity, but requires also the crucial element of choosing the right and most proper reaction at every given moment.

According to Thomsson (1991) the ability to create meaning depends on one’s acceptance of confusion and ambiguity, to create a new order. Frost and Yarrow (1989) define improvisation, accordingly, as the life skill of connecting all contexts to the immediate situation at every given time and space.

The first chapter concludes with the claim that improvisation is the basis for all creative processes (Nachmanovitch, 1990).

The second chapter in the literature review presents the question “what is creativity”.

“creativity is a broad and confusing issue, that ranges from fitting a new cap to a tube of toothpaste to writing Beethoven’s fifth symphony” (De Bono, 1997)

According to Webster’s dictionary creation is:

“To cause to exist, bring into being, originate, to give rise to, bring about, Produce... creation: An original product of human invention or imagination; creative: characterized by originality and expressiveness, imaginative” (Webster’s Dictionary: creativity).

Creativity, in its simplest sense, means creating something original and new; creativity contrasts repeating the familiar and old.

Doris Shallcross pointed out the strong link between creativity and uncertainty. The creative person must be willing to accept a certain extent of ambiguity to venture from the conventional and known to the new and dangerous. De-Bono coined the terms “Water Logic” and “Lateral Thinking”, and linked between these two types of thinking, the solid and the liquid and the interdependency between them (De Bono, 1997). He claimed that causing disorder in itself is a creative act.

This can be a clue as to why improvisation is to the most part ignored in the education system. If creativity is associated with disorder, and if every new idea seems at first revolutionary, there would clearly be an attempt to avoid such undesired experiences. order is an external directive, forced on people as part of society’s or norms; disorder, on the other hand, is internal and subjective. It expresses the individual’s personal viewpoint. Mittman quoted Kosller (1964) who claimed that creativity is in the basis of discovery and freedom, it is the expression of the unwillingness to accept the social norm.

The third chapter discusses the conflict between creativity and authenticity in the education system and its formal requirements, and asks: “Improvisation and creativity in the education system – a paradox?”

“The principle goal… men and women who are capable of doing new things, not simply repeating what other generations have done… creative, inventive and discoverers, who can be critical and verify, and not accept, everything they are offered” (Piaget 1988 ).

in order to examine the attitude of the Israeli Ministry of Education towards improvisation and creativity, I turned to the General Manager’s directives, which define the goals and views of the Israeli education system. The Ministry of Education formally recognizes the educational value of “creativity”. This can be seen in directive no.61/2(a), from October 2nd 2000, which defines the purposes of the national education system as:

“2.5 …develop the personality of the children, their creativity and talents, to bring out their full potential as humans living a quality and meaningful life”

the definition is still vague. And what in regards to improvisation? The only place that the word improvisation appears in refers to instructions for operating schools in times of emergency:

“5.4.2 improvisations should be avoided as much as possible in regards to the [regular] curriculum”

again, the term “improvisation” is given a negative connotation, even a dangerous one.

Keith Johnstone writes: “At school any spontaneous act was likely to get me into trouble .I learned never to act on impulse…” (Johnstone, 1979).

The claim presented in Johnstone’s words, that the education system actually educates the students not to act spontaneously, sounds to the most part logical and relevant even today, and is echoed also in the writings of Erich Fromm:

"in our culture, education too often results in the elimination of spontaneity and in the substitution of original psychic acts by superimposed feelings, thoughts, and wishes on the child… Spontaneous activity is free activity of the self and implies on one’s free will….” (Fromm 1986).

The basis for every form of learning, then, is emotional readiness. And if the student experiences emotional difficulties he would not be able to receive the content the teacher conveys.

Vail (1997) claims that the student can not learn when he experiences emotional difficulties. When a student reacts emotionally or even physically different from what is expected, the teacher is required to improvise. This is improvisation in its purest sense, according to Zapora’s definition of “being in the moment” (1996).

“Spontaneous dialogue certainly aids the development of individuality, for voice- indeed any expression- is a very personal thing and has its own intimate flavour and style” (Slade 1968,p.3).

Freire’ (1972), Giroux (1989) Maclaren and Grossberg (ibid) perceive the dialogue is essential in the teaching and learning process, which enforces teachers and students. Brockfield (1986) claims that “improvised teaching” enhances the dialogue, which benefits from its participants’ interpretations, opinions and views.

Postman (1998) also mentioned the conflict between the education system’s strive for certainty and the danger of dogmatism

“how can we explain an justify the quest for certainty, which can easily turn into dangerous dogmatism?… the desire for certainty… by nature contradicts individual creative thinking” (1998)

the ability to react optimally in changing circumstances is strongly linked to the moral-ethical goal of the education system: “…a person’s moral character is manifested in the tendency to do the right thing… quickly and instinctively” (Aloni, 1998, p.62). Aloni speaks of “being in the moment” and “reacting” – concepts the match the definition of improvisation, as defined by Zapora and others.

Improvisation, then, perfects communication skills, and encourages taking risks, social relationships, and the ability to handle uncertainty. One might ask, then, why improvisation is not part of the teachers training program.

Shor and Freire (1990) claim that in traditional education, as in the Israeli education system, freedom and initiative is curtailed. “the consistency of traditional education is the antonym of assuming responsibility”. this attitude echoes the education system’s choice to ignore improvisation, since it forces the individual to assume full responsibility over his actions ( respons-ability ). It is clear, then, why improvisation is perceived by the education system as a threat, and why the term creativity laundered and fixated into a mold that focuses on the products, not the process.

The fourth chapter that refers directly to the findings deals with the role of the teacher in an ever changing reality. Donpargon (optionalitywww) speaks of the “improvisation era” – in which every person will have to constantly make new choices and assume full responsibility over his actions.

In today’s era of knowledge, information became accessible to all through all, changing the role and status of the teacher. This is widely discussed in the academic discourse; however, inside the classroom the teachers themselves aren’t aware or prepared for the change. This creates a great deal of difficulty and confusion. The teacher is suddenly required to be “creative”, but isn’t given the tools required, since conventional wisdom is the creativity is a personality trait.

Heathcotte (1985) claims that teachers need to be equipped with tools that would enable them to create scholastic activities based on their authentic personalities. She quotes Halpen (1985) that claims that authentic teaching encourages the teacher to reinvent him or herself, according to the changing reality. For this, teachers require skills that place the process itself in the center (i.e. improvisation.)

Not only are teachers not trained to use improvisation as an applicable pedagogical skill, Gur-Zeev (1999) claims that the diminished role of teachers as providers of knowledge is what brought women in, lowering its status. The result is that the neglecting attitude towards developing the teachers’ autonomy and authenticity serves the education establishment, but weakens the teachers.

This leads teachers to cling on to their spontaneity, which remains as their last resort for surviving in the education system. According to Erik Fromm, “spontaneous activity is the only way for a person to overcome his loneliness without sacrificing his self-integrity…” (Fromm, 1992)

Concluding the theoretical part of the proposal – I presented literary sources that illuminate the broad meaning of improvisation – as an ideology of change and freedom, as an educational tool, the relationship between improvisation and creativity, and the inner conflict in the education system regarding improvisation.

 

Methodology

The methodology consists of nine subsections, in which I presented the layout of the research.

The purpose of the research is to understand how teachers perceive improvisation, how they characterize improvisation, and how they connect it to their educational activities and education in general. The research question is “how do teachers in the Israeli education system perceive the concept of improvisation?” The research method is qualitative (Zabar-Ben Yehushua, 2001), based on interviews with eight teachers. The underlying assumptions of the research are: (a) everybody improvises; (b) improvisation is the basis for all creativity; (c) education is a creative process; (d) improvisation is an acquired skill, and (e) awareness towards improvisation improves creative abilities.

The argument upon which I based the research is that improvisation is necessary in teaching, and indeed I found that teachers use improvisation even though they weren’t aware of it, and use it mostly as a means of “survival”. I found that improvisation hasn’t become an ideological practice but rather an expression of the teacher’s loneliness and self-reliance.

The research tool used was an ethnographic open-ended interview (Zabar-Ben Yehushua, 2001), analyzed by identifying recurring themes. The research field referred to teaching in the national education system. The research sample consisted of eight teachers in different subjects and seniority, randomly sampled.

The methodology chapter concludes with the research procedure, layout, limitations and contribution. The findings support the claim that teachers improvise as an integral part of their work, and that teachers that don’t would have difficulties dealing with the system’s requirements and with the students. Finally, improvisation has a great potential for applying an authentic pedagogical practice in a changing reality.

 

The findings

Six main themes were identified in the interviews (subjects’ initials in parentheses):

Improvisation as a threatening and confusing concept: misunderstanding, trivialization and lack of articulation (“they never told us about or explained the concept of improvisation – it never came up” - P)

Improvisation and creativity: as a means of linking to current reality (“the creativity I bring in and my doing things differently all lead to a higher quality” – H); turning a lesson from dry to fascinating (“bring up metaphors, stimuli – make things more accessible” - P); significant links (“even in bible class, it’s always connected to what’s going on” – Y, “we had a ceremony about the Balfour Declaration, and the Intifada began, and it all connected. I’m very pro-improvisation – A); as a means of refreshing old teaching methods (“the kids don’t always listen, we are old fashioned” – A, “they have TV and all those things that are more interesting than the lesson…” – I); a didactic alternative and a means of break the teaching rut (“I don’t always follow the framework, I improvise a lot… most of the teachers are very fixated and ‘square’ and follow precise lesson plans dictated by the Ministry of Education”, “it enriches the lesson and makes the kids listen. It’s more fun to me” – A)

Improvisation and humanism: improvisation as an expression of humanist approaches (“my goal is that the children would come to school not only to study but as a fun place, where things are done differently, and it’s not only about more and more knowledge… otherwise, the kids wouldn’t want to go to school” - H); improvisation as an expression of flexibility (“I think that people with improvising abilities can be more flexible…less rigid, flowing people… such teachers’ students would be much more relaxed and satisfied…” H); improvisation as attentiveness to the needs of the students (“… comes into the class nervous, so I let him vent his feelings, otherwise he’d irritate everyone…” –Y, “they’re enjoy it when I don’t come prepared and improvise, I sense their satisfaction, their enjoyment” – H); expression of the teacher’s individuality and spontaneity (“I would have liked to be more spontaneous in my day-to-day life” – H; “this is the way I am also at home, I improvise in cooking, I’m very creative” – A); as an expression of self-confidence (“some people need the school framework for confidence… I am confident in myself” – A); as an expression of courage (“some people wouldn’t do it, because it takes courage to flow like that” – A)

Improvisation and change: as a means of immediate response to events outside the classroom (“you listen to the radio, and you’ve got to respond… so you win two times, you responded and you got your lesson” – A); in the classroom (“I’m in the middle of a class, and a student comes crying – I leave whatever I was doing and connect with the student” – S); as a means of survival in a changing and uncertain reality (“I improvised… since nobody taught me how to function. Education doesn’t come with a handbook. Not in Israel” – N)

Improvisation and relationships: teacher-students (“I never as a student what he wants to do. I ask him what he chose, and flow with it” – H”); teacher-students-content (“improvisation means also finding the most suitable answer even when one wasn’t prepared beforehand” – H”); students-content (“how do you make them remember? You show a train and make the sound…” – N)

Negative implications of improvisation: (“I see those teachers coming to work with a tiny pocketbook, and I think to myself, they are going to improvise whatever their teaching today” –N; “improvisation doesn’t sound good, it conveys shallowness, impulsiveness, not fully planned… it’s an Israeli quality to improvise and be unprepared. I come with all of the papers, a tape recorder… I make an effort” –N)

The findings chapter concludes with a summery. Despite the teachers’ lack of articulation, they present a very pro-improvisation attitude. They see its creative element, a means to communicate and relate, a tool for problem solving and overcoming uncertainty. Still, there is negative sentiment towards the term, which is partially resolved by distinguishing between casual and deliberate improvisation. Often the teachers communicated the concept without using the term, what might imply their lack of awareness towards the practice of improvisation as a creative and pedagogical ideology.

 

Discussion and conclusions

This chapter presents the main conclusions of the research in light of the findings and literature. It discusses eleven issues that refer to different aspects of improvisation:

understanding and defining improvisation – the teachers’ attitudes towards improvisation were conflicting and confused, and changed over the course of the interview and afterwards. The attitudes ranged from trivialization (“if you can’t improvise, you can’t teach”), to misunderstanding the concept (“I’m not an actor”). Still, it seems that the teachers understood the ideological foundations of improvisation in education.

Awareness towards the value of improvisation in teaching – there is a philosophical-theoretical reference to the relationship between improvisation and pedagogy (Mittman, Matosov & Baker Saint, 1998). Mittman (Freire) claimed that creative improvisation is a liberating pedagogical element. In the age of uncertainty, improvisation offers an alternative teaching method to confront the existing confusion (Mittman, 2002).

The perception that the value of improvisation depends on the awareness towards it refers to one of the themes found in the findings analysis. Awareness is required in order to understand the value of improvisation as an educational means. The most significant variance between the teachers interviewed was in their awareness towards the act of improvising. “I worked on myself” was the recurring motif. The findings indicate that the teachers perceive improvisation as important in practical teaching. The very deficiency in the main school narrative forces the teachers to resort to what they see right. This ambivalent situation forces the teacher to reinvent herself. On one hand she needs to be careful and avoid criticism from the system, students and parents; on the other hand she needs to find her own way to the formal goal of conveying content to the students.

The interviews revealed a humanist approach that esteems personal relationships between the teachers and the students. Most of the subjects reacted positively to unexpected changes and events during lessons, that gave them an opportunity to improvise. In other words, spontaneity replaced in the teachers’ perception the rigid hierarchical teacher-student relationship. Eisner (1989) referred to the great importance of flexibility as a means of handling unexpected situations: “purposeful flexibility is a mark of fluid intelligence coping with the vicissitudes of the unpredictable” (Eisner, 1989). Teachers who are unable to spontaneously react to the moment-by-moment situation in the classroom would lose touch with the students. Even the teacher that looked down on improvisation recognized its importance in certain situations: “sometimes you need to be flexible with your study program, and that’s also a kind of improvisation” (N).

The teachers expressed also the sense of being “abandoned in the trenches”, and improvise as a means of survival. Their spontaneity is their only response to the requirements they face, and is basically the result of the instability they face (Gur-Zeev, 1999, Fromm, 1992).

Another aspect of this flexibility and spontaneity can be seen in the teachers’ attitudes towards the boundaries of the system. The study material is seen as irrelevant, and they have to put in much effort to make it accessible. Their success relies more and more on their ability to be spontaneous and flexible in reacting to changes. This makes up the basis for the “spontaneous dialogue” (P).

The dialogue context refers strongly to spontaneity (Freire, 1972; Giroux and Grossberg, 1998). The dialogue is the centerpiece of the teaching process (Giroux, 1983), as a means of raising the interest of the students and make them involved both emotionally intellectually in the lesson (Fon Glazerfeld, 1998). In spite of the education system’s disregard towards improvisation as a concept, the teachers are very much required to be creative in bringing discourse and involvement into the classroom. “…Dynamic lesson, stimulate them with things that they can relate to… to make things more ‘hands on’. That’s the secret to being a good teacher” – P.

P. claimed that in order to use improvisation as a conversation trigger (Baker-Sennet & Matusov, 1998), the teacher needs courage, something that she often lacks. Only seldom does she apply this in practice. She attributes this to the “race after the material”, referring to the matriculation exams material, but also to the teacher’s own personal abilities and awareness.

It seems that teachers that rely only on their formal schooling lack the tools required for realizing the esteemed goal of creating a spontaneous and dynamic discussion in class. In the interviews they indeed claimed that they were aware of the importance of improvisation as a catalyst for dialogue and the importance of spontaneity in the academic context. However, the pressures of the system and the lack of tools cause them to avoid taking this path. Improvisation is used to the most part only as a means for dealing with changes, not for initiating such creative interactions.

One of the common forms of improvisation is bringing current events into the classroom. “You listen to the radio… bring it in… and you have a great lesson” (A). Improvisation is seen as a method of making new associations between the external Israeli reality and the material studied, as an expression of the teacher’s holistic educational outlook.

The interviews revealed that improvisation is seen as a “personality thing”. Moreover, the teachers said that the whole idea never came up, and for some it was the first time they ever tackled the question. Still, the expressed interest in learning more about improvisation – “I wish I’d been to such a workshop… I do it intuitively, sometimes it works out” – P.

A recurring theme was the difference between teachers who kept on developing both professionally and personally, and those that remained in their narrow niche. P indicated that she has the general knowledge needed to start a spontaneous discussion in class. On the other hand, “some don’t have the courage” (P). Other teachers mentioned that they improvise more easily when they are more proficient with the material. professional proficiency, as well as the teacher’s personality and self-confidence, enable improvisation.

Almost all of the subjects, in referring to the personality issue, mentioned that their individualistic personality was their only means of handling the requirements of their work. They love to teach and see teaching as a mission. When asked about using their improvisational skills, most just replied, “it’s part of my personality” (Heathcote, 1985).

Creativity is what enables the teacher to expand her formal job description as “provider of information” to an active and attentive participant in a broader process, always on the lookout for the students’ needs (Vail, www). “My need to improvise helps the kids experience and enjoy, but it’s also my creative way of thinking… make it quality time” – H.

It seems, then, that the use of improvisation by teachers is a clear expression of the ambivalence they face in teaching. The most important issue and conclusion of the research is the matter of ideology – submissiveness and innovation as opposed to conformism. And yet, the link between improvisation and creativity, according to the interviews, is not fully understood. Improvisation is seen as a means to the end of dealing with changes and requirements, not as a manifest for creative teaching.

The teachers’ creativity is far from subversive. The teachers avoided referring to their roles as makers of radical change. Any change and innovation associated with creativity takes place within the comfortable boundaries of the classroom and the curriculum. The teachers thus do not operate according to the critical radical pedagogy theory and those of Freire and Giroux, and do not want to or try to challenge the system. As opposed to the perception of creativity as dangerous and subversive, most of the teachers see creativity as a bridging element, that enables integrating between the desired and the available.

 

Summary of the discussion

As seen in the findings, the need and the interest the teachers find in improvisation as an expression of creativity is to the most part personal, and not methodologically organized. More so isn’t it politically-ideologically articulated. The discourse praising the link between improvisation and creativity remains personal, fragmented and personality-dependent, even if it had a critical potential, and might have become a starting point for the struggle over self-change and changing the reality.

My hope is that this research would contribute to the creation of such an educational theory. However, as it is today, improvisation remains a means for surviving in an outdated and fixated system.

The teachers, who are supposed to meet increasing demands from the system, the parents and the students, find themselves in need of reinforcing and confronting means. Whoever isn’t creative would find it very difficult to enjoy teaching. Whoever isn’t perceived as creative would find it hard to improvise. Improvising “right” takes self-confidence and proficiency in the material taught. However, in spite of the disregard and lack of articulation, improvisation became a prominent practice. Lacking a methodical outlook towards their role, teachers seek refuge in improvisation. It is important to emphasize that this “low form” of improvisation is to the most part the result not of bounty, but of need. It seems difficult to define a clear cut between creativity as subversion, and creativity as conformism and as a means of survival.

What is especially evident in the interviews is the complex and ambivalent reality in which the teachers operate in the education system in Israel. they are required to convey information, often in spite of its irrelevance; maneuver between the chaotic reality and the immediate needs of the students; and juggle between the requirement to be creative and intriguing, and their lack of orientation as to the tools for achieving this. When asked whether they were sufficiently trained for confronting all of these, the teachers all admitted they weren’t.

The concept of creativity was not eliminated but rather taken over by the system. While the teachers are expected to “be creative”, there is no reference as to the practicalities. Moreover, a teacher that is unaware of her creative force would feel ill equipped in meeting these expectations. A creative teacher in such a reality is one that manages to make irrelevant material interesting. Creativity is channeled towards the ability to maneuver, in spite of the lack of training to do so, between the expectations the teacher faces and her abilities to survive. The teachers’ expressions of an existential need for improvisation echo the fundamental claim of this research. This life skill, improvisation, is an essential tool in the process of learning and conveying knowledge, and as such it is important to encourage teachers to develop their own improvisational skills as well as their students’.

Improvisation as a derivative of the teacher’s flexibility does indeed help the teacher and the students enjoy and find interest during lessons; however, it also perpetuates the problem. The teachers’ improvisation prevents them from breaking down, but also prevents them from rebelling and refusing to cooperate, and become part of the struggle towards the creation of an existential-educational-political alternative. They find themselves cooperating with the expectations they face through adaptation and expressing their unique personalities.

This is perhaps the most relevant expression that can be found in Israel for creativity. In a reality where violence and uncertainty prevail, the ability to adapt, survive and create meaningful relationships is extremely important and legitimate. Today, when the gaps between the academic pedagogical discourse and the actual reality in the classroom, or in a more general sense, between the philosophical discourse and the social reality in Israel, render any meaningful examination and discussion irrelevant, developing improvisation as a prominent value towards realizing the educational-critical manifest is more relevant than ever before. As it is, improvisation already takes place in the encounter between the teacher and the students. Shouldn’t it be recognized by the system? In today’s educational reality in Israel, though, adaptation prevails.

Improvisation can make up the bridge to turn the teachers’ adaptation into the art “both ways”. The revolution, as described in Donpargon’s (Optionality, www) article, refers to the awareness towards improvisational skills, distinguishing between the internal and the external reality, and knowing how to respond to “whatever is between the two”, in that place and time.

“Improvisation… may be the spearhead of methods of changing the environment from within, from the individual outwards” (Frost and Yarrow, 1989, p.146).

 

summary and conclusions

I started this research with the belief in the need to teach teachers the fundamentals of improvisation. My approach was naive, and I was unacquainted with the reality in which teachers operate. Since most of my work evolves around improvisation, I believed it was important and crucial to teach teachers how to improvise. I found out that teachers are aware of improvisation, however not as an ideological-educational value but rather as a means of overcoming flawed teaching practices, distress situations, and in general, a reality they live and accept unwillingly.

I was surprised to find that improvisation was considered to be a “refuge”, even though this deepens the stagnation in the education system and in the existential reality of the teachers, and since they are not given the tools to deal with the frequent changes, the irrelevance of the material, and their unclear role – they improvise.

This finding, that improvisation helps perpetuate a “deficiency” instead of being a bountiful source for creativity and freedom – struck me. The contrast between my day-to-day encounter with improvisation and its creative derivatives, the normative regard I found towards improvisation saddened me. The essential gap between awareness and lack of awareness reflected clearly in the perceived importance of improvisation among teachers. Those teachers who were aware of their strengths, as authentic, independent, thinking and creative women showed the desire to learn and develop their improvisation skills. The necessity of teaching teachers how to improvise strengthened in me, as did the validity of my underlying assumption.

The conclusions of my research demonstrate the extent to which improvisation is missing in the training of teachers, and how much the teachers could benefit from learning more about the improvisation skills they have within.

I found that it was possible to expand the boundaries of the ethical-educational discourse, and deepen it with reference to the essence of improvisation as a prominent pedagogical force. These days, critical pedagogy in its different forms examinations with the problems with its underlying assumptions, ideals and practices. This examination often lacks the insights and sensitivity needed for exposing its main difficulty in becoming relevant in the eyes of the students and the teachers, that it perceives as oppressed and thus need to be liberated. Improvisation as a philosophy element and as an educational practice could become the bridge into the heart of the dilemma of contemporary critical pedagogy.

Not only can improvisation enrich the reality perception of the critical pedagogy and broaden its horizons, it can even offer what critical pedagogy tried in vein to find – relevant practices for students and teachers that would enable them to confront, in an authentic, relevant, spontaneous and creative manner, the changing reality that includes both the “situation” and the “idea”, both the “I” and the “us”, both the “internal reality” and the “external reality”, both the “present and future” and the “changing continuous present”, both “certainty” and “uncertainty”, and both “order in the disorder” and “control over the lack of control”.